The work of women in food production can best be appreciated if it is placed within the perspectives of the dynamics of all other activities that go on within the household. Much has been written about the multiple roles of women particularly in agricultural households. In addition to being expected to look after their children and to cook on a daily basis, and to provide water and fuel, they are also expected to provide basic daily food for the family. According to the FAO report (1984:3:19) women are frequently forced to work 10-16 hours a day in order to fulfil their domestic duties as well as to grow food crops, care for animals, process food and carry out their entrepreneurial activities.
Viewed in this way the study took a holistic view of all the activities going on within the household with a focus on conflicting demand on women's time from household tasks, subsistence farming, cash farming, self employment, wage employment and the need for rest. The implication of this analysis was found to be important as it reflected on the labour available for food production.
To determine the nature and extent on the role women play in producing food, the respondents were asked to indicate who had performed specific tasks during the long rainy season. Table 2 gives a picture of the division of labour among the household members.
Several facts can be noticed from Table 2. First during land preparation, women provided 65% of total labour, when using the hoe as compared to the husbands who provided only 4% of their labour using the same tool. Despite the fact that the plough has often been used by men, increasing numbers of women now plough due to male migration to urban centres. This support the FAO report which says:
...Because societies are constantly evolving and adapting to new pressures, the allocation of tasks between sexes within the community also undergoes changes. ...work that has been traditionally done by women is taken over by men once it has been mechanized. On the other hand, women heads of households will have to take on management responsibilities as well as work tasks which men would normally be expected to assume (FAO 1984 p.200).
It is therefore not strange that 4% of women had ploughed compared to 65% husbands who did the same. However it was assumed that more women would use the plough if they could afford either to hire or buy. Several women did not use the plough because of the high cost of hiring and purchasing.
Secondly, planting and weeding traditionally regarded as women's tasks have so. This is evident when it was found out that 80% of women did the planting as compared to 14% of the husbands who planted while 84% of women weeded as compared to 11% of the husbands who did the same.
The results from this study of women's participation in agricultural work show that nearly all the cases recorded were found to do more than half of the agricultural work: in some cases they perform around 70% of the farm activities and in others over 80% of the total. Thus, this quantitative information about labour on food production input by sex indicates that food production in rural Kenya continues to be predominantly female farming.
Despite the fact that food processing is usually seen as non-agricultural work, yet many food crops can neither be sold or eaten without processing. Women were found to carry out time consuming and numerous tasks subsumed under the categories of food processing, preparation and storage. From the time of harvesting, transporting, home processing and handling for storage the women provided 75%, 65%, 70% and 82% of their labour respectively while on the same activities the husbands provided 15%, 20%, 15% and 22% respectively.
Thirdly, the husbands provided 68% of their labour in building the stores (a task traditionally done by men) as compared to 34% of women who built stores usually in the absence of their spouses.
Fourthly, it is worth observing too that the women's labour is usually subsidized by labourers both permanent and temporary for those who can afford to pay, and by both female and male children.
TABLE 2 FARM LABOUR ACTIVITIES DURING LONG RAINY SEASON 1988
FARM ACTIVITIES |
WIFE |
HUSBAND |
PERMANENT LABOURERS |
TEMPORARY LABOURERS |
WHOLE FAMILY |
FEMALE CHILDREN |
MALE CHILDREN |
OTHERS |
|Hoeing |
65 (65%) |
4 (4%) |
13 (13%) |
18 (18%) |
10 (10%) |
10 (10%) |
3 (3%) |
|
|Ploughing |
4 (4%) |
65 (65%) |
34 (34%) |
10 (10%) |
24 (24%) |
11 (11%) |
23 (23%) |
|
Planting |
80 (80%) |
14 (14%) |
16 (16%) |
21 (21%) |
23 (23%) |
41 (41%) |
20 (20%) |
|
|Weeding |
84 (84%) |
11 (11%) |
16 (16%) |
20 (20%) |
17 (17%) |
46 (46%) |
30 (30%) |
|
Chasing birds |
4 (4%) |
- - |
6 (6%) |
- - |
4 (4%) |
1 (1%) |
7 (7%) |
|
Harvesting |
75 (75%) |
15 (15%) |
10 (10%) |
34 (34%) |
20 (20%) |
49 (49%) |
40 (40%) |
|
|Transporting |
65 (65%) |
28 (28%) |
36 (36%) |
47 (47%) |
30 (30%) |
44 (44%) |
40 (40%) |
|
|Drying/ Processing |
70 (70%) |
15 (15%) |
12 (12%) |
20 (20%) |
20 (20%) |
37 (37%) |
20 (20%) |
|
|Handling for Storage |
82 (82%) |
22 (22%) |
10 (10%) |
2 (2%) |
10 (10%) |
44 (44%) |
20 (20%) |
|
Building Stores |
|34 (34%) |
68 (68%) |
36 (36%) |
45 (45%) |
- - |
- - |
49 (49%) |
|
Several questions were asked to determine the role played by hired labour in helping women towards their farm-work. First, we wanted to know whether the farmer needed to hire labour and if the answer was negative we further wanted to know why the farmer did not need to hire labour. Second, we wanted to know how the farmers paid their labour. Third, has the farmer ever used communal labour and if so for what purposes? Fourth, is there an experience of labour shortage in the area during part or all seasons and what is the reason for labour shortage. Fifth, we were interested to know how the farmer handled labour shortages and whether there is land uncultivated because of labour shortage.
Out of 100 women interviewed, 57 (57%) agreed that there was too much work on the farm and therefore they needed to hire labour, while 44 (44%) said they did not need to hire labour. Out of the 44 women who did not need to hire labour, 34 (34%) said that they had small gardens which they could manage by themselves, 58 (58%) said hiring labour was very expensive and they had no money to pay them and 8 (8%) said that the family labour is adequate.
The reason given for hiring labour were several. A number of women argued that since they did not own plough oxen which makes work easier, they had to hire labour to help them as they could not manage by themselves. Others hired labour because the children who could give help on the farm were either too young or were at school. When both wife and husband were in employment they had need to hire labour. Yet others simply hired labour as work was too much in the farm for one person.
The labour was found to be paid in different ways. Out of 70 farmers who hired labour, 47 (47%) paid money, 14 (14%) paid in the form of food, 4 (4%) paid money and food, and 5 (5%) paid the labourers with other payments apart from money and food. It was also found out that there was no standard money payments to the hired labour. The agreement was made between the labourer to be hired and the farmer. However by examining the households who used hired labour, we found out that such labour was used on cash crop farms thus reducing the amount of time men work on their own fields rather than women's labour time on their own food fields. Hired labour is thus chiefly used to replace absentee men due to off-farm employment and those who engage in little agricultural labour (Orvis 1983). It is not surprising then, that women turn to children to help with their work (FAO, 1984 p.29). The daughters in particular, were found to be extremely important to women as they identified with their mothers more and helped them in several farm duties. Nonetheless, many women felt that children's labour was only marginally helpful in relieving the strain on women's time because of their school attendance. Children, both male and female, are unavailable for nine months of the year. During weekends, and school holidays they are quite a significant addition to the labour force. However most women preferred to do all the work by themselves and give their school going children time to study "so they may have better employment than farm-work".
The results of this study show that labour scarcity is a constraint to women farmers as there is a lot of work to be done and with the absence of children in school and absentee husbands in wage employments, the women need to hire labour, if they have to effectively
perform duties that pertain to farm-work. Every time the women farmers' requirement exceeds the capacity of her family labour she faces labour scarcity. Depending on her cost of meeting her labour deficit with outside workers, a number of women were found to face serious labour constraints. For this reason, those who could afford, hired labour, to help in the farm-work and particularly during times of land preparation, weeding and harvesting periods when there is much more work to be done on the farms. It is also worth mentioning at this point that 71 (71%) of our respondents informed us that they were not able to cultivate all their land because this meant too much work and they were not able to hire enough labour to help them do so.
Nonetheless, labour scarcity is a seasonal phenomena which is as a result of labour requirements in agricultural production. Peaks of intense work occur during planting, weeding and harvesting with low labour requirements falling within and between cycles. Since most farmers must regulate their production activities in relation to weather conditions as well as crop needs, labour tasks must be completed on schedule within fairly strict deadlines.
It is important to recognize that in traditional agriculture, family labour is not seen as a cost of production. It is not paid a wage, its subsistence share remain the same whether it works or not. In contrast hired labour is a cost of production, requiring a payment in cash or land. Moreover hired labour is not always reliable and can require supervision by family labour.
It should be mentioned that cash crops, and in particular, coffee plays an important role in the lives of the people of Mumbuni. Though the coffee farms are owned by men, most part of the women's annual labour time is spent on her husband's field. The value created by this labour is primarily directly appropriated and regulated by the husband himself. That is, women are forced to finish the work in the coffee farms before they can proceed to their food farms. This is a major constraint on women's labour in food production.
The study found out that the most important aspect in food production is the realization that shortage of labour is often a greater constraint on production than shortage of land, as most household members are exempted from activity for reasons of health, age, sex or in order to pursue other valued objectives such as schooling and wage employment. Most of food production activities therefore fall on women's shoulders. Drawn by prospects of wage employment, many men have left their wives with the sole responsibility for sustaining their families. This in effect deprive the household of labour which they would otherwise provide.
How do women deal with the labour shortage? Either labour is hired or they use communal labour.
The use of communal labour is an example of women's survival strategy to deal with labour shortage on the farms. 95% of women interviewed used communal labour. A typical communal group was found to have ten to fifteen members that would come together to help each other in times of high labour requirement. Such groups were either formed from kinship members, common residence, church membership or the same socio-economic status, often such factors appearing in combination. They perform such tasks that need a lot of labour input, such like land preparation (hoeing), weeding and harvesting. Their labour is based on a rotation basis on each members land working on a number of specific days per week. Orvis who worked on the same issue in western Kenya observed:
Because each member must participate in working on the others fields in order to get her field worked, it does not represent increase in labour time, though many people report they find working in a group rather than along increases productivity (Orvis 1985).
Another communal group labour type found to be used by the women is the occasional one usually called together for a specific task by the person who wants the task done. This particular group were usually offered meals in the cause of their work.
The result of using communal labour may be to free the members to perform other kinds of work on their own farms or to engage in other cash-earning activity.
The women's work on their farms and in their houses is fundamental to the survival of their families. Some household jobs must be done everyday, for example cooking, fetching firewood and water or collecting the food to be cooked, just to mention a few and not to forget their responsibilities as parents and providers. At the same time the farm-work has to be done. The point is, the opportunity cost of the women's time is not zero. If she is not working on the farm, she is working in the house. There are many activities, some of which only they can do, and others which cannot be postponed. The work of women in food production cannot therefore be a study in a vacuum without taking into consideration other duties performed by them. In other words, the woman's time is not freely available for farm tasks. This implies that domestic activities play two integrated functions centred around physical reproduction and other aspects of the reproduction of labour force and production of the use value. The nature of women's work in food production depend upon factors that transcend the household which implies that women's farm activities must be analyzed within the context of the dynamics of overall household activities.
Table 3 shows the household activities that have to be done along with the farm-work, and the individual members who perform these tasks within the family unit.
From Table 3 we can see that the women contribute over 98% of their labour, fetching firewood, water, and food, cooking and looking after the children. The tasks that were traditionally done by men like looking after animals are being taken over by women in great numbers. 54 (54%) of the women interviewed looked after their animals as compared to 45% of the men who did the same job. The contribution of men's labour in household activities is minimal. It can also be observed from Table 3 that the women are helped in their household tasks mostly by their female children and less by their male children except in looking after the animals. Our assumption here is that, the male children identify with their fathers at an early age, so they only tend to involve themselves in duties traditionally performed by men but ignore duties traditionally left to the women. There are few women in relatively wealthier households who can afford to hire labour and thereby ease the workload. This is not possible for most women in poorer households.
The most arduous task that women were found to perform is, the preparation of isio or muthokoi, a meal of dry maize and beans or pounded maize respectively. Before the maize is pounded, it has to be soaked overnight for it to be soft. Sufficient pounding for an average family of six members takes up to two hours per meal. Isio takes not less than three hours to cook. As a consequence women often serve one or two meals a day. When the agricultural work is most demanding, meals are sometimes neglected altogether until late in the evening.
Fetching water, which was also found to be a time consuming activity, is carried out mainly by women. Water is collected at least four times a day. The distance during dry season can be up to 3 kilometers. However, water during the long rainy season when the study was conducted, was taken from several streams not very far from most homes.
The collecting of firewood was frequently found to conflict with agricultural work. The fuel supply which is dwindling in the area as a lot of forests and bushes have been cleared to give way for agricultural crops, was found to be collected almost on a daily basis. Since dry and suitable for burning and cooking type of firewood have to be searched for in different distances, this activity was found to take a lot of women's time particularly in the wet season. Both firewood and charcoal are being sold in the local markets and thus present an economic burden to women.
In addition to all these, women were found to take sole responsibility for daily household chores such as cleaning and washing. The women were also found to take great responsibility for child care and supervision. Usually they were assisted by their daughters. The sole responsibility of child health, food and clothing tend to rest with the mother (Pala 1975).
Most of these tasks were performed at the same time. For example it was observed that women without family help, carried their children to the farms where they watched over them as they slept or played. Often they have to stop whatever activity they are doing to breast feed the child before being coaxed to lie down or play while the mother continues with her work.
The household tasks are multifaceted and what women show is a great deal of flexibility in meeting the demands made on them by the virtue of their being producers and reproducers (Obbo 1983: 54).
Since the food produced is generally consumed by the household members, and since lack of economic incentives for food crops has led to their being produced primarily for subsistence, women nevertheless need cash not only to purchase other foods and basic necessities for their families but also to pay for improved production that are necessary for increases on farm productivity. Thus in order to improve their household needs and also food production, increasing numbers of women engage in off-farm income generating activities by trading off between food and non-food crop production for sale.
Out of 100 respondents, 92 were involved in some type of income generating activity. Although women do not specialize in marketing (Pala 1975), it was nevertheless the major off-farm income generating activity. The women were found to market their own food crops, mainly vegetables, fruits and grains. Other activities involved selling knitted materials and hand made baskets. These off-farm activities were found to be compatible with women's reproductive functions e.g. caring for small children.
The average income from the sale of agricultural produce was K.Shs. 100/- per month. This money is very little taking into consideration the distance walked to the market with loads of goods carried on the back. One only needs to look into the market and see the women selling their goods understand the situation. They sit here for not less than eight hours and by the end of the day, they have made an average of K.Shs. 3/-- net profit which is immediately swallowed up in purchasing other family needs.
From observation, there is no well developed market for crops produced. Women engage in the same activities selling the same types of goods making competition stiff and thereby selling their goods at throw away prices. There was little evidence that these women have attempted to come together as a group, set fixed prices and explore avenue for transporting their products to nearby urban centres. Instead mediums (usually men) travel from other urban centres to the local market in Mumbuni, buy these food products from the women at cheap prices, and transport them to the urban centres and sell them (sometimes only 30 kilometers away) at exorbitant prices, making a lot of profit.
Table 3 HOUSEHOLD ACTIVITIES AND WHO DOES WHAT IN THE FAMILY
ACTIVITIES |
WIFE |
HUSBAND |
PERMANENT LABOUR |
TEMPORARY LABOUR |
FEMALE CHILDREN |
MALE CHILDREN |
OTHERS |
Fetching Firewood |
230 (80%) |
1 (1%) |
7 (13%) |
1 (5%) |
92 (46%) |
28 (14%) |
6 (6%) |
Fetching Water |
142 (71%) |
2 (1%) |
28 (14%) |
9 (6%) |
92 (46%) |
55 (28%) |
7 (4%) |
Cooking |
176 (88%) |
2 (1%) |
26 (13%) |
4 (2%) |
89 (46%) |
20 (10%) |
3 (2%) |
Cleaning House |
155 (78%) |
- |
27 (13%) |
3 (1%) |
94 (47%) |
14 (8%) |
4 (2%) |
Washing |Clothes |
158 (79%) |
4 (2%) |
24 (12%) |
5 (2%) |
99 (50%) |
38 (20%) |
6 (3%) |
Ironing |
136 (68%) |
8 (5%) |
24 (12%) |
5 (2%) |
79 (40%) |
30 (15%) |
4 (2%) |
Taking care of children |
109 (55%) |
2 (1%) |
12 (6%) |
3 (2%) |
74 (37%) |
12 (6%) |
3 (2%) |
Going to market |
183 (92%) |
4 (2%) |
9 (6%) |
2 (1%) |
46 (23%) |
5 (2%) |
4 (2%) |
Collecting Food-Garden |
175 (83%) |
11 (6%) |
25 (13%) |
10 (5%) |
64 (32%) |
30 (15%) |
8 (5%) |
Farm-work |
165 (83%) |
84 (42%) |
36 (18%) |
38 (19%) |
79 (40%) |
75 (38%) |
11 (6%) |
Looking after animals |
107 (54%) |
45 (22%) |
28 (14%) |
31 (16%) |
43 (21%) |
62 (31%) |
5 (2%) |
Others |
50 (25%) |
24 (12%) |
4 |
3 (2%) |
8 (5%) |
- |
- |
On the other hand men were found to involve themselves to much higher levels and well paying off farm income than do women.
In summary one can say that a large amount of time, income and effort is spent on off farm income-generating activities. The main concern however is what effects these have on agricultural production. Labour thus remains the key factor at issue. This study shows that women's labour is certainly not in surplus. During peak labour periods the labour demand on the women is quite strained. This is not due to agricultural activities alone but also to the overall demands on the women's time as she maintains and manages all aspects of a rural agricultural household. Illness and pregnancies are other factors that put great strain on women's labour (Orvis 1985).
