Bocher, T.

Low, J.W.

Sindi, K.

Low, Jan W.

CGSpace

The Sweetpotato Action for Security andHealth in Africa (SASHA) is a five-yearinitiative designed to improve the food securityand livelihoods of poor families in Sub-Saharan Africa by exploiting the untappedpotential of sweetpotato. It will develop theessential capacities, products, and methods toreposition sweetpotato in food economies ofSub-Saharan African countries to alleviatepoverty and under-nutrition.SWEETPOTATO ACTION FOR SECURITY AND HEALTH IN AFRICAKirimi Sindi, Temesgen Bocher,Jea  Ndirigwe,  & Jan Low6th Annu l Technical M tingVilla Portofino HotelKigali, 29 September 2015Rwanda Super Foods Project:Key Findings from theEndline SurveyObjectives of 4 YearProof-of-Concept Project1. To develop, compare, andevaluate the relative efficiency oftwo sweetpotato product valuechains and their potential toincrease farmer income withgender equity2. To re-position white and orangefleshed sweetpotato (OFSP) andits products in the rural, urban andsemi-urban consumer markets.Northern Districts Gakenke Rulindo Better ProductionConditions Private sector partnerUrwibutso Enterpriseslocated in Rulindoo 11 stores – 8 districtso 4 stores- KigaliSouthern Districts Muhanga KamonyiIndividual vs Group Models4 sweetpotato models developingModel 1:Farmers  linked as individuals directly toprocessors(Urwibutso enterprises has 45 farmers)Model 2:Farmer groups with collective and individual SP plotslinked to processors  (20 farmer groups in 4 districts)Individual farmers supply raw rootsdirectly to the processorsFarmer groups supplyraw roots directlyto the processorsFarmer groupssupply raw rootsto the marketsProcessors develop high value products for the urban marketHigh value sweetpotato based products available in rural and urban marketsFarmers groupsprocess highvalue productsRoots to localmarketEVALUATION FRAMEWORK:IMPACT PATHWAYAreas Outputs Outcomes Outcomes ImpactWhat project produces that other people use The results of use or influence of outputs (nextuser)The results of use or influence ofoutputs (end user)Strengthening MarketdemandCampaign including information productsabout nutritional benefits of SP/OFSPProducer and Consumer awareness of nutritionalbenefits of SP/OFSPInformation products on role of SP for foodsecurity and income opportunitiesProducers’, processors’, and decision makers’awareness of role in FS and incomeFarmers, farmer groups and private sectorprocessors adopting new processingtechnologiesMore products with SP in the market Increased consumption of SPbased productsProcessors develop new products and launchthem on the marketConsumers purchase new nutritiousproducts from SPIncreased farmers' income fromSP and increased processors'income from SP based productsInformation on processing technologiesImproved trust among VC actors Increased number of market linkagesbetween SP producers, processors andValue chain actors more able to workeffectively together.Strengthening seedsytemsImproved  varieties available which respond tomarket preferencesVine multipliers multiply approriate clean SPvinesImproved productivity of SP loweringcost of SP roots per unitVine multipliers linked to  VC processors andproducers and responding to prioritized demandPolicyEvidence of efficacy of VC approaches:contract farmers & farmer groupsNGOs and development partners use theevidence for scaling up VC approaches with SPStrengthening ValueChain support servicesPrototypes of new marketable products fromWFSP and OFSPInnovation platform engaging value chainactors and support servicesMonitoring & Survey Work Formative research:  OFSP purée products moreeconomically viable than OFSP flour products Monitored yields annually and root & product sales monthly Baseline survey:  2012:  596 households; 279   Northern Districts 317   Southern Districts Endline survey (# hhs):    September 2014, 852 households Control (213): No participation in project activities Participants (327): Linked to project activities directly Spillovers (312): Obtained vines from project multipliers butno direct access to market opportunitiesTest 1: Possible to developeconomically-viable sweetpotatoprocessed products, acceptable toRwandan consumers?  Launch in Nov 2012 From November 2012through June 2014,Sina earned $364,410in sales of OFSP products Post-projectSales from July 2014-July 2015, $403,559--mandazi 81%--biscuits 19%Golden Power Biscuits & Fried Doughnuts/MandaziMost popularFarmer sortingout SP rootsManual biscuits making Wheat flour BiscuitsBiscuitspackagedNew technologyThe Golden Power BiscuitOld technologyPackagingtargetinghigh endconsumerPackagingtargetinglower endconsumerBiscuit Development RequiredSubstantial Investment & TrainingEILSupport % of households selling any sweetpotato (SP) in 2013/2014 50% Control  80% Participant  60% Spillover Female participants accounted for 42.5% of total sweetpotato salestransactions, compared to 11.5% for male participants. Both participant female and male SP growers received higheraverage prices (145 and 149 Rf/kg, respectively) if they sold to Sinathan if they sold to traders (111 Rw/kg) or directly to consumers (103and 88 Rf/kg, respectively) Note SINA encouraged to pay slightly above going market priceTest 2: If a value chain forprocessed products linked to aprivate sector actor leads to betterreturns for male and female producersthan just accessing the local marketParticipant males had the highestprofits & economic efficiencySweetpotato Revenue, Profit and Efficiency by Gender of the Principal Sweetpotato Groweracross CategoriesControl Participant SpilloverVariablesFemale(N=119)Male(N=88)Female(N=247)Male(N=80)Female(N=220)Male(N=92)Sweetpotato output value ($/ha) 137 69 223 463 205 233Variable cost ($/ha)+ 120 121 142 146 104 139Profit ($/ha) 104 31 134 365 139 144Profit margin++ 75% 45% 60% 79% 68% 62%Economic efficiency* 0.86 0.25 0.94 2.49 1.33 1.04Profit efficiency** 47% 35% 55% 42% 56% 43%Source:  Rwanda Super Foods Endline Survey, September 2014.+ Variable costs to not include an attributed value for family labor.++ Profit margin:  profit as a percentage of the revenue (output value).*Economic efficiency= profit per hectare/ variable cost per hectare.  It is the profit made from unit cost of production;for instance 1.8 indicates a 1 dollar investment in sweetpotato production system generates a 1.8 dollars net profit.**Profit efficiency (PE) is computed by using stochastic profit frontier function, which combines technical, allocativeand scale efficiency in profit function. PE is defined as the ability of farmer to achieve highest profit given the outputprice and cost of inputs used and profit gained from potential.SP remained a staple part of thediet.  Food Security still #1Disease-freeseed from RABraised yields& enabled surplusfor saleQuantity of Sweetpotato Produced and Sold by Gender of Principal Grower across Categories*Group SampleSizeTotal produced(kg/HH)Sold(kg/HH)%  ProductionsoldValue of Sales($/HH)Control Female 119 409 116 28% 174Control Male 88 333 147 44% 181Participant Female 247 1118 364 33% 277Participant Male 80 1099 321 29% 143Spillover Female 220 487 134 28% 110Spillover  Male 92 750 206 28% 109Total 846 731 226 31% 187*Source:  Reported production and sales by plot by season for 2013-2014 from Rwanda Endline Survey.Test 3: If men and women farmers benefittedmore by being in groupsbackstopped by NGOs, than by being linked asindividuals to the agro-processorTable 4.  Characteristics of Participant Households in Super Foods Value ChainType of Supplier/Grower Individual Group GroupTechnical Support Provider SINA(N=37)IMBARAGA(N=169)YWCA(N=121)Total(N=327)Sample Size 37 169 121 327Characteristics of HH headHH head is female (%) 32% 27% 49% 36%HH head is single (%) 8% 5% 18% 10%HH head is widowed (%) 24% 18% 26% 22%HH head is <30 years old (%) 8% 11% 22% 15%Mean years of formal education 7.26 5.81 5.48 5.85Household LevelWealth index (N, 1-12) 7.67 6.75 6.41 6.73Total Livestock Units (2014) 1.75 1.12 0.71 1.04Land under sweetpotato production (ha) in 2013/2014 0.08 0.10 0.05 0.06Source:  Rwanda Super Foods Endline Survey, September 2014.Verydistinctsub-groupsMarket-orientedImbaragaVulnerableYWCAImbaraga farmers had the highestprofits & profit margins, and werethe most economically efficient.Average Revenue, Costs, Profit per Hectare, Profit Margin, and Economic and Profit Efficienciesby CategoryControl Participant Participant Participant SpilloversCategory of Beneficiary SINA IMBARAGA YWCASample size 213 37 169 121 312Sweetpotato output value ($/ha) 112 249 357 209 214Variable cost ($/ha) 115 185 145 123 113Profit($/ha) 78 153 257 136 141Profit margin 69% 62% 72% 65% 66%Economic efficiency 0.7 0.8 1.8 1.1 1.2Profit efficiency 44% 48% 52% 56% 54%Source:  Rwanda Super Foods Endline Survey, September 2014.  For definitions see Table 2.Project set target that 75% ofbeneficiaries should be womenQualitative gender research found:  Income-wise, there were greater benefitsfrom personal plots than group plots, but women saw groups as platformsfor sharing technical and personal information.Test 4: If children under 5 yearsof age in beneficiary householdsshow increased diet diversity & OFSPintake in a marketing focused interventionGroupOFSP consumption: childN mean days/weekOFSP consumption: caregiverN mean days/ weekControl 134 0.22 213 0.37Beneficiaries 165 1.29 326 2.56Spillover 161 1.05 312 1.88T- test for mean differenceControl vs Beneficiary -5.99*** -12.69***Control vs Spillover -4.87*** -9.17***Beneficiary vs. Spillover 1.17 3.78*OFSP got into young child diet, but probably at lower levels than if hadbeen a nutrition education componentHowever, no significant effecton young child diet diversity& frequency of intake of vitaminA rich foods…Dietary diversity scores and consumption of vitamin A rich foodsGroup Child DietDiversity ScoreWeight score of days/week atvitamin A rich foodsN Mean N     MeanControl 93 4.05 94 3.86Beneficiary 97 4.10 99 4.42Spillover 116 4.16 83 5.69Total 4.05 4.66Control vs Beneficiary -0.26 -1.21Control vs Spillover -0.56 -3.19**Beneficiary vs. Spillover -0.30 -2.20*Note: CDDS child dietary diversity score (0-8); Weight vitamin A (plant + animal source)- less than 6 at risk of vitamin A deficiencyNeed investment in nutrition education to get significant impact on diet qualityTest 5:  If the communicationstrategy changed SP’s imageRADIO promotionSign post for vinesExhibitionsMonthly newsletterFarmer attitudes are clear…Group Control Beneficiary Spillover Total1. Sweetpotatoes that are orange inside are healthier than ones that are white insideStrongly agree 20% 63% 44% 45%Agree 28% 34% 47% 37%Not know or no opinion 46% 3% 7% 15%Disagree 6% 0% 2% 2%Strongly disagree 0% 0% 0% 0%2. Sweetpotato is the most reliable food crop for our family during times of foodshortageStrongly agree 54% 66% 54% 59%Agree 42% 33% 43% 39%Not know or no opinion 0% 0% 1% 1%Disagree 3% 1% 2% 2%Strongly disagree 1% 0% 0% 0%#. Sweetpotato should be included as part of the Crop Intensification Program in my DistrictStrongly agree 38% 48% 37% 41%Agree 48% 45% 50% 48%Not know or no opinion 6% 5% 7% 6%Disagree 5% 2% 3% 3%Strongly disagree 3% 0% 3% 2%Notable effect at district level-- Urban attitude not yet measured Three of the four districts (Rulindo, Gakenke andMuhanga) have permitted sweetpotato growers toaccess valley bottom land Two districts (Rulindo and Gakenke) have includedsignificantly increased sweetpotato production intotheir performance targets. 4 additional processed product effortsbeing developed• One factory is being set-up for OFSP, 1 forsweetpotato in general and two bakeries starting toincorporate OFSP Awareness widely raised in urban areasConclusions Successfully demonstrated economicallyviable OFSP processed products Setting targets for female participationassured women did not lose out ofcommercialization Quality seed in sufficient quantitiescritical to success, enabling smallholdersto have surplus to sell Projects will not get major nutritionalimpacts on young children with just a marketinterventionPartners• International Potato Center (CIP)• Rwanda Agricultural Board (RAB)• Catholic Relief Services (CRS-Rwanda)• Young Women Christian Association (YWCA)• IMBARAGA• SINA GERARD/URWIBUTSO enterprises• Kigali Institute of Science and Technology University• Rwanda Bureau of Standards• Rwanda Environment Management Authority• Jomo Kenyatta University of Science and TechnologyMurakoze

Rwanda Super Foods Project: Key findings from the endline survey

https://cgspace.cgiar.org/bitstream/10568/100689/1/SASHA%20-%20Rwanda%20super%20foods%20project%20-%20Presentation.pdf

Rwanda Super Foods Project: Key findings from the endline survey

Abstract

Similar works

Full text

Available Versions

CGSpace