This study evaluated the impacts of livestock microcredit and value chain programs on women's empowerment in Kenya using the Women's Empowerment in Agriculture Index (WEAI). The study examined three case studies involving livestock value chains and microcredit programs. It found that different interventions contributed differently to women's empowerment, with some interventions empowering women from both female- and male-headed households equally while others disempowered women from male-headed households. The study also found that women's self-perceptions of their empowerment did not always match the measurements from the WEAI, highlighting a need to better align empowerment indicators used by researchers with those used by women themselves.

1. EVALUATING THE IMPACTS OF LIVESTOCK MICROCREDIT AND VALUE CHAIN
PROGRAMS ON WOMEN’S EMPOWERMENT USING THE WOMEN’S
EMPOWERMENT IN AGRICULTURE INDEX (WEAI)
Elizabeth Waithanji and Edna Mutua
Integrated Dairy Goat and Root Crop Production Workshop, ILRI Nairobi, 19 June 2013

2. Study Justification
• Providing women with economic opportunities, while
denying them their rights, does not necessarily lead to
empowerment
• Neither does women being aware of their rights without
the financial resources to exercise these rights
automatically lead to empowerment
• And these two dimensions (economic opportunities and
rights) are rarely applied together in development
interventions
Combining women’s economic opportunities and women’s
rights could have the potential to lead to broader women’s
empowerment
2

3. Research questions answered
1. What are the gendered empowerment patterns
of project beneficiaries and non beneficiaries?
a. What factors, livelihood or rights, have contributed
most to the disempowerment of the disempowered
women?
b. Are the factors that contribute to women’s
disempowerment similar to those that contribute to
men’s disempowerment?
2. Do different livelihood interventions contribute
differently to women’s empowerment?
3. How do women perceive themselves in terms of
empowerment and how does this self
assessment compare with the WEAI
measurements?
3

4. METHODOLOGY

5. Women’s Empowerment In Agriculture Index-WEAI
• WEAI is a methodology developed to track changes in women’s
empowerment levels as a direct or indirect result of
development initiatives
• The methodology was first piloted in 2011 through a
collaborative initiative between IFPRI (International Food Policy
Research Institute) and OPHI (Oxford Poverty and Human
Development Initiative) for the USAID funded Feed the Future
global hunger and food security initiative in Uganda, Bangladesh
and Guatemala.
• It is composed of two sub-indices
– One measures women’s and men’s empowerment (5DE)
– The other measures the gender parity in empowerment
within the household (GPI)
5

6. WEAI cont…
• WEAI measures the roles and extent of
women’s engagement in the agriculture
sector in five dimensions:
decisions about agricultural production,
access to and decision making power
over productive resources,
control over use of income,
leadership in the community, and
time use.
6

7. This study Adapted the five dimensions to six dimensions in order
to address Rights
7
Illustrations of five and six dimension WEAI as interpreted from the IFPRI / OPHI / USAID WEAI
brochure 2012 (by Waithanji et al 2012)
Health is defined as wellbeing rather than a mere absence of disease or infirmity (WHO 1946)

8. Study design
Three Case Studies: Two on livestock value chains and one on a livestock
microcredit
Four Partners: One Donor – Ford Foundation; and three economic
empowerment livestock projects, KARI; EADD; Juhudi Kilimo
8
Partner Location
(District)
Case Study /
intervention
Remarks
Ford Foundation Nairobi All Donor
Kenya Agriculture
Research Institute
(KARI)
Naivasha and
Malindi
Poultry value
chain
Resettled IDPs in Naivasha
(2007 and before)
Rural community in Malindi
Baseline study
East African Dairy
Development
Project (EADD)
Nandi and
Bomet
Dairy value
chain
Uses the hub model to
enhance participation in the
milk market
Juhudi Kilimo Transzoia Livestock
Microcredit
Provide loans for agricultural
production (mostly dairy and
chicken)

9. Site and Sample Selection; and data
• Selection of study sites – purposive, based on type
of project (and partners with a gender focus)
• Sample selection – multi-stage random sampling
• Quantitative and qualitative methods
– Quantitative – household and individual questionnaires administered to
household heads and primary women in male headed households
respectively
– HH questionnaire had two sections; the household and individual section.
Individual questionnaire had an individual section only
– Households heads were either male or female. FHH were of the dejure
kind i.e. those that had never married or were divorced, separated or
widowed.
– Qualitative – in-depth face-to-face interviews with women (FHH or
WMHH) interviewed in the quantitative component
• Data analysis – Quantitative – using SPSS and STATA
• Qualitative – analysed inductively
9

10. TOTAL HOUSEHOLDS
• The total households were 400 • Interviewed
households were
derived from:
• KARI total of 168
households; 79 from
Malindi and 89 from
Naivasha.
• Juhudi total of 111
households
• EADD total 121
households from
Bomet and from
Nandi
10
EADD
30%
KARI
42%
JUHUDI
28%
% distribution of households
interviewed by project

11. 11
Results –Women’ s Empowerment in
Agriculture Index

12. The 1st Sub-Index: THE SIX DOMAINS OF EMPOWERMENT (6DE)
12
DOMAIN INDICATORS
1 Production Input in productive decisions
Autonomy in production
2 Resources Ownership of assets
Purchase, sale, or transfer of assets
Access to and decisions on credit
3 Income Control over use of income
4 Leadership Group membership
Speaking in public
5 Time Workload
Leisure
6* Health Decision making on reproductive health
Vulnerability to gender based violence
• The HEALTH domain is an adaptation of WEAI by the ILRI-PGI team in order to
integrate rights in the index. The domain focuses on individuals’ attitudes towards
GBV and one’s ability to make decisions over their own reproductive health.
• One was considered empowered if they attained adequate achievements in 4 of the 6
domains or 64% adequacy from weighted indicators

13. Question 1
• What are the gendered empowerment patterns
of project beneficiaries and non beneficiaries?
– Among men and women who were more empowered
(proportion)?
– What factors, livelihood or rights, have contributed
most to the disempowerment of the disempowered
women?
– Are the factors that contribute to women’s
disempowerment similar to those that contribute to
men’s disempowerment?
13

14. Proportion of Empowered Women and Men – KARI and EADD
14
• In Naivasha a larger proportion of women than men was empowered
• In Malindi the converse was true
• For EADD in Uasin Gishu, a remarkably larger proportion of the following was
empowered
• men than women, and
• men selling milk through other modes than men selling milk through groups

15. Contributors to Inadequacy in Disempowered
Women - EADD
15
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
Inputinproductivedecisions
Autonomyinproduction
Ownershipofassets
Purchaseorsaleofassets
Accesstoanddecisionsoncredit
Controloveruseofincome
Groupmembership
Speakinginpublic
Identitycard
Leisure
Workdistribution
Reproductivehealth
GBVattitudes
Production Resources Income Leadership Time Rights
Inadequacy
Dairy groups Other modes
Inadequacy: 1=maximum deprivation and 0=maximum adequacy
e.g. Of the disempowered women, 83% selling milk through other modes and 74%
selling through groups were inadequate in terms of access and decisions on credit

17. Overall contribution of all indicators to disempowerment-KARI
17
0
0.05
0.1
0.15
0.2
0.25
0.3
Men Women Men Women
DISEMPOWERMENTINDEX(M0=1-6DE)
GBV attitudes
Reproductive health
Work distribution
Leisure
Identity card
Speaking in public
Group membership
Control over use of income
Access to and decisions on
credit
Purchase or sale of assets
Ownership of assets
Autonomy in production
Input in productive decisions

19. Conclusion 1
• The gendered empowerment patterns varied with the
context, namely, the location of the study and the type of intervention.
These patterns should, therefore, not be generalized. E.g. Among
resettled IDPs, one is likely to find more empowered women than men.
– The domains contributing most to women’s disempowerment were
resources and health/rights. Disempowerment in time, leadership and
control over income varied with context. E.g. women who took loans
through Juhudi were more disempowered in the time and leadership
domains than women who did not take loans.
– Well meaning interventions could leave some beneficiaries worse off
than they were before the intervention. E.g. Women with loans from
Juhudi were more disempowered than those without loans in terms of
time
– Factors that contribute to women’s disempowerment may be similar e.g.
KARI study, or different, e.g. Juhudi and EADD, from those that contribute
to men’s disempowerment.
– To be sure of what factors cause disempowerment, they have to be
measured and documented in impact evaluations like this one. 19

20. The 2nd Sub-Index – Gender Parity Index
20
1. This sub-index compares empowerment between
men and women in dual adult (MH) households
2. It also shows the gap between male heads of
households and their spouses where parity is yet to
be achieved
3. GPI= (1-(% of disempowered women*% gap
between them and the households’ primary
males)).The score ranges from 0-1. The closer the
GPI is to 1 the more the gender parity

21. WEAI
• WEAI=The weighted sum of
projects/programs/country’s/region’s 6DE and GPI
• WEAI= ((6DE*0.9) + (GPI*0.1))
• Increase in a WEAI score can be achieved through
improving the 6DE and GPI scores
• The closer the WEAI to 1, the more empowered the
women
21

22. Question 2
• Do different livelihood
interventions contribute
differently to women’s
empowerment?
22

23. WEAI Scores
23
Project Component 6 domains of
empowermen
t index
GPI WEAI all
women
WEAI
WMHH
only
KARI Malindi 0.72 0.87 0.74 0.70
Naivasha 0.82 0.93 0.83 0.79
EADD Selling milk through
Dairy groups (Test)
0.62 0.82 0.64 0.64
Not selling milk through
Dairy groups (Control)
0.60 0.83 0.62 0.62
Juhudi
Kilimo
Taken loans (Test) 0.73 0.86 0.74 0.70
Not taken loans
(Control)
0.70 0.87 0.71 0.71

24. Conclusion 2
• Different livelihood interventions can contribute differently to
women’s empowerment.
– We tested for variations in the extent of empowerment among FHH and
WMHH by removing FHH from sample of women used in the WEAI
calculation. WEAI for WMHH in Malindi and Naivasha (KARI) reduced; there
was no change in WEAI for EADD WMHH selling through groups and other
modes, and Juhudi WMHH without loans; but WEAI scores for Juhudi
drastically reduced for WMHH with loans.
– The finding from KARI (baseline) indicates that FHH were more
empowered than WMHH
– The finding from EADD suggests that the intervention
empowered women from FHH and MHH equally
– The finding from Juhudi suggests that the intervention
empowered women from FHH, but disempowered women from
MHH. This finding can be explained by the fact that women from
FHH have full control of their income, but women from MHH
tend to lose control of their income share as HH income increases
(Njuki et al 2011). Benefits from value chains are determined by
a person’s ability to control productive assets and household
decisions (Coles & Mitchell, 2011).
24

25. Question 3
• How do women perceive
themselves in terms of
empowerment and how does this
self assessment compare with the
WEAI measurements?
25

26. CASE STUDIES
26
• Narratives describing individual women’s lives obtained through in
depth face to face interviews aiming to establish the women’s definitions
of empowerment and their self evaluation of empowerment according
to their definition
• The case studies respondents were selected from among individual
survey respondents by comparing a woman’s self ranking [on her
influence in the community] and a more objective index derived from 6
empowerment indicators
• The indicators were:
1. Input in decision making capacity around agricultural production
2. Ownership of productive capital/ assets
3. Access to credit
4. Access to extension services
5. Decision making capacity on own income
6. Individual’s leadership and influence in community

27. Case Study selection criteria
27
Three types of cases selected:
• Those whose self ranking of empowerment matched the index ranking
(e.g. no 16) – spot on
• Those whose self ranking was higher than the index ranking (e.g. no 5)
– overrated themselves
• Those whose self ranking was lower than the index (no 10) - under
rated themselves

28. 28
Miriam

29. Miriam’s Empowerment Score
The 6DE indicated that Miriam was empowered in 4 out of the 6 domains and her average
weighted score was 67%. She was classified as empowered based on the 6DE
Miriam believed she was empowered because she is innovative and able to meet her
family’s needs
29

30. Catherine’s Empowerment Score
The 6DE indicated that Catherine was only empowered in 1 out of the 6 domains and her
average weighted score was 39%. She was classified as disempowered according to 6DE
Catherine believed she was disempowered because she did not have any livestock and
did not belong to a group that gives out loans
30

31. Case Study results-JUHUDI
Case study
number
Empowerment
score of man
based on 6DE
Empowerment
score of
woman based
on 6DE
Whether woman is
empowered based on
6DE
Women’s self
assessment
Gender parity
1. 0.67 0.69 Empowered Empowered Achieved
2. - 0.72 Empowered Empowered -
3. (Catherine) 0.92 0.39 Disempowered Disempowered Not achieved
4. 0.78 0.67 Empowered Empowered Not achieved
5. 0.56 0.50 Disempowered Empowered Not achieved
6. 0.83 0.53 Disempowered Empowered Not achieved
7. (Miriam) 0.58 0.67 Empowered Empowered Not achieved
8. 0.81 0.53 Disempowered Empowered Not achieved
9. 0.58 0.58 Disempowered Empowered Achieved
10. 0.72 0.67 Empowered Disempowered Not achieved
31
• Most empowered women believed that they were empowered.
• Most disempowered women believed that they were empowered.
• All FHH interviewed from all sites were empowered in terms of 6DE and own rating

32. Conclusion 3
• There were similarities and differences
between women’s empowerment in terms of
their self evaluation and evaluation using the
index
– Empowered women according to the index mostly considered
themselves to be empowered using their own measures. Some
disempowered women according to the index also considered
themselves to be empowered using their measure.
– Whose measure is right? The index, the women’s own
measure, or both? Why?
– There is a need to harmonize indicators used by researchers
and those used by the women to measure empowerment in
order to represent the women’s perceptions
32

33. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
• FORDFOUNDATION
• KARI
• JUHUDI KILIMO
• EADD
• The PGI team at ILRI
• Respondents from the
following counties:
• Naivasha
• Malindi
• Nandi
• Bomet
• Transzoia
33

34. 34
Thank You!