The Meru Goat Breeders’ Association (MGBA): A Poor

Farmers’ Empowerment Initiative

Elizabeth Waithanji, Jemimah Njuki, Samuel Mburu, Juliet Kariuki, and Frederick Njeru

Overview: I – Women, livestock and Markets

2

Women manage most livestock in KenyaLivestock constitute an important asset for the rural

poor, 70% of who are women (DFID 2000)Women may make decisions on stock and product

disposal and how to spend resultant incomeWomen’s control is, however, constrained in terms of

access to land, capital, information, and marketing opportunities

Women’s control often declines with increase in productivity, often associated with commercialization and market formalization (Kergria et al 2010).

It is still unclear the kinds of benefits women accrue from livestock and livestock markets (Kristjanson et al 2010)

II: Meru Goat Breeders’ Association (MGBA)

3

Rationale of intervention – farmers can improve their own lives with very little intervention if the outside support is within their social and economic context (Peacock 1996)

Purpose of intervention – to create wealth and improve household nutrition in marginal divisions of Meru by giving farmers small stock and building their capacity in management and animal health

Intervention by Farm Africa and Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Development

In three phases between 1996 – 2003 Phase 1 (1996 – 98):Increase productivity of existing flocks (by

improving husbandry and healthcare delivery) Phase 2 (1999 – 02): Introduce high producer dairy goat breeders

to strengthen breeding program Phase 3 (2002 – 03): Enhance community management capacity for

project sustainability by forming and strengthening an MGBA secretariat

Study Objective, Questions and Output

4

Objective To compare participation of, and benefits attained, by women and men

within the MGBA program, in live goat and milk marketing

Questions Where do women benefit the most and the least in the value chain, in

terms of the following? Division of labour in production and marketing Gendered differences in market preferences Gendered differences in access to goats and milk and their income

because of differences in decision making; access to and use of production and other technologies; and participation at different stages of the value chain

Outputs Identify strategies of facilitating greater participation of women and

men in the dairy goat value chain in order to attain equitable benefits (e.g. narrow the gender asset gap) from marketing both the breeding stock and milk

5

Study area and Methodology

Market map of Meru

Site (Meru Central) characteristics: High agricultural potential; mixed crop and livestock production system; market access 4 hours or less

Data collectedQualitative:•FGDs, KI-interviews, farmer case studies

Quantitative:•Household surveys (n=39; 20 MGBA and 19 non MGBA households•2 modules – Male household heads and female spouses interviewed)

Data analysis: •STATA, SPSS, and descriptive statistic

Results and discussion

Division of labour in Production and Marketing

Dairy•Women provide 90% of the labor at milk production, domestic consumption and sale to neighbors.•Participation disappears (0 – 25%) with entry into the formal marketBreeding Stock •Women only participate at the production level and do 50% of the work. The breeding stock is highly valuable (up to Ksh28,000 / USD360 a 6 – 9 mo purebred kid)

•Women participate more in production than marketing•Where women participate in marketing, the outlet is informal – mainly neighbors, and the value of commodity is low•From these value chain maps, it is clear that men control the sale of milk and breeding stock in the formal market.

8

Gendered Differences in Market Preferences and Household Incomes

Production/ Market Preferences

•Women prefer producing and marketing dairy goats as breeding stock and for milk equally but more than men•Men prefer producing and marketing breeding stock more than milk because of the very high stock value•Women value milk highly because it is highly nutritious

•FHH earned more income from stock and milk sales than MHH •Income from milk significantly higher (α < 0.05) for FHH than MHH•FHH benefited from MGBA more than MHH

Mean Annual Household Income

9

Gendered Access to Production and Marketing Information in Male Headed Households

Production Marketing

•Overall, production information was more accessible than marketing information to both men and women•Men had more access to marketing information than women•For both production and marketing information, other farmers were the main source followed by cooperatives or groups•Women depended on other farmers more than men for both production and marketing information, and much more for marketing information

10

Who manages income

Group Membership

•In MHH women managed more income from the sale of goats and milk than the men•Only income from goat sales was managed jointly•The MGBA project was empowering women more than men in MHH

•Group members earned significantly higher incomes from both milk and breeding stock sales than non group members•The project was empowering group members more than non group members

Conclusion

Benefits12

Group and non group members, men and women, all benefited from the project

FHH benefited more than MHH from goat milk (significantly) and breeding stock sales as a result of the MGBA intervention

Within the MHH, the female spouse controlled more income than the male head from both the sale of milk and the breeding stock

Group members earned significantly higher incomes from milk and breeding stock sales than non group members

Strategies13

MGBA’s approach of targeting the poorest goat owners already belonging to groups helped reduce the gender asset gap

Nutritional superiority of goat milk may have enhanced women’s participation in the project

Presence of informal market outlets enhanced participation of

women

Lesson / Recommendation:In order to maximize benefits, the marketing and management

capacity within MGBA secretariat and membership should have been built from the onset of the project rather than in the last year

Extension information on production seems to be more accessible than information on marketing

Acknowledgements

15

1. MGBA officials, members, and non-MGBA member farmers for participating in the study

2. FARM Africa for providing background information and necessary contacts

3. Ford Foundation and IDRC for funding the study

THANK YOU!