World Medical & Health Policy, Vol. 9999, No.

9999, 2018

Women Farmers’ (Dis)Empowerment Compared to Men

Farmers in Ethiopia
Solomon Petros, Fetien Abay, Girmanesh Desta, and Cheryl O’Brien

In Sub-Saharan Africa, women’s farm labor is highest in Ethiopia. Using focus group discussions
with 240 farmers and other research tools, our USAID-funded Feed the Future Innovation for the
Reduction of Post-Harvest Loss—Ethiopia study explores the sources of (dis)empowerment of rural
farmers in Ethiopia. We find that women are disempowered across all five domains of empowerment
due to cultural factors, despite government and financial institution policy changes. Women with
low education tend to engage in low risk/return farming practices, including growing less nutritious
crops, thereby undermining nutritional security of the household. Our findings confirm that
women’s role increases to as much as 80 percent in post-harvest. Poor storage technologies resulting
in fungal/pest infections and chemicals in stored grains pose serious health risks for women, and
poor women consume grains with up to 50 percent damage. Food security and development policies
should empower women and promote improved technologies—particularly targeting women—to
reduce grain losses and women’s work burden while mitigating health risks.
KEY WORDS: food security, women’s empowerment in agriculture, gender and development,
Ethiopia

Introduction

Ethiopia is one of the fastest growing countries in Africa, and the Government
of Ethiopia’s Agricultural Growth Program aims to increase agricultural productiv-
ity and market access for key crop and livestock products with increased
participation of women and youth. Agricultural production has been growing at an
average of 6.4 percent, currently reaching over 266 million quintals in annual
production in the past 15 years (Central Statistical Agency [CSA], 2016; Ministry of
Finance and Economic Development [MoFED], 2014; National Bank of Ethiopia
[NBE], 2015; World Bank, 2015). Production increases may generally be attributed
to improved use of fertilizers, improved seeds, increased land coverage for
agricultural production, improved farm management practices, and related
institutional services. Despite production increases, however, post-harvest losses
are undermining household food security in quantity and quality.

doi: 10.1002/wmh3.280
# 2018 Policy Studies Organization
2 World Medical & Health Policy, 9999:9999

Regarding quality of food and post-harvest losses, research has shown that
mycotoxins (e.g., aflatoxins) in stored grains play a negative role with regard to
nutritional outcomes and general health. Shephard (2008) summarizes several
studies on this public health problem:

According to the WHO estimate, being underweight caused 3.7 million

deaths in 2000, mostly in children under five years of age in developing
countries. The mortality and morbidity were due to the effect of poor
nutrition on immune function, which led to diarrhoeal diseases, malaria,
measles and pneumonia. Recently published results indicate that both
being underweight and immune function are directly affected by aflatoxin
exposure in developing countries. (p. 149)

Aflatoxin exposure “can lead directly to growth impairment and

stunting” in infants as found in Benin and Togo (Gong et al., 2002), and it
suppresses the immune system in children as found in Gambia and Ghana
(Turner, Moore, Hall, Prentice, & Wild, 2003); aflatoxin “could play a causal
role in” kwashiorkor, a protein energy malnutrition disease (Hendrickse,
1991), or it increases the risks for children suffering from the disease
(Adhikari, Ramjee, & Berjak, 1994); and aflatoxin exposure “could cause
impairment of human cellular immunity” in adults as found in Ghana (Jiang
et al., 2005) (cited in Shephard, 2008, p. 149). Jolly et al. (2007) find an
association between aflatoxin exposure and health problems, including with
liver function, in Ghanaians. Shephard (2008, p. 148) writes, “The identified
harmful effects of mycotoxin exposure on human health, as exemplified by
acute aflatoxicosis and primary liver cancer, are increasingly being recog-
nized as only the tip of the iceberg of morbidity associated with chronic
mycotoxin exposure (Miller, 1998; Williams et al., 2004).”
This article’s study of Ethiopia contributes to our understanding of global
food insecurities related to gender inequalities along the agricultural value chain.
Women’s farm labor contributions are high in developing countries, with the
highest contributions found in Sub-Saharan Africa as a region and Ethiopia as a
country (Action Aid, 2015; CSA, 2016; Food and Agricultural Organization [FAO],
1986, 2010, 2011). Smallholder agriculture is the economic mainstay of the 85
percent rural population of Ethiopia, where the average landholding size is less
than 1 hectare. Gender relations and the gendered power dynamics between men
and women affect participation and decision-making processes across the
agricultural continuum (O’Brien et al., 2016). This is especially evident in a
patriarchal social hierarchy where ownership of resources and decision-making
power are disproportionately biased against women and in favor of men (O’Brien
et al., 2016). Women’s empowerment, such as greater participation and voice over
household/community decision making, would improve household food security
and smallholder farm productivity (O’Brien et al., 2016). Therefore, the gendered
landscapes that determine access to and control over empowerment opportunities
should constitute an integral element of agricultural growth programs.
Petros et al.: Women Farmers’ (Dis)Empowerment 3

This article draws on data from the Ethiopia project of the Feed the Future
Innovation Lab for the Reduction of Post-Harvest Loss (PHLIL). Funded by the United
States Agency for International Development (USAID), the program seeks to reduce
post-harvest losses for stored product crops (grains, oilseeds, legumes, root crops, and
seeds) through institutional capacity building, applied research, education, and
extension. To address Ethiopia’s post-harvest losses, the PHLIL-Ethiopia project is
operating across four regions of Ethiopia in collaboration with six research institutes
and universities, and covers four crops: chickpea, sesame, maize, and wheat. This
article’s study seeks to examine women’s empowerment and disempowerment in
agriculture, especially in post-harvest practices, in the four study regions. This study
contributes to post-harvest policy literature by assessing gender equality in agriculture
and examining the role of women in the post-harvest activities in Ethiopia (e.g., Yimer
& Tadesse, 2015). Incorporating a gender lens in all stages of the PHLIL project
ensures that the project improves the lives of both men and women.
Interventions aimed at post-harvest loss reduction are largely limited to the
Ethiopian government’s agricultural extension system, though a few projects have
also been implemented by GOAL Ethiopia, Purchase for Progress (P4P), FAO,
and USAID. We employ an innovative approach by adapting the Women’s
Empowerment in Agriculture Index tool, described in the conceptual framework
below. Further, our study provides a cross-regional examination of gender
inequality and factors affecting women’s empowerment in the four study regions.
The study will inform interventions related to post-harvest losses, women’s
empowerment in agriculture, and household food security. Specifically, our study
aims to: (i) examine women’s empowerment in agriculture in relation to men, (ii)
assess women and men’s participation (i.e., gender roles) in post-harvest
activities, and (iii) determine the potential impacts of post-harvest losses on the
health of farmers and their children.
In the next section, we present the methodology of this PHLIL-Ethiopia
gender study. We then present this study’s results and discuss our findings. First,
we find that women in our study sites are disempowered compared to men in
agriculture. Second, women not only provide the bulk of post-harvest work due
to gender roles, but they also innovate to prevent post-harvest losses due in part
to their lack of access to technologies. Third, we find negative impacts on health,
primarily women and children’s health, in relation to both post-harvest losses
and women’s workload, which is connected to women’s disempowerment in
agriculture. We conclude with policy recommendations for governments and
implementing partners concerned with women’s empowerment in agriculture,
post-harvest losses, and food security.

Methodology

Data Collection Methods and Analysis

To answer our research questions, we employed quantitative and qualitative

tools designed to capture women and men’s empowerment in agriculture
4 World Medical & Health Policy, 9999:9999

(including in the post-harvest phase), their participation in post-harvest activities,

and the health impacts of post-harvest losses on farmers and their children.
The Women’s Empowerment in Agriculture Index (WEAI) provides the
conceptual and analytical framework of this study. Developed by the Interna-
tional Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI), USAID, and Oxford Poverty and
Human Development Initiative (OPHI), WEAI is a gender analysis tool that
measures the status of men and women’s empowerment in agriculture. WEAI
comprises two subindexes: one measures five identified “domains of empower-
ment” in agriculture (hereafter 5DE), and the other measures gender parity in
empowerment within the household (GPI). The 5DE subindex contributes 90
percent of the weight to the WEAI score; these five domains are provided in
Table 1, and they comprise 10 indicators (Alkire et al., 2012, 2013).
Each domain is weighted equally, as are each of the indicators within a
domain. The 5DE subindex is constructed using a robust multidimensional
methodology known as the Alkire-Foster Method (for details, see Alkire et al.,
2012, 2013). A woman is defined as empowered in 5DE if she has adequate
achievements in four of the five domains or is empowered in some combination
of the weighted indicators that reflect 80 percent total adequacy. A five-point
Likert scale (1 ¼strongly disagree, 2 ¼ disagree, 3 ¼ satisfactory, 4 ¼ agree, 5 ¼
strongly agree) is used to determine wo/men’s positions across the 5 domains
and 10 indicators, which are then multiplied by the respective weightages per
domain/indicator. The index is innovative in that it shows women’s empower-
ment in the five domains of empowerment (5DE) and reveals connections among
areas of disempowerment. In addition, WEAI computes 5DE for men and
compares this to women’s 5DE, showing how empowered women are relative to
men in the same household to better understand gender empowerment gaps
(Alkire et al., 2012, 2013; for more on the WEAI construction, see Malapit et al.,
2014).
While our study is informed by the WEAI, we adapted the WEAI, which
involves a household survey that was time- and cost-prohibitive for our study.
Instead, we collected data through an adapted, shortened survey (what we call a
Quasi-WEAI or Q-WEAI survey as we drew from the WEAI to develop our

Table 1. The Five Domains of Women’s Empowerment in Agriculture

Domain Operational Definition (Alkire et al., 2012, 2013)

Production Addresses decisions over agricultural production, and refers to sole or joint decision
making over food and cash-crop farming, livestock, and fisheries as well as autonomy in
agricultural production.
Resources Addresses ownership, access to, and decision-making power over productive resources
such as land, livestock, agricultural equipment, consumer durables, and credit.
Income Examines sole or joint control over the use of income and expenditures.
Leadership Examines leadership in the community, measured by membership in economic or social
groups and comfort in speaking in public.
Time Examines the allocation of time to productive and domestic tasks and satisfaction with the
available time for leisure activities.
Petros et al.: Women Farmers’ (Dis)Empowerment 5

questions) of individual men and women farmers with whom we also conducted
focus group discussions to supplement and confirm our Q-WEAI survey data. In
other words, our Q-WEAI survey is a community-level survey rather than a
household survey, which would survey both the husbands and wives among
married participants. We also delivered our Q-WEAI survey to each study
participant at his/her respective focus group location and not at his/her house.
Further in contrast to the WEAI and to fit with the PHLIL-Ethiopia project’s
overall post-harvest focus, our study goes beyond the WEAI, which is produc-
tion-heavy, to incorporate questions related to the post-harvest phase, including
post-harvest activities, technologies, and losses. (We note that since our study
began, an Abbreviated WEAI [A-WEAI], a shorter, streamlined version of the
original WEAI was released. See Malapit et al., 2017.)
As detailed above, our Q-WEAI survey is informed by the five domains of
WEAI, but it also includes questions to understand gender inequalities in the
post-harvest phase of agriculture. The Q-WEAI survey data were collected from
individual farmers who were also involved in the FGDs to capture the
empowerment status of men and women farmers across communities (and not
across households). Quantitative analysis of the Q-WEAI scores includes descrip-
tive analysis. A Likert scale of a one to five point range was used in the Q-WEAI
survey analysis to estimate, through respondent scoring, the relative empower-
ment standings of men and women across the 5DEs (production, resources,
income, leadership, and time).
To supplement the Q-WEAI survey findings, focus group discussions (FGDs)
were held. FGDs were organized into three groups as a triangulation strategy:
women only, men only, and mixed-sex FGDs. FGD participants constituted
diverse backgrounds of farmers (e.g., female-headed household; widowed;
married; young and older farmers; model farmers). The diverse group of farmers
in the FGDs helped capture the heterogeneity of local knowledge and concerns.
The FGDs included discussion questions related to the Q-WEAI survey questions
to enrich our understanding of the communities. The FGD questions match the
themes of the 5DEs and their respective 10 indicators and 34 respective
subcategories as well as the Q-WEAI post-harvest questions. (The Appendix
shows the FGD facilitators’ checklist of questions/topics to cover in the FGDs.
The FGD facilitators also took notes.) FGDs were recorded and transcribed. The
FGD data were analyzed using an explorative, thematic approach to content
analysis in which main categorical terms were adapted from the Q-WEAI. Words
surrounding the gendered aspects in agriculture were coded if they could fall
into the 5DEs (as informed by WEAI) and the post-harvest Q-WEAI questions.
The content analysis of the FGD data complements the survey data to provide a
richer picture of the gender dynamics that impact farmers. By the nature of being
a group discussion, the FGDs allowed for a better understanding of local gender
roles and how they impact women’s (dis)empowerment, especially in married
households, as well as the challenges associated with the four crops in the study,
and the health impacts of current practices. Two rounds of debriefing were held
6 World Medical & Health Policy, 9999:9999

with the FGD groups and local leaders to ensure that FGD findings from their
respective group represented the responses during the FGD process.
To supplement and cross-check our Q-WEAI survey and FGD findings, we
also held village workshops with community leaders, employed participatory
tools across communities (e.g., gender activity calendars to compare men and
women’s workloads; farm level demonstrations, such as to observe the shattering
of sesame seed varieties as described by the farmers), and gathered farmer
testimonies. Two rounds of data were collected in 2015 and 2016 from our
Q-WEAI survey, FGDs, village workshops, participatory tools, and farmer
testimonies.

Study Participants and Sampling

The study population comprises women and men farmers in selected villages
from the four regions and crops targeted by the PHLIL-Ethiopia project, and this
study uses multiple sampling procedures due to the different methods of data
collection. Figure 1 shows the study sites.
Each region is identified with one major crop: Tigray for sesame, Oromiya for
Wheat, SNNP for maize, and Amhara for chickpea. Four weredas1 (counties)
were purposively selected representing the highest production potentials for the
four intervention crops. A simple random sampling approach was used to
identify study kebelles2 (villages). Two kebelles per wereda were selected
randomly. Final selection of the kebelles was based on consultations with regional
coordination offices, agricultural bureau officials, and regional research centers to
check if the randomly selected kebelles represented the agro-ecological and socio-
cultural diversity of agricultural production in each respective study wereda. A
simple random sampling technique (lottery system) was employed in selecting
survey/FGD participants from a complete list of the targeted communities
clustered by sex, crop type, and location (Table 2). Fifty-two percent of the
survey/FGD respondents are women.

Results

Summary of FGD/Survey Participants’ Economic and Educational Levels

Our sample’s economic and education levels were very similar across
regions, so we provide averages and summarize here. The average landhold-
ing of the farmers is 0.55 ha with more than 92.5 percent of the respondents
issued a certificate of joint land ownership. The average livestock size per
household is 3.24 units and serves as the single major source of tilling power
for agricultural production. The average family size of the FGD participants is
4.9. Given labor-intensive agricultural practices, family size is closely linked to
available agricultural labor and daily workloads of family members. The
average educational attainment for more than 94 percent of the respondents is
elementary (grades 1–6 or below). A total of 82.5 percent of the study
Petros et al.: Women Farmers’ (Dis)Empowerment 7

Figure 1. Map of the Study Sites.

participants are illiterate (unable to read and write), and 60 percent of those
illiterate are women. More than 60.83 percent of the FGD households are
poor, very poor, or destitute, with the poorest households being women-
headed.3

Table 2. Study Sites and FGD Samples

Geolocation

Kebelles #Farmers Male; Female

Regions Districts (Villages) Lat. Long. Crop(s) #FGDs (N ¼ 240)

Oromiya Kofele Ashoka 6.98 38.91 Wheat 2

Hitosa BoruJawi 8.04 39.25 2
Eteya 8.13 39.23 2 28 M; 32 F
Amhara Mecha Kudmi/ 11.37 37.12 Maize 3
Shehona
Kudmi/Kolela 11.37 37.12 2
Dembia Efoyebemeda 12.35 37.26 Chickpea 2
Meskelekirstos 12.35 37.26 2 30 M; 29 F
Tigray KaftaHumera Adebay 14.19 36.76 Sesame 5
Endamehoni Hiritymekan 12.75 39.52 Wheat 1 24 M; 26 F
SNNP Boricha Kitawdembe 6.91 38.31 Maize 4
Hanja chafa 6.93 38.31 3 33 M; 38 F
Total 28 115 M, 125 F
8 World Medical & Health Policy, 9999:9999

Women’s Empowerment in Agriculture

Our Q-WEAI study measures women’s empowerment relative to men, and

we find that women farmers are disempowered across all identified domains of
empowerment compared to men farmers in our study sites. As shown in Table 3
and adjusted for potential inflationary errors of responses by survey participants,
women’s average empowerment indexes fall below men’s. Women in each survey
region have not yet achieved the 80 percent threshold (across the five domains of
empowerment, 5DEs) to achieve adequacy in empowerment for women. Again, a
woman is defined as empowered in 5DEs if she has adequate achievements in
four of the five domains or is empowered in some combination of the weighted
indicators that reflect 80 percent total adequacy (Alkire et al., 2012).
Table 3 shows that women are less empowered than men in all four study
regions, according to our Q-WEAI survey. For example, in the SNNP region in
Table 3, women’s empowerment index averages 0.525 compared to men’s average
empowerment index of 0.922. Lack of access to or control over resources, limited
leadership roles, and time poverty (i.e., heavy workloads) are the main
disempowerment factors for women across the regions. According to our
computed Q-WEAI score, time poverty (i.e., heavy workloads), autonomy in
decision making, leadership (i.e., limited leadership roles), and access to and
control over economic assets are the main sources of disempowerment for women
across the four study regions.
Our Q-WEAI survey data indicates that economic disempowerment is most
dominant as represented by the lack of access to and control over critical
economic resources, such as land, credit, and technologies. Whereas only a few
women have both access to and control over larger, high-paying agricultural
resources, many women control smaller resources of low-income potential and
hence low empowerment dividends, the FGD data revealed. Overall in our study,
women control in-house smaller storage, and men are responsible for larger
outside storage due to the economic value of the quantity of stored grains. Large
grain storage facilities are erected outside the house and are often controlled by
men in SNNPR, Amhara, and Oromia. As such, most women in these regions
have decision-making roles only with smaller, in-home storage infrastructures.
Different sizes of grain storage represent inherent socioeconomic dynamics,
according to the FGDs. For one, grain storage symbolizes the income potential
and food security concerns for farmers, especially men. In all the regions but
Tigray, women should get approval from men for household use and marketing

Table 3. Average Empowerment Index (Q-WEAI) by Region

Regions

Oromia Tigray SNNP Amhara

Women 0.602 0.588 0.525 0.567

Men 0.874 0.865 0.922 0.865
Petros et al.: Women Farmers’ (Dis)Empowerment 9

of grains especially from larger grain storages. The FGDs reveal that men fear
that their wives will pick certain quantities and diminish the income status of the
household, and men think that women are not as good in management as men,
despite women’s important roles as the main storage/management workers for
household food consumption in our study sites.
Regional variation exists with respect to the post-harvest (e.g., storage)
decision-making roles of women and men. Using a five point Likert scale, FGD
participants were asked their levels of participation in post-harvest decision
making, and the levels were: not being informed, mostly informed, mostly
consulted, may veto decisions, or takes the lead on decisions. Women FGD
participants in Tigray and Oromia reported that they may be informed, consulted,
or in some cases may even veto decisions regarding post-harvest activities. In
contrast, women FGD participants in Amhara and SNNPR reported that they are
mostly informed of post-harvest decisions, with few women reporting consulta-
tion in decision making regarding storage, use, and marketing. Women’s lack of
decision-making power compared to men in post-harvest decision making is
concerning for women’s empowerment in agriculture, especially given women’s
key role in post-harvest activities in our study sites.
Our FGDs found that poor income levels of the farmers as well as limited
extension advisory services are mainly responsible for the lack of adoption of
efficient post-harvest technologies, which help prevent post-harvest losses.
Agricultural extension services are helpful to improve farmers’ access to
technologies to improve yields as well as decrease post-harvest losses, yet access
to agricultural extension services is 92 percent for men compared to only 43
percent for women in our study. Given the importance of agricultural extension
to improve yields and the gap between women’s access to these services, it is
unsurprising then that women-headed households are found to be less productive
in yield than men-headed households, according to our FGDs and in line with
our Q-WEAI results. While the conventional extension model is household based
(i.e., primarily focused on male heads of household), the types of extension
services women request are not mainstreamed in extension, according to the
FGDs.
In all study regions, men control the majority of household income and the
main income source is agriculture (91 percent), followed by petty trade (e.g., local
beer). All FGDs indicated that men contribute most of the household income,
while women’s contribution is from low-paying agricultural production, petty
trading, and collective action groups. More than 90 percent of the study
participants say women in their household do not participate in off-farm
activities. Low-income contributions by women are attributed to a low level of
education/trainings, low/limited marketable life skills, and cultural stereotyping
that limits women’s participation in income-generating work.
Land is a particularly valuable resource. Yet, despite the regional govern-
ments having issued joint land right (use) certificates to enable women to be main
owner farmers equal to men under the Federal Land Administration and Land
Use Proclamation (Deininger, Ali, Holden, & Zevenbergen, 2007), our FGD results
10 World Medical & Health Policy, 9999:9999

show that even when women have a joint certificate of land use rights,4
household land use decisions are controlled by men. The FGD data show that
despite many women’s formal rights to land, they are constrained by local
cultural/gender barriers. Overall, the FGDs also noted that the impact of legal
land ownership in empowering women remains very low. FGD participant
awareness of women’s land rights was highest in Tigray, where the land reforms
started as early as 1998; other regions started as late as 2004.5
Surveyed women reported having access to credit at least once in the past
2 years. While microfinance institutions require that women provide a signed
confirmation of consent on the loan application should the husband apply for
credit, the FGDs show that once the credit is received, men remain in control of
major decision making about the use of the credit. Similar to the aforementioned
regional variation in women’s level of decision making over post-harvest
activities, women from Tigray and Oromia reported to have “some” say over the
use of credit, while women in Amhara and SNNPR reported more “limited” say
over the use of credit.
The FGD and Q-WEAI data reveal constraints in women’s participation in
decision making. Ninety-two percent of the FGDs say that women are generally
informed by men about household decisions, but women are not consulted prior
to men’s final decisions. Lack of autonomy in household decision making extends
to both single and married women in our study. According to the FGDs, this is
because women mostly rely on other men for agricultural labor; however,
women-headed households with children above the age of 18 are relatively
autonomous (compared to other women) across all the regions because of the
labor availability offered by their adult children.
The FGDs reveal that women’s cooperative membership is as low as 58
percent, while it is 81 percent for men. Most of the cooperative institutions are
either multipurpose or agricultural producer cooperatives mandated to serve
members’ various socioeconomic interests. Ninety-five percent of women take
part in “women development armies” (WDAs), a government innovation. Across
regions, FGDs show that most of the women respondents belong to one or more
groups, such as farmer organizations, cooperatives, water groups, WDAs, saving
and credit cooperatives, self-help groups (e.g., “edir,” “equb”), and religious
groups. However, women face limited leadership roles across groups and in all
study regions.
Both the FGDs and Q-WEAI data show that time poverty (heavy workloads
and little leisure time) is a main source of disempowerment for women in all
study regions. Eighty-six percent of the FGD texts describe women’s workload as
disempowering. The survey data confirm that women are a major source of
agricultural labor, and show that both men and women’s workloads may increase
during the production seasons depending on the average farm size operated,
technologies employed, types of crops produced, and family labor availability.
All the FGDs noted that women work longer hours than men, especially during
the peak hours of row/planting, weeding, and harvesting. Across the regions, the
gender activity calendars (a community participatory tool) show that women are
Petros et al.: Women Farmers’ (Dis)Empowerment 11

working 15–18 hours per day compared to men’s 7–9 hours a day. Women’s
work hours are double that of men’s in our community gender activity calendars,
showing much decreased access to opportunities for women due to high time
poverty in comparison to men.
In comparison to men in our study sites, women’s disempowerment is
exemplified in the marketing of grains in the areas of: (i) decision making, (ii)
income, and (iii) time use. In general, both men and women sell their grains in
nearby markets, but women have less say than men in the marketing decision
making, and women FGD participants in Amhara and SNNPR report less decision
making power than in Tigray and Oromia, as previously discussed. The income
from grain sales by women are generally aimed at financing immediate household
consumption needs. Yet, women FGD participants from Tigray and Oromia
indicated that they can make decisions regarding the grain quantity they can keep,
when/where to sell them, and the use of the grain income (i.e., savings,
consumption, or investment). The FGDs attributed these regional trends in grain
marketing decision-making roles to women’s active participation in local develop-
ment groups in Tigray and a marketing cooperative society in Oromia. Regardless
of region, men are mostly responsible for selling larger quantities (e.g., a quintal or
more) when the income from grain sales is significant or the crop is a cash crop.
Women may ask men for some money to finance household needs, but women do
not typically control the income from grain sales. Regarding time use, sometimes a
husband may request or “allow” his wife to sell their crops especially if selling all
the grains requires longer hours in the marketplace, thus creating added labor for
women on top of their already heavy workload. Beyond the marketing of grains,
other gendered post-harvest activities are highlighted in the next section.

Gendered Participation in Post-Harvest Activities

Following harvest of grains, farmers traditionally store the grains within their
homes or in their backyards especially for large storage (locally called gota,
gotera). High standing cylindrical bell-shaped grain stores “gotera/gota” made of
wood, grass thatches, straw, mud, and cow dung, are most common for the
surveyed cereals. Jute bags, sacks, plastic bags are the main storage types for the
sesame-producer FGDs in Tigray. All regional FGDs show that women are mainly
responsible for storage and management, including: cleaning, follow-up through
sensory evaluation, protection, periodic ventilation/aeration, physical mainte-
nance of the storage, storage re/construction, and processing for market or
consumption.
Our findings show that women participate in every level of agricultural
production across all the survey regions, and women’s role increases significantly
(to as much as 88 percent) in the post-harvest phase (Table 4).
Women are key players in post-harvest activities, especially storage, in our
study sites.
In all study regions, it is mainly women’s role to clean, treat, and maintain
the quality of grains. As such, women are the first to be informed about storage
12 World Medical & Health Policy, 9999:9999

Table 4. Level of Women’s Participation in Farm Activities

Agricultural Activities % Performed by Women

Land preparation 41
Sowing and cleaning 61
Intercultural farm activities 73
Post-harvest activities 88

Harvesting, handling, threshing/chipping, drying, transport, distribution/marketing,
storing, and processing.

grain losses and are the first responders in trying to minimize grain losses,
according to the FGDs in all regions. Yet, due to a lack of access to technologies,
women employ different indigenous innovations to minimize the extent of grain
loss. Some innovations that women employ are: smoking and limetrees for insect
repellant; pumpkins in the middle of the stored grains as a coolant; mixing and
covering grains with teff as a protective camouflage, and limiting space and
oxygen movement in the grain storage. Despite women’s innovative post-harvest
loss-reduction practices, post-harvest grain loss remains a critical food security
threat and two FGD groups from Amhara even went as far as spraying holy
waters on their stored grain (despite the post-harvest losses associated with
moisture). Chemicals (in some cases dangerous materials) and treatment pills are
also common forms of grain loss reduction strategies, especially for the cereal
crops, and this leads us to a discussion of our third and final focal point of this
study: post-harvest impacts on health.

Potential Impacts of Post-Harvest Losses on Health

Regarding our third and final research question, FGD results revealed the
prevalence of poor storage technologies in all study regions, and farmers
directly linked poor storage technologies as resulting in fungal/pest infections
and chemicals in stored grains as posing major health risks. The health risks
are especially critical in poor women’s households, which reported to have
consumed grains with up to 50 percent damage, “especially when the cash is
short or the production season was poor.” Women estimated their consumption
of damaged grains by immersing grains into a bowl of water to observe the
extent of damage of stored grains; this is one method of estimating (qualita-
tively and quantitatively) the level of damage in grains. Women participants (in
the survey, FGDs, and during field visits to women’s households) estimated
that they consume grains with up 50 percent damage to deal with potential
“food gaps.” Not all damaged grains are disposed of by farmers and our study
confirms that when post-harvest (qualitative or quantitative) losses are severe,
household food security is at stake. As explained in the Introduction section,
consuming damaged grains that include mycotoxins harms nutritional out-
comes and is dangerous for one’s health (see the studies cited in the
Introduction of this article).
Petros et al.: Women Farmers’ (Dis)Empowerment 13

We find that women in our study face health risks associated with their
increased labor toward post-harvest activities as well as their inhalation and
consumption of toxic chemicals related to post-harvest losses. Women are
responsible for treating damaged grains and preparing their household’s food
needs particularly for the cereal crops in the study. Damaged grains take longer
periods of processing due to their very poor processing quality. Post-harvest
losses add to women’s already heavy workloads. In our study, women reported
to have decreased physical health due to the extra labor-intensive workloads.
Workload pressure and less leisure time in comparison to men have negatively
affected the psychological and physical health of women, according to the FGDs.
In fact, women made no mention of leisure in their daily activities in all the
regions. In addition to the increased post-harvest workloads that bring their own
health risks (e.g., fatigue), women are especially vulnerable to health risks related
to decreased nutrition and exposure to toxicity in their disproportionate
consumption of and work with stored grains (Sauer, 1988).
In the FGDs, post-harvest losses are identified as contributors of health risks
to women in this study, and these risks (e.g., respiratory illnesses, fatigue,
headaches) were mainly attributed to women’s perilous encounter with damaged
grains in post-harvest activities. Women in Amhara FGDs indicated that they are
“consuming chemicals” and that this is “leading to ever increasing medical bills.”
Beyond the health problems linked to consuming damaged grains, women treat
damaged grains manually, and are, thus, highly exposed to the dust and toxic
elements generated from the damaged grains. Women in all the FGDs confirmed
the above-noted health risks (e.g., fatigue) from working with damaged grains.
Unidentified respiratory diseases associated with exposure to toxic agents
from damaged grains are the most common health risk for women, according to
the FGDs. Across FGDs, women reported “unidentified and abnormal coughing”
as a common phenomenon that most of them attributed to the chemicals used in
stored grains. Moreover, the treatment chemicals (to combat grain damage) have
been found to be damaging women’s “liver,” according to women in the FGDs.
Additionally, the FGDs revealed that women’s unsafe and direct exposure with
chemical treatments used for stored grains are associated with allergic reactions,
headaches, skin itching/burns, and long-term health deterioration. All of these
health problems associated with post-harvest losses have added to the medical
bills that women have to pay despite their shortage of cash in comparison to
men, and these medical bills are especially difficult for poor women in our study
and the bills increase women’s stress, according to the FGDs.
Another health-related challenge is the extent of post-harvest loss as a local
measure of a wife’s worth (as a “good” wife) and this local measure’s risk of
leading to domestic conflict and nutritional harm, especially to women and
children. Higher storage losses undermine the “worth” of a woman (as valued by
a husband or other man) and increase the potential conflict women face with
men, especially in married relationships. A participant from an Amhara FGD
stated “what is a wife for if she cannot manage her storage,” showing the added
pressure on women to maintain stored grains even if the grain damage is not
14 World Medical & Health Policy, 9999:9999

entirely or partly her fault. To decrease conflict with husbands, the FGDs from
Amhara, Oromia, and SNNPR reported that in some cases women serve the good
quality grains to men so that men will not find out about grain damages (as it is
not in men’s rigid gender roles to check into the stored grains) and the women
and children consume the damaged grains. Women even use chemical treatments
above the recommended standards for fear of men; in the worst cases reported,
women may use these chemical-treated grains for household consumption,
risking serious health ramifications. The qualitative/quantitative losses exacerbate
the nutritional losses from the grains, hence undermining the daily nutritional
intakes of the producer households.

Discussion

Women’s Empowerment

Women farmers are disempowered compared to men farmers in all four

study regions, and relatedly, women’s work and capacity are generally under-
valued and underserved. Although women are engaged in every productive
activity and have a heavier workload than men, women are viewed as auxilaries
who provide labor while men are viewed as the primary farmers controlling
decisions in all study regions. Ninety-eight percent of Q-WEAI survey partic-
ipants view men as full-time farmers, and only 23 percent view women also as
full-time farmers. Similarly, only 30 percent of the FGDs describe women as (co-)
primary farmers while the remaining 70 percent describe women as “yebet emebet”
(housewives) and secondary laborers. In addition, women’s worth/value as wives
and their capacity to share in decision making are too often undervalued by their
husbands, our study shows. For instance, our FGDs indicated that women often
take some6 of the grain for household consumption purposes, but men often
assume that women will take too much, and therefore, men do not allow women
to access larger “gotera”7 stored grains. Women also receive far less extension
services than men, despite women’s high agricultural labor contributions. The
types of activities performed by men and women reflect culturally defined and
rigid gender roles that in effect limit women’s empowerment. In sum, women’s
contributions to agricultural productivity (and hence economic empowerment) of
smallholder farm enterprises remain undervalued in the four study regions by
men and women farmers, extension agents, and communities as a whole due to
gender stereotypes and women’s lower-paid and unpaid work, which reflect
women’s local gender roles.
In our study, group membership is one promising (and WEAI domain)
pathway toward improving women’s empowerment, as community groups
provide collective action gains, and women’s participation in group leadership
roles can serve as a precursor for their enhanced ability to influence
community decisions addressing their unique situations (Alkire et al., 2013).
One interesting finding is the group membership in “women development
armies” (WDAs). In Tigray, women FGDs revealed relatively better access to
Petros et al.: Women Farmers’ (Dis)Empowerment 15

and participation in community groups than their counterparts: 95 percent of

the survey women from Tigray reported active participation in WDAs
compared to 57 percent, 42 precent, and 49 precent in Amhara, South, and
Oromia, respectively. A WDA is a government innovation to increase social
networking for women; a group of 30 women form a WDA, which is then
subdivided into five groups of six women with each group headed by a
“model” woman farmer (Figure 2).
Notably, the FGDs indicated that WDA and cooperative group memberships
are the two most important socioeconomic instruments of greater access to
community space for women, creating increased awareness and income-genera-
tion opportunities. However, study participants also suggested that these
collective action groups lack formal leverage to challenge community practices in
order to improve women’s livelihoods. Over 77 percent of the FGD texts show
that women lack the experience and confidence influencing decisions of their
cooperatives. Thus, while WDAs and cooperative groups are promising, they
need to be improved to better influence community decisions/practices and build
women’s leadership skills and confidence.

Post-Harvest Losses and Technologies

Post-harvest losses are not gender-neutral. They pose a major food security
challenge in the four survey regions, and the highest post-harvest losses are
reported during storage. Traditional storage materials are used to store grains in
all the regions. Post-harvest losses are attributed to natural agents (e.g.,
temperature, weevils, rodents) and management practices (e.g., poor storage), the
FGD texts indicated. Poor post-harvest technologies and practices are the major
reasons cited for up to 70 percent of qualitative loss and 40–50 percent grain
quantitative loss, according to the FGDs; the survey confirms these challenges for
all regions. For maize, wheat, and chickpea (the three cereal crops), the FGDs
reported high qualitative losses, with insects (e.g., weevils) as the most serious
cause of storage grain loss. For sesame-producer FGDs, quantitative losses were
most severe, with rodents and exposure to moisture as the main storage grain
loss threats for sesame.

Figure 2. Organizational Model of the Women Development Army (WDA) in the Survey Regions.
16 World Medical & Health Policy, 9999:9999

Post-harvest losses weaken the market bargaining power of grain producers,

and the FGDs noted that farmers sell most of their grain shortly after harvest at
low prices for fear of damage during storage and because of the need for
immediate disposable cash. Post-harvest issues are often crop-specific, and in our
study of four crops, sesame producers in Tigray report a lack of markets for
sesame as an additional driver of post-harvest (sesame) losses. Where markets are
missing, sesame producers tend to sell their sesame at lower prices or maintain
the sesame in their homestead storage (mainly jute bags and sacks) where grain
loss is highly prevalent mainly due to rodents and exposure to moisture. Even if
the oil content of the sesame declines 50 percent or more, the FGD sesame-
producers reported that they would still use it for oil extraction after cleaning.
What this means for women is more time-intensive labor processing and cleaning
the grain.
Lack of access to technologies is one factor compounding post-harvest losses.
A noteworthy example is the lack of access to harvesting technologies (e.g.,
combines) that have forced wheat farmers from the Arusi district to rely on the
services of private combine machine owners. The combines only come once (in a
season) to a specific village and harvest all the fields within a day or so. Farmers
are, thus, sometimes forced to harvest their crops before they have fully matured
or been properly dried, resulting in losses of 10–15 percent. Additionally, the
private operators of combiners may cut the crops using a larger sieve diameter to
allow more straw into the storage material (“gari”) to increase their per unit
profits. Crops harvested before maturity can be crushed more easily, leading to
lower grain prices. In addition, women’s work burden is increased by the
increased straw in the grain; as many as 8 days of drying activities and cleaning
of grain can result from this.

Health Impacts

Women’s empowerment is particularly important for reducing post-harvest

losses, which our study finds pose serious health risks (disproportionately to
women and children). Women have a large role in post-harvest activities in the
four study regions. Limited awareness by farmers and poor access to extension
advisory services are identified as the main reasons behind unsafe handling/use
of chemicals and pills, and women (who are underserved by extension services)
are the key agents in trying to minimize post-harvest losses.
Women are highly affected and exposed to health risks resulting from post-
harvest losses precisely because women are greatly involved in the post-harvest
activities. Women in our study attributed specific health problems they experi-
ence to their (women’s) disproportionate consumption of damaged grains and
exposure to toxic mold and chemicals associated with post-harvest losses/
activities. Notably, the women’s health complaints fit with findings from
epidemiological studies, which note similar presentations common to patients
exposed to mycotoxins and these presentations include: liver problems, coughing,
cancer in the respiratory system, chronic fatigue, headaches, and more (Anyanwu,
Petros et al.: Women Farmers’ (Dis)Empowerment 17

Campbell, Jones, Ehiri, & Akpan 2003; Rheeder et al., 1992; Shephard, 2008). As
such, our study supports several aforementioned studies that find mycotoxins
play a negative role with regards to nutrition and health outcomes. Of particular
concern for pregnant women exposed to and consuming mycotoxins associated
with post-harvest losses, “prenatal exposure to relatively low-dose mycotoxins
might induce immunosuppression” (Anyanwu et al., 2003, p. 1131; see also Berek,
Mesterhazy, T
eren, & Moln
ar, 2001).

Recommendations

Enhance Women’s Empowerment in Agriculture

Effective Targeting of Women by Project Interventions Along the Agricultural Value

Chain. Monitoring and evaluation measures should be forged to ensure that
project investments are affecting women positively. For instance, the FGDs
revealed heavy workloads as a main determinant of an empowerment gap for
women. Thus, project investments and related interventions should avoid adding
to women’s workload.

Strengthening the WDA and Other Women’s Groups in Communities. Membership in

local community groups has been touted to improve women’s empowerment.
However, we find limitations to women’s group influence in the communities
and limited gains in women’s leadership skills/confidence. Strengthening
women’s group access and leverage to influence community decisions about
women’s lives is an important step for empowering women (and strengthening
communities by increasing the diversity of voices). Moreover, linking these
collective action groups with reliable market opportunities could enhance the
income gains of men and women, thereby leading to better economic empower-
ment for men and women. For instance, a main source of post-harvest loss for
sesame producers is a lack of market. Thus, facilitating market linkages should
significantly reduce post-harvest losses in these particular communities.
Raising the empowerment of young women could be accomplished through
supporting youth groups who engage in the production of locally accessible post-
harvest technologies. This could increase women’s lifetime membership in
producer groups and create market opportunities that could increase their
economic benefits.

Integration of Civil Society Efforts on Gender Equality. One project cannot address all
empowerment issues. Thus, it is important for projects to integrate efforts with
other civil society organizations that are working in gender equality areas,
especially in the post-harvest context. One area of possible integration is joint
community mobilization and sensitization on gender awareness and the subse-
quent necessity of gender equality for enhanced local economic development and
food security. For example, as our FGD data show, despite policy adoption to
strengthen women’s formal rights to land, women’s empowerment in this area is
18 World Medical & Health Policy, 9999:9999

constrained by local cultural/gender barriers. Thus, such women’s rights policies

need to be complemented with government and donors’ earmarked funding of
grassroots-level, gender equality efforts to challenge local gender norm barriers
that limit women’s empowerment as well as the household and community
benefits that come with women’s empowerment.
In addition, men and women in our study expressed a need for trainings
concerning financial management and related business development services. The
FGDs reveal that the wider access for credit through microfinance institutions has
been empowering, but a lack of related financial capacity-building services is
believed to seriously undermine the economic gains from credits and, hence, off-
set empowerment gains from access to credit. Civil society efforts could be
combined to provide such trainings and services to men and women in
agricultural communities.

Investment in Research on Women’s Empowerment in Agriculture Across Crops, Cropping

Patterns, and Market Orientation of Households. Women’s empowerment in agricul-
ture can differ across regions based on crops, cropping patterns, and farming
systems, as Gupta, Pingali, and Pinstrup-Andersen (2017) discuss:

At a methodological level, work in this direction can be taken forward by

focusing on analysis that accounts for the endogeneity between farming
systems and women’s empowerment. . . . Variation in cropping patterns,
and therefore the degree of market orientation of households, across the
country can potentially offer location-specific insights into which domains
hold the greatest potential for addressing women’s disempowerment in
agriculture. (p. 1461)

Thus, future work should explore women’s empowerment across and within
regions in Ethiopia, as elsewhere.

Reduce Post-Harvest Losses and Increase Household Nutritional Security by Educating

Women Farmers on and Developing Post-Harvest Loss Technologies

Improved Education/Training to Women Farmers. We find that access to training and

post-harvest technologies is generally limited for women. Yet, there are oppor-
tunities to improve women’s empowerment in agriculture through awareness-
raising and a household-based model of extension delivery instead of a head-of-
household model. Women involved in farmwork should receive trainings
regardless of their status as head of household or a cultural assumption of
women as auxiliaries to “real” farmers (i.e., men). Women with low education
tend to engage in low risk/return farming practices, including growing less
nutritious crops, thereby undermining the nutritional security of the household.
Providing improved education/trainings to women farmers, especially those with
the lowest education levels, should improve the nutritional security of the
household.
Petros et al.: Women Farmers’ (Dis)Empowerment 19

Trainings on post-harvest grain handling should center on the role of women

in post-harvest management. The trainings should be organized at community
levels in order to enable more women to participate. The relative benefits of the
post-harvest technologies should be made clear through demonstration trials of
the technologies compared with traditional practices. The trainings and awareness
creation interventions should be household based and not be accessible to only
the household head.

Post-Harvest Technology Development Should Put Women at Its Core Due to Women’s
Significant Role in Post-Harvest Activities. Any intervention should avoid increasing
women’s workloads or transferring decision making or control of income from
women to men. The post-harvest extension services should also address the
health and nutritional challenges of the post-harvest losses on rural women. For
instance, women in our study reported disproportionately consuming damaged
grains to avoid “conflict” with their husbands, who would receive the undam-
aged grains over women and children for household meals. This reflects a
gendered nutritional hierarchy in the household that agricultural extension agents
should help to dismantle by educating women, men, and children of: (i) the
importance for everyone to avoid consuming mycotoxins from damaged grains;
(ii) the equal value of females and males to a household and community; and (iii)
the human right to safe and nutritious food for girls, boys, women, and men.
In addition, while most of our FGD participants lack knowledge of available
technologies (e.g., PICS bags), when asked if they would buy improved storage
technologies to reduce post-harvest losses, they state that their main barrier is
cost. Therefore, ensuring local accessibility to low-cost post-harvest technologies
should be given immediate attention. This will also help in minimizing the labor
and health risks for women resulting from storage treatments used (e.g.,
malathion, DDT), as well as damage to grains.

Research and Trainings Should Support and Strengthen Women’s Innovations for
Improved Storage of Grains. We find that women possess particular indigenous
knowledge that should be further studied. Future policy innovations should learn
from existing indigenous knowledge of women in the interest of sustainable
technologies that minimize post-harvest grain losses. We find that there is high
demand for technologies that can significantly lower grain losses while decreasing
women’s labor.

Supporting Sesame Research. Supporting sesame research may be a unique area to

increase women’s empowerment in agriculture our study finds, as shattering
sesame varieties increase both post-harvest losses and women’s labor burden.
While women across the regions work many more hours than men in our study,
women in Tigray face extended workloads due to the nature of the crop (sesame)
during planting, weeding, and harvesting relative to women in the other regions.
Sesame producers from Humera indicated that the shattering of sesame seed in
the field highly contributes to post-harvest losses. A farm-level demonstration
20 World Medical & Health Policy, 9999:9999

(one of our cross-checking, participatory tools) revealed that about 30 percent of

loss occurs due to shattering in existing sesame varieties. Study participants also
reported cases of non-farm owners getting more sesame production from picking
the dropped sesame in harvested fields. Women are also responsible for the labor
needed to pick the dropped sesame and this is very time-consuming. Thus, we
recommend supporting research for non-shattering sesame varieties to decrease
both women’s labor burden and post-harvest losses.

Adopt Policies to Mitigate the Effect of Post-Harvest Losses on Nutrition and

Overall Health

Our study finds that women, in particular, experience coughing, liver

problems, and chronic fatigue. Epidemiological studies of women, men, and
children in subsistence farming households in different locations are necessary to
explore the impact of not only consuming, but also working with damaged grains
on one’s health. Sudakin and Fallah (2008) also call for epidemiological studies to
assess mycotoxin exposure in different activities and environments. While this
study does not test links between mycotoxins and specific health problems, our
study participants’ health complaints and symptoms fit with aforementioned
epidemiological studies’ findings on mycotoxins’ relationship to diseases and
major presentations by patients suffering from mycotoxin exposure. For instance,
our women FGD participants complained of coughing problems, which they
attributed to their post-harvest activities. Coughing problems could result from
an inhalation of mycotoxins (Fung & Clark, 2004, p. 217) and they could be a
symptom of esophageal cancer, as found in epidemiological studies that explore
links between mycotoxins and diseases (Mchembe et al., 2013), but our study
does not investigate this. Governments and partners should invest more funding
in both food safety and epidemiological studies regarding mycotoxins’ impact on
nutrition and health, especially among subsistence farmers and their children.
Shephard (2008, p. 149) summarizes the importance of combatting mycotoxins, a
post-harvest loss related problem:

Exposure to mycotoxins is a serious risk to human health, especially in

developing countries where the effects of poverty and malnutrition lead
to an exacerbation of the detrimental effects of these food-borne toxins by
circumscribing biochemical detoxification mechanisms. . . . Apart from the
fact that aflatoxin is a causative factor for primary liver cancer, strong
epidemiological evidence for mycotoxins as causative factors of various
diseases is still lacking. Nevertheless, exposure to these compounds
should be addressed as an urgent food safety issue as they place a
significant constraint on attempts to improve human health in developing
countries.

In addition to increasing funding for food safety and research regarding

mycotoxins, public policies should be adopted to mitigate the effect of post-harvest
Petros et al.: Women Farmers’ (Dis)Empowerment 21

losses on nutrition and overall health. Specifically, governments and partners

should invest in research and development of affordable and highly nutritious
locally processed foods, including for pregnant women, infants, and children.
Investment in the processing and nutrition phase of the agricultural value chain
should be combined with community-level research and development of post-
harvest intervention measures to reduce exposure to mycotoxins. For example,
Turner et al. (2005) report on community-based post-harvest intervention measures
to reduce exposure to carcinogenic aflatoxins in West Africa.

Conclusion

According to our FGDs, more than 70 percent of agricultural labor comes

from women in our study sites in Ethiopia, where agriculture (mainly cereal
production) is a dominant economic engine. At a structural level, the agricultural
sector in the survey regions is identified with subsistence farm enterprises, poor
technology adoption, and low productivity frontiers. Mainstreaming and ensuring
gender equality in the agricultural sector is thus one of the most urgent
development requisites to dealing with rural poverty and food insecurity in
Ethiopia. Empowering women and men across the agricultural spectrum should
be prioritized, with an emphasis on closing the empowerment gap between men
and women, as evidenced in our study. In our study’s four PHLIL-Ethiopia study
regions, women farmers are disempowered in agriculture compared to men
farmers, and women’s heavy workload (on average doubling men’s) and their
post-harvest activities pose serious health risks to women and children.
Achieving gender equality remains an important goal for policy in Ethiopia
to attain development objectives, and policies and programs should address the
areas of empowerment in this study. Increased access to post-harvest technologies
by women should be prioritized by projects concerned with post-harvest losses.
Further, more research is needed in the area of women’s health risks related to
post-harvest activities and disempowerment in agriculture.

Limitations of the Study

WEAI is a measure of empowerment in agriculture administered as a

household survey; it covers a wide range of issues that affect women’s
empowerment in agriculture. Our Q-WEAI study is an adaptation of the WEAI.
Our study aimed to capture the gendered nature of post-harvest practices and the
levels of men and women’s empowerment in agriculture through a survey of
FGD participants, FGDs, and other participatory tools across communities in our
study. Our WEAI-informed study is not a pure WEAI study. Our study is also
limited in that we cannot provide evidence of a link between our study
participants’ health problems and mycotoxin exposure, but the FGDs support
other studies that show a connection between exposure to toxins through
damaged grains to health problems, including those mentioned by women
farmers who manage and consume damaged grains in our study. Further, our
22 World Medical & Health Policy, 9999:9999

study results may not be representative of all farmers in the four regions, but
they are specific to the USAID-funded PHLIL study sites.

Solomon Petros is the farmer organization expert for the Integrated Seed Sector
Development (ISSD) Project at Mekelle University, Ethiopia.
Fetien Abay is professor of plant breeding and seed and the vice president for
research and community service at Mekelle University, Ethiopia.
Girmanesh Desta is research head and post graduate coordinator for the Institute
of Environment, Gender and Development Studies at Mekelle University,
Ethiopia.
Cheryl O’Brien is an assistant professor of political science at San Diego State
University, USA, and the lead gender specialist for two USAID Feed the Future
Innovation Labs, PHLIL and FPL, led respectively by Kansas State and Purdue
Universities, USA.

Notes

Conflicts of interest: None declared.

Corresponding author: Cheryl O’Brien, cobrien@sdsu.edu
The Ethiopia PHLIL team of Mekelle University acknowledges the financial and professional support
of USAID and Kansas State University without which this study’s survey and other tools would have
never come into fruition. PHLIL Ethiopia team also is greatly indebted for the logistical and facilitation
support of Mekelle University and partners in the four survey regions. Moreover, we reserve special
thanks for the local administration units and their experts for mobilizing and organizing farmer
groups for the survey FGDs. We are also thankful to Ato Minilik Kefale (Amhara ISSD), W/o Meseret
Getaneh, W/o Simret Semano, (SNNP ISSD) Muez Berhe (Humera ARC and SBN), Rahwa Gebre
(Mekelle University), and Kulumsa ARC for their committed work during the two rounds of data
collection. We give a special thanks to the farmers who participated in the study for their information,
trust, and cooperation. We thank Dr. Atsushi Nara (Department of Geography, San Diego State
University) for creating our Figure 1 map. Research reported here was made possible by the generous
support of the American people through the United States Agency for International Development
(USAID) under the Feed the Future initiative (www.feedthefuture.gov). The contents are the
responsibility of the Innovation Lab for the Reduction of Post-Harvest Loss (www.k-state.edu/phl)
and do not necessarily reflect the views of USAID or the United States Government.
The research has been registered and cleared by the Mekelle University Research and Publication
Office on approval of the institutional ethical reviews. The research is funded by USAID and approved
by Mekelle University following institutional ethical review.

1. Wereda is an administrative structure equivalent with county.

2. Kebelle is the smallest administrative unit equivalent to village.
3. Wealth status is either: destitute, very poor, poor, medium, or rich. The wealth ranking relies on the
local community standards, as used in PSNP targeting criteria. Land and livestock units (type and
size) are the two most identifiable proxies of rural wealth status in Ethiopia. Landholding is locally
measured in tsimad, which is equivalent to 1/4th of a hectare.
4. Over 88 percent in Tigray, over 71 percent in SNNPR, over 79 percent in Amhara, and in Oromia
over 55 percent households are issued with joint land right certificates as of 2016.
5. Lack of awareness is highest in SNNPR (73 percent), Oromia (71 percent), and Amhara (54 percent)
according to EEA/EEPRI (2004).
6. Participants refer to “Set-tikonetralech,” translated to “women would pick some grain from the
storage.”
7. Gotera/gota stands for local storage materials often made of mud, cow dung, and wood. Men also
believe that women lack the physical labor to open the gotera storage because of its size.
Petros et al.: Women Farmers’ (Dis)Empowerment 23

References

Action Aid. 2015. Delivering Women Farmers’ Rights. [Online]. http://www.actionaid.org/sites/files/

actionaid/delivering_on_women_farmers_rights.pdf. Accessed December 2, 2016.
Adhikari, Miriam, Gita Ramjee, and Patricia Berjak. 1994. “Aflatoxin, Kwashiorkor, and Morbidity.”
Natural Toxins 2 (1): 1–3.
Alkire, Sabina, Ruth Meinzen-Dick, Amber Peterman, Agnes R. Quisumbing, Greg Seymour, and Ana
Vaz. 2012. “The Women’s Empowerment in Agriculture Index.” Discussion Paper 01240.
Washington, DC: International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI). http://citeseerx.ist.psu.
edu/viewdoc/download?doi¼10.1.1.828.2955&rep¼rep1&type¼pdf. Accessed August 30, 2016.
———. 2013. “The Women’s Empowerment in Agriculture Index.” World Development, 52: 71–91.
Anyanwu, Ebere, Andrew W. Campbell, Joseph Jones, John E. Ehiri, and Akpan I. Akpan. 2003. “The
Neurological Significance of Abnormal Natural Killer Cell Activity in Chronic Toxigenic Mold
Exposures.” The Scientific World Journal 3: 1128–37.
Berek, Livia, Ildik

o B. Petri, Akos Mesterhazy, Joseph T
eren, and Joseph Moln
ar. 2001. “Effects of
Mycotoxins on Human Immune Functions in Vitro.” Toxicology in Vitro 15 (1): 25–30.
Central Statistical Agency (CSA). 2016. “Agricultural Sample Survey.” Volume VII Report on Crop and
Livestock Product Utilization. Addis Ababa, Ethiopia: CSA.
Deininger, Klaus, Daniel Ayalew Ali, Stein Holden, and Jaap Zevenbergen. 2007. “Rural Land
Certification in Ethiopia: Process, Initial Impact, and Implications for Other African Countries.”
Policy Research Working Paper No. 4218. World Bank, Washington, DC: World Bank. https://
openknowledge.worldbank.org/handle/10986/7065. Accessed November 30, 2015.
Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO). 1986. The State of Food and Agriculture 1985. Rome: Food
and Agriculture Organization (FAO) of the United Nations. http://www.fao.org/3/a-ap665e.pdf.
Accessed August 30, 2015.
———. 2010. Women, Agriculture and Food Security. Rome: Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) of
the United Nations. http://www.fao.org/worldfoodsummit/english/fsheets/women.pdf.
Accessed August 30, 2015.
———. 2011. Women in Agriculture: Closing the Gap for Development. The State of Food and Agriculture
2010–2011. Rome: Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) of the United Nations. http://www.
fao.org/docrep/013/i2050e/i2050e.pdf. Accessed August 30, 2015.
Fung, Frederick, and Richard F. Clark. 2004. “Health Effects of Mycotoxins: A Toxicological
Overview.” Journal of Toxicology: Clinical Toxicology 42 (2): 217–34.
Gong, Yun Yun, Kitty Cardwell, Assomption Hounsa, Sharif Egal, Paul C. Turner, Andrew J. Hall, and
Christopher P. Wild. 2002. “Dietary Aflatoxin Exposure and Impaired Growth in Young Children
from Benin and Togo: Cross Sectional Study.” British Medical Journal 325: 20–21.
Gupta, Soumya, Prabhu L. Pingali, and Per Pinstrup-Andersen. 2017. “Women’s Empowerment in
Indian Agriculture: Does Market Orientation of Farming Systems Matter?” Food Security 9(6):
1447–63.
Hendrickse, Ralph George. 1991. “Clinical Implications of Food Contaminated by Aflatoxins.” Annals
of the Academy of Medicine, Singapore 20 (1): 84–90.
Jiang, Yi, Pauline E. Jolly, William O. Ellis, Jia-Sheng Wang, Timothy D. Phillips, and Jonathan H.
Williams. 2005. “Aflatoxin B1 Albumin Adduct Levels and Cellular Immune Status in
Ghanaians.” International Immunolog 17 (6): 807–14.
Jolly, Pauline E., Yi Jiang, William O. Ellis, Richard T. Awuah, Jennifer Appawu, Obinna Nnedu,
Jonathan K. Stiles, et al. 2007. “Association Between Aflatoxin Exposure and Health Character-
istics, Liver Function, Hepatitis and Malaria Infections in Ghanaians.” Journal of Nutritional &
Environmental Medicine 16: 242–57.
Malapit, Hazel Jean L., Crossley Pinkstaff, Kathryn Sproule, Chiara Kovarik, Agnes R. Quisumbing,
and Ruth S. Meinzen-Dick. 2017. “The Abbreviated Women’s Empowerment in Agriculture Index
(A-WEAI) May 2017.” IFPRI Discussion Paper 1647. https://ssrn.com/abstract¼3012806.
Accessed September 5, 2017.
24 World Medical & Health Policy, 9999:9999

Malapit, Hazel Jean, Kathryn Sproule, Chiara Kovarik, Ruth Suseela Meinzen-Dick, Agnes R.
Quisumbing, Farzana Ramzan, Emily Hogue, and Sabina Alkire. 2014. Measuring Progress Toward
Empowerment: Women’s Empowerment in Agriculture Index Baseline Report. Washington, DC: IFPRI.
Mchembe, Mabula D., Peter F. Rambau, Phillipo L. Chalya, Hyasinta Jaka, Mheta Koy, and William
Mahalu. 2013. “Endoscopic and Clinicopathological Patterns of Esophageal Cancer in Tanzania:
Experiences From Two Tertiary Health Institutions.” World Journal of Surgical Oncology 11 (1): 257.
Miller, J. David. 1998. “Global Significance of Mycotoxins.” In Mycotoxins and Phycotoxins: Developments
in Chemistry, Toxicology and Food Safety, ed. Marina Miraglia. Fort Collins, CO: Alaken Inc.
Ministry of Finance and Economic Development (MoFED). 2014. “Annual Economic Performance
Report.” Addis Ababa, Ethiopia: Author.
National Bank of Ethiopia (NBE). 2015. “2014/15 Annual Report.” Addis Ababa, Ethiopia: Author.
O’Brien, Cheryl, Nilupa S. Gunaratna, Kidist Gebreselassie, Zachary M. Gitonga, Mulunesh Tsegaye,
and Hugo De Groote. 2016. “Gender as a Cross-Cutting Issue in Food Security: The NuME Project
and Quality Protein Maize in Ethiopia.” World Medical & Health Policy 8 (3): 263–86.
Rheeder, John Paul, Walter Friedrich Otto Marasas, Pieter G. Thiel, Eric W. Sydenham, Gordon S.
Shephard, and Dirk Jacobus Van Schalkwyk. 1992. “Fusarium Moniliforme and Fumonisins in
Corn in Relation to Human Esophageal Cancer in Transkei.” Phytopathology 82: 353–57.
Sauer, David B. 1988. “Effects of Fungal Deterioration on Grain: Nutritional Value, Toxicity,
Germination.” International Journal of Food Microbiology 7 (3): 267–75.
Shephard, Gordon S. 2008. “Impact of Mycotoxins on Human Health in Developing Countries.” Food
Additives and Contaminants 25 (2): 146–51.
Sudakin, Daniel, and Payam Fallah. 2008. “Toxigenic Fungi and Mycotoxins in Outdoor, Recreational
Environments.” Clinical Toxicology 46 (8): 738–44.
Turner, Paul C., Sophie E. Moore, Andrew J. Hall, Andrew M. Prentice, and Christopher P. Wild. 2003.
“Modification of Immune Function Through Exposure to Dietary Aflatoxin in Gambian
Children.” Environmental Health Perspectives 111 (2): 217–20.
Turner, Paul C., Abdoulay Sylla, Yun Yun Gong, Momadou S. Diallo, Anne E. Sutcliffe, Andrew J.
Hall, and Christopher P. Wild. 2005. “Reduction in Exposure to Carcinogenic Aflatoxins by
Postharvest Intervention Measures in West Africa: A Community-Based Intervention Study.” The
Lancet 365: 1950–56.
Williams, Jonathan H., Timothy D. Phillips, Pauline E. Jolly, Jonathan K. Stiles, Curtis M. Jolly, and
Deepak Aggarwal. 2004. “Human Aflatoxicosis in Developing Countries: A Review of Toxicology,
Exposure, Potential Health Consequences, and Interventions.” The American Journal of Clinical
Nutrition 80 (5): 1106–22.
World Bank. 2015. Agriculture, Value Added (Annual % Growth). [Online]. https://data.worldbank.org/
country/Ethiopia. Accessed November 30, 2015.
Yimer, Feiruz and Fanaye Tadesse. 2015. “Women’s Empowerment in Agriculture and Dietary
Diversity in Ethiopia.” ESSP Working Papers 80. Washington, DC: International Food Policy
Research Institute (IFPRI).
Petros et al.: Women Farmers’ (Dis)Empowerment 25

Appendix

Checklist for FGDs and Community Empowerment Rankings

Theme/
Domain Thematic topics, indicators, codes Participation/Access Adequacy Weight

Production Crop production (types of seed/crop, size of 1/10

land use, type of land use, land rent-in/
out, sharecropping, etc)
Input use DM
Technology adoption DM
Autonomy 1/10
Constraints
Resources Land (ownership, certification, size, quality,
control etc)
Purchase, sale, transfer of assets 1/15
Livestock (ownership, control, type, size, 1/15
market value, etc)
Credit (use, control, budgeting, reason, 1/15
sources, etc)
Labour (availability, affordability etc)
Water pump/irrigation infrastructure
(access, control, type, location, etc)
Poultry (size, modern, traditional, income,
control, access etc)
Beehives (modern, traditional, income,
access, control etc)
Farm implements (availability, affordability,
size, importance, etc)
Constraints
Income Participation in income generating activities 1/5
Main source of income/streams
Income use types
Control over income use
Own savings (men, women, joint)
Household expenditure (men, women, joint)
Constraints
Leadership/ Informal organizations (availability,
community membership, roles, etc)
space
Formal organizations (availability, 1/10
membership, roles, etc)
Agenda setting
Decision making practices
Autonomy
Roles and influence of organizations
Public speaking (assertiveness, confidence, 1/10
acceptability etc)
Constraints
Time Workload (daily calendar, reasons to
participate, roles, impacts, constraints,
agricultural calendar, social activities etc)
26 World Medical & Health Policy, 9999:9999

Continued

Theme/
Domain
Thematic topics, indicators, codes Participation/Access Adequacy Weight

Leisure (types, autonomy, reasons,

adequacy, impact, etc)
Constraints
Health impacts of workload
Post-harvest Access to post-harvest technologies (types,
availability, affordability, adoption
decision making,
Roles in post-harvest activities
(disaggregated by sex)
Health impacts of post-harvest losses
Types of grain losses (qualitative,
quantitative,
Post-harvest management practices
Marketing, storage, transportation,
chipping/thrashing
Extension services
Constraints