Presentation given by Land O Lakes at GAAP final technical workshop in Addis Ababa, January 2013

1. The gender impacts of the Land O’Lakes -
Manica Smallholder Dairy Development
Program (MSDDP)
—preliminary findings
Marinho Nhambeto, Liz Waithanji, Nancy Johnson, Lizz Hutchinson,
Martha Rogers, Edna Ogwangi, Mimoso Agostinho
GAAP Final Technical Workshop
ILRI-Addis Ababa
10 January 2013

2. Background
 Funded by United States Department of
Agriculture (USDA)
 Location and duration of program: 2009-
2012, Manica Province, Mozambique
 Objectives: 1) rebuild Mozambique’s
dairy industry and 2) increase incomes
for smallholder farmers in a dairy value
chain.

3.  Program distributed 500 improved dairy
cows to 327 qualified beneficiary
households and trained 2 members per
household in dairy management

5. GAAP Research
Hypothesis/Questions for MSDDP
1. What direct and indirect benefits and
constraints do women experience in a gender-
blind asset distribution program?
2. What decision-making roles do women play in
the management of dairy cows?
3. Who controls the benefits (milk, income) from
the project?

6. Methods
1) Qualitative
- April 2011, 15 single-gender FGDs with members
of 15 of 17 farmer groups
- April 2012 - 6 single-gender FGD from 3 dairy
associations in the Vanduzi Dairy Cooperative
2011 Focus Group Discussions
Average # Groups Average
# Groups Participants- without Cows participants-
with Cows Cows (Anticipating) Anticipating
Female FGD 5 6.8 2 9.5
Male FGD 6 7.2 2 12

7. 2) Quantitative analysis
- 3 households surveys conducted:
April, 2009 (LOL), April-May 2011
(GAAP), April-May 2012 (LOL+GAAP)
- Different populations surveyed in
each round. For impact evaluation,
we focus on at beneficiary
households in 2011 and 2012 rounds

8. Comparison groups
 For assets we can look at changes
between 2008 and 2011 based on
recall
 For all other outcome variables, the
comparison groups are:
1) Received cows vs. still waiting
2) Length of time since cow was received (months)
3) Households that had a woman trained
4) Households where woman was primary trainee

9. Outline of results
 Assets
 Food security
 Dairy
production
 Milk sales and
income

10. Assets
• Qualitative focused on understanding asset
ownership and control
• Quantitative: 2 measures
– Total household assets
• Non-land asset index
– Women’s share of individually-owned assets
• Value of asset index for women/(value for men +
value for women)—joint asset no included
• Higher means less disparity

11. Qualitative findings
• Men and women use same asset categories—
domestic, productive, transport
• In general, people struggled to differentiate
between ownership, control and use
• Most people said that in male-headed
households, men make decisions
– Decision making powering is “bigger” than claim
to ownership
– But claim to ownership is one factor that may
influence decision-making

12. • Completion of training increased women’s
self-esteem and confidence
– Their ability to take care of cows was recognized
– Joint decision making with husbands was
enhanced

13. Descriptive statistics on assets
From 2011 survey, with retrospective asset question
2008 2011
Non Recipients Non Recipients
Recipients Recipients
73.84 84.77 80.16 110.96
Household asset index (n=125 ) (100.10) (92.07) (87.96) (115.73)
.39 .13 0.17 .18
Women’s share of assets (n= 125 ) (.92) (.43) (.36) (.33)
From beneficiaries in 2011 and 2012 surveys
Non Recipients Recipients All beneficiary
households
Mean S.D Mean S.D Mean S.D
Household asset index 80.16 87.96 100.91 100.20 99.04 99.15
Women’s share of assets 0.17 0.36 0.21 0.33 0.20 0.33
Number of observations 25 198 223

14. Determinants of change in total and women’s share
of assets, 2008-2011
Change in total HH Change women’s share
assets of assets
HH received cattle 16.6760** 18.3263*** 0.3514 0.3065
(6.4327) (6.2075) (0.3012) (0.2754)
Primary or secondary dairy trainee was
female 2.3529 -0.0882
(5.6049) (0.1345)
Primary dairy trainee was female -2.8895 0.1164
(8.1888) (0.1250)
Observations 102 102 63 63
Estimates controlled for household and community characteristics

15. Food security
• Participants in qualitative studies perceived
that improved family nutrition was a major
benefit of the program
• 2 quantitative measures
– # of months of adequate food provisioning
– Dietary diversity index
– No pre-project baseline data so we compared early
v late beneficiaries in 2011 and 2012 surveys
Non-recipients Recipients All beneficiaries
Mean S.D Mean S.D Mean S.D
Months of adequate HH food
10.48 2.24 11.18 1.48 11.10 1.59
provisioning
Household dietary diversity score 5.80 2.61 6.42 2.60 6.35 2.60

16. Determinants of Months of adequate household
food provisioning
HH received cattle 2.0155* 1.9502*
(1.0900) (1.0710)
Months since HH received first cow 0.0551** 0.0546**
(0.0236) (0.0250)
Primary or secondary dairy trainee was
-0.2868 -0.2302
female
(0.4058) (0.3578)
Primary dairy trainee was female -0.5537 -0.3955
(0.4206) (0.4072)
Observations 163 153 163 153
Estimates controlled for household and community characteristics

17. Determinants of dietary diversity score
HH received cattle 1.8731*** 2.0621***
(0.5473) (0.6050)
Months since HH received first cow -0.0421 -0.0469
(0.0517) (0.0517)
Primary or secondary dairy trainee was female 0.7773 0.5972
(0.6946) (0.8497)
Primary dairy trainee was female 0.1567 -0.0526
(1.0005) (1.0373)
Observations 163 153 163 153
Estimates controlled for household and community characteristics

18. Dairy cow management
• Qualitative analysis
looked at who does
what and who makes
decisions
• Quantitative analysis
focused on total cost
and household labor
use in dairy

19. Key qualitative findings
• Dairy activities are gendered, with some
overlap
• “Both men and women said that the
introduction of the dairy cow enabled
them to become more diligent planners
because of its demand on their time.”
– Everyone’s responsibilities increased with
improved cow
– Women may be most affected because they
had to stay home more and could not hire
help the way men did

20. • Men traditionally make
decisions about cows but
“women are developing an
interest in improved cows”
– Women are gaining
authority and decision
making power around dairy
• At household level women
are more concerned with
milk quality
– Many said the benefit from
training related to hygiene

21. Cost of production and labor for
recipients and non recipient
households
Non-recipients Recipients All beneficiaries
Mean S.D Mean S.D Mean S.D
Total dairy costs in last month
(MZM) 46.56 101.7 581.0 740.3 539.7 725.8
Total HH male labor hours on
dairy activities 4.50 10.42 18.48 16.04 16.91 16.11
Total HH female labor hours on
dairy activities 1.15 3.29 18.13 21.33 16.23 20.83
Total HH child labor hours on dairy
activities 3.34 10.05 19.27 19.33 17.49 19.18

22. Determinants of total dairy costs last month
(MZM)
HH received cattle 257.432** 246.44***
(98.4012) (82.8502)
Primary or secondary dairy trainee
was female -84.1539 -93.3024
(185.263) (198.960)
Months since HH received first cow 10.6395 12.1344
(12.4131) (12.2075)
Primary dairy trainee was female 90.0300 132.6012
(365.883) (363.653)
Observations 161 152 161 152
Estimates controlled for household and community characteristics

23. Determinants of household male labor
(hours spent on dairy)
HH received cattle 11.4581** 11.3406**
(4.7583) (4.9038)
Primary or secondary dairy trainee was
female -0.3805 1.2055
(3.5829) (3.7896)
Months since HH received first cow 0.4406** 0.4577**
(0.1817) (0.1929)
Primary dairy trainee was female 2.7140 4.4576
(7.2095) (6.4491)
Observations 163 153 163 153
Estimates controlled for household and community characteristics

24. Determinants of household female labor
(hours spent on dairy)
HH received cattle 17.991*** 17.341***
(6.2307) (6.4795)
Primary or secondary dairy trainee was
female -2.7002 2.3768
(4.8822) (3.9246)
Months since HH received first cattle 1.8959*** 1.9117***
(0.3022) (0.3163)
Primary dairy trainee was female -1.3249 5.7621
(10.7911) (9.3753)
Observations 163 153 163 153
Estimates controlled for household and community characteristics

25. Determinants of household child labor
(hours spent on dairy)
HH received cattle 14.092*** 14.130***
(4.6111) (4.7187)
Primary or secondary dairy trainee was
female 0.6609 3.1349
(3.8385) (4.2271)
Months since HH received first cattle 0.8903*** 0.9711***
(0.2416) (0.2817)
Primary dairy trainee was female 13.8598 17.7639
(13.5895) (12.4791)
Observations 163 153 163 153
Estimates controlled for household and community characteristics

26. Milk production and income
• Qualitative analysis explored: Who makes
decisions about milk consumption and
sale and who control income from milk
• Quantitative analysis looked at impact on:
– Quantity of milk sold
– Dairy income
– Income control in 2012 (descriptive only)

27. Findings from qualitative
• “All milk worth talking about is from
improved cows.”
• Morning milk sold to milk collection
center (MCC), generally by men
• Evening milk consumed or sold locally,
generally by women

28. Decision maker on dairy income,
2012 survey

29. Milk sales and income for
recipients and non-recipients
Non-recipients Recipients All beneficiaries
Mean S.D Mean S.D Mean S.D
Liters of milk sold or bartered in
last month 4.69 18.75 112.41 154.66 104.00 151.35
Money received from milk sales in
last month (MZM) 60.00 232.4 1540.8 2051.8 1430.8 2012.7

30. Determinants of liters of milk sold to MCC
village or bartered last month (MZM)
HH received cattle 73.7820*** 75.0157***
(27.5877) (27.4968)
Primary or secondary dairy trainee was
female 8.6903 6.9587
(32.1106) (34.6512)
Months since HH received first cattle 0.0196 0.2898
(2.7204) (2.7834)
Primary dairy trainee was female 47.0947 50.5377
(54.3564) (56.4264)
Observations 158 149 158 149
Estimates controlled for household and community characteristics

31. Determinants of income from milk sales
(MZM)
HH received cattle 1247.42** 1244.97**
(515.3749) (611.6042)
Primary or secondary dairy trainee was
female 1053.341** 1019.53**
(460.2119) (498.0601)
Months since HH received first cattle -11.4963 -14.5877
(34.3267) (34.3921)
Primary dairy trainee was female 618.9363 617.5980
(821.3166) (827.2487)
Observations 155 147 155 147
Estimates controlled for household and community characteristics

32. Some conclusions
• Overarching: Gender roles are shaped by socio-
cultural, economic and political norms
• Assets
– Care must be taken when interpreting “ownership”
data
– As expected, receipt of a cow improves households
assets. Does not appear to increase gender asset gap.
– People say that putting the cow in both names or in
woman’s name will have no practical effect but this
should be tested
• Food security
– Receipt of cow seems to have positive impact on food
security and nutrition, though mechanisms not clear

33. • Management
– Male HH heads traditionally make decisions, but there is
evidence that women are getting more involved in
management
– Costs increase with high-producing cows
• hypothesis that household needs 2-5 improved cows to
profitable—this is something to watch in next phase of project
– Impacts on women’s labor need to be monitored carefully,
especially in early stages of commercialization
• Production and income
– Production and income increase with receipt of improved
cow
– Men control most of dairy income
– Having a female trainee is associated with higher income,
possibly through better milk quality

34. Thank you!