Tuesday, November 29, 2011

Gender Relations Observed in Tanga Municipality's Mabawa Ward

Mabawa Ward has a total of 26’607 inhabitants, of whom 13,567 are female and 13,037 are male. There are more than 362 households headed by men, and about 107 households headed by women. The main economic activities in the Ward incorporate: businesses, farming, employment, and poultry keeping. Environmental activities done by the residents consist of prevention of wanton destruction of the environment by throwing garbage. There is a community committee that has been created through collaboration with STP to prevent indiscriminate disposal of garbage or solid waste. There are also environmental groups that deal with planting of trees, supervising road rehabilitation work through collaboration with STP. Services available in the Ward include electricity, roads (in poor conditions), and primary schools. The Ward leadership consists of a female Ward Executive Officer, and 13 male Hamlet chairpersons.    

The workshop for simulating an analysis of gender relations in the Ward was held on 24th April 2003. A total of 60 inhabitants had initially been invited to the workshop, and 54 (or 90%), attended (of whom 27 were women and 27 were men). Three methods were used in the workshop, focus group interviews (e.g., the groups were mainly those comprising of businessmen dealing with environmental products such as firewood, charcoal, building poles, etc; food vendors; environmental committee members; local government leaders; etc), individual interviews through semi-structured questionnaires (with heads of households, e.g., 3 men and 8 women), and structured interviews with leaders. Altogether there were not less than 58 people in the above exercises.



Individual Household Level Interviews in Mabawa Ward

At least 14 women and men (seven each), were interviewed through a semi structured questionnaire at the one day workshop held in Mabawa Ward. According to the data extracted from the individual interviews, the following observations were recorded.

Age of Respondents

On the whole, 64% of the respondents in the Ward were between 40 and 49 years of age. There is practically no difference between the average age of the male and female respondents.  Hence one can conclude that the sample represents mainly an age group that is well informed about gender relations at the household level.

Table. 3.25.
Age of Respondents
from Mabawa Ward.

Age
Women
N=7
Men
N=7
Total
N=14
% of all 14 respondents
20-29
 1
0
1
7 %
30-39
 1
 2
 3
 21%
40-49
 4
 5
 9
 64%
50-59
 0
 0
 0
 0%
60+
 1
 0
 1
 7%
Total:
7
 7
14
 100%

 Marital Status of Respondents

Generally, 64% of the interviewees were married. In closer detail, all the men interviewed were married, and one in a polygamous marriage. On the women’s side, two were not married as compared to five who were. However, none of the women were in polygamous marriages.

Table. 3.26.
Marital Status of
Respondents from Mabawa Ward.

Marital Status
Women
N=7
Men
N=7
Total
N=14
% of all 14 respondents
Not Married
 2
0
2
14 %
Married
 5
 7
 9
 64%
Polygamous
 0
 1
 1
 7%
Divorced
 0
 0
 0
 0%
Widower/
Widow
 0
 0
 0
 0%
  
Education level among Respondents

As regards the level of education of the respondents in Mabawa, we see that all had completed primary school, while 21% had reached secondary school. In fact it is unusually interesting to note that it is the women who were more schooled than the men. Nearly half of the women were secondary school graduates unlike none on the male side. 
Table. 3.27.
Education level among
Respondents from Mabawa Ward.

Type of Education
Women
N=7
Men
N=7
Total
N=14
% of all 14 respondents
Standard 4
 0
0
 0
0 %
Primary Education
 4
 6
 10
 71%
Secondary Education
 3
 0
 3
 21%
Illiterate
 0
 0
 0
 0%
College
 0
 0
 0
 0%
Other
 0
 0
 0
 0%


Other form of Education

Concerning other forms of training or exposure to non-formal education, besides primary and secondary education, most of the men and women had had other forms of such training. In fact, two fifths had had training in handicrafts, a fifth had had training in agriculture and religious studies, and, nearly half had had training in other subjects.

Table. 3.28.
Other form of Education acquired
by Respondents from Mabawa Ward.

Form of Education
Women
N=7
Men
N=7
Total
N=14
% of all 14 respondents
Religious
1
2
 3
21 %
Teaching
 1
 1
 2
 14%
Technical
 0
 0
 0
 0%
Agriculture
 2
 1
 3
 21%
Crafts
 2
 3
 5
 36%
Business
 1
 1
 2
 14%
Adult Education
 0
 0
 0
 0%
Other
 3
 3
 6
 43%

 Main Activity by Respondents

Nearly two fifths of the respondents had engaged themselves in commercial activities. While a third were involved with handicrafts, and a fifth were into employment as employees.  On a gender perspective, more of the men were into commercial activities and handicrafts than compared to women.  Interestingly, it was only men who engaged in tea shops, which is not common in most researches.
Table. 3.29.
Main Activity by
Respondents from Mabawa Ward

Type of Main Activity
Women
N=7
Men
N=7
Total
N=14
% of all 14 respondents
Employee
 2
 1
3
21 %
Livestock Keeper
 1
 0
 1
 7%
Handicrafts
 1
 3
 4
 29%
Cultivator
 1
 1
 2
 14%
Fisher folk
 0
 0
 0
 0%
Pottery
 0
 0
 0
 0%
Tea Shop
 0
 2
 2
 14%
Retailer
 0
 0
 0
 0%
Carpenter
 0
 0
 0
 0%
Labourer
 1
 0
 1
 7%
Commercial
 1
 4
 5
 36%
Other
 1
 0
 1
 7%

Access to Extension Services

On access to extension agents or services, the most reachable agent or services were those health and community development. These were services which more than half of the female respondents mentioned reaching, while on the male respondents side, only two services were mentioned, health and community development. It is unusual that most of the men did not identify extension services that they accessed with ease.

Table. 3.30.
Access to Extension Services
by Respondents from Mabawa Ward

Type of Extension Service
Women
N=7
Men
N=7
Total
N=14
% of all 14 respondents
Agriculture Extension
 1
0
1
 7%
Livestock Extension
 1
 0
 1
 7%
Forestry Extension
 0
 0
 0
 0%
Community Development Extension
 3
 1
 4
 29%
Health Extension
 4
 1
 5
 36%
Other Extension
 0
 0
 0
 0%
Access to Water Services

At least three quarters of the respondents had piped water. In fact 5 of the female and male respondents mentioned having piped water, albeit only 14% had it in their households. Instead, two fifths of the respondents had water near their households, while one man said water was far from his house. Generally the gender situation was in regards to access to water was similar between the two sexes.
Table. 3.31.
Access to Water Services
by Respondents from Mabawa Ward


Source of Water
Women
N=7
Men
N=7
Total
N=14
% of all 14 respondents
Within the household
1
 1
2
14 %
Near the household
 3
 3
 6
43 %
Far from the household
 0
 1
 1
7 %
Piped Water
 5
 5
 10
71 %
Water from Wells
 0
 0
 0
0 %
Water from other sources
 0
 0
 0
0 %

Access to Sources of Energy

In all, 79% of the respondents had access to charcoal, while half accessed kerosene and about two fifths accessed or picked firewood. However, as already said, the most common source of energy was charcoal. Five of the female and six of the male respondents held this opinion. Interestingly, more than half of the women mentioned having access to kerosene as compared to only two of the men.   

Table. 3.32.
Access to Sources of Energy
by Respondents from Mabawa Ward

Source of Energy
Women
N=7
Men
N=7
Total
N=14
% of all respondents
Coconut  Leaves &Trees
0
0
0
0 %
Charcoal
 5
 6
 11
79 %
Firewood - picked
 4
 2
 6
43 %
Electricity
 0
 0
 0
0 %
Firewood - bought
 0
 0
 0
0 %
Kerosene
 5
 2
 7
50 %
Other
0
 0
 0
0 %
  
Access to Health Services

Hospitals were the most accessible health services among the respondents. Half of the respondents had access to hospitals (more so the women than the men), and 43% had access to dispensaries (more so the men than the women). A good one third of the respondents (more so the women), thought the health services were expensive.

Table. 3.33.
Access to Health Services
by Respondents from Mabawa Ward

Type of Health Service
Women
N=7
Men
N=7
Total
N=14
% of all 14 respondents
Hospital
5
2
7
50 %
Dispensary
 2
 4
 6
43 %
Traditional Medicines
 1
 1
 2
14 %
Expensive Services
 3
 2
 5
36 %
Poor Services
 0
 2
 2
14 %
Other
 0
 1
 1
7 %

 Access to Credit Services

The only type of formal lending that was easily accessible to most of the respondents was loans from SACCOS (twice the number of women than men). None of the respondents had had loans from banks. Other sources of loans to women were NGOs, ROSCOS and friends, while on the male side; they also had access to cooperatives, NGOs, goods, lenders, ROSCOS, and friends. In a nut shell, men had more options than women.

Table. 3.34.
Access to Loan Services
by Respondents from Mabawa Ward

Sources  of Loans
Women
N=7
Men
N=7
Total
N=14
% of all 14 respondents
Banks
0
0
 0
0 %
Savings & Lending Organisations
 2
 1
 3
21 %
Cooperative Societies
 0
 1
 1
 7%
NGOs
 1
 1
 2
14 %
Goods
 0
 1
 1
7 %
Lenders
 0
 1
 1
7 %
Upatu (Roscos)
 1
 1
 2
 14%
Relatives
 0
 0
 0
0 %
Friends
 1
 1
 2
14 %
Government Departments
 0
 0
0
0 %
Access to Income Generating Activities

Half of the respondents were into other types of income generating activities (IGAs), such as tailoring, while 14% were into poultry keeping and hair plaiting (surprisingly it was the male respondents who mentioned this). Income generating activities engaging the respondents were extremely fragmented. Food crops and dairy cows were the most common income generating activities for half of the male respondents. In a way, it seems the female respondents did not have a good range of choice on IGAs.
Table. 3.35.
Access to Income Generating Activities
by Respondents from Mabawa Ward
           
Type of IGAs
Women
N=7
Men
N=7
Total
N=14
% of all 14 respondents
Cash Crops
 0
 0
 0
 0%
Food Crops
 1
 0
 1
 7%
Poultry Keeping
 1
 1
 2
 14%
Dairy Cows
 0
 0
 0
 0%
Fishing
 0
 0
 0
 0%
Pottery
 0
 0
 0
 0%
Weaving
 0
 1
 1
 7%
Hair Plaiting
 0
 2
 2
 14%
Brewing
 0
 0
 0
 0%
Charcoal Vendoring
 0
 1
 1
 7%
Salt Vendoring
 0
 0
 0
 0%
Other-Tailoring
 5
 2
 7
 50%

Type of Tools possessed by Respondents

On type of tools possessed by the respondents, nearly four fifths of the respondents had hand hoes, while hand hoes (all the women had these).  The next common tools are: pangas which are in 79% of the respondents’ households, followed by spades (71%). The least common tool is slashers for cutting grass, only one of the women and two of the men had these.   
Table. 3.36.
Type of Tools possessed
by Respondents from Mabawa Ward
           
Type of Tools Possessed
Women
N=7
Men
N=7
Total
N=14
% of all 14 respondents
Hand Hoes
 7
 5
12
86%
Pangas
 6
 5
 11
 79%
Axes
 4
 5
 9
 64%
Weeding Hoes
 1
 2
 3
 21%
Borrows
 0
 0
 0
 0%
Slasher
 1
 2
 3
 21%
Spade
 6
 4
 10
 71%
Other
 4
 2
 6
 43%
Main means of transporting goods

As regards the main means of transporting goods, 64% of the respondents had access to bicycles (nearly all the women as compared to only half the men).  The next most common means of transportation was the head, wherein 43% of the respondents stated so (more than half of the men as compared to a fourth of the women). Wheel-barrow was not common at all among the respondents.
Table. 3.37.
Main means of transporting goods used
by respondents from Mabawa Ward

Type or Means of Transportation
Women
N=7
Men
N=7
Total
N=14
% of all 14 respondents
Bicycles
 6
3
9
64%
Pull/Push carts
 1
 0
 1
 7%
Wheelbarrows
 0
 0
 0
 0%
Cars
 1
 1
 2
 14%
Head
 2
 4
 6
 43%
Other
 1
 1
 2
 14%

Problems experienced

Problems that afflict most of the respondents in the Mabawa Ward were: markets (64% of all respondents, but more so for the men); low prices (43%); environmental laws (50% of all respondents, but more so for the women); environmental problems (43%), and health services (36%). Other problems for at least a fifth of the respondents included: fodder (29%); farming land (21%); and, poor incomes (21%).
Table. 3.38.
Problems experienced
by respondents from Mabawa Ward

Type of Problems
Women
N=7
Men
N=7
Total
N=14
% of all 14 respondents
Vermin
0
0
0
0 %
Destructive Animals
 0
 0
 0
 0%
Fodder
 1
 3
 4
 29%
Farming Land
 1
 2
 3
 21%
Poor Tools & Equipment
 1
 0
 1
 7%
Poor Incomes
 2
 1
 3
 21%
Handicaps
 0
 0
 0
 0%
Markets
 3
 6
 9
 64%
Low Prices
 3
 3
 6
 43%
Water Services
 0
 0
 0
 0%
Health Services
 2
 3
 5
 36%
Poor Leadership
 0
 0
 0
 0%
Environmental Problems
 3
 3
 6
 43%
Environmental Laws
 5
 2
 7
 50%
Other
 0
 1
 1
 7%

Key Environmental Problems

The number one environmental problem according to the respondents was noise pollution (applies to both male and female respondents), followed by indiscriminate littering (applies to both), and fouls odours (applies to both). There were no gender differences on these three priority problems.

Table. 3.39.
Key Environmental Problems affecting Respondents from Mabawa Ward
(Ranking according to Scores)
           
Type of Environmental Problem
Women
N=7
Rank
Men
N=7
Rank
Total
N=14
Rank
Indiscriminate Littering
 4
 2
 5
2
9
2
Wild Fires
 3

 4

 7
 4
Noise Pollution
 5
1
 5
1
 10
1
Odours
 4
 3
 5
 3
 9
3
Erosion
 3

 4

 7
 5
Absence of Toilets
 3

 3

 6
6
Indiscriminate Tree Felling
 1

 2

 3

Squatters
 2

 2

 4

Pollution of Water Sources
 2

 2

 4

Indiscriminate Grazing
 2

 3

 5

Destruction of Fishing Sources
 3

 2

 5

Poor Supervision
 3

 3

 6
7
Indiscriminate mining
 2

 1

 3

Absence of Groups
 3

 0

 3

Poor Community Involvement
 1

 1

 2

Other
 1

 0

 1


[Extracted from a Consultancy report by Edward H. Mhina for Tanga Municipal Council Sustainable Tanga Programme - STP - DANIDA Support Project - June 2003.]

No comments:

Post a Comment