Reducing poverty and promoting women Reducing poverty and promoting women empowerment through market development in the empowerment through market development in the

southern Andean highlands of Perusouthern Andean highlands of Peru

A post – project impact assessment

CARE UK October 2011

Why did CARE Peru work with rural communities in Puno?

• Poverty levels: sample of 200 households in 2006 reported: – 87% living below the poverty line and – 60% below the extreme poverty line. – 30% of children under 5 in region suffer

chronic malnutrition

Why did CARE Peru engage with the cattle Value Chain?

• Outreach: Cattle raising is the main economic activity in the area for smallholders (60% of total income in 2005)

• Economic Potential: Puno produced 19% of the cattle sold in Lima and 53% of the cattle commercialized in Arequipa

• Market opportunity: unsatisfied national market demand of 8.3% (or 61,700 cattle heads per year), which could be targeted by Puno producers

Lima and Arequipa / other Slaughter Houses

Cattle raisers’ associations producing fully fattened bulls

Private Technical Assistance providers

Private Input providers

Transportation services

Financial Institutions

Puno Beef Cattle Value Chain

Enabling environment: policies, labour gender

division, legislation, physical conditions, climate change

adaptation

Private vet. services

Smallholdersc

Middle men

Farmers in southern Peru who terminate to fatten the animals

Smallholders selling semi-fattened bulls

Commercial, relationship

Women project beneficiaries

Smallholders Smallholders Smallholders

Interest groups Interest groups

Merchants and cold houses

District Markets and Supermarkets

Import market

Association

Organic market Conventional market

Main VC strengths Bottlenecks

• Strength: smallholders represent the vast majority of the cattle value chain

• Weaknesses:– Low productivity / poor economic results– Access to higher value markets: cattle not

fully fattened sold to middlemen making most of the profit

Project objectives

• Increase the income (by 25%) and employment opportunities (143,627 new daily positions) for 2,550 poor families through fattening and commercialization of beef cattle

• Develop technical and productive capacities for 2,550 families within the beef cattle value chain.

Project components (Fondoempleo 2005 – 2008)

• Improving productive and Business Management capacities

• Improving organizational capacity of the producers

• Creation of a local market for technical assistance providers (PATs)

• Promotion and facilitation of partnerships with the public sector and private sector

Project methodology / gender

• The semi-intensive bull fattening methodology permitted the involvement of women (close to home)

• Active promotion of the role of women in economic activities including commercialization, producers associations / public life

• Work on masculinities

The external impact evaluation

Objectives:

• To generate the necessary evidence to validate this specific initiative and its strategy as an effective rural development model for the Peruvian highlands.

• Use the results of this study as an evidence based advocacy tool with the Peruvian Government

General project information:

9 months project, worth approximately US$ 31,500, funded by PPA3, in partnership with the IEP (Institute for Peruvian Studies), coordinated in CARE Peru by Claudia Sanchez, M&E Director.

• Household composition• Total annual cost composition (average)• Unsatisfied Basic Needs in the families• Per capita annual cost in households• Annual Income and expenditures individual and by house holds, by

quintiles and deciles• Incidence of poverty and extreme poverty, poverty gap, poverty

severity (squared poverty gap)• Income distribution by quintiles• Gini Coefficient• % of people with caloric deficiency• Agriculture and cattle sales• Gross Value of Production• Total income per household• Composition of production (agriculture, cattle, forestry)

What kind of evidence were we looking for? (Quantitative)

What kind of evidence were we looking for? (Qualitative)

• Qualitative evidence around individuals (men and women)– Empowerment level, happiness, dignity, self

confidence

• The main successful strategy adopted by the project, leading to these impacts

• Application of CARE’s programmatic principles

• Project sustainability

Methodology (key elements)

• Multidimensional approach to poverty measurement (OPHI methodology, IDB methodology)

• Surveys based on the ENAHO methodology (National Households Survey) in Peru.

• Interviews with focal groups• Baseline for the control group built using

secondary information, as it was not included in the baseline

• In Partnership with the IEP (Institute for Peruvian Studies)

Main Results of the impact assessment

• The analysis shows a statistically significant increase of net incomes of almost 100% compared with the baseline

Grupo de

Tratam.

(Benef.)

%

Grupo de

Control

(Todos)

% 2010 % 2007 %

VBP Agrícola 6,974 53.0% 5,256 51.6% 7,045 52.9% 3,654 47.0%

VBP Pecuario 1,294 9.8% 1,091 10.7% 1,313 9.9% 1,954 25.1%

VBP Forestal 167 1.3% 1 0.0% 171 1.3% 9 0.1%

Ingresos no agropecuarios 88 0.7% 99 1.0% 89 0.7% 157 2.0%

Otros Ingresos 4,534 34.4% 3,218 31.6% 4,585 34.5% 2,006 25.8%

Programa Juntos 111 0.8% 514 5.1% 107 0.8% - 0.0%

Ingreso Total 13,168 10,179 13,310 7,781 Observaciones 179 119 169 172

Fuente: Encuesta de Evaluación de Impacto CARE / IEP

Fuente de Ingreso

Comparación con Grupo de

ControlComparación con el PANEL

• 64% decrease in poverty incidence from 81% to 29% during the past 5 years (51% difference).

• The percentage of people able to make savings is significantly larger in the treatment group (27.8%) than in the control group (7.5%)

• The % of people reporting that they are living well or very well is significantly higher in the treatment group (32.4% vs. 16.7%)

Main Results (continues)

Most important tool and most relevant impact

alimentación balanceada para el ganado

tecnología de manejo del ganado

creación de los patapoyo a la comercialización directa y conjunta

apoyo a la asociatividad entre productoresacceso al crédito

asociatividad entre productores

cursos

11.

52

seve

ridad

0 .5 1incidencia

Todos los BeneficiariosHerramienta más importante

aumento el ingreso de su familia

generó más trabajo para su familia

ya no tiene que irse fuera de casa para trabajar

se siente con más confianza

está más feliz en general

ahora puede ahorrar algo para la familia (los hijos)

ya no tiene miedo a invertirotros

11.

52

seve

ridad

0 .5 1incidencia

Todos los BeneficiariosImpacto más importante

Men and Women most important changes

Women Important changes

1. New skills, education for the children

2. Better family relationships

3. More participation in public spaces

1. Better economic conditions

2. New knowledge3. Giving value to the

cattle raising

Source: Focal groups CARE / IEP

Place

Huayrapata

Huancané

Men important chenges

1. New learning, education for the children

2. More equality within the family

3. More leadership in the community

1. New incomes generation2. New knowledge3. Overcoming poverty

What is power?• How do you define having power? (examples of answers and

perceptions obtained during the evaluation)

• Examples from women: ”She is somebody very clever, well trained. It is good that she has power in order to care for her community, in order for the other women to be well as well (…) They respect her at home, treated by her husband as an equal”

• Examples from men: in the case of man power is mainly related to having formal power, to be in a power position. A man with power is somebody “who knows how to lead, who is or has been municipal authority or mayor or manager”. Beyond this, somebody who is in a dominant power position at home. Some of them mention that “there is always a chief of the family”, they are the persons who traditionally hold that position and need to do it well.

Women and men empowerment – differences in perceptions

• Empowerment for men: more power inside the community

• Empowerment for women: more autonomy and decision power

Other benefits linked to the project

• Better use of technology in agriculture improving productivity and quality

• Through the associations, access to tractors and other machines

• Benefit of associations, formalized associations

Elements of happiness for women

• More autonomy in the cattle activity

• Participation in commercialization, questioning the gender division of Labour

• Refusal of macho attitudes of men who do not value their role in the family

• New knowledge, skills

• Capacity of managing part or the totality of new incomes gives more autonomy

Elements of happiness for men

• Improvement in the economic results from cattle raising

• Improvement in the results from the direct commercialization

• Interacting with urban markets in Lima and Arequipa

• Exchanges of experiences in other countries (Chile and Guatemala)

Suggestions from CARE Peru for future impact evaluations

• Clearly define the objectives: what we want to measure• Importance of the reflexions and learning process

generated by the evaluation. It is a tool and not an end in itself

• Use of rigorous processes and recognized methodologies at national and international level, partnership with well respected research institutions.

• Think about the responsibility that we have in scaling up models that work rather than risky or failing models as this involve the lives of many people

• Need to follow up with the institutions responsible for scaling up the successful models in order to be properly implemented. The document is not sufficient in itself