Houseno!d Nee-­

50%

45%

0 40'X

o 35% " 30%

' 25% ' 20%

0%

LLI 1%5

0% B - D.E F G H t A - Irnproeed access to water F - Acc-ss to improved seed & fertilizer B - Constructron & upg'acng of health posts G - Access to electicrry C - Higher standard of !virg H - Construction & upgrading of housing D - Agricul5raf & pastora ianimal nusnandry',et ) I ConstrrJccon & upgrading of chooIs technical assistance E - Construction & upgradrg of roads

' , IA

-0iI, -s * 7 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

Many people contributed to the conceptualization and writing of the descriptive brochure. We extend to them our thanks and appreciation. Jack Sleeper was largely responsible for initiating the effort, and persuading, and guiding the Mission through the design of the National Rural Household Survey. The U.S. Bureau of the Census team. along with Roberta J. Warren from the GENESYS Project, provided stewardship in the design and conduct of the survey sample and questionnaire. Hernan Mufioz led, trained, and animated the committed team of enumerators. Charley Hash was instrumental in getting the analysis off to a running start by breaking through many conceptual a;,d logistical deadlocks. He also played a fundamental role in conceptualizing the form and content of the brochure. Fernando Mollinedo and Susana Flores pulled together much of the data presented in the brochure in tabular and graphic form. Stacia Cook and Lee Martinez of the GENESYS Project worked with incredible skill, patience, and perseverance to develop and refine the graphs and tables for presentation. A special note of gratitude is due to Miguel Cuevas from the Bureau of the Census, who provided us with data, as needed, and responded to our eleventh hour requests to correct tables. TABLE OF CONTENTS

I. Introduction ...... I

II. Distribution of the Rural Population by Age and Gender...... 2

III. Percentage Distribution of the Rural Population Six Years of Age and Older by Level of Education and Gender ...... 3

IV. Percentage Distribution of Rural Households by Source of Water, Water Provider, Source of Fuel, and Type of Lighting ...... 4

V. Percentage of Rural Children Less Than Five Years of Age Vaccinated Against Different Diseases and Percentage of Households with Vinchuca Infestation...... 5

VI. Percentage Distribution of Rural Heads of Household and Their Spouses by Primary and Secondary Economic Activities, Gender, and Location...... 6 VII. Average Net Income of Farm Versus Non-Farm Households in the Tropics Versus Highlands and Valleys ...... 7 VIII. Income and Other Characteristics of Farm Households by Farm Size...... 8

IX. Average Net Farm Income of Farm Households by Technical Assistance and Training, by Agriculture Credit, and by Land Tenancy ...... 10

X. Average Household Income by Gender of Head of Household and Coca Growing vs. Non-Coca Growing Households ...... 11

XI. Percentage Distribution of Farm Households with Livestock by Types of Livestock...... 12

XII. Percentage Distribution of Farm Households by Time and Distance to Market and by Distance to a Trunk Road ...... 13 XIII. Percentage Distribution of Percived Needs...... 14 X IV. Sample Design ...... 15 XV. End Notes ...... 16 .j= ) -) n n

a.- 0 .1 0 >1 0

00~5 0 cn oj

w '4 -1

0 M, cn W 4. 0 Cd UG

= U u 0 u. CA InI. = = a .. CA

> -o

00 0 ca ! -= 5 -0 E E '1 to~ C. 0~ z

-- 0- V0ma m C. L u z - v -1 0 0C, 00 r_ c

cn4mS 00t) 2 ro *-.U , Cu- u .)

Cu 4-J~ , 0 -0'~~~~-n 0 OD o uC.f. Cu -Z ra 0 0..0 a r u f4. O.. 2 r u to- .l .0C "o cu - .- c u u "a.~-o 0

~~I-0 4"~~- > 0.CS) 0 1- 0 E- o~ rCd >, 1:1 .- 0u 0u

C- 0 DISTRIBUTION OF THE RURAL POPULATION BY AGE AND GENDER

The Rural Household Survey results reveal a very young and of rapid growth and colonization, it is estimated that less than 4% of growing population that will require jobs and reliable sources of households are headed by women, in contrast to 16% in the income at an increasingly greater rate than currently contemplated. highland and valley areas. Based on interviews with members of 1,177 rural households in population centers of 2,000 or fewer inhabitants, it is estimated that The survey indicated that heads of household in the tropics tend to there are 529,.+73 people in 112,148 rural households in the be younger than in the valleys and highlands. The average age of Department of Cochabamba; 100,896 are estimated to be located in the heads of household is estimated to be 47 in the highlands and the non-coca growing area, and 11,252 in the coca growing region. valleys, and around 40 in the tropics. Among coca-producing Roughly 90% (476,341) of the population resides in the highlands households, the average age of heads of household is estimated to be and valleys apd 10% (53,132) in the tropical lowlands. 39. There also appears to be a pronounced difference between the average age of female and male heads of household in rural According to the survey, 44.2% of the rural population is estimated Cochabamba. The average age of female heads of household is to be 14 years old or younger. The mean age of the rural population estimated to be 55, while the average age of male heads of is 24, which is slightly younger than the mean age of the urban household for the Department appears to be 45. Despite the apparent population in the Department.' Among the rural population in variations in age of household heads, the average size of households Cochabamba, the mean age for men is estimated to be 23.6, and for in the highlands, valleys, and tropics is uniformly 4.7 members. women, 24.4.

Many more rural households are estimated to be headed by men, 85% (95,588), than by women, 15% (16,561). In the tropics, an area

2 Population by Sex and Age

81+.. 76-80' 71-75 66-70 61-65 56-60 51-55 46-50 41-45 36-40 31-35 26-30 21-25 16-20 11-15 6-10 0-5 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 (Thousands) PERCENTAGE DISTRIBUTION OF THE RURAL POPULATION SIX YEARS OF AGE AND OLDER BY LEVEL OF EDUCATION AND GENDER

The educational level of the rural population in the Department is a group, rural heads of household average only 1.3 years of formal key determinant of whether it will be possible to attract new sch3oling. It is estimated that three times as many female heads of investments and jobs to the area and whether rural residents will household (72%) as male household heads (24%) have no formal qualify for these new jobs. New industries, improved agricultural education. While educational levels are slightly higher for household technology, and financial opportunities will demand increased levels members of both sexes in the tropics, the differences between of numeracy and literacy. In view of the results of the survey, one females and males are still considerable. constraint to developing new sources of employment for rural inhabitants in Cochabamba is their limited attainment of formal A very snmall portion of the population has received any schooling education. beyond primary school. Only an estimated 14% of males and 7% of females six years of age and older are estimated to have attended Current levels of education are low among rural household members middle school, and less than 10% of males and about 5% of females throughout rural Cochabamba. This is particularly true of rural in rural households are estimated to have attended high school, trade women in the Department. The percentage of women who have no school, or post-secondary education. Further analysis that formal education (40%) is estimated to be double the percentage of disaggregates the data by age cohorts will be more indicative of men without formal schooling. It appears that an even higher educational attainment of school completers and their preparation for percentage of women, 45%, are illiterate, as compared with 24% of jobs that require increased numeracy and literacy skills. men.

The difference is even more pronounced in comparing the educational levels of male and female heads of household. As a

3 Percentage of Population 6 Years and Older by Sex and Level of Education

Other

High School

Middle School

Elementary School

No Formal Education

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% PERCENTAGE DISTRIBUTION OF RURAL HOUSEHOLDS BY SOURCE OF WATER, WATER PROViDER, SOURCE OF FUEL, AND TYPE OF LIGHTING

Access to basic services makes an enormous difference in the health increasingly detrimental effects from deforestation, soil erosion, and and well being of a population. In addition, access to electricity and scarcity of water. This is already evident in Campero Province, a clean and reliable source of water is essential for the development where an estimated 99% of all households use wood. This contrasts of rural industries and the application of new agropastoral and with an estimated 62% use of liquid gas in Cc:'cado Province. The agroprocessing technologies. difference is probably due to Cercado's proximity to Cochabamba City and access to distribution networks. Other factors such as In the highland and valley areas of the Department, !ack of adequate competing uses of alternative fuels (e.g, use of manure for fertilizer), water for productive and household activities is a major problem proximity to roads and markets, and costs, also limit the number of confronting most rural households. Access to clean drinking water is viable alternatives. a problem faced by rural households in all rural regions of Cochabamba. It appears that less than a quarter of all rural Candles are the most common lighting source in rural households in households have access to a public or private water tap or pump. Cochabamba. Electricit) is second in importance. Cercado is Approximately 45% get their water from a surface water source, estimated to have the highest use of electricity (83%). Kerosene also such as a river, stream, sprig, lake, or pool, and another estimated provides lighting for approximately 20% of rural households. 29% get their water from wells of varying quality. Based on the Electricity appears to correlate positively with net household cash survey results, it is estimated that 40% of the water is obtained by income. The average net cash household income of households with women or girls, 13% by men or boys and 40% by members of the electricity is estimated to be Bs. 4,061. as compared with Bs. household of both sexes. 3,048.41 for all rural households. Average monthly expenditures on electricity are estimated to be Bs. 15.29 or about 4.5% of the users' The survey results also indicate that access to reliable and renewable yearly income. Further analysis will be required to determine sources of energy is a major need of rural households in the whether access to electricity increases household income or whether Department. Since roughly 4 out of 5 households in rural wealthier households are more likely to have access to electricity. Cochabamba use wood for cooking, they are likeiy to face

4 Water Source Provision of Water by Sex

Other (1.9%) Pipe (0.4%) No Answer (6.9%) - Men (13.4%)

Spring (25.5%)- ---Public tap (22.3%)

/Private tap (1.8%)

Both (39.6%) Stream (3.50/)

River/Lake (13 70) _ Well (28.7%) Wooen (40.1%) Pool (2.3%)

Cooking Fuel Type of Household Lighting *Others (3.7%) - No Lighting (0.6%)

Liquid Gas (16.2%) -Keon(. Electricity (30.3%)

Liquid Gas (5.6%)

Other (0.1%) Diesel (10.5%)

Fuelwood (80.0%, ­ Candles (32.0%) -/

*Others include: Electricity (.07%), Kerosene (.08%), Dung (3.23%), and Other (.36%). PERCENTAGE OF RURAL CHILDREN LESS THAN FIVE YEARS OF AGE VACCINATED AGAINST DIFFERENT DISEASES AND PERCENTAGE OF HOUSEHOLDS WITH VINCHUCA INFESTATION

The health of children ages five and younger is the major concern of with the complete series for Polio and only 17% are estimated to the Ministry of Health, local nongovernmental organizations and have received all three doses of DPT. In rural households in the international donors. In rural Cochabamba, young children comprise Provinces of Tapacari and Bolivar, it is estimated that virtually no the largest single segment of the population. The total population of children have been vaccinated three times against Polio and DPT. children under age five is estimated to be 86,984, a group which This is probably due to the greater inaccessibility of these areas to represents about 16.42% of all rural household members, health providers and the greater distance between communities, which make vaccination campaigns more difficult and costly. It appears that the highest percentage of children five years old and Distance from urban centers, however, is clearly not the only factor younger are vaccinated against Tuberculosis (61%), which is influencing the immunization rates. The high vaccination rates in followed by Measles (54%). There is considerable variation in Campero Province are probably due to strong collaboration between vaccination rates across the 16 provinces. TB vaccination rates range the Ministry of Health and local nongovernmental organizations. from as low as 33% in Tapacari to as high as 80% in Campero. Similarly, estimated Measles vaccination rates range from the lowest Another major health concern for the rural population of all ages is in Tapacari (33%) to the highest in Campero (77%). Many fewer Chagas Disease. It is estimated that slightly less than half of rural children seem to have been vaccinated successfully against households in Cochabamba have Vinchucas, the disease vector, in Diphtheria, Pertussis, and Tetanus (DPT), and Polio. Immunization their houses. Vinchuca infestation also varies considerably by against these diseases requires three consecutive doses. Province, and depends mostly on altitude, which delimits its natural habitat. For instance, approximately In rural areas of the Department, it appears nine out of ten households in that only 27% of Capinota are estimated to have Vinchucas, while the corresponding children in this age group are estimated to have been vaccinated percentage for Bolivar is less than one in ten.

5 Percentage of Children Under 5 Vaccinated Against Various Diseases

70%

60%

50%

40%

30%

20%

10%

0% Polio* TB DPT* Measles

() Percent of children receiving a complete series of three vaccines.

Presence of Vinchucas by Household

HH w/Vinchucas (44.5%) HH w/out Vinchucas (55.5%) PERCENTAGE DISTRIBUTION OF RURAL HEADS OF HOUSEHOLDS AND THEIR SPOUSES BY PRIMARY AND SECONDARY ECONOMIC ACTIVITIES, GENDER, AND LOCATION

The rural household survey conducted in the Department of Construction, transport, and services are predominantly male (88%) Cochabamba is one of the first rural surveys to collect information occupations. In contrast, care of livestock, which is a primary on occupation and economic activity of all male and female economic activity for 9% of household heads and their spouses, is household members age six and older. One of its major objectives principally conducted by women. Women represent roughly was to record the types of economic activities three household members out of four people engaged in animal husbandry as their Drimary had participated in during the year preceding the survey. occupation. Women make up approximately the same percentage of people with commerce as their primary The estimates for household heads and their activity. In the tropics, sp-uses, presented in women are es!imated to represent 100% of the people engaged the facing graphs, in reveal interesting differences in men's and commerce as their principal occupation. women's economic participation, as well as regional differences among household members of both sexes. While the survey provides Considerable differences also seem to exist among the percentages substantial evidence of gender-based differences in occupation and of people involved in different types of secondary economic economic activity, it also demonstrates a high degree of activities in each region. Many individuals with care of household as complementarity and interchange amona men's and women's tasks their primary activity are engaged in activities such as agriculture, and income sources. Sources of employment for rural households animal husbandry, and commerce as their secondary activity. In the appear to be much more diverse in highland and valley areas than in highlands, animal husbandry ranks as the number one secondary the tropics where agriculture dominates the production system and occupation. employing an estimated 42% of household heads employment structure. and spouses. Of these individuals, a majority still appear to be women (57%). although animal husbandry is also an important Not surprisingly, the largest percentage of people source of in both regions employment for men (43%). In the tropics, agriculture is estimated (39%) are estimated to be involved in agriculture as their primar , to be the predominant secondary activity, occupying 36% of economic activity. Of these, 89% are estimated to be men and 11% household heads and spouses. Wernen represent an estimated 48% are women. A higher percentage of people in the tropics (54%) than of this group. Although only 17% of household heads and spouses in the highlands and valleys (38%) are engaged in agriculture as in the highlands and valleys are engaged in agriculture as a their primary economic activity. For approximately 65% of highland secondary occupation, the majority are women (55%). The survey and valley women and 8 1% of women in the tropics, care of the results indicate that an estimated 35% of men in the tropics and household is estimated to be their primary activity. Together, 24% of men in the highlands and valleys are engaged in construction, transport. and services rank third in importance as construction. transport. or services as their secondary occupation. primary economic activities for household heads and their spouses (10%).

6 Economic Activitiesfor Household Heads and Spouses by Gender

PRIMARY ACTIVITY Other Care of Household Commerce Construction, Transport & Services Handicrafts Food Preparation Mining Animal Husbandry Agriculture 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 (Thousands)

SECONDARYOther ACTIVITY

Care of Household Commerce Construction, Transport & Services Handicrafts Food Preparation Mining Animal Husbandry - Agriculture

0 5 10 15 20 25 (Thousands) 30 35 Primary Activity for Primary Activity for Women in the Tropics Men in the Tropics

Other (0.9%) 7 ,- Agriculture (11.4%) Construction, Transport & Services (2.4%)

-Commerce (6.3%)

Care of Household (81.5%) Agriculture (97.6%)

Primary Activityfor Women Primary Activityfor Men in the Highlands in the Hhghlands

Commerce (2.2%) Construction, Transport & Services (2.5%) Agriculture (8.3%) Construction, Transport & Services (19.8%) *Others (5.3%) Animal Husbandry (15.6%)(83%

AaAnimal Husbandry (2.7%)

Food Preparation (1.6%) '*Others (1.8%) Commerce (5.7%) Care of Household (64.4%) --Agriculture (70.1 %)

*Others include: Handicrafts (.92%), Mining (.36%), Other (.51%) Others include: Care of Households (.76%), Handicrafts (2.01%), Mining (1.20%), Food Preparation (.28%), Other (1.05%). Secondary Activityfor Secondary Activityfor Women in the Tropics Men in the Tropics Care of Household (21.5%) Commerce (20.9%) Animal Husbandry (29.1%)

e(48.2%) Agriculture (5.4%) Commerce (11.1 %) Food Preparation (2.0%) Food Preparation (9.9%) Animal Husbandry (15.8%) - Construction, Transport & Services (1.4%) Construction, Transport & Services (34.7%)

Secondary Activityfor Women Secondary Activityfor Men in the Highlands in the Highlands

Other (0.2%) Care of Household (26.7%) Agriculture (16.0%) Construction, Transport &Services (1.2%) Care of Household (4.3%) Other (2.8%)

Commerce (7.9%) Agriculture (18.8%) Handicrafts (4.0%)

Handicrafts (2.3%) Food Preparation (3.2%) Construction, Transport &Services (24.0%) Animal Husbandry (40.8%) Animal Husbandry (44.4%) Commerce (3.3%)

Co srcin7rnp rt&S rie 2 .%

/ ­ ' .g 0 .- 0 -00

0_ In .­ o 0 EE S - o 0 > L-2.. .C ,_. : - o tx .. "

.. )' '1 = a Q, v.. CA

z "- .=U. "" . a to a -o - 0 0, .= . ZI=I~~~I. . "'._ o- r.c

0 V JL 0 0 s0 0

I.. -­

CA (~U 2.S 00) r- . × r- 00 o -4"

0~a < £ C. u U 'D r - - m 0 > M o ° - G ' C -o .C 3 C -ot~CU IN 0 CU- - 0 C

A CA S- ti. 035 o(1

0000

.~OO 0 CU C0 Ob Average Net Household Income of Farm vs. Non-farm Households

6

5

4

C.) 3 ......

07

0 Farm Non-farm

Average Net Household Income of Farm vs. Non-farm Households 18 le 16,

14 S_. 12 -o 10 m 8 E 6 C- 4 2 0 Farm Non-farm

T ro 0 INCOME AND OTHER CHARACTERISTICS OF FARM HOUSEHOLDS BY FARM SIZE

A principal objective of the Rural Household Survey was to estimate the coca growing area where it is estimated that 87% (8,636) of all the income of all rural households and to ascertain the degree to households own holdings of 2 hectares or greater, and four out of which farm households derive their income from farm and non-farm five of those (an estimated 7,051) own farms of 5 hectares or more. economic activities. As a planning and monitoring instrument, future applications of the Rural Household Survey will provide information For the Department as a whole, the farm households with the on changes over time in the degree of market participation of highest average net farm income (an estimated Bs. 7,470) appear to different size farms through the sale of crops and other commodities, be those with the largest holdings, farms with 20 hectares or more. as well as changes in household members' occupation. This first This is aiso true of farm households in the coca growing area, where survey in Cochabamba provides some intriguing information on the largest farms average an estimated Bs. 13,762 in net farm differences in farm income and mark,.t participation among farms of income, which is almost double that of the largest farms in the different sizes, and comparisons between farms in the coca growing department as a whole. In the non-coca growing area, however, farm and non-coca growing regions of the Department. households with between 5 and 10 hectares are estimated to have the highest average net farm income (Bs. 4,591), while farm households The survey data allows for the calculation of different measures of with more than 20 hectares are estimated to have an average net income. Net household income refers to income deriving from cash farm income of only Bs. 2,973. Net farm income of farm households and non-cash value of faim and off-farm economic activities. Net with more than 10 hectares but less than 20 is calculated to be Bs. cash income is derived from cash sales of farm and non-faum 4,374. products as well as from earnings from off-farm employment. Net farm income refers to all sources (cash and non-cash) of income A fairly standard pattern for the Department as a whole is that from farm activities. Net farm cash income derives from the sale of higher net cash incomes and higher net household incomes, which farm products. The estimates of household incomes presented in the include earnings from farm and off-farm economic activities, facing tables are based on a sample of households with at least correlate positively with larger land holdings. When one examines 1,000 square meters of cultivated land. The household incomes of the nexus between net household income and farm size in coca and the 7% of farm households without land were not factored into the non-coca growing areas, however, the pattern appears slightly income estimates presented in the accompanying tables. altered, and some yet to be explained findings emerge. According to the survey results, there are an estimated 88,984 In the coca growing area, farm households owning between 2 and households with land in the Department. Approximately nine out of 4.99 hectares have virtually the same average net cash household ten households (an estimated 79,098) are located in the non-coca income, estimated at Bs. 9,205, as farm households owning between growing valleys and highlands and one out of ten (an estimated 5 and 9.99 hectares, estimated at Bs. 9,066. Curiously, farm 9,887) in the coca growing tropics and lower valleys. It is estimated households in the coca growing zone with less than 1/2 hectare have that 63% (50,008) of the farm households in the non-coca growing a higher estimated average cash household income (Bs. 9,639) than area have holdings of less than two hectares. The reverse is true in any other farm households, except those with 10 hectares or more.

8 Farm Household Characteristics by Farm Size (Universe: Farm Households with Land)

TOTAL All Farm Hectares Hectares Hectares Hectares Hectares Hectares Hectares Households . x .49 .5 x .99 1 x 1.99 2 x 4.99 5 x 9.99 1x 2o and 19.99 over Number of Farm Households 88,984.00 15,516.00 16,833.00 18,910.00 20,442.00 9,117.00 6,486.00 1,680.00 Percentage of Farm Households 100.00 17.40 18.90 21.30 23.00 10.20 7.30 1.90 Average Net Cash Farm Income of 1,087.00 126.00 251.00 303.00 799.00 3,812.00 3,694.00 5,853.00 Farms Households Average Net Farm Income of Farm 3,139.00 984.00 1,945.00 2,630.00 3,349.00 6,369.00 6,557.00 7,470.00 Households Average Net Cash Household Income 2,509.00 1,453.00 1,227.00 1,346.00 1,995.00 4,498.00 6,897.00 16,725.00 of Farm Households Average Net Household Income of 4,603.00 2,354.00 2,952.00 3,727.00 4,584.00 7,106.00 9,799.00 18,359.00 Farm HouseholdsII Average Farm Size of Farm House 3.48 0.26 Households 0.66 1.32 2.88 6.34 11.61 46.40 Average Value of Crop Production of 2,620.00 585.00 1,170.00 1,954.00 2,705.00 5,801.00 7,198.00 7,482.00 Farm Households Average Percentage of Crop Production Sold by Farm Households 49.70 18.40 30.00 24.40 42.40 66.00 4.2G 87.00 Percentage of Farm Households with 58.70 29.50 52.00 52.70 70.40 84.90 82.90 86.50 Crop Sales The estimated average net farm income (Bs. 2,865) of these small In contrast to the much greater average incomes earned by large farmers is also five times that of farm households with between 1/2 farms in the coca growing area as compared with large farms in the and 1 hectare and estimated to be more than 6.5 times that of farm highlands, small farm households in the co'- growing area (those households with between 1 and 1.99 hectares. Even more between 1/2 and 1.99 hectares) are estimated to have a lower surprisingly, the average net cash farm income of farm households average net farm income than farms of comparable sizes in the with less than 1/2 hectare is estimated to be 6 times that of highlands. households with between 1/2 and .99 hectares and 19.8 times the average net cash farm income of farm households with between I In the non-coca growing valley and highland areas, farm households and 1.99 hectares. A more expected pattern would be for households with between 5 and 9.99 hectares are estimated to have both higher with larger holdings to sell a larger percentage of their crops and to average net farm incomes and higher average net household incomes have corresponding higher net cash farm incomes, than farm households with between 10 and 19.99 hectares. In addition, even though the average value of crop production of farm One can speculate on the reasons for these unexpected results, but households with holdings of 10 to 19.99 hectares is greater than that only with the caution that the number of households represented in of households with 5 to 9.99 hectares, all measures of their average these three categories come from a relatively small sample. One income are estimated to be lower. No explanation is immediately possible explanation is that farm households with less than 1/2 apparent, although it is likely that the households with larger hectare are growing only coca, while slightly larger farm households holdings lack irrigated land and possess large expanses of pasture, are growing primarily subsistence crops or are involved in incipient fallow, or waste lands. Finally, it appears that households at the dairying activities. It is also possible that the households with the upper and lower extremes of land size derive a greater percentage of smallest holdings are involved in transport or agroprocessing, which their household cash income from off-farm sources than do would account for their higher household cash incomes. Further households with medium size holdings. analysis will reveal differences in location, cropping patterns, and involvement in economic activities among households with holdings of different sizes. One or several of these variables may account for the unexpected discrepancies in household incomes. Farm Household Characteristics by Farm Size (Un vw-.: . en Houstholds with Lmvl

COCA GRO WING AREA All Farm Hectares Hectares Hectares Hectares Hectares Hectares Hectares Households .10 x.49 .5 x.99 lx 1.99 2 x 4.99 5 x 99 x 20and 19.99 over Number of Farm Households 9,887.00 351.00 324.00 577.00 1,885.00 3,009.00 3,042.00 700.00

Percentage of Farm Households 100.00 3.60 3.30 5.60 19.10 30.40 30.80 7.10 Average Net Cash Farm !ncome Farm Households of 6,363.00 2,818.00 467.00 142.00 4,530.00 8,377.00 6,280.00 12,637.00 Average Net Farm Income of Farm Households 7.9-4.00 2,865.00 548.00 435.00 5,299.00 9,979.00 9,027.00 13,762.00 Avrg e ahHouseholdIcm

Average Net Cash Household Income 11,300.00 9,639.00 Of Farm Households_ 2,788.00 1,279.00 9,205.00 9,066.00 12,527.00 34,221.00 __ _I _ Average Not Household Income Farm Households of 12,900.00 9,747.00 2,869.00 1,572.00 10,001.00 10,690.00 15,293.00 35,345.00

Average Farm Size of Farm Households 11.43 0.13 0.52 1.35 3.17 6.32 11.50 74.40 !Average Value of Crop Production of veFarmHouseholds 8,770.00 176.00 647.00 665.00 6,148.00 10,981.00 10,478.00 13,637.00 Average Perentage of Crop

Production Sold by Farm Households 81.70 72.70 85.90 47.10 85.00 85.10 72.30 98.80 Percentage of Farm Households with 89.50 Crop Sales 88 7500 83.40 100.00 93-30 100.00

Farm Household Characteristics by Farm Size

lUnivnw: Farm Houhokis with Land)

GROWING AREA All Farm Hectares Hectares Hectares Hectares Hectares Hectares Hecares Households .10 x.49 .5 x .99 1 x 1.99 2x4.99 5x9.99 199 20 and 2 4 x9-9 19.99 over

Number of Farm Households 79,098.00 15,165.00 16,509.00 18,334.00 18,557.00 6,108.00 3,444.00 981.00

Percentage of Farm Households 100.00 19.20 20.90 23.20 23.50 7.70 4.40 1.20 Average Net Farm HouseholdsCash Farm Income of 428.00 63.00 246.00 308.00 420.00 1,563.00 1,409.00 1,007.00

Average Net Farm Income Households of Farm 2,539.00 940.00 1,972.OC 2,699.00 3,151.00 4,591.00 4,374.00 2,973.00 Average Net Cash Household Income of Farm Households 1,410.00 1,263.00 1,197.00 1,348.00 1,263.00 2,2 17.00 1,924.00 4,224.00 ofvFrmg Household Icmeo Average Net Household Income of 3,566.00 2,183.00 2,953.00 3,795.00 4,033.00 5,340.00 4,946.00 6,219.00 Farm Households Average Farm Size of Farm Households 2.49 0.26 0.66 1.31 2.85 6.35 11.71 26.37

Average Value of Crop Production of 1,852.00 594.00 1,180.00 1,995.00 2,356.00 Farm Households 3,249.00 4,300.00 3,082.00 Average Percentage of Crop _

Production Sold by Farm Households 30.70 18.00 29.40 24.10 31.10 34.00 46.80 50.00

Percentage of Farm Households with 5 Crop Sales 54 51.50 52.10 69.10 77.50 73.60 76.80 AVERAGE NET FARM INCOME OF FARM HOUSEHOLDS BY TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE AND TRAINING, BY AGRICULTURAL CREDIT, AND BY LAND TENANCY

Another expected outcome of the survey is an analysis that will also received tc:chnical assistance. Farm households appear to have focus on the relative importance of key variables, such as market acquired credit from a number of sources. It is estimated that access; credit access and availability; access to technical assistance; approximately 52% of the credit comes from family or friends; 13% and security of land tenure for increasing the value of agricultural of the credit comes from cooperatives; 11% from non-government production and rural incomes. Initial observations of the impact of organizations; 10% from agriculture banks; 9% from other sources; three of these variables -- technical assistance, agricultural credit, 2% from private banks; 2% from middle men; and less that 1% and land tenancy -- suggest an association between access to these from state banks. The average net farm income of households services and higher incomes. Further analysis is required to receiving credit for agricultural purposes is estimated to be 54% determine if there is a causal relationship between these factors and higher than average net farm income of households that received higher incomes or if the association merely indicates that wealthier credit for other purposes. farm households have greater access to technical assistance, credit, and secure land titles. A majority of farm households in the Department report having secure land titles. It is estimated that 62% of the farm households It is estimated that 13% of farm households in Cochabamba receive have definitive title and approximately 25% have title in process. technical assistance and that roughly nine out of ten of these Male- and female-headed households appear to have fairly households are headed by men. The survey results indicate that the comparable security of land tenancy. It is estimated that 65% of average net farm income of farm households that receive technical female headed households have definitive title, as compared with assistance (Bs. 5,406) *L. stimated to be approximately twice that of 61% of male headed households. Average net farm income is the average net farm income of farm households that did not receive highest for those with definitive title. Average net farm income of technical assistance (Bs. 2,645). households with definitive title is estimated to be 35% higher than that of households with a title in process, and almost twice that of Of the estimated 9,937 farm households that receive credit, about households that rent land. It is estimated that 62% of the farm half receive credit for agricultural purposes. It appears that households with definite title have crop sales. Possession of approximately one in two of the men receiving credit, and one in definitive land title does not seem to significantly influence the four of the women receiving credit acquired it for agricultural percentage of crop sales. The average percentage of crop production purposes. It is estimated that 74% of the credit borrowed by women sold by farm households with title is estimated to be 53%, which is was for other uses. Approximately nine out of ten of the households slightly higher than the percentage for all farm households, which is receiving credit for agricultural purposes were male-headed. About estimated to be 50%. half of the households that received credit for agricultural purposes

10 Average Net Farm Income of Households Average Net Farm Income of Households That Received Technical Assistance That Received Credit

6000 7000

5000 6000

4000 5000 4000 _ 3000 C

o 2000 E C 8 2000 1000 1000 0 Got Assistance No Assistance For Ag. Purposes For Other Purposes

Land Title Average Net Farm Income of Households By Tenancy

N.A. (22.% - Title to Land (53.5%) Rented Communal Land (1.9%)-\ Title in Process ""

Renting (21.9% Definitive Title

Sharecropping (0.3%) 0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500 4000 4500

7 // ? AVERAGE HOUSEHOLD INCOME BY GENDER OF HEAD OF HOUSEHOLD AND COCA GROWING VS. NON-COCA GROWING HOUSEHOLDS

Average net household income appears to vary considerably by farm households in the Provinces of Bolivar and Tapacari, and that less versus non-farm households, as well as by gender of the head of than one in ten households are headed by women in the Provinces of household and by region. Farm households in the Department are Esteban Arce and Chapare. tstimated to have average net household incomes that are approximately 15% higher than househiold incomes of non-farm Even greater disparities exist between households in the coca households. The most noticeable uifferences with regard to average growing and non-coca growing regions of the Department. The net household income appear between households headed by men average net household income of all households in the coca growing and those headed by women, and between households in the coca zone is estimated to be Bs. 15,547, and for all farm households in growing and non-coca growing regions. that region it is estimated to be Bs. 16,684. The average net household income of all households in the non-coca growing area is The average net household income for the estimated 16,561 approximately Bs. 3,728, which is less than a quarter of that of households that are headed by women (approximately 15% of all households in the coca growing region. Average net household households) is estimated to be Bs. 2,851, which is about half of the income of farm households in the non-coca growing region is Bs. 5,271 that male-headed households earn on average. It is estimated to be Bs. 3,650, which is only about a fifth of the estimated that a greater percentage of male-headed households household income of similar households in the coca growing area. (33.27%) tend to have members employed in non-farm activities than do female-headed households, of which only 25% have Although a little less than a third of the households in both regions, members engaged in non-farm employment. In contrast, about 34% 32% in the non-coca growing and 28% in the coca growing, have of all female-headed households are estimated to have members members involved in non-farm employment, it appears that income involved in non-farm economic activities on their own account, as from these activities represents a larger proportion of household compared with only an estimated 25% of male-headed households. income in the non-coca growing zone. Income generated from own There are also marked differences by Provinces in the percentages account non-farm activities are clearly more significant for of households that are headed by women. Punata is the Province households in the coca growing area, both in terms of the percentage with the highest percentage of female-headed households (28%). of households with members involved in those activities and in Slightly more than a fifth of the households in the Provinces of terms of average household income of households with members Arani, Capinota, and German Jordan are also headed by women. engaged in these activities. Survey results indicate that there are virtually no female-headed

11 Average Net Household Incomes

All HH in Non-Coca Growing Zone

All HH in Coca Growing Zone 15,54

All Male-Headed HH

All Female-Headed HH

All Non-farm HH _ . .3.. 1

All Farm HH

All HH

0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16

Income in Bolivianos (Thousands) PERCENTAGE DISTRIBUTION OF FARM HOUSEHOLDS WITH LIVESTOCK BY TYPES OF LIVESTOCK

Arimal production is a vital source of employment and income for 3% (sheep) of households in the tropics. Over a third of all rural households in the Department of Cochabamba, where an households in the highlands and valleys own goats (35%), as estimated 82% of rural households own livestock. According to compared with 26% of households in the tropics. The ownership of survey results, one third of the rural population age 6 and older is transport animals also appears to be more common in the highland involved in livestock production, as either a principal or secondary and valley regions, where an estimated 30% of households own economic activity. Both farm and non-farm households own animals, burros and 10% own horses. In the tropics, it is estimated that only although it is estimated that a greater percentage of farm households 2% of households own burros and only 1%own horses. (85%) than non-farm households (61%) own some form of livestock or poultry. Poultry ownership appears to be virtual!y identical in both regions, where an estimated 59% of households own chickens and 10% own Cattle, pig, and small ruminant (sheep, goats, llamas) production is ducks. of much greater importance to highland and valley households than it is to households in the tropics. It is estimated that three out of Further analysis of the survey data will reveal the extent to which five households in the highland and valley areas of the Department livestock generates income for farm and non-farm households own cows (59%) or st .'p (58%) as compared with 6% (cows) and according to region and size of land holding.

12 Number of Households with Livestock Distribution of Rural Households by Region and by Animal 90 80 M Mules E CU Llamas 70 - Other* 60 Horses

50< -50" Ducks o 40 UPigs Pigs 0 -- Guinea Pigs 30 c. Burros 20 0 Goats 10 Sheep Cows Livestock No Livestock Poultry 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 (Thousands)

Other* includes. rurkeys (1,304), Rabbits (2,102), and Bees (518). Distribution of Rural Households by Distribution of Rural Households by Region and by Animal Region and by Animal

Mules le Llama:n Mules S Other*hTurkeys Llamas

> Ducks Horses Horses Guinea Pigs U, .Burros C Guinea Pigs Sheep Burros 2M Pigs Goats Cows Sheep Cows DucksDu k Coulr Goats Poultry Poultry 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 (Thousands) (Thousands) Other* includes: Turkeys (1,238), Rab)bits (2,102), and Bees (518). PERCENTAGE DISTRIBUTION OF FARM HOUSEHOLDS BY TIME AND DISTANCE TO MARKET AND BY DISTANCE TO A TRUNK ROAD

One of the major policy questions that the survey was designed to The configuration for the highland and valley region appears to be address is whether proximity and access to markets correlates with somewhat different. The farm households that are estimated to earn higher incomes. An initial review of the data presents some the most from farm products are those that live less than one hour surpris'ng outcomes that remain to be explained by further analysis. away from markets, Bs. 4,760, followed by those who sell their It is estimated that approximately 40% of farm households do not products on farm, estimated at Bs. 4,498. What is most surprising, sell any of their crops or livestock products. It appears that about however, is that farm households with the third highest estimated one in two female-headed households and approximately one in average net farm income are those that are located 6 hours or more three male-headed households have no crop sales. Virtually all of away from markets, roughly Bs. 4,436. The farm households that these households are in the highlands L 1('valleys. The contrast sell on farm and at markets 6 hours or more away appear to have between coca growing and non-coca growing households is even thef highest farm cash incomes in both the coca growing and non­ more pronounced: an estimated 45% of non-coca growing coca growing regions. households have no products to sell as compared with only 2% of coca growing households. Distance to trunk roads does not seem to be a major impediment in the Department; an estimated 77% of households are located within Preliminary analysis indicates that households with the highest 3 kilometers of trunk roads. This, however, does not provide insight average net farm income sell their crops at the farm. These into the type of terrain, much of it precipitous, that household households are estimated to represent 10% of all farm households. members en route to market must negotiate while laden with farm Curiously, the coca growing households that appear to have the products for sale. Aside from households that either sell on farm or highest average net farm income are those that sell their products at have nothing to sell, which represents over half of the rural markets that are six or more hours away, estimated at Bs. 22,954. It households in the Department, an estimated 13% of farm households is estimated that about 23% of coca growing farm households sell are located within 5 kilometers of markets, 10% are located between their products on farm and have virtually identical average net farm 5 and 10 km from markets, while 26% are located 10 km or more income of Bs. 22,551. Aside from those who sell nothing, the coca away from the site of sale. growing farmers with the lowest average net farm income appear to be those who live 3 to 6 hours away from the markets.

13 Access to Markets by Farm Households

Sell on farm (10.1%)

Nothing sold (40.5%) >1 hour (18.2%)

1 >3 hours (18.5%) 6or more hours (6.9%) 3 _6 hours (5.8%)

Distance to Market Distance to Trunk Roads

- Sell on farm (10.1%) 2_1/2 km (2.5%) 3 5 kms (5.7%) 10 kms rnore (7.7%) - Nothing sold (40.5%) 3 2!5 kms (8.7%) 2 10 kms (10.4%)

1 _>3 kms (.1%) 12 km (57.7%) 1 2!3(31kns%)1 /232 1ms(12(56 1/2 1 km (1.6%) 10 kms or more (26.1%) 1/2 km (67%).1 ­

i! 7A, PERCENTAGE DISTRIBUTION OF PERCEIVED NEEDS

Survey respondents were asked what they needed to improve their all households interviewed. Access to improved infrastructure -­ lives. The question was open-ended and produced a long list of roads (17%), electricity (14%), schools (8%), and housing (11%) -­ responses. An estimated 94% of the households surveyed expressed also rated high in importance. Approximately 22% of all rural specific needs. The most common responses are reflected in the households responding to this question cited the need for greater accompanying bar graph. Improved access to and availability of access to improved seed and fertilizer. water was the need expressed by the largest number of respondents. The rest of the list ranged the gamut from a need for agricultural Access to improved health care ranked second in importance, machinery and tools to a desire for telephone service. Only about especially better availability and access to health posts. 5% of households cited the need for credit. No households Slightly less than one out of four households voiced a general mentioned land titling as a need, although 4% of households cited desire for an increased standard of living. Technical assistance in the need for land for agricultural purposes. agricultural and livestock production was cited by about 22% of

14 Household Needs

50%

45%

0

0­ 25% o 20%

-= 15%

E 10%Q.-.

5%

0% A B C D E F G H

A - Improved access to water. F - Access to improved seed & fertilizer. B - Construction & upgrading of health posts. G - Access to electricity. C - Higher standard of living. H - Construction & upgrading of housing. D - Agricultural & pastoral (animal husbandry/vet.) I - Construction & upgrading of schools. technical assistance. E - Construction & upgrading of roads.

,//,,/1 SAMPLE DESIGN

The Cochabamba Rural Household Survey (CRHS) is a sample The next phase of the survey involved the listing of all the housing survey based on a sample of units in a defined universe. That is, units within the selected primary sampling units or segments. After information gathered from a small number of units in the defined the housing units contained within each segment were listed, the universe and estimates from this sample are extrapolated to the housing units to be visited during the survey were selected from this whole universe. list. Again, random systematic selection was utilized. The sample design for the CRHS involved selecting a sample of 96 segments. The universe of interest for the NRHS was all housing units in rural The sampling procedures resulted in the allocation of the sample areas as defined in the pre-census cartographic update which was segments to the provinces in proportion to the number of housing conducted in 1990 and 1991. The unit of analysis was the units in each province. There are 16 provinces in Cochabamba and household. the number of sample segments allocated by province varied from 2 to 17. The sample frame employed a stratified multistage design. Rural areas within the department of Cochabamba were divided into The sample design for Cochabamba attempted to produce survey provinces. The provinces were further subdivided into two substrata: estimates at the Departmental level with a low to moderate level of population centers with populations less than 2,000 people and areas precision (with a coefficient of variation within 15 per cent) for with dispersed housing units. common household characteristics. Resuilts indicate that the coefficients of variation for many household characteristics are low Within these substrata, primary sampling units (i.e., groupings of to moderate at the Departmental level. The estimates are much less housing units) were listed by one of three ecological zones precise at the Provincial level. (altiplano, valles, and Ilanos) to create homogeneous groupings. This list of primary sampling units was used as a basis for the random systematic sampling of primary sampling units for the next phase of the survey.

15 ENDNOTES

1. According to a 1988 population, employment, and migration survey conducted by the United Nations in the cities of Cochabamba, Quillacollo, and Sacaba, 35.8% of the population was 14 and under in 1988 and the mean age of the urban population was 25. Since 1976 there has been a progressive aging of the urban population in the Department.

2. The exchange rate at the time of the survey was 3.64 Bolivianos to the dollar.

16