36 Research on World Agricultural Economy | Volume 03 | Issue 04 | December 2022 Research on World Agricultural Economy https://ojs.nassg.org/index.php/rwae Copyright © 2022 by the author(s). Published by NanYang Academy of Sciences Pte. Ltd. This is an open access article under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International (CC BY-NC 4.0) License. (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/). *Corresponding Author: Abiro Tigabie, International Crop Research in Semi-Arid Tropics (ICRISAT), P.O.Box 5698 Addis Ababa, Ethiopia; Email abirotgb723@gmail.com DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.36956/rwae.v3i4.751 Received: 25 October 2022; Received in revised form: 7 December 2022; Accepted: 15 December 2022; Published: 30 December 2022 Citation: Tigabie, A., Teferra, B., Abe, A., 2022. Access and Control of Resources by Rural Women in North Shewa Zone, Amhara Region, Ethiopia. Research on World Agricultural Economy. 3(4), 751. http://dx.doi.org/10.36956/rwae.v3i4.751 RESEARCH ARTICLE Access and Control of Resources by Rural Women in North Shewa Zone, Amhara Region, Ethiopia Abiro Tigabie1* Beneberu Teferra2 Amsalu Abe2 1. International Crop Research in Semi-Arid Tropics (ICRISAT), P.O.Box 5698, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia 2. Amhara Agricultural Research Institute Debre Birhan Agricultural Research Center, P.O.Box 112, Debre Birhan, Ethiopia Abstract: Gender is one of the crosscutting and the prime importance of any development plan and intervention. Rural women play vital roles in agricultural activities to reduce poverty and food insecurity. This study focuses on gender equality in the access and control of agricultural and rural household resources by rural women. The study was conducted in Bassonawerana, Kewot, and Moretinajiru districts of Northern Shewa Zone Amhara region Ethiopia. Data were collected using individual interviews, key informant interviews, and focus group discussions. A total of 252 respondents were selected using purposive sampling, categorical, and then simple random sample selection techniques. Descriptive statistics and Harvard analysis techniques were used to assess the access, control, and utilization of agricultural and household resources in rural areas. Most of the respondents were married. 95% of the study households depend on agricultural activities of crop and livestock farming. The average family size was 5 in which 3 of them were involved in agricultural activities. The average level of education for the households was 2.5 years. Women were involved in on-farm and off-farm income-generating activities but most women had limited access to extension services and agricultural-related training. The benefits of different resources were shared by all family members equally except institutional resources. Poultry was predominantly owned by women while other livestock resources and land resources were owned by both men’s and women’s family members. Provision of women-targeted training and agricultural extension services focused on how to access and control institutional and household resources are vital to enhance their access to institutional resources and improve the production and productivity of women in the rural household and the entire community for livelihood and food security improvements. Keywords: Access; Benefit; Control; Equality; Gender mailto:abirotgb723@gmail.com https://orcid.org/0000-0002-9702-6877 37 Research on World Agricultural Economy | Volume 03 | Issue 04 | December 2022 1. Introduction Gender issues are of prime importance in the present time, in addition, access to and control over resources is a vital concern to think about it. Rural households depend on a wide range of agricultural resources and household assets for their livelihoods including land, water, trees, and livestock. Access refers to the ability to use and benefit from specific resources (material, financial, human, social, political, etc.) whereas control over resources also entails being able to make decisions over the use of that resource. According to Paul and Meena [1], access is referred to as a right and opportunity while control over referred to as the right and power over resources. Access to production resources of land, extensions, and other institutional services ensures the reduction of poverty and food insecurity [2]. As FAO [3] explained, “If women in rural areas had the same access to productive activities as men, agricultural and farming production would increase, and could feed approximately 150 million more people.” Rural women play various roles in agricultural pro- duction to increase productivity and enhance economic growth and reduce poverty [4]. They participate along with the entire agricultural value chain activities, as producers, distributors, processors, and marketers [5]. Rural women were involved in farm and non-farm enterprises and cov- ered 42% and 60% of labor demand respectively [6]. Data from the UN Food and Agricultural Organization [3] show that 43% of the agricultural workforce in developing countries and 50% in Asia and Africa is made by women. The importance of agricultural resources and exten- sion services is vital for rural women, while their access to resources and services is limited (Farming First) [7]. Women have less access to land and other factors of pro- duction resources than men [6]. Despite women making up the biggest workforce in food production, processing, and preparation, little is known about how women access and control production resources. Gender variation exists in agricultural-related information, training, improved tech- nologies, and extension services. Although awareness of the importance of gender equal- ity in agricultural policies in improved trends, key gaps that inhibited the access to and control of productive resources predisposition resource ownership positions of rural women. Women received less access to extension services and production inputs than men [6]. In the produc- tion constraint assessment study, rural women lack access to and control of agricultural production resources [8]. This situation needs to assess the status of access to and control for the main production resources. The study was conducted to assess the access to and control for the basic economic resources and services and the distributions of agricultural and household resources in rural households and to identify the available institu- tions contributing to empowering women’s access to and control for production resources. 2. Methodology 2.1 Area Description and Sample Selection Methods The study was conducted in Bassonawerana, Kewot, and Moretinajiru districts in the North Shewa zone of Amhara Regional state, central highland Ethiopia. The ar- eas represented different farming practices and social and economic setups. Furthermore, the study areas represented different agroecology of high, low, and mid-altitudes. 2.2 Sampling Methods The samples were selected using different approaches. The study areas were selected using purposive sampling methods and three kebeles were selected randomly from each study area. Households were grouped into married and single which were men and women-headed house- holds. A total of 252 (181 married and 71 single) repre- sentative samples were selected in simple random sam- pling techniques (Table 1). Table 1. Area characteristics and sample respondents by the study area District Rural households Sample selected Temperature (°C) Rainfall (MM) Altitude (masl) Male Female Min Max Min Max Min Max Bassonawerana 18859 10080 88 –2 20 950 1200 1500 3200 Kewot 9992 8778 85 13.3 29 600 900 1500 2500 Moretinajiru 14932 2253 79 18 32 850 1100 1340 2960 Source: Abiro et al. (2017) 38 Research on World Agricultural Economy | Volume 03 | Issue 04 | December 2022 2.3 Data Collection and Data Analysis Techniques 2.3.1 Data Collection Both primary and secondary data were collected from published and unpublished resources. The primary (cross- sectional) data were collected using focus group discus- sions, key informant interviews, and individual interview techniques from the selected respondents with the survey instruments. 2.3.2 Data Analysis The qualitative interview was analyzed using both deductive and inductive content analysis. The cross- sectional data were analyzed using STATA software pack- age version 16. Descriptive statistics of mean, percentage, standard deviations, and frequency were used when nec- essary to evaluate the status of the most important study variables. The most common gender analysis tools and frame- works (Harvard framework) Harvard gender analysis tool was used to evaluate and document the differences in the gendered access and control of resources of land, live- stock, income, or extension information [9,10]. The Harvard analysis technique was used to identify the available re- sources and clarify who has access to resources and who controls their use in relation to the resources identified. Using the Harvard analysis method answered the ques- tions that who has access to and control over resources and who has access to and control over benefits (training, income, education, or services) were answered. The other gender analysis tool used for the study was Social Relations Framework or Social Relation Approach developed by Naila Kabeer. The tool was used to assess the extent of gender inequalities created, maintained, and reproduced in micro institutions (the household and com- munity). The framework uses concepts rather than tools to concentrate on the relationships between people and their relationship to resources and activities - and how these are reworked through ‘institutions’ such as the households and community. The Social Relations Approach (SRA) is a method of analyzing gender inequalities in the distribu- tion of resources and power for designing policies and programs that enable women to be agents of their develop- ment Useful gender analysis framework handbook [11,12]. Indexes were developed for the different resources available in rural households to identify the access and control over resources in the rural livelihood system par- ticularly, whether by men, women, or jointly in the study areas. The results were reported concurrently based on the quantitative data and supported by the qualitative data in explanatory methods in narrations, tables, and figures. 3. Results and Discussions 3.1 Demographic and Socioeconomic Character- istics The main family members in rural households include heads, spouses (for married), sons, and daughters. Those family members have definite labor contributions for on- farm and off-farm household economic activities. The primary family member who was respondents were 100 percent women. The second family member who was men was 88 percent. Of those 72 percent were couples in the married respondents and 16 percent were sons for the sin- gle respondents. Socioeconomic characteristics and participation in agricultural activities The rural women involved in agricultural activities and access to and control for various resources, information, extension services, and technologies mainly influenced by marital status. The majority (72 percent) of them were married and live with their spouses. The remaining were single due to being divorced, widowed, and unmarried. The average family size was 5 per household with a po- tential of 3 agricultural labor force (2 males and 1 female family member) involved in income-generating activities. The average level of education in years of schooling per household was 2.5 years (Table 2). Age, years of living in the study area, and a number of people relayed for critical support. On average they lived about 25 years with a minimum of 1 and a maximum of 70. Most of them had relatives and non-relatives in their villages and outside their villages, and they believed in them during critical issues. Their average age was 39 with a minimum of 18 and a maximum of 70 was the produc- tive and potential age for critical decision-making in household management and livelihood improvement (Ta- ble 3). 3.2 Dependence Status of the Community during Critical Challenges and Social Network Most people relied on their relatives and non-relatives during critical issues to support their lives consistently. The majority did not rely on government support during agricultural production fallers. Half of them know and have relatives and friends in leadership positions to share new ideas and information (Table 4). 39 Research on World Agricultural Economy | Volume 03 | Issue 04 | December 2022 Table 2. Demographic characteristics and agricultural labor contribution Variables Mean St. Dev. [95% Conf. Interval] Average male family members involved in agriculture 2 0.08 1.68 - 2.02 Average female family members involved in agriculture 1 0.07 1.41 - 1.69 Average family size 5 0.11 5.18 - 5.61 The average level of education in the household in years 2.52 0.25 2.04 - 3.01 Years of experience in agriculture 20.14 0.65 18.86 - 21.42 Source: Own survey data analysis Table 3. Relatives and non-relatives people relayed critical issues Variable Mean Std. Dev. Min Max Age 39.04 11.02 18 70 Number of years living in this area 24.65 14.35 1 70 Number of relatives relay in critical issues in your village 6.69 13.28 1 100 Number of non-relatives relay to critical issues in your village 5.57 5.48 0 45 Number of relatives relay in critical issues outside your village 6.63 12.38 1 100 Number of non-relatives relay to critical issues outside your village 6.448 9.94 0 60 Source: Own survey data Table 4. People’s dependence on others and the government during critical problems Dependence and social relationships Response Percent Do you have peoples you can rely on for critical issues within this village Yes 79.76 No 20.24 Do you have peoples you rely on for critical issues outside this village Yes 75.79 No 24.21 Do you rely on government support during agricultural production fallers? Yes 47.22 No 52.78 3.2.1 The Social Groups and Their Most Impor- tant Functions The most frequently observed group in which most ru- ral women participated as ordinary members and officials was the funeral association in Amharic called “Edir” fol- lowed by saving and credit cooperatives and input supply farmers cooperatives. Most women are involved in the memberships of those social groups as a family of the member or independently (Figure 1). The main functions of the groups were governed by the rules and regulations of the group bylaws. Edir provided burial services during the death of their relatives and group members. The cooperatives played an economic role in the provision of input, product marketing, and fi- nancial services of savings and credits (Figure 2). 3.2.2 Women Targeted Social Group and Members Relationships Different women-targeted groups were established in the study areas for different purposes. Women association is the common women group that is open to memberships for all interested women and available at lower admin- istration level in the study areas. Women league is the other women-targeted group composed of model women participants who have access to different exposures and are found in the front lines established in lower adminis- tration. Women federations which are the representatives of all women’s associations and women league leaders in all areas by and available at the district level. Coalitions of the women’s development team are the integration of different women’s development teams. There are also 40 Research on World Agricultural Economy | Volume 03 | Issue 04 | December 2022 other types of women-targeted groups such as one to five groups, development teams, and Common Interest Groups (CIG) particularly focused on girls and organized for the purpose of business operation on different economic ac- tivities. Rural women and their family members participated in a social group as members of the community. They also interested to continue their memberships in the groups in the future. Most of them had good social networks and share ideas with their relatives and non-relatives. 3.3 Access to, Control for, and Benefits Share of Different Resources 3.3.1 Household Resource The major resources owned and controlled by the household in this research include land, trees, livestock, money in the bank, grain in the store, and household fur- niture. The benefits generated from the resources include rental income, market income, and products. The family members had access to and control over the resources and shared the benefits at different levels and proportions. Access to household resources Households owned different resources in different magnitudes. From the entire sample 179, 235, 231, 240, and 125 households owned trees, land, furniture, grain in the store, and cash in the bank, respectively. Though there was little dominance in some households, most of the household resources were accessed by the household members equally. No one had a priority to access those household resources. This study resulted in similar findings to Paul and Radha [13]. Relatively women had high access to grain and home fur- niture. There were few gender differences seen in access to some resources from the results (Table 5). Control for and decision-making on household resources Households made decisions on the various resources owned by different family members with different pro- portions. Women had high decision-making power to use the home furniture and grain in the store than men. Some resources like trees, land, and cash in the bank had power dominance of men’s decision-making (Table 6). Benefits share and use of household resources 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 Input supply farmers cooperatives Crop/seed producer coops Local administration Women association religious association Saving and credit groups Water user’s association Edir (Funeral groups) Equb (Money go round) Religious group Types of social groups most rural women participated (Percent) Figure 1. Types of the social groups most rural women participated Most important group functions Produce marketing Input marketing Seed production Farmers research group Saving and credit Funeral services Tree planting Soil and water conservation Religious congregation Input credit Others Figure 2. The most important functions of social groups 41 Research on World Agricultural Economy | Volume 03 | Issue 04 | December 2022 In most households, all family members benefited from the household resources equally. The benefits of house- hold resources were shared with the family members when the resources are exchanged or sold for consumable items in the households. Some resources like money were owned by individuals and benefited those owners sepa- rately (Table 7). 3.3.2 Livestock Resources The livestock resources found and considered for the analysis purposes include cattle (dairy cows, oxen, heifer, calf), small ruminants (sheep and goat), equines (horse, donkey, and mule), and poultry. Due to agrochemical ef- fects, no one had a chance to own honeybee colonies. In this study majority had the livestock resources as 210 owned cattle, 178 owned shoat (sheep and goat), 159 owned equines, and 202 owned poultry. Access to and ownership of livestock resources The livestock resources are owned and controlled by the household family members with different proportions. The chicken was the only resource in which 44 percent of it was predominantly owned by women while other livestock resources were owned by both men and women (Table 8). Control for and decision-makers on livestock resources Women’s predominantly made decisions on poultry. The couples (husband and wife) had a high rate of equal decision-making power on the livestock resources. How- ever, in some men-headed households’ men had a priority decision-making power on most livestock resources ex- Table 5. Access to household resources Who accesses the resources (ownership)? Access to household resources (%) Trees Land Furniture Grain Money Predominantly men 12.85 11.91 2.16 3.75 13.6 Predominantly women 15.64 14.89 42.42 27.5 25.6 Exclusively men 0 0 0 0 0.8 Exclusively women 2.23 3.83 3.9 4.17 4.8 Men first 0 0.43 0 0 0.8 Women first 0.56 0.43 1.3 0.83 0.8 All family members equally 30.73 32.77 29.87 27.08 15.2 Husband and wife equally 37.99 35.74 20.35 36.67 38.4 Table 6. Control of household resources Who controls the resources in your household? Household resources decision-making (frequency) Trees Land Furniture Grain Money Predominantly men 40 53 7 18 23 Predominantly women 39 50 115 88 36 Exclusively men 6 7 0 4 4 Exclusively women 16 23 29 26 9 Men first 8 13 0 5 4 Women first 5 6 10 9 6 All family members equally 4 11 12 7 3 Husband and wife equally 61 72 58 83 40 Table 7. Benefits from household resources Who benefited from household resources? Household resources decision-making (frequency) Trees Land Furniture Grain Money Predominantly men 3 0 2 0 3 Predominantly women 5 7 19 10 7 Exclusively men 4 1 0 1 1 Exclusively women 3 8 8 9 4 Men first 0 2 1 0 1 Women first 0 0 2 2 0 All family members equally 122 161 155 162 75 Husband and wife equally 45 56 44 56 35 42 Research on World Agricultural Economy | Volume 03 | Issue 04 | December 2022 cluding poultry (Table 9). Benefits from livestock resources All family members had a great share of benefits from all livestock resources. In some paired households, the spouses and partners had a relative benefit share from the livestock resources beyond their sons and daughters (Table 10). 3.3.3 Institutional Service Provider Resources The institutional and service provider resources have significant contributions to improve the triple roles of women in production, reproduction, and social roles in- volvement. These resources were identified by the com- munity and used for the analysis. The resources include household decisions, agricultural technologies, political power, and extension services. Access to institutional service provider resources Many of the rural households had access to different institutional services. The agricultural extension support was accessed for 93 percent through training and expe- rience-sharing visits. The majority 99.6 percent of them have access to participate in the household decision, the access to improved technologies weighted 92 percent and nearly 64 percent of the households had access to partici- Table 8. Access to livestock resources Who accesses the different livestock resources? (ownership) Access to different livestock resources (frequency) Cattle Sheep and goat Equines Chicken Predominantly men 20 12 13 1 Predominantly women 19 28 15 88 Exclusively men 0 0 1 0 Exclusively women 3 4 3 9 Men first 0 0 0 0 Women first 2 2 1 5 All family members equally 72 65 59 50 Husband and wife equally 94 67 67 48 Table 9. Control on livestock resources Who controls the different livestock resources? Control of different livestock resources (%) Cattle Sheep and goat Equines Chicken Predominantly men 13.33 10.11 10.06 1.49 Predominantly women 17.14 24.16 18.24 56.72 Exclusively men 2.38 1.12 2.52 0 Exclusively women 6.67 7.87 5.66 13.93 Men first 3.81 2.81 3.14 0.5 Women first 2.38 1.69 1.89 7.96 All family members equally 5.24 6.18 8.81 2.49 Husband and wife equally 49.05 46.07 49.69 16.92 Table 10. Benefit share from livestock resources Who benefited from the livestock resources products and income? (When sold) Benefit share from the livestock resources (%) Cattle Sheep and goat Equines Chicken Predominantly men 0.95 0.63 1.26 0 Predominantly women 0.95 1.12 1.26 8.96 Exclusively men 0 0.63 0 0 Exclusively women 1.43 2.25 1.26 3.98 Men first 0 0 0 0 Women first 0.48 0.63 0.63 1 All family members equally 70.95 73.6 69.81 64.18 Husband and wife equally 25.24 21.35 25.79 21.89 43 Research on World Agricultural Economy | Volume 03 | Issue 04 | December 2022 pate in political power. Men and women had equal access to political power and household decision. Women had relatively low access to improved technologies. Single women had access to ag- ricultural extension services compared to married women (Table 11). Control for and decision-making roles on institutional resources Different institutional resources controlled by the household family members with different magnitudes. Men and women had the predominant decision power to use extension support services. Relatively men had a large share of control power over improved technologies. Women also had higher decision power on political power and house- hold decisions. Most household decisions also exposed to participatory or shared approaches (Table 12). Benefit share from the institutional resources Husband and wife benefited equally from the extension support but not for the boys and girls who are actively engaged in agricultural production activities. Most of the family members benefited from the household decisions. The improved technologies benefited the women because the technologies improved the productivity of most of the agricultural products managed by women and should be accepted by them (Table 13). 3.3.4 Access to Extension Support Services and Information The majority (75 percent) of the women accessed extension services either by themselves or through their family members. The major extension support services identified and provided to the rural households were training, advice, and consultancy. These services were accessed predominantly by household heads. This agreed with the findings [14]. Sons and daughters accessed training Table 11. Access to institutional resources Who accesses the services from the institutional resources? Access to the institutional resources (frequency) Extension support Household decisions Improved technologies Political power Predominantly men 58 34 70 54 Predominantly women 66 62 54 54 Exclusively men 1 1 0 0 Exclusively women 12 15 11 3 Men first 7 1 7 5 Women first 4 2 3 1 All family members equally 39 43 40 9 Husband and wife equally 47 93 46 34 Total 234 251 231 160 Table 12. Control of family members for different institutional resources in percent Who controls (makes decisions) to get the services from institutions? Control power of the institutional resources (%) Extension support Household management decisions Improved technologies Political participation Predominantly men 27.78 12.75 30.3 28.75 Predominantly women 27.78 23.11 22.08 35 Exclusively men 0.85 1.99 1.3 5 Exclusively women 9.4 11.16 9.52 5 Men first 6.84 3.19 5.63 5 Women first 4.27 2.79 3.46 2.5 All family members equally 2.56 3.98 3.9 0.63 Husband and wife equally 20.51 41.04 23.81 18.13 Total 100 100 100 100 44 Research on World Agricultural Economy | Volume 03 | Issue 04 | December 2022 rarely for business operations (Figure 3). Frequency of extension contacts Majority accessed extension services monthly and every three months. Few of them contacted extension ser- vice providers every six months and others communicated weekly (Figure 4). Market information access Most of them had access to market information to sell their produce and buy farm inputs. Most (87 percent) had access to market information when purchasing farm inputs of improved seed and fertilizer and 76 percent accessed the market information when selling farm outputs. Many (92 percent) of the women used radio, phones, and television to access information and new ideas from different sources. Some of them used combinations of various media types. 3.4 Women’s Supportive Institutions and Contri- butions Various public institutions and organizations supported women to empower gender capacity targeted to develop- ment support. Some of those focused on gender issues and others mainstreamed the gender issues in the intervention. From those institutes, women and child affairs is an inde- pendent public institution responsible to support women in advice, capacity building (provision of training), organ- izing of women in different groups and associations, and monitoring and following up on women’s targeted inter- ventions and action plans across all sectors. Others mainstreamed gender issues in the entire staff. These are the offices of agriculture and police and justice. The office of agriculture gender experts is responsible to Table 13. Benefits of institutional resources Who benefits from (used) the services of institutions? Benefit share from the institutional resources (%) Extension support Household management decisions Improved technologies Political participation Predominantly men 6.84 0.4 4.76 8.13 Predominantly women 6.84 4.38 3.46 10 Exclusively men 0 0.56 0 0.63 Exclusively women 9.4 3.98 2.6 1.88 Men first 2.99 0 0.43 2.5 Women first 1.28 0.8 64.94 0.63 All family members equally 0.43 64.14 23.81 43.75 Husband and wife equally 58.12 26.29 2.6 32.5 77% 23% Do your family memebers access to extension services? (%) Yes No 76% 21% 3% In your household who access extension services? (%) Head Head & Spouse Son & daughter Figure 3. Access to extension services and family members addressed for extension services 45 Research on World Agricultural Economy | Volume 03 | Issue 04 | December 2022 support women in agricultural-related services of train- ing, input access, monitoring, and follow-ups. The office's justice and police allocated individuals to follow women’s cases in all legal issues and the focal persons are women it makes easy to discuss criminal cases and women are con- fident to discuss with them. In addition, gender command posts were established at the district and kebele (lower administration) levels. The command post is led by vice heads of the district and the kebele chairmen targeted to support women in all cases. 3.5 The Gender Needs The practical gender needs particularly focused on women include pure water, school, grain mill services, and market infrastructures. The status of the gender needs found in the study areas found relatively in excellent conditions. Farmers perceived the status of the extension services and agricultural training delivered by different actors found in good conditions. Health service provider institutes also found in good status in both access and quality service delivery. The gender needs of labor-saving technologies were not available and were in poor condi- tions (Figure 5). 3.6 Gender-targeted Challenges in Rural Women Major challenges were the venerability of women for labor abuse, social frustrations, and biasedness. Gender is one of the cross-cutting issues to be addressed in all aspects of the study area but the focus to address all the issues was low. Figure 4. How frequently of households contacted to extension service providers (percent) 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 Pu re wa ter Tr an sp ort fa cil itie s He alt h s erv ice s Ch ild sc ho ol ser vic es Gr ain m ill ser vic e Ex ten sio n s erv ice Ag ric ult ura l tr ain ing se rvi ce s M ark et inf ras tru ctu re La bo r s av ing te ch no log ies Status of the gender needs in percent Excellent Very good Good Poor Figure 5. Practical development of gender needs and their status 46 Research on World Agricultural Economy | Volume 03 | Issue 04 | December 2022 Though there was the availability of affirmative ac- tion in all development approaches, women were not well competent due to the lack of a conducive environment for competition. Low wage prices for women laborers, low achievement (57-60 percent) of women-targeted activity plans, low at- tention, and commitments of political leaders at the lower level, and less attention for women in resource distribu- tion during the separation of marriages. 4. Conclusions and Recommendations The resources accessed and controlled in rural house- holds by different family members in different propor- tions. From the livestock resources, poultry was the only livestock resource predominantly owned by rural women while other livestock resources were owned by both men and women family members. The decision for the live- stock resources was made by husband and wife equally for the male-headed households. Rural women involved in different agricultural produc- tion activities to increase productivity and food security. Many women were involved in off-farm income-generat- ing activities in addition to agricultural activities. Various institutes supported women in capacity build- ing, legal protection, advisory services, and women em- powerment. Different household resources were owned by various family members in different proportions and con- trolled by the resource owners. The benefits mostly shared by all family members equally. Women participated in various social groups available in their areas. Women association was the only women- targeted group available in all study areas with open mem- bership for all women. Most of the extension programs targeted household heads which are mainly men while the women, girls, and boys had less access to agricultural extension supports and services. The provision of women-targeted agricultural produc- tion and off-farm business management activities related to training and extension service is very important to im- prove women’s production and resource productivity. Awareness creation for both men and women on ac- cess, control, and use of agricultural resources for women is very important to improve the decision-making power of women in the household and the community. Acknowledgments The team wants to express their gratitude to the Am- hara Region Agricultural Research Institute (ARARI) for funding to conduct this research. I want to appreciate the researchers involved in data collection during the study time. My thankfulness was also stated to the respondents in the study areas who gave their time to share experi- ences and express their feelings during data collection. Authors Contribution The first author contributed to proposal development, research design, instrument development, team coordina- tion, data collection, data management, data analysis, and report writing. The second and third authors contributed to data collection and report writing. Conflicts of Interest There are no conflicts of interest. References [1] Paul, P., Meena, B.S., 2016. A study on access to and control over resources: A gender perspective. Inter- national Journal of Science, Environment, and Tech- nology. 5(5), 2982-2988. [2] Ludgate, N., 2019. Monitoring, evaluation, learning (MEL) framework: version 01. Advancing Women’s Participation in Livestock Vaccine Value Chains in Nepal,Senegal and Uganda; 2019 Oct. University of Florida. [3] FAO, 2011. The state of food and agriculture: Wom- en in agriculture: Closing the gender gap for devel- opment. [4] Sraboni, E., Malapit, H.J., Quisumbing, A.R., et al., 2014. Women’s empowerment in agriculture: What role for food security in Bangladesh? World Devel- opment. 61, 11-52. [5] Jafry, T., Sulaiman, V.R., 2013. Gender inequality and agricultural extension. The Journal of Agricultur- al Education and Extension. 19(5), 433-436. [6] Buehren, N., Gonzalez, P., Copley, A., 2019. What are the economic costs of gender gaps in Ethiopia? [Internet] Foreign, Commonwealth & Development Office [Published 2019 Mar1]. Available from: https://www.gov.uk/research-for-development-out- puts/what-are-the-economic-costs-of-gender-gaps-in- ethiopia. [7] Suboh, L., 2022. Intern Essays. Farming First [In- ternet] [Accessed on 2022 Mar 8]. Available from: http://www.farmingfirst.org/women. [8] Tigabie, A., Chanyalew, Y., Wondale, L., et al., 2018. Participatory agricultural production system analysis: Implication for research and development interven- tion in north shewa zone. Geography. [9] Nelson, S., Sisto, I., Crowley, E., et al., 2012. Women http://www.farmingfirst.org/women%20accessed%20on%20March%2038/2022 47 Research on World Agricultural Economy | Volume 03 | Issue 04 | December 2022 in agriculture: Closing the gender gap for develop- ment1. Feeding a Thirsty World. 25. [10] March, C., Smyth, I.A., Mukhopadhyay, M., 1999. A guide to gender-analysis frameworks. UK: Oxfam GB, Practical Action Publishing. [11] Useful gender analysis framework handbook [Inter- net] [Accessed 2022 Mar 3]. Available from: http:// www.fao.org/gender/seaga/seaga-home/en/. [12] Fletcher, A.J., Schonewille, R., 2015. Overview of resources on gender-sensitive data related to water. Paris: UNESCO. [13] Paul, M.M., Rani, P.R., 2001. Gender differences in access to and control over farm resources. Agricul- ture and Human Values. 18(1), 5-9. [14] Umeta, G., Lemecha, F., Mume, T., 2011. Survey on women’s access to agricultural extension services at selected districts of Mid Rift Valley of Ethiopia. Journal of Agricultural Extension and Rural Devel- opment. 3(3), 51-63. http://www.fao.org/gender/seaga/seaga-home/en/ http://www.fao.org/gender/seaga/seaga-home/en/