Presentation during IITA R4D week 2015 (23 - 27 Nov. 2015). Paul M. Dontsop Nguezet, John H. Ainembabazi and Generose Nziguheba.

1. www.iita.orgA 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)

2. 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

3. 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)

4. 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

5. (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

6. 1500
Households
DR Congo Rwanda
Burundi

7. 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

8. 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

9. Sample Distribution
DRC
Total
Sample: 503
HHs
Household
s 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%

10. 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

11. 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 fresh
decomposed manure
Rotation maize and
climbing bean
Combined
manure/compost and
fertilizers
Cassava planted at
about 2m X0.5 m
Planting beans in
mulched banana
Intercropping coffee
with banana
Recommended
spacing in banana
plantation
Incorporation of crop
residues after harvest
Mucuna fallows
Improved Crop Management Practices and Adoption

12. Integrated Pest Management practices
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
De-budding,
uprooting and
destroying of sick
banana plants, use of
clean suckers (23.5)
Uprooting and
destroying infected
plants (BBTV control)
(29.0)
Applying
Chromolaena or
Tithonia (4.2)
Push-pull practices
e.g in maize (2.0)
Other specify (2.6)

13. Marketing Strategies and Adoption
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
Following a written plan
on production and
marketing (Business
plan) (2.2%)
Collective marketing/
bulking of produce
(3.4%)
Use of kiosk for inputs
(fertilizer and seeds)
managed by
group/association (4.6%)
Use agriproducts as
collateral to loan
(warrantage) (2.4%)
Mutual of solidarity
(MUSO) (10.4%)
Grouping agriproducts
and look for buyers
through
group/association)
(4.8%)

14. 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

15. 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

16. www.iita.org
0
50
100150200250
DR Congo Burundi Rwanda
Non-Adopters Adopters Non-Adopters Adopters Non-Adopters Adopters
Difference between
adopters and non-
adopters

17. www.iita.org
Difference between
household percapita
expenditure of
adopters and non-
adopters
0123
DR Congo Burundi Rwanda
Non-Adopters Adopters Non-Adopters Adopters Non-Adopters Adopters

18. 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

19. www.iita.org
Means of outcome
variable
Farm
households'
type and
treatment
effect
Decision stage
Average
treatment effectsTo
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

20. 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)

21. 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

22. 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.