Citation
Gender sensitive evaluation of the Goat Value Chain of the Lowveld of Swaziland

Material Information

Title:
Gender sensitive evaluation of the Goat Value Chain of the Lowveld of Swaziland
Creator:
Rodriguez, Estefania ( author )
Language:
English
Physical Description:
1 online resource (46 pages) : illustrations ;

Subjects

Subjects / Keywords:
Sustainable Development Practice field practicum report, M.D.P
Genre:
government publication (state, provincial, terriorial, dependent) ( marcgt )
bibliography ( marcgt )
theses ( marcgt )
non-fiction ( marcgt )

Notes

Abstract:
The role that women play in the livestock sector in Swaziland is not well researched. Swaziland Water and Agricultural Development Enterprise (SWADE) is interested in understanding women's livelihoods with respect to livestock, specifically goats. The purpose of this project is to evaluate the potential for commercializing goat production using a gender-focused value chain approach and provide the results to SWADE. In order to determine the usefulness of implementing development initiatives into the sector, including the inclusion of goats in an abattoir, it is important to first understand the goat value chain and the role of men, women and children in this chain. This study found that there is room for women's roles in the sector to increase and supporting this growth would help the sector as a whole move forward. Additionally, there is a demand for goat meat in Swaziland that is not being met. The introduction of goats into an abattoir would be an effective way to meet this demand.
Bibliography:
Includes bibliographical references.
General Note:
The MDP Program is administered jointly by the Center for Latin American Studies and the Center for African Studies.
Statement of Responsibility:
by Estefania Rodriguez.

Record Information

Source Institution:
University of Florida
Rights Management:
All applicable rights reserved by the source institution and holding location.
Resource Identifier:
036257161 ( ALEPH )
Classification:
LD1780.1 2018 ( lcc )

UFDC Membership

Aggregations:
University of Florida Institutional Repository

Downloads

This item is only available as the following downloads:


Full Text

PAGE 1

! "#$%#&!'#$()*)+#!,+-./-*)0$!01!*2#!"0-*! 3-./#!42-)$!)$!*2#!506+#.%!01!'6-7).-$% ,(*#1-$)-!80%&)9/#7 #&0%&97:;9<-).=>0< ?!@A,5B!C8?4DA4EF!8,CG8D!'EHFADD,B!AI!C?8DA?5!@E5@A55F,ID!G@!DJ,!8,KEA8,F,ID'! @G8!?!F?'D,8!G@!'E'D?AI?H5,!B,3,5GCF,ID!C8?4DA4,! B,"8,,!?D!DJ,!EIA3,8'ADL!G@! @5G8AB? '/M#&+)(0&N!40<<)**##O B&=!'-$%&-!8/((0P!42-)& B&=!8#$-*-!'#&&-P!F#
PAGE 2

" #! C-9# Table of Contents Acknowledgements ................................ ................................ ................................ ......................... 2 List of Tables ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ .. 3 Acronym s ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ ........ 3 Abstract ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ ........... 3 Context and Background ................................ ................................ ................................ ................. 5 Swaziland ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ .... 5 The Goat Sector of Swaziland ................................ ................................ ................................ ..... 8 Gender ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ ......... 9 Gender and Livestock ................................ ................................ ................................ ................ 10 Gender and Value Chains ................................ ................................ ................................ .......... 11 Objectives ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ ..... 12 Conceptual Framework ................................ ................................ ................................ ................. 13 Methods ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ ......... 14 Surveys ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ ...... 14 Focus Groups ................................ ................................ ................................ ............................. 17 Key Informant Interviews ................................ ................................ ................................ ......... 18 Study Results ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ 19 Value Chain ................................ ................................ ................................ ............................... 19 Input Supply and Support Services ................................ ................................ ........................... 20 Farm Production ................................ ................................ ................................ ........................ 22 Marketing ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ .. 27 Discussion ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ ..... 30 Constraints and Opportunities ................................ ................................ ................................ ... 30 Conclusions ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ ... 31 Recommendations ................................ ................................ ................................ ......................... 32 References ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ ..... 34 Appendix 1 Individual Goat Owning Household Survey ................................ ............................. 37 Appendix 2 Focus Group Questionnaire ................................ ................................ ....................... 43 Appendix 3 Key Informant Questionnaire ................................ ................................ .................... 44

PAGE 3

$ #! C-9# Acknowledgements Deep gratitude and many thanks, especially to: My organizational hosts: Samson Sithole, David Rendall, Steven Wright, Fumani Ntuli, Maxwell Tfwala, Andiswa Lukhele, and Zwelthu Dlamini ; My committee chair: Dr. Sandra Russo; My committee members: Dr. Renata Serra and Dr. Muthusami Kumaran; My program director: Dr. Glenn Galloway; My program coordinator: Dr. Andy Noss; My family Self Reflection This field practicum was a wonderful way to put the theory of what we've learned in class into real practice. Beyond classroom lessons, this practicum taught me how to be flexible and adaptable, it taught me how to work with a variety of different people a nd most importantly it taught me how to step up and be a leader. Working with my organization and in Swaziland had its challenges but was overall a great experience. I am so appreciative that I got to work with and interview so many wonderful people.

PAGE 4

% #! C-9# List of Figures Figure 1. Map of Swaziland. ................................ ................................ ................................ ........... 5 Figure 2. Trends in Swaziland's HDI component indices. (UNDP, 2016). ................................ .... 6 Figure 3. Sample Area. ................................ ................................ ................................ ................. 15 Figure 4. LUSIP 1 Dip Tank Representation. ................................ ................................ ............... 16 Figure 5. Respondents Who Received Goat Production Training. ................................ ............... 21 Figure 6. Goat Ownership. ................................ ................................ ................................ ............ 22 Figure 7. Objective of Goat Ownership. ................................ ................................ ....................... 23 Figure 8. Responsibilities of Goat Production. ................................ ................................ ............. 25 Figure 9. Income Control. ................................ ................................ ................................ ............. 26 Figure 10. Income Use. ................................ ................................ ................................ ................. 27 Figure 11. Respondents Who Sold Goats in the Past 5 Years. ................................ ..................... 28 List of Tables Table 1 Livestock Numbers from 1997 2007, Swaziland. (AFTAR, 2011). ................................ 8 Table 2. Demographic information of household survey respondents, disaggregated by gender. 17 Table 3. List of Key Informants. ................................ ................................ ................................ ... 19 Acronyms DVLS Department of Veterinary and Livestock Services ILRI International Livestock Research Institute KDDP Komati Downstream Development Project LUSIP 1 Lower Usuthu Irrigation Project 1 LUSIP 2 Lower Usuthu Irrigation Project 2 SWADE Swaziland Water and Agricultural Development Enterpris e

PAGE 5

& #! C-9# Abstract The role that women play in the livestock sector in Swaziland is not well researched. Swaziland Water and Agricultural Development Enterprise (SWADE) is interested in understanding women's livelihoods with respect to livestock, specifically goats. The purpose of this project is t o evaluate the potential for commercializing goat production using a gender focused value chain approach and provide the results to SWADE. In order to determine the usefulness of implementing development initiatives into the sector, including the inclusion of goats in an abattoir, it is important to first understand the goat value chain and the role of men, women and children in this chain. This study found that there is room for women's roles in the sector to increase and supporting this growth would help the sector as a whole move forward. Additionally, there is a demand for goat meat in Swaziland that is not being met. The introduction of goats into an abattoir would be an effective way to meet t his demand

PAGE 6

' #! C-9# Context and Background Swaziland The Kingdom of Swaziland ( Swaziland ) is a landlocked country in Southern Africa located between Mozambique and South Africa. The country covers an area of 17,364 square miles, which amounts to slightly less than the si ze of New Jersey and makes it one of the smallest countries on the continent of Africa. Swaziland has a population of 1,451,428 people as of 2017 (CIA, 2017) The population growth rate of the country is 1.1% per year. Swaziland ha s a young population, with 35.5% of the population being under the age of 14 and 22.19% of the population between the ages of 15 24 years. The official governmental language of t he country is English (CIA, 2017 ). Swaziland has four administrative district s : Hhohho, Lubombo, Manzini, and Shiselweni. The administrative capital of the country is Mbabane while the royal and legislative capital is Lobamba. The country is governed by an absolute monarchy. The current king of Swaziland is King MSWATI III (CIA, 20 17). Swaziland is surrounded by South Africa except for a small b order it shares with Mozambique; because of this the country depends heavily on South Africa for it s exports (60%) and its imports (90%). Swaziland's currency is the Swazi lilangeni and it is pegged to the South African rand. With a gross domestic product (GDP) per capita of about $3,000, Swaziland is classified as a lower middle income country (World Bank, 2017) Swaziland's economic growth has been slowing since 2013 due to continued droug ht in the country and difficult external factors, including low foreign investment. Income inequality is high within the country. Figure 1 Map of Swaziland.

PAGE 7

( #! C-9# Swaziland has a Gini coefficient of 49.5 (World Bank, 2017). An estimated 20% of the population controls 80% of the nation's w ealth (CIA, 2017). Additionally, t he estimated unemployment rate in Swaziland is high at 40% but such figures are not shown to be very accurate (CIA, 2017 ). The Human Development Index (HDI) measures three dimensions of human development including a long and healthy life, access to knowledge and a decent standard of living. Swaziland's HDI value for the year 2015 was 0.541 (UNDP, 2016). This puts Swaziland in the low human development category with a ranking of 148 out of 188 countries (UNDP, 2016). Figure 2 shows the contribution of each component (life expectancy, education, GNI per capita) to Swaziland's HDI from the years 1990 2015. Figure 2 Trends in Swaziland's HDI component indices. (UNDP, 2016). The low life expectancy contribution can be attributed to the country's high rates of HIV/AIDS. Swaziland suffers from one the world's highest HIV/AIDS prevalence rates ; 28.8% of the adult population in Swaziland lives with HIV/AIDS (AVERT, 2016). Within the

PAGE 8

) #! C-9# population, 31% of all women are living with HIV/AIDS compared to 20% of men making women disproportionately affected by the epidemic (AVERT, 2016). According to the Central Intelligence Agency ( CIA ) website A weak and deteriorating economy, high unemployment, rapid population growth, and an uneven distribution of resources all combine to worsen already persistent poverty and food insecu rity, especially in rural area s (CIA, 2017). The HIV epidemic has impacted the average life expectancy of the country which is currently at an estimated 51.6 years (CIA, 2017). The mean years of schooling in Swaziland is 6.8 years, with that for females at 6.4 years and males at 7. 2 years (UNDP, 2016). The adult literacy rate is at 87.5%, with no significant differen ce between men and women (CIA, 2017). Swaziland is far from reaching the Education for All Goals" which is a global commitment to provide basic education for all childr en, youth and adults. The movement was launched by UNESCO, UNDP, UNICEF, and the World Bank. Poverty in the country has led to decreased demand for education as households cannot afford to send children to school The HIV/AIDS pandemic negatively impacts th e demand for education. Additionally, the average distance between schools and households is very long in rural areas and there is also a lack of teacher s in the country (World Bank, 2006). Swaziland is a predominantly rural country; the majority of the population (about 70%) rel ies on agriculture for their livelihoods. Agriculture accounts for 5.8% of Swaziland's GDP while industry accounts for 44.5%, an d services accounts for 49.7% (CIA, 2017). Swaziland's government has made efforts to increase investm ents in the country's agricultural sector, but these investments have produced limited results. The agricultural sector suffers from low productivity, food production not keeping up with population demand and rising food insecurity (World Bank, 2017).

PAGE 9

* #! C-9# Acc ording to a World Bank (2011) report, Swaziland's agriculture sector is highly dualistic; it encompasses a traditional subsector and a commercial subsector. This dualism reflects fundamental disparities in land ownership arrangements. The traditional subs ector is based on communal land tenure on Swazi Nation Land (SNL), and the commercial subsector is based on Title Deed Land (TDL). SNL, which occupies 60 percent of the country's land area, is largely used for subsistence farming, while TDL which occupies the remaining 40 percent, is used mainly for commercial agriculture, characterized by relatively high capital intensive cash crop production (mostly sugar cane and citrus), irrigation, and corporate ownership ." The Goat Sector of Swaziland A large percent age of households in Swaziland own s livestock (CIA, 2017 ) They play an important economic and cultural role in the country. Table 1 shows that the number of livestock in the country according to a 2015 census conducted by the DVLS About 20% of the country's agricultural GDP can be attributed to livestock (CIA, 2017). This contribution is made up mostly by cattle with a small percentage contributed by poultry. A lthough goats do not contribute officially to the country's export/import economy, they do contribute to the nutrition and cash needs of rural households. Table 1 Livestock Numbers from 2015 Census, Swaziland. (DVLS, 2015). Among the majority of the rural population, the goat stands out as the most popular small ruminant. The y play a vital role in social, cultural and economic activities amongst goat owners Goats are sold to generate needed cash income for a family includin g school fee s, buying clothes

PAGE 10

+ #! C-9# and purchasing food (Lebbie, 198 7 ). Goats are well suited for Swaziland's climate because of their adaptability, prolificacy and modest nutrient requ irements (Lebbie & Mastapha, n.d ). However, despite their popularity, goats and small ruminants in general have made little contribution to th e export earning s of the country Lebbie (198 7 ) found that very little attention has been given to small ruminant development at the national level. Diversifying the livestock industry is imperative in a country like Swaziland that experience s persistent d roughts. Goat's ability to tolerate dietary restrictions that may arise during a drought make s them an excellent fit for Swaziland's climatic systems. Additionally, goats have the advantage of being able to reproduce quickly, about twice per year. Each birth has the potential of producing twin s or even triples (Lebbie & Mastapha, n.d ). The impressive fertility of goats ensures that goats herds can survive even if neglected by their owner. Gender According to the International Livestock Research Institute (2013), Gender refers to the socially constructed roles, responsibilities and status of women, men, girls and boys Gender is thus not about women, but about the relationship between women and men In addition, gender relations, roles, responsib ilities and the status of women change over time, sometimes to women's advantage. Swaziland was ranked 137 out of 188 countries in the 201 6 UNDP's Gender Inequality Index. In comparison, Swaziland's bordering country of South Africa ranked 90 out of 188 c ountries for the same index. The Index measures inequality between men and women in three areas: reproductive health, empowerment, and the labo r market (UNDP, 2016). As far as political participation, women in Swaziland occupy 14.7% of the share of seats in parliament, compared to South Africa where women occupy 41.2% of the seats in parliament (UNDP, 2016). In Swaziland, women and girls do not have legal protection f rom rape

PAGE 11

", #! C-9# committed by their husbands. Additionally, there are no laws criminalizing domestic violence, forced marriage, or early marriage. Married women are denied legal status as adults meaning that they cannot buy or sell property or land or sign legal c ontracts without their husband's consent. Husbands often control household resources (Amnesty Int., 2010). Gender and Livestock As there is little information on the role women play in Swaziland's agricultural sector, this section focuses on general trend s found in the literature pertaining to Africa. The livestock sector in general has great economic potential as it is a source of wealth accumulation and income and provides food security. This sector is an important place to promote gender equality for mu ltiple reasons. First, all household members are involved in livestock production, with women providing much of the work. Second, livestock products are produced throughout the year with no restrictions based on season. Third, livestock production systems have a high opportunity to introduce gender based projects (IFAD, 2010). Despite women being an important source of labor in the agricultural sector, their contributions seem to be undervalued and they are often excluded from discourse related to livestoc k sector improvements. If women were given the same resources and opportunities as their male counterparts, agricultural productivity would increase by 30% and the number of people living in poverty would decrease by 17% (FAO, 2011) This is in no small part due to the fact that women are more likely than men to spend their income on family and community (FAO, 2011). There is a gender gap in agriculture, and especially in the livestock sector, where women generally have access to fewer resources and oppor tunities than their male counterparts. According to the literature ( ILRI, 2010) the barriers to productive participation in the livestock

PAGE 12

"" #! C-9# sector that women face can be broken into three major problems. First, women lack access to capital as well as other productive inputs such as land, equipment, credit etc. which constrains their economic empowerment. Second, they have limited control over income generating activities, as often women are not in control of the sale of livestock products or the financial g ains from sales. Third, projects such as agricultural extension often indirectly exclude women, which limits their access to information. Gender and Value Chains A value chain can be defined as all activities that are needed to bring a product or service from conception up through the different phases of production and delivery to final consumers. A value chain analysis is the process of documenting and analyzing t he operation of a value chain, which includes mapping chain actors and identifying value added along the chain. Gender is an important aspect of value chain analysis. Analyzing the barriers to entry and opportunities presented by a value chain can lead to understanding value chain interventions that lead to an income or equity focused outcome for women. An International Livestock Research Institute Report (ILRI), stated that, "i n relation to women and value chains, empowerment is about changing gender relat ions to enhance women's ability to shape their lives. It is about addressing the inequalities that women face as they participate in value chain activities with the goal of increasing their visibility, voice and choice. From an empowerment perspective, dif ferences in how women and men are involved in (and benefit from) value chains are not by definition a problem, because differences in preferences have to be distinguished from denials of choic e (ILRI, 2007)." While customs and norms between countries var y, traditionally women are in charge of both reproductive and productive roles which means that they have limited time and mobility,

PAGE 13

"$ #! C-9# thus they tend to participate in value chain activities that are close to the household. Men on the other hand, often par ticipate in value chain activities away from the household which can often be more profitable. According to the same ILRI report," The nodes in which men and women actors tend to occupy vary. Men tend to dominate functions with relatively high barriers to entry and correspondingly greater returns, and to control chain management functions while wom en occupy the lower nodes due to lack of adequate income, limited skills, limited access to education and training, limited access to markets and market informat ion. Disproportionate representation of women in low value value chains and the lower nodes within these chains is an established reality of value chains (ILRI, 2007) Gender relations are an important aspect of value chain analysis as they are affected a nd affect the functions of value chains. A study done in Matsanjeni Swaziland that examined the socioeconomic constraints of goat farming found that women owned smaller livestock like goats and chickens while men, in a larger percentage, owned large r lives tock such as cattle (Singwane & Salam, 2007 ). Objectives Below are the three main objectives of this study; Generate information about the current goat value chain in the Lowveld of Swaziland to identify areas of opportunities and constraints along the value chain Provide a gender sensitive analysis of the goat value chain in order to identify each actor's role in the vale chain and how they are impacted by the value chain and to use this inform ation to identify the possible effectiveness of an abattoir that includes goats in commercializing the goat sector Propose recommendations to improve the f unctioning of the goat market between communities and within supply chains in order to improve the potential that comes from goat raising in the Lowveld of Swaziland

PAGE 14

"% #! C-9# Conceptual Framework The conceptual framework above shows the goat value chain in Swaziland that uses a gendered lens especially as it pertains to the Lowveld of Swaziland. The goat value chain starts with input suppliers such at veterinary suppliers, NGOs and government agencies that provide technical skills, supplies and assistance which help support small scale goat producers. These small scale producers either sell their goat s f or local consumption, keep them for their own consumption or sell the goat(s) to a butchery for informal slaughter. This value chain can be broken into three sections based on value chain actor s including 1.) input suppliers, 2.) producers and 3.) market traders Within these three sections, gendered aspects of the value chain need to be considered. These aspects are shown in blue on the right side of the framework The arrows connecting the goat value chain and gendered aspects include the methodology for this practicum which will provide data to construct and populate the value

PAGE 15

"& #! C-9# chain model It is hoped that a n understanding of the goat value chain will aid in the identification of opportunities to enhance food s ecurity, augment income and improve nutrition w hile understanding the gendered aspects can lead to greater income control by women expanded opportunity to introduce gender based projects, and increased productivity. Methods As previously highlighted, understanding the goat value chain and the role each actor plays in the chain is crucial before any programs can be implemented to expand the sector. Although previous research has been conducted on certain aspects of the goat value chain, especially the socio economic importance of goat raisin g in Swaziland, none have included the disaggregation of gender as a factor. As such, the primary research question for this study was, "Is t here room for commercialization of the goat value chain in the Lowveld of Swaziland given the current role men, wom en and children play in the chain?" To answer this question, a thorough analysis of the current value chain was conducted to ensure programs focused on commercializing the sector, would not exclude or create barriers for certain groups. A mixed methods app roach was used to collect both qualitative and quantitative information. This included surveys, focus groups and key informant interviews highlighted below. All of the methodology instruments used were approved by the University of Florida's Internal Review Board. Surveys A n individual survey was prepared before arrival in Swaziland. The survey was created using surveys developed by the International Livestoc k Research Institute and the n adapted to fit the goals of this project. The preliminary survey was piloted in the first two weeks of arrival in Swaziland. The pilot survey provided the opportunity to test for challenges in wording and/or timing. It also provided the opportunity for the survey to be more specifically tailored to

PAGE 16

"' #! C-9# Swaziland 's goat sector The survey used for this study can be found in Appendix 1. The surveys were administered to goat owning farmers and w ere not limited to the head of household. The surveys were conducted in 4 areas in the Lowveld of Swaziland including LUSIP 1, LUSIP 2, Hlane and KDDP. This was done in order to have representative sample of the Lowveld. In LUSIP 1, 77 surveys were conducted, 32 were conducted in LUSIP 2, 14 were conducted in Hlane and 14 were conducted in KDDP for a total of 137 surveys. A visual representation of the sample are a for this stud y can be found in Figure 3 Figure 3 Sample Area. Surveys were also conducted, as much as possible, at dip tanks where livestock owners and managers brought animals for dipping. The number of far mers for each dip tank was provided by the Ministry of Agriculture, when possible, as well as the number of kra als an d the number of goats in each dip tank. Below is a map of the dip tanks present in LUSIP 1 developed with the help of SWADE using data given by the Ministry of Agriculture -./01!"! '(2! -./01!$! $&2! 34567! ",2! 8991! ",2! !/:;1-
PAGE 17

"( #! C-9# Figure 4 LUSIP 1 Dip Tank Representation. Between weeks 3 and 7 of the study 137 surveys were conducted at various sites Survey participants were found by going to homestead individually or by attending events in which several farmers were present such as meetings or dip tank days. In some cases we had the help of a livestock officer or veterinary assistant which made the process faster as they knew where farmers would be. The surveys were written in English and translated verbally. Two translators were used throughout the project. Since the surveys were written in English it was important to limit the number of translators to avoid any differences in translations that might affect the consistency of the data.

PAGE 18

") #! C-9# No preference was given for the gender of the participants to avoid surveyor bias, hence participants were selected by availability of household members. 72 of respondents were women while 65 were men. The mean age of survey respondents was 48.5 with a minimum age of 22 and a maximum age of 78. Educati on levels varied by gender The marital status of each participant was also surveyed, with most respondent s being married. The demographic information for all survey respondents, disaggregated by gender can be found below in Table 2. Focus Groups The purpose of the focus groups was to fill in any gaps in information from the surveys as well as to clarify any possible misunderstandings. Focus groups questions were prepared using a toolkit developed by ILRI and adapted to fit the context of th e study. The questionnaire used as a base for the focus groups can be found in Appendix 2, Focus groups were conducted out in the field and participants were gathered using the health of veterinary assistants and SWADE employees who had knowledge of the ar ea and people. One focus group was conducted in Hlane with farmers who did not own goats The purpose of this focus group was to identify barriers to entry in the goat value chain. Six women =7>?@6A76B> :C7!DE75F>G I0$# C&)<-&N! '>200. J)92! (>200.! @/&*2#&! ,%/>-*)0$ F-&&)#% S)%06#% B)+0&>#% '#M-&-*#% ')$9.# L76A7F $ T F#-$ F)$! F-U $ VTW $VTW $VTW $VTW $VTW $VTW $VTW $VTW $VTW F#$ XY Z[ Y\ ]] [^ _\ V_YW _`!V]`W :Y!VYZW _!V]W Y\!V[[W [!V__W ]!V:W \!V\W X!V`W S0<#$ [] Y: Z[ ]] [X _^ V]YW :\!VZ]W ]Z!V::W \!V\W Z]!VY^W _[!V]ZW _!V_W ]!V:W _\ V_ZW M@B54 "%) ",, &*N' $$ )* $* D$,G &+!D%(G '+!D&%G "!D"G +$!D()G $&!D"*G %!D$G $!D"G "( D"$G Table 2 Demographic information of household survey respondents, disaggregated by gender

PAGE 19

"* #! C-9# participated in this focus group. A focus group was also condu c ted in Sekuyakhona Ngoni with six women whose household owned goats. One cons traint to the study is the number of focus groups conducted If given more time, more focus groups would have been conducted as it seemed that the women were more willing to part icipate in a group setting and they were able to bounce ideas off of each other. This led to more detailed responses to questions. Key Informant Interviews The purpose of the key informant interviews was to gain a better understanding of the other aspects of the value chain including input supply, demand, and marketing. Key informant interviews were conducted using a semi structured format with a key informant questionnaire develop ed by ILRI used as a guide, which can be found in Appendix 3 Key informants were chosen using information gathered from the surveys as well as guidance from SWADE. Key informants int erviewed can be found in Table 3 below. S0&a#&(!-*!]!)$M/*!(/MM.N!1->).)*)#(!V'?'!-$%!R2/Q-!D&-%#&(W ?$)<-.!J/(Q-$%&N!G11)>#&!-*!*2#!FG?! '6-7).-$% 8#%!F#-*!8#(#-&>2!,UM#&* "0-*!H/N#& C&01#((0&!)$!?$)<-.!'>)#$>#(!B#M-&*<#$*!-*!*2#!E$)+#&()*N!01!'6-7).-$% ]!1-&<#&(!)$*#&#(*#%!-$%!<0+)$9!*06-&%(!>0<<#&>)-.!90-*!M&0%/>*)0$ 5)+#(*0>a!,>0$0<)(*!-*!*2#!FG?!'6-7).-$%

PAGE 20

"+ #! C-9# Table 3 List of Key I nformants Study Results Value Chain ;5FO7B 1F@AHIBJ@6 06?HB!/H??4E <65P4J6C!<6KJF@6Q76B "#$#*)>!C0*#$*)-.!01!50>-.!?$)<-.(P!,>0$0<)>b!4/.*/&-.!80.#(!V20/(#20.%!-$%!>0<*/&#P!5#9-.! @&-<#60&a(P!A$(*)*/*)0$-.!'/MM0&*P! J0/(#20.%! 40$(/
PAGE 21

$, #! C-9# Above is a map of the value chain of the Lowveld of Swaziland. In the bottom, in grey, is the enabling environment. Above that is the input supply portion of the map which includes veterinary assistance, veterinary supplies and technical skills. Next, is the production portion that includes small scale producers. The top portion of the value chain includes the market portion. As the chain shows, 56% of producers surve yed used their goats for their own consumption wheareas 44% of respondents participated in the goat market. Of the 44% who participated, 41% sold to local consumers including neighbors and 3% sold to butcheries and restaurants. Below is a more comprehensiv e explanation of each value chain segment. Input Supply and Support Services One major input of goat production was found to be veterinary supplies. Farmers receive veterinary support thro ugh the Ministry of Agriculture's veterinary assistants. Of all th e farmers interviewed, 10% had not used veterinary supplies on their goats at the time of the study. This number includes farmers who had just started a herd and had not yet used veterinary su pplies but might in the future. Supplies used by the goat farme rs surveyed came from three major warehouses ; Khuba Traders, S waziland Agricultural Supplies (SAS) and PLACEHOLDER 98% of farmers who used veterinary supplies stated that they received veterinary supplies for their goats at one of these three warehouses. A key informant interview with an employee at SAS confirmed the fact that because there is a lack of veterinarians, farmers go to these warehouses for veterinary advice and to buy any medicine they may need and then go home and perform certain veterinary practices themselves. The average amount spent on veterinary supplies was found to be 454 Emalangeni or $20.80 per year

PAGE 22

$" #! C-9# Others responded that if they used veterinary supplies they obtained them by trading or buying from neighbors or family A focus group interview found that the major constraint to medication was cost. When faced with this constraint, households would let the goats pass and/ or ask for help from neighbors. Another input of goat production studied was feed. Most respondent's goats were fe d by browsing on natural shrubs with the occasional maize supp lemented into their diet. Only four respondents or 3% stated that they purchased animal feed specifically for their goats. Farmers were asked if they had received any kind of training on goat production. Of the men surveyed, 11% had received some sort of training that involved goat production while 6% of women had received training (see Figure 5 ) Some sources of this training mentioned included, World Vision, SWADE and some respondents who had attended an agricultural vocational school. Figure 5 Respondents Who Received Goat Production T raining \! _\! ]\! :\! Z\! Y\! X\! [\! ^\! F#$! S0<#$! I/#)+#%!"0-*!C&0%/>c0$! D&-)$)$9! 8#>#)+#%!D&-)$)$9! B)%!$0*!8#>#)+#!D&-)$)$9!

PAGE 23

$$ #! C-9# Farm Production The Lowveld of Swaziland's goat sector is dominated by traditional production practices. The following are some characteristics of farm production in the region Goat Ownership An analysis of survey results found that goat ownership varied by gender where more than double the amount of men surveyed owned goats than women. G oat owners hip can be found in Figure 6 below. Goat ownership was self reported. It is important to note that children below the age of 19 were never listed as goat owners although several farmers mentioned that their children "owned goats". These were usually gifts from the father or mother to the children Famers took goat ownership to mean the person who owned the kraal and handled most of the decisions including when to buy and sell Figure 6 Goat Ownership. Surveyed farmers were asked what the main objective of keeping goats was for them. They were given four options selling, consumption, cultural purposes and other. Cultural purposes include rites, ceremon y and dowry purposes. Some gave more than one objective which is why the number of answers may be more than the number of respondents. It is ;76! (&2! R@Q76! $)2! S@BT! +2! L@5B!UV67F>TJ?!

PAGE 24

$% #! C-9# important to note that just because a farmer listed selling or consuming as an objective does not mean that they w ere actively selling or consuming. For example, some farmers were just star t ing to build their stock so had not yet sold any goats but had plans to in the near future and it was therefore an objective of goat ownership for them. Figure 7 below shows the differences in objectives of keeping goats for male goat owning farmers and female goat owning farmers As mentioned above, goat ownership is self reported. Selling and consumption were reported as the main reason s for keeping goats. It should be noted however that although many farmers mentioned that they ate goat meat, qualitative data confirmed that they only did so 1 3 times a year on special occasions. Figure 7 Objective of Goat Ownership. On average, respondents had been goat keepers for about 16 years. The ave rage goat herd size for a male goat farmer was 19, for a female goat farmer it was 15 and when both a male and female shared ownership of the goats, the average herd size was 20 \! _\! ]\! :\! Z\! Y\! X\! [\! ^\! `\! '#..)$9! 40$(/c+#!01!"0-*!G6$#&(2)M! F#$! S0<#$! H0*2!

PAGE 25

$& #! C-9# Ownership can be a misleadi ng term so it is therefore important to understand who in the household make s decisions regarding goats and who benefits from their production, as will be discussed in the following sections. Responsibilities Respondents surveyed were asked who was gener ally in charge of certain aspects of goat production. Identifying who in the household is responsible for each aspect of goat production is important to understand the concept of ownership as well as identify segments of production that could cause barrier s to entry. For the purposes of this study, five responsibilities were studied, they are listed below; 1.) Purchasing; who in the household is in charge of purchasing goats when necessary? 2.) Housing; who in the household is in charge of purchasing housing equipm ent as well as building housing for goats? 3.) Health; who in the household is in charge of keeping up with the goat's health, buying veterinary supplies and administering veterinary services? 4.) Watering/Grazing; who in the household is in charge of letting the goats out to eat and drink? 5.) Slaughtering; who in the household is in charge of slaughtering goats? It is important to note that responsibilities were self reported. Additionally, not every survey respondent participated in this question, if they didn't kno w or couldn't remember who in their household was responsible for what, this section was left blank. The results of this question are shown below in Figure 8 Men were reported to be overwhelmingly responsible for a majority of th e responsibilities related to goat production. Women participated more in watering/ grazing

PAGE 26

$' #! C-9# and purchasing of goats. Youth participated more in slaughtering and housing. The other category included hired help. Figure 8 Responsi bilities of Goat Production. Income Control and Use Respondents were asked who in the homestead was in charge of controlling the income from g oat sales. As shown in Figure 9 below, in 45% of cases men controlled the income from selling goats, women in 37% of cases, and 18% of cases occurred where both the woman and man were in charge of the income from selling goats. Data from focus groups found that women are willing and interested in increasing their involvemen t in the management of goats in order to increase their income. \! ]\! Z\! X\! ^\! _\\! _]\! _Z\! _X\! C/&>2-()$9! J0/()$9! J#-.*2!! S-*#&)$9b"&-7)$9! '.-/92*#&)$9! I/c0$! F#$! S0<#$! L0/*2!V\e_^W! ?%/.*!-$%!L0/*2!F)U#%!'#U! G*2#&!

PAGE 27

$( #! C-9# Figure 9 Income Control. A survey question also asked respondents what the income from selling goats was used for. The answers to this question were disaggregated by sex based on who was reported to be in charge of income from goat production, this can be found in Figure 10 below. Most of the income from goat production was used for food. When women were in charge of the income from goat production, more was spent on education and clothing. Both sexes spent evenly on housing. The other category includes inputs for agricultural production. ;76! &'2! R@Q76! %)2! S@BT! "*2! 06I@Q7!W@6BF@4!

PAGE 28

$) #! C-9# Figure 10 Income Use. Marketin g Respondents were asked if they had sold at leas t one goat in the past 5 years, 80 respondents or 58% of respondents answered yes. Figure 1 1 below shows the percentage of goat farmers who responded that yes they had sold a goat in the past 5 years, d isaggregated by gender of the farmer who owns the goats in the homestead. The figure shows that 60% of male goat farmers sold a goat in the past 5 years, 73% of female goat owners sold a goat in the past 5 years and in cases where both the male and female owned they goat, 59% had so ld a t leas t one goat in the past 5 years. \! Y! _\! _Y! ]\! ]Y! :\! @00%! ,%/>-c0$! J/<-$! J#-.*2! 4.0*2)$9! J0/()$9! G*2#&! I/0<#!E(#! F#$! S0<#$! H0*2!

PAGE 29

$* #! C-9# Figure 11 Respondents Who Sold Goats in the Past 5 Years. The average amount of goats sold for the respondents interviewed who had sold a goat in the last 5 years was 3.25 goats. The average amount of goat s sold when the goats belonged to male farmer was 4 per year when they belonged to a female farmer it was 2 per year and when they belonged to both a female and male farmer, an average of 2 goats were sold per year. This means that when a male was in charge of a goat herd double the number of goats were sold than when a female was involved in the ownership of a goat her d. This could be in part due to the difference s in goat herd size between male and female goat farmers shown in Figure 10 A survey question asked respondents how much they usually sold each of their goats for. On average, respondents who had sold a goat in the past 5 years sold their goats for 672 Emalangeni per head or $55.5 This differed between male owners and female owners. The average amount a goat was sold for when the goa ts belonged to male farmer was 709 Emalangeni when they belonged to a female farmer they were sold for 620 Emalangeni and when they belonged to both a female and male farmer, they were sold for of 672 Emalangeni. \! _\! ]\! :\! Z\! Y\! X\! [\! ^\! F#$! S0<#$!! H0*2! C#&>#$*-9#! 8#(M0$%#$*(!S20!'0.%!"0-*(!)$!*2#!C-(*!Y!L#-&(!!

PAGE 30

$+ #! C-9# This means that when a male was involved in the selling of a goat it usually sold for more. More research is needed to identify reasons for this disparity. In order to identify barriers to entering or taking full advantage of the goat market, respondents were asked for their reason for not selling goats, if they hadn't sold a goat in the past 5 years or their reason for no t selling even more goats, if they had sold a goat in the past 5 years. Respondents were given 5 options: 1. Cultural Purposes 2. Not enough goa ts in the herd, 3. No Market, 4. Market is too far and 5. Other The re sponses are shown in Table 4 below, disaggregated by sex. As shown in the table, when the responses of all respondents were taken together the main reason for not selling goats was option 2; not enough goats in the herd, which accounted for 59% of respondents. This was followed in order acco rding to percentage by option 5; other, option 3; no market, option 1; cultural purposes and option 4; market is too far. This order stayed the same when they data was disaggregated by sex. Table 4 Reasons for Not Selling Goats A focus group with women who did not own goats at the time of the study found that 67% of them believed that they gained no benefit from owning goats other than home consumption. The other 33% believed that owning goats created too much conflict because without adequate housing they would get into neighbor's yards and eat their crops. =75>@6>!X@F!Y@B!/744J6C!L@5B>! ! 6!D2G ! WH4BHF54! 1HF?@>7> $ Y@B!<6@HCT! L@5B>!J6!37FA % Y@!;5FO7B & ;5FO7B!J>! B@@!X5F UBT7F M@B54 ;76 Z!VXW Z\!VYZW `!V_]W \!V\W ]_!V]^W )& R@Q76 \!V \W ]Y!VX`W Z!V__W _!V:W X!V_[W %( S@BT _!V^W ^!VX]W ]!V_YW \!V\W ]!V_YW "% M@B54 '!D&G )%!D'+G "'!D"$G "!D"G $+!D$&G "$%

PAGE 31

%, #! C-9# Discussion The role of women in the agricultural sector, especially as keepers of small livestock such as goats, greatly increases food security by improving the health and li velihood of individual families. Goats are a valuable agricultural resource and provide food, fiber and income. The low investment costs of goats make them ideal for limited resource families. Goats readily forage on feed cuts, crop residues, food wastes and agricultural by products. The ability of goats to thrive in a wide variety of landscapes and the fact that they require a low investment and high p roduction potential makes them a good resource for women in the rural sector (Chen, Ketzis and Sinn, 1999). In order to fully take advantage of this resource, specifically in the Lowveld of Swaziland, it is important to understand the gender roles involved in goat production as well as constraints and opportunities prevalent along the chain. Constraints and Opportunities This study indicates that goat production has a high potential for development in the Lowveld of Swaziland. With any value chain, it is important to discuss the opportunities and constraints in order to improve on the chain and reduce any possible barriers to entry. Below is a discussion of the major constraints and opportunities found in the goat value chain i n Swaziland based on research, survey results and focus group discussion s. No formal market One of the largest constraints for the goat value chain was the absence of a formal market. Farmers stated that without a formal market they had trouble finding peo ple to sell to and even when they did, without a set price structure, prices were too negotiable. Dr. T.S. Sgwane, noted in a key informant interview that while the demand for goat is there, there is no formal market. The primary goal of selling goats for most farmers was to cover emergencies and household needs. However, a focus group discussion with women whose households were not

PAGE 32

%" #! C-9# currently selling goats found that women are willing and wanting to keep goats for business. The main constraint to entering t he goat value chain listed by the women was that they would not receive enough financial benefit because of the lack of market. Technical and Business Skills Farmers expressed an interest in learning more about goat production through training but very few had actually received this. A key informant interview with Dr. T. S. Sgwane, Head of the Animal Production and Health department of the University of Swazila nd confirmed this. Dr. Sgwane stat ed that farmers lack general management practices including hoof trimming, cleaning and best breeding practices. Gender Roles Goat production offers women an opportunity to contribute significantly to family food securi ty. In terms of goat production, this study found that women own goats at a bout half the rate that men do. Women were also in charge of less responsibilities related to goat production over all. It is noted however that even when a respondent listed the ma les in the household as in charge of a responsibility, that did not mean that the women did not participate in that responsibility. In terms of market participation when women owned goats they were more likely to sell those goats but received less money. More research will be needed to pin point the reason for this difference. Howev er, possible reasons include differences in goats' herd size and quality due to differences in training and resources. Conclusions This study found that while the interest among farmers to produce and sell more goats is there, organized marketing channels including services and facilities is lacking. For example, a traceability system to keep track of goats and decrease death is available for cattle but not for goats.

PAGE 33

%$ #! C-9# There are difference s in the roles men, women and children play in goat production in the Lowveld. Women and children tend to be involved in more day to day activities such as taking the goats out to water and graze w hile men tend to be involved in more sporadic income generating activities such as the slaughtering and selling of goats. What we see in Swaziland's goat value chain is women and children playing more of an active role in the production of goats while men take more of an active role in the marketing of goats. Women farmers expressed a desire to be more actively involved in the business of selling goats but felt that they lacked the training to do so effectively. Targeting women goat producers is impactful as women have expressed a desire to become m ore active in the chain and they already have access to goats. There is room for growth in the goat sector of Swaziland. Goats are the second most frequent livestock animal found in Swaziland, following cattle. However, the potential of goats has not been adequately explored thus reducing the economic contribution to farmers. Additionally, not enough research has been done on the role that gender plays in the sector. Recommendations SWADE can play a big role in strengthening the goat sector. Acknowledging and strengthening the expertise and contribution of women in the goat value chain is essential especially in the Lowveld of Swaziland where we see a n opportunity for women to become more involved in the chain Below are recommendations for SWADE based on this study's findings: Bridge the gap betw een goat buyer and goat seller A key informant interview with a cattle and goat buyer found that he was willing and able to buy 100 goats per month but

PAGE 34

%% #! C-9# was currently only purchasing 60 70 goats a month The deman d was there but the supply was lacking. The major constraint he listed was that far mers did not know he was buying goats. SWADE can be instrumental in helping to facilitate a connection between goat buyers and farmers who are willing to sell. Quality contr ol mechanisms should be put in place to ensure efficiency. Training activities that reach a wider population of the Lowveld would be beneficia l Farmers were interested in attending workshops but were e ither unaware of workshops going on or workshops were too far away for them to attend. Farmers should be informed on best management practices, including nutrition and controlled breeding Additionally, trainings should include business skills as many farmers expressed an interest in learning more about the goat market and how to better participate in it. Research on the goat sector and its potential should continue in the Lowveld of Swaziland A thorough documentation of the goat sector and how it changes including how gender roles change can better inform development initiatives. In conclusion s upporting the establishment of an abattoir that can accommodate goats as well as cattle is beneficial as long as the above recommendations are met in order to avoid barriers to increased opportunity and to ensure that the number of goats needed to keep the abattoir running is met A key informant interview with a red meat expert found that no goats are legally slaughtered by any currently registered abattoirs There is a demand for goat meat in Swaziland that is no t being met. Farmers are willing and wanting to sell. Additionally, they are willing to learn how to improve the quality of their goats. Introducing goats into an abattoir will move the goat sector forward and make it more productive, which is essential fo r providing both men and women with increased economic opportunity.

PAGE 35

%& #! C-9# References Agricultural and Rural Development Unit (AFTAR). (2011). The Livestock and Horticulture Value Chains in Swaziland: Challenges and Opportunities. World Bank. Averting HIV and AIDS (AVERT). (2016). HIV AIDS in Swaziland. Retrieved from https://www.avert.org/professionals/hiv around world/sub saharan africa/swazilan d Bhandari, D., Thomas, M., 2013. Goat Value C hain Toolkit: A Guideline for Conducting Value Chain Analysis in the Goat Sub sector Joint publication of IGA, IFAD and HI Boogaard, B., Waithanji, E., Poole E.J. & Cadilhon J.J. (2015). Smallholder goat production and marketing: a gendered baseline study from Inhassoro District Mozambique In NJAS Wageningen Journal of Life Sciences, Volumes 74 75, 2015, Pages 51 63, ISSN 1573 5214, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.njas.2015.09.002. Central Intelligence Agency (CIA). (2017 ). Swaziland The World Factbook. Retrieved from https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the world factbook/geos/et.html Chen, T., Ketzis, J., & Sinn, R. (1999). The role of woman in the sheep and goat sector In Small Ruminant Research, Volume 34, Issue 3, 1999, Pages 259 269, ISSN 0921 4488, https://doi.org/10.1016/S0921 4488(99)00078 4. Coastal Services Center. (2009). Introduction to conductin g focus groups Science tools for coastal programs. Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO). (2011). Closing the gender gap in agriculture. The State of Food and Agriculture Report. Rome: FAO. International Fund for Agricultural Development (IFAD). (2010). Gender and Livestock: Tools for Design. Rome: IFAD.

PAGE 36

%' #! C-9# International Fund for Agricultural Development (IFAD). (2010). Value Chains, Linking Producers to the Markets ,by Antonio Rota. Rome, Italy. International Livestock Research Institute (ILRI). (2007). Toolkit for Gender Analysis of Crop and Livestock Production, Technologies, and Service Provision, by Clare Bishop Sambrook and Ranjith Puskar. International Livestock Research Institute (I LRI). (2013). Guidelines on Integrating Gender in Livestock Projects and Programs by Jemimah Njuki, Elizabeth Waithanji, Nabintu Bagalwa and Juliet Kariuki Nairobi, Kenya. International Livestock Research Institute (ILRI). (2014). Review of Gender and V alue Chain Analysis, Development and Evaluation Toolkits by Edna Mutua, Jemimah Njuki and Elizabeth Waithanji Nairobi, Kenya. Lebbie, S.H.B. & Mastapha, P.R. (1985). Goat production in the Swaziland M iddleveld. In: Wilson, R.T. & Bourzat, D. (eds) Small ruminants in African agriculture. International Livestock Centre for Africa: Addis ababa, Ethiopia. Pp. 224 234. Lebbie, S.H.B (19 87 ). Goat production systems in Swaziland. Progress Report Phase I. Animal Production and Health Department, University of Swaziland: Luyengo, Swazilan Lemlem Aregu, Bishop Sambrook C, Puskur R & Ephrem Tesema. (2010). Opportunities for promoting gender equality in rural Ethiopia through the commercialization of agriculture. IPMS (Improving Productivity and Market Success) of Ethiopian Farmers Project Working Paper 18. Nairobi, Kenya: ILRI (International Livestock Research Institute).

PAGE 37

%( #! C-9# Rich, K. M., Ross, R. B., Baker, A. D., & Negassa, A. (2011). Quantifying value chain analysis in the context of livestock systems in developing countries. Food Policy, 36 (2), 214 222. doi:10.1016/j.foodpol.2010.11.018 Singwane, S., & Salam, A (2007). SocioEconomic Constraints on Goat Farming In the Lowveld of Swaziland A Case Study of Matsanjeni Sumner, A. & Tribe, M. (2010). Conducting Questionnaire Surveys in Chapter 8 in International Development Studies: Theories and Methods in Research and Practice. Pp. 129 142. Sumner, A & Tribe, Ml (2010). Semi Structured Interviews and Focus Groups in Chapter 6 in International Develo pment Studies: Theories and Methods in Research and Practice. Pp. 143 162. Swaziland Water and Agricultural Development Enterprise (SWADE). (2017). Retrieved from http://www.swade.co.sz/index.php United Nat ions Industrial Development Organization (UNIDO). (2009). Agro Chain Analysis and Development : The UNIDO Approach. Vienna:2009 United Nations Development Programme (UNDP). (2016). Human Development Report Swaziland. World Bank. (2006). Swaziland Achieving Education for All. Africa Region Human Development Working Paper Series No. 109. World Bank. (2017). Swaziland Overview. Retrieved from http://www.worldbank.org/en/country/ swaziland/overview World Food Programme. (2010). Market Analysis Tool How to Conduct a Food Commodity Value Chain Analysis?

PAGE 38

%) #! C-9# Appendix 1 Individual Goat Owning Household Survey Date: ___________ Section A. Demographic Information Demographic Information SURVEYORS: PLEASE CIRCLE OR WRITE IN THE ANSWERS FROM PARTICIPANT. USE BLANK SPACES TO WRITE IN ANY ADDITIONAL INFORMATION, AS NEEDED. 1. Name 2. Survey Number 3. Dip Tank Insert Dip Tank options depending on area. 4. Age of Participant 5. Sex of Participant Male or Female 6. Education Level 1. None 2. Primary School (unfinished) 3. Primary School (finished) 4. High School (unfinished) 5. High School (finished) 6. More than High School 7. Other __ ____________ 7. Marital Status 1. Married 2. Civil Union 3. Widow 4. Divorced 5. Separated 6. Single 7. Other 8. Was interviewed alone or were others present? 1. Alone 2. With adult females present 3. With adult males present 4. With adult mixed present 5. With children present 6. With adult mixed sex and children present 7. Other 9. Numb er of people living in homestead 10. Age range of people living in ho mestead 11. 1 st Occupation/major 1. Crop Production 2. Livestock 3. Business 4. Handicrafts 5. Agricultural Labor 6. None 7. Other ______ 12. 2 nd Occupation/minor 1. Crop Production 2. Livestock 3. Business 4. Handicrafts 5. Agricultural Labor 6. None 7. Other ______ Section B. Input Analysis Surveyor Statement: "Now I am going to ask you some questions about your goats and the work and materials involved in caring for them" 13. Ho w many goats does

PAGE 39

%* #! C-9# your homestead currently own? 14. Who owns these goats? 1. Self 2. Spouse 3. Other Female HH Member 4. Other Male HH Member 5. Other Female Non HH Member 6. Other Male Non HH Member 7. Joint fema les + self 8. Joint females self 9. Joint mixed sex +self 10. Joint mixed self 11. Other ___________ 15. Who usually decide s how many goats your homestead will own? 1. Self 2. Spouse 3. Other Female HH Member 4. Other Male HH Member 5. Other Female Non HH Member 6. Other Male Non HH Member 7. Joint females + self 8. Joint females self 9. Joint mixed sex +self 10. Joint mixed self 11. Other ___________ 16. What types of goat breeds do you own? (circle all that apply) 1. Local Breed 2. Other_______ 17. Who decides what breeds you will own? 1. Self 2. Spouse 3. Other Female HH Member 4. Other Male HH Member 5. Other Female Non HH Member 6. Other Male Non HH Member 7. Joint females + self 8. Joint females self 9. Joint mixed sex +self 10. Joint mixed self 11. Other ___________ 18. How did you obtain your goats? 1. Buy 2. Breed 3. Gift (if so, from who?)______ 4. Trade 5. Mixed 6. Other_________ 19. What is the main objective of keeping goats in the homestead ? 1. Consumption 2. Selling 3. Cultural Purposes 4. Other _________ 20. How many times a year do you use your goat products for: 1. Consumption ____ 2. Selling ______ 3. Cultural Purposes _______ 4. Other ________ 21. In the past 5 years has your homestead sold a goat? 1. Yes (Why ? _____ ______________ ) 2. 2. No

PAGE 40

%+ #! C-9# 22. Does you homestead buy goats or goat products for consumption? 1. Yes (How often?______________) 2. No 23 On average how often do you use veterinary services per year? 0. Never 1. 1xyear 2. 2xyear 3. 3xyear 4. More than 3x year 24 On average, how much do you spend on veterinary care per year? 25 Where do you obtain your veterinary services? 1. Public Veterinarian 2. Private Veterinarian 3. Government 4. Other __________ 26 What are your goats fed? 1. Purchased Animal Feed 2. Home Grown Feed /browse on natural shrubs 3. Both 4. Other ________ (27) On average, how much animal feed is purchased per year ? (28) Where do you obtain your purchased animal feed, if applicable? 1. Market 2. Trade 3. Other ________ (29) How far is this from where you live? (30) Who is usually in charge of obtaining the animal feed? 1. Self 2. Spouse 3. Other Female HH Member 4. Other Male HH Member 5. Other Female Non HH Member 6. Other Male Non HH Member 7. Joint females + self 8. Joint females self 9. Joint mixed sex +self 10. Joint mixed self 11. Other ___________ (31) Who was the last person in charge of obtaining animal feed? 1. Self 2. Spouse 3. Other Female HH Member 4. Other Male HH Member 5. Other Female Non HH Member 6. Other Male Non HH Member 7. Joint females + self 8. Joint females self 9. Joint mixed sex +self 10. Joint mixed self 11. Other ___________ 32. Do you own any other livestock? How many of each? 1. Cattle_____ 2. Chickens____ 3. Other_________ 33 Have you received any training on goat production? 1. Yes (from where?)__________ 2. No 34 How many years have

PAGE 41

&, #! C-9# you been goat keeping? Section C. Market Analysis SURVEYORS: ONLY COMPLETE THE QUESTIONS IF APPLICABLE. ONLY MOVE TO SECTION C.2 IF GOATS ARE SOLD. C.1. Surveyor Statement "I am now going to ask you how you use your goats" 45 What goat product do you consume? (circle all that apply) 1. Milk 2. Meat 3. Fiber 4. Cultural purposes 5. None 6. Other ________ 46. What is the reason that your homestead does not sell more goats or goat products? 1. Cultural Purposes 2. Not enough goats 3. No market 4. Market is too far (How far?_______) 5. Other _________ 47 Who usually decides to sell or not sell your goat products? 1. Self 2. Spouse 3. Other Female HH Member 4. Other Male HH Member 5. Other Female Non HH Member 6. Other Male Non HH Member 7. Joint females + self 8. Joint females self 9. Joint mixed sex +self 10. Joint mixed self 11. Other ___________ C.2. Surveyor Statement: "I am now going to ask you about selling your goats" 48 What type of goat product do you sell? (circle all that apply) 1. Milk 2. Meat 3. Fiber 4. Live 5. Other ________ 49 On average, how much SU SURVEYORS: PLEASE PLACE A CHECK NEXT TO THE PERSON WHO IS IN CHARGE OF THE FOLLOWING GOAT nnnnnnn RELATED ACTIVITY. PLEASE DO NOT MARK ANY ACTIVITY THAT IS NOT APPLICABLE. Activity 1. Men 2. Women 3. Youth (0 18) 4. Youth (18 24) 5. Other (explain) 35 Purchasing 36 Breeding 37 Housing 38 Health (medicating taking to dip tank ) 39 Watering 40 Grazing/browsing 41 Milking 42 Slaughtering 43 Processing

PAGE 42

&" #! C-9# product does your homestead sell per year ? 50 How much goat product did you sell last year ? 51 Where do you sell your goat products? 1. Market (which one?) ______ 2. Friends/Family 3. Trader 4. Other _________ (52) On average how often d o you visit the market per year to sell your goat products? (53) How many times did you visit the market last month to sell your goat products? 54. Who in the homestead is usually in charge of going out and selling the goat product? 1. Self 2. Spouse 3. Other Female HH Member 4. Other Male HH Member 5. Other Female Non HH Member 6. Other Male Non HH Member 7. Joint females + self 8. Joint females self 9. Joint mixed sex +self 10. Joint mixed self 11. Other ___________ 55 Who was the last person in charge of going out and selling the goat product? 1. Self 2. Spouse 3. Other Female HH Member 4. Other Male HH Member 5. Other Female Non HH Member 6. Other Male Non HH Member 7. Joint females + self 8. Joint females self 9. Joint mixed sex +self 10. Joint mixed self 11. Other ___________ 56 How far away is the market where you sell your goat products? 57 How do you transport your goat product to the market? 1. Motorcycle 2. Bicycle 3. Bus 4. Car 5. Other_________ 58 On average how much do you typically sell your products for? 1. Milk ______ 2. Meat ______ 3. Fiber______ 4. Live _____ 5. Other________ 59 How much did you sell your last goat product for? 1. Milk ______ 2. Meat ______ 3. Fiber _______ 4. Live_______ 5. Other________ 60 Who usually decides on 1. Self

PAGE 43

&$ #! C-9# this price? 2. Spouse 3. Other Female HH Member 4. Other Male HH Member 5. Other Female Non HH Member 6. Other Male Non HH Member 7. Joint females + self 8. Joint females self 9. Joint mixed sex +self 10. Joint mixed self 11. Other ___________ 61 What is the income from selling your goat product used for? 1. Savings 2. Food 3. Education 4. Human Health 5. Clothing 6. Housing 7. Other________ 62 What was the last thing your income from selling your goat product used for? 1. Savings 2. Food 3. Education 4. Human Health 5. Clothing 6. Housing 7. Other________ 63 Who usually controls the income from selling your product? 1. Self 2. Spouse 3. Other Female HH Member 4. Other Male HH Member 5. Other Female Non HH Member 6. Other Male Non HH Member 7. Joint females + self 8. Joint females self 9. Joint mixed sex +self 10. Joint mixed self 11. Other ___________ 64 If you were to rank the importance of goats as a sou rce of income for your homestead where would you put it? 1 2 3 4 5 (not important at all) (incredibly important) Section D. Open Ended Questions Surveyor Statement: "Thank you for getting this far, we are now at the last part of the survey. I will be asking you some follow up questions." SURVEYORS: RECORD THE RESPONSE OF PARTICIPANT IN AS MUCH DETAIL AS POSSIBLE. ONLY ASK FOR FOLLOW UPS AS NEEDED. 65. Do you face any problems in selling your goats products? If so, what are they? 66 What effects the price that you sell your goats for ?

PAGE 44

&% #! C-9# 67 Do goat production responsibilities change seasonally? If so, How? 68 Is there anything you would like us to know or to add to the study? Adapted from: International Livestock Research Institute (ILRI). (2014). Review of Gender and Value Chain Analysis, Development and Evaluation Toolkits by Edna Mutua, Jemimah Njuki and Elizabeth Waithanji. Nairobi, Kenya. International Livestock Research Institute (ILRI). (2007). Toolkit for Gender Analysis of Crop and Livestock Production, Technologies, and Service Provision, by Clare Bishop Sambrook and Ranjith Puskar. Appendix 2 Focus Group Questionnaire 1. How does the community define ownership of goats? What characteristics of ownership are identified by men and women? Which ones are similar and which ones are different? Why? 2. Who decides on different aspects of goat production? Why? 3. What activities are mainly done by men, women, boys or girls in the production of goats? What determines the distribution of labor?

PAGE 45

&& #! C-9# 4. What are the main const raints faced by women and men in accessing inputs? What have been the coping strategies? Are these efficient in handling the constraints? What else needs to be done to deal efficiently with the constraints? 5. What are the main constraints faced by women and men in marketing? What have been the coping strategies? Are these efficient in handling the constraints? What else needs to be done to deal efficiently with the constraints? Youth Specific Questions 1. Are youth involved in goat production? 2. Do they want to be? 3. What are the constraints they face in being more involved? 4. Adapted from: International Livestock Research Institute (ILRI). (2014). Review of Gender and Value Chain Analysis, Development and Evaluation Toolkits by Edna Mutua, Jemimah Njuki and Eli zabeth Waithanji. Nairobi, Kenya. ! ! Appendix 3 Key Informant Questionnaire General: About the actors and their business Name: Sex: Type of enterprise: Area of Operation:

PAGE 46

& #! C-9# 1. What are your rol es in the goat value chain ? 2. How many women and men are involved in your business in this region? (or approximately what proportion of men and what proportion of women)? 3. What are the constraints faced by women in this business? Type of services offered and clients 1. What type of serv ices do you offer? 2. Which clients you offer services to? Farmers/other traders etc. 3. What proportions of men and women farmers and other actors do you offer services to? Why? 4. What constraints do you face when offering your services or trying to reach women and men farmers and other actors with your services? What have been the coping strategies? Are these efficient in handling the constraints? What else needs to be done to deal efficiently with the constraints? 5. What constraints do women and men farmers and o ther actors face when accessing your services? What have been the coping strategies? Are these efficient in handling the constraints? What else needs to be done to deal efficiently with the constraints? 6. How do interactions with other actors besides farmers affect your enterprise e.g. upstream value chain actors, local governments, government policies etc. Adapted from: International Livestock Research Institute (ILRI). (2014). Review of Gender and Value Chain Analysis, Development and Evaluation Toolkits b y Edna Mutua, Jemimah Njuki and Elizabeth Waithanji. Nairobi, Kenya.