And Ready to Help. Potential Implications for Food or Cash- based interventions. Emergency Preparedness Mission Nepal.

Transcription

1 Livelihood and Gender Aspects Potential Implications for Food or Cash- based interventions

2 Outline Gender roles and priorities Daily chores of men and women Gender variations in household decision making and control in spending Spending priorities of men and women Access to and use of markets February and tools2011 Gendered access and utilisation of markets Gendered access and utilisation of financial services and e-technology Additional aspects for programming considerations: Potection Protection and Perceptions Traditional safety nets, including debt Community experience with and challenges of various forms of assistance

3 The Livelihood Zones covered

4 Main features of livelihood zones Low population density, increasingly sedentary (75-100% in most areas); 12 person/km 2; 18 % in urban areas Climatic conditions: high temperatures, bimodal, erratic & unreliable rains Dominant economic activities: Mainly livestock production, casual labour, trade, artisanal production February Threats: 2011 Droughts, floods, cattle rustling, inter border/clan conflicts Vulnerabilities: Price fluctuations (poverty and market dependence), negative coping mechanisms (charcoal burning, firewood cutting), sale of productive assets

5

6 Household Typology by livelihood zone 60,0 Household typology 50,0 Pe ercent 40,0 30,0 20,0 10,00 Grassland North Eastern Northern North Western Western 0,0 Polygamous Monogamous Female headed (widows, Female headed (single) divorced) Household types Orphans

7 Rank Daily chores - men Grassland North Eastern Northern North Western 15 Western Business / Farming Casual Charcoal Livestock Mining / Fetching Wazee petty trade and fishing labour burning rearing quarrying water Baraza and /shops leisure Chores

8 Daily chores - women 50 And 45 Ready to Help Emergency 5 Preparedness Mission Nepal February Grassland North Eastern Northern North Western Western market Business / petty trade / sho hops Farming and fish shing Casual lab abour Charcoal burn rning Livestock rea aring Making and selling clothes / handicrafts Collection and sale of natural produc ucts Fetching water Fetching firew wood Household cho hores Going to ma Chores Family related chores Rank

9 Main conclusions Men use their time on fewer activities (mainly casual labour, livestock rearing, and charcoal burning) and hardly any activities related to household and family needs. Men dedicate a not insignificant amount of their time to wazee baraza and leisure activities. Household-related chores take up much of women s Emergency time, the relative Preparedness time they spend Mission Nepal income February generation 2011is lower. Women do not have leisure time. For communication with men, the wazee bazara are an established structure that can be used. For communication with women, such structures or groups have to be organised.

10 Gender variations in decision making Ranked respo onses 100,0 80,0 60,0 40,0 20,0 0,0 Grassland Other NFIs; 3% Other NFIs; 2% Decision-making: How money is spent Women Men HHs expenditure for Non Ben HHs in arid areas (Dec 2012) North Eastern Northern Livelihood zone North Western Western Salt/spices; 1% Vegetables; 2% Tea leaves; 2% Pulses; 6% Education; 6% February Clothing; % Drugs/medical; 3% Loan repayments; 3% Soap/detergents; 2% Travel/Communacation; 2% Cooking fuel; 2% Farming/herding labor; Veterinary 2% services; 2% Water; 1% Milling; 1% Livestock/farm assets; 1% Oils/fats; 7% Food Cereals; 26% 70% Sugar; 17% Animal products; 8% Other food items; 1%

11 Gender variations in decision making Ranked respon nses 120,0 100,0 80,0 60,0 40,0 20,0 00 0,0 Grassland Decision making: What food to purchase North Eastern Northern Livelihood zones North Western Western Emergency Decision-making: Preparedness Who goes Mission to the market Nepal Ranked respon nses 120,0 100,0 80,0 60,0 40,0 20,0 00 0,0 Grassland North Eastern Northern Livelihood zones North Western Western Women Men Women Men

12 Gender variations in decision making Ranked respo onses 100,0 80,0 60,0 40,0 20,0 0,0 Grassland Decision-making: Education of children North Eastern Northern Livelihood zones North Western Western Emergency Decision-making: Preparedness Health seeking Mission for childrennepal Ranked respon nses 120,0 100,0 80,0 60,0 40,0 20,0 0,0 Grassland North Eastern Northern Livelihood zones North Western Western Women Men Women Men

13 Gender variations in decision making Ranked respo onses 100,0 80,0 60,0 40,0 20,0 0,0 Grassland Decision-making: Start a Business North Eastern Northern Livelihood zones North Western Western Decision-making: Purchase of assets Ranked respo onses 100,0 80,0 60,0 40,0 20,0 0,0 Grassland North Eastern Northern Livelihood zones North Western Western Women Men Women Men

14 Main Conclusions Many decisions are taken jointly by men and women. While in case of doubt men are more in charge of macro -decisions i (e.g. concerning larger amounts of money), households as a whole dedicate 70% of income to food. February Concerning 2011 the daily use of money, women are used to take independent d decisions. i Women are increasingly independent, e.g. when Women are increasingly independent, e.g. when deciding if to start a business.

15 out iraa tain friends / go ou Spending priorities of men and women How would cash be spent: all livelihood zones 60 Food Cloth thes Educati ation Hea ealth Household item ems Livesto tock Capital for busines ess Repay debt Alcohol / mir Enterta Women Men Spending items Priorities

16 Spending priorities of men and women Spending priorities of present income - all livelihood zones s Ranked prioritie Food Clothes Education Health Household Livestock Capital for Repay debt Alcohol / Entertaining items business miraa friends / go out to eat Women Men Spending items

17 Main Conclusions Women s priorities for spending potential cash assistance are focused on basic family needs, including in particular food, clothes, education and health. Men pursue the same priorities, but to a lesser degree; they also prioritise in particular purchase of livestock and not least personal pleasures including alcohol, miraa, eating out, or luxury items. February This pattern 2011 of different spending priorities between men and women is confirmed by how present income is actually spent. The probability that cash assistance is actually spent on food or other basic family needs is higher, when the transfer is received and used by women.

18 Access to and use of markets and technology Women are in charge of purchasing for household needs on markets frequency between daily and weekly; - distances between 0 30 km Women have access to more forms of informal credit (ROSCAs, IG-groups, traders)than men. Few beneficiaries use formal financial services. Requirement of national ID is limiting women s access more than men s this is less an issue in Western agro-pastoral livelhood zones. M bil h d d d b b th d Mobile phones are owned and used by both men and women for communication and money transfers. Less than 50% of beneficiaries own phones.

19 Main Conclusions Women would be the natural recipients of cash for food or food voucher transfers, as they are normally in charge of purchasing items for family needs on markets. Women normally access markets as far away ay as 30 km from their home double the maximum distance for food distributions (smaller quantities to transport). Emergency Transfers involving Preparedness formal bank Mission accounts Nepal may limit access February for 2011 women, if requirement of a national ID cannot be accommodated or replaced by other identification. Women have equal access to transfers through mobile phones.

20 Additional information with relevance for the discussion of programming g options

21 Traditional safety nets Access to regular cash transfers increases a person s access to credit e.g. with traders There is stronger jealousy of non-beneficiaries if cash is provided reduced readiness to support. Conclusion: Replacing in-kind food assistance with cash transfers can mean both advantages and disadvantages for beneficiaries in terms of access to traditional safety nets.

22 Challenges with in-kind food assistance Reported challenges with food assistance Number of focus grou ups Emergency 10 Preparedness Mission Nepal 5 0 Long distances - Time spent Long distances - High transport costs Disruption of daily chores Work load (Heavy burden to transport) Insecurity (wild animals, robbers) Dilution of rations (sharing) Time spent waiting in queues at distribution Aspects

23 Beneficiary perceptions on cash- or voucher transfers 30 Perceptions on cash and vouchers Numb er of foc us group s February Exclusion from traditional Reduced sharing Conflict on the use of cash Tensions / jealousy No negative effects Enhanced mutual / credit safety nets relationship -10 Aspects Reduced dependency Strengthened social networks

24 Main conclusions related And to food Ready reception. to Help Beneficaires report considerable challenges and costs From a household h perspective, about half of the interviewed focus groups would not expect negative effects of replacing in-kind food provisions with cash or vouchers. Some groups fear increased tensions (domestic) and jealousy Emergency of non-beneficiaries. Preparedness Mission Nepal Cash transfers would lead to reduced sharing this is perceived as both positive and negative. Equal shares of focus groups fear exclusion from traditional safety nets and hope for strengthened social networks as a result of cash.