Deborah Duveskog, SLU

Esbern Friis-Hansen, DIIS

Evaluating Empowerment in the Rural Small-holder Context:

Lessons from East Africa

The small-holder context..

• Changing rural context • No package solutions• Globalised markets • Incresed trends for decentralisation and demand driven services

Requires farmers that are able to take control!

Farmer Empowerment..• “A process that increases the capabilities

of smallholder farmers and farmer groups to make choices and to influence collective decisions towards desired actions and outcomes on the basis of those choices” (DANIDA 2004)

“Before, if somebody asked me what I do I used to say

“nothing”. Now I proudly answer; “I am a farmer”.

Kellen Wambui, Mureri FFS, Nakuru, Kenya

Theoretical Framework

Empowerment (Sen, Narayan, World Bank, DANIDA)

1. Opportunity Structures Institutional climate

Social and political structures

2. Agency of the PoorAssets and Capabilities

Collective levelIndividual level

Development Outcomes

Learning process (FFS case)

CriticalConsciousness

Action & Transformation

Enhanced well-being

Opportunity structures

Farmer Field Schools (FFS)..

…a laboratory for critical reflection

Observation

Agro-eco System Analysis (AESA)

AnalysisPresentation

Synthesis /discussion

AESA…

Participatory development of indicators!

• Of 1) Well-being and of 2) Empowerment!

Methodology

Household Survey

1. Well being ranking indicators : Access to land, work, use of workers, animal ownership, house, dressing, health /medical, food security

2. Empowerment indicators : Access to services, access to markets, membership in organisations, personal empowerment.

3. Attitude: “Likert Scale” perception of power to change / make decisions at household & community level

KEN TZN UGA

FFS graduates 301 300 300

Non-members 200 200 100

Methodology

Participatory methods..

• Individual interview

• Focus group discussion

• Visual tools

Methodology

Qual Quant

Attitudes....• I have a clear plan for how

to improve my farm!

• When I talk other farmers take my ideas serious!

• In my village other people recognise me as somebody important!

• Attending community meetings is a waste of time!

• I am proud of being farmer!

• I believe that I can change my life to the better!

Methodology

Statistical Analysis (SPSS)`Factor Analysis’ of Attitude Questions

Household decision making capacity

•Decision on farming activities and practices•Decision on household expenditure

Gender equity and trust

•Men and Women are equally involved in leadership in the village•Conflicts between man and wife in the HH rare•Trust people in groups in matters related to lending money

Power to influence community

•Part of the decision-making process for community action •You can make this village a better place to live

Individual agency and control

Have power to make important decisions

Help friends and neighbours in unfortunate situations

Trust in local authorities

Trust local government officials and politicians

Extraction Method: Principal Component Analysis; Rotation Method: Equamax with Kaiser Normalization

Results

Empowerment Factors * FFS membership

Extraction Method: Principal Component Analysis; Rotation Method: Equamax with Kaiser Normalization

Kenya Tanzania Uganda

HH decision making capacity *** *** NA

Gender and trust *** *** ***

Individual agency and control

*** *** ***

Trust in authorities NA NA ***

Power to influence community

Results

Indication of significance (Creamérs`V) : * p < 0.01; ** p < .005; *** p < .001

Statistical Analysis (SPSS)Link between FFS participation and empowerment

KENYA TANZANIA UGANDA FFS (Control) FFS (Control) FFS/NAADS

(Control) Innovation uptake Uptake of improved crop varieties # 86% (70,6%)*** 43,3% (38,3) 9%(3%)*** Vaccination of livestock 72% (44%)*** 1.7% (19.2)*** OBS! Cross breeding of goats 5%(3%)* Improvement of soil fertility 86,3% (77.3) 66,3% (60,8) Acess to Services Obtained Agricultural advice or assistance in the last two years

83,7% (37,8%)*** 88% (60,5)*** 91%(41%)***

Collaboration with reserach 13,3% (0%) *** 7% (5%) 3%(0%) Obtained advice from other farmers 48,7% (20,2%)*** 52,7% (15,8)*** 60%(64%) Applied for credit 32% (21%) 25,7% (21) Membership in savings/credit org. 77,3% (45,4%)*** 40,0% (27,3) 5%(13%) Have a bank account 31% (13,6%)*** 12,7% (8,3) 50%(15%)*** Farming as a business Sold farm produce in past two seasons 89,3% (78,2)** 85,3 (89,2) OBS! 81%(74%) Occasional or regular sale of produce 90,7% (70,5)*** 57,1% (53,3) Store produce to fetch higher price 55,7% (43,7)* 36,0 (23,3) Add value/process products 20% (5)*** 39,3% (15,9) 1%(0%) Collective action/social relations Involved in collective marketing 14% (5)** 30,3 (27,5) 14%(12%) Hold leadership position 63% (39,5)*** 58,4% (47,5) 57%(43%) Voted in the last local election 96% (89,1)** 89,7% (96,6) OBS!

Results

Qualitative scopeOutput themes of individual and group interviews;

Farming Decisions Relation to service providers

Power / Part of decision making

Local Organisation

View of future..

Community relationstrust

Leadership

Gender relations Challenging traditions

Results

Conclusions

Methodology• Quant. on empowerment possible! • but in combination with Qual. • Merge perceptions & more direct expressions of emp.• Difficult to understand critical consciousness• Mutual learning process

Content• Link between FFS and empowerment • Need to unpack the term empowerment

Thanks! • Esbern Friis Hansen efh@diis.dk

• Deborah Duveskog (deborah.duveskog@gmail.com)

http://farmerfieldschools.net