This document summarizes baseline survey data from Ghana and Mali for the Africa RISING project. In Ghana, the survey sampled AR beneficiary households from 2013 and 2014, as well as non-beneficiary households from treatment and control sites. Preliminary analysis shows AR beneficiary households having higher yields for most crops and more livestock. In Mali, the survey sampled beneficiary households from treatment sites and non-beneficiaries from control sites. AR beneficiary households showed higher productivity and use of improved practices compared to controls. The baseline data will be used to evaluate the effectiveness of the Africa RISING program in improving livelihoods.

1. Africa RISING Baseline Survey Data
Summary—Ghana and Mali
Apurba Shee, IFPRI
Africa RISING West Africa Project Annual Review and
Planning Meeting, Accra, Ghana, 24-25 March 2015

2.  Ghana AR baseline survey data summary
 Mali AR baseline survey data summary
 Typology
 Project Mapping and Monitoring Tool (PMMT)
 Concluding comments
Outline

3. Ghana baseline survey data
3
 Sampling design- Four groups of households are
surveyed: AR beneficiaries in 2013, AR beneficiaries in
2014, AR non-beneficiaries in treatment sites, and
non-beneficiaries in control sites
 Summary of baseline results

4. All
Ar2013 Ar2014 Arnb Control Sample
Region
Northern Region 187 61 67 300 615
Upper East Region 107 33 42 40 222
Upper West Region 160 54 73 160 447
Total 454 148 182 500 1,284
Sample size and distribution of households
Due to revised administrative classification of
districts just before data collection, 4 control
communities fall under northern region instead on
Upper East region

5. Yield for five main crops
787
536
1011
277
526
817.69
434.46
1,066.60
258.62
440
767
588
1076
285
536
823
748
917
286
529
MAIZE GROUNDNUT RICE BEAN PEARL MILLET
Yield for main crops in kg/ha
AR2013 AR2014 ARNB Control
Except maize and groundnut AR beneficiaries seem to have higher productivity
compared to control households

6. Component share of harvest for average of four main crops
(maize, rice, groundnut, bean)
1%1%
12%
9%
48%
28%
1%
Harvest Share for Control Households
Animal feed
Crop residue
Seeds
Exchange
Own consumption
Sale
Other uses
1%1%
13%
7%
53%
25%
0%
Harvest Share for AR Households
Animal feed
Crop residue
Seeds
Exchange
Own consumption
Sale
Other uses
AR households tend to sell less and
consume more

7. Average number of livestock owned by household
0.0
2.0
4.0
6.0
8.0
10.0
12.0
14.0
16.0
18.0
Cattle Equines Goats Pigs Chicken Other animal
Average livestock holding per household
AR2013 AR2014 ARNB Control
AR beneficiary households tend to raise more livestock than control households

8. Feeding practices- percentage of households
12%
0%
82%
5%
1%
0%
Large ruminants feed
Crop residue
Green forages
Grazing/open air
Legumes, fodder trees
Multiple
Other
17%
2%
61%
2%
7%
7% 4%
Chicken and poultry feed
Crop residue
Green forages
Grazing/open air
Concentrate feeds
Legumes, fodder trees
Multiple
Other
Grazing/open air is the main feeding
practice followed by crop residue

9. Economic
Human
EnvironmentalSocial
Productivity
-.25
0
.25
.5
Beneficiary Exposed in 2014
Non-Beneficiary Control
Northern Region
Ranking of HH among 5 dimensions: Beneficiaries seem to be better off on
productivity and market access but they seem to be worse off on other
dimensions

10. Economic
Human
EnvironmentalSocial
Productivity
0
.75
Beneficiary Exposed in 2014
Non-Beneficiary Control
Upper East
Beneficiaries seem to be better off on productivity, market access and education
but they seem to be worse off on other dimensions

11. Economic
Human
EnvironmentalSocial
Productivity
-.25
0
.25
.5
Beneficiary Exposed in 2014
Non-Beneficiary Control
Upper West
Beneficiaries seem to be better off on market access only but they seem to be
worse off on other dimensions; indicates not to have significant bias in targeting

12. Mali baseline survey data
12
 Sampling design- two groups of households are
surveyed: AR beneficiaries in treatment sites and non-
beneficiaries in control sites
 Summary of baseline results

13. 13
Sample size and distribution of households
Cercle Treatment Control All sample
Bougouni 87 143 230
Koutiala 220 176 396
Yanfolila 44 35 79
Total 351 354 705

14. Some household level summary
Treatment Control 1 vs 2
Household size 4.75 4.28 ***
Avg. adult years of education 4.79 5.27
Avg. land size (ha) 3.07 2.91
Yield of maize (kg/ha) 1565 1263
% of hhs using improved seed (maize) 0.03 0.01
% of hhs using irrigation, last season 0.12 0.08 *
% of hhs experiencing drought in last 5 yrs 0.75 0.69 *
% of hh affected by soil erosion 0.24 0.37 ***
*significant at 10% **significant at 5% ***significant at 1%

15. Yield for key crops
1566
484
557
1544
219
1264
160
626
1392
101
MAIZE MILLET SORGHUM RICE BEANS
Yield of key crops in kg/ha
Treatment Control
Except sorghum AR beneficiary households have higher productivity
compared to control households

16. Economic
Human
EnvironmentalSocial
Productivity
-.25
0
.25
.5
AR-beneficiary control
Sikasso
Beneficiaries seem to be better off on productivity, market access and education
but they seem to be worse off on economic and environment

17. 17
Dealing with farm diversity using typology
 Objective of the typologies: good fit between targeted farmers
and appropriate interventions; socioeconomic stratification
 The typologies are can be based following variables:
Non-ag wealth, hh size, land size, cereals production, %
prevalence of hired labor, total TLU
 Typologies should be tailored to the type of interventions, local
conditions and specific needs…
 For future scale up typology will be helpful for selection
 Planning for dedicated research on this; discussing collaboration
opportunity with WUR

18. PMMT Training Feedback from WA (Training date: 8/1/2014; Venue: Modern City lodge, Tamale)
Strongly
Agree
Agree Neutral Disagree
Strongly
Disagree
1. The objectives of the training were clearly defined.
6 5 1 0 0
2. Participation and interaction were encouraged. 2 6 2 0 0
3. The topics covered were relevant to me.
2 4 0 0 0
4. The content was organized and easy to follow.
3 5 2 0 0
5. The materials distributed were helpful.
2 6 4 0 0
6. This training experience will be useful in my work.
3 8 1 0 0
7. The trainer was knowledgeable about the training
topics. 7 3 2 0 0
8. The trainer was well prepared.
4 7 1 0 0
9. The training objectives were met.
1 8 3 0 0
10. The time allotted for the training was sufficient.
3 2 2 4 0
11. The PMMT will be very useful for your research
activities 6 6 0 0 0
AR Project Mapping and Monitoring Tool (PMMT)
 Developed an open-access website for storing and mapping project data
 Mapping application- to contextualize where AR activities are taking place and
view data to them
 Data entry application- users can add additional data through step-by-step
interface

19.  Baseline data provide current status of the treatment and control
households for evaluation of AR program efforts
 Data collected at the community level (through focus group
discussion) confirm the household level findings
 Preliminary analysis shows some clear differences between
households benefitting from AR and control households
 Overall, AR beneficiary households cultivate more lands, plant more
diverse set of crops, use more inputs and produce better crop yields
than their control counterparts.
 With the present evaluation design along with both household and
community level data will be used to evaluate overall effectiveness of
AR program
Concluding comments on baseline survey data

20. Africa Research in Sustainable Intensification for the Next Generation
africa-rising.net
The presentation has a Creative Commons licence. You are free to re-use or distribute this work, provided credit is given to ILRI.
Thank You