Participação feminina em cadeias agrícolas de alto valor em Kenya

Prévia do material em texto

lable at ScienceDirect
Journal of Rural Studies 50 (2017) 228e239
Contents lists avai
Journal of Rural Studies
journal homepage: www.elsevier .com/locate/ j rurstud
Women's participation in high value agricultural commodity chains in
Kenya: Strategies for closing the gender gap
Judith Beatrice Auma Oduol a, *, Dagmar Mith€ofer a, 1, Frank Place a, 2, Eddah Nang'ole a, 3,
John Olwande b, Lilian Kirimi b, Mary Mathenge b
a World Agroforestry Centre, UN Avenue, Gigiri, P.O. Box 30677-00100, Nairobi, Kenya
b Tegemeo Institute of Agricultural Policy and Development, P.O. Box 20498-00200, Nairobi, Kenya
a r t i c l e i n f o
Article history:
Received 25 July 2014
Received in revised form
12 December 2016
Accepted 6 January 2017
Keywords:
Women
Agricultural value chains
Value chain upgrading
Avocado
Kenya
* Corresponding author.
E-mail addresses: j.oduol@cgiar.org, juduol@yahoo
1 Dagmar Mith€ofer is currently a professor of Agri
versity of Applied Sciences in Germany.
2 Frank Place is now with the CGIAR Research Pro
and Markets in Washington DC, United States of Ame
3 Eddah Nang'ole currently works for TNS Globa
Nairobi, Kenya.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jrurstud.2017.01.005
0743-0167/© 2017 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
a b s t r a c t
In developing economies, well-functioning markets are known to provide the poor with avenues for
wealth creation. Using a value chain approach, this paper aims at examining bottlenecks to and op-
portunities for different categories of women to participate in markets for high value agricultural
commodities, with a view to identifying feasible upgrading strategies for the different categories. The
findings are based on a case study of Kenya's avocado value chain, which depicts export and domestic
market orientation. The data were collected through focus group discussions, key informant interviews,
in-depth interviews and household surveys. The results suggest that in the more commercialized and
well developed chains like that of export, upgrading strategies vary for the different typologies of
women. While women in female headed households may require limited efforts such as tailoring
financial products to their needs or providing interlinked services coupled with prompt payment for
their produce to allow them to produce quality fruits and access lucrative markets, women in male
headed households need institutionalization of gender-sensitive policies in the governance of producer
groups to enable them to upgrade as chain integrators and chain owners. In the less commercialized
domestic chain, limited efforts may be required to upgrade women along the chain, but the need to
change from the less marketable local variety to exotic variety is likely to alter women's position, thereby
calling for the need to institutionalize gender-sensitive policies in the governance of existing organized
groups and use the groups as a platform to introduce the new variety.
© 2017 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
1. Introduction
Well-functioning factor and product markets can provide the
poor, particularly smallholder farmers and the landless, with ave-
nues for wealth creation, thereby expediting food insecurity and
poverty alleviation. When markets function well, trade thrives and
farmers are able to recoup returns on investment outlays, thus
providing an incentive for reinvestment in agriculture (Jayne et al.,
2004). In sub-Saharan Africa, markets for agricultural inputs and
.com (J.B.A. Oduol).
business at Rhine-Waal Uni-
gram on Policies, Institutions
rica.
l as a Research Manager in
outputs are often missing or disorganised at best (Poulton et al.,
2006; Ashraf et al., 2008). While market failure is a major
constraint to smallholder farmers, the effects are compounded for
marginalised groups such as the poor, women and households in
low potential areas (Poulton et al., 2006; FAO, 2011).
The challenges may even be more pronounced for smallholder
women farmers because they may face higher entry barriers than
men in modern value chains (Dolan and Sorby, 2003). Women
generally have the least access to and control over productive re-
sources such as land, capital and agricultural services like credit and
training that are necessary for increasing yields and moving from
subsistence to market-oriented production (Jiggins et al., 1997;
FAO, 2011). In most sub-Saharan African countries, the distribu-
tion of physical and human capital favours men and the differences
in rights and responsibilities within the household bring about
inefficient resource allocation and constrain women's ability to
respond to price incentives (Quisumbing and Pandolfelli, 2010).
mailto:j.oduol@cgiar.org
mailto:juduol@yahoo.com
http://crossmark.crossref.org/dialog/?doi=10.1016/j.jrurstud.2017.01.005&domain=pdf
www.sciencedirect.com/science/journal/07430167
http://www.elsevier.com/locate/jrurstud
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jrurstud.2017.01.005
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jrurstud.2017.01.005
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jrurstud.2017.01.005
J.B.A. Oduol et al. / Journal of Rural Studies 50 (2017) 228e239 229
Further, women's engagement in agricultural production and
marketing activities does not necessarily translate into increased
incomes for them or improved decision making regarding the use
of the income generated from agricultural activities (Dolan and
Sorby, 2003; FAO, 2011). Women generally produce for more
localized spot markets and in smaller volumes thanmen, and when
they are involved in marketing of agricultural produce, they tend to
be concentrated at the lower levels of the supply or value chain, in
perishable or low value products (Baden, 1998; Dolan and Sorby,
2003). Likewise, women constitute only 20e30% of agricultural
wage workers in modern agricultural value chains, yet these chains
usually offer wage and self-employment with better pay and
working conditions than traditional agriculture (FAO, ILO and IUF,
2007).
Empowering women in the agricultural value chains can create
significant development opportunities for them and generate spill-
over benefits for their households and communities (Quisumbing
and McClafferty, 2006). Integrating women into markets for high
value agricultural commodities requires a holistic approach that
involves critical understanding and identification of the bottle-
necks to, and opportunities for, women to participate in the pro-
duction and marketing of such commodities (Rubin and Manfre,
2014). Whether to strengthen value chains in which women are
already active or rather promote novel opportunities e that may so
far have been a male-dominated chain e is far from clear and
warrants nuanced analysis (Rubin and Manfre, 2014).
Comprehensive analysis of a value chain is a prerequisite for the
development of gender equitable value chains because the analysis
is critical for understanding markets, relationships among actors,
the participation of different actors and the main constraints that
limit the growth of the enterprise as well as competitiveness of
individual actors (Coles and Mitchell, 2011; Rubin and Manfre,
2014). Results from value chain analyses have been used to
design market oriented interventions and value chain upgrading
strategies that are beneficial to smallholder farmers, particularly
the marginalized groups, in developing countries (van den Berg
et al., 2009; IFAD, 2010; Donovan et al., 2015). However, to the
extent that the constraints and opportunities faced by men and
women differ (Quisumbing et al., 2014b), interventions that pro-
mote equitable development are likely to be different for men and
women. Men increasingly move into food crops as well as into the
previously neglected fruit trees as the prices of traditional export
crops fall (Bolzahi et al., 2010) or men might contest women's ac-
cess to productive assets as women's benefits from crops previously
considered to be of low value increase (Rubin and Manfre, 2014).
Both cases illustrate the need for assessing interventions to
improve women's access to lucrative markets.Factors that limit women's participation in high value agricul-
tural commodity markets may differ among women and hence
addressing them may require interventions that are tailored to the
needs of a heterogeneous group of women. Yet, there is paucity of
information on gender-disaggregated value chain analysis (Rubin
and Manfre, 2014) as well as on the type of interventions that
work for women taking into account differences among them. For
example, the needs of widows can be expected to differ from those
of married women. Similarly, the needs of married women whose
husbands live and work elsewheremay differ from those of women
whose husbands work on the farm and depend entirely on farm
income. Most studies that have attempted to look into women's
participation in markets for high value commodities have consid-
ered women as a homogenous group and used data disaggregated
by men and women (Dolan, 2004; Dolan and Sorby, 2003;
Mathenge et al., 2010).
The objective of this paper is to provide a gender-disaggregated
value chain analysis with a major focus on the node of production
and marketing at farm-level in order to identify entry points for
interventions tailored to the needs of different typologies of
women. The aim is to identify contextually appropriate strategies
that can improve women's access to and gains from markets for
high value agricultural commodities. Specifically, we analyse export
and domestic avocado value chains as case studies and seek to
answer three main questions: (1) Does the level of participation by
women differ with the degree of commercialisation of the value
chain? (2) Do constraints to and opportunities for participation by
women in agricultural value chains differ by the typology of the
women and the degree of commercialisation of the chain? (3)
Which strategies would work best to improve the participation of
women in agricultural value chains with low and high degrees of
market orientation?
We consider three typologies of women: (1) women in male-
headed households whose husbands are engaged in the day-to-
day farming activities and farm management (male-male) who
are often invisible (Quisumbing et al., 2014b); (2) women in male-
headed households whose husbands are engaged in off-farm
employment and live away from the household, thereby leaving
the women as the farmmanagers (male-female); and (3) women in
female-headed households who are either single, widowed or
separated from their husbands and hence are the farm managers
and sole decision makers in their households (female-female). We
adopt a value chain approach and examine the level of participation
by the three typologies of women in the different stages of the
value chains, with a major focus on the production and marketing
at the household level.We posit that the three typologies of women
face different sets of constraints, which dictate the node of the
value chain in which they participate as well as the benefits they
derive from the value chain. In addition, the level of women's
participation and constraints experienced by the three typologies
of women are hypothesized to vary by the degree of commercial-
ization of the value chain.
The paper is organised as follows: In Section 2 we provide the
conceptual framework that underlies the study; Section 3 provides
information on the study areas and sampling design; the findings,
including characteristics of the value chains, are presented and
discussed in Section 4; in Section 5, conclusions and policy impli-
cations deriving from the study are presented.
2. Conceptual framework
Several analytical frameworks have been put forth to examine
strategies and opportunities for integrating women in market
transactions (e.g. McCormick and Schmitz, 2001; Mayoux and
Mackie, 2008; Riisgard et al., 2008). This study combines the con-
cepts of the value chain (VC) and the gender empowerment
framework. Avalue chain refers to the activities by firms and people
to bring a product or service from its conception to its end use and
final disposal (Kaplinsky and Morris, 2002). A major focus in value
chain analysis is on governance, and identification of the chain
actor who sets the parameters to which other actors adhere
(Humphrey and Schmitz, 2001). Value chain development (VCD)
intends to answer one key question: At what point can leverage be
applied to reach the intended systematic change in a sector or a
target group (Donovan et al., 2015)?
Coles and Mitchell (2011) contend that value chain analysis and
development as a concept, if properly applied, can be a powerful
tool for addressing gender inequities in markets. Rubin et al. (2009)
provide three reasons why gender equity is important in value
chain development (VCD). First, value chains exist within a social
context, which conditions differential access to productive re-
sources (land, labour and capital), support services (credit and
training), gender differentiated labour forces hence the choice of
J.B.A. Oduol et al. / Journal of Rural Studies 50 (2017) 228e239230
wealth generating strategies, and legal frameworks and social be-
liefs that restrict people's ability to accumulate wealth according to
gender category. Second, VCD affects gender roles and relations,
which in turn influences the type of intervention or upgrading
strategy to adopt. Third, VCD and gender equity are complementary
goals. For example, gender inequality can affect competitiveness by
limiting productivity, economic growth and trade performance.
The gender empowerment framework of KIT, Faida MaLi and
IIRR (2006) underlines the need to consider value chains from a
systemic point of view to enable integration of gender into agri-
cultural VCD. ‘Gender’ refers to “the relations of men and women”
and is a social construct whereas ‘sex’ captures the biological traits
of male and female (Quisumbing et al., 2014b. p. 6). The systemic
view involves integrating three important levels of the value chain:
(1) value chain actors (people or firms directly dealing with the
products); (2) value chain supporters (people or firms providing
services but who do not directly deal with the products); and (3)
value chain influencers (regulatory framework, policies, infra-
structure that enhance the performance of the chain) to allow
discovering potentials and bottlenecks within these levels and the
dynamic interactions between them (Fig. 1). Opportunities and
bottlenecks can emanate from different scales within the chain,
which could be local, national, global or a combination of the three
scales.
Such a systemic view of the value chain is critical for gendering
the value chain because it makes it possible to identify upgrading
strategies that lead to gender equitable outcomes. Upgrading
strategies include product upgrading (improving product quality or
variety), process upgrading (reducing per unit cost via efficiency
gains), functional upgrading (entry into a higher value-added
stage) and channel upgrading (entry into a different marketing
channel) (Humphrey and Schmitz, 2000; Quisumbing et al., 2014b).
Further to these upgrading strategies, Coles and Mitchell (2011) list
horizontal coordination and improvement of the enabling envi-
ronment as important contributors to improve interaction among
chain actors, chain supporters and chain influencers, thereby
resulting in efficiency and equity gains.
The gender empowerment framework is derived from the chain
empowerment matrix, which focuses on two broad dimensions:
the extent to which farmers are involved in chain activities and
chain governance. Farmers are said to be vertically integrated if
they have internalised further activities of the chain, for example, in
production and processing. Farmers are horizontally integrated if
Global 
Retailers 
Global Enabling Environment 
Input Suppliers Local Enabling Environment 
Processors 
Producers 
E
m
be
dd
ed
 
S
er
vi
ce
s 
Exporters Wholesalers 
National Retailers 
Non-Financial Business 
Services 
Financial Business 
Services 
National Enabling EnvironmentFig. 1. The value chain system (adapted from USAID, 2006 , cited in Senders et al.,
2012).
they are involved in many chain management issues and cooperate
with actors at the same level (Coles and Mitchell, 2011). In addition
to being able to decide onwhich crops to grow, howmuch to sell, to
whom and at what price, they can be in control of defining grades
and production standards. Depending on the level of involvement
in chain governance and chain activities, four upgrading strategies
can be identified for the farmers (Fig. 2). Farmers can choose to: (1)
upgrade as chain actors; (2) add value through vertical integration;
(3) develop chain partnerships; or (4) develop ownership over the
chain, for example by trying to build direct linkages with
customers.
To integrate gender perspective into the chain empowerment
framework, one needs to consider what empowerment processes
women and men are experiencing in the farming sector. If farmers
are integrating, how are men and women moving along the axes
and what obstacles do women experience within a specific chain?
KIT, Faida MaLi and IIRR (2006) suggest more pertinent questions
which can be asked for each dimension to identify key constraints
and leverage points for intervention as follows:
Chain actors: What activities dowomen participate in? To what
extent do they participate? Can their participation be improved?
Are the activities that women engage in visible? Are women's
contributions along the chain recognized and valued?
Chain integrators: Are women able to choose to move into
activities further up the chain and control the income they earn?
Do they have the capabilities in terms of resources, skills and the
confidence to move up the chain?
Chain partner: Upgrading women to become chain partners is
possible only if constraints to women's decision making are
removed and chain partnership is developed. Thus alleviating
women's constraints to leadership requires that policies, rules
and regulations governing the value chain are gender sensitive.
Hence, where are women positioned in terms of decision mak-
ing? What are the constraints that limit women's participation
in leadership positions?
Chain owner: Women should be in a position to take up lead-
ership positions and possess the capabilities to co-own enter-
prises and build direct linkages with other actors including
consumer markets: How can rules, regulations and policies be
adjusted for being supportive of women's leadership (KIT, Faida
MaLi and IIRR, 2006).
The gender empowerment framework goes beyond chain
empowerment dimensions and considers: what happens to the
distribution of the income generated along the chain and the
Chain empowerment dimensions
2 
Chain integrator 
C
ha
in
 a
ct
iv
iti
es
 
Chain governance 
1 
Chain actor 
Chain co-owner 
4
Chain partner 
3
Fig. 2. Chain empowerment matrix (adapted from KIT, Faida MaLi and IIRR, 2006).
J.B.A. Oduol et al. / Journal of Rural Studies 50 (2017) 228e239 231
workload within the household; what choices and alternatives
women have regarding the chain activities and whether they make
use of the choices; and how women's perspectives and needs are
linked to their achievements in the chain. Likewise, additional di-
mensions such as structure and agency are required to fully un-
derstand the processes that shape women's positioning, the
constraints they face, and to design interventions that address
these and lead to upgrading. The gender empowerment framework
provides four dimensions for analysing women's involvement in a
given a value chain: (1) vertical integration; (2) horizontal inte-
gration; (3) gender dynamics in households and community’ and
(4) institutional context.
Our analysis focuses on two of these dimensions. We focus on
vertical integration, which is concerned with activities that the
three typologies of women are involved in and the benefits that
women derive from the chain. We also focus on horizontal inte-
gration, which relates to who determines the conditions under
which activities are undertaken and how the benefits derived are
distributed. We explore women's positions in the domestic and
export value chains and identify potential upgrading strategies for
the three typologies of women and constraints that limit women's
ability to exploit the opportunities within the value chains. We
posit that upgrading strategies differ for different categories of
women and vary with the degree of commercialisation of the chain.
3. Methodology
3.1. Study sites
The study was conducted in Kandara (Murang'a County) and
Marani (Kisii County) districts in Kenya. Selection of the two dis-
tricts was based on the information that was derived from the
earlier phase of the project in which a three-year panel dataset
showed that Kandara and Marani districts had the highest con-
centration of avocado production and marketing (Mathenge et al.,
2010). The findings from the longitudinal datasets were validated
through inception visits and key informant interviews in which it
was confirmed that the avocado value chain has potential for
integrating marginalised smallholder farmers into commodity
markets because of its export and commercial orientation. Yet the
chain was noted to be entirely male dominated and thus could
benefit from interventions that are geared towards enhancing
market participation by smallholder women farmers.
Avocado production in Kandara is mostly for the export market
while the avocados produced in Marani are mostly sold on the
domestic market. Apart from market orientation, the two sites
differed in the level of organisation of informal institutions. In
Marani, no organised farmer groups focussed on avocado market-
ing, while in Kandara such groups were well established and were
linked to exporters through the Avocado Growers Association of
Kenya (AGAK). To the extent that the two districts exhibited
different production and marketing strategies, it was likely that the
chains would involve different actors with different governance
structures and hence might require different interventions.
Consequently, the findings from the two sites were expected to
provide insights into how markets can be organised to work best
for women farmers, under export and domestic market orientation.
3.2. Sampling and data
The study used mixed methods approach to data collection to
address research questions. The data were collected using focus
group discussions (FGDs) with small-scale producers, structured
producer household surveys, case studies of farmer groups, trader
surveys and key informant interviews with actors along the value
chain, such as exporters, processors and input suppliers. Following
Mayoux and Mackie (2008) all data collection tools were dis-
aggregated by gender. As a first step and prior to developing data
collection instruments, scoping studies were conducted to fine-
tune the research question and identify the most relevant typol-
ogies of women on which to focus. This was done by FGDs with
producers and key informant interviews with representatives of
relevant institutions such as the Kenya Horticultural Development
Program (KHDP), the Horticultural Crops Development Authority
(HCDA), the Ministry of Agriculture (MoA) at the national and
district level and the Promotion of Private Sector Development in
Agriculture (PSDA).
The instruments developed for the value chain analysis included
semi-structured questionnaires for traders, structured question-
naires for producers, checklists for FGDs with producers, key
informant interview guides for input suppliers, exporters, pro-
cessors and checklists for case studies of farmer groups. The semi-
structured key informant interviews were instrumental in eliciting
responses from chain players and assessing the level of participa-
tion bywomen as entrepreneurs and business development service
providers. Snowball sampling was used to identify key informants
along the chain. This resulted in interviews of five nursery opera-
tors, 18 traders, four processorsand five exporters.
At producer-level, FGDs, in-depth case studies on horizontal
coordination and structured household surveys were conducted;
the latter generated quantitative data on intra-household alloca-
tion of resources. The FGDs were used to elicit responses for
research questions that sought to understandwhymen andwomen
at the household level choose to participate in certain stages of the
value chain and not others. The FGDs were separated into men- and
women-only groups to allow the participants to discuss freely
sensitive questions like control of proceeds from avocado among
others. Two case studies were conducted with twomembers of two
farmer groups in Kandara. The groups were selected on the basis of
their size, gender composition and age, as well as level of activity,
cohesiveness and relevance of the enterprise. A checklist focusing
on institutional set up of the groups, formal and informal regula-
tions that govern their operations and the level of involvement of
women in key leadership positions within the group was used as
guide for the study.
The structured household surveys differentiated roles within
the households in terms of head of household, manager of avocado
production (person responsible for the day-to-day activities per-
taining to avocado trees) and decision maker on sales and spending
of returns on avocado production. Household survey data were
derived from a sample of 200 households, consisting of a stratified
random sample of 100 households from Kandara on the basis of
group membership and gender of the household head, and another
100 households from Marani, stratified based on gender of the
household head and extent of avocado production and marketing.
Descriptive analysis is used because of the small sample size of
the women respondents and the nature of the research questions,
which did not allow for rigorous quantitative methods of analysis.
Grossmargins were computed for each of the actors along the value
chain to determine the gains that accrue to women in the nodes
where they are concentrated. Cost items used in the estimation of
gross margins at the producer level included production costs
incurred on labour, both family and hired, and variable inputs like
fertiliser, pesticides andmanure as well asmarketing costs incurred
on transport. Family labour is costed by its opportunity cost: the
prevailing wage rate which was the same for men and women. At
the local trading and export part of the chain, cost components
included procurement costs, such as the cost of the fruit and labour,
as well as sales costs such as packaging, storage and transport.
J.B.A. Oduol et al. / Journal of Rural Studies 50 (2017) 228e239232
4. Results and discussion
4.1. Characteristics of the avocado value chain
The chain for the locally-marketed avocado is short and includes
nursery operators, farmers, brokers and traders (Fig. 3).
On the other hand, the chain for the export avocado is elaborate
and includes actors such as nursery operators, producers (farmers),
traders (small and large scale), brokers, processors and exporters
(Fig. 4).
Fuerte and Hass are the two main exotic varieties cultivated in
Kandara for the export market in Europe. Here, producers occa-
sionally sell some of the fruit that fail to meet quality requirements
for fresh exports to local traders, consumers and processors. The
export varieties are usually sorted according to grades. Grade 1,
which is mainly purchased by exporters, refers to premium quality
avocado. Grade 2 and other non-graded avocado are sold to other
buyers, who process or sell the fruit to domestic consumers
because these are generally mature fruits that are near ripening or
are physically damaged. In Marani, local varieties are predominant
and are mainly sold in the domestic markets where avocados are
only graded by size. The demand for the local variety is lowwith no
possibilities for value addition.
There are twomain types of nursery operators: institutional and
individual nurseries. Institutional nurseries arewell established but
are few in number and are operated by private (Aberdare Tech-
nologies in Murang'a) or public companies (Kenya Agricultural
Research Institute, KARI). Individually-operated nurseries are the
majority and are managed by farmers. Most individual nurseries
are operated by men because running them requires special skills
in performing activities such as grafting andmixing of pesticides. In
Agrovet
shops
KARI
Farm
Retailer
Wholes
Supermarket
s
Local market
Kisii
L
K
Legend
Main product flow 
Unexploited channel 
Fig. 3. Value chain map for lo
the institutional nurseries, both private and public, men dominate
the top management positions including activities that require
skills and strength such as grafting, spraying and loading, trans-
porting and offloading manure.
Traders are small and large scale and are classified based on the
volume of sales and the quantities they purchase as well as the type
of customers they handle. In the export chain, large traders
generally handle large volumes of merchandise which they buy
from individual farmers and sell to exporters, processors and small
traders, while small traders buy small quantities of fruit from in-
dividual farmers and target the domestic market where they sell to
other retail traders and consumers. Women traders dominate the
retail node of the chainwhere they purchase Grade 2 or non-graded
avocado and sell to consumers or other traders at the market.
Traders supplying exporters and processors are generally men
because bulking avocado is demanding in terms of time and
financial resources. In the domestic chain, traders mostly buy and
sell avocado locally. Some traders focus on cross-border trade,
particularly in the border towns of Kenya and Tanzania. Most of the
traders in the domestic chain are women except on a few occasions
when large volumes of sales and revenue are involved. In this case,
men sell the merchandise to other regional traders.
The avocado export industry consists of five large exporting
firms and other upcoming small- and medium-scale exporters.
With the exception of one firm, the rest of the export firms are
owned by men or jointly owned, but men tend to occupy the top
management position such as the director's. Only two small-scale
companies were reported to be owned by women. While the ma-
jority of the exporting firms buy Grade 1 avocado from brokers and
traders and export to the EU market, a few produce their own av-
ocado particularly the highly-demanded Hass variety and only sub-
Private 
nurseries
Individual
Natural 
regeneration
er
aler
Retailer
ocal market
isumu
Regional market
Sirare-Tanzania
Broker
cally marketed avocado.
KARIAgrovet 
shops
Private 
nurseries 
institutions
Private nurseries 
individual
Farmer 
owned 
nursery
Small scale producers
Large-to 
medium scale 
producers 
Brokers
Farmer 
groups
Local oil 
processors
Local
Wholesalers
International oil 
refiners (US, EU, SA)
Retailers 
(small 
traders)
Retail 
shops
Local 
supermarkets
Major 
supermarkets 
(EU)
Wholesaler/Distributor 
(EU)
Vertically 
integrated 
estate farms
Kakuzi, 
EAG, Avooil
Middle 
East
European 
market
Int. market processed 
oil New ZealandDomestic market
Small-
medium 
exporters
Large 
exporters
Legend
Main Product flow
Processed products 
Important channel 
Fig. 4. Value chain map for export avocado.
J.B.A. Oduol et al. / Journal of Rural Studies 50 (2017) 228e239 233
contract out growers to produce the Fuerte variety. The export
chain is dominated by a few large and well-established processing
companies, which also provide a growing market for Grade 2
avocados. The companies process avocados into crude oil, which is
sold for further refining and processing in Europe, South Africa and
the USA while one company processes and exports extra virgin
avocado oil to its parent company in New Zealand.
4.2. Characteristics of avocado producers
Production is dominated by small-scale producers,although a
few large scale, or vertically integrated export companies engage in
production. Table 1 provides summarised results of characteristics
of the small-scale producers interviewed. The most common ty-
pology of producers in both the sites is male managers in male-
headed households (49% and 41%) (‘male-male’) followed by
women managers in female-headed households (35% and 37%)
(‘female-female’), while women managers in male-headed house-
holds are generally few (16% and 21%) (‘male-female’). Whereas
women managers in female-headed households are mostly
widows, those in male-headed households manage avocado
because their husbands are engaged in off-farm employment
within or outside their home town. This explains why women
managers in male-headed households are on average younger than
those in female-headed households. Women in female-headed
households tend to have low levels of education and smaller
household sizes, indicating that they could be facing severe con-
straints related to access to information and labour compared to the
women in male-headed households.
In the export chain, women in female-headed households tend
to own larger land sizes than men and women managers in male-
headed households. However, the proportion of land allocated to
avocado by women managers in both male- and female-headed
households is smaller than that of male managers in male-
headed households, and so is the number of productive trees
managed by women in both male- and female-headed households.
This stems fromwomen's preferences to allocate land to food crops
such as maize and beans for food self-sufficiency or to cash crops,
such as bananas, where they have more control over their income.
In general, a few households use productivity-enhancing inputs on
Table 1
Characteristics of producers by gender of household and gender of manager.
Characteristics Export chain Domestic chain
Male-Male
(n ¼ 49)
Male-Female
(n ¼ 16)
Female-Female
(n ¼ 35)
Total
(N ¼ 100)
Male-Male
(n ¼ 41)
Male-Female
(n ¼ 21)
Female-Female
(n ¼ 37)
Total (N ¼ 99)
Farmer
Age of manager 63.92 (10.96)a 56.62 (11.76) 66.2 (10.00) ___ 50.66 (14.27) 41.95 (12.20) 59.30 (13.78) ___
Manager's education
level (yrs)
8.94 (4.60) 7.06 (4.09) 4.31 (3.45) ___ 8.00 (3.94) 6.67 (3.36) 4.11 (4.10) ___
Household size 4.22 (2.21) 4.81 (1.87) 2.97 (1.74) 3.88 (2.10) 5.56 (1.88) 5.81 (1.63) 3.89 (2.20) 5.01 (2.12)
Marital status of manager
Single/Separated/Divor-
ced (%)
4 0 3 3 0 0 3 1
Married (%) 82 100 0 56 95 100 8 64
Widowed (%) 14 0 97 41 5 0 89 35
Farm
Land owned (acres) 2.01 (1.39) 1.82 (1.33) 2.43 (2.53) 2.13 (1.86) 1.43 (1.19) 1.38 (0.77) 1.38 (0.95) 1.40 (1.02)
Land under avocado
(acres)
0.53 (0.56) 0.26 (0.17) 0.36 (0.38) 0.43 (0.47) 0.19 (0.14) 0.17 (0.18) 0.18 (0.14) 0.18 (0.15)
Avocado varieties (% cultivating)
Fuerte 88 100 94 92 ___ ___ ___ ___
Hass 90 100 80 88 ___ ___ ___ ___
Pinkerton 24 6 6 14 ___ ___ ___ ___
Local ___ ___ ___ ___ 100 100 100 100
No. of productive trees
Fuerte 10.44 (22.60) 4.75 (4.50) 8.09 (8.70) 8.60 (16.43) ___ ____ ____ ___
Hass 14.25 (17.34) 6.88 (5.23) 9.75 (11.39) 11.47 (14.22) ___ ___ ___ ___
Local ___ ___ ____ ___ 6.49 (5.94) 5.38 (5.24) 5.78 (4.36) 5.99 (5.21)
Use of inputs ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___
Chemical fertiliser (%) 31 12 8 20 2.4 0 0 1
Manure (%) 71 50 48 60 34 14 19 24
Pesticides (%) 4 6 3 4 0 5 0 1
Quantity produced (pieces)
Fuerte (pieces) 2430 (1987) 2466 (1700) 2362 (2063) 2412 (1953) ___ ____ ____ ____
Hass (pieces) 2463 (2516) 2772 (2831) 2068 (2908) 2463 (2697)
Local (pieces) 1144 (503) 1230 (779) 1163 (721) 1169 (649)
Total income (KES/year) 243,482
(256,813)
319,150
(300,853)
128,004 (84,731)** 215,172
(230,189)
139,416
(114,518)
152,037 (88,597) 90,344 (133,218) 123,753
(119,036)
% of which livestock 18 28 25 22 14 12 17 14
% of which off-farm 24 35 18** 24 24 45*** 22 28
% of which crops 57 37** 57 54 62 43** 61 58
% of which avocado 16 6 10 12 6 5 5 6
Institutional
Membership in groups
(%)
94 100 88 93 78 65 81 74
Agricultural (%) 76 100 66 73 29 33 16 25
Avocado groups (%) 61 75 66 65 __ ___ ___ ___
Non-agricultural (%) 67 75 63 67 66 67 59 63
% receiving credit 39 69 40 44 56 43 32 45
% receiving agric. credit 29 19 17 23 29 33 24 29
*, **, ***10%, 5% and 1% level of significance (The results are derived from Bonferroni Multiple comparison tests for significant differences in means between and within
groups.).
a Figures in parentheses are standard deviations.
J.B.A. Oduol et al. / Journal of Rural Studies 50 (2017) 228e239234
avocado, with the exception of organicmanure, which is a non-cash
input. On average, fewer women than men managers tend to use
productivity-enhancing inputs, indicating that there may be con-
straints related to access or simply because avocado is not women's
priority crop.
In the export chain, women managers in female-headed
households have significantly lower levels of income than men
and women managers in male-headed households. This may have
far-reaching implications on the quality and quantity of fruit pro-
duced as well as wealth generation in female-headed households.
Because women managers in female-headed households use
significantly lower levels of inputs than do men and women
managers in male-headed households, they tend to produce low
quality fruits which do not fetch premium prices in the export
market. Due to the limited use of productivity-enhancing inputs
among women managers in female-headed households, the
quantities produced are generally small, with a greater proportion
ending up in the domestic market, resulting in significantly lower
levels of income. Themajority of the producers rely on crop income,
although off-farm income constitutes a significant proportion of
the total income in male-headed households with women
managers.
The majority of the producers on both the sites (93% and 75% in
Kandara andMarani, respectively) belong to associations or groups,
which can be agricultural or non-agricultural (i.e. religious, credit
and/or savings) groups. Nevertheless, fewer farmers in Marani
belong to agricultural groups (25% compared to 73% in Kandara).
Women of men-absentee households (male-female) are well
organised: 100% and 33% of such households are members of
agricultural groups in Kandara and Marani, respectively. Widows
(female-female) are the least members in any of the three types of
groups. The proportion belonging to avocado groups is higher than
that of men in male-headed households because female-headed
households belonging to avocado groups were given priority
J.B.A. Oduol et al. / Journal of Rural Studies 50 (2017) 228e239 235
during sampling in Kandara. To qualify for registration in the avo-
cado group, one needs to be the head of the household in addition
to owning mature avocado trees. Women can only become mem-
bers upon the death of their husbands or when the husband lives in
a different town, which explains why more women in female-
headed households belong to avocado groups.
Membership in groups or associations is crucial for accessing
markets that offer profitable prices (exporters and processors), and
credit for purchasing inputs as well as technical advice. In addition,
training on good agricultural practices (GAP) is provided by the
exporters to registered members of the groups. This implies that
producers who do not belong to such groups have limited access to
such trainings, which could have implications on the quality of fruit
as well as the returns. Access to and receipt of credit is generally
low among all types of producer households (44% in Kandara and
45% in Marani). Women managers in male-absentee households in
Kandara have the best chances to access and receive credit, while in
Marani the highest share is held by male-headed and managed
households. Women in the study sites tend to belong to women
groups, which are revolving savings and credit schemes, but these
schemes are reported to offer small amounts of credit meant for
meeting immediate household needs only. Whenconsidering
accessing and receiving agricultural credit, male-male households
in Kandara are in the best position, while in Marani it is households
with female managers whose men are absent.
4.3. Women's control over productive assets and decisions
pertaining avocado production, marketing and revenue
At the household level, women are fully involved in production
and more women than men manage avocado fields (Table 2). In the
export chain, women in male-managed male-headed households
(male-male) are generally involved in the production stage through
the provision of labour, tending to the trees and supervision of
harvesting, but they rely on their spouses for capital. The gender-
biased engagement in specific activities on the farm could be
related to socio-cultural factors, as specific activities have been
traditionally performed by men or women. Kimenye (2005) found
that women performed better than men in harvesting beans,
leading to high profits. Alternatively, because men control income
and are more likely to be engaged in off-farm activities, they pro-
vide capital while women tend to the crops.
Avocado fields are owned by men with the exception of women
in female-headed households (female-female), which is consistent
with other findings on land tenure systems in most African
Table 2
Control of productive resources, sales and revenue, by gender of household head and ge
Export chain
Male-Male
(n ¼ 41)
Male-Female
(n ¼ 16)
Female-Female
(n ¼ 35)
Total
(N ¼ 100)
Ownership of avocado field
Man (%) 100 100 0 65
Woman
(%)
0 0 100 35
Decision to sell avocado
Man (%) 47 12 0 25
Woman
(%)
4 44 100 44
Joint (%) 49 44 e 31
Control of avocado revenue
Man (%) 45 6 0 23
Woman
(%)
2 13 100 38
Joint (%) 53 81 e 39
countries where men own the land through titles while women
possess usufruct rights and can only gain access and use rights to
land through males such as a husband (Quisumbing et al., 2001).
Women in male-headed households therefore make limited de-
cisions on resource allocation, which can have far-reaching effects
on the functioning of the value chains and the welfare of the
household. This also supports findings of Quisumbing et al. (2014a)
who show that the type of assets people have control over in-
fluences the node at which they participate in the value chain and
that the successful development and operation of a value chain
determines the way people are able to accumulate assets. In male-
headed households, men and women usually jointly decide where
and when to sell avocados for export or for the domestic chain.
However, where joint decision-making appears to be predominant,
especially in the export chain, the avocados are often of inferior
quality (grades 0 and 2), while sole decision making by men is
observed when avocados are of premium quality for export. This
perhaps explains why women involved in the export chain tend to
choose marketing channels that offer low returns like that of bro-
kers as shown in Table 3. However, the same scenario is observed
among women in female-headed households (female-female) who
have unfettered access to exporters by virtue of being members of
avocado groups, suggesting that the choice of marketing channels
among women seems to be driven by factors other than limited
market linkages. Women in female-headed households appear to
be liquidity constrained, which affects the quality of avocado they
produce for the market and hence the choice of buyers. Women in
female-headed households prefer to sell to brokers for two major
reasons. First, the contracted export firm has stringent quality re-
quirements, which women due to liquidity constraints are not able
to meet, yet brokers purchase all the fruit delivered by the farmers,
because they have several market options including traders and
processors. Second, women side-sell avocado to brokers despite
being linked to exporters because brokers offer instant payments in
addition to meeting the cost of transport, harvesting and grading.
The contracted exporting firm pays farmers after a period of one
month after verifying the quality of the fruit and does not provide
any services to the farmer apart from technical advice.
Joint decision making on the use of proceeds from avocado is
common in households headed by men, and fewer women than
men control proceeds in such households. Because proceeds from
low quality avocados are generally low owing to the low prices and
small quantities demanded by the buyers (consumers and small
traders) as shown in Table 3, men tend to focus on high quality
avocados that fetch higher returns, thereby allowing women to
nder of manager.
Domestic chain
Male-Male
(n ¼ 49)
Male-Female
(n ¼ 21)
Female-Female
(n ¼ 37)
Total
(N ¼ 99)
100 100 0 63
0 0 100 37
32 5 0 15
8 47 100 50
59 47 e 35
30 0 0 12
8 42 100 49
62 58 e 38
Table 3
Choice of marketing channels, by gender of household and gender of manager.
Buyer Male-Male Male-Female Female-Female Total
Quantitya %selling GMb Quantity %selling GM Quantity %selling GM Quantity %selling GM
Export chain
All 7952 (9025)c 100 1.21 5086 (4043) 100 1.00 5240 (5806) 100 1.06 6544 (7448) 100 1.11
Consumer 20 (126) 2 1.15 0 0 9.09 (85) 1 1.15
Small trader 335 (1013) 12 1.32 100 (400) 12 �0.98 307 (1060) 11 0.75 288 (956) 12 0.92
Large trader 932 (3836) 17 1.18 0 0 34 (159) 20 1.06 469 (2712) 15 1.12
Broker 3818 (6393) 64 0.86 3575 (4182) 81 1.11 3489 (4670) 74 0.78 3664 (5475) 71 0.87
Exporter 2736 (7414) 42 2.44 1412 (3013) 44 0.98 928 (2893) 26 1.60 1892 (5623) 36 1.94
Processor 133 (932) 2 �4.65 0 0 184 (920) 6 1.55 129 (846) 3 �0.52
Domestic chain
All 2181 (3586) 90 1.16 1020 (964) 89 2.15 1755 (2863) 90 2.26 1661 (2732) 90 1.78
Consumer 651 (3282) 24 2.93 295 (907) 37 4.72 85 (182) 33 5.20 394 (2171) 30 4.32
Small trader 731 (1630) 46 0.75 315 (410) 37 0.59 911 (2423) 45 1.32 628 (1548) 44 0.94
Large trader 630 (1527) 32 0.66 377 (284) 21 2.14 632 (2017) 27 0.74 531 (1398) 28 0.92
Broker 169 (583) 11 1.38 33 (134) 21 1.09 128 (316) 6 1.38 109 (410) 11 1.22
a Quantities are given in number of fruits.
b GM is Gross margin in KES per fruit.
c Figures in parenthesis are standard deviations.
J.B.A. Oduol et al. / Journal of Rural Studies 50 (2017) 228e239236
have unlimited control of the income from low quality avocado.
In the domestic chain, women tend to be fully integrated in the
production and marketing of avocado because participation in this
chain requires lower levels of resources such as finances and
business skills. Because the sale of local avocado is confined to
consumers in nearby markets and small-scale traders who buy the
fruit at the farm gate and transport it to themarkets, the fruit is sold
at very low prices and in small quantities, which makes the returns
less attractive to men who rely on returns from coffee and tea.
Occasionally, however, local avocado fromMarani is sold on a large
scale to traders who transport the produce to Tanzania and Nairobi.
In this case, men become interested in the proceeds since the
returns are thought to be sufficiently large. Consequently, men get
involved in making decisions on the sales and women in male-
headed households have to consult their husbands on the use of
proceeds from such sales. The results, therefore, support findings
that as value chains become more commercialised and profitable
men are likely to take over the enterprise, thereby relegating
women to lower value commodity chains as has been documented
in Kaaria and Ashby (2001) and Njuki et al. (2011).
4.4. Upgrading interventions to close the gender gap in the avocado
value chain at the farm level
Gender gap refers to unequal access to resources and opportu-
nities among men and women (Quisumbing et al., 2014b). In-
terventions geared towards enhancing the participation of women
in the different stages of the avocado value chain differ for the
different typologies of women, and will depend on the degree of
commercialisation of the chain. Women in female-headed house-
holds (female-female), who are inmost cases widowed, automat-
ically assume the role of the household head and hence have access
to, and control over, productive resources irrespective of the degree
of commercialisation of the chain. Consequently, they make de-
cisions regarding production, marketing and use of the avocado
proceeds. As well, they are eligible to become a member of the
avocado farmers group since they can assume ownership of the
trees after the death of the husband. Therefore, they can access
technical advice on quality requirements including training on GAP
and being linked to exporters, which is a necessary but not a suf-
ficient condition for the production of high-quality avocado. As
such, upgrading this category of women into chain integrators,
chain partners and chain owners may require limited efforts
because the potential for upgrading appears to be limited by
economic rather than socio-cultural constraints. Strategies that aim
at providing enabling environments for such women, such as
tailoring financial products to their needs could improve their ac-
cess to credit and enhance their participation in markets for high-
value agricultural commodities. Fletschner (2009) found that
credit constraints were more severe among women and that they
tended to respond to targeted credit programmes. Interlinked ser-
vices such as the provision of credit, spraying, grading, and picking
are likely to benefit women if the terms of the contract are known
to the buyer and the seller. However, where terms are negotiated by
a third party, as was the case in Kandara, breach of contract is
generally common, making it difficult for the contracting firm to
provide interlinked services, thus resulting in limited participation
and insignificant welfare gains for the participants (Mwambi et al.,
2016).
Women in male-headed households (male-male and male-
female) require a different approach to integrate them into the
key stages of the value chain, particularly with regards to partici-
pation in export marketing and decision making on the use of the
avocado proceeds. Two scenarios emergewithin this category. First,
there is a group of women who assume full responsibility in the
production and marketing of avocado, but they have limited ca-
pabilities to make decisions and build direct linkages with major
customers. This category is represented by women whose hus-
bands have an alternative source of income either from important
cash crops such as tea and coffee or off-farm employment in a
different town as is the case in the less commercialised chainwhere
avocado is less valuable than coffee and tea. In this case, the women
make decisions regarding the production and marketing of the
produce, but they are required to consult their husbands on the use
of the proceeds. Upgrading this category of women into chain
partners in production and marketing at the farm level - for
example through forging alliances with potential buyers - requires
strategies which focus on constraints that limit their participation
in decision making. Revising policies or by-laws to allow for joint
membership in producer groups is likely to foster women's
participation in decisionmaking and provide incentives for them to
invest in the chain. The second scenario depicts women in male-
headed households (male-male) whose husbands depend entirely
on avocado as the main source of income as is the case in Kandara
where returns from cash crops like coffee have diminished over the
years and most of the men have retired from off-farm employment
as shown by the average age of male managers (see Table 1 above).
In this case, men are the managers and make most of the decisions
Table 4
Gross margins for value chain actors.
Export chain Domestic chain
Producer 1.05 1.65
Small trader 0.37 4.40
Large trader 1.71 1.94
Exporter 4.91
Processor 17.65
Note: Gross margins are in Kenyan Shillings per fruit.
J.B.A. Oduol et al. / Journal of Rural Studies 50 (2017) 228e239 237
regardingwhen to produce, when andwhere to sell, and how to use
the revenue, while the women in most cases participate in
providing labour or tending to the crop and only make decisions on
the marketing of inferior quality avocados (non-graded avocados
with scars which can only be sold on the domestic market to re-
tailers and consumers). Because men make decisions involving the
sale of premium quality avocados, women are left to collect the
rejected pieces, which they sell to retailers in the nearby markets.
Therefore, this category of women will need a multifaceted
approach to integrate them into the export end of the chain since
they have limited control over the resources and skills required for
the production of good quality avocados. Likewise, this second
category of women is of major interest, particularly in the export
chain, because the men by virtue of being registered members of
the avocado groups attend training on certification standards,
including good agricultural practices, yet the women are the main
managers of the crops. Because the EU market is strict on food
safety standards, involvement of this category of women in the
crucial stages of the avocado value chain will be critical for the
improvement of the quality of the produce. This is likely to be a
win-win strategy for the entire household and might result in
increased benefits to all the value chain actors rather than the
producers alone. Deterioration in the quality of fruit being deliv-
ered to the market has been attributed to failure by the household
heads (particularly men) to involve their spouses and children in
the training programmes on certification standards, yet boys play
an active role in harvesting the fruit while women supervise the
picking. As such, strategies that foster chain inclusiveness such as
intra-household information sharing and joint membership in
producer groups will be crucial in improving the quantity and
quality of the fruit that goes to the export market as well as do-
mestic markets, thereby improving the farmers' market margins.
Consequently, rules and regulations governing registration in pro-
ducer groups need to be upgraded to incorporate both spouses
rather than the household head.
In general, we find that limited efforts may be required to up-
grade women in the domestic chain to become chain integrators,
chain partners and chain owners. However, upgrading into chain
integrators is limited by the variety of avocado cultivated by the
farmers and its low potential for value addition. However, a switch
from the local to the exotic variety (product upgrading) is likely to
alter women's position in the chain as has been documented in
Njuki et al. (2011) and may result in men taking over the enterprise
as it becomes more commercialised. Since women in male-headed
households have limited control over productive resources such as
land, the decision to change from low-to high-value avocado vari-
eties lies solely with the men. Therefore, upgrading women in
male-headed households, i.e. male-male and male-female house-
holds in the domestic chain, will involve providing an enabling
environment for women to take up leadership positions in addition
to product upgrading. Such interventions can take advantage of
existing groups in which men and women are already members to
educate both genders on the benefits of involving women in the
decisions regarding production and marketing of high-value agri-
cultural commodities.
4.4.1. Upgrading interventions in support of closing the gender gap
in avocado value chains beyond the farm level
At the trading part of the chain, women tend to dominate small-
scale or retail trading, which involves small volumes and sitting at
the market to wait for customers, irrespective of the degree of
commercialisation. In the export chain, women have control over
rejected avocados and the income that accrues from the activity,
which acts as an incentive for them to look for customers. Yet the
returns from small-scale trading are generally lower than those
from large-scale domestictrading and export as shown in Table 4.
On the other hand, the majority of large-scale traders or in-
termediaries who collect avocados and deliver to exporters and
processors aremen. The question that needs to be addressed is why
women traders involved in the export value chain seem to be
concentrated in the retail trading node where the returns are low,
while male traders dominate the export market. While further
research is necessary to corroborate our presupposition, it appears
that there could be barriers to entry for women in the large-scale
trading and export market, which makes them focus on the do-
mestic market. Akinola (2005) and Kibas (2005) found that women
entrepreneurs lack information, operating funds and property to
use for collateral, which forces them to remain confined to micro-
and small-scale enterprises. For instance, venturing into large-
scale avocado trading or brokering requires time, transport facil-
ities, networking skills and capital, which women tend to lack.
Furthermore, the bulking of the fruit could be physically
demanding for women since it requires moving to several farms in
search of the produce.
The results indicate that in the export chain, which is well
developed and elaborate, the returns are high, making the enter-
prise more attractive to men. Men are concentrated in high status,
more physical, more remunerative activities along the chain like
international marketing. On the other hand, women's involvement
in the downstream end of the chain as owners is limited. Instead,
they predominate in the production node or as wage labourers in
private nurseries, processing firms and export companies where
they are employed as unskilled labourers in routine jobs that are
low paying and require keenness and patience such as grafting,
sorting and packaging. For instance, Aberdare Technologies, a pri-
vate institutional nursery preferred recruiting women to tend to
grafted seedlings, sort seeds and plant seedlings while men were
hired to do labour-intensive, short-term and better paying jobs like
carrying sand, manure and other inputs as well as land preparation.
These findings are consistent with those of Baden (1998); Dolan
and Sutherland (2002); Dolan and Sorby (2003); Meartens and
Swinnen (2009), which found that when women are employed in
the modern value chains, they tend to be employed as casual
labourers to do labour-intensive and manually-unskilled tasks and
occupy unstable and flexible jobs that lack social security and other
benefits. For example, Dolan and Sutherland (2002) found that in
Kenya's fruit and vegetable export businesses, women constitute
80% of the workers in packing, labelling and bar-coding of produce.
A plausible explanation for preference by company employers for a
given sex for certain activities is provided in Dolan (2004) and
Maertens and Swinnen (2012), where sex segregation was
observed to be demand driven with companies' preference for fe-
male workers linked to a number of well-documented stereotypes
as well as the production requirements of the chain such as quality,
consistency and speed. Likewise, resource constraint appears to be
a major impediment to women's participation in the downstream
end of the chain as chain owners. According to the exporters
interviewed, the avocado export business is considered a high risk
and capital-intensive one that requires networking skills,
J.B.A. Oduol et al. / Journal of Rural Studies 50 (2017) 228e239238
knowledge of the industry, expensive equipment and assets such as
cold storage facilities and sufficient time to manage the business.
5. Conclusion and policy implications
Using a case study of the avocado value chain in Kenya, our
study aimed at demonstrating that obstacles to women's partici-
pation in fruit tree value chains differ for different typologies of
women and vary by the degree of commercialisation of the chain,
thereby calling for different upgrading strategies. In general, where
the chain is well-developed and elaborate such as the export value
chain, women tend to dominate the production stage as chain ac-
tors. If they integrate in the upper end of the chain, they tend to be
confined to low-paying and unskilled jobs, such as packaging,
sorting and grafting that require keenness and patience, or small-
scale domestic trading, both of which have less profitable returns.
In the domestic chain, which is less elaborate and less commer-
cialised, women tend to be fully integrated in all the production and
marketing stages of the value chain.
The results are, however, mixed for the different typologies of
women and suggest that designing an intervention that aims at
integrating women in high-value agricultural commodity markets,
particularly in the male-dominated commercialised value chains
such as that of avocado for export, requires multipronged ap-
proaches that involve understanding complex social issues sur-
rounding intra-household resource allocation and gender relations.
For instance, women in female-headed households (female-fe-
male) are fully integrated in the production andmarketing stages of
the export value chain, because they assume the responsibility of
the household head upon the death of the husband. Consequently,
upgrading this category of women into chain integrators, chain
partners and chain owners requires focussed efforts on dealing
with economic rather than socio-cultural constraints. Strategies
that aim at providing an enabling environment for women, such as
tailoring financial products to their needs, could improve their
access to credit and enhance their participation in commodity
markets. Alternatively providing interlinked services like credit,
spraying, harvesting, and grading coupled with prompt payments
by the contracting firm is likely to alleviate constraints that limit
these women's participation in the export end of the chain. The
existing organised farmer groups, if strengthened further to
incorporate gender-sensitive products and services, can provide an
institutional framework for administering interlinked services. On
the other hand, women in male-headed households will need
different approaches to integrate them into the export end of the
chain since they have limited control over the resources and skills
required to upgrade as chain integrators, chain partners and chain
co-owners. Strategies that foster chain inclusiveness such as intra-
household information sharing and revision of policies or by-laws
to allow for joint membership in producer groups to enable
women to participate in training on certification standards are
likely to enhance women's participation in decision making and
provide incentives for them to invest in the chain. Although
empirical evidence is necessary to corroborate our presupposition,
there is anecdotal evidence that involving women in male-headed
households in the crucial stages of the export avocado value chain
is likely to improve the quality and quantity of the produce and
result in a win-win strategy for the entire household and other
value chain actors.
Women in male-headed households whose husbands are
engaged in off-farm employment as in Kandara or other enterprises
of higher returns like coffee and tea as in Marani make decisions
regarding avocado production and sales and attend training on GAP,
but they have limited control over the avocado proceeds. Upgrading
this typology of women into chain partners where they can forge
alliances and network with buyers will require upgrading the
enabling environment by revising policies or by-laws to allow for
joint membership in producer groups. This may act as an incentive
for the women to invest in the chain.
In the domestic chain, women are fully engaged as chain in-
tegrators, chain partners and chain owners but upgrading potential
is limited by the low value and low demand for the local avocado
variety. If product upgrading from the local to the improved variety
were implemented, the introduction of the exotic variety is likely to
alter women's positionsin the chain as it becomes more com-
mercialised. Therefore, strategies that aim at upgrading the
enabling environment such as institutionalisation of gender-
sensitive rules and regulations governing producer groups to
allow women to take up leadership positions and be chain owners
in the new value chain are critical to complement the product
upgrading strategy. Although our study appears to suggest that
gender-sensitive governance structures may be critical in fostering
women's participation in value chains as well as equitable benefit
sharing, further empirical analysis involving large datasets is
necessary to corroborate our anecdotal evidence.
Acknowledgements
The authors are grateful to Ford Foundation (TIEU-1019) for
providing funds for the study. Additional funding support was
obtained from the CGIAR research programme on Policies, In-
stitutions, and Markets (PIM) (CRP2-1028). We acknowledge the
assistance of MercyMwambi and Desmond Rono in qualitative data
collection. The contents of the paper remain the responsibility of
the authors and do not in any way reflect the views of the funding
organisations.
References
Akinola, G.O., 2005. Gender factor in the structure and conduct of the cocoa in-
dustry in Nigeria. S. Afr. J. Bus. Manag. 36, 7e22.
Ashraf, N., Gine, X., Karlan, D., 2008. Finding the Missing Markets (And a Disturbing
Epilogue): Evidence from an Export Crop Adoption and Marketing Intervention
in Kenya. Policy Research Working Paper 4477. the World Bank, Washington
D.C.
Baden, S., 1998. Gender Issues in Agricultural Market Liberalization. BRIDGE Report
41. Institute of Development Studies, Sussex.
Bolzahi, D., de Villard, S., de Pryck, J.D., 2010. Agricultural Value Chain Develop-
ment: Threat or Opportunity for Women's Employment. Gender and Rural
Development Policy Brief No. 4 (Cali, Colombia).
Coles, C., Mitchell, J., 2011. Gender and Agricultural Value Chains: a Review of
Current Knowledge and Practice and Their Policy Implications. ESA Working
Paper No. 11-05. the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations,
Rome.
Dolan, C., Sorby, K., 2003. Gender and Employment in High Value Agriculture In-
dustries. Agricultural and Rural Development Working Paper No.7. the World
Bank, Washington D.C.
Dolan, C., Sutherland, K., 2002. Gender and Employment in the Kenya Horticulture
Value Chain. Globalisation and Poverty Working Paper. Overseas Development
Group. University of East Anglia, Norwich.
Dolan, S.C., 2004. On farm and packhouse: employment at the bottom of a global
value chain. Rural. Sociol. 69, 99e126.
Donovan, J., Cunha, M., Franzel, S., Gyau, A., Mith€ofer, D., 2015. Guides for value
chain development: a comparative review. J. Agribus. Dev. Emerg. Econ. 5,
2e23.
Fletschner, D., 2009. Rural women's access to credit: market Imperfections and
intra-household dynamics. World Dev. 37, 618e631.
Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO), 2011. The State of
Food and Agriculture 2010-2011. Women in Agriculture: Closing the Gender
Gap for Development (Online). http://www.fao.org/docrep (accessed January
2014).
Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO), International La-
bour Organization (ILO), International Union of Food (IUF), 2007. Agricultural
Workers and Their Contribution to Sustainable Agriculture and Rural Devel-
opment. ILO, Geneva.
Humphrey, J., Schmitz, H., 2000. Governance and Upgrading: Linking Industrial
Cluster and Global Value Chain Research. IDS Working Paper 120. Institute of
Development Studies, Brighton.
Humphrey, J., Schmitz, H., 2001. Governance in Global Value Chains IDS Bulletin
http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0743-0167(17)30012-8/sref1
http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0743-0167(17)30012-8/sref1
http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0743-0167(17)30012-8/sref1
http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0743-0167(17)30012-8/sref2
http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0743-0167(17)30012-8/sref2
http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0743-0167(17)30012-8/sref2
http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0743-0167(17)30012-8/sref2
http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0743-0167(17)30012-8/sref3
http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0743-0167(17)30012-8/sref3
http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0743-0167(17)30012-8/sref4
http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0743-0167(17)30012-8/sref4
http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0743-0167(17)30012-8/sref4
http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0743-0167(17)30012-8/sref5
http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0743-0167(17)30012-8/sref5
http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0743-0167(17)30012-8/sref5
http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0743-0167(17)30012-8/sref5
http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0743-0167(17)30012-8/sref6
http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0743-0167(17)30012-8/sref6
http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0743-0167(17)30012-8/sref6
http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0743-0167(17)30012-8/sref7
http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0743-0167(17)30012-8/sref7
http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0743-0167(17)30012-8/sref7
http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0743-0167(17)30012-8/sref8
http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0743-0167(17)30012-8/sref8
http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0743-0167(17)30012-8/sref8
http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0743-0167(17)30012-8/sref9
http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0743-0167(17)30012-8/sref9
http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0743-0167(17)30012-8/sref9
http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0743-0167(17)30012-8/sref9
http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0743-0167(17)30012-8/sref9
http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0743-0167(17)30012-8/sref10
http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0743-0167(17)30012-8/sref10
http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0743-0167(17)30012-8/sref10
http://www.fao.org/docrep
http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0743-0167(17)30012-8/sref13
http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0743-0167(17)30012-8/sref13
http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0743-0167(17)30012-8/sref13
http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0743-0167(17)30012-8/sref13
http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0743-0167(17)30012-8/sref14
http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0743-0167(17)30012-8/sref14
http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0743-0167(17)30012-8/sref14
http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0743-0167(17)30012-8/sref15
J.B.A. Oduol et al. / Journal of Rural Studies 50 (2017) 228e239 239
32.3. Institute of Development Studies, Brighton.
International Fund for Agricultural Development, 2010. Value Chains, Linking Pro-
ducers to the Markets. Livestock Thematic Papers. Tools for Project Design
(Online). http://www.ifad.org/lrkm/factsheet/valuechains.pdf (Accessed July
2013).
Jayne, T.S., Yamano, T., Nyoro, J., 2004. Interlinked credit and farm intensification:
evidence from Kenya. Agric. Econ. 31, 209e218.
Jiggins, J., Samanta, R.K., Olawoye, J.E., 1997. Improving women farmers' access to
extension services (Online. In: Swanson, B.E., Bentz, R.P., Sofranko, A.J. (Eds.),
Improving Agricultural Extension. A Reference Manual. http://www.fao.org/
docrep/w5830e/w5830e00.htm (Accessed December 2013).
Kaaria, S.K., Ashby, J.A., 2001. An Approach to Technological Innovation that Benefits
Rural Women: the Resource-to-consumption System. Working Document No.
13. PRGA Program.
Kaplinsky, R., Morris, M., 2002. A Handbook for Value Chain Research. Institute for
Development Studies, UK.
Kibas, P.B., 2005. Challenges Facing Women Entrepreneurs in Africa (Online). http://
www.fnst.org (Accessed June 2014).
Kimenye, L., 2005. Promoting farm/nonfarm linkages: a case study of French bean
processing in Kenya. In: Davis, B., Reardon, T., Stamoulis, K., Winters, P. (Eds.),
Promoting Farm/Non-farm Linkages for Rural Development. FAO, Rome.
KIT, Faida MaLi, IIRR, 2006. Chain Empowerment: Supporting African Farmers to
Develop Markets. Amsterdam, Netherlands: Royal Tropical Institute. Arusha,
Tanzania: Faida Market Link and Nairobi, Kenya. International Institute of Rural
Reconstruction. http://www.bibalex.org/Search4Dev/files/343503/177359.pdf
(Accessed November 2016).
Maertens, M., Swinnen, J.F.M., 2009. Are African high-value horticulture supply
chains bearers of gender inequality?. In: Paper Presented at the FAO-IFAD-ILO
Workshop on Gaps, Trends and Current Research in Gender Dimensions of
Agricultural and Rural Employment: Differentiated Pathways Out of Poverty,
Rome, 31 March-2 April 2009 (Rome).Maertens, M., Swinnen, J.F.M., 2012. Gender and modern supply chains in devel-
oping countries. J. Dev. Stud. 48, 1412e1430.
Mathenge, M., Place, F., Olwande, J., Mith€ofer, D., 2010. Participation in Agricultural
Markets Among the Poor and Marginalised: Analysis of Factors Influencing
Participation and Impacts on Income and Poverty in Kenya (Online). http://
www.tegemeo.org/index.php/research-resources/publications/item/160
(Accessed November 2013).
Mayoux, L., Mackie, G., 2008. Making the Strongest Links: a Practical Guide to
Mainstreaming Gender Analysis in Value Chain Development (Online). Inter-
national Labour Office, Addis Ababa. http://www.ilo.org/empent/Publications/
WCMS_106538/langeen/index.htm (Accessed September 2013).
McCormick, D., Schmitz, H., 2001. Manual for Value Chain Research on Home-
workers in the Garment Industry. Institute of Development Studies, Brighton.
Mwambi, M.M., Oduol, J., Mshenga, P., Mwanarusi, S., 2016. Does contract farming
improve smallholder farmers' income? The case of avocado farming in Kenya.
J. Agribus. Dev. Emerg. Econ. 6, 2e20.
Njuki, J., Kaaria, S., Chamunorwa, A., Chiuri, W., 2011. Linking smallholder farmers to
markets, gender and intra-household dynamics: does the choice of commodity
matter? Eur. J. Dev. Res. 23, 426e443.
Poulton, C., Kydd, J., Dorward, A., 2006. Overcoming market constraints on pro-poor
agricultural growth in sub-Saharan Africa. Dev. Policy Rev. 24, 243e277.
Quisumbing, R.A., McClafferty, B., 2006. Food Security in Practice: Using Gender
Research in Development. IFPRI (Online). http://www.ifpri.org/sites/default/
files/publications/sp2.pdf (Accessed June 2014).
Quisumbing, R.A., Payongayong, E., Aidoo, J.B., Otsuka, K., 2001. Women's land
rights in the transition to individualized ownership: implications for tree-
resource management in Western Ghana. Econ. Dev. Cult. Change 50, 157e182.
Quisumbing, R.A., Pandolfelli, L., 2010. Promising approaches to address the needs
of poor female farmers: resources, constraints and interventions. World Dev.
38, 581e592.
Quisumbing, R.A., Rubin, D., Manfre, C., Waithanji, E., van den Bold, M., Olney, D.,
Meinzen-Dick, R., 2014a. Closing the Gender Asset Gap: Learning from Value
Chain Development in Africa and Asia. IFPRI Discussion Paper 01321, Wash-
ington, D.C.
Quisumbing, A.R., Meinzen-Dick, R., Raney, T.L., Croppenstedt, A., Behrman, J.A.,
Peterman, A., 2014b. Closing the knowledge gap on gender. In:
Quisumbing, A.R., Meinzen-Dick, R., Raney, T.L., Croppenstedt, A., Behrman, J.A.,
Peterman, A. (Eds.), Gender in Agriculture. Closing the Knowledge Gap.
Springer, New York.
Riisgard, L., Bolwig, S., Matose, F., Ponte, S., du Toit, A., Halberg, N., 2008. A Strategic
Framework and Toolbox for Action Research with Small Producers in Value
Chains. DIIS Working Paper no 2008/17. Danish Institute for International
Studies, Copenhagen, 2008. (Online). http://www.diis.dk/graphics/Publications/
WP2008/WP08-17_Strategic_Framework_and_Toolbox_for_Action_Research_
with_Small_Producers_in_Value-Chains.pdf (Accessed September 2013).
Rubin, D., Manfre, C., Barrett, N.K., 2009. Promoting gender equitable opportunities
in agricultural value chains: a handbook (Online). http://edu.care.org/
Documents/Gender%20and%20Value%20Chain%20Development/Promoting%
20Gender%20Equitable%20Opportunities%20in%20Agricultural%20Value%
20Chains%20Handbook.pdf (Accessed March 2014).
Rubin, D., Manfre, C., 2014. Promoting gender-equitable agricultural value chains:
issues, opportunities, and next steps. In: Quisumbing, A.R., Meinzen-Dick, R.,
Raney, T.L., Croppenstedt, A., Behrman, J.A., Peterman, A. (Eds.), Gender in
Agriculture. Closing the Knowledge Gap. Springer, New York.
Senders, A., Lentink, A., Vanderschaeghe, M., 2012. Gender in value chains: practical
toolkit to integrate a gender perspective in agricultural value chain develop-
ment (online). http://www.fao.org/sustainable-food-value-chains/training-
and-learning-center/details-materials/en/c/277079/ (Accessed September
2013).
van den Berg, M., Boomsma, M., Cucco, I., Cuna, L., Janssen, N., Moustier, P., Prota, L.,
Purcell, T., Smith, D., van Wijk, S., 2009. Making value chains work better for the
poor: a toolbook for practitioners of value chain analysis. Making markets work
better for the poor (M4P) (Online). http://www.markets4poor.org/sites/default/
files/file/Publications/M4P1/VC%20toolbook_eng.pdf (Accessed February 2014).
http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0743-0167(17)30012-8/sref15
http://www.ifad.org/lrkm/factsheet/valuechains.pdf
http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0743-0167(17)30012-8/sref17
http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0743-0167(17)30012-8/sref17
http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0743-0167(17)30012-8/sref17
http://www.fao.org/docrep/w5830e/w5830e00.htm
http://www.fao.org/docrep/w5830e/w5830e00.htm
http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0743-0167(17)30012-8/sref19
http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0743-0167(17)30012-8/sref19
http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0743-0167(17)30012-8/sref19
http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0743-0167(17)30012-8/sref20
http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0743-0167(17)30012-8/sref20
http://www.fnst.org
http://www.fnst.org
http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0743-0167(17)30012-8/sref22
http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0743-0167(17)30012-8/sref22
http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0743-0167(17)30012-8/sref22
http://www.bibalex.org/Search4Dev/files/343503/177359.pdf
http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0743-0167(17)30012-8/sref24
http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0743-0167(17)30012-8/sref24
http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0743-0167(17)30012-8/sref24
http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0743-0167(17)30012-8/sref24
http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0743-0167(17)30012-8/sref24
http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0743-0167(17)30012-8/sref25
http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0743-0167(17)30012-8/sref25
http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0743-0167(17)30012-8/sref25
http://www.tegemeo.org/index.php/research-resources/publications/item/160
http://www.tegemeo.org/index.php/research-resources/publications/item/160
http://www.ilo.org/empent/Publications/WCMS_106538/lang%5fen/index.htm
http://www.ilo.org/empent/Publications/WCMS_106538/lang%5fen/index.htm
http://www.ilo.org/empent/Publications/WCMS_106538/lang%5fen/index.htm
http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0743-0167(17)30012-8/sref28
http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0743-0167(17)30012-8/sref28
http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0743-0167(17)30012-8/sref29
http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0743-0167(17)30012-8/sref29
http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0743-0167(17)30012-8/sref29
http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0743-0167(17)30012-8/sref29
http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0743-0167(17)30012-8/sref30
http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0743-0167(17)30012-8/sref30
http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0743-0167(17)30012-8/sref30
http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0743-0167(17)30012-8/sref30
http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0743-0167(17)30012-8/sref31
http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0743-0167(17)30012-8/sref31
http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0743-0167(17)30012-8/sref31
http://www.ifpri.org/sites/default/files/publications/sp2.pdf
http://www.ifpri.org/sites/default/files/publications/sp2.pdf
http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0743-0167(17)30012-8/sref33
http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0743-0167(17)30012-8/sref33
http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0743-0167(17)30012-8/sref33
http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0743-0167(17)30012-8/sref33
http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0743-0167(17)30012-8/sref34
http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0743-0167(17)30012-8/sref34
http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0743-0167(17)30012-8/sref34
http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0743-0167(17)30012-8/sref34
http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0743-0167(17)30012-8/sref35
http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0743-0167(17)30012-8/sref35
http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0743-0167(17)30012-8/sref35
http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0743-0167(17)30012-8/sref35
http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0743-0167(17)30012-8/sref36
http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0743-0167(17)30012-8/sref36
http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0743-0167(17)30012-8/sref36
http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0743-0167(17)30012-8/sref36
http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0743-0167(17)30012-8/sref36
http://www.diis.dk/graphics/Publications/WP2008/WP08-17_Strategic_Framework_and_Toolbox_for_Action_Research_with_Small_Producers_in_Value-Chains.pdf