1. Impacts of commercialization of crop and livestock products on women’s decision making and income management in Uganda and Malawi Jemimah Njuki, Susan Kaaria, Angeline Chamunorwa and Wanjiku Chiuri

2. Introduction Different organizations are using different approaches to link smallholder farmers to markets – provision of market information, – organizing farmers into groups, associations or co- operatives, – contract farming and out-grower schemes. Most of these approaches have been evaluated based on increases in household incomes, access to higher value markets and other potential advantages for farmers including access to inputs, credit and technological and extension advice

3. Introduction From a gender perspective – there is evidence that women face more constraints as they endeavor to engage with market systems – Empirical studies on intra-household gender dynamics in Africa have shown that when a crop enters the market economy, women may lose control of such crops A lot of evaluations of market benefits have used the household; – As a single unit that has a welfare function that reflects the preference of all its members – That pools resources with the result that all household members enjoy the same level of welfare – As one where the head is an altruist who takes into account the wellbeing of other members of the household

4. The household and issues of distributional impact Common welfare function Pooling of resources Head is altruist Unitary Household Model Non-CooperativeCo-operative Collective Household Model Measure outcomes at household level Measure outcomes at individual level Individual autonomy Individual preferences Sub-economies Choice of acting as individuals or joint “mine, yours, ours”

5. The project Data from Malawi and Uganda Objectives: – to analyze the gender distributional impacts of market linkages Focus on – the dichotomy of cash/food crops, crops/livestock – what influences women’s management of income from agricultural markets

6. Methodology Two sets of data – A cross sectional survey of 457 households – A panel data set of farmers linked to beans and potato markets collected every beginning of the season for 3 years

7. Description of commodities and their contribution to household income EnterpriseNumber of farmers actively marketing Mean average annual income (USD) % contribution to total household income Beans8079.522.9 Potatoes91270.137.2 Groundnuts6273.611.9 Soybeans1470.829.5 Rice90232.543.5 Goats5553.422.2 Pigs40113.927.9 Milk12906.331.6 Poultry1677.816.1

8. Income management by men and women A relatively high proportion of income managed by women from groundnuts (43.7%) and beans (35.5%) and soyabeans (31.7) More joint management of income from groundnuts compared to the other 2 legumes Most income form potatoes managed jointly, while income from rice mainly managed by women (45.1%)

9. Income management by men and women Gendered income control from different livestock and livestock products. Men controlled 69.1% and 87.3% of the income from goats and pigs respectively. Only 9% of the income from pigs was controlled by women Fifty three percent of the income from poultry was managed and controlled by women with only 14% going to men Women managed and controlled 39.8% of the income from milk with men managing 29.6% of the income

10. What influences income management by women A general trend of a rise in income share by women across the low income commodities which changes with the higher income commodities high income commodities such as potatoes and pigs showed lower income share by women (some exceptions such as rice) In the lower income categories, groundnuts and poultry had average incomes below USD 100 per annum and high income shares going to women (43.6% for groundnuts and 52.7% for poultry)

11. Income share over time..the influence of markets Malawi-Active export market orientation--decline in women’s control of income from the crop as total income (bar) increased. Thus as the beans became more marketable, men tended to get interested and took over. Uganda-Productivity improvement interventions- Slight changes in income management by women

12. Other determinants of income management Unstandardized Coefficients Standardi zed Coefficien ts tSig. BSEBeta (Constant)-6.76310.957-.617.538 Enterprise /product  Beans 10.1085.547.1041.822.070  Groundnuts 29.0177.067.2264.106.000  Soyabeans 1.8399.762.010.188.851  Goats 9.7216.375.0901.525.129  Pigs.15112.159.001.012.990  Poultry -4.08716.986-.011-.241.810 % of enterprise income to total hh income.042.092.022.452.652 Who sold (1=Wife 0=Other)65.5884.734.68513.854.000 Market sold to (1=local or farm gate 0=other) -4.6635.740-.043-.812.418 education of men (0=None, 1=Primary and above) 3.6735.535.032.664.508 education women (0=None, 1=Primary and above) -5.6514.571-.063-1.236.218 Family size-1.051.782-.064-1.343.181 Age of household (years).405.163.1242.480.014 R2R2 0.606

13. So what? Do men and women spend income under their control differently? Expenditure item HusbandWifeJoint Food6238 Agricultural production 142225 Assets251415 Education207 Health523 Clothing18225 Social assistance 228 Leisure212 Other8714 Total100 67% of women’s income going to food, agricultural production and clothing 45% of men’s income going to assets and education compared to women’s 21% Joint income mainly going to agricultural production, education and assets Only 14% of women’s income going to assets

14. Conclusions Increasing commercialization through linking farmers to markets will increase farmers’ incomes but with implications for gender and intra-household dynamics The choice of commodity matters. Women seem to control more income from crops traditionally used for food such as beans and groundnuts and livestock products rather than sale of livestock As low income commodities start to attract higher prices and revenues through farmer linkages to higher price markets, women tend to lose control of these commodities-an often unplanned outcome of market linkages Without a good understanding of what women’s roles and preferences are and why, market development can undermine these roles. Standard approaches of analyzing value chains can often miss the gender and intra-household issues.

15. Conclusions (2) Programs aimed at increasing commercialization or using a value chain approach need to take into account these gender and intra-household dynamics. Gender sensitive value chain or commodity selection and value chain analysis, monitoring and evaluation helps to develop strategies to benefit men and women without undermining the control of these commodities by either Skills building and using gender transformative approaches can ensure that women do not lose control of these commodities as they enter the market arena. Indicators for market and value chain projects need to be ‘gendered’ and to go beyond measuring participation and household incomes and focus on distributional impacts. Working with both men and women in market development, working on multiple value chains and multiple markets (both formal and informal) and integrating gender training in market development can mitigate against negative intra-household effects from value chain and market development programs

16. Acknowledgements Funding provided by – Belgian Directorate General for Development Cooperation – CIDA and SDC funding to the Pan Africa Bean Research Alliance