DOCSLIB.ORG

USAID Yaajeende Program Mid-Term Evaluation Final Report

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
USAID Yaajeende Program Mid-Term Evaluation Final Report USAID Yaajeende Program Mid-Term Evaluation Final Report November 2016 This publication was produced by International Development Group LLC, for review by the United States Agency for International Development. 1 Learning, Evaluation and Analysis Project-II (LEAP-II) Work Order #4: Yaajeende Midterm Impact Evaluation Final Report Contract Number: AID-OAA-I-12-00042/AID-OAA-TO-14-00046 This report was prepared by International Development Group (IDG) and subcontractor Centre de Recherche pour le Developpement Humain (CRDH) with the following contributors: Adeline Awantang, Amadou Kansaye, Annete Fay, Benjamin Mazzota, Hyosun Bae, Jackie Avila, Landis MacKellar, Lena Zezulin, and Tamara Glazer. Data collection was supported by Cheikh Seye, Fancois Diouf, Fatimatou Diagne, Ibrahima Konate, Katim Toure, Lalla Sankare, Malik Gaye, Mawa Fall, Moustapha Diop, and Sokhna Ndiaye. 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. i TABLE OF CONTENTS List of Acronyms ......................................................................................................... vii Executive Summary ...................................................................................................... 1 I. Project Background ............................................................................................... 1 II. Evaluation Purpose and Questions ........................................................................ 1 III. Methods ................................................................................................................. 2 IV. Findings ............................................................................................................. 3 Study Question 1: Nutrition ....................................................................................... 3 Study Question 2: Healthy Household Practices ....................................................... 6 Study Question 3: Agricultural Practices and Production ........................................... 9 Study Question 4: Nutrition-led Agriculture (Synergies) ........................................... 12 V. Recommendations .............................................................................................. 12 1. Project Background ................................................................................................ 15 1.1 Overview of the Yaajeende Program ............................................................... 15 1.2 Yaajeende Program Activities .......................................................................... 17 Pillar 1: Availability .................................................................................................. 17 Pillar 2: Access ....................................................................................................... 19 Pillar 3: Utilization ................................................................................................... 19 Pillar 4: Sustainable Governance ............................................................................ 21 Cross-cutting Activities ............................................................................................ 21 Training ................................................................................................................... 21 Summary ................................................................................................................ 22 1.3 Village Selection Criteria .................................................................................. 22 2. Evaluation Purpose and Questions ....................................................................... 24 2.1 Purpose ............................................................................................................ 24 2.2 Questions ......................................................................................................... 24 2.3 Indicators ......................................................................................................... 25 3. Method ..................................................................................................................... 29 3.1 Introduction ...................................................................................................... 29 3.2 Intervention Packages ...................................................................................... 31 3.3 Project Intensity and Packages ........................................................................ 32 3.4 Sampling .......................................................................................................... 34 3.5 Survey Instrument ............................................................................................ 38 ii 3.6 Data Quality Assurance ................................................................................... 38 3.7 Data Cleaning .................................................................................................. 40 3.8 Statistical Approach ......................................................................................... 41 General ................................................................................................................... 41 Weighting ................................................................................................................ 43 DD Model ................................................................................................................ 44 Model Specification and Coefficient Interpretation .................................................. 46 Remedy for Limitations ........................................................................................... 47 3.9 Qualitative Approach ............................................................................................ 49 General ................................................................................................................... 49 Quality Assurance ................................................................................................... 51 KII/FGD Approach .................................................................................................. 51 Qualitative Data Analysis ........................................................................................ 52 4. Findings ................................................................................................................... 53 4.1 Overview .......................................................................................................... 53 4.2 Secular Trends, Changes among Beneficiaries, and Attributable Effects.......... 53 4.3 Summary of Changes in Key Indicators ............................................................ 56 4.4 Study Question 1: Nutrition ............................................................................... 60 Wasting (Indicator 1.1), Stunting (Indicator 1.2), and Child Underweight (Indicator 1.3) .......................................................................................................... 62 Adult Female Underweight (Indicator 1.4) ............................................................... 70 Minimum Acceptable Diet (Indicator 1.5), Length of Soudure (Indicator 1.6), and Meal Frequency (Indicator 1.7) ............................................................................... 70 4.5 Study Question 2: Healthy Household Practices .............................................. 77 Kitchen Hygiene (Indicator 2.1), Cold and Covered Food Storage (Indicator 2.2), Water Treatment (Indicator 2.3), and Food Conservation Techniques (Indicator 2.4) ......................................................................................................................... 80 Salt Iodation and Storage (Indicator 2.5), Exclusive Maternal Breastfeeding (Indicator 2.6) and Food Diversity (Indicator 2.7) ..................................................... 89 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) ........................................................................................................ 93 4.6 Study Question 3: Agricultural Practices and Production .................................. 94 Poverty Rate (Indicator 3.1) .................................................................................... 97 Surface Area Planted (Indicator 3.2), Gardening Surface Area (Indicator 3.3), Surface Area Irrigated (Indicator 3.4), and Surface Area for Flood Plain Agriculture (Indicator 3.5) ........................................................................................ 99 iii Agricultural Production (Indicator 3.6) and Agricultural Revenue (Indicator 3.7) 102 Seed Purchases (Indicator 3.8), Fertilizer Purchases (Indicator 3.9), and Adoption of Advanced Technologies (Indicator 3.10) ........................................................... 104 4.7 Further Discussion of Poverty Findings ........................................................... 108 Housing and Consumer Durables ......................................................................... 112 Sanitation .............................................................................................................. 115 Maternal Education ............................................................................................... 116 5. Conclusions ..........................................................................................................
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Rn2 Rehabilitation (Section Ndioum-Bakel) and Construction and Maintenance of Roads on the Morphil Island
    THE AFRICAN DEVELOPMENT BANK GROUP PROJECT : RN2 REHABILITATION (SECTION NDIOUM-BAKEL) AND CONSTRUCTION AND MAINTENANCE OF ROADS ON THE MORPHIL ISLAND COUNTRY : SENEGAL SUMMARY OF ENVIRONMENTAL AND SOCIAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT (ESIA) Project Team A.I. MOHAMED, Senior Transport Economist, OITC1/SNFO M. A. WADE, Infrastructure Specialist, OITC/SNFO M.L. KINANE, Senior Environmentalist, ONEC.3 S. BAIOD, Environmentalist Consultant, ONEC.3 P.H. SANON, Socio-economist Consultant, ONEC.3 Project Team Sector Manager: A. OUMAROU Regional Manager: A. BERNOUSSI Resident Representative : M. NDONGO Division Head: J.K. KABANGUKA 1 Rehabilitation of the RN2 (Ndioum-Bakel section ) and roads SUMMARY OF the ESIA enhancement and asphalting in the Morphil Island Project title : RN2 REHABILITATION (SECTION NDIOUM-BAKEL) AND CONSTRUCTION AND MAINTENANCE OF ROADS ON THE MORPHIL ISLAND Country : SENEGAL Project number : P-SN-DB0-021 Department : OITC Division : OITC.1 1 INTRODUCTION This document is a summary of the Environmental and Social Impact Assessment (ESIA) for the RN2 and RR40 Roads Development and Pavement Project on the Morphil Island. This summary has been prepared in accordance with the environmental and social assessment guidelines and procedures of the African Development Bank (AfDB) and the Senegalese Government for Category 1 projects. The ESIA was developed in 2014 for all road projects and updated in 2015. This summary has been prepared based on environmental and social guidelines and procedures of both countries and the Integrated Backup System of the African Development Bank. It begins with the project description and rationale, followed by the legal and institutional framework in Senegal. A brief description of the main environmental conditions of the project and comparative technical, economic, environmental and social feasibility are then presented.
    [Show full text]
  • Livelihood Zone Descriptions
    Government of Senegal COMPREHENSIVE FOOD SECURITY AND VULNERABILITY ANALYSIS (CFSVA) Livelihood Zone Descriptions WFP/FAO/SE-CNSA/CSE/FEWS NET Introduction The WFP, FAO, CSE (Centre de Suivi Ecologique), SE/CNSA (Commissariat National à la Sécurité Alimentaire) and FEWS NET conducted a zoning exercise with the goal of defining zones with fairly homogenous livelihoods in order to better monitor vulnerability and early warning indicators. This exercise led to the development of a Livelihood Zone Map, showing zones within which people share broadly the same pattern of livelihood and means of subsistence. These zones are characterized by the following three factors, which influence household food consumption and are integral to analyzing vulnerability: 1) Geography – natural (topography, altitude, soil, climate, vegetation, waterways, etc.) and infrastructure (roads, railroads, telecommunications, etc.) 2) Production – agricultural, agro-pastoral, pastoral, and cash crop systems, based on local labor, hunter-gatherers, etc. 3) Market access/trade – ability to trade, sell goods and services, and find employment. Key factors include demand, the effectiveness of marketing systems, and the existence of basic infrastructure. Methodology The zoning exercise consisted of three important steps: 1) Document review and compilation of secondary data to constitute a working base and triangulate information 2) Consultations with national-level contacts to draft initial livelihood zone maps and descriptions 3) Consultations with contacts during workshops in each region to revise maps and descriptions. 1. Consolidating secondary data Work with national- and regional-level contacts was facilitated by a document review and compilation of secondary data on aspects of topography, production systems/land use, land and vegetation, and population density.
    [Show full text]
  • Les Resultats Aux Examens
    REPUBLIQUE DU SENEGAL Un Peuple - Un But - Une Foi Ministère de l’Enseignement supérieur, de la Recherche et de l’Innovation Université Cheikh Anta DIOP de Dakar OFFICE DU BACCALAUREAT B.P. 5005 - Dakar-Fann – Sénégal Tél. : (221) 338593660 - (221) 338249592 - (221) 338246581 - Fax (221) 338646739 Serveur vocal : 886281212 RESULTATS DU BACCALAUREAT SESSION 2017 Janvier 2018 Babou DIAHAM Directeur de l’Office du Baccalauréat 1 REMERCIEMENTS Le baccalauréat constitue un maillon important du système éducatif et un enjeu capital pour les candidats. Il doit faire l’objet d’une réflexion soutenue en vue d’améliorer constamment son organisation. Ainsi, dans le souci de mettre à la disposition du monde de l’Education des outils d’évaluation, l’Office du Baccalauréat a réalisé ce fascicule. Ce fascicule représente le dix-septième du genre. Certaines rubriques sont toujours enrichies avec des statistiques par type de série et par secteur et sous - secteur. De même pour mieux coller à la carte universitaire, les résultats sont présentés en cinq zones. Le fascicule n’est certes pas exhaustif mais les utilisateurs y puiseront sans nul doute des informations utiles à leur recherche. Le Classement des établissements est destiné à satisfaire une demande notamment celle de parents d'élèves. Nous tenons à témoigner notre sincère gratitude aux autorités ministérielles, rectorales, académiques et à l’ensemble des acteurs qui ont contribué à la réussite de cette session du Baccalauréat. Vos critiques et suggestions sont toujours les bienvenues et nous aident
    [Show full text]
  • 1 Project Title: «Strengthening Rural Women's Livelihood for A
    Project Title: «Strengthening rural women’s livelihood for a sustainable economic development in the Eastern region of Senegal» Project Symbol: GCP/SEN/069/GAF Recipient country: Senegal Government/Other counterparts: Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Equipment (MAER) Expected EOD (Starting Date): 10th of January 2018 Expected NTE (End date): 1st of March 2021 Contribution to FAO’s strategic • The Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations Framework: Strategic Objectives (SO)/Priorities: The project will contribute to the following Strategic Objectives (SO), Outcomes, and Products: SO2: Make agriculture, forestry and fisheries more productive and sustainable. Outcome 201 – Producers and natural resources’ administrators adopt practices that increase and improve agricultural production in a sustainable way. Product 20101- Innovative methods are managed, tested, and disseminated by producers to increase, in a sustainable manner, productivity and production in order to curtail environmental degradation and climate change. SO4: Enable inclusive and efficient agricultural and food systems. Outcome 402 – The private and public sector strengthens the efficiency and inclusion of the agricultural value chain, specifically agribusinesses and agro-food chains. Product 40203 – Agribusiness and agro-food stakeholders receive technical support at the management level in order to promote the inclusiveness, efficiency and sustainability of the agro-food chains. Outcome 403 – Public-private policies, improved financial instruments, and increased
    [Show full text]
  • Limiting Maize (Zea Mays L.) Yield in Two Agro-Ecological Zones of the Southern-Central of Senegal
    JCBPS; Section B; February 2021 –April 2021, Vol. 11, No. 2; 396-406, E- ISSN: 2249 –1929 [DOI: 10.24214/jcbps.B.11.2.39606.] Journal of Chemical, Biological and Physical Sciences An International Peer Review E-3 Journal of Sciences Available online atwww.jcbsc.org Section B: Biological Sciences CODEN (USA): JCBPAT Research Article Evaluation of nutrients (N, P, K) limiting maize (Zea mays L.) yield in two agro-ecological zones of the southern-central of Senegal. Arona Sonko1,2*, Ndèye Yacine Badiane Ndour2, Moussa N’Diénor2, Aliou Faye3, Niokhor Bakhoum4 & Saliou Ndiaye1 1 Ecole Nationale Supérieure d’Agriculture, Université Iba Der Thiam de Thiès, B.P A296 - Thiès – Sénégal. 2 Laboratoire National de Recherches sur les Productions Végétales, Institut Sénégalais de Recherches Agricoles, Bel Air, Route des Hydrocarbures, BP 3120 - Dakar - Sénégal. 3 Centre National de Recherches Agronomiques de Bambey, Institut Sénégalais de Recherches Agricoles, BP 53 CNRA – Bambey - Sénégal. 4 LMI LAPSE, Laboratoire Commun de Microbiologie IRD/ISRA/UCAD, Centre de Recherche de Bel Air, BP 1386, CP 18524 – Dakar - Sénégal. Received: 24 February 2021; Revised: 17 March 2021; Accepted: 30 March 2021 Abstract: Cereals response to nutrients varies according to soil characteristics in sub-Saharan Africa. Thus, subtractive trials were conducted to identify the major nutrients (N, P, K) limiting maize yield in Senegal central south (Nioro site) and east (Sinthiou Malème site) soils. In each zone, we set up a randomized complete block experiment on station with 4 replicates and on farm in 5 scattered fields. The following treatments were evaluated: non-fertilizer (T) control, completely fertilized with NPK at high doses (150N-40P2O5-40K2O kg/ha), and three other treatments (PK, NK, NP) resulting from the successive omission of one element from the NPK.
    [Show full text]
  • Agricultural Policy Analysis Project, Phase Iii
    AGRICULTURAL POLICY ANALYSIS PROJECT, PHASE III Sponsored by the U.S. Agency for International Development Assisting USAID Bureaus, MIssions and Developing Country Governments to Improve Food & Agncultural PoliCies and Make Markets Work Better Prime Contractor Abt Associates Inc Subcontractors Development Alternatives Inc Food Research Institute, Stanford UniVersity Harvard Institute for International Development, Harvard University International SCience and Technology Institute Purdue University Training Resources Group Affiliates AssoCIates for International Resources and Development International Food POlicy Research Institute University of Arizona Project Office 4800 Montgomery Lane Suite 600 Bethesda, MD 20814 Telephone (301) 913 0500 Fax (301) 652-3839 Internet apap3@abtassoc com USAID Contract No LAG 4201 C 00-3052 00 •I I I I I I I PRODUCTION IMPACT REPORT I May 1998 APAP III I Research Report No 1064 I I I I Prepared for I AgrIcultural PolIcy AnalysIs ProJect, Phase III, (AP AP III) USAID Contract No LAG-Q-00-93-00061-00 I Formerly known as Contract No LAG-4201-Q-00-3061-00 I Author Jeffrey Metzel WIth CollaboratIOn of the Umte de Pohhque I AgrIcolelMmIstry of AgrIculture and SAEDIDPDR I I I Repuhhque du Senegal USAIDnoakarandthe MlDistere de I'AgrIculture AgrIcultural PolIcy AnalysIs I Umte de PohtIque AgrIcole (UPA) Project (APAP III) I I I I PRODUCTION IMPACT REPORT I I May 1998 I I Jeffrey Metzel WIth CollaboratIon of the UOIte de PohtIque AgrIcole/Mmlstry of Agriculture I and SAEDnoPDR I I I RSAPIAPAPIUPA Report No 13 I I
    [Show full text]
  • Mapping and Remote Sensing of the Resources of the Republic of Senegal
    MAPPING AND REMOTE SENSING OF THE RESOURCES OF THE REPUBLIC OF SENEGAL A STUDY OF THE GEOLOGY, HYDROLOGY, SOILS, VEGETATION AND LAND USE POTENTIAL SDSU-RSI-86-O 1 -Al DIRECTION DE __ Agency for International REMOTE SENSING INSTITUTE L'AMENAGEMENT Development DU TERRITOIRE ..i..... MAPPING AND REMOTE SENSING OF THE RESOURCES OF THE REPUBLIC OF SENEGAL A STUDY OF THE GEOLOGY, HYDROLOGY, SOILS, VEGETATION AND LAND USE POTENTIAL For THE REPUBLIC OF SENEGAL LE MINISTERE DE L'INTERIEUP SECRETARIAT D'ETAT A LA DECENTRALISATION Prepared by THE REMOTE SENSING INSTITUTE SOUTH DAKOTA STATE UNIVERSITY BROOKINGS, SOUTH DAKOTA 57007, USA Project Director - Victor I. Myers Chief of Party - Andrew S. Stancioff Authors Geology and Hydrology - Andrew Stancioff Soils/Land Capability - Marc Staljanssens Vegetation/Land Use - Gray Tappan Under Contract To THE UNITED STATED AGENCY FOR INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT MAPPING AND REMOTE SENSING PROJECT CONTRACT N0 -AID/afr-685-0233-C-00-2013-00 Cover Photographs Top Left: A pasture among baobabs on the Bargny Plateau. Top Right: Rice fields and swamp priairesof Basse Casamance. Bottom Left: A portion of a Landsat image of Basse Casamance taken on February 21, 1973 (dry season). Bottom Right: A low altitude, oblique aerial photograph of a series of niayes northeast of Fas Boye. Altitude: 700 m; Date: April 27, 1984. PREFACE Science's only hope of escaping a Tower of Babel calamity is the preparationfrom time to time of works which sumarize and which popularize the endless series of disconnected technical contributions. Carl L. Hubbs 1935 This report contains the results of a 1982-1985 survey of the resources of Senegal for the National Plan for Land Use and Development.
    [Show full text]
  • Wula Nafaa Ii Local Governance Component Observations and Opportunities Volume 1: Report
    WULA NAFAA II LOCAL GOVERNANCE COMPONENT OBSERVATIONS AND OPPORTUNITIES VOLUME 1: REPORT December 2008 This report is made possible by the support of the American People through the United States Agency for International Development (USAID). It was prepared by International Resources Group (IRG). WULA NAFAA II LOCAL GOVERNANCE COMPONENT OBSERVATION AND OPPORTUNITIES VOLUME 1: REPORT Charles Benjamin International Resources Group December 1, 2008 TABLE OF CONTENTS 1. INTRODUCTION ·································································································· 7 2. COMPONENT OBJECTIVES AND EXPECTED OUTCOMES···························· 8 3. BACKGROUND ··································································································· 9 3.1. Pilot ......................................................................................................................9 3.2. Challenges ...........................................................................................................9 3.3. Vision/Guiding Principles ....................................................................................11 3.4. Support other USAID programs ..........................................................................12 4. APPROACH······································································································· 14 4.1. Mechanisms for decentralized NRM ...................................................................14 4.1.1. Land and Forest Resources..............................................................................................14
    [Show full text]
  • IMPORTANT You Must Read the Following Before Continuing. The
    IMPORTANT You must read the following before continuing. The following applies to the Prospectus following this page, and you are therefore required to read this carefully before reading, accessing or making any other use of the Prospectus. In accessing the Prospectus, you agree to be bound by the following terms and conditions, including any modifications to them any time you receive any information from us as a result of such access. THE FOLLOWING PROSPECTUS MAY NOT BE FORWARDED OR DISTRIBUTED OTHER THAN AS PROVIDED BELOW AND MAY NOT BE REPRODUCED IN ANY MANNER WHATSOEVER. THIS PROSPECTUS MAY ONLY BE DISTRIBUTED OUTSIDE THE UNITED STATES AND WITHIN THE UNITED STATES TO “QUALIFIED INSTITUTIONAL BUYERS” (QIBs) AS DEFINED IN AND PURSUANT TO RULE 144A OF THE U.S. SECURITIES ACT OF 1933, AS AMENDED (THE SECURITIES ACT) (RULE 144A). ANY FORWARDING, DISTRIBUTION OR REPRODUCTION OF THIS DOCUMENT IN WHOLE OR IN PART IS UNAUTHORISED. FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH THIS DIRECTIVE MAY RESULT IN A VIOLATION OF THE SECURITIES ACT OR THE APPLICABLE LAWS OF OTHER JURISDICTIONS. IF YOU HAVE GAINED ACCESS TO THIS TRANSMISSION CONTRARY TO ANY OF THE FOREGOING RESTRICTIONS, YOU ARE NOT AUTHORISED AND WILL NOT BE ABLE TO PURCHASE ANY OF THE NOTES DESCRIBED IN THE ATTACHED DOCUMENT. NOTHING IN THIS ELECTRONIC TRANSMISSION CONSTITUTES AN OFFER TO SELL OR THE SOLICITATION OF AN OFFER TO BUY ANY SECURITIES IN ANY JURISDICTION. THE SECURITIES HAVE NOT BEEN AND WILL NOT BE REGISTERED UNDER THE SECURITIES ACT OR WITH ANY SECURITIES REGULATORY AUTHORITY OF ANY STATE OR OTHER JURISDICTION OF THE UNITED STATES AND MAY NOT BE OFFERED OR SOLD WITHIN THE UNITED STATES EXCEPT TO QIBs PURSUANT TO RULE 144A.
    [Show full text]
  • An Integrated Development Strategy for the Apiculture Industry Between Senegal, the Gambia and Guinea Bissau?
    AN INTEGRATED DEVELOPMENT STRATEGY FOR THE APICULTURE INDUSTRY BETWEEN SENEGAL, THE GAMBIA AND GUINEA BISSAU? ARTICULARLY FAVOURABLE CLIMATIC AND BOTANICAL CONDITIONS The Bissau Guinean sector in the restructuring process P Guinea Bissau has extraordinary potential for apiculture, especially Apiculture in Sénégambie méridionale (the Gambia, in the north east region (Gabu), with marshland inundated with Casamance, northern Guinea Bissau) relies on the planted mangroves covering an area of approximately favourable and homogeneous eco-geographic potential. 800,000 hectares, forest coverage of an estimated 1.5 million It is developing along a wide band comprising hectares and a population of which the majority earns their Casamance (Senegal) and inclusive of an area livelihood from agricultural activities and picked products. In 1987, between the southern axis which passes through the the Apiculture Association produced around 80,7083 kg of refined regions, from East to West, of Gabu, Oio and Cacheu honey as well as a little more than 10 tonnes of refined wax (Guinea Bissau) and a northern axis from east to west (ASTECAP – SNV). At the beginning of the 1990s, there were of the Gambia and the western border of the 22,352 traditional hives in the northern part and 93,464 in the Tambacounda Department (east Senegal) going back southern part of the country. up eastward towards the Kaffrine Department (Kolda region of Senegal). Despite economic liberalisation set in motion in 1986, continual politico-military crises since the beginning of the 1990s has led to a The Sudano-Guinean climate enables the development noteworthy reduction of the activity which resulted in an overt of tremendously diverse forestial growth, particularly decline in honey exports.
    [Show full text]
  • R4 Rural Resilience Initiative Annual Report January - December Contents
    R4 Rural Resilience Initiative annual report January - December Contents Executive Summary 1 The R4 Model of Managing Risk 3 Project Status Summary 5 Key Accomplishments 9 Monitoring and Evaluation 2012 13 Financial Transaction Result s 2012 (Ethiopia) 16 Risk Reduction Results 2012 (Ethiopia) 21 Challenges and Lessons Learned 24 R4 Senegal Pilot Roll-out Plan 27 R4 Policy Engagement Plan 34 Financial Progress 35 Conclusion 36 Appendix I: Partners and Institutional Roles 37 Appendix II: Payout in Ethiopia Press Release, December 2012 38 Appendix III: Media Citations & Resources 40 Appendix IV: Rural Resilience Event Series 43 Appendix V: Summary of Transacted Index 2012 (Ethiopia) 47 Cover: Women are planting seedlings in Tigray, Ethiopia. Eva-Lotta Jansson / Oxfam America Woman participating in a small women’s savings group in her village in Koussanar, Senegal as part of Oxfam’s Saving for Change program. R4 will work with these groups for the savings and credit components. Katie Naeve / Oxfam America Executive Summary For the 1.3 billion people living on less than a dollar a day who partners, launched what is now called the R4 Rural Resilience depend on agriculture for their livelihoods, vulnerability to Ini8a8ve, known as R4, referring to the four risk management weather and climate-related shocks is a constant threat to food strategies that the ini8a8ve integrates. Ini8ated in 2010, R4 builds security and well-being. As climate change drives an increase in on the ini8al success of HARITA (Horn of Africa Risk Transfer for the frequency and intensity of natural hazards, the challenges Adapta8on), an integrated risk management framework faced by food-insecure communi8es struggling to improve their developed by Oxfam America and REST, together with Ethiopian lives and livelihoods will also increase.
    [Show full text]
  • Estimating the Burden of Malaria in Senegal: Bayesian Zero-Inflated Binomial Geostatistical Modeling of the MIS 2008 Data
    Estimating the Burden of Malaria in Senegal: Bayesian Zero-Inflated Binomial Geostatistical Modeling of the MIS 2008 Data Federica Giardina1,2, Laura Gosoniu1,2, Lassana Konate3, Mame Birame Diouf4, Robert Perry5, Oumar Gaye6, Ousmane Faye3, Penelope Vounatsou1,2* 1 Department of Epidemiology and Public Health, Swiss Tropical and Public Health Institute, Basel, Switzerland, 2 University of Basel, Basel, Switzerland, 3 Faculte´ des Sciences et Techniques, UCAD Dakar, Se´ne´gal, 4 National Malaria Control Programme, Dakar, Se´ne´gal, 5 Center for Global Health, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta, Georgia, United States of America, 6 Faculte´ de Me´decine, Pharmacie et Odontologie, UCAD Dakar, Se´ne´gal Abstract The Research Center for Human Development in Dakar (CRDH) with the technical assistance of ICF Macro and the National Malaria Control Programme (NMCP) conducted in 2008/2009 the Senegal Malaria Indicator Survey (SMIS), the first nationally representative household survey collecting parasitological data and malaria-related indicators. In this paper, we present spatially explicit parasitaemia risk estimates and number of infected children below 5 years. Geostatistical Zero-Inflated Binomial models (ZIB) were developed to take into account the large number of zero-prevalence survey locations (70%) in the data. Bayesian variable selection methods were incorporated within a geostatistical framework in order to choose the best set of environmental and climatic covariates associated with the parasitaemia risk. Model validation confirmed that the ZIB model had a better predictive ability than the standard Binomial analogue. Markov chain Monte Carlo (MCMC) methods were used for inference. Several insecticide treated nets (ITN) coverage indicators were calculated to assess the effectiveness of interventions.
    [Show full text]