www.iita.org A member of CGIAR consortium

KPIs Poverty Update in DRC, Burundi and Rwanda

Paul M. Dontsop Nguezet, John H. Ainembabazi and Generose Nziguheba

27th November 2015

(R4D Week 2015)

A member of CGIAR consortium

KPIs Poverty Update in DRC, Burundi and Rwanda

www.iita.org

IITA –Bukavu, Uganda and Nairobi

Paul M. Dontsop Nguezet John H. Ainembabazi Generose Nziguheba

www.iita.org

Major Objectives

The major objective of the survey is two-fold:

1. First, to evaluate the impact of CIALCA

interventions on KPIs (poverty and NRM) in the

target countries after about 8years.

2. Second, to establish a baseline upon which to

measure the impact of Humidtropics (HT)

www.iita.org

The sampling procedure was given by CIALCA

with slight modifications on selection of control

villages.

The control villages were selected from within

and outside the HT field sites.

These control sites latter will serve :

i) to measure the impact of CIALCA activities

on KPIs,

ii) to provide baseline values for HT, and

iii) to act as treatment villages for HT

Sampling Procedure

(at least 300 hhs)

Humidtropics (at most 100hhs)

www.iita.org

CIALCA Action Sites Satelite Sites Control Sites

IPs (Mushinga, Gitega, Kayonza)

New HT related

projects

Control Outside (at most 100hhs)

A Total of 500 Households per Country

Sampling Procedure

1500

Households

DR Congo Rwanda

Burundi

www.iita.org

Survey Tools

Build from different Survey questionnaires

CIALCA Baseline (2006) and End line (2011)

The Impactlites developed by the SRT1 Team of HT

KPIs SLU and Poverty

SRT3 component (R4D and Innovative platforms)

Two survey tools developed Community questionnaire Household questionnaire

www.iita.org

- More than 130 Villages visited - About 100 FGDs conducted - 1505 Households visited - More than 60% of the 1505 hhs re-visited

implying a panel data of about 900hhs from the three countries

Achievements

Sample Distribution

DRC

Total Sample: 503

HHs

Households revisited:

283 HHs

Burundi

Total Sample: 504

HHs

Households revisited: 326 HHs

Rwanda

Total Sample: 491

HHs

Households revisited: 365 HHs

Overall

Total Sample:

1498 HHs

Households revisited: 974 HHs

53.6% 64.7% 74.3% 65.0%

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

Banana (4.6%)

cassava (25.1)

Beans (52.2%)

Soybean (6.9%)

Groundnut(2.2%)

Maize (9.1%)

Improved Varieties Under CIALCA and Adoption

17.1 23.1

15.6

12.1

10.6 9.4

2.4 4.8

1.4

2.8

0.0

5.0

10.0

15.0

20.0

25.0

Improved maize-legume

Use of freshdecomposed manure

Rotation maize andclimbing bean

Combinedmanure/compost and

fertilizers

Cassava planted atabout 2m X0.5 m

Planting beans inmulched banana

Intercropping coffeewith banana

Recommendedspacing in banana

plantation

Incorporation of cropresidues after harvest

Mucuna fallows

Improved Crop Management Practices and Adoption

Integrated Pest Management practices

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

De-budding,uprooting and

destroying of sickbanana plants, use ofclean suckers (23.5)

Uprooting anddestroying infected

plants (BBTV control)(29.0)

ApplyingChromolaena or

Tithonia (4.2)

Push-pull practicese.g in maize (2.0)

Other specify (2.6)

Marketing Strategies and Adoption

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

Following a written planon production andmarketing (Business

plan) (2.2%)

Collective marketing/bulking of produce

(3.4%)

Use of kiosk for inputs(fertilizer and seeds)

managed bygroup/association (4.6%)

Use agriproducts ascollateral to loan

(warrantage) (2.4%)

Mutual of solidarity(MUSO) (10.4%)

Grouping agriproductsand look for buyers

throughgroup/association)

(4.8%)

38%

19%

30%

0% 0% 0% 7%

6%

Organic Input Used

Crop residues

Animal manure

Compost

Natural fallow

Biomass transfer

Agroforestry

Household refuse

Other (specify)

Organic Input Used

Biomass transfer 0.04

Agroforestry 0.04

Natural fallow 0.2

Other (specify) 5.6

Household refuse 6.8

Animal manure 19.3

Compost 29.9

Crop residues 37.4

www.iita.org

84.4

72.5

83.1 80.0

37.6

24.8

64.0

41.9 39.8

43.4

54.0

45.6

16.7

23.0

10.2

16.7

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

DRC Burundi Rwanda CIALCA Region

Improved varieties Improved farm management practices

Integrated pest management Market linkage strategies

www.iita.org

050

10

015

020

025

0

Incom

e fro

m c

rop

s s

ale

s in U

SD

DR Congo Burundi Rwanda

Non-Adopters Adopters Non-Adopters Adopters Non-Adopters Adopters

Difference between adopters and non-adopters

www.iita.org

Difference between household percapita expenditure of adopters and non-adopters

01

23

To

tal h

ou

se

ho

ld m

em

be

r' d

ailly

co

nsu

mp

sio

n e

xp

en

ditu

res o

n f

oo

ds a

nd

no

n-f

oo

ds i

DR Congo Burundi Rwanda

Non-Adopters Adopters Non-Adopters Adopters Non-Adopters Adopters

www.iita.org

Poverty transition between 2006 and 2014 Burundi DRC Rwanda

Sample size 328 283 365

Poverty headcount in 2006(%) 69.8 92.5 76.7

Poverty gap 2006 ($) 53.7 69.9 45.4

Poverty severity 2006(S) 44.2 57.4 31.3

Poverty headcount in 2014(%) 65.5 67.5 48.2

Poverty gap 2014($) 28.2 32.8 19.4

Poverty severity 2014($) 16.3 20.4 10.7

Change in Poverty headcount (% point) -4.3 -25 -28.5

Households poor in 2006 and became non poor in 2014 (%) 25.9 28.6 35.3

Households poor in 2006 and remains poor in 2014 (%) 43.9 63.3 41.3

Households non poor in 2006 and became poor in 2014(%) 21.0 4.2 6.8

Households non poor in 2006 and remains non poor in 2014(%) 9.1 3.9 16.4

www.iita.org

Means of outcome

variable

Farm

households'

type and

treatment

effect

Decision stage

Average

treatment effects To

adopt Not to adopt

Burundi Income from crops

sales (US$)

ATT 62.2 12.6 49.7***(t = 37.4)

ATU 58.6 8.3 50.3***(t = 20.2)

DRC

Income from crops

sales (US$) ATT 18.9 6.4 12.6***(t = 3.6)

ATU 76.0 16.3 59.7***(t = 9.5)

Rwanda

Income from crops

sales (US$) ATT 23.3 15.5 7.9***(t = 7.6)

ATU 28.8 8.3 20.6***(t = 5.0)

ESR-based average treatment effects (ATE) of CIALCA technologies on agricultural income

www.iita.org

ESR-based average treatment effects (ATE) of CIALCA technologies on agricultural income

Means of outcome

variable

Farm households'

type and treatment

effect

Decision stage Average treatment

effects To

adopt Not to adopt

CIALCA Region

Consumption

expenditure

(US$/capita/day)

ATT

ATU

0.46

0.53

0.39

0.40

0.07***(t=28.12)

0.13***(t=19.31)

Men

Consumption

expenditure

(US$/capita/day)

ATT 0.44 0.41 0.04***(t = 16.03)

ATU 0.51 0.40 0.10***(t = 17.40)

Female

Consumption

expenditure

(US$/capita/day)

ATT 0.45 0.14 0.32***(t = 75.85)

ATU 0.54 0.37 0.17***(t = 15.12)

Burundi

Consumption

expenditure

(US$/capita/day)

ATT 0.45 0.42 0.03***(t = 7.50)

ATU 0.60 0.41 0.19***(t = 12.57)

DRC

Consumption

expenditure

(US$/capita/day)

ATT 0.73 0.52 0.21***(t = 21.64)

ATU 0.94 0.64 0.30***(t = 9.66)

Rwanda

Consumption

expenditure

(US$/capita/day)

ATT 0.56 0.31 0.25***(t =52.54)

ATU 0.54 0.45 0.08***(t = 3.83)

www.iita.org

Impact of CIALCA technologies on poverty reduction

Variable

Country CIALC

A

Region Burundi DRC

Rwand

a

Sample for each country (1) 501 503 491 1495

Adoption rate (%) (2) 86.2 88.9 91.9 89

Poverty rate in the actual adopting group (3) 60 61 52

Poverty rate in the counterfactual group (4) 63 71 73

Poverty reduction rate (% point) (5=4-3) 0.03 0.10 0.21

Adopting households (number) (6=1*2/100) 432 447 451 1,330

Population in sampled households (7) 2,956 3,320 2,946 9,269

Average household size (8=10/1) 5.90 6.60 6.00 6.20

People out of poverty from sample (number) (9=5*6*8) 76.44 295.15 568.55 940.14

Population size of sampled area (10) 733,709 1,294,866 2,205,9

33

4,234,5

08

People out of poverty (number) (11=9/7*10) 18,974 115,114 425,723 559,810

www.iita.org

Policy should be geared toward providing conducive

environment to women to allow them having more access

to productive inputs.

It is also imperative that farmers who are non-adopters

should start adopting different technologies if their

livelihood is to improve.