Women’s economic leadership

Learning series: agricultural markets and enterprises

Session 1: Introduction and key concepts, 18th November 2009

Questions and Answers from the session

Contents

We’ve tried to categories the questions into the following areas. Please let us know if we haven’t answered your question!

  • Guatemala meeting
  • Moving to a market systems approach
  • Gender and agriculture
  • Markets and Value Chains
  • Some comments and links…

Guatemala meeting

Q: What is the focus of the meeting in Guatemala? Will gendered market maps be covered?

The meeting in Guatemala is being organised by the Enterprise Development Programme (EDP) and the Latin America and the Caribbean (LAC) region. The focus is Gender Justice and Enterprise. All participants will be asked to produce a gendered market map before attending the meeting but the meeting will also have a focus on supporting participants to use the analysis in their maps to make decisions based about their programme work. To find out more about the conference, email

Moving to a market systems approach

Q: How do we move away from handouts that create dependency but still help people to build up assets that enable them to gain power in markets?

It is true that moving to a market development approach means doing much less direct delivery and distributing far fewer free handouts than we have done previously. In all cases, acting as a facilitator in a market system means planning and delivering our work in collaboration with producers themselves and other actors from the public and private sectors. In particular, it’s vitally important that both Oxfam staff and the producers that we support understand that Oxfam’s support is limited and is designed to help producers build up sustainable businesses and leverage further resources from others. For example, if OGB fund the wage of an accountant to help a producer organisation grow, this should be on a declining scale and time limited. If agricultural extension is identifed as needed, how can existing service providers be concouraged to ‘stretch’ to target beneficiaries or new models of delivery created, rather than Oxfam solely funding local NGO’s to deliver services that will disappear at project end.

We can really recommend reading the Small Farmers Big Change report for some more examples of how other Oxfam programmes have used the market systems approach to try and achieve sustainable and scalable changes across the market system. You can download this from the intranet here. Guidelines for EDP offer excellent advice on what to consider when funding specific activities and state recommended good practice,

Q: The opportunities from focusing on a single crop / market might only result in short or medium change for small producers. That crop may not generate a sustainable livelihood in the long term. If that’s the case - what does sustainability mean in projects, which focus on single crops?

That’s a really interesting question. We will talk about market selection in the next learning session – with a particular focus on how to select markets, which work well for women. The process of market selection can be one of ‘re-selection’ – that is, investigating a new crop or a variation of the existing product because of changes in the market.

When thinking about how sustainable it might be for producers to engage in any particular market – it’s critically important before supporting producers to plant a seed or invest in a new business, that this is the economic opportunity with the best potential returns for female and male producers or workers, in a sector with a positive long-term future. You will need to understand how much time and other resources producers will need to invest e.g. will this activity require producers to stop other activities, do the poorest or target beneficiaries have the assets to access this opportunity e.g. fresh produce needs good road access or proximity to marketplace to avoid spoiling, are there major threats to this activity being sustainable e.g. reducing rainfall for crops with high water usage and how long it might take for them to start making a profit on that effort.

Crops that might only generate profit for a short term can still be worth pursuing (for example developing a seedling-nursery for a new crop which will be well-established in the area in a few years). If this enables producers to move onto other profitable and sustainable livelihoods in the future, then it can be worthwhile. For example, women producers can build up business skills, an asset base or work together to change policies, attitudes and beliefs about women’s capabilities, and then move into a more challenging market.

In general, we try to look for market opportunities that are more sustainable or have the potential for scale in future, but some of the more obvious choices here might be spaces in which it is very difficult for women to benefit. So there may well be a trade-off that needs to be explored. This means that decision-making around market selection is critically important – luckily for you – there will be much more opportunity to discuss this in the next session.

Q: Working across the market system requires engagement at lots of different levels (policy, producer practice, private sector, dealing with long-term vulnerabilities etc) and often engagement over a long period of time. Do we have buy-in to this long-term approach from our colleagues in OI (where management transitions will happen) and from donors who are prepared to fund a model of change that is long-term?

A: It’s hard for us to answer this question, but it’s a really important question for all programme staff involved in long-term markets programming to consider. The evidence is donors such as DFID, Comic Relief and Gates have understood that time is required to develop programmes working with multiple actors, particularly the private sector. We have begun working with our colleagues from other OI affiliates in a couple regions to develop the WEL and facilitation approaches – it’s important for all of us to engage with OI so that there is greater understanding through the SMS process. Hopefully taking part in this learning series will put us in a strong position to communicate with our approach to colleagues in OI and with donors to build up support for the future.

Q: It can be a big challenge for programme staff to support poor producers to get business skills. Where can we find partners who are able to provide quality business training to partners?

Yes. We know this can be challenging – but it’s also very important. A critical learning is that any programmes aiming to undertake a Market or Business development approach, should have a strategic partner specialising on Business development approaches and services (BDS), to design programmes and support implementation. In Mali, Oxfam has worked with SNV to develop a methodology for assessing the capacity of producer organisations and supporting their umbrella cooperative to deliver appropriate technical support as part of a business development plan owned by the producer organisation. Oxfam has worked with SNV in Ethiopia, too. In the LAC region, we have worked with Sustainable Food Lab and a regional ‘learning initiative’ to understand what works, as well as GTZ who have developed a ‘tool box’ on gender and agricultural value chains. In the Philipinnes a local specialised partner, PINNOY has been identified.

There are different models used by Oxfam’s programme to deliver business training. In Sri Lanka, in some cases we have linked producer organisations with financial institutions, which also provide some of the business development support services or we use other local providers. A producer partner in Mozambique has built service provision units into their business, funded by producers trade. Through EDP, recruiting local business mentors have been the focus for ensuring business advice is timely and of a good quality for the enterprise.

Gender and agriculture

Q: To what extent does increased income for women translate into household welfare vs increased income for men?

It’s clear that increases in women’s income are much more likely to be translated into improvements in household welfare than increases in men’s income. In the pre-reading from this session, you would have seen that a study in Cote D’Ivoire showed that to achieve the same improvements in children’s nutrition and health with a $10 increase in women’s income would require a $110 increase in men’s income. (Hoddinott & Haddad 1995). Similar findings in several continents show that it is often the case (though not always) that increased income in women’s hands does better to promote household welfare.

Q: When we speak of gender, why do we not also talk about age differences? For example, young kids have roles to play that women don't but these are sometimes collapsed into women's roles. In some countries for example, herding small animals like goats and girl children being responsible for fetching water.

‘Women’ and ‘men’ are not homogeneous categories, correct. In the ASU conference in May, we discussed the importance of clarifying whether when we claim that a programme ‘benefits women’, in fact it ‘benefits for older / childless / higher status women’ or whether our interventions are reaching women with less privilege – which may vary by age, marital status, education or other. Analysing the relationships within the household are critically important to enabling women to gain more power in markets and to make sure that our interventions do not have a negative impact on other vulnerable people within the household, like children. In the next session we will talk more about this.

Q: The more women get involved in market activities, potentially the less time they have for household tasks. How do we deal with this and with other aspects of gender inequality (eg domestic violence) that prevent women from engaging in markets?

Strong analysis of the barriers that prevent women from engaging in markets is essential in helping us to overcome those barriers. In the next session we will be discussing ‘Linking Gendered Household Analysis and Market Analysis.’ Analysis of the relationships at household level is essential, and we need to identify exactly what the problems are for the women producers we are promoting, rather than make generalisations. Oxfam has funded interventions (within business & markets programmes) to help women overcome specific barriers, for example:

  • Supporting cooperatives to provide services such as child care specifically to enable women to participate in activities and free up some of women’s time.
  • Reducing the time burden for maintaining the household that is mostly carried by women, such as ensuring local water systems, or promoting discussion of re-distributing activities within the household between men and women.
  • Supporting specific campaigns or workshops designed to change attitudes and beliefs around women’s roles or domestic violence.

Q: Is it a case of identifying the step of the value chain where women can earn more rather than identifying a profitable commodity? I think it would be very unlikely to find a value chain where women control every step?

The WEL methodology addresses mixed organisations as well as women-only organisations and initiatives. In some cases women-only projects are the best/only way for women to develop skills, organisation and control over resources and processes, however these may tend to ‘trap’ women in lower value ‘women’s products’. Our choices for women should be a deliberate strategy (often over time) to build their leadership and income, rather than a default or add-on. So we identify the specific points in any value chain, which offer the best opportunities for women to increase their income and transform their roles. Certain types of commodities or markets offer better opportunities for women. For example, if they do not require access to large areas of land, or are not already dominated by traditional and large-scale male-led cooperatives. We are going to talk more about the different types of markets in the next session when we discuss - Gendered Market Selection (and Gendered Market Mapping).

Markets and Value Chains

Q: What is the difference between value chain and market chain?

As David explained on the call, a value chain refers to the full range of activities that are required to bring a product (or a service) from conception, through the different phases of production, to delivery to final consumers. We often use “value chain” to describe a contracted or formal value chain where an agreement is signed between producers and processing/marketing firms before production, committing the producers to produce and supply agricultural products, frequently on predetermined prices and conditions of trade. We then use “market chain” to describe the journey of a product sold on a spot or cash market where there is no organised buyer before production. Goods are sold for cash and delivered immediately. Market chains (the centre of our gendered market maps) show a number of alternative market channels for the product we’re mapping – market chains and value chains.

Q: Should we aim to make the chain as simple as possible and avoid different not necessary actors like resellers?

Not always. Some terms: ‘Middle-men’ implies someone that gets in the way and extracts the value. On the other hand, having effective and equitable intermediaries e.g. producer organisations, specialised traders, are critical to ensuring sustainable trade and maintaining market access for small-scale producers, such as Opcion (Download the case study). The question is whether the intermediary is extracting a fair value for their activities. In situations where there is a trader’s monopoly, control of trade by being the only access for credit or through powerful connections, an unfair profit is often taken. The chain would collapse without intermediaries that transform the product such as transporting, processing or packaging the product, leaving no way for the goods to get from producers to their ultimate markets. Historically producers have lost trade completely by attempting to undertake specialised activities themselves and losing buyers due to poor performance, under the belief that profits will be increased.

Sometimes Oxfam can increase benefits for poor people by improving the relationships between producers, intermediaries and private sector companies. However in other cases, often in formal markets, there may be more benefits for poor people if producer organisations or enterprises take over marketing and transportation functions or new equitable intermediaries are introduced as an alternative trader, to trade with actors further up the chain. Another option would be if the private sector organisation which is the ultimate buyer of the product could carry out some of these functions more efficiently and offer higher returns to small producers as a result.

Q: In the pre-reading, the definition of value chain talks about from production to consumers and disposal after use. What led to the inclusion of “disposal after use”?

There are some cases where disposal and recycling of certain products can generate employment and income for certain groups of people or create pollution or extra costs in its disposal. This may become increasingly important as global commitments to low carbon development are implemented. However for Oxfam, the majority of our work concentrates on work with rural producers where this is less relevant.

Q: In some cases, the recent large-scale land acquisitions that are happening in Africa could be seen as a private company coming in to deliver on the majority of the market system we just saw. What should be our response as Oxfam to these acquisitions as we also say we want private sector engagement?

Power dynamics, risk and sustainability are all important factors to consider when thinking about private sector engagement. We want poor producers to have power in markets and in their negotiations with private sector. Where a private company owns all the productive assets is not one where producers are likely to have power.

Embedded services (e.g. credit or training from a buyer) often are better than no service at all but create unequal power dynamics (whether finance, business development or other) as with land acquisition – however they are high risk if they ‘lock’ producers in to one crop, set terms & prices over several years and dependent on one buyer. In India, Pepsico has worked with other finance companies to develop weather insurance and credit provision, that are accesible if trading with Pepsico, but critically, are independently provided and producers have the potential to find a ‘better deal’. Ideally Oxfam should be encouraging trade and services that enables producer’s to make their own choices on how to develop their own enterprises, with contracts ideally enabling consistency of income alongside less predictable but higher returns from other markets.

Q: What did Make Trade Fair achieve and why did we stop?