Senegal Yaajeende Baseline Study of the Kolda Region: A Formative Evaluation

January 25, 2017 This publication was produced at the request of the United States Agency for International Development. It was prepared independently by International Development Group LLC (IDG).

Kolda Baseline Study

Learning, Evaluation and Analysis Project-II (LEAP-II)

Senegal Yaajeende Baseline Study of the Kolda Region: A Formative Evaluation

Final Report

Contract Number: AID-OAA-I-12-00042/AID-OAA-TO-14-00046

DISCLAIMER The contents of this report are the sole responsibility of IDG and do not necessarily reflect the views of USAID or the United States Government.

Kolda Baseline Study

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Executive Summary ...... 4 1. Project Background ...... 11 1.1 Overview of the Yaajeende Program ...... 11 1.2 Yaajeende Activities ...... 12 1.3 Yaajeende Activities in Kolda ...... 17 1.4 Population of Kolda ...... 20 2. Purpose of the Kolda Baseline StudY ...... 22 2.1 Indicators ...... 23 3. Methodology ...... 27 3.1 Household Survey ...... 27 3.2 Qualitative Research ...... 38 4. Limitations of the Baseline Study ...... 43 5. Findings of the survey ...... 45 5.1 Profile of the Households in Kolda ...... 45 5.2 Basic Indicators ...... 49 5.3 Study Question 1: Nutrition ...... 49 5.4 Study Question 2: Healthy Household Practices ...... 55 5.5 Further Discussion on Hygiene and Sanitation Practices ...... 61 5.6 Study Question 3: Agricultural Practices and Production ...... 62 5.7 Further Discussions on Land Preparation and Access, Agricultural Inputs and Practices ...... 63 6. General Observations on Yaajeende Implementation in the Kolda Region ...... 75 7. Conclusion ...... 77 7.1 Conclusion for Study Question 1: Nutrition ...... 77 7.2 Conclusion for Study Question 2: Healthy Household Practices ...... 78 7.3 Conclusion for Study Question 3: Agricultural Practices and Production ...... 79 8. Recommendations ...... 80 Annex I: Abridged Results Framework ...... 81 Annex II: Correspondence of Indicators with PMP ...... 82 Annex III: USAID/Yaajeende Program – Kolda Baseline Scope of Work ...... 84 Annex IV: Kolda Baseline Survey Questionnaire ...... 88

Kolda Baseline Study

ACRONYMS

BCC Behavior Change Communication CAPI Computer- based Personal Interviewing CBSP Community-based Service Provider (Agents de Prestation de Service or APS) CNV Community Nutrition Volunteers (Volontaire de Nutrition Communautaire or VNC) DEFF Design Effect FGD Focus Group Discussion FTF Feed the Future GOS Government of Senegal GTC Citizen Work Groups (Groupes de Travail Citoyen or GTC) HH Households IEC Information, Education, and Communication KII Key Informant Interview LSC Local Steering Committee (Comités Locaux de Pilotage or CLP) MDES Minimum Detectable Effect Size MIE Midterm Impact Evaluation NEP Nutrition Enhancement Program NLA Nutrition Led Agriculture PG Producer Groups PG Producer Organization PMP Performance Monitoring Plan PNDL Programme national de développement local POs Producer Organizations PPS Probability Proportional to Size PSU Primary Sampling Unit WASH Water, Sanitation and Hygiene ZOI Zone of Influence

Kolda Baseline Study

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Background. Food insecurity continues to be a serious problem throughout Senegal and the West African region, leaving large segments of the population vulnerable to famine and hunger. USAID/Senegal is working with the Government of Senegal to promote greater agricultural productivity and improve regional food security. The goal of the Yaajeende Agricultural Development Program, commonly known as Yaajeende, is to accelerate the participation of the very poor in rural economic growth and to improve their nutritional status. This Program falls under the Feed the Future Initiative (FTF) which was designed based on the four Intermediate Results (IR) of the USAID Economic Growth Results Framework (see Annex 1)1: IR 1 Inclusive Agriculture Sector Growth; IR 2 Increased Trade; IR 3 Improved Nutritional Status, especially of women and children; and IR 4 Improved Management of Natural Resources.

Purpose. This baseline study in Kolda was conducted in preparation for an impact evaluation of the USAID/Yaajeende in Senegal. The program has been implemented in the regions of Matam, Bakel, and Kedougou since 2011, and started in Kolda in April 2014. Because this baseline study was conducted fifteen months after the start of USAID/Yaajeende implementation in Kolda (data were collected November 2015 through January 2016), the study’s objectives are to: 1. Establish baseline values of 16 key target indicators defined in the USAID/Yaajeende performance monitoring plan (PMP), 2. Provide supporting information on dynamics around household revenues, income, and adoption of key behaviors thought to impact nutritional status, 3. Provide a description of what is happening in the field among the intervention villages where USAID/Yaajeende has started its activities, 4. Identify if USAID/Yaajeende communities are already witnessing change and how they perceive this change happening; and 5. Make recommendations to enhance the project’s implementation and performance in Kolda.

Methodology. The Kolda baseline study uses a mixed-method approach involving a non- experimental quantitative strategy and qualitative techniques. To collect quantitative data, the Kolda baseline study utilizes a household survey to collect information from a randomly selected sample of households in comparison and intervention areas defined by Yaajeende. The survey is specifically designed to establish the values of the 16 basic indicators listed in the Scope of Work for the assignment. To collect qualitative data, the Kolda baseline study utilizes key informant interviews (KIIs) and focus group discussions (FGDs) with stakeholders in intervention areas only.

Sixteen basic indicators have been calculated using the survey data. They are reported for the intervention and control areas and by several demographic variables to provide a profile of the

1 USAID/Yaajeende Performance Monitoring Plan (PMP) Revised: December 6, 2013

Page 4

Kolda Baseline Study

population of Kolda. These demographic variables are disaggregated by gender whenever possible. Information on farming activities and practices was also analyzed to describe the agricultural activities in Kolda. The results of the qualitative research are triangulated with the results of the quantitative survey.

Summary of Key Findings. The baseline key findings are related to the following areas: (1) Population Characteristics, (2) Study Question 1: Nutrition, (3) Study Question 2: Healthy Household Practices, and (4) Study Question 3: Agricultural Practices and Production.

1) Population Characteristics

Summary: The household survey shows that the average household size in the Kolda region is 13.8 among intervention groups and 13 in control groups. The average number of women aged 15 to 49 was 3 in intervention areas and 2.7 in control areas. Overall, respondents indicated having about 3 children less than 5 years old in their household (2.7 in intervention households and 2.5 in control). Most households in both intervention and control areas are headed by men (about 95 percent).

2) Study Question 1: Nutrition

Table 1: Nutrition Indicators Nutrition P- Indicator at Baseline 2015 Intervention Control Value 1.1 Proportion of children under 5 that are wasted 8.00% 7.81% 0.90 1.2 Proportion of children under 5 that are stunted 28.24% 31.96% 0.34 1.3 Proportion of children under 5 that are underweight 18.98% 21.46% 0.41 1.4 Proportion of underweight women 22.37% 27.26% 0.09 1.5 Proportion of children 6-23 with MAD 20.00% 0.00% NA 1.6 Number of months of reduced food intake 2.28 2.26 0.85 1.7 Proportion of HHs consuming < 2 meals per day (%) 1.83% 2.56% 0.64

Summary: To assess the nutritional status of children under 5 in the Kolda region, three anthropometric indicators were reported: wasting, stunting, and underweight (see Table 1). Wasting is a measure of acute malnutrition and is reported for children under the age of 5. The prevalence of wasting among children under 5 is higher in intervention areas (8 percent) than in control areas (7.81 percent).

Stunting is an indicator that reflects chronic undernutrition. The prevalence among children under 5 is higher among control areas (31.96 percent) than intervention areas (28.24 percent). Underweight is a weight-for-age measurement and reflects acute and/or chronic undernutrition. About 21.5 percent of children under 5 in control areas are underweight. The proportion of underweight children is slightly lower among children in intervention areas – 18.98 percent.

Page 5

Kolda Baseline Study

According to the household survey data, 22.37 percent of women in intervention areas are underweight. The prevalence of underweight is higher among women in control areas at a statistically significant level, with 27.26 percent measuring as underweight.

The minimal acceptable diet (MAD indicator) is calculated using data from the FTF population- based survey (PBS) conducted concurrently to the Kolda Baseline Study. The proportion of children between 6 and 23 months of age with MAD is 20 percent for the intervention group and 0 percent for the control group While the prevalence of children with MAD is higher among the intervention group than the control, these results are not statistically reliable due to the small sample size since the data from PBS is limited to the intervention and control villages that overlap with the Kolda Baseline Study.

In rural Senegal, it is common for households to reduce food intake for a period of time each year, also known as soudure, typically during the rainy season. The intervention group and the control group experience an average 2.28 and 2.26 of reduced food intake respectively. The results are not statistically significant between the two groups. Additionally, the survey data indicated that 1.83 percent of intervention households and 2.56 percent of control households have less than 2 meals per day.

3) Study Question 2: Healthy Household Practices

Kitchen Hygiene (Indicator 2.1), Safe Food Storage (Indicator 2.2), Water Treatment (Indicator 2.3), and Food Conservation Techniques (Indicator 2.4)

Table 2A: Healthy Household Practices Healthy Household Practices P- Indicator at Baseline 2015 Intervention Control Value 2.1 HHs practicing at least one Yaajeende kitchen hygiene 91.18% 92.97% 0.55 behavior 2.2 HHs practicing safe food storage 68.30% 70.63% 0.69 2.3 HHs treating drinking water 22.78% 13.72% 0.01 2.4 HHs practicing at least one food conservation technique 75.05% 57.61% 0.04

Summary: The household survey data in Table 2A show that a high percentage of households in both intervention and control areas (Indicator 2.1) practice at least one hygienic practice in the kitchen (92 percent and 93 percent respectively). Participants in the qualitative research demonstrated widespread knowledge of proper handwashing techniques and several indicated they have learned these techniques from training held by Yaajeende staff. During the focus groups discussions, many respondents highlighted their households have limited access to water. This constraint may hinder further improvements in kitchen hygiene practices.

Households in control areas (70.63 percent) are more likely than those in intervention areas (68.30 percent) to practice safe food storage. In contrast, a higher percentage of households in intervention areas practiced at least one conservation technique. According to the survey data,

Page 6

Kolda Baseline Study

75.05 percent of intervention households and 57.61 percent of control households report using at least one food conservation technique. The difference is statistically significant at the 0.01 percent level. While the difference cannot be attributed to Yaajeende activities, particularly at baseline, participants in the qualitative interviews have mentioned learning about food enrichment techniques from Yaajeende staff.

Household water treatment practices are more prevalent in intervention areas. The household survey data show that there is a 9.06 percentage points difference between the two groups. The difference is statistically significant at the 0.01 percent level. Most FGDs respondents reported knowledge and awareness of water treatment practices.

Salt Iodation and Storage (Indicator 2.5), Exclusive Maternal Breastfeeding (Indicator 2.6), and Food Diversity (Indicator 2.7)

Table 2B: Healthy Household Practices Healthy Household Practices Indicator at Baseline 2015 Intervention Control P-Value 2.5 HHs using and storing iodized salts properly (%) 9.28% 10.04% 0.79 2.6 Proportion of children 6-months that were 60.08% 66.67% 0.44 exclusively breastfed 2.7 Average Household Dietary Diversity Score 5.53 4.23 0.00 (HHDS)

Summary: The proportion of households using and storing iodized salt is low in both intervention and control groups (see Table 2B). The household quantitative survey reveals that only 9.28 percent of intervention households and 10.04 percent of control households use iodized salt and store it adequately. The qualitative research corroborated the results of the household survey. Several FGD participants reported not knowing about the benefits of iodized salt or only learning about its benefits from recent Yaajeende training.

The rate of exclusive breastfeeding among intervention households is lower than the rate among control households (60 percent versus 66 percent). These results are not statistically reliable due to the small sample size since the indicator is calculated using PBS data and data was limited to the intervention and control villages that overlap with the Kolda Baseline Study. FGDs, however, showed that most participants in the qualitative study are aware of the importance of exclusively breastfeeding during the first 6 months of life.

The average household dietary diversity score (HHDS) of 5.53 indicates that on average households in intervention areas consume between five to six of the 12 food groups. Households in control areas have lower dietary diversity (4.23), consuming on average between four to five food groups. The difference between the two groups is statistically significant at the 0.01% level.

Page 7

Kolda Baseline Study

Handwashing Station in Common Use (Indicator 2.8), Drinking Water from an Improved Source (Indicator 2.9), and Cooking Water from an Improved Source (Indicator 2.10)

Table 2C: Healthy Household Practices Healthy Household Practices Indicator at Baseline 2015 Intervention Control P-Value 2.8 Proportion of HHs with soap and water at a 0.6% 1.13% 0.39 handwashing station 2.9 Proportion of HHs using an improved water 41.02% 14.14% 0.01 source for drinking 2.10 Proportion of HHs using improved water 37.54% 20.75% 0.05 source for cooking

Summary: Access to clean water sources continues to be one of the biggest challenges faced by households in both control and intervention areas. The proportion of households with soap and water at a handwashing station is very low, with only 0.6 percent of households in intervention areas and 1.13 percent in control areas reporting having these available in their house. The low rates are most likely due to limited access to clean water.

About 41.02 percent of households in intervention areas report using an improved water source. The percentage among control households is significantly lower with only 14.14 percent of households having access to an improved water source for drinking. Similarly, the percentage of households using an improved water source for cooking (37.64 percent) in intervention areas was higher than in control areas (20.74 percent). The difference is statistically significant at the 0.05 percent level. However, it is important to note that, despite improvements in using improved water sources, most participants in the focus groups discussions mentioned they had limited access to clean water sources.

4) Study Question 3: Agricultural Practices and Production

The majority of respondents in the household survey in both intervention and control areas indicate they practiced farming, with 74.32 percent of all households breeding livestock. According to Table 3, households with livestock production is higher in intervention areas (78.35 percent) than in control areas (67.36 percent). Additionally, household income from the top five sources of income is much higher in intervention than control areas. The average income for the intervention group is 424,027 CFA (USD 703), whereas for the control group the average income is 247,963 CFA (USD 411). Both differences are significant at the 0.10 percent level.

Table 3: Agricultural Practices and Production Agricultural practices and production Indicator at Baseline 2015 Intervention Control P-Value 3.6 Households with Livestock Production 78.35% 67.36% 0.08 3.7 Percentage of Households with Livestock 7.32% 11.7% 0.05 Income 3.7 Average Income from The Top Five Sources 424,027 CFA 247,963 CFA 0.01 of Revenue in CFA

Page 8

Kolda Baseline Study

Farming plays an important role in the Kolda region as it helps households produce food not only for immediate consumption but also to generate income. The percentage of households with livestock income in Kolda, however, is currently low. The share of livestock income is higher among control groups – 11.7 percent – than intervention groups – 7.32 percent. Therefore, USAID/Yaajeende interventions that support livestock breeders such as Animal Placements and Passing on the Gift are particularly relevant in this region. The qualitative study revealed that farmers in Kolda are very receptive to the program. This confirms farmers and livestock producers in Kolda are willing to adopt new farming technologies – a key assumption of Yaajeende programming

While the qualitative study has found that agricultural training is generally well-received in Kolda, water supply and irrigation of farmland are significant challenges for the success and sustainability of the program in this region. The survey data show that rain-fed cereal is the main farming system in Kolda and is practiced by 90 percent of households in both intervention and control groups; all other systems of production are almost nonexistent in this region with around two percent of the population practicing irrigated cereal farming. However, qualitative research shows that, in recent times, rainfall in the rainy season has been irregular, unpredictable, and unevenly distributed creating either droughts or heavy floods. During the rainy season there can be dry spells that last a couple of days, which can have a damaging effect on the crop yields. Therefore, relying on rain-fed farming is risky and has a direct impact on food security, animal farming, and farm income, since households do not practice farming outside the rainy season.

Recommendations

1. Account for the timing of Kolda Baseline during the final impact evaluation. A number of nutrition-related indicators are sensitive to the timing of data collection. For instance, prevalence of wasting (Indicator 1.1) and underweight (Indicator 1.3) may sharply increase during an acute shortage of food. Similarly, the MAD indicator (Indicator 1.5) is partly based on meal frequency and the rate of children satisfying the MAD may decrease during the season of relative food insecurity. Household meal frequency (Indicator 1.7) may also sharply decline during the lean season because the indicator only accounts for the number of meals prepared in the last 24 hours. For Kolda Baseline Study, data were collected between November 2015 and January 2016, while the data collection for Yaajeende MIE and the baseline for the other regions occurred in May and June. If the final impact evaluation is conducted around May or June to align with the MIE and the baseline, Kolda’s season-sensitive nutritional baseline data may not be comparable. Therefore, in theory, data collection for the final impact evaluation should align with the timing of the Kolda baseline and occur between November and January. If this is not viable in practice, the final impact evaluation of Yaajeende should take into account that Yaajeende’s effect on nutrition may be underestimated for Kolda.

2. Track improvements in women’s dietary diversity. Yaajeende monitors the prevalence of underweight women in its intervention villages. However, this indicator is insufficient to accurately measure Yaajeende’s activities on nutrition of women. A number of women noted during the focus group discussions that they learned about the importance of nutrient-rich

Page 9

Kolda Baseline Study

diet for pregnant and breastfeeding women through Yaajeende. Therefore, it is recommended that Yaajeende track the number of women achieving minimum dietary diversity.2

3. Add Household Hunger Scale (HHS) to the final impact evaluation. HHS is a light- touch way of calculating the prevalence of households experiencing moderate or severe hunger. By adding three additional questions to the final impact evaluation questionnaire, the hunger level of Yaajeende’s intervention areas can be compared to other regions in Senegal using the Senegal PBS data and that of other countries.

2 This recommendation is based on the project performance indicators provided to the team in June 2015. Yaajeende’s revised M&E plan now includes an indicator measuring women’s dietary diversity as “percentage of direct female beneficiaries of nutrition-sensitive agricultural activities consuming a diet of minimum diversity”.

Page 10

Kolda Baseline Study

1. PROJECT BACKGROUND

1.1 Overview of the Yaajeende Program

Food insecurity continues to be a serious problem throughout Senegal and the West African region, leaving large segments of the population vulnerable to famine and hunger. USAID/Senegal is working with the Government of Senegal (GOS) to promote greater agricultural productivity and improve regional food security. The USAID Yaajeende Agriculture and Nutrition Development Program, commonly known as Yaajeende, is a five-year program that received a two-year extension (November 2010 to September 2017), implemented by NCBA/CLUSA, Counterpart International, Heifer International, and Sheladia Associates in four regions of Senegal.

Taking a structural approach to the question of food security, Yaajeende’s goal is to accelerate the participation of the very poor in rural economic growth and to improve the population’s nutritional status. The program falls under the Feed the Future Initiative (FTF) which was designed based on four Intermediate Result (IR) of the USAID Economic Growth Results Framework (See Annex 1)3: IR 1 Inclusive Agriculture Sector Growth; IR 2 Increased Trade; IR 3 Improved Nutritional Status, especially of women and children; and IR 4 Improved Management of Natural Resources.

IR 2, Increased Trade, is not directly targeted by Yaajeende since the program focuses on poor, food-deficit areas. Additional production in these areas is expected to be auto-consumed or marketed within Senegal.

At the core of the Yaajeende program is the Nutrition Led Agriculture (NLA) approach, which promotes improved production, trade, and local consumption of high quality, nutritious foods, including foods that resolve priority nutritional deficiencies. The NLA theory of change is that mutually supporting programs of nutrition and agriculture will be more efficacious in improving nutritional status than either of the mutually reinforcing components on their own. The NLA approach supports the development of a set of skills and techniques that are thought to have direct influence on local food security, defined as availability, access, utilization, and governance of food resources, in the communities where the project operates. Components of the approach include improving access to, and understanding of, relevant technologies and techniques, promoting structural changes, and developing the capacity of local institutions to create local markets for high quality nutritious foods.

Yaajeende program activities span the four FTF pillars of food security:

3 Yaajeende Performance Monitoring Plan (PMP) Revised: December 6, 2013

Page 11

Kolda Baseline Study

1. Availability. Interventions related to farm production – this bundle of activities is aimed at introducing and increasing production of key crops such as Vitamin A-rich orange flesh sweet potato, millet bio-fortified in iron and zinc, and micro-nutrient rich fruits and vegetables; 2. Access. Interventions related to farm productivity – these activities are aimed at increasing farmers’ access to inputs and agriculture services that permit enhanced production of nutritious food crops via a network of private sector, Community-Based Service Providers (CBSPs or Agents de Prestation de Service (APS)); 3. Utilization. Interventions aimed at creating demand for nutritious foods and potable water – these activities educate the public about the need for a diverse diet that includes fruits and vegetables and increases their ability to prepare these foods in ways that preserve and maximize the food’s nutritional content; and 4. Sustainable governance. Interventions aimed at strengthening local government and civil society – These activities strengthen local actors’ ability to engage in creative and dynamic partnerships to guide food production and water-related activities, and administer related resources, in an equitable and inclusive fashion that prioritizes the needs of the most nutritionally vulnerable populations.

Distinct from traditional development programs, Yaajeende trains and relies on local agents of change to effect behavior change. Agents include CBSPs, Community Nutrition Volunteers (CNVs or Volontaire de Nutrition Communautaire (VNC)), relays, and auxiliaries who work closely with Yaajeende staff. CBSPs are trained on components of Yaajeende programs that they can then sell as services in their local communities. They are organized into regional networks with regional steering committees, which help them to easily purchase products and resell them locally, thereby addressing the challenge of limited access to goods. Set up by the World Bank’s Nutrition Enhancement Program (NEP), Yaajeende utilizes the existing network of CNVs and train them on nutrition topics and give starter kits, allowing them to hold Mother to Mother (MtM) groups, provide local training, and conduct Q/A sessions (causeries in French) to ensure participants have absorbed the material. CNVs are also trained on animal health and support Yaajeende’s livestock program.4 Relays benefit from, and assist with, Yaajeende agriculture or livestock training, serving as a local resource for communities. Auxiliaries are government extension agents that similarly serve as local resources and ensure animal health based on Yaajeende husbandry training.

1.2 Yaajeende Activities

Within the NLA framework, Yaajeende’s nutrition program activities cover a wide range of behaviors concerning food choice, food preparation, food conservation, water, and sanitation, while agriculture program activities promote techniques for commercial and subsistence agriculture, horticulture, arboriculture, and livestock. Agriculture and livestock activities focus on local food production over international supply chains. Nutrition programs complement locally available foods, rather than advocating for the adoption of exotic foods and techniques. Yaajeende provides minimal subsidies to key activities and slowly transfers project ownership to local

4 CNVs can sell services to their local communities and thus become Nutrition CBSPs.

Page 12

Kolda Baseline Study

populations in activity areas.

The following sections provide further details on activities implemented in each of the four FTF pillar categories: Pillar 1: Availability

Conservation Agriculture and Soil Health Program. In this intervention, a cadre of CBSPs offer a package of farming practices to local producers. This package, called the Zero Risk Package, consists of skills including composting and intercropping along with tractors and rippers, improved short-cycle seeds, organic fertilizer, microdose chemical fertilizers, and crop insurance. Women’s groups are eligible to participate in a bio-reclamation of degraded lands (BDL) program that teaches women techniques to transform unused, biodegraded land into productive land. Men are also trained on these techniques in order to assist their wives with intense labor. Yaajeende assists some of these women’s groups to procure deeds to lands for at least 25 years. It is otherwise difficult for women’s groups and individual women to own land, as fields are typically passed down from father to son.

Agroforestry and Arboriculture. Private sector nurseries maintained by Arboriculture CBSPs are the primary method of extending agroforestry to participating communities. Such nurseries sell trees like Acacia Melifera, Mango, Moringa, Bauhinia, Cashew, Madd and Henna. They install live fencing on community projects including schools, land reclamation sites, commercial gardens, and community gardens. They also plant fruit trees on land adjacent to houses, schools, and health huts. Yaajeende also provides training on grafting the Sahel apple, rich in Vitamin C, onto jujube trees.

Rain-fed Agriculture. Rain-fed agriculture is the most common form of agriculture in Yaajeende intervention zones and its successful use during the rainy season is crucial to farmers. Yaajeende recognizes this by identifying appropriate seasonal strategies. The program focuses its efforts on a group of leading producers (grands producteurs in French) that adopt a package of techniques, including intercropping, use of improved seed varieties, and use of fertilizer. CBSPs offer a number of key agricultural services: tillage, organic fertilizer, improved seeds, enhanced crop varieties, cereal processing, and cereal storage. Yaajeende promotes deep urea placement for rice cultivation to avoid nutrient losses caused by surface broadcasting.

Irrigated and Flood Recession Agriculture. In partnership with the Government of Senegal and other projects, Yaajeende promotes irrigation and flood recession agriculture in appropriate regions so that farmers can be productive outside of the rainy season. CBSPs provide seed, fertilizer, seedlings, and training to local populations. They also lease and sell irrigation pumps to communities with optional service agreements for repair. Large producers that purchase irrigation pumps are trained in accounting and financial planning. CBSPs also offer crop insurance with improved seed and tillage.

Commercial Horticulture. Rainy and counter-season commercial horticulture aim to increase the sale and consumption of fruits and vegetables in the project zones. Large-scale commercial gardens are supported by CBSPs through a broad range of services: financing, accounting,

Page 13

Kolda Baseline Study

marketing, irrigation, seed, fertilizer, and various technical training to increase farmers’ skills in different seasons. Women’s groups farm community gardens with Yaajeende support. Crops include tomato, okra, bissap, hot pepper, eggplant, bitter eggplant, cabbage, lettuce, and onion.

Bio-fortified Crops Program. Both CBSPs and producer organizations promote the adoption of nutritionally enhanced hybrid varieties of maize, rice, millet, sweet potato, and beans. MtM groups and large producers participated in trials of bio-fortified orange flesh sweet potatoes that they have since adopted.

Seed Production Program. In partnership with public and private sector organizations, Yaajeende promotes seed multiplication activities. Specific partners include ISRA, Tropicasem, Hortis, Agroseed, Regional Rural Development Agency (DRDR), and the Association of Producers of Corn and Sorghum in the Senegal River Valley.

Livestock Enterprise Program. MtM and Citizen Work Groups (CWG or GTC in French) are involved in many phases of the animal husbandry program, including targeting of direct animal subsidies of chicken, goat, and sheep. CBSPs conduct training on animal care, breeding, marketing, and dairy products. Animal insurance was introduced using microfinance institutions in 2014 in certain locations. Recipients of direct animal subsidies have begun growing forage cowpeas and dolich for animal feed across the project zones. Emerging livestock breeders are supported with training from Yaajeende.

Livestock Health Program. CBSPs, relays, and auxiliaries trained in animal husbandry provide veterinary care and track the health of animals issued from the Passing on the Gift (POG) program, having identified animal health as an area in need of significant support in their areas of intervention. Yaajeende supports these businesses with marketing in cooperation with the Government of Senegal. The program has assisted the first private veterinarian to open a practice in Kédougou and involves veterinarians in the other regions in the livestock program. CBSPs also fabricate and sell mineral licks to breeders to increase consumption of important nutrients.

Passing on the Gift, or passage du don, is a livestock program with roots in traditional West African lending practices. POG is a direct livestock subsidiary to beneficiaries. Beneficiaries receive lots of livestock, either ten fowl or three small ruminants. Each head of livestock is intended to be repaid to the community’s pool of animals for subsequent subsidy. Beneficiaries are educated on animal care and dairy practices. Beneficiaries can sell or consume the dairy products from livestock, and learn the nutritional and financial benefits of livestock. Livestock recipients are also obliged to purchase insurance and veterinary services. In POG villages, the project also encourages local markets for pasture services, meaning herders are available for hire to care for animals in the pasture on behalf of beneficiaries. Targeting of the POG program is a participatory community process. Where POG has long been active, some villages describe that the pool of beneficiaries has been completely saturated. Pillar 2: Access

Financial and Insurance Program. Yaajeende has trained CBSPs and Coach LRPs on issues related to credit, including Decentralized Finance Systems (DFS), financial education, and how to

Page 14

Kolda Baseline Study

submit credit applications. Coach LRPs help CBSPs in managing credit records. Credit has been obtained for agriculture, livestock, horticulture, CBSP activities, staple crops, and processing foods. Agricultural insurance, for livestock mortality and crops, is another component of this program.

CBSP Mechanization, Postharvest and Marketing Program. This program focuses on reinforcing CBSPs to address challenges in the agriculture program. CBSPs receive training to professionalize and reinforce the capacity of their network. This increases linkages between private sector firms and CBSPs in order to distribute more inputs. This program includes investigating postharvest options such as cold storage for seeds and postharvest equipment facilitation. Marketing of surplus agricultural production by CBSPs is also part of this program.

Nutrition-based Enterprises. This Year 4 program aims to promote the emergence of enterprises that transform and process nutritious foods that can be marketed through the CBSP networks, by supporting CNVs to begin providing services as Nutrition CBSP. Pillar 3: Utilization

Educational and Nutritional Gardening. Yaajeende supports community gardens and trains CNVs on micro-gardening itineraries and the nutritional importance of vegetables. CNVs, in turn, train MtM groups on these topics and work with MtM groups in their community gardens. MtM participants keep micro-gardens in their homes and consume the vegetables they grow within the home. MtM groups are taught to use compost in their gardening activities and are given inputs at the beginning of the program to support these activities. CNVs track the amount of produce grown, sold, and consumed from community gardens. School gardens are set up to educate students on the growth and consumption of vegetables and to improve the students’ diets through the school cafeteria. A recipe book incorporating wild and nutritious foods is currently being assembled for distribution amongst program beneficiaries.

Potable Water, Sanitation and Hygiene Program. CNVs train MtM groups on Water, Sanitation, and Hygiene (WASH) issues and about Community Led Total Sanitation (CLTS). This training aims to develop participants’ skills in areas such as latrine management, trash collection, and hand-washing to reduce diarrheal diseases, especially in children. They have taught people to create holes filled with rocks and charcoal to receive used water from latrines to prevent this water from being absorbed into the water table. CNVs also teach MtM groups to make simple handwashing stations called TippyTaps and drying racks covered with mosquito nets to protect utensils, plates, etc. from animals and insects when drying after being washed. CBSPs sell soap, bleach, and filtered water as part of this program.

Food Fortification and Transformation Program. Wild foods activities include promotion and distribution of recipes with micronutrients (iron, zinc, vitamin A, iodine). Household fortification of flour includes incorporating cowpeas, peanuts, and/or corn for later use in locally produced enriched flours that mothers are taught to incorporate into their families’ diets for improved nutrition. Participants are trained to process milk into cheese and yogurt. In cooperation with the NGO ACCRA, Yaajeende participants have been trained to use a solar dryer to dry grains, okra, and beans in the Matam region.

Page 15

Kolda Baseline Study

Behavior Change Communication (BCC) Program. BCC activities include community meals, MtM meetings, WASH activities, and awareness caravans. This program includes implementing activities around the Essential Nutrition Actions (ENA or AEN in French) and teaching members of the MtM groups the principles of the ENA. CNVs also teach MtMs the importance of consuming iodized salt and proper storage techniques so the salt retains its nutrients. This also includes behavior change activities targeting grandmothers and men.

Social Marketing Program. Vitamin A is a major concern in all Yaajeende intervention areas. To build demand to support commercial production of Vitamin A-rich produce, facilitate understanding around the contribution of Vitamin A to good health, and encourage orange foods consumption, the project developed a major social marketing campaign called “Eat Orange.” This campaign focuses on getting people to consume orange flesh sweet potato, mangoes, carrots, papaya, and squash. Campaigns have also been run on conservation agriculture, biofortified crops, seed breeding, and livestock vaccination. Pillar 4: Sustainable Governance

Local Governance and Civil Society Organization (CSO) Capacity Building Program. CWGs for Food Security engage in the leadership of food security issues within localities in collaboration with LRPs, which include CBSPs, CNVs, and Producer Organization Agents (POAs). CWGs apply for land grants for women to help them gain formal access to bio-degraded lands. Yaajeende develops the capacity of CWGs by having Governance Coaches teach them elements necessary to run an organization.

Local Partner Capacity Building Program. Yaajeende signs contracts with federations and other partners on targeted techniques for the implementation and follow-up of food security activities. This program strengthens local partner producer organizations on identified weaknesses according to capacity building plans. Cross-cutting Activities

In addition to activities falling under the four FTF Pillars, Yaajeende implements activities in a number of cross-cutting areas. These include:

Gender. The majority of participants in the counter-season commercial horticulture program are women. The gender dimension is widely present in project interventions designed to improve maternal, infant and child health; in the rehabilitation of biodegraded lands; in the promotion of hygienic cooking practices; etc. Women’s unique contribution to health and nutrition is recognized in, e.g., the putting in place of MtM networks.

Partnerships. Yaajeende has benefited from many partnerships since 2011, such as with USAID/PSSCII (Community Health Program), Child Fund’s Community Health Program, USAID/PCE (Economic Growth Project), ARD (Regional Development Agency), PRN (Nutritional Reinforcement Program), and Teranga Gold Operations. Yaajeende collaborates with Africare and World Vision and does research with University of Cheikh Anta Diop and

Page 16

Kolda Baseline Study

ICRISAT (International Crop Research Institute for the Semi-Arid Tropics). The biggest collaboration has been with the Institut du Sénégal pour la Recherche Agricole (ISRA) for the introduction and trial of improved and bio-fortified seeds, fertilizer, and orange fleshed sweet potato cuttings.

Climate Change Adaptation. The “Zero Risk” package promotes conservation agriculture which is best suited to climate change adaptation. Training

Nutrition training for CBSPs and CNVs covers the following topics: ENAs, enriched flour, transformation of fruits and vegetables, sweet potato marmalade, handwashing, purification of water, preparation of enriched flour, diet of children aged 6-24 months, importance of the three food groups, transformation of sweet potato, hibiscus syrup, transformation of onion, transformation and conservation of milk, transformation of jujube into jujube galette, WASH, training on the 1000 days from pregnancy to 24 months, fabrication of mango jam and transformation of fruits and vegetables, use and maintenance of latrines, nutrition education, importance of Vitamin A, micronutrients, and domestic water treatment. Agriculture training covers: agricultural techniques, bio-restoration of degraded lands, market gardening, rice growing, and husbandry. Training for school children covers WASH and nutrition education.

1.3 Yaajeende Activities in Kolda

The implementation of Yaajeende started in 2011 in the Matam, Bakel and Kédougou regions and expanded to Kolda region in April 2014. Yaajeende interventions in the Kolda region of Senegal differ from the three other regions. Because the Kolda implementation team consists primarily of former staff of Yaajeende in Kedougou, the team has had the advantage of capitalizing on lessons learned from previous implementation. As a result, the Kolda Regional Office has omitted a number of activities implemented in the other regions, and, in turn, has developed new activities tailored for Kolda.

Table 1.1 below compares the activities of Yaajeende in Kolda to the interventions in the Matam, Bakel and Kedougou regions by beneficiary population, and Table 1.2 compares the activities by stakeholder type. Several new initiatives have been implemented in Kolda, such as “Child Granaries (Le Grenier des Enfants in French)”. Farmers are asked to donate part of their harvest of cereals for the children of the village. The donations are stored and managed by the CNVs who have been provided with a recipe to make enriched flour. In turn, the CNVs teach women how to make the flour and distribute the donated cereals to the households with children during the time of food scarcity. This recipe of enriched flour is nutritious and pregnant women and children are encouraged to consume it as well as the entire family whenever possible.

Page 17

Kolda Baseline Study

Table 1.1 Activities and Interventions of Yaajeende by Beneficiary Population5

INTERVENTIONS IN MATAM, BENEFICIARIES INTERVENTIONS IN KOLDA BAKEL AND KÉDOUGOU Nutrition  Eat Orange  Enriched flour  Enriched flour  Non-timber food  Non-timber food  Child Granaries (New for  Bio-fortified foods (mill, yellow Kolda) sweet potato)  Diversified diet  Diversified diet Gardening  Commercial and nutritional  Micro nutritional gardening in market gardening the households Access to Land MOTHER TO  Restoration of degraded land  Restoration of degraded land MOTHER  Access to land  Access to land 6 (MTM) Animal Production  Passing on the Gift (Passage du  Breeding of quails Don) (New for Kolda)  Vaccination  Direct subsidies Water and Sanitation Awareness and Communication Awareness and Communication Campaign for Behaviour Change Campaign for Behaviour Change for: for:  Sanitation  Sanitation  Hand washing  Hand washing  Involvement of men in activities  Involvement of men in activities promoting nutrition and hygiene promoting nutrition and hygiene Agriculture  Conservation farming  Conservation farming HEAD OF (motorised ripping, offsetting, (motorised ripping, offsetting, HOUSEHOLDS access to credit, utilization of access to credit, utilization of AND FARMERS compost, assurance, etc.) compost, assurance, etc.)  Seed production  Access to quality farming input

5 The table lists Yaajeende interventions and activities implemented as of December 2015, during the time of the data collection. This may not reflect Yaajeende’s activities for FY16 of FY17. 6 The Passing on the Gift (POG or Passage du Don in French) started in FY16 for Kolda.

Page 18

Kolda Baseline Study

INTERVENTIONS IN MATAM, BENEFICIARIES INTERVENTIONS IN KOLDA BAKEL AND KÉDOUGOU  Irrigation, flood recession  Involvement of men in activities agriculture promoting nutrition and “Child  Involvement of men in activities Granaries” promoting nutrition  Hygiene in the households and  Hygiene in the households villages

Table 1.31.2 Activities and Interventions of Yaajeende by Stakeholder Type7

STAKEHOLD INTERVENTIONS IN MATAM, INTERVENTIONS IN KOLDA ERS BAKEL AND KÉDOUGOU Service Delivery  Agriculture: plowing, motorized  Agriculture: plowing, motorized ripping, offsetting, sale of ripping, offsetting, sale of farming farming input and pesticides input and pesticides CBSP  Insurance brokerage et farm  Insurance brokerage et farm credit credit  Gardening and arboriculture  Gardening and arboriculture sale sale of farm input, nursery and of farm input, nursery and plants plants  Marketing of nutritional  Marketing of nutritional products products  Food processing of cereals, fruits  Food processing of cereals, and vegetables NUTRITION fruits and vegetables CBSP  Marketing of hygiene products  Marketing of hygiene products  Sensitization and messaging for  Sensitization and messaging for behavior change behavior change Sensitization and Messaging for Behavior Change  Nutrition (enriched flour,  Nutrition (enriched flour, diversified diet, iodized salt diversified diet, iodized salt) CNV etc.)  Hand washing with Tippy Tap  Hand washing with Tippy Tap  Set-up and management of community garden VETERINARY  Livestock vaccination Not implemented in Kolda

7 The table lists Yaajeende interventions and activities implemented as of December 2015. This may not reflect Yaajeende’s activities for FY16 or FY17.

Page 19

Kolda Baseline Study

STAKEHOLD INTERVENTIONS IN MATAM, INTERVENTIONS IN KOLDA ERS BAKEL AND KÉDOUGOU  Animal health (medical supplies)  Field management of Yaajeende  Field management of Yaajeende activities activities  Engagement in the design of  Engagement in the design of food food security and nutrition security and nutrition planning planning  Engagement of local elected  Engagement of local elected representatives in the activities CWG AND representatives in the activities  Advocacy for woman access to LSC  Advocacy for woman access to land land  Promotion of access to high  Promotion of access to high quality farm input for producers quality farm input for  Advocacy for water and producers sanitation; drinking water  Advocacy for water and  Breeding of quails managed by sanitation; drinking water LSC EMERGING  Livestock companies (poultry Not implemented in Kolda BREEDERS rearing, animal husbandry)

Yaajeende is encouraging men to play a greater role in nutrition and WASH in their communities. As food producers, they are encouraged to donate part of their cereal harvest to the “Child Granaries”. Yaajeende has also promoted the involvement of men in its hygiene and sanitation activities in Kolda, including a campaign and community clean-up of public areas in the village.

Whereas animal farming was encouraged in the three other regions, it is not currently implemented in Kolda. The program has instead focused on the rearing of quails. Quail eggs have been introduced to households as a very nutritious addition to their diet. The LSC manage quail rearing and distribute the eggs to the households. Yaajeende plans to introduce quail rearing and Quail Passing of Gift in the households. The approach by Yaajeende in Kolda has been to first introduce and test a new activity in the community, then establish it at the household level, and finally to scale up the activity in other targeted regions.

Gardening at the household level and among women is encouraged in Kolda, while commercial and nutritional market gardening is promoted in the three other regions.

1.4 Population of Kolda

Senegal is divided in 14 regions, which are further sub-divided into departments and communes. The region of Kolda is made up of three departments:  Kolda,

Page 20

Kolda Baseline Study

 Medina Yoro Foulah, and  Velingara.

In total, there are 40 rural communes in Kolda distributed among the three departments as shown in Table 1.3 (the distinction between intervention and control villages will be elaborated in the Sampling section of this report). According to the 2013 census data published by the National Agency of Statistics and Demography (ANSD), Kolda has a population of over 662,000. At the time of this study, there were 13 communes in Kolda that had received interventions from the Yaajeende program8.

The Zone of Influence (ZOI) of the Yaajeende program has been defined as the communes where the interventions have been implemented. The non-intervention or control areas for this study are the communes where there are no interventions as of September 2015.

Table 1.3 Population of Kolda by Intervention and Control Groups

Total Intervention Control Department Commune Persons Commune Persons Commune Persons Kolda 15 245,990 6 83,501 9 162,489 Medina Yoro Foulah 11 138,084 3 61,163 8 76,921 Velingara 14 278,382 4 68,981 10 209,401 Total 40 662,456 13 213,645 27 448,811

8 Yaajeende is implementing its program on a rolling basis. The list of villages used for this study was established in September 2015.

Page 21

Kolda Baseline Study

2. PURPOSE OF THE KOLDA BASELINE STUDY

USAID is committed to measuring and documenting the progress of its projects to gain an understanding of return on investment and to maximize program impact. It recognizes the importance of utilizing rigorous evaluations to obtain systematic and meaningful feedback on its development initiatives. Evaluations, contextualized to beneficiary countries, permit evidence- based decision-making and are fundamental to the Agency's success9.

The purpose of the Kolda Baseline Study, therefore, is to establish baseline measures in preparation for a final impact evaluation of Yaajeende activities in the Kolda region of Senegal. The specific objectives of the impact evaluation are to:

1. Establish baseline values of 16 key target indicators defined in the Yaajeende Performance Monitoring Plan (see indicators below), and 2. Provide supporting information on dynamics around household revenues, income, and adoption of key behaviors thought to impact nutritional status.

Although villages in Kolda were surveyed in a baseline assessment that took place in 2011, the data are over three years old and may not reflect the current status of indicators in the region. Therefore, this study is intended to produce up-to-date indicator values for Kolda. It is important to note that because the Baseline Study is being conducted fifteen months after the program activities launched in Kolda, the final indicator values may deviate slightly from indicator measures prior to the arrival of Yaajeende. Because the Baseline Study is being conducted after the start of program activities, it has the added an objective of:

3. Providing a description of what is happening in the field among the intervention villages where Yaajeende has started its activities.

It is expected that the Kolda sample will eventually be included and analyzed with the overall final impact evaluation of the Yaajeende program. For this reason, this Baseline Study follows the same methodology as the 2011 Baseline and the 2015 Mid-term Impact Evaluation (MIE) of Yaajeende in the Matam, Bakel, and Kedougou regions of Senegal.

The final impact evaluation for the four regions of Senegal will attempt to answer the following questions when Yaajeende finalizes its activities in these areas:

1. Nutrition: Did households and individuals living in villages located in project treatment intervention areas see greater improvement in nutritional status indicators than those residing in non-project areas? 2. Healthy household practices: Did households living in villages located in project treatment areas see greater adoption of healthy nutritional and WASH practices than those residing in non-project areas?

9 USAID Evaluation Policy January 2011

Page 22

Kolda Baseline Study

3. Agricultural practices and production: Did households living in villages located in project intervention areas see greater use of improved agriculture and livestock practices and technologies than households living in non-project areas? Did those practices and technologies lead to greater agriculture production and greater productivity? 4. Nutrition-led agriculture: Did individuals and households who benefitted from both nutrition and agricultural project components experience greater improvement than those who benefitted from neither or from only one? The Yaajeende theory of change holds that nutrition-led agriculture will be more effective in improving nutritional status than the sum of the individual effects of nutrition and agriculture interventions alone.

The results of the household survey and qualitative research conducted to establish a baseline for these study questions are presented in this report, along with recommendations for Yaajeende based on the results.

2.1 Indicators

Each of the study questions above is informed by a series of specific, measurable, and concrete key indicators. The Baseline key indicators correspond closely with the Performance Monitoring Plan (PMP) key indicators and in many cases are taken directly from the PMP definitions. Where indicators differ from PMP definitions, they have been developed in dialogue with project and USAID personnel. Annex II presents the correspondence of indicators with the PMP indicators.

Most of the key indicators are binary variables that take the values zero or one – e.g., a child either meets the criteria for wasting or he does not; a household either consumed fewer than two meals yesterday, or it did not. However, for convenience and clarity, indicators are generally described in terms of prevalence among all the individuals or all the households in the survey (i.e., proportion of individuals or proportion of households, a number between zero and one). The key indicators associated with the Study Questions above are as follows:

Study Question 1 – Nutrition 1.1 Wasting among children aged 6-59 months.10 Defined according to the child’s z- score on a weight-for-length curve using World Health Organization (WHO) reference data. 1.2 Stunting among children aged 6-59 months. Defined according to the child’s z-score on a length-for-age curve using WHO reference data. 1.3 Underweight among children aged 6-59 months. Defined according to the child’s z- score on a weight-for-age curve using WHO reference data. 1.4 Underweight among women aged 15-49 years. Defined as a body mass index (BMI) below 18.5. 1.5 Minimum acceptable diet (MAD) among children aged 6-23 months.

10 Indicators 1.1, 1.2, 1.3, 1.4, and 1.5 are binary variables observed at the individual level. Trends, treatment effects, and related PMP targets are estimated as a change in prevalence of the key indicator among beneficiary populations.

Page 23

Kolda Baseline Study

1.6 Average duration of reduced food intake in the household (months). 1.7 Fewer than two meals in the previous 24 hours prepared in the household.11

Study Question 2 – Healthy household practices 2.1 Household practices at least one hygienic kitchen behavior, including handwashing and hair covering.12 2.2 Households practices improved food storage practices, including cold storage and covered storage. 2.3 Household treats drinking water using at least one of the following: bleach, filters, and silver filters (binary). 2.4 Household practices at least one food conservation technique, including fermentation, germination, torrefaction, drying, or fortification (mélange). 2.5 Household uses and properly stores iodized salt. 2.6 Exclusive maternal breastfeeding of infants under 6 months of age. 2.7 Household food diversity score (1.12). 2.8 Household has a handwashing station in common use. 2.9 Household drinks water from an improved source, meaning from a covered well, faucet, or deep well. 2.10 Household cooks with water from an improved source, meaning from a covered well, faucet, or deep well.

Study Question 3 – Agricultural practices and production 3.1 Poverty, estimated as a propensity to fall below the World Bank’s USD $1.25 Purchasing Power Parity (PPP) daily income line.13 3.2 Surface area devoted to agriculture (ha). 3.3 Surface area devoted to horticulture (ha). 3.4 Surface area devoted to irrigated agriculture (ha). 3.5 Surface area devoted to decrue, or flood-plain agriculture (ha). 3.6 Total agricultural production (kg). 3.7 Total revenue from agriculture (FCFA). 3.8 Household purchases seed.14

11 Indicator 1.7 is a binary indicator observed at the household level. Trends, treatment effects, and related PMP targets are estimated as changes in prevalence among households. 12 Indicators 2.1, 2.2, 2.3, 2.4, 2.5, 2.8, 2.9, and 2.10 are binary variables observed at the household level. Trends, treatment effects, and PMP targets are estimated as changes in prevalence among households. 13 Poverty is estimated using the scorecard approach in Marc Schreiner (2009) “A simple poverty scorecard for Senegal,” available at http://www.microfinance.com/#Senegal. The household’s likelihood of poverty is estimated as a two-digit percentage, based on responses to ten simple, multiple-choice questions. The scorecard can be calibrated to any of a menu of poverty lines, including USAID extreme poverty, the national poverty lines, and multiples of the preceding. By multiples, we mean double or triple the income of that poverty line; for example, the scorecard can be calibrated not only to the World Bank’s $1.25 PPP daily income line, but also to $2.50 PPP and to $3.75 PPP daily income. 14 Indicators 3.8, 3.9, 3.11, 3.12, and 3.13 are binary variables observed at the household level. Trends, treatment effects, and PMP targets are estimated as a change in prevalence among households.

Page 24

Kolda Baseline Study

3.9 Household purchases fertilizer. 3.10 Index of agriculture technology adoption.15 3.11 Household uses an improved seed source: government technical service, specialized vendor, non-governmental organization (NGO) or CBSP. 3.12 Household purchases goods or services from a Yaajeende CBSP. 3.13 Household uses an improved fertilizer source: government technical service, specialized vendor, NGO or CBSP. 3.14 Head count of individuals in household that have attended agricultural training in last 12 months.

The indicators related to Study Question 3 are designed to highlight changes to the practice of agriculture and livestock rather than the value of direct subsidies received. Study Question 3 implicitly also asks whether project participation affects overall poverty rates, so we include a poverty assessment scorecard based on simple observable questions such as house construction materials, educational attainment, and ownership of consumer durables.

Study Question 4 asks whether nutrition-led agriculture is more effective than nutrition and agriculture programs independently for each of the indicators under Study Question 1, 2, and 3. Therefore, no additional indicators are listed under Study Question 4.

Table 2.1 below lists the PMP indicators that are also studied in the Baseline Study. Targets for change at the endline are as listed in the PMP as of December 2013. “Track only” in the table refers to case where no quantitative target was set.

15 Indicator 3.10 is a count of specific Yaajeende agriculture techniques adopted by the household. See Annex II for a complete list of the techniques scored in the index. It takes natural number values of 0 or greater, and the maximum value in the sample is 17.

Page 25

Kolda Baseline Study

Table 2.1 PMP Targets Related to Future Impact Evaluation16

Cumulative Ind. Target Type No. Project Performance Indicator Change % of Households that have increased dietary diversity score Outcome 1 80% by at least 8%. Number of HHs adopting improved practices or behavior Outcome 6 Track only after training by USAID/Yaajeende (new) Outcome 8 Number of Households with improved livestock production Track only Number of Households with Increased livestock related Outcome 9 Track only income Total number of months of the previous 12 months a Outcome 27 household was unable to meet its food needs (annual -30% reduction compared to the baseline) Prevalence of stunted children under five years of age Impact 28 -20% (Reduction) Prevalence of underweight children under five years of age Impact 29 -25% (Reduction) Impact 30 Prevalence of wasted children under five years of age (new) Track only Impact 31 Prevalence of underweight women (new) Track only Reduction in % of households that consume fewer than 2 Outcome 32 -50% meals per day Prevalence of children 6-23 months receiving a Minimum Outcome 33 Track only Acceptable Diet MAD) Percentage increase over baseline of households using Outcome 35 30% iodized salt and storing it properly Number of HH adopting food processing, food safety or Outcome 36 25000 nutrition practices due to USAID/Yaajeende (new) Number of HH adopting improved water, sanitation and Outcome 40 9,500 hygiene practices due to USAID/Yaajeende Percent of households with soap and water at a Outcome 41 30% handwashing station commonly used by family members Outcome 42 Percent of households using a drinking water source 50%

16 Table 4 is as listed in the Performance Monitoring Plan (PMP) as of December 2013. Since then a revised PMP has been released for FY16 and FY17.

Page 26

Kolda Baseline Study

3. METHODOLOGY

The Kolda Baseline Study used a mixed-method approach involving a non-experimental quantitative strategy and qualitative techniques. To collect quantitative data, the Kolda Baseline Study utilizes a household survey to collect information from a randomly selected sample of households in comparison and intervention areas as defined by the Yaajeende program. The survey is specifically designed to establish the values of the 16 basic indicators listed in the Scope to Work for the assignment (Annex III).

The initial values of the basic indicators are intended to provide a benchmark for measuring changes that can be reasonably attributed to the Yaajeende intervention using a difference-in- difference (DD) model. This model assumes that changes within a control group over time that has not received assistance from the program represents what would have happened without the intervention and provides a comparative value with which to assess the actual impact of the program. While Yaajeende does not expect to observe tangible changes in the short-term among slow-moving indicators, there are changes in practices and behaviors that can be measured soon after interventions have been implemented (e.g. the practice of washing hands or drinking treated water, which can result in a reduction in illness and, in turn, improve health).

To collect qualitative data, the Kolda Baseline Study utilizes key informant interviews (KIIs) and focus group discussions (FGDs) in intervention areas only. These methods are intended to investigate how Yaajeende activities are being implemented in Kolda and how they are being received by beneficiaries and collaborators. The qualitative component of the study has the added benefit of providing preliminary information to stakeholders that can be used to modify programming to overcome any unexpected outcomes, as needed.

The results of the qualitative research are triangulated with the results of the quantitative survey, and the outcomes of this analysis are presented in the Findings section of this report.

3.1 Household Survey

An electronic household survey was conducted on handheld tablets in all communes of Kolda by a local survey firm, selected through a competitive procurement process. The data collection period ran for approximately six weeks from 8 November to 13 December 2015. In total, 971 households were visited in 75 selected villages and 894 were found eligible for the survey and interviewed. Data were collected for 12,645 persons, of whom 2,784 were women aged 15 to 49 with children less than five years old and a total of 2,360 children. The target sample size of 900 households was not reached as one of the sampled villages had fewer than 12 households (see Sample Design/Size/Allocation below for more information).

The baseline survey questionnaire contained two components, each targeted to a different respondent:

1. Household, Revenue, and Agriculture Questionnaire: the respondent was the Head of Household or a person assigned by the Head of Household; and

Page 27

Kolda Baseline Study

2. Nutrition and Child Health Questionnaire: the respondent was a woman age 15 to 49 with children under the age of five in charge of the household.

The survey consisted of nine modules: 1) list of persons; 2) household goods and furnishings; 3) revenue sources; 4) surface area cultivated; 5) agriculture and livestock; 6) debts and financial services; 7) food consumption; 8) nutrition and health; and 9) anthropometry of women and children. Administering the survey to a household took, on average, 3-4 hours. At every point in the survey, from enumerator training to data cleaning, a comprehensive data quality assurance (DQA) program was implemented, described below (see Data Quality Assurance). Anthropometric measurements of women and children between the ages of 6 months and 5 years were collected by anthropometry experts with the assistance of team supervisors. The survey questionnaire is in Annex IV. Sample Design

The Kolda Baseline household survey followed the sample design of the Yaajeende Mid-term Impact Evaluation, a two-stage stratified sample design. The target population was all households with children under 5 years of age in the Kolda region. The population was stratified by department, the ZOI and non-intervention areas. The ZOI includes the communes where the Yaajeende program has been implemented. Non-intervention areas are the communes where there are currently no interventions. For this survey, villages were the primary sample units (PSUs) and were selected from the communes. In total, 75 villages were randomly selected from intervention and control communes. Households were the secondary sampling units (SSUs). Twelve households were randomly selected from each of the 75 selected villages. The villages were selected in the following manner:

1. Intervention villages. The Yaajeende program has been implemented at varying levels of intensity (high, medium, or low)17 in each intervention village. The list of intervention villages as of September 2015 was provided by Yaajeende and contained a total of 142 villages. This list included the number of persons living in the village as per the Programme National de Développement local (PNDL)18 repository as well as the program intensity level. Using the Probability Proportional to Size (PPS) method, 45 intervention villages were randomly selected from among all program intensity stratum. 2. Control villages: These are villages in the communes where no intervention is taking place and which are geographically distant from the villages in the ZOI. The latter specification was

17 Based on the interventions that the project provided to each village, the village also received an intensity score. The intensity score could be low, medium or high, based on how many of the packages the village received. Details of the project intensity can be found in Table 3.4 Sample Allocation. 18 Yaajeende uses this repository when selecting villages to implement interventions. This repository is used to design and select the sample of villages for the Kolda Baseline Survey. The aim of the PNDL is to contribute to poverty reduction through the combined action of government departments, local authorities, and the private sector. The PNDL keeps an up-to-date repository of the villages in each department in Senegal. PNDL is an element of the Government of Senegal’s efforts to achieve its Millennium Development Goals (MDGs).

Page 28

Kolda Baseline Study

used to account for the fact that Yaajeende activities in Kolda include mobilization events to sensitize the population on many issues that reach populations beyond the direct intervention villages. Hence, there are expected spillover effects in neighboring villages and bordering communities. The 30 control villages were randomly selected using the PNDL repository and were cross-checked with 2013 Census Data and maps for quality assurance. Sample Size

The sample size for the Baseline Study was calculated to provide precise point-estimate of its key indicators. Following the FTF Guidance, the sample size was calculated to detect precise point- estimates of the key indicators of the Baseline Study.19 As stunting and wasting indicators tend to require the largest sample sizes, the sample size needs to ensure detecting precise estimates for these two key indicators. The sample size was also adjusted to account for the probability of encountering a household with at least one child under five, given the number of children per household. The following formula was used to determine the sample size:

⁄ 1

Where:

N = sample size Deff = design effect (2 following FTF Guidance) ⁄ = Z value (1.96 for 95% confidence level) p = proportion of the indicator M = proportion margin of error (10% following FTF Guidance)

Between the two key indicators, stunting required a larger sample size to measure the indicator estimate. As shown in Table 3.1 below, an effective sample size of 969 households (HH) was proposed.20 However, due to budgetary constraints, a slightly smaller sample size of 900 households was chosen as the final sample size was set to 900 households for the Baseline Study.

Table 3.1 Sample Size Calculations for Point-Estimates

Sample Size Target % 2015 Effective 2011 Needed for Indicator Change Target Sample Estimate Point- from 2011 Value Size Estimate Prevalence of stunted children under five years of 0.3610 -12% 0.3177 666 969 age

19 Volume 11 Guidance on Feed the Future Population Level Indicators. 20 The effective sample size of 969 shown in 3.1 is for estimates at the regional level. A larger sample would be needed for estimates at the same level of confidence for the ZOI and the non-intervention areas.

Page 29

Kolda Baseline Study

Sample Size Target % 2015 Effective 2011 Needed for Indicator Change Target Sample Estimate Point- from 2011 Value Size Estimate Prevalence of underweight children under five years of 0.2464 -12% 0.2168 522 574 age

The sample size for Kolda, when merged with the MIE sample from Matam, Bakel, and Kedougou, increases the likelihood of detecting impact (power) for the overall Yaajeende program at the end of the project. Thus, power calculations were performed to examine the extent to which adding Kolda’s sample to the MIE sample will improve the Yaajeende Final Impact Evaluation’s ability to measure changes. The parameters used include an alpha of 0.05 (95% probability that an observed change would not have occurred by chance), statistical power of 0.80 (80% change of detecting a change when there is one), and intra-cluster correlation of 0.03 (variability in the responses of individual from the same cluster for the outcome, based on Yaajeende 2011 baseline data).

It is important to note that the improvement in power that results from adding the Kolda sample to the mid-term sample is contingent on the program being implemented in as many villages in the ZOI as possible and reaching a large proportion of HHs within those villages (coverage rate), while ensuring that comparison villages remain unexposed to the program. Due to the cluster design, i.e. interventions are delivered at the village-level but outcomes are measured at the household-level, the level of participation of HHs within the treatment villages also affects the minimum detectable effect size (MDES). Given the uncertainty in the coverage rate of Yaajeende across and within treatment villages, power calculations were conducted for varying levels of coverage.

The power calculations show that adding 900 Kolda HHs improves the MDES from 0.14 to 0.12 assuming 100% coverage of program activities in the ZOI, i.e. all villages in the ZOI have received treatment by the end of the project. Table 3.2 below shows the MDES for the Yaajeende Mid- term sample and Table 3.3 shows the MDES for the Yaajeende sample augmented with Kolda.

Table 3.2 Minimum Detectable Effect Sizes – Mid-term Sample for Matam, Bakel and Kedougou

Percent Change from Mid-term Length of Consume less Coverage Standard Dietary hunger than 2 Exclusive Rate MDES Stunting Underweight Diversity season meals/day Breastfeeding 100% 0.14 -26%. -24% 5% -10% -52% 14% 80% 0.17 -33% -30% 6% -12% -65% 18% 60% 0.23 -44% -40% 8% -16% -86% 23%

If the program is scaled up to the entire ZOI (coverage rate of 100 percent) from now to the end of the Yaajeende project, then the final impact evaluation would be able to detect a 0.14

Page 30

Kolda Baseline Study

standardized effect size using the Matam, Bakel and Kedougou Mid-term sample. The practical significance of this effect size depends on the Mid-term level and standard deviation of any given indicator. For example, for the prevalence of stunting, a MDES of value 0.14 (see Table 3.2) reflects a reduction of 26 percent in stunting (i.e., from the Mid-term stunting prevalence of 21.0 percent to 15.5 percent).

Table 3.3 Minimum Detectable Effect Sizes – Augmented Sample from Kolda

Percent Change from Mid-term Length of Consume less Coverage Standard Dietary hunger than 2 Exclusive Rate MDES Stunting Underweight Diversity season meals/day Breastfeeding 100% 0.12 -22% -21% 4% -8% -44% 12% 80% 0.14 -28% -26% 5% -10% -55% 15% 60% 0.19 -37% -34% 7% -14% -73% 20% Yaajeende Targets -20% -25% 8% -30% -50% NA

As Table 3.2 shows, adding the 900 Kolda HHs increases the likelihood of detecting impact by reducing the MDES to 0.12, which translates to a reduction of 22 percent in stunting (i.e., from the midline stunting prevalence of 21.0 percent to 16.3 percent). This is close, but is still not sufficient, to detect the Yaajeende target of 20 percent change.

Adding Kolda to the sample size improves the power for the overall Yaajeende impact evaluation. However, the time period of intervention in Kolda may not be long enough for detectable changes to take place. It is estimated that detecting changes in stunting requires a time period of at least a year before measurements are collected. Hence, even if the sample size is increased for the impact evaluation, it might be too soon to detect changes as small as 0.12 in two years when the Yaajeende program is expected to terminate. Sample Allocation

For practical reasons including cost and time frame, it was decided that 12 households would be randomly selected from each of the 75 sample villages. In order to complete 12 HH surveys in each village, 18 households were randomly selected from each village’s list of households maintained by the Village Chief. This higher number of 18 was necessary to compensate for households that could not be interviewed due to reasons such as vacancy or unavailability of the Head of Household (HoH) during interviewing. This approach was adopted so that the interviewer did not have to consult the Village Chief multiple times for further selection of HHs to be able to obtain the required effective sample size of 12 households per village. Table 3.4 below shows the details of the sample allocation, stratified by level program intensity. The final sample for the survey was 894 households.

The list maintained by the Village Chief was chosen as the sampling frame for the households, as opposed to using the Enumeration Areas of the Census, in order to maintain the same sampling methodology used in the baseline and mid-term impact evaluation of the Matam, Bakel, and

Page 31

Kolda Baseline Study

Kedougou sample. These lists are expected to be fairly accurate and up-to-date since these lists provide information to the official birth and death registry of the country.

Table 3.4 Sample of Intervention Villages by Program Intensity

Baseline Study Sample Program Total Intervention Department Name Number of Number of Households Intensity Villages in Kolda Villages in the Sample Kolda High 16 3 48 Medium 37 18 191 Low 26 3 43 Total 79 24 282 Medina Yoro High 13 3 36 Foulah Medium 11 4 48 Low 7 3 36 Total 31 10 120 Velingara High 4 4 24 Medium 11 4 36 Low 16 3 72 Total 31 11 132 Total 141 45 534

Yaajeende selects villages for intervention based on poverty of access criteria, the size of the village, and set benchmarks. Interventions are then implemented according to pre-defined activity packages:

 Package A: Core Nutrition Package This package is essential for any change in nutrition and any impact in malnutrition rates. Therefore, these activities are fundamental and essential to the program.  Package B: Agriculture Production Package This package is essential for medium term and sustained impact on malnutrition as it impacts the structure and quality of food production systems within the communities that in turn impact health. The outputs from these activities feed into the direct interventions in the core nutrition package such as inputs for locally created enriched flours.  Package C: Resilience Package This package ensures increased market access to commercial products and services that improve the overall food and water supply. It builds the enabling environment, maximizing the use of food and water while increasing access to resources and assets.

Based on the packages received, the village also receives an intensity score. All households within a village receive the same intensity score. There are three intensity levels – low, medium, and high – and the intensity levels depend on the number of packages received. Table 3.5 presents the link between the project package received and the intensity category.

Page 32

Kolda Baseline Study

Table 3.5 Link between Project Package and Village Intensity

Project Package Received Intensity ABC High AB or AC Medium A only Low B or C Low

The list of the 75 villages selected for the Baseline Survey was provided by USAID and can be found in Annex V. Table 3.6 shows the allocation of the sample of HHs interviewed in each department by commune and village.

Table 3.6 Sample Allocation by Communes and Villages

Total Intervention Control HHs HHs HHs Department interview interview interview Name Commune Village ed Commune Village ed Commune Village ed Kolda 11 35 414 6 24 282 5 11 132 Medina 9 19 228 3 10 120 6 9 108 Yoro Foulah Velingara 9 21 252 3 11 132 6 10 120 Total 29 75 894 12 45 534 17 30 360

Data Collection

Data collection was conducted by four teams, each consisting of four enumerators, one anthropometric measurer, and one supervisor. Each enumerator completed an average of two surveys per day, each one lasting 3-4 hours. The teams were trained for two weeks in Dakar prior to the start of data collection. This was done in-classroom and also included a one-day pilot test of the electronic survey. The anthropometric measurers and the supervisors received additional training in taking these measurements. This training was performed by an international expert in anthropometry. The same local survey firm that performed the data collection for the Mid-term Evaluation of Yaajeende in Matam, Bakel, and Kedougou was selected to implement the Baseline Study. As a result, the team was able to capitalize on lessons learned during the Mid- term Evaluation.

The quantitative data was collected using tablets programmed with SurveyBe Designer software. During training, the survey teams received extensive instruction on the use of tablets (see Data Quality Assurance Section below). Teams were accompanied into the field by Computer Assisted Personal Interview experts (CAPIs). CAPIs provided technical support to survey teams, assisted in the testing of the SurveyBe Implementer application, and facilitated training sessions in electronic surveying and data transfer prior to departure. The CAPIs previously worked on the Mid-term Evaluation, and therefore had previous knowledge of the survey software, evaluation framework, and fieldwork processes.

Page 33

Kolda Baseline Study

Data Quality Assurance (DQA)

All phases of data collection were subjected to quality control procedures. Survey procedures were observed and critiqued during training and in the field. Survey data were copied and transferred to a secure server prior to analysis. All raw field data files are encrypted in every location where they are stored. Furthermore, all tablets and cloud drives used to store files were rigorously inventoried and de-duplicated, and a final archive of unique interview files was created and stored. No interview files were lost during the survey.

The DQA plan was successful in its goals: to prevent data loss, to ensure the integrity of field research data, to ensure households and villages were accurately identified, to safeguard the privacy of respondents and the confidentiality of their data, to prevent the loss of interview data through partial and/or duplicate interview files, and to ensure the accuracy of transcripts and translation documents.

The following section details data quality measures taken during each stage of surveying:

Enumerator training. Enumerators received training in Dakar prior to data collection. They learned the survey procedure and survey manual in the classroom. Both paper and electronic questionnaires were provided to them for training purposes. Enumerators received training in anthropometric measures of height and weight for adults, children, toddlers, and infants. The training included one day to pilot the survey under field conditions in a village outside of Dakar. Enumerators took a competitive exam at the conclusion of training. The top 85 percent of trainees were selected for field research, and the rest were retained as alternates.

Field supervision. Field staff worked in teams of seven, with a driver, a supervisor, an anthropometry expert, and four enumerators. Two project coordinators from the local survey firm remained in the field throughout data collection, as did the CAPI Specialists. Each survey team remained in the same department at all times in order to facilitate field work monitoring. The Team Leader and Senior Statistician conducted field visits to spot check data collection. Daily reports were sent electronically from the field by CAPIs responding to the concerns of data collectors. Pressing issues were addressed by team members in the Dakar office. At the end of each day, supervisors reviewed enumerators’ files and any associated validation reports and uploaded data to a cloud-based server when an Internet connection was available. When Internet was unavailable, CAPIs took the tablets from supervisors and drove to the nearest available Internet connection to upload data on a regular basis.

Anthropometry. Each team’s anthropometry expert was the sole individual assigned to take anthropometric measurements, with support from supervisors as needed. Each enumerator was the sole individual to enter data for an interview. During the anthropometry section, the anthropometry expert would take two readings of each measurement from the respective apparatus and pronounce final heights and weights to be recorded on the tablets. Thus, each interview in its entirety was recorded by a single enumerator on a single tablet. Anthropometry experts and supervisors received a two-day training including measurement practice sessions at an orphanage in Dakar. This training was conducted by an international anthropometry expert. Note that anthropometric measurements were not taken for women who are handicap, sick, or

Page 34

Kolda Baseline Study

pregnant, or for children under six months old. Acceptable ranges for anthropometric measurements were programmed onto the tablets and when measurements outside of this range were entered, a message appeared that instructed measurers to enter a third value. CAPIs were trained to take anthropometric measurements in order to monitor this part of the data collection.

Software. The survey software, SurveyBe, validated all responses according to predefined validation conditions. Individual questions were validated for data types, such as numeric or string entries. Questions were also validated based on the range of numbers submitted. Validation conditions generated error messages when incompatible combinations of answers are entered, specifically related to age, sex, family relationships, and marital status.

SurveyBe prevents inappropriate data entry through automated questionnaire logic. Questions can be skipped or enabled based on responses to previous questions. Rosters of questions appropriate to a topic can be populated based on responses to survey questions. Automated controls prevent surveyors from incorrectly following the order of questions on the survey. The survey questionnaire did not use any randomization of question order. Furthermore, validation of survey responses occurs on every screen of every interview file captured using the survey tablets. Comments can be placed in the SurveyBe software anywhere that validation errors and warnings have been noted. Both surveyors and field supervisors independently reviewed the validation reports before survey files were transmitted to cloud backup servers.

Data pipeline. At the end of each day, field staff transferred interview files from the enumerators’ tablets to the supervisor’s tablet using Bluetooth. Bluetooth connections were preconfigured to ensure that supervisors could receive the raw JavaScript Object Notation (JSON) files without manually editing them.21 No copy and paste procedure was necessary. Interview files were automatically named such that they were unique to the enumerator and household taking the interview, minimizing the risk of overwriting or deleting interview data.

Supervisors’ tablets were also configured to automate the upload of encrypted JSON files to a cloud server whenever there was Internet connectivity. Supervisors also had 3G data connections to facilitate the upload of interview files from any location where mobile Internet service was available. This data pipeline included redundant local backups of encrypted JSONs on two tablets, with a copy of each file stored on the cloud. Additionally, the survey technical support team visited each field research team regularly to collect raw, encrypted JSON files. All JSONs received in this manner were uploaded to the cloud-based server on a daily basis, and stored separately from the copies uploaded by enumerators. As a result, the project had a third copy of each encrypted JSON file on its own hardware. Copying of files from supervisors to technical support used a Windows utility called Robocopy that copies files and leaves the originals untouched. It is virtually impossible to delete or alter the original copy of a file if the Robocopy script is correctly configured.

21 JavaScript Object Notation (JSON) is a simple data format well suited to loosely structured data.

Page 35

Kolda Baseline Study

As a result of this data pipeline, the technical support personnel inventoried and de-duplicated all copies of raw, encrypted JSON files in every location. These files were compared using industry standard software. The file with the most complete interview was taken for the accurate record of the interview in every case. Data Processing

Following data collection, the final raw were rigorously cleaned to ensure plausible and coherent answers for all components of the questionnaire, including personal identifiers, demographics, anthropometry, food and nutrition, agriculture and livestock. Data inconsistencies were minimized through the use of SurveyBe software. Real-time controls on data were programmed to prevent combinations that could not be true such as marital status and family relationships, entry of height in meters rather than centimeters, or double-entry of digits.

In cases where a response category registered under “Other” was not one of the initial options in the questionnaire but was reported frequently enough to supply a new item, these responses were recoded and given a unique code for the analysis. In addition, there were instances where the responses recorded under the “Other” category could be included under existing categories.

Missing data are a common problem in household surveys. The missing data may be the result of the absence of a particular respondent on the day of the survey; respondents’ inability or unwillingness to reply; or errors in the implementation of the survey interview. In this analysis, there was no imputation for missing data points and these were excluded from baseline indicator calculation. Individual questionnaires that had missing responses were not included in the indicator calculation but were kept in the dataset. Data Analysis

A. Sampling Weights

All data presented in this report are normalized weighted estimates. Weights were calculated for the household, adults and children.

Sample weights reflect the probability of selection into the survey sample. Since the survey selected communes without randomization, the likelihood of selection is identical for all communes in the survey. Households within a village have nearly identical probability of selection using the sample procedure, which exhaustively lists the households in the village and then selects households at random from that list. However, differences in village counts (within the commune), village sizes (number of households), and response rates led to potentially higher probability of selection for certain households, such as those from very small villages. The sample weights compensate for probability of selection in order to avoid undue influence of

Page 36

Kolda Baseline Study

households favored by the survey design.22 Adjustments for both stratification and survey weights were completed in Stata using the {survey} package.

Key indicators observed at the household level are weighted by the inverse of their probability of having been included in the sample:

N N n W W ∗A ∗ ∗ n n n

where  W denotes final household weight.  W denotes household weight.  A denotes a nonresponse adjustment.  N denotes number of villages in the municipality (commune).  n denotes number of villages sampled in the municipality (commune).  N denotes number of households in the village.  n denotes number of households sampled in the village.  n denotes number of in-scope dwellings, among sampled households in the village.  n denotes number of responding households, among in-scope dwellings in the village.

Variables observed at the adult individual level require, in addition, person weights. Final person weights adjust by the number of adults in the household:

W W ∗N where  W denotes final person weight.  W denotes final household weight.  N denotes number of persons (adults over age 18) in the household.

Finally, variables observed at the individual level among children require child weights. For example, prevalence of underweight among children aged 6-59 months requires child weights. Final child weights are not adjusted by a similar household size:

W W

where  W denotes final child weight.  W denotes final household weight

22 For example, consider what would happen in a survey of two villages if the cluster sizes were identical but one had a vastly larger population that the other. The households in the smaller village would have a higher probability of selection and thus a lower sample weight.

Page 37

Kolda Baseline Study

B. Statistical Analysis

Statistical testing that takes into consideration clustering was performed to detect differences between intervention and control group for all project indicators. Independent sample t-tests were used to determine whether there was significant difference between the two groups. Significant differences between Yaajeende and non-Yaajeende groups were indicated at p<0.01, p<0.05 and p<0.1. When interpreting the p-values it is important to consider that some of the differences seen may be attributed to respondents already being exposed to Yaajeende programing. Data collection for the baseline report was done fifteen months after Yaajeende was started in Kolda.

3.2 Qualitative Research

The purpose of qualitative research in this evaluation design is to engage experts and beneficiaries in direct discussion about the project activities. It ascertains whether participants understand core Yaajeende activities; assesses beneficiaries’ contextual knowledge about the skills, techniques, and behaviors extended; verifies the causal pathways that are implicit in the Yaajeende theory of change; and searches for alternative explanations for observed changes in behaviors, project participation, and key indicators during the period of performance.

The qualitative research was conducted in parallel to the household survey. The qualitative research included thirteen KIIs and seven FGDs. The interviews and focus groups discussion were conducted with the following respondent groups: Male Head of Households, Mother-to-Mother Groups (MtM), Large Producers, Community-Based Service Providers, Nutrition Community- Based Service Providers, Community Nutrition Volunteers, and Citizen Work Groups. The KIIs and FGDs were held in the language of each beneficiary population: French, Pulaar, and Wolof. Table 3.7 provides information on the distribution of KIIs and FGDs by stakeholder type and location. Research Design

The qualitative component of the Baseline Study was conducted by a team of five individuals. Two sociologists were hired through the local survey firm and performed the data collection under the supervision of a Senior Sociologist from the local firm. The Agriculture Expert and Methodologist led the planning and development of the data collection tools. Initial planning discussions were held with Yaajeende in Dakar to discuss the objectives of the qualitative component. The Senior Sociologist, Agriculture Expert, and Methodology previously worked on the Yaajeende Mid-term Impact Evaluation of Bakel, Matam, and Kedougou and therefore were already very familiar with Yaajeende programming.

Yaajeende in Dakar introduced the team to the staff of the Yaajeende Kolda Regional Office. Preliminary interviews with key informants of the Yaajeende Kolda Regional Office were held in Kolda by the Agriculture Expert and Sociologists. These discussions were conducted with Program Coordinators, Sector Specialists for Agriculture, Livestock, Nutrition and Water and Sanitation, as well as the head of Monitoring and Evaluation of the Regional Office, and covered the activities of their portfolio, challenges faced, and anticipated results and changes in behavior

Page 38

Kolda Baseline Study

in intervention communities. Preliminary discussions allowed researchers to better understand the Yaajeende activities being implemented in Kolda, implementation processes, and stakeholders and beneficiaries. These discussions helped to finalize the qualitative research questions and contextualize the data collection tools designed for each type of actor in the program.

Page 39

Kolda Baseline Study

Table 3.7 Distribution of FGDs and KIIs, by language and village

Type of Interview Focus Group Key Informant Interviews Stakeholder Male Mother Large Producers Community- Nutrition Citizen Community Total Head of to Based Community-Based Work Nutrition Household Mother Service Service Provider Groups Volunteers (MTM) Provider Groups

Department Village Thiara 1 French (Dialambéré) Sinthiang Pulaar 1 Thierno Pretest Saré Kémo Wolof 1 Kolda Sare Kanta Pulaar 1 (Thietty) Dianabo (Saré Pulaar French 2 Bidji) Koulandialla Pulaar 1

Mankacounda Pulaar 1

Velingara Kandian Pulaar French French 3

Némataba Pulaar 1 Doubirou Pulaar 1 Darou Salam Wolof 1 Seck

Medina Médina Passy Wolo f 1 Yoro Firdawsi Wolo f Wolo f 2 Foulah Sinthiou Pulaar 1 Koutou Pata French French 2 Total 3 4 4 4 1 2 2 20

Page 40

Kolda Baseline Study

Data Collection Guides

In total, the team developed six separate question guides, one for each respondent group. A pretest of all interview guides was conducted in the presence of the Agriculture Expert, and questionnaires were revised and finalized in collaboration with the Yaajeende Kolda Regional office. The following six detailed data collection guides are presented in Annex VI:

 FGD Question Guide for Male Head of Households  FGD Question Guide for Mother-to-Mother Groups  KII Question Guide for Large Producers  KII Question Guide for Community-Based Solution Providers  KII Question Guide for Citizen Work Groups  KII Question Guide for Community Nutrition Volunteers

The KIIs and FGDs question guides were designed to mirror the topics of the quantitative questionnaire and provide deeper insight into the knowledge of agriculture practices, nutrition, possible barriers to adoption, as well as competing explanations for assessing the current status of beneficiaries. Some of the topics covered were:

 Nutrition: o Breastfeeding practices o Complementary feeding practices in children from 5 months to 5 years o Iodized salt o Fruits and Vegetable Consumption  Gardening  Access to Land  Animal Production  Water, Sanitation and Hygiene  Agriculture: o Tillage o Fertilizer o Composting o Credit o Insurance Data Processing and Analysis

All interviews conducted by the sociologists were recorded. The sociologists reviewed the tapes and reviewed their hand-written notes each night. All notes were transcribed into French using Microsoft Word and a codebook was prepared for parsing the data using the QDA Miner software to highlight the frequencies of key words. Interviews were reviewed and analyzed by stakeholders. Summaries of the interviews were produced by the Sociologists as well as a report on the qualitative research. The Agriculture Expert and the Methodologist held debriefing discussions with the Sociologists and thoroughly reviewed these deliverables. Findings have been synthesized in this report.

Page 41

Kolda Baseline Study

Quality Assurance

A FGD was conducted as a pre-test and provided an opportunity for the sociologists to become familiar with the interview tools and the topics under investigation. For each FGD, one or two sociologists were responsible for conducting the interview with a third responsible for taking notes and intervening in the discussion to probe further on the answers provided. The Sociologists listened to the tapes together and quality checked each other’s notes to flag issues and ensure that all information was recorded accurately.

Page 42

Kolda Baseline Study

4. LIMITATIONS OF THE BASELINE STUDY

There are several limitations to the Baseline Study and with the use of the Kolda Baseline survey data at the end-line evaluation of Yaajeende program:

 Yaajeende started almost fifteen months before the Baseline survey was undertaken. Thus, the survey data do not give a true picture of the situation in Kolda prior to implementation of the Yaajeende program. Differences between intervention and control areas shown in the survey data could have already been in place prior to the start of the program, so they cannot necessarily be attributed to the program. However, in the analysis performed and reported in this report, the survey data have been triangulated with the findings of the qualitative data and vice-versa. Inferences have been made and presented in this report only if there is a correlation between these two sources.

 A non-experimental survey design does not provide unbiased effect estimates that can be necessarily attributed to Yaajeende. Initial differences between the intervention and control areas and external factors such as other NGOs implementing similar programs are confounding factors when calculating the effect estimates. Therefore, the statistical design is limited when measuring attribution of Yaajeende to any changes that occur, and must consider these potential confounding factors.

 There is a potential for intervention spill-over into the control areas over time. Yaajeende intends to scale up its activities in Kolda, which may affect the geographical areas that have been set up for this baseline study, spilling over into the selected control group villages. While control villages for this Baseline Study were selected to be geographically distant from the intervention areas to minimize this risk, future data collection for the end- line evaluation of the program in Kolda should review and assess the sample control villages for potential spill-over from the Yaajeende program.

 The Baseline Study used data from the FTF PBS for two indicators on nutritional status of children. The indicators for Prevalence of Children 6-23 Months receiving a Minimum Acceptable Diet (MAD) and Exclusive Breastfeeding were instead calculated using the Kolda data from the FTF Interim Assessment population-based survey, which was conducted around the same time as this Kolda Baseline Study.

 A couple of indicators reported in the Baseline Study might be difficult to track during the Final Evaluation. During the two-year extension phase from 2016 to 2017, a number of indicators have been changed. Therefore, some of the baseline indicators might be harder to track in the Final Evaluation.

 Control areas were not included in the qualitative component. The Kolda Baseline Study used a mixed-method approach. Qualitative data was collected to triangulate with the quantitative data, and to provide context to the evaluation. Unlike quantitative sampling methodology, subject selection procedures for qualitative data is drive by the most useful and interesting data related to the purpose of the study. With time and budget constraints, the evaluation team determined that qualitative data would be most useful and interesting when

Page 43

Kolda Baseline Study

collected in the intervention villages to observe Yaajeende's activities in Kolda rather than control groups. As a result, information on the control areas are limited to the information obtained by the quantitative survey.

 The sample size for the Kolda survey may not be sufficient to provide estimates for all variables at the desired level of confidence of 95 percent and a margin of error of 10 percent. However, because the sample size was determined to be large enough to provide estimates for the two indicators that generally require the largest sample size, it is expected that estimates can be determined at the desired level for a majority, if not all, indicators.

 Adding the Kolda sample to the sample of the three other regions may underestimate improvements in stunting and wasting for the overall sample. Yaajeende activities only started in Kolda in 2014 and changes in some of the indicators are not expected to be observed after only two years when the end-line impact evaluation of the three other regions will be taking place. In order to avoid underestimating improvements of stunting and wasting in the other three regions, it is advised that the results of the end-line impact evaluation are presented for each region.

Page 44

Kolda Baseline Study

5. FINDINGS OF THE SURVEY

The survey data have been analyzed to provide a profile of the population of Kolda. This section of the report focuses on demographic variables in the data, disaggregated by gender whenever possible. Information on farming activities and practices has also been analyzed to describe the agricultural population of Kolda. The following tables include separate columns for intervention and control groups, the total for the region of Kolda, and for the results of the statistical analysis (p-values).

5.1 Profile of the Households in Kolda

Table 5.1 provides information on the average household size, the number of women aged 15 to 49 in the household, and the average number of children less than 5 years old. On average households in Kolda have 13.5 members. There is a slight difference between the number of household members in intervention areas compared to control areas (13.8 members compared to 13 members) but this difference was not found to be statistically different. The average number of women aged 15 to 49 was 3 in intervention areas and 2.7 in control areas. The difference was significant at 0.1percent level. Intervention area households have on average 2.7 children less than 5 years old whereas control area households have on average 2.54 children.

Table 5.1 Household Composition

P- Intervention Control Total Value 13.8 13 13.5 Average number of persons 0.327 (7.55) (6.24) (7.06) 3.06 2.70 2.93 Average number of women aged 15 to 49 0.08 (1.94) (1.71) (1.88) Average number of children less than 5 years 2.70 2.54 2.64 0.53 old (1.92) (1.71) (1.86) Note: Standard deviation is included in parentheses

According to the household survey, 95 percent of the households in Kolda are headed by men. The difference between intervention and control households is small (95.3 percent vs 95.4 percent) and is not statistically significant (see Table 5.2). Only roughly 5 percent of households are headed by women.

Table 5.2 Gender of Heads of Household

% of Households headed by a Intervention Control P-Values Total Man 95.3% 95.4% 0.946 95.3% Woman 4.7% 4.6% 0.9458 4.7%

According to Table 5.3, the average head of household in intervention areas is 48.59 years old and in control areas is 50.39. Female head of household in both intervention and control areas

Page 45

Kolda Baseline Study

are typically older, with an average age of 57.1 and 53.53 years old respectively. Most of the households in intervention and control areas are headed by a person between the ages of 35 to 58 years old (64.70 percent in intervention and 58.10 percent in control areas). About 23 percent of households in intervention areas and 27.80 percent in control are headed by a person aged 60 years or older.

Table 5.3 Age of Heads of Household (HoH)

Intervention Control Total Headed by Headed by P - Headed by Total Total Value1 Total Man Woman Man Woman Man Woman Average age (Standard 48.15 57.1 48.59 50.24 53.53 50.39 0.25 48.92 56.01 49.25 (12.85) (17.55) (13.12) (13.91) (13.59) (13.90) (13.32) (15.72) (13.46) Deviation) HoH less than 35 12.60 6.00 12.30 14.10 14.50 14.10 0.58 13.20 9.10 13.00 years old (%) HoH 35 to 59 66.70 25.00 64.70 58.40 53.20 58.10 0.12 63.60 35.10 62.30 years old (%) HoH 60 years old 20.70 69.00 23.00 27.60 32.30 27.80 0.26 23.20 55.80 24.70 & older (%) 1Significance test for Intervention Group Total and Control Group Total

Table 5.4 indicates that approximately 71 percent of intervention households and 74 percent of control households have no schooling. Based on the household survey, about 16 percent of households and 18 percent of control households received elementary education. It is interesting to note that approximately 3 percent of all heads of household have attended religious (qur’anic) school, which falls outside of the standard schooling system.

Table 5.4 Highest Education of Heads of Household

% of Heads of Household Intervention Control P-Values Total No schooling 70.94% 74.15% 0.431 72.12% Kindergarten 0.71% 1.46% 0.501 0.98% Elementary 15.68% 17.80% 0.455 16.46% Secondary 7.38% 4.93% 0.329 6.48% Post-secondary 0.95% 0.34% 0.324 0.73% Other: Arabic 4.35% 1.33% 0.115 3.24%

Table 5.5 presents data collected on agricultural practices. Approximately 82 percent of households in intervention areas practice farming. The rate is higher among control households, with about 93.4 percent of households practicing farming. The difference is significant at the 0.1 percent level. About 78.35 percent breed livestock in intervention areas. In control areas, the rate is lower – 67.36 percent. Interestingly, women who are heads of household in the control groups all report to practice farming whereas only 31 percent of female respondents in the intervention villages report practicing farming.

Page 46

Kolda Baseline Study

Table 5.5 Agricultural Activities

Intervention Control P- All Households Values1 Headed Headed Total Headed Headed Total Headed Headed Total % of by by by by by by Households Man Women Man Woman Man Woman Practicing farming 85.30 30.90 82.72 93.08 100.00 93.40 0.055 88.16 55.68 86.64 Practicing livestock breeding 79.65 52.34 78.35 66.92 76.57 67.36 0.075 74.97 61.03 74.32 1Significance test for Intervention Group Total and Control Group

Table 5.6 provides a summary of household asset ownership among intervention and control groups. Households in control areas appear to have fewer assets than the households in the intervention area. Radios, tables, beds, bicycles, and cell-phones are the most common assets owned by both intervention and control areas households. Intervention area households have more assets such as televisions, DVD players, computers, satellite dish, fridge, and cars. The differences are statistically significant. However, the overall level of ownership of these assets is low. There is slightly more furniture in households headed by women, but these households are less likely to own a mode of transportation such as a bicycle. Owning a cell phone is very common in Kolda, as close to 92 percent of households in intervention areas and 85 percent in control report ownership. The difference was statistically significant.

Page 47

Kolda Baseline Study

Table 5.6 Household Assets

Intervention Control All Households Headed By Headed by P- Headed by % of Households that Total Total Value1 Total own Male Female Male Female Male Female Radio 63.49 20.08 61.43 56.90 49.40 56.56 0.248 61.07 30.60 59.64 Television 19.08 5.98 18.46 10.01 6.36 6.53 0.002 14.41 7.42 14.08 VCR/DVD Player 7.69 0.00 7.32 1.78 10.01 2.16 0.016 5.52 3.59 5.43 Video Recorder 2.30 6.26 2.49 1.27 0.00 1.21 0.303 1.92 4.01 2.02 Computer 3.88 0.00 3.70 0.75 0.00 0.72 0.017 2.73 0.00 2.61 Satellite Dish 13.16 5.98 12.82 3.39 0.00 3.23 0.010 9.57 3.83 9.30 Fan 7.14 5.98 7.09 0.34 0.00 0.33 0.005 4.65 3.83 4.61 Bed 94.33 98.64 94.54 87.22 88.20 87.27 0.054 91.72 94.90 91.87 Table 53.14 60.81 53.51 48.37 22.71 47.20 0.189 51.39 47.15 51.19 Chair 47.52 74.47 48.80 29.34 43.85 30.01 0.006 40.84 63.49 41.90 Armoire 16.36 6.26 15.88 10.47 0.00 9.99 0.076 4.01 14.20 13.72 Fridge 2.34 5.98 2.52 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.047 1.48 3.83 1.59 Sewing Machine 3.45 0.00 3.29 2.67 0.00 2.55 0.627 3.17 0.00 3.02 Bicycle 68.62 35.86 67.07 76.19 57.87 75.36 0.102 71.40 43.75 70.11 Moped/Motorbike 23.11 0.00 22.01 18.19 10.01 17.82 0.201 21.30 3.59 20.47 Automobile/Car 1.78 18.34 2.56 0.47 0.00 0.45 0.033 1.30 11.76 1.79 Solar Panel 14.74 0.00 14.05 9.58 10.01 9.60 0.281 12.85 3.59 12.41 Gas Cylinder 9.39 6.26 9.24 4.41 0.00 4.20 0.019 7.56 4.01 7.39 Power Generator 1.89 0.00 1.80 0.46 0.00 0.44 0.153 1.37 0.00 1.30 Cell phone 92.10 100.00 92.48 84.45 86.58 84.55 0.004 89.29 95.19 89.57 Landline Phone 4.36 0.00 4.15 0.40 0.00 0.39 0.019 2.90 0.00 2.77 1Significance test for Intervention Group Total and Control Group

Page 48

Kolda Baseline Study

5.2 Basic Indicators

The Yaajeende key indicators were calculated using the survey data and are presented in the sections below. Note that two indicators were calculated using data from the FTF population- based survey conducted in Senegal concurrently to the Kolda Baseline study. These indicators are: Prevalence of children 6-23 months receiving a Minimum Acceptable Diet (MAD) (Indicator # 33) and Exclusive Breastfeeding.

Under each Study Question in the following section, quantitative findings are presented on an indicator-by-indicator basis. Total estimates for the indicator is presented along with intervention group estimates and control group estimates. A p-value equal to or below 0.10 indicates that the estimates for the intervention and the control groups are statistically significantly different from each other. When interpreting the p-values it is important to consider that some of the differences seen may be attributed to respondents already being exposed to Yaajeende programing since data collection for the baseline report was done fifteen months after Yaajeende started in Kolda.

5.3 Study Question 1: Nutrition

Did households and individuals located in project treatment intervention areas see greater improvement in nutritional status indicators than those residing in non-project areas?

Table 5.7 Summary of Study Question 1: Nutrition Results

Nutrition Total P- Indicator at Baseline 2015 Intervention Control (Intervention Value & Control) 1.1 Proportion of children under 5 that are 8.00% 7.81% 0.90 7.93% wasted 1.2 Proportion of children under 5 that are 28.24% 31.96% 0.34 29.6% stunted 1.3 Proportion of children under 5 that are 18.98% 21.46% 0.41 19.88% underweight 1.4 Proportion of underweight women 22.37% 27.26% 0.09 24.01% 1.5 Proportion of children 6-23 with MADi 20.00% 0.00% NA 3.34% 1.6 Number of months of reduced food 2.28 2.26 0.85 2.27 intake 1.7 Proportion of HHs consuming < 2 meals 1.83% 2.56% 0.64 2.09% per day (%) iIndicator calculated using PBS data Wasting (Indicator 1.1), Stunting (indicator 1.2), and Child Underweight (Indicator 1.3)

Three anthropometric measurements of undernutrition among children under five years are

Page 49

Kolda Baseline Study

reported in the Baseline Study: wasting (weight-for-height), stunting (height-for-age), and underweight (weight-for-age).

Wasting is an indicator of acute malnutrition and measures children who are wasted are too thin for their height. Wasted children have a much greater risk of dying than children who are not wasted. This indicator measures the percentage of children 0-59 months who are acutely malnourished, as defined by a weight-for-height Z-score more than two standard deviations below the median of the 2006 WHO Child Growth Standard.23

Less than eight percent of children surveyed under five years of age are wasted in Kolda. The prevalence of wasting is similar between the intervention and control groups: 8 percent for the intervention group and 7.81 percent for the control group. Within the intervention group, boys (9.56 percent) have a higher rate of wasting than girls (6.27 percent) (p=0.07). Gender imbalance in wasting are not observed from the control group, however, which have similar level of wasting among the boys and the girls. Younger age group (6-23 months) do not differ in wasting level from the older age group (24-59 months).

Indicator 1.1 Proportion of children Gender under 5 that are wasted Male Female P-Value Intervention 9.56% 6.27% 0.07 Control 7.69% 7.94% 0.90

Indicator 1.1 Proportion of children Age-Group under 5 that are wasted 6-23 months 24-59 months P-Value Intervention 7.25% 8.32% 0.52 Control 8.22% 7.63% 0.78

Stunting is an indicator that reflects chronic undernutrition and most often due to a prolonged inadequate diet and poor health. Stunting is a height-for-age measurement and measures percentage of children 0-59 months who are stunted, as defined by a height-for-age Z-score more than two standard deviations below the median of the 2006 WHO Child Growth Standard.

Around 30 percent of children surveyed under five years of age are stunted in Kolda. The prevalence of stunting is slightly lower in the intervention group (28.24 percent) than the control group (31.96 percent).

When the intervention group and the control group are taken together, boys have a significantly higher stunting rate than the girls (p=0.098). However, the gender imbalance is not observed within each of the intervention group and the control group. Older age group of 24-59 months shows a higher prevalence of stunting than the younger age group when the two groups are combined (p=0.028). This age difference, however, is only pronounced in the control group. For the control group, the younger cohort (6-23 months) has a lower prevalence of stunting at 25.54 percent while the older cohort (24-59 months) has a higher prevalence of stunting at 34.77

23 http://www.who.int/childgrowth/en/

Page 50

Kolda Baseline Study

percent (p=0.01). This pattern is typical in conditions where children suffer from food shortages and recurrent or chronic infections, both of which contribute to linear growth faltering over time.

Indicator 1.2 Proportion of children Gender under 5 that are stunted Male Female P-Value Intervention 29.84% 26.46% 0.25 Control 33.75% 29.87% 0.23

Indicator 1.2 Proportion of children Age-Group under 5 that are stunted 6-23 months 24-59 months P-Value Intervention 24.88% 29.63% 0.23 Control 25.54% 34.77% 0.01

Underweight is a weight-for-age measurement and reflects acute and/or chronic undernutrition. This indicator measures the percentage of children 0-59 months who are underweight, as defined by a weight-for-age Z-score of more than two standard deviations below the median of the 2006 WHO Child Growth Standard.

The proportion of unweight children is around 20 percent for children surveyed in Kolda. The intervention group’s underweight proportion (18.98 percent) was lower than the control group’s (21.46 percent).

No differences in the distribution of underweight children was found related to gender. While the prevalence of underweight for boys is higher for both the intervention group and the control group, the differences are not statistically significant. Both the intervention and the control group showed statistically significant differences between the younger age group and the older age group; the younger cohort between 6 and 23 months of age have lower prevalence of underweight children (around 15 percent and 17 percent) than the older cohort (around 20 percent and 23 percent).

Indicator 1.3 Proportion of children Gender under 5 that are underweight Male Female P-Value Intervention 19.60% 18.30% 0.56 Control 22.63% 20.10% 0.48

Indicator 1.3 Proportion of children Age-Group under 5 that are underweight 6-23 months 24-59 months P-Value Intervention 15.15% 20.63% 0.01 Control 16.83% 23.46% 0.08

While no statistically significant difference is observed among the intervention villages in Kolda, the qualitative research suggests that Yaajeende may be positively affecting children’s nutritional status in Kolda.

Page 51

Kolda Baseline Study

Knowledge has been incorporated into the daily lives of women… [There is] a marked improvement in the state of health of children. Through the weighing of children and home visits, I have noticed that children are better cared for at home. Moreover, I receive less and less complaints from women about the state of health of their children. (KII, Nutrition CBSP, Medina Yoro Foulah)

The mortality of children aged 0 to 5 years has decreased significantly. During the year preceding the intervention of this program [Yaajeende], twenty (20) children died of malnutrition. On the other hand, the following year, only one death was recorded in children under five years of age and this was related to a respiratory problem. (KII, Nutrition CBSP, Medina Yoro Foulah) Adult Female Underweight (Indicator 1.4)

Adult female underweight indicator measures the percentage of non-pregnant women age 15-49 who are underweight, as defined by mean Body Mass Index (BMI) less than 18.5. The difference in the proportion of unweight women between the intervention group and the control group is statistically significant. The women in the intervention group have a lower prevalence of underweight women at 22.37 percent of while the women in the control group have a higher prevalence at 27.26 percent. The intervention group have around 5 percentage points lower rate of underweight women than the control group and this difference is statistically significant.

Younger women, aged 15-29, are generally more likely to be underweight than the older women, aged 30-49 years for both the intervention and the control group. While the difference in age is not statistically significant, this is concerning as this young group represents the women in the longest reproductive future. Becoming pregnant while underweight is a risk factor for intrauterine growth restriction, low birth weight, and poor growth in infants and children.

Indicator 1.4 Proportion of adult female Age-Group that are underweight 15-29 years 30-49 years P-Value Intervention 23.71% 20.63% 0.32 Control 26.67% 20.23% 0.16

The qualitative research suggests a number of ways Yaajeende is positively affecting adult females’ nutritional status among the intervention groups. The importance of fortified flour is highlighted several times and women’s acceptance of its benefits is widely shared among those interviewed.

I organize cooking demonstrations and I am also responsible for collecting contributions for the manufacture of fortified flour in the village. These food products are distributed free of charge to children and women. (KII, Nutrition CBSP, Velingara)

We welcome the actions of Yaajeende especially for the training and awareness related to the transformation of grain for fortified flour. Before, women did not know how to make good food and when to start taking it. They only mush dry with sugar and salt which is even not iodized. Currently with the intervention of Yaajeende, each Member of the Mother-to-Mother group knows

Page 52

Kolda Baseline Study

how to fortified flour and this is a major benefit… for children's nutrition, feeding of pregnant or nursing women and members of the household. (FGD, MtM, Velingara)

Another major contribution of Yaajeende on women’s nutrition is on dietary diversity of women. The quail breeding activity, in particular, has drawn a number of positive responses from the women in Kolda.

I offer nutritional products like quail eggs and enriched flour and also promote the consumption of vegetables and fruits…I also host talks on feeding of pregnant women and the use of products rich in protein: milk, eggs, dried fish, palm oil. (KII, Nutrition CBSP, Medina Yoro Foulah)

Other than nutrition activities, I maintain a quail farm, whose products are intended for children suffering from malnutrition and for breastfeeding mothers. (KII, Nutrition CBSP, Medina Yoro Foulah)

I am responsible for raising quails. I was given 10 quails, and currently have 4 quails. Mixed with the fortified flour, the quail eggs are intended for malnourished children. And very often women are coming to get them. (KII, Nutrition CBSP, Kolda)

Improvement in household hygiene and sanitation also may be contributing to the improvement of women’s underweight indicator in Kolda among the intervention groups.

[Hygiene and sanitation] practices have had positive effects on the health of people related to the case of diarrhea, stomach aches and other hygiene-related diseases. (FGD, MtM, Velingara)

The qualitative research suggests that Yaajeende’s work on nutritional status of pregnant and/or breastfeeding women has gained the most traction in Kolda. A number of women suggested the importance of dietary diversity among pregnant and/or breastfeeding mothers.

Pregnant and lactating women, just like children, should consume a diet enriched to sustain the health of the child nursing or in the stomach. (FGD, MtM, Velingara)

When it comes to pregnant women, I focus on educating them on what they need to eat, like foods rich in iron, vitamin, meat, rice, oil, eggs, the green leaves, and smoked/dried fish. (KII, CNV, Velingara) Minimum Acceptable Diet (Indicator 1.5)

The prevalence of children 6-23 months receiving a Minimum Acceptable Diet (MAD) measures the proportion of young children who receive a MAD apart from breastfeeding. MAD is a composite indicator that measures both the minimum feeding frequency and minimum dietary diversity based on caregiver reports of the frequency with which the child was fed in the past 24 hours, and what food were consumed during the past 24 hours. Tabulation of the indicator requires data on children’s age in months, breastfeeding status, dietary diversity, number of semi- solid or solid feeds, and number of milk feeds.

Page 53

Kolda Baseline Study

The MAD indicator was calculated using data from the FTF population-based survey (PBS) conducted concurrently to the Kolda baseline study. Data from the PBS were limited to the intervention and the control villages that overlap with the villages identified for the Baseline Study. The proportion of children between 6 and 23 months of age with MAD is 20 percent for the intervention group and 0 percent for the control group. While the prevalence of children with MAD is higher than the control group, these results are not statistically reliable due to the small sample size. Due to the limited observation overlapping the baseline study and the FTF PBS, the p-value cannot be calculated. Therefore, the stark difference in the MAD indicator among children between the intervention and the control group should not be taken at face value.

While the original Yaajeende baseline data collected in 2011 is outdated, it reported that 16.9 percent of children aged 6-23 months among the intervention group received MAD while only 10.6 percent received MAD in the control group. While not statistically reliable, the Kolda baseline study also observed higher proportion of children meeting MAD among the intervention group than the control group. Another source of data is the Senegal FTF PBS, which reported the average prevalence of MAD for the entire region of Kolda to be around 6.77 percent. Assuming that the intervention group maintained a similarly higher rate of MAD than the control group, the intervention group’s prevalence of MAD is likely to be higher than 6.77 percent.

Improvements in child feeding frequency or dietary diversity among the intervention group is not clearly depicted from the qualitative research. However, a handful of nutrition volunteers in Kolda mentioned receiving training on nutrition of children, in addition to training on exclusive breastfeeding.

For nursing mothers, I do two groups, those that are in exclusive breastfeeding below six months and those that are in complementary feeding above six months of age. For the first group, I advise them to only breastfeed the children. And in the second group, I advise to give porridge with enriched flour. This has millet, cowpea, groundnut and sugar. (KII, Nutrition CBSP, Velingara)

Through awareness and training with the project Yaajeende […] women gave the children all products likely to bring vitamins in the body such as fruits, vegetables, eggs, oil palms, mango, orange, and monkey bread… This is to support the rapid growth, good health and the development of the mind. (FGD, MtM, Kolda) Length of Soudure (Indicator 1.6) and Meal Frequency (Indicator 1.7)

The duration of reduced food intake and household meal frequency are two indicators measuring the nutritional results at the household level. In rural Senegal, it is common for households to reduce food intake for a period of time each year, also known as soudure, typically during the rainy season. The intervention group and the control group experience an average of 2.27 months, or 10 weeks, of reduced food intake.

For the intervention group, 1.83 percent of the households report that they consumed less than two meals per day in the last 24 hours, compared to 2.56 percent of the control group households. The intervention group has slightly lower proportion than the control group.

Page 54

Kolda Baseline Study

Along with other nutrition level indicators (Study Question 1), the length of soudure and the meal frequency indicators should be noted with caution. As mentioned above, the hunger season in Senegal occurs during the peak rainy season, which typically begins in June or July and ends in October. The data for the baseline study were collected in November and December 2016, which is near the end of the rain-fed harvest season. Therefore, the soudure and meal frequency indicators may be underestimated because the data were collected during the season of relative food security.

The qualitative research suggests that Yaajeende’s work on Child Granaries, in particular, has a positive effect on reducing the length of soudure and increasing food intake during the lean period.

Child Granaries is also initiated by Yaajeende to ensure a little bit of cereal stock available. To do this, women collect cereal from heads of household… This ensures a healthier breastfeeding women and pregnant women. (FGD, MtM, Kolda)

But when resources are lacking, this [enriched diet] is not available at all especially during the lean season. Currently, the Child Granaries contain food that last for 6 months but women find it difficult towards the end of the 6 months. (FGD, MtM, Kolda)

Women want Yaajeende to support the storage of the Child Granaries during the dry period to help them through the lean period (soudure). The Child Granaries are accessible at any time of the year. Women also solicit support from male heads of households to provide donations from the yields. (FGD, MtM, Velingara)

5.4 Study Question 2: Healthy Household Practices

Did households living in villages located in project treatment areas see greater adoption of healthy nutritional and WASH practices than those residing in non-project areas?

Table 5.8 provides a summary of the key indicators related to healthy household practices. The columns indicate averages or percentages of the variables disaggregated by intervention and control groups, whether there are significant differences between the two groups, and the total average or percentage of both groups combined.

Table 5.8 Summary of Study Question 1: Healthy Household Practices Results

Healthy Household Practices Total P- Indicator at Baseline 2015 Intervention Control (Intervention Value & Control) 2.1 HHs practicing at least one Yaajeende 91.18% 92.97% 0.55 91.84% kitchen hygiene behavior 2.2 HHs practicing safe food storage 68.30% 70.63% 0.69 69.18% 2.3 HHs treating drinking water 22.78% 13.72% 0.01 19.45% 2.4 HHs practicing at least one food 75.05% 57.61% 0.04 68.65% conservation technique

Page 55

Kolda Baseline Study

Healthy Household Practices Total P- Indicator at Baseline 2015 Intervention Control (Intervention Value & Control) 2.5 HHs using and storing iodized salts 9.28% 10.04% 0.79 9.56% properly (%) 2.6 Proportion of children 6-months that 60.08% 66.67% 0.44 41.01% were exclusively breastfed1 2.7 Average Household Dietary Diversity 5.53 4.23 0.00 5.05 Score (HHDS) 2.8 Proportion of HHs with soap and water 0.6% 1.13% 0.39 0.86% at a handwashing station (%) 2.9 HHs using an improved water source for 41.02% 14.14% 0.01 31.16% drinking (%) 2.10 HHs using improved water source for 37.54% 20.75% 0.05 31.38% cooking (%) 1 Indicator calculated using PBS data Kitchen Hygiene (Indicator 2.1), Safe Food Storage (Indicator 2.2), Water Treatment (Indicator 2.3), and Food Conservation Techniques (Indicator 2.4)

Indicator 2.1 measures the proportion of households exhibiting at least one hygienic kitchen practice such as handwashing before handling food and hair covering. The proportion of households practicing at least one Yaajeende kitchen hygiene behavior is high among both groups – 91.18 percent in intervention area and 92.97 percent in control.

FGDs and KIIs in all three departments in the Kolda region revealed that participants are knowledgeable of proper handwashing techniques. Many respondents have indicated they have learned about these techniques from training held by Yaajeende staff.

Whenever a person in the household or a stranger comes into the house, comes out of the toilet, greets someone or gets ready to eat, he washes his hands. (FGD, MtM, Velingara)

Hand washing has grown rapidly and it ensures the sustainability of cleanliness in households. Yaajeende trained us on handwashing and initiated the manufacture and use of Tippy-Tap which serve as a device that encourages handwashing. (FGD, Male Head of Household, Kolda)

The other aspect developed by Yaajeende is hand washing, which has grown tremendously wherever the project has been and which has become entrenched in the minds of populations. (FGD, MtM, Kolda)

A campaign was carried out for handwashing by Yaajeende and at the end of which all households joined for the welfare of their families. (FGD, MtM, Medina Yoro Foulah)

Several FGDs highlighted that households have either limited access to water or access to contaminated water sources. The unavailability of water sources or clean water supplies may have an effect on hygiene practices such as handwashing and may constrain improvements in

Page 56

Kolda Baseline Study

uptake. Women in Mother-to-Mother groups in Medina Yoro Foulah told the FGD facilitator that access to water in Medina Yoro Foulah is a real problem. Another FGD participant in Kolda stated the following:

Not only is the lack of water a nagging issue for the locality, but it is also impure at the source. (FGD, HoH, Kolda)

In the household survey, respondents were asked additional questions regarding their hygiene and sanitation practices. According to Table 5.9, approximately five percent of households have a Tippy Tap. However, while the survey data indicate that nine percent of female headed households in intervention areas have a Tippy Tap, none were functional on the day of the survey, which may be caused by a limited availability of water. The data reveal that nearly 66 percent of households in intervention areas reported having changed their hygiene and sanitation practices in the last year, and 43 percent reported drying their dishes with a rack or table. Significantly more female headed households in control areas, 83 percent, dry their dishes than female headed households in intervention areas, 34 percent. Overall, the survey data do not show large differences between intervention and control areas in terms of reported behavior change in hygiene and sanitation practices in the last year.

Table 5.9 Hygiene and Sanitation Practices

Intervention Control All Households Headed by Headed by Headed by Total Total Total % of Households Man Woman Man Woman Man Woman with a Tippy Tap 3.76 9.13 4.01 3.85 0.00 3.67 3.79 5.86 3.89 with a functional Tippy Tap 2.85 0.00 2.72 3.45 0.00 3.29 3.07 0.00 2.93 with a rack or table to dry 42.56 33.68 42.14 42.52 83.31 44.38 42.55 51.48 42.96 dishes that have changed hygiene and sanitation practices in the last 66.41 64.69 66.33 61.47 80.70 62.35 64.60 70.43 64.87 year

Indicator 2.2 reports if the household respondent indicated covering or using cool storage for leftover foods. The prevalence of households practicing safe food storage is high, with 68.38 percent of households in intervention areas and 70.63 percent in control areas reporting covering leftover food to prevent contamination.

Indicator 2.4 measures whether or not the respondent uses at least one of five food conservation techniques promoted by Yaajeende: drying, smoking, sprouting, fermenting, and enriching foods. The proportion of households practicing at least one food conservation techniques is significantly higher among intervention households (75.05 percent) compared to control households (57.61 percent). The difference is significant at the 0.05 percent level. The difference cannot be attributed to Yaajeende programing, however, qualitative research shows that participants in certain areas have learned food conservation techniques from Yaajeende staff. For instance, Mother-to-Mother groups in Velingara declared that thanks to the Yaajeende intervention each member of the MtM group knows how to make enriched flour.

Page 57

Kolda Baseline Study

Overall, women in Mother-to-Mother groups have demonstrated knowledge of food enrichment practices during FGDs. Many women mentioned they practice it at home. For example, when asked what children above the age of 6 months ate, women in Medina Yoro Fouldah answered their diet consisted of fortified flour made from millet, sorghum, cowpea, and peanuts. Similarly, women in Velingara mentioned they are giving fortified flour to their infants after the age of 6 months. In addition, one CNV from Velingara mentioned many women come to her for advice on how to make the fortified flour.

Food conservation and food transformation are closely connected. The FGDs with Mother-to- Mother groups revealed that while grain transformation techniques have been taught to women in Kolda, there are several constraints to adoption such as the lack of financial resources to purchase food transformation devices as well as tools for packaging.

Indicator 2.3, Water Treatment measures the prevalence of treating water for drinking purposes through filtration or bleach. The proportion of households drinking treated water is higher among intervention households (22.78 percent) than control households (13.72 percent). The difference is statistically significant at the 0.01 percent level. While this difference cannot be attributed solely to Yaajeende, particularly at baseline, it might indicate the presence of other organizations focused on improving drinking water sources in intervention areas. For instance, women in the Mother-to-Mother group from Kolda mentioned learning about bleaching techniques from training held by Yaajeende. However, Mother-to-Mother group members in both Velingara and Medina Yoro Foulah indicated learning about water treatment practices such as bleaching and filtering not only from Yaajeende staff but also from other projects ran by World Vision International.

Regarding the treatment of drinking water, respondents in the FGDs and KIIs indicated that these practices might be dependent on household income. Even if households are aware of the dangers of drinking untreated water, they often lack the resources to treat the water. In this regard, a CNV from Medina Yoro Foulah noted the following:

Drinking water and consuming iodized salt is well known to villagers. However, behavioral adoption depends on household incomes. (KII, CNV, Medina Yoro Foulah)

Furthermore, the survey data presented in Table 5.10 show different practices used by households to treat and filter water. While approximately 80 percent of households in control areas filter water with a cloth, only around 61 percent of households in intervention areas do the same. Similarly, around seven percentage points more households in intervention areas (19.74 percent) add bleach to water than in control areas (12.51 percent). The survey data indicate that most other water treatment methods, including using a Lifestraw or Aquatabs, are rarely used.

Page 58

Kolda Baseline Study

Table 5.10 Water Treatment

Intervention Control All Households % of Households Headed by Headed by Headed by Total Total Total that Man Woman Man Woman Man Woman Boil water 2.52 0.00 2.40 1.07 0.00 1.02 1.99 0.00 1.89 Add bleach 19.68 20.89 19.74 12.31 16.69 12.51 16.97 19.38 17.09 Filter with cloth 60.55 69.33 60.97 80.05 83.31 80.20 67.72 74.34 68.03 Use Lifestraw 0.19 0.00 0.18 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.12 0.00 0.11 Water Filter Decant 3.07 0.00 2.92 1.66 0.00 1.59 2.55 0.00 2.43 Sun exposure 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Aquatabs 0.48 0.00 0.46 0.20 0.00 0.19 0.38 0.00 0.36 Other 1.00 0.00 0.95 0.24 0.00 0.23 0.72 0.00 0.69

Salt Iodation and Storage (Indicator 2.5), Exclusive Maternal Breastfeeding (Indicator 2.6), and Food Diversity (Indicator 2.7)

The prevalence of using and properly storing iodized salt (Indicator 2.5) is low among both intervention and control groups. The data in Table 5.8 indicate that 9.8 percent of households in intervention areas and 10.04 percent households in control areas use salt iodation and adequate storage practices.

The FGDs with Mother-to-Mother groups show that the level of knowledge related to the health benefits of iodized salt varies among women across the three departments in Kolda. Women from the Kolda department indicated they have not heard of iodized salt and have not been trained on its benefits. In Medina Yoro Foulah, women reported that before Yaajeende, they were not aware of the “dangers of consuming untreated salt.” After the training, women mentioned that they “understood that health is priceless and that using iodized salt helps improve their health.” Women from Velingara claimed that since receiving training from Yaajeende and World Vision on iodized salt, they no longer consume other type of salts. As previously mentioned, a CNV from Medina Yoro Foulah mentioned that while the benefits of iodized salt are well known across the village, the actual use might depend on income. There was no indication during the interviews of the level of understanding regarding proper storage.

Indicator 2.6 measures the proportion of children under the age of 6-months that were exclusively breastfed. The rate of exclusive breastfeeding among intervention households was lower than the rate among control households (60 percent versus 66 percent). These results are not statistically reliable due to the small sample size since the indicator was calculated using PBS data and data were limited to the intervention and control villages that overlap with the Kolda baseline study

FGDs reveal that most women interviewed across the Kolda region are aware of the importance of exclusively breastfeeding during the first 6 months of life. Many participants described breastfeeding practices and claimed to exclusively breastfeed from birth to 6 months. Most of the

Page 59

Kolda Baseline Study

respondents did not indicate how they learned about the health benefits of exclusive breastfeeding. Only respondents from the Kolda department mentioned that they participated in training conducted by projects similar with Yaajeende. According to all FGDs with Mother-to- Mother groups, only women in poor health do not breastfeed. In this case, women would feed infants: “sugar, goat milk and/or bottle if the midwife prescribes it” (FGD, MtM, Velingara) or “enriched flour, goat milk, or bottle if they can afford it” (FGD, MtM, Kolda).

The average household dietary diversity score (HHDS) (Indicator 2.7) for the intervention group was 5.53 while the average HHDS for the control group was 4.23. The difference is statistically significant at the 0.01 percent level. An average HHDS score of 5.53 means that, on average, households are able to consume 5.53 of the 12 food groups (cereals, tubers, vegetables, fruits, flesh meats, eggs, fish, pulses and legumes, milk and milk products, oils and fats, sugar, and other types of food). The quantitative data show that the most consumed food groups are cereals, legumes, and fruits. While the difference cannot be attributed directly to Yaajeende, the FGDs show that intervention groups have received training on the benefits of diet diversification. During a KII, one CNV from Medina Yoro Foulah provided more information on the activities they implement:

The CNV offers residents of Firdwasi hygiene products, nutritional products (quail eggs and enriched flour), as well as helps promote the consumption of vegetables and fruit.[…] The CNV also conducts talks on diet for pregnant women and the benefits of eating high-protein products: milk, eggs, dried fish, palm oil. (KII, CNV, Medina Yoro Foulah) Handwashing Station in Common Use (Indicator 2.8), Drinking Water from an Improved Source (Indicator 2.9), and Cooking Water from an Improved Source (Indicator 2.10)

Indicator 2.8 measures the prevalence of households that have a handwashing station in their homes with both water and soap present. In intervention areas the percentage of households having a handwashing station was 0.6 percent. Similarly, in control areas the percentage was low with 1.13 percent. As previously discussed under Indicator 2.1 (Kitchen hygienic practices) and Indicator 2.3 (Water treatment) the percentage of households with handwashing stations with water might be low due to the limited access to water.

Indicators 2.9 and 2.10 are concerned with the sources of water used to obtain water for drinking and cooking, and as such reflect community resources. In intervention areas the proportion of households using an improved water source for drinking (41.02 percent) is higher than in control areas (14.14 percent). The difference is statistically significant at the 0.01 percent level. Similarly, the percentage of intervention households using an improved water source for cooking (37.64 percent) is higher than those in control areas (20.74 percent). The difference is also statistically significant at the 0.05 percent level. The difference cannot be attributed to Yaajeende and it might be the result of other programs targeting supply-side infrastructure areas.

However, as noted under Indicator 2.1 (Kitchen hygienic practices) several FGDs and KIIs have noted limited access to clean water sources. Women in the Mother-to-Mother groups in Velingara and Kolda told the FGD facilitator that access to water is a real problem in the area,

Page 60

Kolda Baseline Study

and most of the population in the village drink contaminated water often from uncovered wells. Furthermore, a Head of Household in Velingara stated the following:

The water is insufficient because the drilling has stopped for years. We have told the authorities but they have not taken any action. Drinking water comes from wells that have no hygienic guarantee because they are open to the sky. (FGD, Male Head of Household, Velingara)

5.5 Further Discussion on Hygiene and Sanitation Practices

According to the FGDs, men play a large role in sanitation and environmental management in the Yaajeende program in Kolda. During the interviews, it was reported that they are present at the safety campaigns ("set-SETAL") organized every month in many neighborhoods. They are responsible for picking up trash in villages for incineration. FGD participants reported this behavior as a positive outcome of the public awareness campaigns led by Yaajeende.

It is important to note that it is possible that the control group has benefited from programs focused on WASH practices run by other organizations, resulting in similar findings between intervention and control areas. However, a number of differences between these groups are noted in the following practices: removal of child feces, garbage, and used water (see Table 5.11, Table 5.12, and Table 5.13). According to Table 5.11, a higher percentage of households in the intervention group are using latrines to remove child feces (69.86 percent) than in the control group (62.40 percent), where more households are using nature to remove child feces than in the intervention group. Moreover, 84 percent of female headed households in intervention areas use latrines to remove child feces, compared to only 69 percent of male headed households in intervention areas.

Table 5.11 Removal of Child Feces

Intervention Control All Households Headed By Headed By Headed By % of Households using Man Woman Total Man Woman Total Man Woman Total Latrine 69.16 83.96 69.86 62.42 62.10 62.40 66.68 76.12 67.12 Nature 22.72 16.04 22.41 30.55 23.96 30.25 25.60 18.88 25.28 Did not respond 8.12 0.00 7.73 7.04 13.94% 7.35% 7.72% 5.00% 7.59%

Garbage removal practices also differ between intervention and control groups (Table 5.12), with fewer households throwing garbage in the wild in intervention areas (73.75 percent) compared to control areas (92.59 percent). While 11 percent of households in intervention areas tend to burn garbage, only 3 percent of households in control areas do the same. Use of landfills is also more common in intervention areas than in control areas. No households in control areas reported that garbage is removed by trucks or carts.

Page 61

Kolda Baseline Study

Table 5.12 Removal of Garbage

Intervention Control All Households % of Households Headed by Headed by Headed by using Man Woman Total Man Woman Total Man Woman Total Garbage removal by 0.39 0.00 0.37 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.25 0.00 0.23 trucks Garbage removal by 1.58 0.00 1.51 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.95 carts Dumping in the wild 74.65 55.56 73.75 86.06 92.90 92.59 81.35 66.50 80.66 Landfill 11.50 9.13 11.39 13.94 4.06 4.51 8.77 10.86 8.87 Incineration 10.23 16.97 10.54 0.00 3.03 2.90 7.58 10.88 7.74 Other 1.65 18.34 2.44 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.04 11.76 1.54

As for removing used water, 89 percent of households in the control areas throw dirty water onto the streets, compared to only 70 percent of households in intervention areas (Table 5.13). The data show that 21 percent of the intervention households use a pit near their home, compared to only seven percent of the control households. This practice is more common among female headed households in intervention areas (41.28 percent) than male headed households (19.71 percent). No households reported being connected to a sewage system.

Table 5.13 Removal of Used Water

Intervention Control All Households Headed by Headed by Headed by % of Households using Man Woman Total Man Woman Total Man Woman Total Connection to sewerage 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Simple pit/Catch Basin 2.42 0.00 2.30 0.70 0.00 0.66 1.79 0.00 1.70 Septic tank 6.02 0.00 5.74 4.18 4.96 4.21 5.35 1.78 5.18 Pit near house 19.71 41.28 20.73 6.92 0.00 6.60 15.01 26.48 15.55 On the street 70.83 58.72 70.26 88.20 95.04 88.52 77.21 71.74 76.96 Other 1.01 0.00 0.96 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.64 0.00 0.61

It appears from the interviews and survey data that the messages of Yaajeende regarding WASH behaviors may be already reaching the target population. Interviews confirm that there is a general willingness among farming households to change and adopt new practices.

5.6 Study Question 3: Agricultural Practices and Production

Did households living in villages located in project intervention areas see greater use of improved agriculture and livestock than households living in non-project areas? Did those practices lead to greater agriculture production and greater productivity?

Table 5.14 provides a summary of the key indicators from intervention and control groups. Columns indicate averages or percentages of the variables disaggregated by intervention and

Page 62

Kolda Baseline Study

control groups, whether there are significant differences between the two groups, and the total average or percentage of both groups combined.

Table 5.14 Summary of Study Question 3: Agricultural Practices and Production Results

Agricultural practices and production Total Indicator at Baseline 2015 Intervention Control P-Value (Intervention & Control) 3.6 Households with livestock 78.35% 67.36% 0.08 74.32% production 3.7 Percentage of households 7.32% 11.7% 0.05 8.93% with livestock income 3.7 Average Income from the top five sources of revenue in 424,027 CFA 247,963 CFA 0.01 359,042 CFA CFA

The quantitative findings in Table 5.14 highlight that livestock production is prevalent among households in Kolda with 74.32 percent of all households participating in livestock activities. Livestock production rates seem to be higher among intervention groups with 78.35 percent of households having livestock production compared to 67.36 percent in control groups. The difference between groups is significant at the 0.1 level.

The percentage of households with livestock income is substantially lower than the percentage of households with livestock production. Specifically, the survey question asked household respondents to name the five principal sources of income in the last 12 months and provide a monetary approximation for each. Only 8.93 percent of all respondents indicated having livestock income as a principal source of income in 2014/2015. The low rate of livestock income compared to the production rate might be a sign that households 1) used most of the livestock production for consumption purposes or 2) used livestock as store of wealth. The share of livestock income was higher among control groups – 11. 7 percent – than intervention groups – 7.32 percent. The difference was significant at the 0.1 percent level. Using the monetary approximation provided by respondents for the top five sources of revenue, the average income per household was calculated. Household income from the top five sources of income is much higher in intervention than control areas. The average income for the intervention group is 424,027 CFA (USD 703), whereas for control is 247,963 CFA (USD 411). The difference is significant at the 0.01 percent level. This finding might explain why the intervention groups tend to own more household equipment goods than the control group.

5.7 Further Discussions on Land Preparation and Access, Agricultural Inputs and Practices

This section provides a more detailed analysis of agricultural and livestock activities drawing on both the household quantitative survey data and the qualitative findings.

Page 63

Kolda Baseline Study

Land Preparation and Access A. Land Preparation

The quantitative survey asked respondents to compare 2013/2014 harvest to 2014/2015. The question read: “Compared to the 2013/2014 harvest, how was the 2014/2015 harvest?” The respondents were then asked to provide a reason for the better or worse harvest. Table 5.15 shows the results of these questions. Overall, the data indicate that intervention households had a better harvest last year, as compared to the previous year, than did control households. Approximately 38 percent of the intervention households reported obtaining a better yield in 2014-2015 than the previous year compared to only 30 percent of control households. About 40 percent of the intervention households reported a worse harvest in 2014/2015 than the previous year compared to 50 percent of control households. It is important to note that 57.23 percent of households headed by women in the control group reported a worse harvest in 2014/2015 compared to 29 percent in 2013/2014. However, no female headed households in the intervention areas specifically reported obtaining a better yield and instead indicated that they did not know the answer.

Table 5.15 Comparison of Harvest between 2013/2014 and 2014/2015

Intervention Control All Households % of households Headed by Headed by Headed by report that the harvest was Male Female Total Male Female Total Male Female Total Worse 40.13 28.55 39.89 49.82 57.23 50.19 43.93 46.04 44.00 Same 12.16 12.62 12.17 15.76 17.66 15.86 13.57 15.69 13.64 Better 38.80 0.00 37.97 29.82 25.12 29.59 35.28 15.32 34.63 Don’t know 8.90 58.83 9.97 4.60 0.00 4.36 7.22 22.95 7.73

Tables 5.16 and 5.17 provide more detail regarding the reasons provided by the heads of household for a better or worse harvest. Among the reasons stated by interventions households for a better harvest, the most frequent are related to the adequate rainfall distribution, better availability and utilization of chemical fertilizers, and availability of better quality seeds. Utilization of manure and use of additional farming equipment and supplies, activities supported by the Yaajeende programing, were not mentioned as primary reasons for improved harvests in intervention areas.

The most commonly mentioned reasons for a bad harvest, in both intervention and comparison groups, included the lack of or inadequate distribution of rainfall, non-utilization of chemical fertilizer, infertile soil, and lack of chemical fertilizer. It is notable that control households reported having more issues overall with access to and utilization of fertilizers than did intervention households, possibly indicating a benefit of the Yaajeende programming.

Page 64

Kolda Baseline Study

Table 5.16 Reasons for a Better Harvest in 2014-2015: Comparing Harvest 2014-2015 to 2013-2014 Reason for Better Harvest % of Households

Intervention Control All Households Headed by Headed by Headed by Male Female Total Male Female Total Male Female Total Increased availability of 12.25 0.00 11.67 11.31 27.89 12.07 11.90 10.00 11.82 chemical fertilizer Improved utilization of 16.31 0.00 15.53 12.92 0.00 12.33 15.06 0.00 14.36 chemical fertilizer Improved access to 2.93 0.00 2.79 3.64 0.00 3.47 3.19 0.00 3.04 chemical fertilizer Increased availability of 8.95 0.00 8.52 9.19 18.90 9.63 9.04 6.78 8.93 better quality seeds Improved access to seeds 5.61 0.00 5.34 5.37 13.94 5.76 5.52 5.00 5.50 Adequate rainfall 33.72 0.00 32.12 28.05 39.52 28.58 31.64 14.17 30.82 distribution Improved labor 4.56 0.00 4.34 8.31 0.00 7.93 5.94 0.00 5.66 Improved access to labor 2.41 0.00 2.30 2.93 0.00 2.80 2.60 0.00 2.48 Improved phytosanitary 6.21 0.00 5.91 3.98 0.00 3.80 5.39 0.00 5.14 situation Additional farming 1.66 0.00 1.58 3.36 0.00 3.21 2.29 0.00 2.18 equipment and supplies Increase in sown land 6.36 0.00 6.06 4.27 0.00 4.07 5.59 0.00 5.33 Utilisation of Manure 1.02 0.00 0.97 0.93 0.00 0.88 0.99 0.00 0.94 Land better toiled and 4.48 0.00 4.27 0.68 0.00 0.65 3.09 0.00 2.94 prepared Other 8.30 0.00 7.90 3.64 0.00 3.47 6.59 0.00 6.28

Table 5.17 Reasons for a Worse Harvest in 2014-2015: Comparing Harvest 2014- 2015 to 2013-2014 Reason for Worse Harvest % of Households

Intervention Control All Households

Headed by Headed by Headed by Male Female Total Male Female Total Male Female Total Lack of chemical fertilizer 8.21 0.65 7.86 13.05 21.58 13.44 9.99 8.16 9.91 Non-utilization of 11.97 5.98 11.69 18.52 18.18 18.51 14.38 10.35 14.19 chemical fertilizer Inaccessibility to fertilizers 7.52 0.00 7.16 8.88 10.01 8.93 8.02 3.59 7.81 Labor shortage 5.26 0.00 5.01 8.43 14.54 8.71 6.43 5.21 6.37 Shortage of cultivable 1.85 0.00 1.76 2.79 0.00 2.66 2.20 0.00 2.09 land Lack of good quality seed 2.50 0.00 2.39 3.39 0.00 3.23 2.83 0.00 2.70 Bad quality seed 6.30 0.00 6.00 4.27 18.90 4.94 5.55 6.78 5.61 Inaccessibility to seeds 3.77 0.00 3.59 1.91 0.00 1.82 3.09 0.00 2.94

Page 65

Kolda Baseline Study

Intervention Control All Households

Headed by Headed by Headed by Male Female Total Male Female Total Male Female Total Lack of or inadequate 36.79 9.81 35.51 50.65 61.20 51.13 41.88 28.24 41.24 rainfall distribution Floods 5.13 9.13 5.32 3.23 0.00 3.08 4.43 5.86 4.50 Crop pests 4.23 0.00 4.03 5.90 13.94 6.27 4.85 5.00 4.85 Infertile soil 13.52 7.29 13.23 14.92 23.96 15.33 14.04 13.27 14.00 Damage by Livestock 2.60 0.00 2.48 3.19 5.35 3.29 2.82 1.92 2.77 No access to credit 3.21 0.00 3.06 1.40 0.00 1.34 2.55 0.00 2.43 Lack of farm tools 2.06 0.00 1.97 1.94 4.96 2.08 2.02 1.78 2.01 Other 9.94 9.13 9.90 9.10 4.96 8.91 9.63 7.63 9.54

To improve yields on the farmed land, Yaajeende has promoted the use of tractors. The tractors are operated by the Community-Based Solution Providers, who, for a fee, use them to turn soil for the farmers. Qualitative research revealed that farmers have largely welcomed the introduction of tractors, especially for use over large land surfaces. Plowing by tractors saves farmers time and relieves them of hard physical work. While it was also noted that the fee to use the tractors of 35,000 CFA (USD 58.06) per hectare is not always affordable for farmers, the use of credit has enabled many farmers to take advantage of this CBSP service.

The use of tractors in plowing has encountered two main problems. First, a key informant interview from Medina Passy noted some frustrations with the current delivery and use of tractors. Because demand for tractors is high, CBSP workers are not always able to promptly assist all farmers. In addition, when tractors break down, it is difficult for farmers to find technicians right away. An inconsistency between supply and demand often results in delays in production among large producers. According to the KII with a CBSP worker in Medina Passy:

With Yaajeende, we offer plowing services for groundnuts and corn. These operations are done with a tractor. Plowing and heavy offset disk plowing are two operations which are in great demand in the area but the number of tractors is insufficient to satisfy the demand. (KII, CBSP, Medina Yoro Foulah)

Second, late delivery of tractors in some communities has delayed the agricultural season. According to focus groups with heads of households and key informant interviews with producers in all three departments Medina Yoro Foulah, Velingara, and Kolda, when deep plowing is practiced, particularly by less experienced tractor operators, the soil sometimes becomes difficult to cultivate the subsequent year due to deep creases left by the tractor that become overgrown.

Some producers had benefited from the services of a tractor for plowing but it was found that it was very deep until a "less red" red layer emerged which had a negative impact on the growth of the grain but also on the retention of Inputs used due to runoff of rainwater. (KII, Producer, Darou Salam Seck)

Page 66

Kolda Baseline Study

Once the black layer of topsoil has been turned to expose the bottom red topsoil that is dry and infertile, it is difficult to obtain good yields even when organic manure or fertilizer is used. This problem is expected to occur more in regions that have a malleable soil. Overall, however, most farmers indicated that they would like to continue using tractors and motorized rippers.

B. Access to Land and Farming by Women

As part of the household survey, the respondents were asked a series of questions regarding land tenure. Agricultural land ownership is reported by 77.04 percent of all respondents (Table 5- 18). Overall, households in the non-intervention areas are more likely to be land owners (83 percent) compared to households in the intervention areas (74 percent). In addition, households headed by women are less likely than households headed by men to own land – 65.57 percent compared to 77.61 percent. However, since the percentage among all respondents of households headed by women is low, the percentage of households headed by women who own land is even lower representing 3.07 percent of all respondents. Women in intervention areas also appear to be in a more disadvantaged position than women in the control areas, as land ownership is approximately 32 percentage points lower among female headed households in intervention areas.

Fewer households in control areas lease land for agricultural use (3.17 percent) than households in the intervention area (7.99 percent). Results from the household survey also show that 12.39 percent of household in intervention areas both own and lease agricultural land compared to 10.58 percent in control areas.

Table 5.18 Land Tenure by Gender

Intervention Control All Households % of Households Headed By Headed By Headed By Land Tenure Male Female Male Female Total Male Female Total Owner 74.48 54.12 73.51 82.99 86.06 83.13 77.61 65.57 77.04 Tenant 0.10 0.00 0.09 0.57 0.00 0.54 0.27 0.00 0.26 farming Sharecropping 0.18 0.00 0.17 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.11 0.00 0.11 Lease 7.48 18.34 7.99 3.32 0.00 3.17 5.95 11.76 6.22 Owner & Tenant 1.24 0.00 1.18 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.78 0.00 0.75 Farming Owner & 0.26 0.00 0.25 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.17 0.00 0.16 Sharecropping Owner & 13.01 0.00 12.39 10.42 13.94 10.58 12.06 5.00 11.73 Lease Owner & 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.38 0.00 1.31 0.51 0.00 0.48 Other Other 3.26 27.54 4.41 1.32 0.00 1.26 2.55 17.66 3.26

Page 67

Kolda Baseline Study

Qualitative interviews provide more insight into women’s involvement in agricultural activities. Women who participated in the Focus Group Discussions often perform gardening for household consumption. In the Kolda department, the women in the Mother-to-Mother groups reported that they have started cultivating tree crops (banana and papaya) and community gardening (okra, sorrel, pepper and eggplant). They have received the support of Yaajeende to acquire necessary plants and nurseries. However, the FGD participants suggested they encounter three main constraints when practicing gardening. Unfortunately, if these constraints are not addressed, they might affect the sustainability of micro-gardening activities.

First, women in Medina Yoro Foulah and Kolda pointed out that unequal access to land is a key obstacle to gardening. While women can request that the Village Chief temporarily authorize them access to a plot of land for gardening activities, women feel that their requests are not given the same priority as requests made by men, reducing the extent to which they are granted.

Second, focus groups in all three departments in Kolda confirmed that another main barrier to gardening is the lack of water during the dry season. Women in Medina Yoro Foulah highlighted that the wells in their village do not have enough water to supply both drinking water and water for the produce gardens. In Velingara, the water points did not function for a prolonged period of time, therefore women had to travel long distances to obtain water. Women from villages in the Kolda department have asked for support to access water.

Third, the most commonly mentioned constraint in discussions with women was a lack of agricultural equipment and tools. They lack wheelbarrows and foes, along with fencing around their gardens to protect against roaming animals that eat their crops. Interviews revealed that women are often unable to purchase farm inputs due to high costs, and face limited access to land. Farming Inputs A. Seeds

In the household survey, respondents were asked to report how they obtain seeds for harvest. The question specifically asked about rice, millet, corn, fonio, sorghum, tomato, and onion seeds. A high number of respondents in both the intervention and control group, about 65 percent in each respective group, indicated they use rice, millet, corn, fonio, sorghum, tomato and onion seeds stored from their previous harvest. Table 5-19 presents the disaggregated results by type of head of household. Around 50 percent of all households indicated they purchased rice, millet, corn, fonio, sorghum, and groundnut seeds.

Table 5.19 Farm Inputs

Intervention Control All Households Headed by Headed by Headed by % of Households Male Female Total Male Female Total Male Female Total Using seeds from previous 65.60 45.62 65.18 65.01 64.70 65.00 65.37 57.26 65.11 harvest Purchasing seeds 48.98 0.71 46.86 54.66 67.88 55.26 51.07 26.07 49.95

Page 68

Kolda Baseline Study

Intervention Control All Households Headed by Headed by Headed by % of Households Male Female Total Male Female Total Male Female Total With women buying seeds 8.13 0.00 7.77 8.97 38.80 10.33 8.44 14.65 8.71

According to the qualitative research, government and distribution enterprises sell fertilizers and certified seeds. However, lack of available funds often prevents farmers from purchasing farm inputs including seeds. In Medina Yoro Foulah, the CBSP explained that before Yaajeende arrived, farmers had very little contact with development projects and programs, and that only rural development services provided by the state were available. Seeds for sale were produced by a few farmers who sold them to other local farmers, and these seeds were often of poor or unknown quality. Little was known about certified seeds before the arrival of Yaajeende. However, a few key informants did indicate that local seeds can be of high quality and sometimes are sold directly to seed distributors and sold as certified products.

A few farmers from the Kolda department found that the seeds supplied by Yaajeende have not been growing well. In this case, when the concern was taken to Yaajeende, it was discovered that the supplier was not providing certified corn seeds. B. Use of Organic Fertilizers (Manure and Composting) and Chemical Fertilizers

Both manure and composting represent cheap organic fertilizer options that can be made sustainably by those practicing agriculture. However, according to the household survey data shown in Table 5.20, the use of organic fertilizers in Kolda is low, with only 34.22 percent of respondents in both groups reporting making and applying manure in their fields. In the intervention group 39.08 percent of respondents indicated the use of manure in cultivation activities whereas in the control group the rate was 25.85 percent. In contrast, the use of chemical fertilizers is more prevalent, with 56.15 percent of households in intervention areas purchasing chemical fertilizers and 54.55 percent in control areas.

Table 5.20 Use of Manure and Compost

Intervention Control All Households Headed by Headed by Headed by % of Households that Male Female Total Male Female Total Male Female Total Use organic manure 40.27 15.13 39.08 26.20 18.47 25.85 35.10 16.33 34.22 Produce equine fertiliser 22.88 0.00 21.80 12.53 0.00 11.96 19.08 0.00 18.19 Purchase chemical 57.90 17.82 56.15 55.52 34.14 54.55 57.03 23.98 55.56 fertilisers Purchase equine fertiliser 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.36 0.00 1.30 0.50 0.00 0.48 Produce donkey fertiliser 20.01 7.29 19.41 11.93 8.46 11.77 17.05 7.71 16.61 Purchase donkey fertiliser 0.13 0.00 0.12 0.48 10.01 0.91 0.26 3.59 0.41

Page 69

Kolda Baseline Study

The quantitative survey also asked questions on the type of manure used by the household. Only 21.80 percent of households in the intervention areas reported producing and using equine manure. The percentage in the control areas was lower, with only 11.96 percent. Among intervention groups, the percentage of households producing equine manure was very low in the Kolda and Velingara departments with 1.43 percent and 5.48 percent respectively. Rates among households in the Medina Yoro Foulah department were higher, with almost 15 percent of households reporting producing equine manure. Similarly, in control areas, producing equine manure was low in the Kolda department (0.05 percent), compared to Velingara (5.59 percent) and Medina Yoro Foulah (5.83 percent). Producing and using donkey manure was even lower, only 16.61 percent of all households reporting its production. Table 5.12 provides more information on the donkey manure production rates by Department. The purchase of both equine and donkey fertilizer is low with less than 1 percent of households buying these items.

Table 5.21 Use of Manure by Department

% of Households producing Intervention Control Equine Manure in Kolda 1.43 0.54 Equine Manure in Medina Yoro Foulah 14.89 5.83 Equine in Velingara 5.48 5.59 Donkey Manure in Kolda 3.95 2.24 Donkey Manure in Medina Yoro Foulah 9.11 3.29 Donkey Manure in Velingara 6.35 6.24

As mentioned above, Table 5.20 “Use of Manure and Compost” shows that the utilization of manure in intervention areas is 13.23 percentage points higher than in control areas. This difference might be attributed to Yaajeende programing as the KII revealed that producers have benefited from the advice and training provided by Yaajeende on the use of manure and compost. In the interviews, several producers noted that the use of compost is low due to limited knowledge and understanding of compost preparation. For instance, a producer from the Kolda department explained that he has no knowledge of how to use compost. However, producers have stated they have already benefited from Yaajeende programing and have learned useful composting practices. One producer from Medina Yoro Foulah told the interviewers that the poor yield from the 2013-2014 season would have benefitted from the composting practices he has learned from Yaajeende. Another producer from the same department mentioned that he learned about composting techniques through Yaajeende and he used compost for the first time for his corn in the 2014-2015 season. He praised the use of this practice noting that:

Compost gives soil more life than fertilizer. If the soil is fertile, the farmer can have hope for his yield. Good material and compost is sufficient to reduce the purchase of fertilizer. (KII, Producer, Medina Yoro Foulah)

Moreover, several interviews emphasized a few more barriers regarding the use of manure and composting. First, it was noted that some farmers do not own enough animals, particularly cows, to be able to produce manure in sufficient quantities. While some producers who do not have enough livestock often ask herders to bring their cattle to the fields and deposit manure through

Page 70

Kolda Baseline Study

parcage (traditional fertilization practice in Kolda that allows animals to graze the land to benefit from manure), according to a producer from Medina Yoro Foulah some farmers might not have the means to regularly resort to these measures. Second, water scarcity at various periods throughout the year in Kolda, affects when and how much manure and compost households can produce. Furthermore, a producer from Velingara mentioned that he lacks the necessary tools such as shovels and boots to properly collect manure. He and his children use their bare hands to gather manure. He was worried that producing and manipulating manure with bare hands endangers their health. Agricultural Practices A. Irrigation and Water Supply

The survey data show that rainfed agriculture is the dominant type of cultivation in Kolda, being practiced by more than 90 percent of households in both intervention and control groups (See Table 5.22). Irrigated agriculture is minimally practiced, with less than 3 percent across all households, while less than 2 percent employ flood recession agriculture. Rainfed agriculture is highly dependent on the climate. However, qualitative research shows that, in recent times, rainfall in the rainy season has been irregular, unpredictable, and unevenly distributed creating either droughts or heavy floods. During the rainy season there can be dry spells that last a couple of days which can have a damaging effect on the crop yields. Meanwhile, excessive rainfall can be harmful to yields when losses of foliar biomass occur. This has a direct impact on food security and farm income. It can also trigger a decrease in pastoral products, such as hay, which can be detrimental to animal farming.

The number for households practicing gardening is low. However, the data report gardening practices for those who identified themselves as heads of households. Since the percentage of woman head of household in the sample is low – about 5 percent – the number of women practicing gardening in Kolda may be underestimated.

Table 5.22 Systems of Production

Intervention Control All Households Headed by Headed by Headed by % of Households Practising Male Female Total Male Female Total Male Female Total Rainfed Agriculture 91.11 42.73 90.08 90.51 73.41 89.65 90.88 61.44 89.91 Rainfed Irrigated Crops 0.73 0.00 0.71 3.16 16.66 3.84 1.68 10.16 1.96 Off-Season Irrigated Crop 0.34 0.00 0.33 0.10 0.00 0.09 0.24 0.00 0.24 (October to June) Rainfed Season Garden Crop 0.56 0.00 0.55 0.05 0.00 0.05 0.36 0.00 0.35 Off-Season Garden Crop 0.92 0.00 0.90 0.96 1.60 0.99 0.93 0.98 0.93 Flood Recession Agriculture 0.29 6.09 0.41 2.41 8.33 2.71 1.12 7.46 1.33 Lowland Agriculture 0.50 0.00 0.49 0.53 0.00 0.50 0.51 0.00 0.50 Other 0.17 0.00 0.16 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.10 0.00 0.10

Page 71

Kolda Baseline Study

Agricultural water deficits are also highlighted in Table 5.17. About 35 percent of respondents from the intervention group and almost 50 percent of respondents from the control group attributed their poor harvest from 2014-2015 season to lack of or inadequate rainfall distribution. FGDs and KIIs also illustrate the uneven distribution and short duration of rainfalls during the rainy season:

Due to the short rainy season, many crops did not have the chance to ripe well. (FGD, Male Head of Household, Medina Yoro Foulah)

In addition, respondents in the qualitative study attributed the lack of irrigation agriculture in small-scale garden crops to the lack of water. While water from wells can be used to irrigate, the water table in Kolda is deep and well water is generally used for consumption rather than crop watering. To describe the existing use of wells for irrigation purposes, the following was noted:

The village has a borehole that does not have enough capacity to feed the population. The wells are also insufficient to supply water to the gardens [For gardening and market gardening] (FGD, MTM, Medina Yoro Foulah)

B. Training and Membership in Producer Organizations

The majority of respondents in the household survey indicated they practiced farming, with 86.64 percent of all respondents engaged in agriculture during the 2014/2015 period, 74.32 percent reared livestock, while almost 67 percent were involved in both (Table 5.23). However, respondents have not received sufficient agricultural training as only 10 percent of all respondents in the quantitative survey reported that they have received training in cultivation practices. Training participation rates among adult women are lower – approximately 4 percent were exposed to some type of training. Among the topics covered in these training were: conservation farming, anti-erosion techniques, conservation of water and soils, tillage practices, sowing techniques, land recovery techniques, and composting.

Discussions with Mother-to-Mother groups and producers have shown that respondents are interested in training opportunities. For instance, participants in the Mother-to-Mother focus group from Medina Yoro Foulah mentioned they would like to be trained in livestock farming practices and in methods to access credit for agriculture. During a key informant interview, one producer from Velingara recommended that Yaajeende provide in-depth training on cultivation and composting techniques. He noted that he would have liked to produce compost, however, he has not been trained on appropriate techniques and therefore he did not have a good understanding of what materials should be used.

Table 5.23 Agricultural Activities

% of Households that in 2014/2015 Intervention Control Total Practiced farming 82.72% 93.40% 86.68% Practiced livestock breeding 78.35% 67.36% 74.32% With members receiving training on cultivation practices 10.23% 9.10% 9.72%

Page 72

Kolda Baseline Study

% of Households that in 2014/2015 Intervention Control Total With women receiving training on cultivation practices 4.21% 3.86% 4.09% With members in a producer organisation 11.77% 8.69% 10.64% With women in a producer organisation 7.57% 4.5% 6.45%

According to the household survey data, about 11 percent of the households in Kolda have members who belong to a Producer Organization. Women account for 6.5 percent of the members. However, it is notable that the percentage of women in Producer Organizations is higher among intervention than control villages (7.5 percent membership versus 4.5 percent, respectively), which may indicate that Yaajeende is supporting women to join these formal groups. Crop Management

The key informant interviews provide information on the crop management practices of agricultural producers. In the Kolda region, producers typically use their crops for consumption first, and then if there are any crops left, they sell the remaining to generate income. The main crops used for consumption are maize, millet, sorghum, and cowpea, while crops such as groundnuts are mostly cultivated for sale. Two key informant interviews with producers from Velingara revealed that they use the cultivated crops (maize, millet) only for consumption. In this regards, the two producers stated:

No, I do not sell the grains. If I sell my crop with a large family like mine, I risk returning and buying something for the family. I do not sell my crop. (KII, Producer, Velingara)

The grains are intended for household consumption. Selling crops is risky because during the lean period households resort to borrowing from other households to live. (KII, Produce, Velingara)

One KII with a producer from the Kolda department showed that some households use part of the maize and millet crops for consumption while selling the remaining to pay off any debts. The producer mentioned that these crops provide food security for the family apart from some profit. The producer from the Kolda department also harvested groundnuts that were entirely sold to cooperatives. In addition, another producer from Medina Yoro Foulah told the KII facilitator that even though his household consumed part of their production of millet, sorghum, cowpea, and groundnuts, the share sold was larger because the income generated helped fund other household needs such as education and health. The producer also mentioned that producers would benefit from a marketing system that helps farmers sell their crops more easily: At present, there is no structure that ensures the marketing of agricultural products in the locality. Inputs are sold in an uncontrolled way to producers. The latter expect a great deal from Yaajeende for the good management and marketing of agricultural products (inputs, seeds, plant protection products) and the organization of the marketing of harvested products in order to benefit from their performance not only for the household's welfare but for improved food security throughout the community. (KII, Producer, Medina Yoro Foulah)

Page 73

Kolda Baseline Study

Credit and Insurance

Table 5.24 shows that few households in the quantitative survey have reported receiving loans from banks (12.12 percent). The percentage is higher in intervention areas (14.63 percent) compared to control areas (7.78 percent). The data also show that households headed by women have no bank loans. These households are also more likely to have loans from family; 26 percent in intervention areas and 23 percent in control areas, as compared to 11 percent in intervention areas and 15 percent in control areas among male headed households. Furthermore, female headed households are far more likely to borrow from a neighborhood store than are male headed households (46 percent of households vs. 13 percent, respectively). While approximately 10 percent of female headed households in intervention areas borrow from neighbors or friends, no female headed households in control areas indicated this.

Table 5.24 Loans and Credit

Intervention Control All Households % of Households who Headed by Headed by Headed by borrow from Male Female Total Male Female Total Male Female Total Bank 15.36 0.00 14.63 8.15 0.00 7.78 12.71 0.00 12.12 Family 11.10 26.10 11.81 14.64 23.00 15.02 12.40 24.99 12.99 Neighbours and 17.28 9.70 16.92 17.12 0.00 16.34 17.22 6.22 16.71 Friends Tontine 3.01 0.00 2.87 1.00 0.00 0.95 2.27 0.00 2.17 Neighbourhood shop 14.15 45.81 15.65 12.04 46.79 13.63 13.38 46.16 14.91 Usurer 1.23 0.00 1.17 6.45 0.00 6.16 3.15 0.00 3.00 Credit Union 5.87 0.00 5.59 9.50 0.00 9.06 7.20 0.00 6.87 /Cooperative Merchants 6.85 6.91 6.86 7.40 8.16 7.43 7.05 7.36 7.07 Other 3.62 0.65 3.48 3.79 0.00 3.61 3.68 0.42 3.53

The qualitative research provides more insight on the use of financial services (credit and insurance) by farmers. In KIIs and FGDs, farmers reported that when Yaajeende started in Kolda in 2014, they were offered a package that consisted of training in new technologies and conservation agriculture, and access to credit when they adopted the new farming techniques including loans to pay for tractor use and the purchase of farming inputs. They were also offered farm insurance for the first time. During these interviews, sociologists sensed that producers and heads of households are often reluctant to take out loans because they become stressed about paying back the loans on time, particularly when funds are low. Producers in Velingara mentioned that many farmers did not apply for credit in 2015 because they had a hard time repaying the credit took in 2014. Due to the lack of rainfall in 2014, the crop production was lower than anticipated.

To take advantage of the credit and insurance offered by Yaajeende, a farmer in Velingara reported that farmers formed groups of three to five members to open bank accounts in which they jointly deposited equal amounts of money. After opening the account they applied for credit at the bank. In KIIs and FGDs, farmers who have not been able to obtain credit highlighted

Page 74

Kolda Baseline Study

difficulty in satisfying the requisite conditions and in preparing complicated application files. For instance, to receive credit, producers have to submit a guarantee such as a cart, immovable property, or animals (horses, donkeys, cows, etc.), which is challenging for many farmers. Incorrectly filled out forms can also delay the process, resulting in credit that arrives too late to purchase farm inputs at the start of the cultivation season.

Regarding insurance claims, farmers noted that they are often confused about what policies cover. For example, one producer from Velingara mentioned he never heard of farm insurance before Yaajeende. Moreover, he mentioned that even now he is not sure how the insurance works and what it covered. In another case, a producer from Velingara thought that his insurance would compensate him for poor yields during a drought, but the claim was refused. Such occurrences perpetuate confusion around the benefits of farming insurance and fears over borrowing from banks and being unable to pay back loans. In this regards, the producer stated:

They came and they found out of their eyes, they let us know that insurance cannot pay everything. And we were amazed because they had not said that at first. Then they left. Later they came back to tell us that insurance will pay most of the credit and the rest it's up to us to pay it; While there were some among us who did not even have anything to eat. They had put all their energy into growing maize and had no food. If you tell these people to pay the credit, it may be complicated. [...]. For this year, no one dared to take credit and even less to take out insurance. (KII, Producer, Velingara)

6. GENERAL OBSERVATIONS ON YAAJEENDE IMPLEMENTATION IN THE KOLDA REGION

During the qualitative research, sociologists made observations about the roles and responsibilities of CNV, CWG and LSC and the limitations of these services. USAID/Yaajeende has recruited 136 CNVs and LSCs in the Kolda region, and has asked communities to provide CNVs to be responsible for managing nutrition and sanitation activities in communities. To be selected as a CNV, individuals have to volunteer to work for the community and have to be familiar with nutrition concepts or have experience in performing selected tasks such as manufacturing enriched flour, holding community meals, or promoting hygiene.

Following training provided by Yaajeende, the CWG, LSC, and CNV are knowledgeable about food safety, nutrition, and WASH. CWG and LSC are expected to work closely with local officials to promote access to land for women, access to quality drinking water, and access to quality farming inputs for producers. According to Yaajeende staff, the CWG and the LSC have greatly contributed to the implementation of the “Child Granaries.” Interviews revealed that this initiative has been well received, has been successful in providing enriched flour for children during times of food scarcity, and has taught women how to provide nutritious foods to their children. It was pointed out that the involvement of men has contributed to the success of the program. During the head of household FGDs, several men praised the program, which asks them to donate part of their harvest to the granaries. Several participants claimed they observed a difference in the health of their children and believe that the enriched flour is positively affecting their nutritional status. As a result, men in FGDs appeared proud of their contribution.

Page 75

Kolda Baseline Study

The CNV are responsible for providing free training and outreach programs to the community, while the CBSP conduct business activities such as selling fertilizer. In Kolda, Yaajeende began with only CNV and later, during the expansion phase, rolled out Nutrition CBSP. This might explain why it was noted occasional confusion around the responsibilities of Nutrition CBSP and CNV, who coordinate two separate, though interrelated functions. The qualitative research team noted that CNVs are often very busy and unable to keep up with all of their responsibilities. Beneficiaries noted confusion around which products are being offered for free by Yaajeende and which need to be paid for. In addition, during FGDs, heads of households mentioned that there is no proper storage area for donated cereals, and that CNVs who teach women how to prepare and cook enriched flour for their children often lack sufficient utensils for the task. CNVs who run the quail rearing program similarly noted that they do not have money to buy food for the animals. Some CNVs who were assigned to the role by the community reported that they were not properly consulted. These logistical challenges will most likely be minimized as the Nutrition CBSPs continue to expand their activities and, eventually, combine the activities under CBSP to merge CNV and CBSP.

Regarding CWG and LSC, FGDs mentioned that they are not always visible by local authorities or by the local CBSP or CNV. It was mentioned that there is room for these individuals to play a greater role in monitoring and evaluation of program activities, and that CWG and LSC could be a stronger link between programming and various levels of local government as the Yaajeende program expands in Kolda. FGDs mentioned the importance of ongoing communication between each of these Yaajeende program implementers to ensure coordination, and the importance of facilitating these actors to regularly visit villages within the ZOI.

Page 76

Kolda Baseline Study

7. CONCLUSION

7.1 Conclusion for Study Question 1: Nutrition

Wasting (Indicator 1.1), Stunting (indicator 1.2), and Child Underweight (Indicator 1.3)

Children’s nutritional status indicators – wasting, stunting, and child underweight - showed no significant differences between those residing in project intervention areas and those residing in non-project areas. Less than 10 percent of the children were wasted but nearly one third of children surveyed were stunted in both intervention and control groups. Around 20 percent of children were underweight, reflecting acute and chronic undernutrition. Within the intervention group, boys were more likely to be wasted than girls. Overall, older children showed higher prevalence of malnutrition and growth measurements were worse for older children. For the intervention group, older children between 24 – 59 months of age were more likely to be underweight. For the control group, older children were more likely to be stunted and underweight than the younger cohort. This pattern is typical in conditions where children suffer from food shortages and recurrent or chronic infections, both of which contribute to linear growth faltering over time. Adult Female Underweight (Indicator 1.4)

Fewer adult females were underweight in the intervention villages than the control villages. Around 22 percent of women were underweight in the intervention villages while 27 percent of women were underweight in the control villages; the prevalence of underweight women was around 5 percentage points lower for the intervention group. Lower rate of underweight women among the intervention group may not be the result of Yaajeende’s programming in Kolda. However, qualitative research showed that women widely understand the benefits of nutrition- rich diet and recognize the importance of dietary diversity among pregnant and/or breastfeeding mothers. Minimum Acceptable Diet (Indicator 1.5)

The prevalence of children satisfying the MAD indicator is higher in the intervention group than the control group but the results are not statistically reliable. Based on other sources, the proportion of children receiving MAD in the intervention villages may be higher than the control villages. Based on the Senegal FTF PBS data, the prevalence of MAD for the entire region of Kolda was around 7 percent. Qualitative research suggests that nutrition volunteers are receiving training on dietary diversity of children and on the importance of exclusive breastfeeding. Length of Soudure (Indicator 1.6) and Meal Frequency (Indicator 1.7)

Household level nutritional results were not significantly different between the intervention group and the control group. Both groups experienced reduced food intake for around 10 weeks (2.3 months). For both groups, around 2 percent of households reported consuming less than two meals per day. Generally, the household nutritional level is fair in both groups. However, the results must be noted with caution because data were collected during the season of relative

Page 77

Kolda Baseline Study

food security and this may have been overestimated the nutritional indicators. Qualitative research suggests that Yaajeende’s new project, Child Granaries, may be a helpful method to cope with food shortage during the lean season.

7.2 Conclusion for Study Question 2: Healthy Household Practices

Kitchen Hygiene (Indicator 2.1), Safe Food Storage (Indicator 2.2), Water Treatment (Indicator 2.3), and Food Conservation Techniques (Indicator 2.4)

Conclusion: The household survey asked questions on food hygiene practices including kitchen hygiene practices and food storage (Indicator 2.1 and Indicator 2.2). The results of the baseline quantitative survey show that the percentage of households practicing at least one Yaajeende kitchen hygiene is high among both households living in villages located in project intervention areas and those residing in control areas – more than 90 percent. A large number of households in both groups reported using safe food storage methods (almost 60 percent).

Household water treatment practices (Indicator 2.3) are more prevalent in intervention areas with approximately 22 percent of households treating water before drinking it compared to approximately 14 percent in control areas. The difference is statistically significant. The qualitative research showed that numerous participants in FGDs reported knowledge of water treatment techniques.

Three quarters of households in intervention areas (75 percent) practice at least one food conservation techniques. About half of the control households indicated they use one of the following five techniques: drying, smoking, sprouting, fermenting, and enriching foods. The difference between the two groups is statistically significant. Salt Iodation and Storage (Indicator 2.5), Exclusive Maternal Breastfeeding (Indicator 2.6), and Food Diversity (Indicator 2.7)

Conclusion: The use and proper storage of iodized salt in both control and intervention households is low. Only 9 percent in intervention households and 10 percent in control reported using and adequately storing iodized salt. This finding is corroborated by the findings of the qualitative research. Respondents mentioned they either have not heard of iodized salt or have heard about it for the first time from Yaajeende training.

The prevalence of children under the age of six months being exclusively breastfed is high across both groups. More than half of children under 6 months in intervention and control areas (60 percent and 66 percent respectively) are being exclusively breastfed. These results are not statistically reliable due to the small sample size, however, FGDs showed that most participants in the qualitative study are aware of the importance of exclusively breastfeeding during the first 6 months of life.

The households survey results showed that most households lack appropriate nutrition. The average household dietary diversity score (HHDS) for intervention households indicates that on

Page 78

Kolda Baseline Study

average households consume between five to six of the 12 food groups, whereas households in control areas consume between four to five food groups.

Handwashing Station in Common Use (Indicator 2.8), Drinking Water from an Improved Source (Indicator 2.9), and Cooking Water from an Improved Source (Indicator 2.10)

Conclusion: A handwashing station with soap and water was present in less than one percent of the intervention and control households in the survey. The low prevalence is probably due to the limited availability of water in the Kolda region.

Both intervention and control households in intervention areas indicate using an improved water sources for drinking and cooking (41 percent and 37 percent respectively). The percentage of households reporting using an improved water source among control groups is lower – 14 and 20 percent respectively. The difference is statistically significant.

7.3 Conclusion for Study Question 3: Agricultural Practices and Production

Conclusion: Farming plays an important role in the Kolda region with 78 percent of intervention households and 67 percent of control households participate in livestock activities. The difference between groups is significant at the 0.1 level. The percentage of households with livestock income is substantially lower, only 7 percent of households in intervention areas have livestock income. The percentage of households with livestock income is higher in control areas – almost 12 percent. The difference is statistically different. The average income for the intervention group is 424,027 CFA, whereas for the control group the average income is 247,963 CFA. Both differences are significant at the 0.10 percent level.

Page 79

Kolda Baseline Study

8. RECOMMENDATIONS

1. Account for the timing of Kolda Baseline during the final impact evaluation. A number of nutrition-related indicators are sensitive to the timing of data collection. For instance, prevalence of wasting (Indicator 1.1) and underweight (Indicator 1.3) may sharply increase during an acute shortage of food. Similarly, the MAD indicator (Indicator 1.5) is partly based on meal frequency and the rate of children satisfying the MAD may decrease during the season of relative food insecurity. Household meal frequency (Indicator 1.7) may also sharply decline during the lean season because the indicator only accounts for the number of meals prepared in the last 24 hours. For Kolda Baseline Study, data were collected between November 2015 and January 2016, while the data collection for Yaajeende MIE and the baseline for the other regions occurred in May and June. If the final impact evaluation is conducted around May or June to align with the MIE and the baseline, Kolda’s season-sensitive nutritional baseline data may not be comparable. Therefore, in theory, data collection for the final impact evaluation should align with the timing of the Kolda baseline and occur between November and January. If this is not viable in practice, the final impact evaluation of Yaajeende should take into account that Yaajeende’s effect on nutrition may be underestimated for Kolda.

2. Track improvements in women’s dietary diversity. Yaajeende monitors the prevalence of underweight women in its intervention villages. However, this indicator is insufficient to accurately measure Yaajeende’s activities on nutrition of women. A number of women noted during the focus group discussions that they learned about the importance of nutrient-rich diet for pregnant and breastfeeding women through Yaajeende. Therefore, it is recommended that Yaajeende track the number of women achieving minimum dietary diversity.24

3. Add Household Hunger Scale (HHS) to the final impact evaluation. HHS is a light- touch way of calculating the prevalence of households experiencing moderate or severe hunger. By adding three additional questions to the final impact evaluation questionnaire, the hunger level of Yaajeende’s intervention areas can be compared to other regions in Senegal using the Senegal PBS data and that of other countries.

24 This recommendation is based on the project performance indicators provided to the team in June 2015. Yaajeende’s revised M&E plan now includes an indicator measuring women’s dietary diversity as “percentage of direct female beneficiaries of nutrition-sensitive agricultural activities consuming a diet of minimum diversity”.

Page 80

Kolda Baseline Study

ANNEX I: ABRIDGED RESULTS FRAMEWORK

USAID|USAID|Yaajeende Abridged Results Framework

USAID/Senegal Economic Growth Development Objective: Increased Inclusive Economic Growth

Feed the Future Goal: Sustainably Reduce Global Poverty and Hunger

Level 1, Objective 1: Inclusive Level 1, Objective 3: Improved Level 1, Objective 4: Improved Agriculture Sector Growth Nutritional Status, especially of Management of Natural Resources

IR 1.1: Improved Agricultural IR 3.1: Bring to Scale Essential IR 4.1: Improved Water Nutrition Actions

Sub‐IR 1.1: Increased Sub‐IR 3.1.1: Improved IR 4.2: Improved Conservation agriculture value chain and off‐ access to diverse and of Bio‐diverse Areas farm jobs quality foods Sub‐IR 1.1.2: Increased Private Sub‐IR 3.1.2: Improved health and nutrition IR 4.3: Increased ability to behaviors adapt to climate change IR 1.2: Improved Rural Sub‐IR 3.1.3: Improved fl/hild

Sub‐IR 1.2.1: Off‐farm revenues diversified Sub‐IR 1.2.2: Local warehouse IR3.2: Integrate nutrition into capacities strengthened the value chain approach Sub‐IR 1.2.3: Irrigation Sub‐IR 3.2.1: Increased private sector investment in IR 1.3: Improved Access to Finance

Sub‐IR 1.3.1: Agribusiness and BDS enhanced

IR 1.4: Improved Markets

Sub‐IR 1.4.1: Role of Farmers’ organization strengthened Sub‐IR 1.4.2: Agricultural revenues diversified

Page 81

Kolda Baseline Study

ANNEX II: CORRESPONDENCE OF INDICATORS WITH PMP

PMP Correspondence Many of the indicators in the Kolda Baseline Study and the Yaajeende Midterm Impact Evaluation are also indicators in the Performance Management Plan (PMP).

Correspondence of Midterm Impact Evaluation Indicators and PMP Indicators.

YMIE PMP Indicator Description

1.1 28 Wasting among children aged 6-59 months.

1.2 29 Stunting among children aged 6-59 months.

1.3 30 Underweight among children aged 6-59 months.

1.4 31 Underweight among women aged 15-49 years.

1.5 33 Minimum acceptable diet (MAD) among children aged 6-23 months.

1.6 27 Duration of reduced food intake (months).

1.7 32 Fewer than two meals per day.

2.1 36 Hygienic kitchen behavior, including handwashing and hair covering. 2.2 36 Improved food storage practices, including cold storage and covered storage.

2.3 40 Treated drinking water, using at least one of the following: bleach, filters, and silver filters.

2.4 36 Food conservation technique adoption, including fermentation, germination, torrefaction, drying, or fortification (mélange).

2.5 35 Iodized salt, meaning both purchase and storage.

2.6 none Exclusive breastfeeding of infants under 6 months of age.

2.7 1 Food diversity since 2011.

2.8 41 Handwashing station in common use.

2.9 40 Drinking from an improved water source, meaning from a covered well, faucet, or deep well.

2.10 40 Cooking with an improved water source, meaning from a covered well, faucet, or deep well.

3.1 (3) Poverty prevalence.

3.2 (13) Surface area cultivated.

3.3 (13) Surface area for horticulture.

Page 82

Kolda Baseline Study

YMIE PMP Indicator Description

3.4 (13) Surface area for irrigation.

3.5 (13) Surface area for flood plain agriculture.

3.6 (3) Total household production in agriculture.

3.7 (3) Total household revenue from agriculture.

3.8 6 Prevalence of seed purchases.

3.9 6 Prevalence of fertilizer use.

3.10 6 Adoption of agriculture techniques. 3.11 6 Use of improved seed sources.

3.12 7 Use of community based service providers.

3.13 6 Use of improved fertilizer sources.

3.14 (16) Participation in agriculture trainings.

Page 83

Kolda Baseline Study

ANNEX III: USAID/YAAJEENDE PROGRAM – KOLDA BASELINE SCOPE OF WORK

I. Background The goal of the USAID/Yaajeende Agricultural Development Program is to accelerate the participation of the very poor in rural economic growth and to improve their nutritional status. The Program is designed based on an understanding that food security is made up of four elements—availability, access, utilization, and governance. The development hypothesis of USAID/Yaajeende is that increased crop and livestock production leads directly to greater availability for both producers and consumers and it leads to improved access for producers. Increased marketing and marketing services lead to greater access for both producers and consumers as products demanded are delivered in the time, place and quality needed and as better prices develop (via reduced marketing margins) for both producers and consumers. Also, the higher incomes among the poorest of producers improve access and reduce vulnerability to food insecurity. The project has two main objectives: 1) Accelerate the participation of the poor in rural economic growth, 2) Improved Nutritional status, especially of women and children. This evaluation concept mostly covers these two objectives. To achieve the first objective, agriculture interventions have been made, which aim to help both emerging and ultra-poor farmers within a Communauté Rurale (CR) to be organized into Producer Groups (PGs) or Producer Organizations (POs), enabling them to take advantage of economies of scale and gain access to new skills, technologies and financial resources that USAID/Yaajeende introduces via its Community Based Service Provider (CBSP) network. Over the course of the project, it is expected that the farmers would produce more food for local consumption and markets, at the same time, become stakeholders in dynamic new agro-enterprises that improve the household revenues of owners and workers, and lead to the increased availability and access to food. To achieve the second objective, the project has implemented nutrition interventions that focus on increasing public demand for nutritious foods via education, training and behavior change communications and improving the supply of diverse, nutritious foods, including fortified foods through local agents. The project works to strengthen the existing network of Community Nutrition Volunteers (CNVs) set up by the Nutrition Enhanced Program (NEP). These CNVs extend information to mothers and children on nutrition best practices, provide guidance to PGs and POs about what foods to cultivate, and link people to public nutrition services. The nutrition component will also include promotion of wild foods, preservation of local foods, meal fortification using local food, gardens and iodized salt, distribution of vitamin A and deworming medicine, behavior change communication/information, education and communication (BCC/IEC) and water, sanitation and hygiene (WASH) activities. In 2011, NCBA/CLUSA, the implementers of the Yaajeende activity in Senegal, undertook a baseline data collection for an impact evaluation of its interventions. The Yaajeende baseline data collection took place between May and June of 2011 in the Yaajeende activity area (intervention group) and other areas outside the Yaajeende activity area to serve as a comparison group (control group). It covered five specific zones: Bakel, Matam, Kedougou, Kolda and Tambacounda. Within these zones the survey was conducted in 269 villages, and within each village 10 households were surveyed. The household survey covered a total of 2,690 households representing a population of 29,000 individuals, which in turn represent over 1 million people in almost 92,000 households. In 2014, USAID Senegal, in an effort to ensure more rigor in their evaluation designs, directly contracted the midterm data collection of the Yaajeende impact evaluation with the International Development Group (IDG), under the Learning, Evaluation, and Analysis Project-II (LEAP-II) IQC. The first part of the Yaajeende mid-term impact evaluation was conducted between March and August 2015. It covered

Page 84

Kolda Baseline Study

Phase 1 of the Yaajeende activity (Bakel, Matam, and Kedougou regions) and a total of 2,720 households were targeted to be interviewed. Although villages in the Kolda zone were surveyed in the first baseline, the data is now over three years old and thus may not reflect the current status of indicators in the Kolda zone.

II. Purpose The purpose of this baseline survey and data collection is to establish new baseline measures for an impact evaluation of the Yaajeende activities in the Kolda region. The specific objectives of the impact evaluation are: 1. Establish baseline values of 16 key target indicators defined in the USAID/Yaajeende PMP (see Annex1), and 2. Provide supporting information on dynamics around household revenues/income and adoption of key behaviors thought to impact nutritional status.

III. Evaluation Design and Methodology A quasi-experimental design is recommended for this impact evaluation. While the evaluation team shall propose its own methodology, it is expected that the evaluation will be implemented through a mixed- method approach (quantitative and qualitative) involving household surveys, document reviews, key informant interviews, and focus group meetings. The Evaluation Team should include any additional and relevant nutrition indicators that will inform on the improvement of nutritional status of women and children. The Evaluation Team will develop the specific approach of the evaluation methodology and analytical framework, a detailed sampling plan, and data collection tools (e.g. survey and interview questionnaires, discussion guide for focus groups, etc.). The evaluation design approach must be similar to the one used for the mid-term data collection of the Yaajeende impact evaluation, Phase 1. The Evaluation Team should take into account lessons learned from Phase 1 of Yaajeende impact evaluation. The Evaluation Team should include to the reports (draft and final) any methodological limitations to the evaluation.

IV. Deliverables The Evaluation Team shall deliver the following to the USAID Contracting Officer’s Representative (COR) for this contract:

1. A work plan including evaluation design, evaluation timeline, data collection methodology and tools; 2. A draft evaluation report; 3. A Power Point presentation to USAID/Senegal and the stakeholders about the findings, conclusions and recommendations ; and 4. A final evaluation report. The final evaluation report must meet the quality criteria specified in the Evaluation Policy. See following link for more information. http://www.usaid.gov/evaluation/policy.

Page 85

Kolda Baseline Study

V. Composition/skills required for the evaluation team The Evaluation Team must have proven experience and capabilities in conducting impact evaluations of similar nature, size, and scope. It is expected that the Evaluation Team will be comprised of one internationally-hired Evaluation Team Leader and up to three locally-hired experts with skills defined below. All candidates must be approved by USAID. The Evaluation Team will work under the overall direction of the Team Leader.

The Evaluation Team Leader is responsible for clarifying the scope and timeline with USAID/Senegal, compiling and distributing the background materials to the team members, team management and coordination, writing assignments, making transportation and logistics arrangements, field work preparation/scheduling, and briefings/debriefings. Working in conjunction with other team members, s/he will be responsible for data analysis, lessons learned, and recommendations.

The Evaluation Team Leader must have the following skills and qualifications:  Post graduate degree in agricultural economics or related fields;  Extensive experience in strategic planning/development;  10 years of experience in evaluation and proven record of leadership in evaluation of agriculture and food security projects/programs;  Proven experience as a team leader;  Excellent spoken and written skills in English and French; and.  Knowledge of USAID policies and programs.

Additionally, other team members must have the following skills and qualifications:  Post graduate degree in agriculture and/or economics;  Post graduate degree in nutrition;  Seven years of experience in evaluation;  Expertise in agriculture, nutrition, and food security projects/programs;  Excellent spoken and written skills in French and English.

The Evaluation Team will work with a local entity (e.g. University, Research Center, or Consulting Firm) with proven expertise in impact evaluation and survey design.

VI. Timing The Kolda baseline data collection should be completed between October and November 2015.

Key indicators to be measured during the evaluation

Cumulative Ind. Target Type No. Project Performance Indicator Change Outcom 1 % of Households that have increased dietary diversity score by at least 8%. 80% e Outcom Number of HHs adopting improved practices or behavior after training by 6 Track only e USAID|Yaajeende (new) Outcom 8 Number of Households with improved livestock production Track only e Outcom 9 Number of Households with Increased livestock related income Track only e

Page 86

Kolda Baseline Study

Cumulative Ind. Target Type No. Project Performance Indicator Change Outcom Total number of months of the previous 12 months a household was 27 -30% e unable to meet its food needs (annual reduction compared to the baseline) Impact 28 Prevalence of stunted children under five years of age* (Reduction) -20% Impact 29 Prevalence of underweight children under five years of age* (Reduction) -25% Impact 30 Prevalence of wasted children under five years of age* (new) Track only Impact 31 Prevalence of underweight women* (new) Track only Outcom 32 Reduction in % of households that consume fewer than 2 meals per day -50% e Outcom Prevalence of children 6-23 months receiving a Minimum Acceptable Diet 33 Track only e MAD)* Outcom Percentage increase over baseline of households using iodized salt and 35 30% e storing it properly Outcom Number of HH adopting food processing, food safety or nutrition 36 25000 e practices due to USAID|Yaajeende (new) Outcom Number of HH adopting improved water, sanitation and hygiene practices 40 9,500 e due to USAID|Yaajeende Outcom Percent of households with soap and water at a handwashing station 41 30% e commonly used by family members Outcom 42 Percent of households using a drinking water source 50% e Outcom Prevalence of exclusive breastfeeding among children under six months e Outcom Households income: crops, livestock and others e

Page 87

Kolda Baseline Study

ANNEX IV: KOLDA BASELINE SURVEY QUESTIONNAIRE

Nom du département Code Département Nom de la Commune Code Commune Nom du village Code du village Numéro du questionnaire NOM DU CHEF DE MÉNAGE Nom et prénom de l’enquêteur Code de l’enquêteur Nom et prénom du Superviseur Code du Superviseur Numéro de l'équipe

Heure début de l'entrevue Heure fin de l'entrevue Code

1. REMPLI 2. PAS DE MEMBRE DU MÉNAGE À LA MAISON OU PAS D'ENQUÊTÉ COMPÉTENT 3. PERSONNE À LA MAISON, AU MOMENT DE LA VISITE 4. DIFFÉRÉ 5. REFUSÉ 6. LOGEMENT VACANT 7. PAS DE LOGEMENT À L'ADRESSE 8. LOGEMENT DÉTRUIT 9. LOGEMENT NON TROUVÉ 10. AUTRE Spécifier______99. Logement non éligible à l'enquête

Page 88

Kolda Baseline Study

“DÉCLARATION A LIRE AU REPONDANT:

Je vous remercie de l'occasion de parler avec vous. Nous sommes une équipe de recherche de CRDH et nous menons une enquête pour en apprendre davantage sur l'agriculture, la sécurité alimentaire, la consommation alimentaire, la nutrition et le bien-être des ménages dans cette région. Votre ménage a été sélectionné pour participer à une entrevue qui comprend des questions sur des sujets tels que vos antécédents familiaux, les caractéristiques du foyer, les dépenses et les biens des ménages, la consommation alimentaire et la nutrition des femmes et des enfants. Cette partie de l'enquête comprend des questions sur la disponibilité de la nourriture dans le ménage. Votre participation est entièrement volontaire. Si vous acceptez de participer, vous pouvez choisir d'arrêter à tout moment ou de sauter des questions auxquelles vous ne voulez pas répondre. Vos réponses seront entièrement confidentielles ; nous ne partagerons pas d'information qui vous identifie avec quiconque. Après avoir entré le questionnaire dans une base de données, nous allons détruire toutes les informations telles que votre nom qui pourrait relier ces réponses à votre identité. Avez-vous des questions au sujet de l'enquête ou sur ce que je viens de dire ? Si à l'avenir vous avez des questions au sujet de l'enquête ou de l'entrevue, ou des préoccupations ou des plaintes, nous vous invitons à contacter XXXXXen appelant [########]. Nous allons vous laisser une copie de cette déclaration et les coordonnées complètes de notre organisation avec vous que puissiez nous contacter à tout moment.” Q1 Est-ce que j’ai votre permission de continuer avec cette enquête Oui() Non() passer a Q2 Q2 Etes vous sur que vous voulez vous retirez de cette enquête? Nous serons désolés de vous laisser vous retirer OUi() Non() passer a Q3 Q3 Pourquoi vous ne voulez pas participer retirez?

Langue de l'entrevue Langue du questionnaire Langue de l'entrevue Langue maternelle de l'enquêté Traducteur

Nom du répondant principal Statut du répondant principal Quelle est l’ethnie du chef de ménage ? Combien de personnes vivent dans ce ménage? Combien de femmes âgées entre 15 et 49 ans? Combien d'enfants de moins de 5 ans ?

Page 89

Kolda Baseline Study

SECTION 1 : CARACTERISTIQUES DU MENAGE A - CARACTERISTIQUES DU CHEF ET DES AUTRES MEMBRES DU MENAGE

N° d’ordre Prénoms et Niveau du membre nom du Alphabétisation dans le membre Situation de Sexe du Age du Lien de parenté avec le chef de État Niveau d’instruction en en Arabe ou ménage résidence membre membre ménage matrimonial français langues locales (Pour les enfants âgés de 0 à 59 mois (moins de 5 ans), indiquez 1 = l’âge en mois 0= Chef de 4= Beau 1= Sans 5= 1 = Présent Masculin révolus) ménage Fils/Fille 1= Marié(e) niveau Secondaire 1= Sans niveau 6= 2= Sait lire dans 2 = Absent 2 = Féminin 1= Conjoint (e) 5= Autre lien 2=Célibataire 2= Maternel Supérieur une langue locale 3= Sait lire et 3= 7= Autre (à écrire dans une 2= Fils/Fille 6= Aucun lien 3= Divorcé(e) Élémentaire préciser) langue locale 4=Sait lire en 3= Père/mère 4= Veuf (ve) Arabe 5= Sait lire et 5= Autre écrire en Arable A01 A02 A03 A04 A05 A06 A07 A08 A09 |___|___| |___| |___| |___|___| |___| |___| |___| |___| |___|___| |___| |___| |___|___| |___| |___| |___| |___| |___|___| |___| |___| |___|___| |___| |___| |___| |___| |___|___| |___| |___| |___|___| |___| |___| |___| |___| |___|___| |___| |___| |___|___| |___| |___| |___| |___| |___|___| |___| |___| |___|___| |___| |___| |___| |___| |___|___| |___| |___| |___|___| |___| |___| |___| |___| |___|___| |___| |___| |___|___| |___| |___| |___| |___|

Page 90

Kolda Baseline Study

SECTION 2 : LOGEMENT ET EQUIPEMENTS

Quel est le matériau dominant du toit du logement principal de votre ménage ? 2.1

Oui non |____| |____| Béton/Ciment |____| |____| Tuile/Ardoise |____| |____| Tôle en métal |____| |____| Chaume/Paille |____| |____| Autre (à préciser) ______

Quel est le matériau dominant des murs/clôtures du logement principal de votre 2.2 ménage ?

Oui non |____| |____| 1 = Briques en ciment |____| |____| 2 = Banco stabilisé |____| |____| 3 = Brique en banco |____| |____| 4 = Bois |____| |____| 5 = Tôle en métal |____| |____| 6 = Paille/Tige |____| |____| 7 = Autres (à préciser) ______

2.3 Combien de pièces, à usage d’habitation, votre ménage compte-t-il ? ||___|___|

Quel est le statut d’occupation du logement de votre ménage ? 2.4

Oui non 1 = Propriétaire |____| |____|

2 = Copropriétaire |____| |____|

3 = Locataire |____| |____|

4 = Colocataire |____| |____|

5 = Logé gratuitement |____| |____|

6 = Autre (à préciser)______|____| |____|

Page 91

Kolda Baseline Study

B. BIENS ET EQUIPEMENTS DU MENAGE

Votre ménage possède-t-il actuellement les biens d'équipements suivants (en état de fonctionner) ? 2.5 Ne vous fiez pas à l’apparence du ménage ou des bien et équipements, posez toutes les questions.

Ne sait Oui non Nombre pas |____| |____| |____| 01/- Radio |____| |____| |____| 02/- Télévision |____| |____| |____| 03/- Lecteur VCD/DVD |____| |____| |____| 04/- Magnétoscope/Vidéo |____| |____| |____| 05/- Ordinateur |____| |____| |____| 06/- Antenne parabolique |____| |____| |____| 07/- Ventilateur |____| |____| |____| 08/- Lit |____| |____| |____| 09/- Table |____| |____| |____| 10/- Chaise |____| |____| |____| 11/- Armoire |____| |____| |____| 12/- Réfrigérateur (frigo) |____| |____| |____| 13/- Machine à coudre |____| |____| |____| 14/- Bicyclette/Vélo |____| |____| |____| 15/- Mobylette/moto |____| |____| |____| 16/- Automobile/Voiture |____| |____| |____| 17/- Panneau solaire |____| |____| |____| 18/- Bouteille de gaz |____| |____| |____| 19/- Groupe électrogène |____| |____| |____| 20/-Téléphone portable |____| |____| |____| 21/- Téléphone fixe

Page 92

Kolda Baseline Study

SECTION 3 : AGRICULTURE 3.1 Quels sont les modes d’accès de votre ménage à la terre ? Plusieurs réponses possibles - lister jusqu’à 3 modes d'accès Mode d' accès Oui non 1. Propriété/Copropriété |____| |____| 2. Fermage |____| |____| 3. Métayage |____| |____| 4. Emprunt |____| |____| 5. Autre à préciser |____| |____| Quelle est la superficie totale exploitées par le ménage en 2015 ? Rapportez en 3.2 hectares

|____||____|

3.3 Y a‐t‐il une ou des parcelles qui sont exploitées uniquement par les femmes ?

Si oui, combien d’hectares au total sont exploités par les Oui =1 3.3.1 femmes du ménage ? |____||____| Non= 2 3.4 Votre ménage a‐t‐il pratiqué l’agriculture pendant la campagne agricole 2014/2015? (campagne passée)

Oui =1

Non= 2 ‐‐‐> F23 Passez à 3.6 3.5 Le ménage pratique-t-il les types d’agriculture suivants ? Si Oui, préciser si cela est pratiqué uniquement par le ménage ou en groupement de production. (Plusieurs réponses possibles) Superficie durant la campagne 2014/2015 Type d’agriculture Oui Non en (ha)exploitées par Code Ménage 3.5.1 Femmes 3.5.2

Culture vivrière |____| |____| |__|__|, |__|__| ha |__|__|, |__|__| ha |____|

Culture de rente |____| |____| |__|__|, |__|__| ha |__|__|, |__|__| ha |____| Maraîchage de |____| |____| |__|__|, |__|__| ha |__|__|, |__|__| ha |____| contre saison (en Maraîchage |____| |____| |__|__|, |__|__| ha |__|__|, |__|__| ha |____| d’hivernage Arboriculture |____| |____| |__|__|, |__|__| ha |__|__|, |__|__| ha |____|

Culture irriguée |____| |____| |__|__|, |__|__| ha |__|__|, |__|__| ha |____|

Culture de décrue |____| |____| |__|__|, |__|__| ha |__|__|, |__|__| ha |____|

Code : 1 = Uniquement par le ménage 2 = Au sein d’un groupement de production 3 = Les deux - Ménage et groupement de production 4 = Non pratiqué Page 93

Kolda Baseline Study

Quelles sont les personnes qui travaillent habituellement dans les champs/plantations de votre 3.6 ménage ? Plusieurs réponses possibles - lister jusqu’à 3 types de personnes

Type de main‐d'oeuvre Oui Non Main d’œuvre familiale |____| |____| Les ouvriers agricoles temporaires (Sourgha) |____| |____| Les ouvriers agricoles permanents |____| |____| L’entraide villageoise |____| |____| Autres prestataires de service (à préciser) |____| |____| ______

3.7 Combien de personnes dans le ménage ont bénéficié d’une formation sur les pratiques culturales (agriculture de conservation (Conservation Farming), techniques antiérosives, conservation des eaux du sol, techniques de labour, techniques de semis, techniques de récupération des terres, compostage,…

Nombre total de personnes dans le ménage bénéficiant de la formation |__|__| Nombre total de femmes dans le ménage bénéficiant de la formation |__|__|

3.8 Combien de membres du ménage font partie d’une organisation de producteurs (OP)? Parmi , combien sont les femmes qui sont membres d'un OP?

Nombre total de personnes dans le ménage faisant partie d'une organisation |__|__| Nombre total de femmes dans le ménage faisant partie d'une organisation |__|__|

Page 94

Kolda Baseline Study

3.9 Campagne agricole 2014/2015 : Nous allons maintenant parler de la production de tous les champs du ménage en hivernage et en contre- saison (saison froide) 3.9 a 3.9 b 3.9 c 3.9 d 3.9 e 3.9 f 3.9 g-h 3.9 i 3.9 j 3.9 k 3.9 l-m 3. 9 n-o Système Superfici Producti Quantité Quantit Prix du Recettes Stocks A comparer Raisons Raisons de e on totale déjà é totale marché local de toutes toujours avec la pour pour productio emblavé du autoconso vendue (FCFA/kg) les disponible récolte de moins meilleures n (voir e (ha) en ménage mmée (en par le ventes s 2013/2014, bonnes récoltes Culture codes) 2014/201 (en tonnes) ménage du est-ce que la récoltes (voir 5 tonnes) (en ménage récolte de (voir codes) tonnes) 2014-2015 a codes) été ? (FCFA) (en 01 = Moins (Choisir les (Choisir les tonnes) bonne 2 plus 2 les plus 02 = Identique importantes importantes 03 = Meilleure raisons) ) 99 = Ne sait pas g h à la au récolt mois e de mai 2015 01 = Riz 02 = Sorgho 03 = Mil 04 = Maïs 05 = Fonio 06 = Manioc 07 = Cultures maraîchères (pomme de terre exclue) Bissap, Gombo, Aubergine, Jaxatou (aubergine africaine), Oignon, Piment, Page 95

Kolda Baseline Study

Tomate, Chou, carotte, Salade, Concombre, Courge, Courgette, Persil, haricot, …) 08 = Patate douce à chair blanche 09 = Gombo (lorsque cultivé en hivernage) 10 = Niébé 11 = Pomme de terre 12 = Beref 13 = Arachide 14 = Sésame 15 = Palmier à huile (régimes) 16= Pomme d’Acajou / Anacarde 17 = Coton 18 = Bissap 19 = Papaye 20 = Melon 21 = Pastèque 22 = Banane 23 = Tabac 24 = Mangue 25 = Agrumes (Orange, citron, mandarine, pamplemousse) 26= Fonio Page 96

Kolda Baseline Study

27= Patate douce à chair Orange (PDCO) 28= Pois de terre 29 = Autres cultures (à préciser) ______

Codes systèmes de production 3.9.b 01 = Culture Pluviale 02 = Culture irrigué en hivernage 03 = Culture Irrigué en contre-saison 04 = Maraichage en hivernage 05 = Maraichage en contre-saison 06 = Culture de Décrue 07 = Culture de Bas-fonds 08 = Autres Culture : à spécifier ______

Page 97

Kolda Baseline Study

Codes Raisons pour moins bonnes récoltes l-m Codes Raisons pour meilleures récoltes n-o 01 = Insuffisance d’engrais chimiques 01 = Meilleure disponibilité des engrais chimiques 02 = Non utilisation d’engrais chimiques 02 = Meilleure utilisation des engrais chimiques 03 = Inaccessibilité aux engrais chimiques 03 = Meilleure accessibilité aux engrais chimiques 04 = Manque de main d’œuvre 04 = Meilleure disponibilité des semences de qualité 05 = Insuffisance de terres cultivables 05 = Meilleure accessibilité aux semences 06 = Insuffisance de semences 06 = Meilleure répartition spatio-temporelle des pluies 07 = Mauvaise qualité de la semence 07 = Meilleure disponibilité de la main d’œuvre 08 = Inaccessibilité aux semences 08 = Meilleure accessibilité à la main d’œuvre 09 = Insuffisance/mauvaise répartition des pluies 09 = Bonne situation phytosanitaire 10 = Inondation 10 = Acquisition de matériels agricoles 11 = Ennemis des cultures 11 = Augmentation des terres emblavées (cultivées) 12 = Sols peu fertiles 12 = Autres (à préciser) ______13 = Dégâts causés par le bétail 14 = absence d’accès au crédit 15= Autre (à préciser) ______

Page 98

Kolda Baseline Study

3.10 Campagne agricole 2014/2015 : Nous allons maintenant parler des coûts de production pour les champs les plus importants des cultures ciblées

Autres coûts de Identification du cha+B164+B152:O157+B152:O158 Production et ventes Intrants production 3.10 a 3.10 b 3.10 c 3.10 d 3.10 e 3.10 f 3.10 g 3.10 h 3.10 i -j 3.10 k-l 3.10 m 3.10 n Culture Système Superficie Gestionnaire Production Quantité Revenu Quantité Semence Engrais Main Autres de emblavée du champ totale du vendue tiré de semences achetée Chimique d’œuvre dépenses production (ha) en champ en (en KG) la vente issues de la utilisé (NB payée pour ce (voir codes 2014/2015 kg des production pour Urée et champ Q 3.9) (décortiqué) produits de la NPK) (F CFA) campagne précédente

(réservée) 1=CM i j k l m n (en KG) Qté Dépense Qté Dépense (FCFA) (FCFA) 2=autre (kg) Totale (kg) Totale homme (F CFA) (F CFA) 3=homme

Riz Sorgho Mil Maïs Fonio Tomate Oignon Autres culture maraîchère.

Page 99

Kolda Baseline Study

3.11 Est-ce que votre ménage utilise de la fumure organique ? Oui =1 Non= 2 ----->Passez à 3.16

3.12 Durant la campagne agricole est-ce que votre ménage s'est auto approvisionné en fumure équine (cheval)?

Si oui, combien de |____||____| Oui =1 3.12.1 charrettes ? Non= 2

3.13 Durant la campagne agricole est-ce que votre ménage a acheté de la fumure équine (cheval)?

Si oui, combien de |____||____| Oui =1 3.13.1 charrettes ? Pour quel montant |____||____| F CFA 3.13.2 d’argent ? Non= 2

3.14 Durant la campagne agricole est-ce que votre ménage s'est auto approvisionné en fumure asine (âne)?

Si oui, combien de |____||____| Oui =1 3.14.1 charrettes ? Non= 2

Durant la campagne agricole est-ce que votre ménage a acheté de la fumure asine 3.15 (âne)?

Si oui, combien de |____||____| Oui =1 3.15.1 charrettes ? Pour quel montant |____||____| F CFA 3.15.2 d’argent ? Non= 2

Page 100

Kolda Baseline Study

Évaluation des quantités d’intrants détenues et utilisées dans le 3.16 ménage Quelle est la quantité de semences achetée par le ménage et à quel prix ? Rapportez séparément la quantité et le prix payé par les femmes du ménage. Ménage Femmes Est ‐ce que le Quantité Prix Est ‐ce que Quantité Prix ménage a (KG)/nombre unitaire/salaire les femmes (KG) unitaire acheté des /litre mensuel (FCFA) on acheté /nombre/lit /salaire semences? des re mensuel 1=Oui 2=Non semences? (FCFA) 1=Oui 2=Non A. Semences de céréales ∙ Riz ∙ Mil ∙ Maïs ∙ Sorgho ∙ Fonio B. Semences de légumineuses ∙ Arachide ∙ Niébé ∙ Sésame C. Semences de tubercules (pomme de terre, . manioc, Patates, etc.) NB : demander le nombre de boutures D. Semences maraichères ? 3.18 Est-ce que votre ménage a encouru les dépenses suivantes ? Quel était la part des femmes dans ces dépenses ?

Menage Femme Montant ne Montant ne Oui Non Montant Oui Non Montant sait pas sait pas Prestations de service |___| |___| |___| |___| |___| |___| |___| |___| Main d’œuvre, groupe d’entraide |___| |___| |___| |___| |___| |___| |___| |___| Assurance agricole (des cultures) |___| |___| |___| |___| |___| |___| |___| |___| Autres coûts de production |___| |___| |___| |___| |___| |___| |___| |___|

Page 101

Kolda Baseline Study

3.19 Évaluation du matériel et des équipements agricoles fonctionnels Est-ce que le ménage possède le matériel et équipements suivants ?

STATUT DU AGE DU MATERIEL MATERIEL 1= Propriété du 1= Acquis ménage avant 1991 Nombre dont Est-ce que le ménage 2= Copropriété dispose le possède ….? Matériel et équipement avec autre 2= Acquis ménage ménage / entre 1991- organisation 2001

3= Location 3= Acquis 4= Emprunt après 2001 Oui Non 01 Semoir super économique |___| |___| |___| |___| 02 Semoir de semis direct |___| |___| |___| |___| 03 Houe occidentale |___| |___| |___| |___| 04 Houe sine n°9 |___| |___| |___| |___| 05 Houe sine gréco |___| |___| |___| |___| 06 Arara |___| |___| |___| |___| 07 Ariana |___| |___| |___| |___| 08 Souleveuse |___| |___| |___| |___| 09 Charrette asine |___| |___| |___| |___| 10 Charrette équine |___| |___| |___| |___| 11 Charrette bovine à Petit plateau |___| |___| |___| |___| 12 Charrette bovine à Grand plateau |___| |___| |___| |___| 13 Tracteur |___| |___| |___| |___| 14 Charrue |___| |___| |___| |___| 15 Bineuse |___| |___| |___| |___| 16 Billonneuse |___| |___| |___| |___| 17 Batteuse polyvalente |___| |___| |___| |___| 18 Moissonneuse batteuse |___| |___| |___| |___| 19 Presse à huile |___| |___| |___| |___| 20 Moulin à grains |___| |___| |___| |___| 21 Décortiqueuse |___| |___| |___| |___| 22 Pulvérisateur à dos |___| |___| |___| |___| 23 Atomiseur |___| |___| |___| |___| 24 Poudreuse |___| |___| |___| |___| 25 Véhicule utilitaire |___| |___| |___| |___| 26 Motopompe |___| |___| |___| |___| 27 Abreuvoir |___| |___| |___| |___| 28 Mangeoire |___| |___| |___| |___| 29 Magasin de stockage |___| |___| |___| |___|

Page 102

Kolda Baseline Study

STATUT DU AGE DU MATERIEL MATERIEL 1= Propriété du 1= Acquis ménage avant 1991 Nombre dont Est-ce que le ménage 2= Copropriété dispose le possède ….? Matériel et équipement avec autre 2= Acquis ménage ménage / entre 1991- organisation 2001

3= Location 3= Acquis 4= Emprunt après 2001 Oui Non 30 Hangar |___| |___| |___| |___| 31 Polyculteur |___| |___| |___| |___| 32 Hilaire |___| |___| |___| |___| 33 Daba/Ngossi |___| |___| |___| |___| 34 Râteau |___| |___| |___| |___| 35 Pelle |___| |___| |___| |___| 36 Pic |___| |___| |___| |___| Autres Préciser |___| |___| |___| |___|

Page 103

Kolda Baseline Study

SECTION 4 : ELEVAGE

4.1 Votre ménage pratique-t-il l’élevage ? Oui =1 ------>Passez à Section 5 Non= 2 Pêche

Combien d'animaux et des sous-produits des animaux votre ménage a acheté, vendu et consommé pendant les 12 4.2 derniers mois ?

Type * Combien Nombre Le Valeu Combien Valeur Combien Valeur des Valeu Valeu Valeu Nombr Nombr d’élevag d’animau d’animau ménag r d’animau totale d’animaux animaux r des r des r des e e e x x qui e a totale x ont été des ont été consomm vente vente vente animau animau pratiqué détienne sont aux acheté de vendu animau consomm és durant du s s de x x par le nt le femmes des ces ces 12 x és ces 12 les 12 lait d’œuf peaux morts disparu ménage ménage ? animau achat derniers vendus derniers derniers ces s ces ces dernier s (Voir x les s mois ? mois ? mois ? 12 12 12 s 12 dernier Codes) dernier mois mois mois mois. s 12 Type s 12 mois. d’animal mois? 4.2.1 4.2.2 4.2.3 4.2.4 4.2.5 4.2.6 4.2.7 4.2.8 4.2.9 4.2.10 4.2.11 4.2.12 4.2.13 4.2.14 Animaux de traction Bœuf Chevaux/jumen ts Ânes Chameaux Animaux en élevage intensif Embouche bovine Embouche ovine Embouche caprine Poulet de chair

Page 104

Kolda Baseline Study

Production Œufs Embouche porcine Autres Animaux en élevage traditionnel Bovins Caprins Ovins Volailles Porcs Autres

Codes 4.2.1 1=Transhumance 2=Stabulation 3=Sédentarisme ; 4=Nomadisme 5=Élevage industriel 6=Élevage fermier 7= Autres à préciser

Combien de personnes dans le ménage ont bénéficié de formation en nouvelles techniques d’élevage pendant les dernières 3 4.3 années ? Parmi elles, combien de femmes qui en sont bénéficiaire de formation en nouvelles techniques d’élevage pendant les dernières 3 années ?

Nombre total de personnes dans le ménage bénéficiaire de formation en nouvelles techniques d’élevage pendant les dernières 3 années |__|__| Nombre de femmes bénéficiaires de formation en nouvelles techniques d’élevage pendant les dernières 3 années |__|__|

4.4 Combien de personnes dans le ménage sont membres d’une organisation d’éleveur ?

Page 105

Kolda Baseline Study

Parmi elles, combien de femmes sont membres d’une organisation d’éleveur ?

Nombre total de personnes dans le ménage membres d'un organisation d'éleveurs |__|__| Nombre total de femmes dans le ménage membres d'un organisation d'éleveurs |__|__|

Page 106

Kolda Baseline Study

Quelles étaient vos dépenses pour l’entretien du bétail durant les 12 derniers 4.5 mois ? Produits Matériel Main d’œuvre Autres Aliments* Vétérinaires d’élevage payée dépenses liées à Type Dépenses Type Type Type Type l’élevage totales Valeur Valeur Valeur Valeur Type d’animal (Code*) (FCFA) (Code*) FCFA (Code*) FCFA (Code*) FCFA (Code*) FCFA FCFA 4.5.1 4.5.2 4.5.3 4.5.4 4.5.5 4.5.6 4.5.7 4.5.8 4.5.9 4.5.10 4.5.11 Animaux de traction Bœuf Chevaux/juments Ânes Chameaux Animaux en élevage intensif Embouche bovine Embouche ovine Embouche caprine Poulet de chair Production Œufs Embouche porcine Autres Animaux en élevage traditionnel Bovins (bœuf, vache) Caprins (chèvre, bouc) Ovins (mouton, brebis) Volailles (poulets, pintades, pigeons, dindes, canards) Porcs Autres **Codes dépenses *Codes aliments 4.5.2: vétérinaires 4.5.6 1=Résidus de récolte 1=vaccination 2=Pailles 2= traitement maladie 3= Sous-produits agro-industriels (SPAI) (grains de céréales, ripasse, tourteau d’arachide, grain de coton…) 3=autres

Page 107

Kolda Baseline Study

4=Aliments de volailles 5=autres Spécifier

4. 6 Comparée à celle de 2013/2014, comment a été la production animale du ménage en 2014/2015?

01 = Moins bonne Passez à 4.7 02 = Identique Passez à la section 5 03 = Meilleure Passez à 4.8 99 = Ne sait pas Passez à la section 5

4.7 Quelles sont les raisons pour cette production animale moins bonne ?

01 = Insuffisance de ressources fourragères 02 = Insuffisance des sous-produits agro-industriels (SPAI) 03 = Inaccessibilité aux ressources fourragères 04 = Insuffisance de parcours du bétail fourrager 05 = Manque/Insuffisance de produits vétérinaires 06 = Inaccessibilité aux produits et/ou services vétérinaires 07 = Insuffisance de points d’abreuvement 08 = Absence de vétérinaires et d’agents d’élevage 09 = Mortalité élevée des animaux 10 = Autre (à préciser) ______

4. 8 Quelles sont les raisons pour cette meilleure production animale ?

01 = Meilleure disponibilité des ressources fourragères 02 = Meilleure disponibilité des sous-produits agro-industriels (SPAI) 03 = Meilleure accessibilité aux ressources fourragères 04 = Meilleure disponibilité de parcours du bétail 05 = Meilleure disponibilité aux produits et/ou services vétérinaires 06 = Meilleure accessibilité aux produits et/ou services vétérinaires Page 108

Kolda Baseline Study

07 = Meilleure répartition et disponibilité des points d’abreuvement 08 = Meilleure présence des vétérinaires et des agents d’élevage 09 = Réduction de la mortalité 10 = Autre (à préciser) ______

Page 109

Kolda Baseline Study

SECTION 5 PECHE

5.1 Le ménage pratique-t-il la pêche ou fait il le ramassage des fruits de mer au cours des 12 derniers mois?

Oui =1 Non= 2 ------>Passez la section 6 EXPLOITATION, UTILISATION DES RESSOURCES FORESTIERES

5.2 Quelle est la part vendue et la part autoconsommée de la pêche au cours des 12 derniers mois ? (en %)

Fruits de Poissons mer %Vente |__||__||__| |__||__||__| % Autoconsommation |__||__||__| |__||__||__|

5.3 Quel est le revenu moyen mensuel du ménage de la vente des produits de la pêche?

|______|FCFA

5.5 Est-ce qu'il y a des membres de votre ménage qui exercent une activité connexe à la pêche ? (transformation, commercialisation, autres) Oui =1 Non= 2 ------>Passez la section 6 EXPLOITATION, UTILISATION DES RESSOURCES FORESTIERES

5.5 Qui sont-ils ? Nombre 1 = Le chef de ménage 2 = Les femmes du ménage |__||__| 3 = Les enfants |__||__| 4 = Autre membre du ménage |__||__|

Page 110

Kolda Baseline Study

SECTION 6 EXPLOITATION, UTILISATION DES RESSOURCES FORESTIERES

6.1.1 6.1.2 6.1.3 6.1.4 Enregistrez les Au cours de 12 derniers mois, Comment vous êtes-vous procuré Posez la question seulement Posez la question seulement si réponses par comment votre ménage a utilisé ces ressources ? si le ménage achète le le ménage vend le produit ligne les ressources forestières produit (réponse 2 à la (réponse 2 ou 3 à la question suivantes ? LES DEUX question 6.1.2.) Pour chacun 6.1.1) Pour chacun des types de PRINCIPALES UTILISATIONS des types de produits produits vendus, quel est le pour chaque produit achetés, quelle est la revenu moyen mensuel (FCFA) dépense tiré de ces ventes mensuelle (FCFA )? Code des utilisations Code des provenances 1 = Utilisé par le ménage 1 = Exploitation/cueillette 2 = Vendu 2 = Achat passez a 6.1.3

3 = À la fois vendu et utilisé par le 3 = Échange contre nourriture ménage Produits 4 = Échangé contre nourriture 4 = Échange contre autres produits 5 = Échangé contre autres produits Si 1, 3 or 4 passez a 6.1.3 6 = Auto médication 7 = Autre (à préciser)______8 = Pas utilisé 9 = Pas d’autre utilisation 1. Bois d’œuvre |___| |___| |___| |__|__|__|__|__|__|__| |__|__|__|__|__|__|__| 2. Bois de services |___| |___| |___| |__|__|__|__|__|__|__| |__|__|__|__|__|__|__| 3. Charbon de bois |___| |___| |___| |__|__|__|__|__|__|__| |__|__|__|__|__|__|__| 4. Bois de chauffe |___| |___| |___| |__|__|__|__|__|__|__| |__|__|__|__|__|__|__| 5. Bois d’artisanat |___| |___| |___| |__|__|__|__|__|__|__| |__|__|__|__|__|__|__| 6. Produits de cueillette |___| |___| |___| |__|__|__|__|__|__|__| |__|__|__|__|__|__|__| 7. Articles d’artisanat |___| |___| |___| |__|__|__|__|__|__|__| |__|__|__|__|__|__|__| 8. Produits de la chasse |___| |___| |___| |__|__|__|__|__|__|__| |__|__|__|__|__|__|__| Page 111

Kolda Baseline Study

1. Bois d'œuvre : bois utilise par les menuisier, les ébénistes, la construction pour les charpentes etc. 2 Bois de services : poteaux, perches, bambou, crinting, étais, etc. ; 6. Produits de cueillette : vin de palme, fruits, écorces, racines, gomme, feuilles, gousses, huiles, résine, fourrage, etc. ; 7. Articles d’artisanat : nattes, paniers, vans, balais, balafons, etc. ; 8. Produits de la chasse : y compris viandes, trophées, et produits dérivés.

6.2 Au cours des 12 derniers mois est-ce que quelqu’un de votre ménage a pratiqué l’apiculture ou effectué la récolte du miel ?

Oui =1 Non= 2 ------>Passez la Section 7 CONSOMMATION ET ACHAT/ALIMENTAIRE DE PRODUITS VIVRIERS

6.3 Combien de litres de miel récoltés par an?

|___||___|

6.4 Quel pourcentage de votre récolte de miel avez-vous vendu et quel est le revenu moyen mensuel provenant de cette vente ?

% de la récolte de miel vendu |___||___| Revenu Annuel -vente de miel |___||___|

Page 112

Kolda Baseline Study

SECTION 7 ACHAT ET VENTE DE PRODUITS VIVRIERS Principaux produits Achat des produits vivriers. Vente des produits vivriers vivriers consommés 7.1.1 7.1..2 7.1..3 7.1.4 7.1.5 7.1.6 7.1.7 7.1..8 7.1..9 7.1.10 A quelle Quelle est la Quelle est Quel est le Généralement, Quelle est la Qui est Quel est le Où stockez- période les raison la source mode de à quelle raison l’acheteur mode de vous ces achats de principale principale paiement période les principale principal de paiement produits ces pour laquelle de vos principal ? ventes de ces pour laquelle vos ventes ? principal ? avant la produits les achats achats de produits les ventes de vente ? vivriers sont plus ces vivriers sont- ces produits sont-ils importants produits ? elles plus vivriers sont plus dans cette importantes plus importants période ? pour votre importantes pour votre ménage ? dans cette ménage ? période ? 01 = Riz 02 = Mil 03=Sorgho 04 = Maïs 05 = Fonio 05 = Manioc 06 = Niébé 07 = Cultures maraîchères (pomme de terre exclue) 08 = Patate douce 09 = Pomme de terre 10 = Arachide 11 = Sésame 12 = Autre culture vivrière (à préciser) Page 113

Kolda Baseline Study

Code des périodes 7.1.2 1 = Avant la récolte 2 = Pendant la récolte 3 = Après la récolte 4 = Période de soudure 5 = Toutes les périodes 6 = Pas d’achat 7 = Pas de vente

Code des raisons 7.1.3 01 = Épuisement des stocks du produit vivrier 02 = Cérémonies /Évènements 03 = Prix bas 04 = Prix élevés 05 = Le ménage ne cultive pas le produit 06 = Remboursement de dettes 07 = Acheter d’ intrants 08 = Migration de membres du ménage 09 = Dépenses scolaires 10 = Frais médicaux 11 = Achat d’autres produits alimentaires 12 = Autosuffisance des produits 13 = Autre (à préciser)

Code source des achats et acheteurs des ventes 7.1.4 Codes mode de paiement 7.1.5 Codes lieu de stockage 7.1.10 1= autre producteur du village (Louma) 1=comptant 1= grenier du ménage 2=vendeur/acheteur au marché local 2 = crédit à payer en nature 2=chambre du ménage 3=vendeur/acheteur ambulant au village 3 = c’redit à payer en espèce 3=banque de céréale (magasin) 4=commerçant/boutique du village 4 = troquer pour autre 4= magasin de stockage de l’OP ou de la produits/services coopérative 5=coopérative ou O.P. 5= autres (à préciser) 6=contrat de production/vente 7=Autres (à préciser)

Page 114

Kolda Baseline Study

SECTION 8 DETTE ET ENTRAIDE

DEPENSES NON – ALIMENTAIRES Estimation des Montant mensuel Fréquence dans Produits Non-alimentaire Oui Non dépenses totales (FCFA) l’année annuelles (FCFA) 8.1.2 Ne sait 8.1.3 Ne sait 8.1.4 Ne sait Montant pas Montant pas Montant pas 8.1.1 Combustibles pour la cuisson (bois de chauffe, charbon, 1 gaz) |____| |____| 2 Logement (loyer) |____| |____| Eau facturée ou achetée (SDE, eau en bouteille, camion- 3 citerne, entretien forage et puits) |____| |____| Énergie pour éclairage (Senelec, pétrole lampant, groupe 4 électrogène, panneau solaire) |____| |____| Santé (frais d’évacuation, médicament, analyse, 5 radiographie, etc.) |____| |____|

6 Éducation (frais de scolarité, uniformes) |____| |____| Transport - Achat/Entretien (carburant, ticket de bus, 7 transport des élèves) |____| |____| Communications (téléphone cartes téléphoniques, Seddo, 8 Izi, …) |____| |____| 9 Habillement, chaussures |____| |____| Cérémonies et fêtes (Funérailles baptême, mariage, 10 Korité, Tabaski) |____| |____| 11 Ustensiles de cuisine |____| |____|

12 Équipement pour la maison (meubles) |____| |____| Produits d’hygiène et d’entretien (savon, lessives, 13 détergents) |____| |____|

16 Transferts d’argent (Envoi) |____| |____|

Page 115

Kolda Baseline Study

Estimation des Montant mensuel Fréquence dans Produits Non-alimentaire Oui Non dépenses totales (FCFA) l’année annuelles (FCFA) 8.1.2 Ne sait 8.1.3 Ne sait 8.1.4 Ne sait Montant pas Montant pas Montant pas 8.1.1 17 Impôts et taxes |____| |____| 18 Autres dépenses non alimentaires |____| |____|

Page 116

Kolda Baseline Study

SECTION 9 : REVENU Au cours des 12 derniers mois, quelles sont les cinq principales sources de revenu du ménage ?

9.1.1 9.1.2 Oui Non Montant de l'année FCFA Ne Sait pas 01 = Culture vivrière |____| |____| 02 = Culture de rente |____| |____| 03 = Élevage (gros bétail) et produits dérivés (lait, viande, etc.) |____| |____| 04 = Élevage (petit ruminants) et produits (lait, viande) |____| |____| 05 = Aviculture (volailles, œufs) |____| |____| 06 = Arboriculture |____| |____| 07 = Maraîchage |____| |____| 08 = Artisanat |____| |____| 09 = Ressources forestières/cueillette |____| |____| 10 = Pêche / fruits de mer |____| |____| 11 = Produits miniers (or, fer) |____| |____| 12 = Commerce informel/ambulant |____| |____| 13 = Commerce de produits alimentaires (Bana-Bana, Tefanké,…) |____| |____| 14 = Commerce formel (boutique, magasin, y compris restaurant, etc.) |____| |____| 15 = Transport (y compris taxi-moto, charrette, pirogue) |____| |____| 16 = Travail spécialisé (maçon, peintre, menuisier, etc.) |____| |____| 17 = Travail journalier (tâcheron, docker, Petits métiers/boulots, etc.) |____| |____| 18 = Salarié/Contractuel (y compris forces armées, ONG, public, parapublic) |____| |____| 19 = Retraité/Pensionnaire |____| |____| 20 = Ouvrier agricole |____| |____| 21 = Transferts d'argent |____| |____| 22 = Dons/Aides |____| |____| 23 = Tourisme/Éco-tourisme |____| |____| Page 117

Kolda Baseline Study

9.1.1 9.1.2 Oui Non Montant de l'année FCFA Ne Sait pas 24 = Vente de sel |____| |____|

25 = Apiculture |____| |____| 26 = Services de prestation |____| |____| 27 = Commercialisation des produits transformés |____| |____| 28= Autres spécifier |____| |____|

Page 118

Kolda Baseline Study

A partir de la section 10 l'enquête concerne les femmes et gardiennes d’enfants de moins de 5 ans

A être complété pour chaque femme âgée de 15 à 49 ans avec un enfant de moins de 5 mois QUESTIONNAIRE IDENTIFICATION Nom du département Code du département Nom de la Commune Code de la Commune Nom du village Code du village Numéro du questionnaire NOM DU CHEF DE MÉNAGE VISITES D'ENQUÊTEURS Nom et prénom de l’enquêteur Code de l’enquêteur Nom et prénom du Superviseur Code du Superviseur Numéro de l'équipe Visite Visite 1 Visite 2 Visite 3 Finale Heure début de l'entrevue Heure fin de l'entrevue

Langue de l'entrevue Langue maternelle de l'enquêtée Traducteur Oui (1) Non(2)

Nom du l'enquêtée 1 = Chef de (lien de parenté avec le chef de ménage) ménage 2 = Épouse du CM 3 = Enfant du CM 4 = Autre membre

1 Combien d'enfants de moins de 5 ans avez-vous ?

Le nombre d'enfants de moins de 5 ans doit être le même que le nombre dans la section 1 et la section 11

Page 119

Kolda Baseline Study

SECTION 11 : PRISE EN CHARGE DES MALADIES DE L’ENFANT

11.1.1 11.1.2 11.1.3 11.1.4 11.1.5 11.1.6 Est-ce que L' enfant a-t-il L' enfant a-t-il l’enfant a été L’enfant est-il reçu un reçu une capsule N° ordre de l'enfant malade au cours De quoi a-t-il vacciné contre la déparasitant au de vitamine A au (reporter le N° Prénom et Nom de des deux souffert ? (Choix rougeole ? cours des 6 cours des 6 d’ordre de la l'enfant dernières multiples (Vérifier sur le derniers mois derniers mois Section 1 Ménage ) semaines possibles) carnet de santé) précédant précédant précédant l’enquête ? l’enquête ? l’enquête ? 1= Oui 1= Oui 2=non 2=non 9= ne sait pas 9= ne sait pas 1 = Fièvre 0= non Montrer un comprimé 1= Oui 2=non 2 = Diarrhée 1= oui (vérifié) 9= ne sait pas 2= Oui non-vérifié - déclaration positive 3 = Toux par la mère 4 = Maux de ventre

(sans diarrhée) 9=ne sait pas 5= Paludisme

confirmé par TDR 6 = Autre (à préciser) 9 = ne sait pas |__|__| |__| |__| |__| |__| |__| |__|__| |__| |__| |__| |__| |__| |__|__| |__| |__| |__| |__| |__| |__|__| |__| |__| |__| |__| |__| |__|__| |__| |__| |__| |__| |__| |__|__| |__| |__| |__| |__| |__| |__|__| |__| |__| |__| |__| |__| |__|__| |__| |__| |__| |__| |__| |__|__| |__| |__| |__| |__| |__| |__|__| |__| |__| |__| |__| |__| Page 120

Kolda Baseline Study

SECTION 12 : ANTHROPOMETRIE DES ENFANTS DE 6 A 59 MOIS

10.12.1 10.12.2 10.12.3 10.12.4 10.12.5 N° ordre de l'enfant Prénom et Nom de L’enfant est –il Le Poids de La Taille de Œdèmes bilatéraux (reporter le N° d’ordre l'enfant handicapé ? l'enfant en l'enfant en cm de la Section 1 Ménage kg (0.1 kg (0,1 cm prés) ) près) 1=membres inférieurs (Vérifiez les deux pieds de l'enfant pour rechercher la 2=membres supérieurs présence d'œdèmes) 3= les deux à la fois 4=non

1= Oui 2=non

|__|__| |__| |__|__| |__|__| |__| |__|__| |__| |__|__| |__|__| |__| |__|__| |__| |__|__| |__|__| |__| |__|__| |__| |__|__| |__|__| |__| |__|__| |__| |__|__| |__|__| |__| |__|__| |__| |__|__| |__|__| |__| |__|__| |__| |__|__| |__|__| |__| |__|__| |__| |__|__| |__|__| |__| |__|__| |__| |__|__| |__|__| |__| |__|__| |__| |__|__| |__|__| |__| |__|__| |__| |__|__| |__|__| |__| |__|__| |__| |__|__| |__|__| |__| |__|__| |__| |__|__| |__|__| |__| |__|__| |__| |__|__| |__|__| |__| |__|__| |__| |__|__| |__|__| |__| |__|__| |__| |__|__| |__|__| |__| |__|__| |__| |__|__| |__|__| |__| Page 121

Kolda Baseline Study

SECTION 13 : DIVERSITE ET INSECURITE ALIMENTAIRE DES MENAGES

13.1 Hier, combien de repas (familiaux) ont été pris par le ménage ? |__|

13.2 Habituellement, ce nombre de repas pris la veille est-il différent qu’en en période de soudure ? 1 = Moins 2 = Pareil 3 = Plus

13.3 En dehors de la période de soudure, combien de repas le ménage a-t-il l’habitude de prendre ? |__|

13.4 Au cours des 7 derniers jours, y a-t-il eu un jour de fête qui a eu une influence sur la consommation alimentaire ? 1= Oui 2=non

13.5.1 13.5.2 13.5.3 13.5.4 Hier, votre Au cours des 7 Quelle était la principale Quelle est la ménage a-t-il derniers jours, source de cet aliment quantité de mangé les Nombre de jours consommé au cours de céréales Aliments aliments où le ménage a ces 7 derniers jours ? consommées par le suivants ? mangé cet Cochez une seule ménage au cours aliment ? réponse des 7 précédents jours (en kg)? 1= Oui 1 = Propre production 2=non 2 = Achat au comptant 3 = Achat à crédit 4 = Paiement en nature (ex. Troc) 5 = Aide des parents/amis/dons 6 = Aide alimentaire (Gouvernement, ONG, Mosquée/Église, etc.) 7 = Chasse/Pêche/Cueillette 8 = Autres, à préciser Céréales Riz, Maïs, Mil/ Sorgho, Fonio, blé, farine de |__| |__| |__| blé, pates, pain |__|__|__| Légumineuses (Arachide, Haricot, Niébé, lentille, petits |__| |__| |__| pois) |__|__|__|__|__| Racines et tubercules (igname, manioc, pomme de terre, |__| |__| |__| |__|__|__|__|__| Patates)

Page 122

Kolda Baseline Study

13.5.1 13.5.2 13.5.3 13.5.4 Hier, votre Au cours des 7 Quelle était la principale Quelle est la ménage a-t-il derniers jours, source de cet aliment quantité de mangé les Nombre de jours consommé au cours de céréales Aliments aliments où le ménage a ces 7 derniers jours ? consommées par le suivants ? mangé cet Cochez une seule ménage au cours aliment ? réponse des 7 précédents jours (en kg)? 1= Oui 1 = Propre production 2=non 2 = Achat au comptant 3 = Achat à crédit 4 = Paiement en nature (ex. Troc) 5 = Aide des parents/amis/dons 6 = Aide alimentaire (Gouvernement, ONG, Mosquée/Église, etc.) 7 = Chasse/Pêche/Cueillette 8 = Autres, à préciser

Légumes et feuilles: carotte, |__| |__| |__| |__|__|__|__|__| choux, laitue, aubergine, tomates, oignons, ail, épinards

Fruits domestiques / de |__| |__| |__| |__|__|__|__|__| cueillette

Viande, volaille, abats (soupe |__| |__| |__| |__|__|__|__|__| par exemple)

|__| |__| |__| |__|__|__|__|__| Œufs

|__| |__| |__| |__|__|__|__|__| Poisson, fruits de mer

|__| |__| |__| |__|__|__|__|__| Lait, beurre, fromage, yaourt

|__| |__| |__| |__|__|__|__|__| Thé, Café

Sucre / Miel / Boissons sucrées |__| |__| |__| |__|__|__|__|__| (Coca, Fanta, …) / Jus

|__| |__| |__| |__|__|__|__|__| Huile, graisses

Autres condiments (sel, |__| |__| |__| |__|__|__|__|__| bouillon de cuisine, piment)

Autres aliments à |__| |__| |__| |__|__|__|__|__| préciser______

Page 123

Kolda Baseline Study

13.6 Au cours des 7 derniers jours, votre ménage a-t-il dû recourir aux stratégies suivantes pour se nourrir ? Oui Non 1 Consommer des aliments moins préférés car moins chers ? |__| |__| Emprunter des produits alimentaires ou dépendre des aides des |__| |__| 2 parents ou amis/voisins ? 3 Diminuer la quantité des repas ? |__| |__| 4 Consommer des aliments de pénurie ? |__| |__| 5 Consommer les semences ? |__| |__| 6 Consommer les récoltes avant maturité? |__| |__| Envoyer des membres du ménage pour manger ailleurs ou pour vivre |__| |__| 7 avec des parents ou amis ? 8 Mendier de la nourriture ou de l’argent pour acheter de la nourriture ? |__| |__| 9 Acheter des aliments à crédit plus que d’habitude? |__| |__| Réduction des quantités consommées par les adultes/mères au profit |__| |__| 10 des jeunes enfants ? Privilégier les membres du ménage qui travaillent au détriment de ceux |__| |__| 11 qui ne travaillent pas ? 12 Travailler contre de la nourriture ? |__| |__|

Réduire le nombre de repas par jour (sauter 1 ou 2 repas dans la |__| |__| 13 journée) ? 14 Passer 1 ou plusieurs jours sans manger ? |__| |__|

13.7 Au cours de la dernière année, quels étaient les mois durant lesquels votre ménage a eu des difficultés pour avoir suffisamment des produits alimentaires ?

Oui Non Aucun mois |__| Janvier |__| |__| Février |__| |__| Mars |__| |__| Avril |__| |__| Mai |__| |__| Juin |__| |__| Juillet |__| |__| Août |__| |__| Septembre |__| |__| Octobre |__| |__| Novembre |__| |__| Décembre |__| |__|

13.8 Dans les années antérieures, quelles étaient les mois durant lesquels votre ménage avait habituellement des difficultés pour avoir suffisamment des produits alimentaires ?

Oui Non Aucun mois |__| Page 124

Kolda Baseline Study

Oui Non Janvier |__| |__| Février |__| |__| Mars |__| |__| Avril |__| |__| Mai |__| |__| Juin |__| |__| Juillet |__| |__| Août |__| |__| Septembre |__| |__| Octobre |__| |__| Novembre |__| |__| Décembre |__| |__|

Page 125

Kolda Baseline Study

SECTION 14 : IODATION DU SEL

Test Sel Iodé Demander au répondant une cuillerée de sel utilisé pour les besoins du ménage, ensuite tester le sel pour vérifier la présence d’iode

14.1 Quel est le résultat du test d’iodation du sel utilisé par le ménage ? Une réponse seulement 1 = Sel testé et iodé ───˃ |__| Rentrer le résultat du test 2 = Sel testé et non iodé 3 = Pas de sel dans le ménage

14.2 Demander au répondant de vous montrer et d’expliquer comment il conserve le sel utilisé dans le ménage Une réponse seulement

1= dans un sachet 2= dans un pot non fermé 3= dans un pot fermé exposé à la lumière 4 = dans un pot fermé à l’abri de la lumière

14.3 Comment est-ce que le sel est prélevé au moment de son utilisation par le ménage ? Une réponse seulement 1 = avec une cuillère 2= à la main sèche 3= à la main mouillée

14.4 A votre avis, est-ce que le sel iode peut apporter des bienfaits a la sante ? 1= Oui 2=non 3=je ne sais pas

Page 126

Kolda Baseline Study

SECTION 15 : TECHNIQUES DE TRAITEMENT/TRANSFORMATION/CONSERVATION DES ALIMENTS

15.1 Parmi ces techniques, quelles sont celles que vous utilisez dans le ménage ? Oui Non Céréales (mil, maïs, fonio, riz…..) |__| |__| Fermentation Légumineuses (niébé) Germination |__| |__| Légumineuses (arachide) Torréfaction |__| |__| Fruits et légumes Séchage |__| |__|

15.2 Est-ce que votre ménage procède au principe des mélanges multiples lors de la préparation des aliments de complément ? 1= Oui |__| 2=non |__| ─˃ Passez à la question 4

15.3 Quels aliments locaux entrent dans la composition des aliments de complément pour enfants ? Oui Non Pate d’arachide |__| |__| Farine d’arachide |__| |__| Farine de Niébé |__| |__| Graines de Niébé |__| |__| Pain de singe |__| |__| Poudre de Moringa |__| |__| Feuilles de Moringa |__| |__| Lait frais |__| |__| Lait caillé |__| |__| Poudre de Néré |__| |__| Tamarin |__| |__| Autres : à préciser |__| |__|

15.4 Quelles sont les mesures d'hygiène que vous prenez lors de la préparation des repas ? Oui Non 0= Aucune mesure |__| |__| 1 = se couvrir la tête |__| |__| 2= se laver les mains avant de toucher aux aliments |__| |__|

3= se laver les mains après avoir touché à une source potentielle de contamination (se moucher, toucher aux |__| |__| ordures, etc..) 4= bien cuire les aliments |__| |__| 5 = Autres à préciser______|__| |__|

15.5 Quelles sont les mesures d’hygiène prises pour la conservation des aliments ? Oui Non 0= Pas de reste |__| |__|

Page 127

Kolda Baseline Study

Oui Non 1= Dans un récipient non couvert à l’air libre |__| |__| 2= Dans un récipient fermé à l’air libre |__| |__| 3= Dans un garde-manger |__| |__| 4= Autres |__| |__| (préciser)______

15.6 Avec quoi lavez-vous les aliments ? Oui Non 0= eau tout court |__| |__| 1= eau + désinfectant |__| |__| 2= eau + morceau de savon ou savon liquide |__| |__| 4= Autres |__| |__| (préciser)______

SECTION 16 : EAU – HYGIENE – ASSAINISSEMENT 16.1 Quelle est la principale source de l’eau utilisée actuellement dans votre ménage pour les besoins suivants ? Une réponse seulement Eau de boisson Eau de cuisson Oui Non Oui Non 1 = Robinet (eau |__| |__| |__| |__| courante) 2 = Eau minérale (en bouteille/en sachet) |__| |__| |__| |__| 3 = Robinet public |__| |__| |__| |__| 4 = Forage |__| |__| |__| |__| 5 = Puits protégé |__| |__| |__| |__| 6 = Eau de pluie (directement ou dans une réserve) |__| |__| |__| |__| 7 = Puits non protégé |__| |__| |__| |__| 8 = Mare/Rivière |__| |__| |__| |__| 9= Autres (à préciser) |__| |__| |__| |__| ______

16.2 Est-ce que votre ménage a utilisé la même source d’eau pour la boisson tout au cours des 12 derniers mois ? Une réponse seulement 1= Oui |__| 2=non |__| ─˃Passez à la question 4

16.3 Quelle est la principale raison pour laquelle votre ménage n'a pas utilisé la même source d’eau ? Une réponse seulement 1 = Tarissement 2 = Impropre à la consommation 3 = Pannes/Problèmes techniques de la source d’eau 4 = Inaccessible/Difficile d’accès 5 = Autre (à préciser)______Page 128

Kolda Baseline Study

16.4 Combien de temps faut-il au ménage pour aller chercher de l’eau de boisson (aller/retour + temps d’attente sur place) ? Une réponse seulement 0 = Le point d’eau se trouve dans la maison/concession 1 = Moins d’une demi-heure 2 = Entre une demi-heure et moins d’une heure 3 = Entre une heure et moins d’une heure et demi 4 = Entre une heure et demi et moins de deux heures 5 = Deux heures et plus 9 = Ne sait pas

16.5 Votre ménage traite t-il l’eau avant de la boire ? 1 = Oui 2 = Non Passez à Q 7 3 = Ne sait pas Passez à Q.7

16.6 D’habitude comment votre ménage traite-t-il l’eau avant utilisation ? Une réponse seulement Oui Non Bouillir |__| |__| Ajouter de l’eau de javel |__| |__| Filtrer avec un tissu |__| |__| Utiliser un filtre à eau Lifestraw |__| |__| Le laisser se reposer et se décanter |__| |__| Exposition au soleil |__| |__| Aquatabs |__| |__| Autre (à préciser) |__| |__| ______Ne sait pas |__| |__|

16.7 Est-ce que vous avez de claies/table de séchage de la vaisselle ? 1 = Oui 2 = Non Passez à Q .9 3 = Ne sait pas Passez à Q.9

16.8 Pouvez-vous me montrer les claies/tables de séchage de la vaisselle ? 1 = vu 2 = non vu 9 = refus de montrer

16.9 Est-ce que vous disposez d’un tippy tap ? 1 = Oui 2 = Non Passez à Q .13 3 = Ne sait pas Passez à Q13

Page 129

Kolda Baseline Study

16.10 Est-ce que vous pouvez m'amener voir le tippy tap ? 10.1 Est-ce que le tippy tap est 1 = vu ───˃ Vérifier la fonctionnalité fonctionnel ? 1 = Oui 2 = non vu 2 = Non 3 = refus de montrer

16.11 Est-ce que vous pouvez m'amener à l'endroit destiné au lavage des mains ? 1 = vu ───˃ Vérifier l'endroit destiné au lavage des mains 11.1 Est-ce qu'il y a …. Oui Non Bouteille/seau d’eau avec couvercle |__| |__| Savon ou autres détergents |__| |__| Eau |__| |__|

2 = non vu 3 = refus de montrer

16.12 Quel type de toilettes les membres de votre ménage utilisent-ils principalement ? Une réponse seulement

1 = Latrine avec chasse d’eau 2 = Latrine avec fosses septiques 3 = Latrine traditionnelle à simple fosse 4 = latrine avec trou fermé par un couvercle 5 = Nature / Brousse Passez à Q.16 6 = Autres (à préciser) ______

16.13 Comment est-ce que le ménage se débarrasse-t-il des fèces des enfants ? Une réponse seulement

1 = Dans les latrines 2 = Dans la nature 3 = Ne sait pas

Page 130

Kolda Baseline Study

16.14 Comment votre ménage se débarrasse-t-il principalement de ses ordures ménagères ? Une réponse seulement

1 = Camion de ramassage 2 = Charretier/Pousse-pousse 3 = Dépotoir sauvage 4 = Enfouissement 5 = Incinération 6 = Autres (à préciser)______

16.15 Comment votre ménage évacue-t-il principalement ses eaux usées ? Une réponse seulement

1 = Branchement à l’égout 2 = Dans une fosse septique 3 = Dans une fosse simple /puisard 4 = Dans un trou non loin de la maison 5 = Dans la rue 6 = Autres (à préciser)______

16.16 Vos pratiques en matière d'hygiène et d'assainissement ont-ils changé depuis 1 an ? Une réponse seulement

1= oui à Passez à Q .17 2= non 3= ne sait pas

16.17 Quels sont les changements notés dans la santé des membres du ménage ? Cochez toutes les réponses applicables 1 = Diminution des diarrhées chez les enfants 2 = moins de dépenses en soins de sante 3 = Aucun changement 4 = Autres (à préciser)______

Page 131

Kolda Baseline Study

ANNEX V: LIST OF SAMPLED VILLAGES

In blue - Control Villages

Department Commune Village Kolda Dialambéré Afia Ousmane AFFIA Ousmane Kolda Dialambéré Kodeinima KODIENGUINA Kolda Dialambéré Medina Koudie Ngoundoumane NGOUDOU Kolda Dialambéré DIENOU Kolda Dioulacolon Dioulayel Kolda Dioulacolon Faraba Kolda Dioulacolon Fass Diaé FASS DIAHE Kolda Dioulacolon Sinthiang Samba Coulibaly Kolda Mampatim Diankancounda OGUEL Kolda Mampatim DIATTAMINE Kolda Mampatim Medina Metta Kolda Mampatim Sinthiang Diomel Kolda Mampatim Sinthiang Kaba Kolda Médina Chérif Anambe Kolda Médina Chérif Kossanke Kolda Médina Chérif Sare Bothie Sare Loutang LOUNTANG Kolda Médina Chérif KORASSE Kolda Saré Bidji Dianabo Kolda Saré Bidji Sare Bidji Kolda Saré Bidji Sare Dianko Sare Moussa Ndour BANDIAGARA Kolda Saré Bidji MOUSSA Kolda Thietty Diassina Kolda Thietty Sare DemBaldé DEMBALDE Kolda Thietty Sare Fily Kolda BAGADADJI BAGADADJI Kolda BAGADADJI SALAMATA Kolda COUMBACARA BAMBADIMKA Kolda COUMBACARA COUMBACARA Kolda COUMBACARA SARE MANSALY Kolda GUIRO YERO BOCAR ILYAO Kolda GUIRO YERO BOCAR LINGUETTO Kolda MEDINA EL HADJI MISSIRA ISSA Kolda TANKANTO ESCALE SINTHIOU BACOUM Kolda TANKANTO ESCALE TALTO Kolda TANKANTO ESCALE Boussourou Maka Medina Yoro Foulah Bourouco Dar Salam Seck Medina Yoro Foulah Bourouco Hamdallaye Mamadou Diallo

Page 132

Kolda Baseline Study

Medina Yoro Foulah Bourouco Médina Mandah Medina Yoro Foulah Bourouco Saré Daro Thiam Doro Thiam Medina Yoro Foulah Kéréwane Darou Khoudouss Medina Yoro Foulah Kéréwane Koel Medina Yoro Foulah Kéréwane Missirah Abary Medina Yoro Foulah Kéréwane Ngayene Senegal Medina Yoro Foulah Pata Escal Medina Yoro Foulah Pata Pata Medina Yoro Foulah BADION BADION Medina Yoro Foulah BADION DIOULANGUEL BANTA Medina Yoro Foulah BIGNARABE SANANKORO Medina Yoro Foulah BIGNARABE SANTANKOYE Medina Yoro Foulah DINGUIRAYE MISSIRAH THIARENE Medina Yoro Foulah FAFACOUROU MISSIRAH KOUTAYEL Medina Yoro Foulah NDORNA Tankonfara Medina Yoro Foulah NIAMING KIBASSA Medina Yoro Foulah NIAMING MISSIRAH MBOYENE Velingara Kandian Dialakegny Velingara Kandian Kandia Velingara Kandian Kérewane Velingara Kandian Sandaga Velingara Némataba Amadara Velingara Némataba Koulandialla Velingara Némataba Koutoucounda Velingara Némataba Sare Mbirou SaréMbirou Velingara Sinthian Coundara BoyNguel Velingara Sinthian Coundara Mballo Counda Velingara Sinthian Coundara Sinthiang Koundara Velingara BONCONTO Saré Bossédié Velingara PAKOUR Diaocounda Velingara PAKOUR Samba Counda Velingara KANDIAYE Mamboya Aly Velingara OUASSADOU Pring Maoundé Velingara PAROUMBA Daharatou Velingara PAROUMBA Médina Mandou Velingara SARE COLY SALE Médina Diallo Velingara SARE COLY SALE Missira Bassy Velingara SARE COLY SALE Missira Samba

Page 133

Kolda Baseline Study

ANNEX VI: FOCUS GROUP DISCUSSION AND KEY INFORMANT INTERVIEW GUIDES

Focus Groupe: Mère à Mère (MtM)

A — Nutrition A.1 Pratiques d’allaitement 1. Quelles sont vos pratiques d’allaitement ?

2. Pour les femmes qui n’allaitent pas dans la première heure (juste après la naissance),

Sonder : — Quelles sont les raisons ? — Qu’est-ce qu’elles donnent aux bébés ? 3. Pendant combien de temps est-ce que les mères allaitent exclusivement au sein (c’est-à-dire sans donner d’autres liquides ou des aliments solides) ?

Sonder : au cas où elles arrêtent avant six mois, pourquoi ? 4. A quel âge de l’enfant, les mères arrêtent-elles complètement l’allaitement ?

5. Pourquoi arrêtent-t-elles l’allaitement avant 24 mois ?

6. A quel âge est-ce que les mères introduisent d’autres aliments pour les bébés ? Pourquoi ?

7. Quels sont les changements apportés par l’intervention de Yaajeende ?

8. Comment ces changements sont intervenus ?

Sonder : qui vous a informé ? sensibilisé? formé ? dans quelles circonstances ? 9. Quels sont les bénéfices tirés de l’adoption des nouvelles pratiques ? (mise au sein précoce, allaitement maternel exclusif, sevrage à 24 mois…)

10. Quelles sont les contraintes liées à l’adoption de ces pratiques ?

A.2 Alimentation complémentaire des enfants de 6 mois à 5 ans 1. Quels sont les aliments que vous donnez aux enfants de 6 à 23 mois ans dans votre communauté? Pourquoi ?

2. Parmi les aliments cités, est-ce qu’il y a certains que les enfants de 6 à 23 mois consomment presque chaque jour ?

3. Quels sont les aliments que vous donnez aux enfants de 2 à 5 ans ?

4. Parmi les aliments cités, est-ce qu’il y a certains que les enfants de 2 à 5 ans consomment presque chaque jour ?

5. Quels sont les changements introduits dans l’alimentation complémentaire des enfants de 6 mois à 5 ans par les interventions de Yaajeende ?

Page 134

Kolda Baseline Study

Produits promus : farine enrichie (farine de maïs ou de sorgho, niébé, arachide)

6. Comment est ce que vous avez pris connaissance de ces nouvelles pratiques ?

Sonder : qui vous a informées ? sensibilisées ? formées ? dans quelles circonstances 7. Quelle est la provenance de la farine enrichie que vous utilisez pour les enfants de moins de 5 ans ?

8. D’après vous, est-ce que les produits de cueillette sont importants pour l’alimentation des enfants ? Pourquoi ?

9. Comment utilisez-vous les produits de cueillette dans l’alimentation des enfants ?

10. Quels sont les produits tels que œufs, lait, viande, poisson frais, poisson séché ou fumé que vous utilisez dans l’alimentation des enfants ? quels en sont les bénéfices ?

11. Quelles sont les pratiques alimentaires pour un enfant malade ?

Sonder : — Différence par type de maladie (diarrhée, infections respiratoires aigues, fièvre/paludisme), — Aliments qui sont donnés, pourquoi ? — Aliments interdits, pourquoi ? A.3 Alimentation des femmes enceintes et allaitantes 1. Pensez-vous qu’il doit y avoir une alimentation spéciale pour la femme enceinte ? Pourquoi ? Pourquoi pas ?

2. Y a-t-il des aliments interdits aux femmes enceintes ? Pourquoi ?

3. Pensez-vous qu’il doit y avoir une alimentation spéciale pour la femme allaitante ? Pourquoi ? Pourquoi pas ?

4. Y a-t-il des aliments interdits aux femmes allaitantes ? Pourquoi ?

5. Qu’est ce que vous en pensez ?

Sonder : Comment ? Pourquoi ? 6. Comment Yaajeende y a t-il contribué ?

A.4 Utilisation et consommation de sel iodé 1. Quel type de sel utilisez-vous?

2. Qui vous a appris à l’utiliser?

3. D’après vous, en quoi l’utilisation du sel iodé est importante ?

4. Quelles sont les contraintes liées à son utilisation ? à sa conservation ? (à l’abri de l’humidité et dans un récipient hermétique)

5. Quels sont les bénéfices constatés depuis que vous avez commencé à l’utiliser?

Page 135

Kolda Baseline Study

A.5 Consommation de fruits, de légumes et de produits de cueillette 1. Que pensez-vous de la consommation de fruits et légumes dans le régime alimentaire des ménages?

2. Quels sont les légumes et fruits que vous consommez le plus /ou habituellement ?

3. D’où proviennent-ils ? (maraîchage nutritionnel ou achat)

4. Comment les interventions de Yaajeende ont changé votre consommation de fruits et légumes ?

5. Quels sont les produits de cueillette que vous consommez ? Sous quelles formes ?

6. Est-ce que les changements dans la consommation de ces aliments ont entrainé des effets

Sonder : — Effets positifs ou négatifs dans votre état de santé? — Effets positifs ou négatifs dans l’état de santé des membres du ménage en général ? 7. Quelles sont les difficultés auxquelles vous êtes confrontées dans la consommation des produits de cueillette et des fruits et légumes ?

Sonder : les difficultés pour les différents types d’aliments A.6 Transformation des céréales, des fruits et légumes et des produits de cueillette 1. Quelles sont vos pratiques en matière de transformation des aliments?

2. Quelles sont les techniques utilisées dans la transformation des aliments?

3. Qui vous a appris ces techniques?

4. Quelle est la contribution de Yaajendé dans la transformation des produits alimentaires de votre communauté ? (équipement, techniques (torréfaction=faire cuire et germination), formation…)

5. Selon vous, quels sont les effets de la consommation des produits transformés sur la santé des membres du ménage?

6. Quelles sont les difficultés que vous rencontrez dans la transformation des aliments?

7. Quelles sont les solutions préconisées ?

B — Jardinage / maraichage 1. Pouvez-vous nous parler de votre expérience dans le jardinage/maraichage ?

Sonder : les connaissances sur le jardinage/maraichage 2. A quelle période de l’année faites-vous du jardinage ?

3. Quels sont les produits que vous cultivez ?

4. Pouvez-vous nous parlez-nous de leur qualité ?

Sonder : la qualité des produits: fraicheur, aspect normal, goût,

Page 136

Kolda Baseline Study

5. Quelles sont les techniques culturales (de jardinage) que vous utilisez depuis la préparation du sol, jusqu'à la récolte ?

Sonder : les conseils et formation en maraichage fournis par Yaajeende : — Labour (préparation du sol) — Apport de fumure organique — Date de semis — Méthodes d’arrosage — Traitement phytosanitaire — Technique de récolte — Conservation 6. Où est ce que vous avez appris à faire du jardinage/maraichage ?

7. A votre avis, où est ce que la plupart des personnes de votre village ont appris le jardinage ?

8. Avez-vous appris autres choses (autres techniques) dans le jardinage/maraichage avec Yaajeende ?

9. Quelles sont les destinations des produits issus de vos jardins ?

Sonder : — Dans quel but se fait le jardinage : nutritionnel ou commercial ou les deux ? — Qui leur a appris le jardinage nutritionnel ou commercial ou les deux ? 10. Les produits cultivés ont-ils un effet sur l’alimentation de votre ménage, en terme :

— de disponibilité ? — d’amélioration de la nutrition des femmes, des enfants ou de la famille ? 11. Quelles sont les techniques/pratiques de jardinage que vous avez apprises avec Yaajeende et que vous continuez à utiliser ?

Sonder: Raisons de l’adoption 12. Quelles sont les techniques/pratiques de jardinage que vous avez apprises avec Yaajeende et que vous avez abandonnées ?

Sonder : Raisons de l’abandon 13. Selon vous est-ce que les techniques que vous avez apprises de Yaajeende ont des effets ?

Sonder : Par rapport aux effets positifs et négatifs 14. Quels les sont les contraintes/inconvénients de l’application de ces techniques ou technologies?

15. Quelles sont les solutions préconisées?

C — Elevage 1. Quel type d’animaux élevez-vous ?

— Petits ruminants (ovins, caprins) — Volailles (poules, pintade, caille) — Bovins

Page 137

Kolda Baseline Study

— Autres 2. Comment élevez vous vos animaux de façon générale ?

Sonder : Appréciation globale de la technique (technique facile/compliquée à mettre en œuvre, technique difficile/facile à appliquer par les ménages, coût,…) 3. Selon les périodes de l’année, comment nourrissez-vous les animaux ?

Sonder : — Par rapport aux différents types d’animaux — Par rapport à la période de l’année : hivernage, saison sèche/chaude, saison sèche/froide Sonder : — Pour chaque type d’animaux — Les perceptions sur ces maladies et leur récurrence 4. Comment les animaux élevés ont un effet sur :

— Les revenus du ménage — La disponibilité de l’alimentation du ménage — L’amélioration de la situation nutritionnelle du ménage — Autres 5. Quelles sont les techniques/pratiques d’élevage que vous avez apprises avec Yaajeende et que vous continuez à utiliser ?

Sonder : raisons de l’adoption 6. Quelles sont les techniques/pratiques d’élevage que vous avez apprises avec Yaajeende et que vous avez abandonnées ?

Sonder : raisons de l’abandon 7. Selon vous est ce que les techniques que vous avez apprises de Yaajeende ont des effets ? sonder : par rapport aux effets positifs et négatifs

8. Quels sont les contraintes/inconvénients de l’application de ces techniques ou technologie d’élevage ?

9. Quelles sont les solutions préconisées?

D — Accès au credit 1. Pouvez-vous nous parler du financement (financement groupe ou individuel) de vos activités dans votre localité ?

NB : U-IMCEC — Union des Institution Mutualiste d’Epargne et de Crédit ACEP — Alliance de Crédit et d’Epargne pour la Production CNCAS — Caisse Nationale de Crédit Agricole du Sénégal CMS — Crédit Mutuel du Sénégal Sonder : constitution du dossier difficile ou facile, proximité des structures de crédit, 2. Les populations ont-elles accès au crédit dans cette localité ?

Page 138

Kolda Baseline Study

Sonder : y a-t-il des contraintes pour l’obtention du crédit ? 3. Quelles sont les formes de crédit offertes ? (crédit de campagne, crédit de consommation, )

4. Quels sont les produits (crédit de campagne, crédit de consommation) les plus souscrits ?

5. Pour quels types d’activités le crédit est plus facile à obtenir?

Sonder : -— Cultures (mil, maïs, sorgho, riz, niébé, arachide, tomate, cultures maraichères) -— Activités pastorales (élevage volailles, embouche) — Activités de transformation — Autres 6. Les montants des crédits alloués sont-ils adaptés (suffisants) à vos activités?

7. Comment voyez-vous le taux d’intérêt (voir taux effectif) ?

8. Comment jugez-les échéances de remboursement ? sont-elles adaptées à vos activités ?

9. Combien de temps sépare la demande de crédit et la disponibilité des fonds ?

— Autres (intervenants, activités, durée de cette intervention, période, ) 10. Quels sont les avantages du financement agricole ?

11. Quels sont les inconvénients (de ne pas bénéficier) du financement agricole ?

12. Quelles sont les solutions préconisées pour toutes les contraintes identifiées?

E — Accès à la terre 1. Quel est le statut (propriétaire, loué, emprunté, autres) des terres que vous cultivez en général?

2. Comment les femmes accèdent à ces terres ?

Sonder : — Par qui et sous quelle forme ? (attribution par l’autorité, permis d’occuper de 25 ans, autres) ? — Individuellement ou en groupe ? 3. Quels sont les critères d’attribution de ces terres ?

4. Comment jugez-vous l’accès des femmes à la terre ?

5. Quelles sont les contraintes d’accès à la terre par les femmes?

6. Quelles sont les solutions préconisées ?

F — Eau, Hygiène et assainissement F.1 Stockage et traitement de l’eau A) Quelles sont les principales sources d’eau à usage domestique ?

B) Comment stockez-vous l’eau que vous consommez ?

Page 139

Kolda Baseline Study

C) Comment traitez-vous l’eau que vous consommez ? (filtrage, désinfection solaire, désinfection chimique)

D) Qui vous a appris ces techniques ?

E) Quelle eau est utilisée pour la boisson et la préparation des repas ?

F) Quels sont les bénéfices tirés de l’utilisation de l’eau traitée?

G) Quelles sont les difficultés auxquelles vous êtes confrontées pour le stockage ? et le traitement de l’eau ?

F.2 Lavage des mains, hygiène et assainissement 1. Que pensez-vous du lavage des mains ?

Sonder : — Qui ? (Catégories de personnes dans le ménage) — Pourquoi ? — Comment ? (Dispositif de lavage des mains) — Quand ? (Avant de manger, à la sortie des toilettes, avant de faire la cuisine…) — Avec quoi? (à l’eau, à l’eau et au savon…) 2. Quelles ont été les interventions de Yaajeende par rapport au lavage des mains ?

3. Est-ce qu’il y a eu des changements dans le domaine du lavage des mains? Quels sont ces changements ?

4. S’il n’y a pas de changements, quelles en sont les raisons?

5. Quels sont les principaux problèmes d’assainissement et d’hygiène (gestion des ordures ménagères, latrines, gestion des eaux usées…) dans votre communauté ?

6. Quelles ont été les interventions de Yaajeende en matière d’hygiène et d’assainissement ?

7. Est-ce que les pratiques de la communauté ont changé en matière d’hygiène et d’assainissement ?

Sonder : — Si oui, comment ? — Si, non, pourquoi ?

Page 140

Kolda Baseline Study

Guide d’entretien individuel: Grands Producteurs

A — Agriculture de Conservation 1. Qu’entendez-vous par agriculture de conservation ?

2. Qu’avez-vous appris en matière d’agriculture de conservation ?

Critères : (travail minimum du sol, moins de labour profond ; recouvrir le sol (le sol ne doit pas être nu), association de cultures ou rotation de cultures) Sonder : Comment travailliez-vous les sols de culture avant Yaajeende ? 3. Quelles sont les techniques/pratiques de conservation du sol que vous avez apprises avec Yaajeende et que vous continuez à utiliser ?

Sonder : Exemples concrets et raisons de l’adoption : 4. Quelles sont les techniques/pratiques de conservation du sol que vous avez apprises avec Yaajeende et que vous avez abandonné ?

Sonder : raisons de l’abandon 5. Selon vous est ce que les techniques que vous avez apprises de Yaajeende ont des effets ?

Sonder par rapport aux effets positifs et négatifs (effet sur l’alimentation du ménage, l’augmentation des revenus, disponibilité/diminution temps de travail, environnement, augmentation de rendement) 6. Quels sont les contraintes/inconvénients de l’application de ces techniques ou technologie de conservation du sol?

7. Quelles sont les solutions préconisées?

B — Utilisation de la fumure organique 1. Quels sont les types de fumure organique (fumier/terreau, enfouissement de faille/feuilles Compostage, Parcage que l’on peut trouver dans votre localité ?

2. Quelles sont celles que vous utilisez sur vos cultures ?

3. D’ou viennent-elles (de mon élevage, achat, des voisins)? et comment les utilisez-vous (apport localisé, épandage sur les cultures, sur quelle type de parcelle (maraicher ou de culture sous pluie, décrue ?) ?

4. Les quantités utilisées sont-elles suffisantes pour les effets souhaités sur les cultures et sur le sol ?

5. Quelles sont les contraintes d’utilisation des fumures organiques ?

6. Fabriquez-vous du compost ?

7. Comment ? et pourquoi ?

8. Quelles sont les quantités produites en moyenne et votre capacité de production ?

9. Quels sont les matériels utilisés (baches, meules, fosses, bassins?

Page 141

Kolda Baseline Study

10. Quelles sont les contraintes de fabrication du compost ?

11. Avez-vous appris des techniques de compost ?

12. Si oui lesquelles ? et avec qui ?

13. Quelles sont les techniques de fabrication du compost que vous avez apprises avec Yaajeende et que vous continuez à utiliser ?

Sonder : Exemples concrets et raisons de l’adoption : 14. Quelles sont les techniques de fabrication du compost que vous avez apprises avec Yaajeende et que vous avez abandonné ?

Sonder : raisons de l’abandon 15. Selon vous est ce que les techniques que vous avez apprises de Yaajeende ont des effets ?

Sonder par rapport aux effets positifs et négatifs (effet sur l’alimentation du ménage, l’augmentation des revenus, disponibilité/diminution temps de travail, environnement, augmentation de rendement) 16. Quels sont les contraintes/inconvénients de l’application de ces techniques ou technologie de compostage?

17. Quelles sont les solutions préconisées?

C — Travail du sol (Labour-Offset) 1. Comment travaillez-vous les sols de culture ?

Sonder : Faites-vous du labour (superficiel, profond) ? (pour chacun, quel type de culture) ? 2. Quels sont les outils de labour dont vous disposez ?

Sonder : si l’outil est acquis par subvention? par qui ? 3. Faites-vous de l’offsetage et pour quelles cultures ? Pourquoi ?

4. Quelles sont les techniques de labour et d’offsetage que vous avez apprises avec Yaajeende et que vous continuez à utiliser ?

Sonder : Exemples concrets et raisons de l’adoption (labour et offsetage) : 5. Quelles sont les techniques de labour et d’offsetage que vous avez apprises avec Yaajeende et que vous avez abandonné ?

Sonder : raisons de l’abandon (labour et offsetage) 6. Selon vous est ce que les techniques que vous avez apprises de Yaajeende ont des effets ?

Sonder par rapport aux effets positifs et négatifs (effet sur l’alimentation du ménage, l’augmentation des revenus, disponibilité/diminution temps de travail, environnement, augmentation de rendement) 7. Quels sont les contraintes/inconvénients de l’application de ces techniques ou technologie de labour et d’offsetage?

Page 142

Kolda Baseline Study

8. Quelles sont les solutions préconisées ?

D — Accès au credit 13. Pouvez-vous nous parler du financement (financement groupe ou individuel) de vos activités dans votre localité ?

NB : U-IMCEC — Union des Institution Mutualiste d’Epargne et de Crédit ACEP — Alliance de Crédit et d’Epargne pour la Production CNCAS — Caisse Nationale de Crédit Agricole du Sénégal CMS — Crédit Mutuel du Sénégal Sonder : constitution du dossier difficile ou facile, proximité des structures de crédit, 1. Les populations ont-elles accès au crédit dans cette localité ?

Sonder : y a-t-il des contraintes pour l’obtention du crédit ? 2. Quelles sont les formes de crédit offertes ? (crédit de campagne, crédit de consommation, )

3. Quels sont les produits (crédit de campagne, crédit de consommation) les plus souscrits ?

4. Pour quels types d’activités le crédit est plus facile à obtenir?

Sonder : -— Cultures (mil, maïs, sorgho, riz, niébé, arachide, tomate, cultures maraichères) -— Activités pastorales (élevage volailles, embouche) — Activités de transformation — Autres 5. Les montants des crédits alloués sont-ils adaptés (suffisants) à vos activités?

6. Comment voyez-vous le taux d’intérêt (voir taux effectif) ?

7. Comment jugez-les échéances de remboursement ? sont-elles adaptées à vos activités ?

8. Combien de temps sépare la demande de crédit et la disponibilité des fonds ?

9. Est-ce qu’il y a eu des changements dans la mobilisation de financement d’activités agricoles/pastorales au cours des 4 dernières années ?

10. S’il y a des changements, sont-ils dus :

— Aux activités de Yaajeende : pourquoi ? comment ? donner des exemples concrets — Autres (intervenants, activités, durée de cette intervention, période, ) 11. Quels sont les avantages du financement agricole ?

12. Quels sont les inconvénients (de ne pas bénéficier) du financement agricole ?

13. Quelles sont les solutions préconisées pour toutes les contraintes identifiées?

E — Assurance agricole (cultures et bétail) 1. Pouvez-vous nous parler de l’assurance agricole (cultures et bétail) dans votre localité ?

Page 143

Kolda Baseline Study

2. En quoi, consiste-elle? qui le fait ?

3. Quels sont les produits d’assurance offerts ?

Sonder — assurance culture : assurance indicielle, accident , calamités — assurance bétail : maladies, mortalité, vol 4. Quels sont les produits d’assurance les plus souscrits ?

Sonder : Sur quels cultures ou bétail ? 5. Comment se fait la souscription à l’assurance agricole/bétail?

6. Que pensez-vous des primes de souscription ? (faibles, supportables, élevées, très élevées)

7. Quelle appréciation faites-vous de l’adaptation des ces produits d’assurance ?

8. Est-ce qu’il y a eu des changements dans la souscription à l’assurance au cours des trois/quatre dernières années ?

9. Si changements, sont-ils dus :

a. Aux activités de Yaajeende

b. Autres

10. Quels sont les avantages de l’assurance agricole ?

11. Quels sont les inconvénients de l’assurance agricole?

12. Quelles sont les contraintes de l’assurance agricole?

13. Quelles solutions préconisez-vous pour ces contraintes ?

F — Intrants (semences, engrais, produits phytosanitaires) 1. Comment appréciez-vous la disponibilité des intrants dans votre localité ?

Semences Engrais Produits phytosanitaires Autres 2. D’ou viennent les intrants que vous utilisez (source d’approvisionnement) ?

Au marché local (louma et marché parmanent) De mes propres réserves Des fournisseurs agréés Autres 3. Quelle appréciation faites-vous de ces sources d’approvisionnement ?

4. Que préconisez-vous pour bénéficier d’une meilleure disponibilité des intrants dans la localité ?

Page 144

Kolda Baseline Study

5. Globalement, que pensez-vous de la disponibilité des intrants actuellement, comparée à la situation il y a deux ans ?

Semences Engrais Produits phytosanitaires Autres 6. Quel rôle Yaajeende a joué dans la disponibilité des intrants ? (donner des exemples concrets)

Semences Engrais Produits phytosanitaires Autres G — Commercialisation et consommation des produits 1. Les produits issus de vos champs sont-ils ? (Vendus, consommés ou les deux)

Sonder : la proportion vendue, consommée par le ménage ? 2. Quels sont les modes de stockage de vos produits ?

3. les produits vendus sont-ils de bonne qualité ? (céréales ; grains intacts (pas troués, pas moisis), uniforme, absence d’impuretés/corps étrangers, couleur normale)

4. les produits consommés sont-ils de bonne qualité ? (céréales ; grains intacts (pas troués, pas moisis), uniforme, absence d’impuretés/corps étrangers, couleur normale)

5. Les produits cultivés ont-ils des effets (positifs ou négatifs)

Sonder : — Sur la disponibilité de l’alimentation — La nutrition des enfants et des femmes de votre ménage ? 1 Quelles sont les techniques de commercialisation que vous avez apprises avec Yaajeende et que vous continuez à utiliser ?

Sonder : Exemples concrets et raisons de l’adoption: 2 Quelles sont les techniques de commercialisation que vous avez apprises avec Yaajeende et que vous avez abandonnées ?

Sonder : raisons de l’abandon 3 Quels sont les contraintes/inconvénients de l’application de ces techniques de commercialisation ?

4 Quelles sont les solutions préconisées ?

Page 145

Kolda Baseline Study

Guide d’entretien individuel: Agents Prestataires de Service

A — Travail du sol (Labour-Offset) 1. Quels sont les services de travail du sol que vous offrez ?

Sonder : Labour Offset : labour superficiel du sol, niveler après labour Autres 2. Le labour et l’offsetage sont-ils très demandés ?

Sonder : Pour quelles cultures Quels sont les outils de labour dont vous disposez ? 3. Avez-vous appris des techniques/conseils pour le labour et l’offsetage avec Yaajeende ? lesquelles ?

4. Quelles sont vos appréciations

5. Quelles sont les techniques/conseils pour le labour et l’offsetage que vous avez apprises avec Yaajeende et que vous continuez à offrir ?

Sonder : raisons de l’adoption (labour, offsettage) 6. Quelles sont les des techniques/conseils pour le labour et l’offsetage que vous avez apprises avec Yaajeende et que vous avez abandonné ?

Sonder : raisons de l’abandon (labour, offsettage) 7. Quels sont les contraintes/inconvénients de l’application de ces techniques ou technologies de labour et d’offsettage)?

8. Quelles sont les solutions préconisées (labour, offsettage) ?

B — Crédit/Assurance Accès au crédit 1. Comment êtes-vous devenus APS ? depuis quand êtes-vous APS ? quel est votre rôle ?

Sonder : Quels sont les renforcements de capacité que vous avez reçus dans le cadre du projet Yaajeende ? Quelles appréciations faites-vous de ces renforcements de capacité ? 2. Pouvez-vous nous parler du financement (Financement individuel ou de groupe) des activités agricoles/pastorales/de transformation de produits dans votre localité ?

IMCEC, ACEP, CNCAS, CMS Sonder : constitution dossier, proximité des structures de crédit 3. Les populations ont-elles accès au crédit dans cette localité ?

Sonder : ciblage des clients (comment les bénéficiaires potentiels sont identifiés) Contraintes pour l’obtention du crédit ? 4. Quelles sont les formes de crédit offertes ? (crédit de campagne, crédit de consommation, )

Page 146

Kolda Baseline Study

5. Quels sont les produits (crédit de campagne, crédit de consommation) les plus souscrits ?

6. Pour quels types d’activités le crédit est plus facile à obtenir?

Sonder : — Cultures (mil, maïs, sorgho, riz, niébé, arachide, tomate, cultures maraichères) — Activités pastorales (élevage volailles, embouche ) — Activités de transformation — Autres 7. Les montants des crédits alloués sont-ils adaptés (suffisants) à vos activités?

8. Comment voyez-vous le taux d’intérêt (voir taux effectif) ?

9. Comment jugez-les échéances de remboursement ? sont-elles adaptées à vos activités ?

10. Combien de temps sépare la demande de crédit et la disponibilité des fonds ?

11. Est-ce qu’il y a eu des changements dans la mobilisation du financement des activités agricoles/pastorales/transformation de produits au cours des 4 dernières années ?

12. S’il y a des changements, sont-ils dus :

— Aux activités de Yaajeende : pourquoi ? comment ? donner des exemples concrets — Autres (intervenants, activités, durée de cette intervention, période) 13. Quels sont les avantages du financement agricole ?

14. Quels sont les inconvénients (de ne pas bénéficier) du financement agricole ?

15. quelles sont les solutions préconisées pour toutes les contraintes identifiées?

16. Quels sont les avantages tirés de vos prestations de service et quelles appréciations en faites- vous ?

C — Assurance agricole (cultures et bétail) 1. Comment êtes-vous devenus APS ? depuis quand êtes-vous APS ? quel est votre rôle ?

Sonder : Quels sont les renforcements de capacité que vous avez reçus dans le cadre du projet Yaajeende ? Quelles appréciations faites-vous de ces renforcements de capacité ? 2. Pouvez-vous nous parler de l’assurance agricole (cultures et bétail) dans votre localité ?

3. En quoi, consiste-elle? Qui le fait ?

4. Quels sont les produits d’assurance offerts ?

Sonder : — Assurance culture : assurance indicielle, accident, calamités — Assurance bétail : maladies, mortalité, vol 5. Quels sont les produits d’assurance les plus souscrits et pourquoi ?

Page 147

Kolda Baseline Study

Sonder : Sur quels cultures ou bétail ? 6. Comment se fait la souscription à l’assurance agricole/bétail?

7. Que pensez-vous des primes de souscription ? (faibles, supportables, élevées, très élevées)

8. Quelle appréciation faites-vous de l’adaptation de ces produits d’assurance ?

9. Est-ce qu’il y a eu des changements dans la souscription à l’assurance au cours des trois/quatre dernières années ?

10. Si changements, sont-ils dus

— Aux activités de Yaajeende — Autres 11. Quels sont les avantages de l’assurance agricole ?

12. Quels sont les inconvénients de l’assurance agricole?

13. Quelles sont les contraintes de l’assurance agricole?

14. Quelles solutions préconisez-vous pour ces contraintes ?

15. Quels sont les avantages tirés de vos prestations de service et quelles appréciations en faites- vous ?

D — Intrants (semences, engrais, produits phytosanitaires) 1. Comment êtes-vous devenus APS ? depuis quand êtes-vous APS ? quel est votre rôle ?

Sonder : — Quels sont les renforcements de capacité que vous avez reçus dans le cadre du projet Yaajeende ? — Quelles appréciations faites-vous de ces renforcements de capacité ? 2. Comment appréciez-vous la disponibilité des intrants dans votre localité ?

Semences Engrais Produits phytosanitaires Autres 3. D’où viennent les intrants qui sont mis à la disposition des producteurs (source d’approvisionnement) ?

Marché local (louma et marché permanent) Producteurs de semences Fournisseurs agréés Autres 4. Quelle appréciation faites-vous de ces sources d’approvisionnement ?

5. Globalement, que pensez-vous de la disponibilité des intrants actuellement, comparée à la situation il y a trois/quatre ans ?

Page 148

Kolda Baseline Study

Semences Engrais Produits phytosanitaires Autres 6. Quel rôle Yaajeende a joué dans la disponibilité des intrants ? (donner des exemples concrets)

Semences Engrais Produits phytosanitaires Autres 7. Que préconisez-vous pour une meilleure disponibilité des intrants dans la localité ?

Semences Engrais Produits phytosanitaires Autres 8. Quels sont les avantages tirés de vos prestations de service et quelles appréciations en faites- vous ?

E — Commercialisation et consommation des produits 1. Comment êtes-vous devenus APS ? depuis quand êtes-vous APS ? quel est votre rôle ?

Sonder : Quels sont les renforcements de capacité que vous avez reçus dans le cadre du projet Yaajeende ? Quelles appréciations faites-vous de ces renforcements de capacité ? 2. Comment se fait la commercialisation des produits issus de la production (maraichère et sous pluies) dans votre localité ?

3. Quels sont les modes de stockage des produits qui exisent dans la localité ? (sur baches, par terre, dans des magasins de stockage, aire de stockage, hangar…)

Sonder : par rapport aux modes les plus utilisés (les plus courants) 4. Comment sont conditionnés/conservés (sacs, bidons, fûts, …) les produits (bruts et transformés) ?

Céréales Légumes Fruits Produits de cueillette Autres 5. Est-ce qu’il y a eu des changements dans le conditionnement/conservation des produits au cours des trois/quatre dernières années ?

6. Si changements, sont-ils dus:

— Aux activités de Yaajeende ? APS ? — Autres (Etat, projets, ..)

Page 149

Kolda Baseline Study

7. Comment appréciez-vous la qualité (fraicheur, aspect normal, goût) des produits ?

— Vendus — Consommés par les ménages 8. Selon vous, est ce que les produits cultivés dans la localité ont un effet sur la disponibilité (des produits) et la consommation (des produits) par les enfants et les femmes dans les ménages ? (donner des exemples concrets)

9. Quelles sont les contraintes liées à la consommation des produits ?

10. Quelles sont les contraintes liées à la commercialisation des produits ?

11. Quelles solutions préconisez-vous (consommation et commercialisation) ?

12. Quels sont les avantages tirés de vos prestations de service et quelles appréciations en faites- vous ?

Page 150

Kolda Baseline Study

Guide d’entretien individuel: Agents Prestataires de Service – Volontaires de nutrition communautaires

Produits et services de l’APS/VNC 1. Quels sont les produits et services que vous offrez à la communauté?

Sonder de manière exhaustive 2. D’après vous, comment votre contribution a amélioré l’alimentation dans la communauté ?

3. Quels sont les types de renforcement de capacités (formation) que vous avez reçus de la part de Yaajeende ?

Contraintes, difficultés et perspectives 4. Quelles sont les difficultés et contraintes rencontrées dans le cadre de votre travail ?

Sonder de manière exhaustive 5. Quelles sont vos perspectives en termes d’amélioration des produits et services offerts ?

6. Comment appréciez-vous les interventions du projet Yaajeende dans votre zone d’intervention ?

7. Quelles sont les améliorations que vous suggérez ?

Guide d’entretien individuel: Volontaires de nutrition communautaires 1. Depuis quand travaillez-vous avec le projet Yaajeende ?

Renforcement de capacités 2. Quels sont les types de renforcement de capacités (formation, dotations intrants, équipement…) que vous avez reçus de la part de Yaajeende ?

3. Quelle appréciation en faites-vous ?

Activités de CCC 4. Quelles sont les activités que vous développez dans la communauté ?

Contraintes, difficultés et perspectives 5. Quelles sont les contraintes et difficultés auxquelles vous êtes confrontées ?

6. Quelles sont les perspectives pour l’amélioration de votre travail?

7. Comment appréciez-vous les interventions du projet Yaajeende dans votre zone d’intervention ? Quelles sont les améliorations que vous suggérez ?

Guide d’entretien individuel: groupe de travail citoyen

1. Quelle est la date de mise en place du GTC ?

Page 151

Kolda Baseline Study

2. Quelle est la composition du GTC ?

3. Quelle appréciation faites-vous du fonctionnement du GTC ?

4. Quelles sont vos relations avec les autorités locales ?

Sonder : quelles sont les activités menées par le GTC depuis sa mise en place ? 5. Quelles sont les difficultés rencontrées par le GTC ?

6. Quelle appréciation globale avez-vous sur le projet Yaajeende ?

7. Quelles sont les perspectives du GTC?

Page 152