Maximizing Opportunities for Cocoa Activity (MOCA) Baseline Evaluation Report September 2019 This publication was produced at the request of the United States Department of Agriculture. It was prepared independently by Cultivating New Frontiers in Agriculture (CNFA) and KIT Royal Tropical Institute. Foreign Agricultural Service, United States Department of Agriculture MAXIMIZING OPPORTUNITIES IN COCOA ACTIVITY BASELINE EVALUATION REPORT CNFA.ORG Baseline Evaluation Report Agreement Number: FCC-681-2017/029-00 Project Duration: 2017-2020 Implemented by: CNFA, DUNS Number: 153876610 US 1828 L Street NW Suite 710 Washington, DC 20036 202-296-3920 (tel.) www.cnfa.org Evaluation Authored by: KIT Royal Tropical Institute Mauritskade 64 1092 AD Amsterdam The Netherlands +31 (0)20 568 87 11 (tel.) MAXIMIZING OPPORTUNITIES IN COCOA ACTIVITY BASELINE EVALUATION REPORT CNFA.ORG 1. OVERVIEW AND FINDINGS 4 MOCA EVALUATION METHODOLOGIES 5 PERFORMANCE EVALUATION (MID-TERM EVALUATION) METHODOLOGY 5 IMPACT EVALUATION (FINAL EVALUATION) METHODOLOGY: 7 DETERMINING MOCA PROJECT IMPACT ON COCOA FARMERS 12 2. FARMER AND COOPERATIVE SURVEY (KIT): BASELINE REPORT 14 BASELINE REPORT 14 3. ANNEXES 177 ANNEX 1: REFERENCE STUDY REPORT ON AGRO DEALERS 177 ANNEX 2: BASELINE INCEPTION REPORT 189 MAXIMIZING OPPORTUNITIES IN COCOA ACTIVITY BASELINE EVALUATION REPORT CNFA.ORG The objectives of the MOCA baseline study were to 1) establish quantitative values for the MOCA performance indicators before the start of project activities, and 2) establish baseline values for all measures (both quantitative and qualitative) needed to assess project outcomes through the mid￾term performance evaluation and the final evaluation of impact. The study aimed to establish the baseline situation of three target beneficiary populations: direct beneficiary cocoa producers, producer groups/cooperatives, and direct beneficiary micro and small enterprises (cocoa grinding and processing, other value addition, and pooled transportation), input supply agents, shops and input service providers, business development service providers. An external contractor, KIT Royal Tropical Institute (KIT), was selected through a competitive process to conduct the baseline study. KIT developed the methodologies to collect data from direct beneficiary cocoa producers, Producer groups/cooperatives, and direct beneficiary micro and small enterprises. KIT supervised the baseline survey work and analysis for the survey of cooperatives and cocoa producers, including a household questionnaire (n=1300) to collect detailed information on farm-level indicators (e.g. cocoa production, trade volumes, household characteristics); a cooperative questionnaire (n=26) for interviews with cooperative management, to collect information on cooperative membership, services and trade; and Focus Group Discussion (FGD) guidelines to collect qualitative information from cooperative members on cocoa trade and services. The farmer and cooperative survey and results are presented in this report in Section 2. Farmer and Cooperative Survey (KIT): Inception Report & Survey Report. Because the SMEs had not yet been identified by MOCA, the SME survey and analysis was later conducted by MOCA subcontractor SOCODEVI, utilizing the questionnaires developed by KIT. The results are presented in Section 3. RAPPORT DE L’ETUDE DE REFERENCE SUR LES AGRO DEALERS. The data collected enabled establishment of the baseline values for the following Food for Progress standard indicators: Value of sales by project beneficiaries is 13.3 million US$ The revenues generated through the sales of cocoa by a household during the 2017-2018 season averages 1,304,980 FCFA or 2,330 US$ per household. For the total 5,709 direct MOCA beneficiaries this equals 13.3 million US$, which is the baseline value for the Value of sales by project beneficiaries’ performance indicator Volume of commodities (metric tons) sold by project beneficiaries The average cacao production is 498 Kg per Ha. On average one producers cultivates cacao on 4,2 Ha of land which corresponds to yield of 2,091 Kg per producer per year. For the targeted 5,709 1. OVERVIEW AND FINDINGS MAXIMIZING OPPORTUNITIES IN COCOA ACTIVITY BASELINE EVALUATION REPORT CNFA.ORG direct beneficiaries of MOCA this corresponds to 11,940 MT of cacao, which is the baseline value for the Volume of commodities (metric tons) sold by project beneficiaries performance indicator. MOCA EVALUATION METHODOLOGIES The baselines established in this Baseline Evaluation Report will facilitate the assessment of project outcomes through the mid-term performance evaluation and the final evaluation of impact. The methodologies of these two planned evaluations are summarized below. PERFORMANCE EVALUATION (MID-TERM EVALUATION) METHODOLOGY Purpose and scope: The purpose of the mid-term evaluation, carried out approximately halfway through the life of the MOCA project (18 months) will be to assess the performance of the project activities to date in the general areas of inquiry of relevance, progress, and sustainability. The evaluation will examine MOCA’s progress towards achieving the stated goals and objectives, identify best practices and effective activities, and identify issues that are constraining success and potential corrections to be adopted to improve project performance. The evaluation will be led by an external and independent evaluation firm to ensure that results are objective and not influenced by MOCA staff. Key evaluation questions: a) The evaluation questions will be finalized with the development of the Terms of Reference (TOR) for the mid-term evaluation. Illustrative questions include: Is the MOCA Results Framework and the causal linkages between the results at different levels still valid in the MOCA operating context? Are the critical assumptions underpinning these causal linkages still valid? b) To what extent have MOCA project activities achieved the expected results per the Results Framework (increased productivity of cocoa plantations, expanded trade of cocoa products, increased adoption of agricultural techniques including improved planting material and spray services, increased access to agricultural financing). c) What are the main agricultural and natural resource management elements hindering the progress of the project if any, and what new opportunities have been identified that could be addressed in the remaining part of the project? d) What systems or activities have been put in place to ensure sustainability, and how likely is that system to be sustainable beyond the life of the project? e) What capacity do cooperatives supported by the project have to sustain the business relationships with the private sector (producer, buyers, suppliers, retailers etc.)? Methodology: The methodology will include a repetition of the baseline survey using the same methodology, a review of regular semi-annual monitoring of performance indicator data (see Section III.a. Semi-Annual Monitoring of Project Performance) and qualitative data collection from MAXIMIZING OPPORTUNITIES IN COCOA ACTIVITY BASELINE EVALUATION REPORT CNFA.ORG project stakeholders, beneficiaries and partners to complement the quantitative data. The methodology proposed here will be finalized in the mid-term evaluation Terms of Reference, no sooner than 4 months after the implementation of key project activities and no later than Month 15, per the USDA Evaluation Policy. UDSA managers will be included as important key informant data sources, particularly for questions of relevance and assumptions (See Table 4 below). Table 1: Mid-Term Evaluation Methodology Summary Evaluation Area of Inquiry Key Evaluation Question Data Collection Approach Relevance of MOCA Results Framework and Assumptions Is the MOCA Results Framework and the causal linkages between the results at different levels still valid in the MOCA operating context? Are the critical assumptions underpinning these causal linkages still valid? • Desk review of MOCA Results Framework and assumptions • Key Informant Interviews with MOCA managers • Key Informant Interviews with USDA mangers Effectiveness & Progress of MOCA activities towards achieving results To what extent have MOCA project activities achieved the expected results? Mid-term evaluation sample survey for key indicators; Review of MOCA performance indicator monitoring data against baseline data: • Increased productivity of cocoa plantations • Yields (kg/ha) of cocoa • Volume (kg) of cocoa meeting buyer quality standards • Expanded trade of cocoa products • Value of sales by project beneficiaries • Volume of commodities (MT) sold by project beneficiaries • Value of post-production cocoa products sold by project beneficiaries • Key informant interviews and focus groups with beneficiaries • Increased adoption of agricultural techniques including improved planting material and spray services, • Number of hectares of land under improved techniques or technologies as a result of USDA assistance • Number of individuals who have applied new techniques or technologies as a result of USDA assistance. MAXIMIZING OPPORTUNITIES IN COCOA ACTIVITY BASELINE EVALUATION REPORT CNFA.ORG • Key informant interviews and focus groups with beneficiaries • Increased access to agricultural financing). • Number of loans disbursed as a result of USDA assistance. What are the main agricultural and natural resource management elements hindering the progress of the project, and what new opportunities have been identified that could be addressed in the remaining part of the project? • Review of MOCA progress reports • Key Informant Interviews: MOCA technical staff, cocoa producers, CCC/CRNA/ANANDA, other donors and managers of development and sustainability projects in cocoa sector. Sustainability of MOCA interventions and results Are the technologies and practices being promoted established and suitable to the local agro-ecological environments? • Review of MOCA intervention design documents • Key Informant Interviews: MOCA technical staff, cocoa producers, cooperative managers, CCC. What systems or activities have been put in place to ensure sustainability, and how likely is that system to be sustainable beyond the life of the project? • Review of MOCA intervention design documents and work plan • Key Informant Interviews: MOCA technical staff, cocoa producers, cooperative managers, CCC. What capacity do cooperatives supported by the project have to sustain the business relationships with the private sector (producer, buyers, suppliers, retailers etc.)? • Review of MOCA project records: cooperative capacity assessments and progress reports. • Key Informant Interviews: MOCA technical staff, cooperative managers, cooperative members, banks/MFIs, buyers, suppliers. IMPACT EVALUATION (FINAL EVALUATION) METHODOLOGY: Purpose and scope: The final evaluation for the MOCA project will be conducted by an external and independent evaluation firm to assess different aspects of the project including the overall project design, effectiveness of implementation, the quality and structure of the project management, best practices learned from project implementation and their replicability on future projects both in Cote d’Ivoire and elsewhere. The final evaluation will also the impact of the MOCA MAXIMIZING OPPORTUNITIES IN COCOA ACTIVITY BASELINE EVALUATION REPORT CNFA.ORG project on the intended beneficiaries, with a focus on direct beneficiary cocoa producers, in terms of success in increasing productivity and expanding trade of cocoa products. Following the Monitoring and Evaluation Policy guidance for USDA programs, the project’s final evaluation will assess: “Relevance - The extent to which the project interventions met the needs of the project beneficiaries and is aligned with the country’s agriculture and/or development investment strategy and with USDA and US Government’s development goals, objectives, and strategies. Relevance should also address the extent to which the project was designed taking into account the economic, cultural and political context and existing relevant program activities. Effectiveness - The extent to which the project has achieved its objectives. Effectiveness should also assess the extent to which the interventions contributed to the expected results or objectives. Efficiency - The extent to which the project resources (inputs) have led to the achieved results. An assessment of efficiency should also consider whether the same results could have been achieved with fewer resources or whether alternative approaches could have been adopted to achieve the same results. Impact-Assessment of the medium and long-term effects, both intended and unintended, of a project intervention. Effects can be both direct or indirect and positive or negative. To the extent possible, the evaluation should assess the extent to which the effects are due to the project intervention and no other factors. Sustainability - Assessment of the likelihood that the benefits of the project will endure over time after the completion of the project. Sustainability should also assess the extent to which the project has planned for the continuation of project activities, developed local ownership for the project, and developed sustainable partnerships.”1 Key evaluation questions Relevance • To what extent has the project responded to the actual needs and interests of the target producers? • To what extent does the project integrate or strengthen the national cacao strategy of Cote d’Ivoire? Effectiveness • To what extent have the expected results of the project been achieved? What factors have been critical to the achievement or non-achievement of project objectives? • What were the unplanned outcomes that can be attributed to the project? Efficiency 1 United States Department of Agriculture, Foreign Agricultural Service, Food Assistance Division, Office of Capacity Building and Development. “Monitoring & Evaluation Policy,” 5/6/2013. Available at: https://www.fas.usda.gov/programs/resources/monitoring￾and-evaluation-policy MAXIMIZING OPPORTUNITIES IN COCOA ACTIVITY BASELINE EVALUATION REPORT CNFA.ORG • To what extent have the various units / levels of management and coordination (grants, program staff, M&E) supported the implementation of the project? Impact Did MOCA activities produce increases in cocoa farmer: • Access to improved planting material? Access to spraying services? Access to loans? • Access to improved storage? • Productivity (kg/ha of cocoa produced)? • Diversification of crops? • Incomes? Sustainability • To what extent have local actors (cooperatives and farmers' organizations, government agencies, microfinance institutions) been involved in the management of the project? What is the probability that these actors will be able to provide succession? • Are project outcomes likely to be sustained and/or scaled-up after the project closes? Methodology: The final evaluation will address a range of questions in the areas of inquiry of Relevance, Effectiveness, Efficiency, Impact and Sustainability, and use a number of different methods as presented in Table 5 below. The methodology for determining the impact on cocoa farmers – in terms of increasing access to inputs and services, increasing productivity, diversifying crops, and increasing incomes – is discussed in more detail below the table. Table 2: Final Evaluation Methodology Summary Evaluation Area of Inquiry Key Evaluation Question Data Collection Approach Relevance To what extent has the project responded to the actual needs and interests of the target producers? Desk review: MOCA design documents and work plans, progress reports and semi-annual reports. Focus groups: Direct beneficiary producers. Key Informant Interviews: Cooperative managers, MOCA managers, service/input suppliers, banks/MFIs. To what extent does the project integrate or strengthen the national cacao strategy of Cote d’Ivoire? Desk Review: MOCA Results Framework & design documents, Cote d’Ivoire national cacao strategy. Key Informant Interviews: MOCA managers, Government of Cote d’Ivoire MAXIMIZING OPPORTUNITIES IN COCOA ACTIVITY BASELINE EVALUATION REPORT CNFA.ORG officials, local organizations working in the cacao sector, USDA managers Effectiveness To what extent have the expected results of the project been achieved? What factors have been critical to the achievement or non-achievement of project objectives? Desk Review: MOCA Results Framework, performance indicator monitoring data against baseline data and targets (all indicators with endline (LOP) results – final data collection to be completed before final evaluation. What were the unplanned outcomes that can be attributed to the project? Focus groups with project beneficiary groups (by group): Producers, processors, producer group/cooperative managers and members, input suppliers and service providers, bank/MFIs, government officials. Efficiency To what extent have the various units / levels of management and coordination (grants, program staff, M&E) supported the implementation of the project? Key Informant Interviews: MOCA Managers & staff; USDA Managers; grantees. Impact Did MOCA activities produce increases in cocoa farmer: • Access to inputs and services: improved planting material, spraying, loans, improved storage? • Productivity (kg/ha of cocoa produced)? • Diversification of crops? • Incomes? Cocoa Producer Survey Sustainability To what extent have local actors (cooperatives and farmers' organizations, government agencies, microfinance institutions) been involved in the management of the project? What is the probability that these actors will be able to provide succession? Desk review of MOCA work plan and progress reports, other project reports. Key Informant Interviews: MOCA managers and staff, managers and members of farmer organizations/ cooperatives, government agencies, banks/MFIs. MAXIMIZING OPPORTUNITIES IN COCOA ACTIVITY BASELINE EVALUATION REPORT CNFA.ORG Are project outcomes likely to be sustained and/or scaled-up after the project closes? Desk review of MOCA Results Framework & PMP and life of project results; MAXIMIZING OPPORTUNITIES IN COCOA ACTIVITY BASELINE EVALUATION REPORT CNFA.ORG DETERMINING MOCA PROJECT IMPACT ON COCOA FARMERS The final evaluation will seek to determine the extent of the change experienced by beneficiary cocoa farmers after participation in MOCA activities and attribute these changes to MOCA interventions—i.e., establishing that increases in access to inputs and services, productivity, and sales occurred as a result of MOCA interventions rather than other external factors. Evaluating this cause and effect relationship between the project interventions and results, requires a comparison of the changes in the behaviors (e.g., agricultural practices used) and outcomes (e.g., increased productivity) of project producer direct beneficiaries over time to the behaviors and outcomes of a comparison group over the same time period, i.e., a group of producers that have similar characteristics to the direct beneficiary producers but did not participate in the project. This will enable analysis of the counterfactual, or the outcomes over the same time period of the project if the project had not been implemented and enables the evaluators to determine the extent to which changes effected occurred as a result of project activities. Following the completion of the baseline study, KIT provided the following updated recommendations for the final evaluation (see also Section 2, Farmer and Cooperative Survey (KIT): Inception Report & Survey Report, Addendum to the Baseline Report MOCA Côte d’Ivoire: recommendations for the final evaluation): “The final evaluation of MOCA will seek to determine the extent of the change experienced by beneficiary cocoa farmers after participation in MOCA activities and attribute these changes to MOCA interventions. In particular, the end-line impact evaluation is expected to provide answers to the following impact evaluation questions: Did MOCA activities produce increases in cocoa farmer: − Access to inputs and services: improved planting material, spraying, loans, improved storage? − Productivity (kg/ha of cocoa produced)? − Diversification of crops? − Incomes? The evaluation will seek to find evidence of a cause-effect relationship between the project interventions and results at farmer level based on a counterfactual evaluation design. The baseline survey can be used to collect a panel dataset, or at least apply a difference-in￾difference design. In addition, it is recommended to apply Propensity Score Matching in order to correct for confounding factors and selection bias that are likely to influence the outcome indicators independent of exposure to the intervention. Indeed, the baseline study showed that significant differences exist between the beneficiaries and non-beneficiaries prior to the implementation of MOCA. However, other issues will need to be considered at the final evaluation as well: - Spillover effects: the control group may have been affected indirectly by MOCA in certain ways (e.g. improved access to inputs). MAXIMIZING OPPORTUNITIES IN COCOA ACTIVITY BASELINE EVALUATION REPORT CNFA.ORG - Contamination: the treatment and/or control group has access to other interventions that also affect the outcomes. - Impact heterogeneity: differences in impact among beneficiaries due to differences in beneficiary type and context. It is recommended that the final evaluation first reviews the intervention landscape as well as the actual MOCA project activities to assess the likelihood of spillover effects and contamination so these can be taken into account when designing the survey tool. We advise against a simple comparison of outcome indicators between the treatment and control group. The baseline study shows that there are significant differences in outcome indicators between regions and cooperatives at baseline. These factors are likely to cause impact heterogeneity. Furthermore, MOCA will carry out a multitude of activities to strengthen the cocoa value chain in general and the cooperative capacities in particular. The intervention activities will vary by cooperative, depending on their existing capacity and ambitions. As such, there will be multiple ‘treatment arms’ that are not predefined. It is thus important that the evaluation also captures the intervention activities received, and change in capacity achieved, at cooperative level as this will influence the outcome at farmer level. A survey at cooperative level will be necessary to collect the required data on the capacities of the cooperatives, the type of support received, and services provided to farmers.2 In order to correct for the expected heterogeneity in treatment and impact, it is recommended to use multivariate regression techniques3 to control for the variation in ‘treatment’ interventions as well as important confounding factors (e.g. cooperative capacity, region) to estimate the true effect of MOCA on cocoa farmers. Treating each intervention package at cooperative level as a separate treatment arm, to be compared against other treatment arms and controls, will be unpractical as the number of treatment arms are likely to require a very large sample size. In addition to analyzing baseline and end line values of the outcome indicators, it would also be useful to compare changes in the correlates of productivity at baseline and at end line, as it is possible that the project has an effect on which factors affect productivity (for example, making the use of inputs more significantly correlated with productivity). In case the decision is made to obtain a new sample of respondents for the final evaluation (rather than collecting a panel dataset), the sampling procedure should follow the two-stage sampling strategy applied at baseline: random sampling of cooperatives followed by random sampling of cooperative members. The procedure is described in the inception report of the baseline study 222 King EM, Behrman JR. 2008. Timing and duration of exposure in evaluations of social programs. Policy Research Working Paper 4686. The World Bank 3 See for example: Elbers C, Gunning JW. 2012. Evaluation of development programs: using regression to assess the impact of complex interventions. Tinbergen Institute Discussion Paper TI2012-081/2. Faculty of Economics and Business Administration, VU University Amsterdam, AIID, and Tinbergen Institute MAXIMIZING OPPORTUNITIES IN COCOA ACTIVITY BASELINE EVALUATION REPORT CNFA.ORG BASELINE REPORT 2. FARMER AND COOPERATIVE SURVEY (KIT): BASELINE REPORT Baseline report MOCA Côte d'Ivoire 15 | MAXIMIZING OPPORTUNITIES IN COCOA ACTIVITY BASELINE EVALUATION REPORT CNFA.ORG Commissioner CNFA Authors Adama Bah, Cedric Steijn, Jesse d'Anjou, Anna Laven, Helena Posthumus KIT, Amsterdam February 6, 2019, version 3 Mauritskade 64 1092 AD Amsterdam Telefoon +31 (0)20 568 8711 www.kit.nl 16 | MAXIMIZING OPPORTUNITIES IN COCOA ACTIVITY BASELINE EVALUATION REPORT CNFA.ORG ACRONYMS ANADER Agence National d'Appui au Développement Rural BDS Business Development Services CCC Conseil du Café et Cacao CNFA Cultivating New Frontiers in Agriculture CNRA Centre National de Recherche Agriculture CSSV Cocoa Swollen Shoot Virus FAS Foreign Agricultural Service FCIA Fine Chocolate Industry Association FCS Farmer Service Center FI Finance Institution GAP Good Agricultural Practices GDP Gross Domestic Product M&E Monitoring and Evaluation MOCA Maximizing Opportunities for Cocoa Activity NGO Non-Governmental Organisation PPP Public-Private Partnership PSM Propensity Score Matching R&D Research and Development SOCODEVI Société de Coopération pour le Développement International SOW Statement of Work SPU Service Provision Unit USDA United States Department of Agriculture WCF World Cocoa Foundation 17 | MAXIMIZING OPPORTUNITIES IN COCOA ACTIVITY BASELINE EVALUATION REPORT CNFA.ORG Table of contents INTRODUCTION 5 METHODOLOGY 6 2.1 DATA COLLECTION METHODS 6 2.2 SAMPLING STRATEGY 6 2.3 FIELD REPORT ON DATA COLLECTION 7 FOCUS GROUP DISCUSSIONS 7 COOPERATIVE MANAGEMENT INTERVIEWS 7 BASELINE SURVEY 7 2.4 ANALYSIS OF SURVEY DATA 8 SAMPLING WEIGHTS USED FOR STATISTICAL TESTS 8 RESPONDENT INFORMATION 9 VALIDATING BASELINE RESULTS 9 3 BASELINE RESULTS FARMER SURVEY 11 3.1 INTRODUCTION 11 3.2 CHARACTERISTICS OF COCOA FARMERS 11 3.3 AGRICULTURAL PRODUCTIVITY AT FARM LEVEL (SO1) 14 COCOA YIELDS 14 PRODUCTIVITY QUARTILES 16 USE OF INPUTS AND SERVICES (FFPR 1.2.1) 18 POST-HARVEST PRACTICES AND INFRASTRUCTURE FOR POST- HARVEST PROCESSING (FFPR 1.2.2) 21 FINANCIAL SERVICES (FFPR 1.2.3) 22 GOOD AGRICULTURAL PRACTICES (GAP) IN COCOA (FFPR 1.2.4) 24 LAND & WATER RESOURCES (FFPR 1.1) 29 FARM MANAGEMENT: FARMER KNOWLEDGE ON FINANCE AND BUSINESS (FFPR 1.3) 29 INSTITUTIONAL SUPPORT (FFPR 1.4) 32 3.4 TRADE AT FARM LEVEL (SO2) 34 VALUE ADDITION (QUALITY, EFFICIENCY, MARKETING) (FFPR 2.1) 34 ACCESS TO MARKETS (MARKETING, BUYERS-SELLERS LINKAGES) (FFPR 2.2) 36 3.5 MULTI-VARIATE ANALYSIS: COMBINED EFFECTS ON PRODUCTIVITY 37 4 BASELINE RESULTS COOPERATIVE SURVEY 39 4.1 INTRODUCTION 39 4.2 AGRICULTURAL PRODUCTIVITY AT COOPERATIVE LEVEL (SO1) 40 PROVISION OF INPUTS AND SERVICES (FFPR 1.2.1) 40 INFRASTRUCTURE FOR PRODUCTION AND POST-HARVEST PROCESSING (FFPR 1.2.2) 42 FINANCIAL SERVICES (FFPR 1.2.3) 43 FARMER KNOWLEDGE ON GAP IN COCOA (FFPR 1.2.4) 43 4.3 TRADE AT COOPERATIVE LEVEL (SO2) 44 VALUE ADDITION (QUALITY, EFFICIENCY, MARKETING) (FFPR 2.1) 44 ACCESS TO MARKETS (MARKETING, BUYERS-SELLERS LINKAGES) (FFPR 2.2) 45 TRANSACTION EFFICIENCY (BUYERS-SELLERS MANAGEMENT MAXIMIZING OPPORTUNITIES IN COCOA ACTIVITY BASELINE EVALUATION REPORT CNFA.ORG PRACTICES) (FFPR 2.3.2) 45 4.4 COOPERATIVE CAPACITIES 46 5 RECOMMENDATIONS 48 5.1 KEY INSIGHTS BASELINE INFORMATION 48 REGIONAL DIFFERENCES 48 GENDER DIFFERENCES 50 DIVERSITY AMONG COOPERATIVES 50 5.2 RECOMMENDATIONS FOR M&E 50 5.3 RECOMMENDATIONS FOR MOCA PROJECT IMPLEMENTATION 51 MAXIMIZING OPPORTUNITIES IN COCOA ACTIVITY BASELINE EVALUATION REPORT CNFA.ORG INTRODUCTION The ‘Maximizing Opportunities in Cocoa Activity’ (MOCA) project is a three-year project funded by the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) Food for Progress program and implemented by CNFA with subcontractor SOCODEVI in Côte d’Ivoire. MOCA focuses on increasing the efficiency and professionalism of actors in the cocoa value chain and improving the cocoa trade in order to boost farmers’ income. The project started in October 2017 and is scheduled to end in September 2020. The project is implemented in the three largest micro-production zones in the Côte d’Ivoire’s cocoa belt (Abengourou, Daloa and Soubré). The MOCA project has the following objectives: Strategic Objective 1: To increase productivity and efficiency of actors in the cocoa value chain through strengthening the capacities of cooperatives/producer groups, research institutions, input suppliers and processors of cocoa. Strategic Objective 2: Improve and expand the trade of cocoa and cocoa products through improving the overall quality of the crop, the processing and post-harvest handling techniques, and strengthening market linkages and organization of groups to supply product to fulfil market demands. Project activities are focused around improvements to cocoa production (Strategic Objective 1) and marketing of fermented and dried cocoa as well as production and marketing of transformed, value-added cocoa products (Strategic Objective 2). Direct beneficiaries include cocoa producers, cocoa cooperatives, processors that transform cocoa into value-added products, and CNRA, which produces approved cocoa planting materials. The target number of beneficiaries over the life of project is 5,709; this overall target includes a target of 5,625 beneficiary cocoa farmers. The target number cooperatives and farmer organizations directly assisted over the life of the project is 26. CNFA has contracted KIT to provide technical expertise for the design of the baseline study methodology, development of study tools, quality control during field work, and analysis and reporting. The baseline study aims at 1) establishing quantitative values for the MOCA performance indicators before the start of project activities, and 2) establishing baseline values for all measures (both quantitative and qualitative) needed to assess project outcomes through the mid-term performance evaluation and the final evaluation of impact. The study establishes the baseline situation of two target beneficiary populations: cocoa producers and cooperatives. MAXIMIZING OPPORTUNITIES IN COCOA ACTIVITY BASELINE EVALUATION REPORT CNFA.ORG METHODOLOGY DATA COLLECTION METHODS The baseline study included the following data collection methods (see the inception report for more detail): • Household questionnaire (N=1300) for the baseline survey to collect detailed information on farm-level indicators (e.g. cocoa production, trade volumes, household characteristics); • Cooperative questionnaire (N=26), used for interviews with cooperative management, to collect information on cooperative membership, services and trade; • Focus Group Discussion (FGD) guidelines to collect qualitative information from cooperative members on cocoa trade and services. The data collection tools were included as annexes in the inception report. The household questionnaire for the baseline survey was developed by MOCA, revised by KIT, then subsequently revised during enumerator training based on discussions with enumerators and MOCA team in order to improve the quality of the data collected. The questionnaire was converted to ODK and deployed on Android tablets. In addition, a semi-structured interview tool was developed for local SMEs (input providers and processors) but not yet applied for logistical reasons. The MOCA team will make use of the tool for its own monitoring purposes. SAMPLING STRATEGY The required sample size for the survey was set at 1100 farmers, which was calculated based on the following considerations (see the inception report): • an effect size of 20% increase4 in average annual yields, currently estimated at 362 kg per ha (Bymolt et al. 2018) 5; • a compliance rate of 90 percent; • high heterogeneity expected in the type of support provided to cooperatives and farmers; • and expected use of propensity score matching for the estimation of program impact. Given the known heterogeneity in cooperatives selected to be part of the project, it was decided to treat cooperatives as strata from which farmers were selected. All cooperatives are thus included in the sample. A list of 1,354 farmers was randomly sampled from cooperative membership lists provided by the MOCA team, initially inflated to account for non-response. Three criteria were used to define the sample size in each cooperative: 1) equal number of farmers selected in each region regardless of their actual population size; 4 This conservative average was taken to ensure that the sample size is large enough to measure any possible effects of the program, both on productivity and on other performance indicators listed by MOCA 5 Bymolt, R., Laven, A., Tyszler, M. (2018) Demystifying the cocoa sector in Ghana and Côte d’Ivoire. KIT Royal Tropical Institute. Available at https://www.kit.nl/project/demystifying-cocoa-sector/ MAXIMIZING OPPORTUNITIES IN COCOA ACTIVITY BASELINE EVALUATION REPORT CNFA.ORG 2) farmers from control cooperatives have been oversampled so that their share in the sample reaches 30 percent (instead of 17 percent, based on cooperative membership data provided by MOCA team); 3) cooperative sample size set at a minimum of 8 farmers and otherwise proportional to relative cooperative size within the region. FIELD REPORT ON DATA COLLECTION The MOCA team was responsible for the planning of the baseline survey in each region. The qualitative data collection was conducted by KIT, who developed a fieldwork planning in consultation with MOCA team. The planning was based on the time available to the KIT team, distances and travelling time and availability of the managers and farmers of cooperatives. Data collection by KIT comprised an interview with the management of each cooperative and a Focus Group Discussion with farmers of selected cooperatives. The KIT team ensured that an FGD took place for every control cooperative. The FGDs for the other (intervention) cooperatives were planned based on distance, available time and suggestions by MOCA team. FOCUS GROUP DISCUSSIONS FGDs usually took place in the cooperative headquarters (or warehouse) to minimize travelling time. Cooperatives were asked beforehand to select farmers for the FGDs based on criteria provided by the KIT team and were responsible for arranging the transport of the farmers to the location of the FGD. Cooperatives reported facing difficulties in finding participants available for the FGDs as farmers were occupied with the main harvest of their cocoa. The data collected might therefore not always reflect the views of all cooperative members. A second short coming is the lack of representativeness of the sample. Women were often underrepresented and most FGDs consisted of members who were usually from the same section (or community). The data collected should not therefore be generalised to the cooperative as a whole but used as an indication of the current situation of cooperative members. A third shortcoming relates to the presence of members who also have a managing position within the cooperative during the FGDs. Their presence may affect answers of farmers whom might not feel completely free to express their opinions for fear of consequences. In most FGDs, delegates and managers were asked to leave when the discussion focused on cooperatives. In a few cooperatives (all in Daloa region) however, all FGD participants were at such positions, due to misunderstandings during communications between MOCA team and cooperatives regarding the type of respondents required for these exercises. KIT advisors noted these issues, which may lead to potential biases and are thus taken into account during analysis. COOPERATIVE MANAGEMENT INTERVIEWS Cooperative interviews took place in all cooperatives (treatment and control). In the large majority, interviews were conducted with a small group (3 to 7) of participants, including the cooperative director, the ‘administrateur de groupe’, and the president. For some cooperatives, the director was not available, therefore information is missing on some questions, especially regarding cooperative finances. MAXIMIZING OPPORTUNITIES IN COCOA ACTIVITY BASELINE EVALUATION REPORT CNFA.ORG BASELINE SURVEY The main issue during the baseline survey data collection related to finding farmers selected on the initial list. Due to a lack of time for fieldwork preparations, it was not possible to check beforehand with cooperatives whether farmers selected were available. Furthermore, data collection was conducted over a relatively short period of time, during which enumerators were required (by contract) to conduct four surveys per day whereas, in practice, very few surveys took place during the first day at a cooperative, given the need to first locate farmers with the help of the cooperative staff. A number of sampled farmers were said to be unavailable or could not be located. The MOCA team therefore requested for KIT to provide replacement lists to replace farmers who could not be surveyed and be able to obtain the required number of respondents for each cooperative. It was decided to replace sampled farmers who could not be surveyed following the same random selection procedure as the one used for the initial list. Replacement lists were provided by the KIT team upon request from MOCA M&E advisors, who supervised the fieldwork. M&E advisors were requested to implement the replacement process par releasing additional names one by one to enumerators according to a ranking established randomly by KIT (instead of providing them with a list of replacement). This was to avoid convenience replacements which could affect the representativeness of the sample. M&E advisors were asked to document why respondents included in the sample were not surveyed and why replacement respondents with a higher rank were replaced with a respondent with a lower rank. Overall, the data submitted by M&E advisors suggest that the replacement process roughly followed the requested process. Table 1 summarizes results from the implementation of the sampling process, based on data provided by M&E advisors. It shows that there are regional differences in the number of farmers from the initial lists that could not be surveyed. Table 1. Overview of replacements of sampled farmers ABENGOUROU DALOA SOUBRE Number of farmers on initial sampling list 450 449 455 Number of farmers from initial list not surveyed 86 39 87 Number of farmers not surveyed - not cooperative member 0 4 17 Number of farmers not surveyed - not found 30 24 5 Number of farmers not surveyed - temporarily away 38 9 22 Number of farmers not surveyed - permanent move 7 2 2 Number of farmers not surveyed - not accessible 11 0 2 Number of farmers not surveyed - other 0 0 39 MAXIMIZING OPPORTUNITIES IN COCOA ACTIVITY BASELINE EVALUATION REPORT CNFA.ORG Number of replacement names provided 233 75 113 Number of farmers from initial list replaced 77 26 61 Number of farmers surveyed 443 451 433 Number of farmers in final (cleaned) dataset 428 447 425 Note: data from this table is based on reports provided by MOCA M&E officers for each region, except for the number of farmers surveyed which is based on final data uploaded on the server. ANALYSIS OF SURVEY DATA SAMPLING WEIGHTS USED FOR STATISTICAL TESTS If the sample in each cooperative had been selected with selection probabilities which are exactly proportional to the size of the cooperative, there would be no need for sampling weights to correct for the sample selection scheme. But the sample was selected in a way that gives more observations to certain areas compared to their actual population size, for example control cooperatives (as described in section 2.2. above). This may affect results, if for example farmers from control cooperatives have systematically lower values for variables of interest, such as production than farmers from treatment cooperatives. In this case, a correction is needed to adjust the values for the former and obtain overall results which are more in line with actual population values.6 Sampling weights are thus used to adjust the results from the survey to better reflect the actual composition of the underlying population. Sampling weights are calculated as the inverse of the probability of selection in the sample: N/n, where N is the total population of farmers in a cooperative and n is the number of farmers selected to be surveyed. Given the way in which the sample size in each cooperative has been calculated (see section 2.2), these weights effectively lead to inflating the impact of those under￾represented (treatment group, Soubré region), and deflating the impact of those who ore over-represented (control group, Abengourou region). Weights are adjusted to account for differences between sample size on the initial list and on actual sample size by replacing the number of farmers initially selected to be surveyed (n) by the number of farmers actually surveyed in the formula presented above. Although the final sample sizes per region, group and cooperative are overall very close to the expected sample sizes, some cooperatives have less respondents than initially calculated, while others have more. This is mainly due to differences in 6 This effectively means that values for farmers of control cooperatives will be given a lower weight, whereas values for farmers of treatment cooperatives will be given a higher weight. For example, average cocoa production over the 2017-2018 season is 1823.96 kg without weights and 1939.7 kg with weights. MAXIMIZING OPPORTUNITIES IN COCOA ACTIVITY BASELINE EVALUATION REPORT CNFA.ORG fieldwork conditions which led to differences in success in finding originally selected and replacement households and other fieldwork conditions. Further adjustments to weights could be done by comparing the characteristics of households surveyed based on initial lists and those of those surveyed based on replacement lists. However, such adjustments would require additional assumptions, while not generating much relevant additional information compared to weights adjusted solely based on realized sample size. Adjusted weights sum to the total population of farmers (i) overall, (ii) in each region, (iii) group and (iv) cooperative. RESPONDENT INFORMATION The questionnaires were conducted within households of cooperative members. Enumerators were instructed to administer the survey to any adult household members who is involved in the household cocoa production. Individual information was subsequently collected on all adult members of the household. The respondents are clustered around certain departments/sub-préfectures, but balanced between Abengourou, Daloa, and Soubré regions. Almost all respondents are member of a cooperative or association and active in cocoa, but not all (also not within the MOCA sample group). VALIDATING BASELINE RESULTS Where relevant, the findings of the recent KIT Demystifying the cocoa sector study (2018) is being used as a benchmark. For this study data was collected in Côte d’Ivoire between February and March 2017, among in total 1,485 households. In the household survey, respondents were asked to recall information from the 2015-2016 cocoa season. Randomized sampling was done in two stages. First, a long list of cocoa growing regions was compiled. Computer-generated random numbers were assigned to each community in each district of each region. In Côte d’Ivoire, the community randomly assigned the highest number in each district was selected for the study. This ensured that we did not simply visit communities that were the most accessible or convenient. Second, at the community level, randomization was carried out by one of the research team members a few days in advance of each visit. The team member worked with local leaders in the communities to select a random sample of people in each community. This was done through a simple transect walk, north, east, south and west from the center of the village. Ten households from each direction were selected, skipping every Nth house, depending on the size of the community and the proportion of male vs female respondents (at least one third of the respondents should be female). This ensured that potential bias was removed to avoid the systematic selection of the best farmers, those who are well-connected members of groups, or those who frequently participate in projects. For the KIT study there was no requirement that the household had to include a cocoa farmer, or even any kind of farmer. We did not intentionally select respondents that were involved in a certain programme or affiliated with a certain buyer, as is often the case in evaluations of sustainability programmes. MAXIMIZING OPPORTUNITIES IN COCOA ACTIVITY BASELINE EVALUATION REPORT CNFA.ORG BASELINE RESULTS FARMER SURVEY INTRODUCTION This chapter discusses the main findings of the baseline measurement among farmer households and cocoa cooperatives in three regions: Abengourou, Daloa and Soubré. Only the most relevant findings are presented and discussed in this chapter. In the presentation of the results we use, where relevant, the findings of the KIT Demystifying the cocoa sector study (Bymolt et al. 2018)7 as a benchmark. The findings are presented and discussed according to the structure of the Results Framework (see the inception report). More detail on the baseline data is provided in the appendices. Appendix 1 contains an overview of all descriptive statistics of the baseline survey among farmer households. Appendix 2 presents the findings based on the cooperative interviews. The fieldwork report is presented in Appendix 3. Baseline data is disaggregated by cooperative in Appendix 4. CHARACTERISTICS OF COCOA FARMERS The respondents were sampled based on the precondition that they were a member of a cooperative (both treatment and control group). Most of the respondents are male (90%) and head of household (88%). In case the respondent was not the head of household, s/he was the spouse, sibling or (adult) child of the head of household. The average age of respondents is 45 years. The average household size is seven household members (Figure 1), but households in Daloa are significantly larger (on average 7.9) than the households in Abengourou and Soubré (6.3 and 6.5 respectively; table 6, appendix 1). 7 Bymolt, R., Laven, A., Tyszler, M. (2018) Demystifying the cocoa sector in Ghana and Côte d’Ivoire. KIT Royal Tropical Institute. Available at https://www.kit.nl/project/demystifying-cocoa-sector/ MAXIMIZING OPPORTUNITIES IN COCOA ACTIVITY BASELINE EVALUATION REPORT CNFA.ORG Figure 1. Distribution of household size Two-thirds (65%) of the respondents have no education or did not complete primary school. This percentage is significantly lower in Abengourou (57%) than Daloa (67%) and Soubré (68%). Few respondents (5%) have reached an education level beyond secondary school (Table 2). About half (49%) of the respondents was born within their current district. However, in Soubré this percentage was only 34%, compared to 72% in Abengourou. Most migrants have moved from other regions within Côte d’Ivoire, but 15% of the respondents reported that their origin is from another country. Daloa has the highest percentage of foreign migrants (22%), compared to 14% and 10% in Soubré and Abengourou respectively (table 14, appendix 1). Table 2. Respondent education level Respondent education All Abengourou Daloa Soubré sig No education/primary school not completed 65% 57% 67% 68% *** Completed elementary/primary school 16% 19% 17% 13% Completed secondary 10% 12% 10% 8% University (completed) 3% 6% 1% 4% Technical-vocational training 1% 2% 1% 1% Technical/professional studies 1% 1% 1% 1% Islamic/French-Arabic school 5% 4% 4% 5% Other 0% 0% 1% 0% N 1297 427 446 424 Note: significance from a Rao-Scott second-order corrected Chi-squared statistical test. ***, **, * indicate significance levels of 1%, 5% and 10% respectively Cocoa is the major income source among the respondents, followed by sales of other agricultural products and livestock products (Table 3). In Daloa, it is more common to derive income from agricultural and livestock products than in the other two regions. In Abengourou, 14% of the respondents also derive an income from a small business compared to 8% in the other two regions. MAXIMIZING OPPORTUNITIES IN COCOA ACTIVITY BASELINE EVALUATION REPORT CNFA.ORG Table 3. Respondents’ income sources Respondent income sources All Abengourou Daloa Soubré sig None 1% 1% 0% 1% ** Sales of cocoa 98% 99% 98% 99% Sales of agricultural products 51% 58% 76% 28% *** Sales of livestock / poultry or derived products 12% 8% 20% 9% *** Sales of fish 0% 1% 0% 0% ** Sales of bush products 1% 0% 1% 0% Farm employment 2% 0% 3% 3% *** Non-farm employment 2% 1% 2% 3% Owner of small business 9% 14% 8% 8% *** Formal employment in a company 1% 1% 1% 1% Formal employment as civil servant 0% 1% 0% 0% Sale or lease of owned land 0% 0% 0% 0% Remittances from friends/family members living outside the household 2% 1% 5% 2% *** Other 2% 3% 2% 2% N 1300 428 447 425 Note: significance from a composite Wald statistical test. ***, **, * indicate significance levels of 1%, 5% and 10% respectively Only 3% of the respondents indicated not to work on the cocoa farm. There are regional differences whether respondents work fulltime or occasionally on the farm, with 97% of the respondents in Daloa working fulltime on the cocoa farm compared to 81% and 79% in Abengourou and Soubré respectively (Table 4). Table 4. Respondents working on the cocoa farm Respondent working on farmAll MOCAControl sigAbengourouDaloa Soubrésig No, never 3% 3% 3% ** 4% 1% 3% *** Yes, full time 85% 84% 91% 81% 97% 79% Yes, occasionally 11% 12% 6% 13% 2% 16% Yes, only during harvest 1% 2% 0% 2% 0% 2% N 1300 924 376 428 447 425 Note: significance from a Rao-Scott second-order corrected Chi-squared statistical test. ***, **, * indicate significance levels of 1%, 5% and 10% respectively On average, farm households cultivate 6.3 ha of land (Table 5). There were no significant differences in farm size between MOCA farmers and the control group (see table 22, appendix 1). The average farm size is significantly lower in Daloa (5.8 ha) than in Abengourou and Soubré (6.3 ha and 6.7 ha respectively). On average, the cocoa farmers own more than they cultivate, and some of the remainder land is leased or MAXIMIZING OPPORTUNITIES IN COCOA ACTIVITY BASELINE EVALUATION REPORT CNFA.ORG used for sharecropping.8 However, the low averages for these forms of land tenure suggests that this is only done by a minority of farmers. Indeed, only 5.6% of the farmers use land in a sharecropping arrangement (on average 2 ha) (based on table 31, appendix 1). More farmers (13.7%) lease their land, but only small pieces – on average 0.3 ha (based on table 30, appendix 1). Table 5. Average farm sizes by region All Abengourou Daloa Soubré sig Total land cultivated all crops (2017-2018) (ha) 6.3 [6.03, 6.57] 6.3 [5.85, 6.69] 5.8 [5.42, 6.24] 6.7 [6.17, 7.14] ** Total land owned (2017- 2018) (ha) 6.7 [6.32, 7.11] 7.0 [6.3, 7.69] 6.1 [5.51, 6.61] 7.0 [6.33, 7.74] ** Total land leased (2017- 2018) (ha) 0.2 [0.17, 0.26] 0.1 [0.05, 0.16] 0.3 [0.22, 0.4] 0.2 [0.13, 0.28] *** Total land sharecropping (2017-2018) (ha) 0.2 [0.1, 0.3] 0.2 [0.09, 0.39] 0.2 [0.1, 0.26] 0.2 [0, 0.41] Total land cocoa (2017- 2018) 4.3 [4.12, 4.48] 4.6 [4.27, 4.87] 3.4 [3.16, 3.61] 4.8 [4.49, 5.17] *** N 1251 410 433 408 Note: significance from a composite Wald statistical test. ***, **, * indicate significance levels of 1%, 5% and 10% respectively The cocoa farmers dedicate most of their land (60-70%) to cocoa. The average size of the cocoa farm is 4.3 ha, but there is a skewed distribution of cocoa farm sizes and 50% of the sampled farmers cultivate cocoa on less than 3.5 ha ( Figure 2). Note that the average cocoa farm size is significantly lower in Daloa (3.4 ha) than in the other two regions (4.6 ha and 4.8 ha for Abengourou and Soubré respectively). This is proportional to the total average farm sizes in the three regions. Again, there were no significant differences between MOCA farmers and the control group in terms of the cocoa farm size (see table 27, appendix 1) 8 Original question : “Combien d’unités de terre votre ménage a-t-il utilisés sous MÉTAYAGE pour le cacao au cours de la campagne 2017-2018 ? Note : Planté-partagé. Le ménage donnait une portion de sa récolte au propriétaire des terres.” MAXIMIZING OPPORTUNITIES IN COCOA ACTIVITY BASELINE EVALUATION REPORT CNFA.ORG Figure 2. Distribution of cocoa farm size AGRICULTURAL PRODUCTIVITY AT FARM LEVEL (SO1) COCOA YIELDS The average annual cocoa yield is estimated at 488 kg per ha (table 58, appendix 1). The distribution (histogram) of the annual cocoa yield is presented in Figure 3. Figure 3. Distribution of annual cocoa yield (kg per ha) 2017-2018 There are significant differences between reported cocoa yields (season 2017-2018) by MOCA farmers and the control farmers, as well as between regions: MAXIMIZING OPPORTUNITIES IN COCOA ACTIVITY BASELINE EVALUATION REPORT CNFA.ORG • MOCA farmers reported significantly higher yields (498 kg per ha) than control farmers (435 kg per ha). • The highest yields are obtained in Soubré (574 kg per ha), compared to 470 kg per ha in Abengourou and 402 kg per ha in Daloa (table 58, appendix 1; Error! Not a valid bookmark self-reference.). Note that the cooperatives reported total yields (2017/2018) of 575 kg per ha (table 14, appendix 2), which is higher than the yields reported by farmers. This study cannot explain this difference in reported yields. Figure 4. Cocoa productivity (season 2017-2018) per MOCA region Table 6 disaggregates average cocoa yields by household characteristics. In Abengourou, male-headed households obtained significantly higher yields (487.5 kg per ha) than female-headed households (385.3 kg per ha); in the other two regions no significant differences were found, probably due to small number of female-headed households in the sample. In Abengourou, younger farmers also produce higher yields than older farmers, but this trend does not apply for the other regions. Statistical tests could not reveal any other associations between cocoa yields and other household characteristics. Table 6. Average yield (kg per ha) over 2017-2018 by household characteristics Abengourou Daloa Soubré Mean N Mean N Mean N Household head sex Female head 385.3 60 563.4 7 610.5 17 Male head 487.5 306 398.7 353 571.6 269 Sig ** ns ns MAXIMIZING OPPORTUNITIES IN COCOA ACTIVITY BASELINE EVALUATION REPORT CNFA.ORG Abengourou Daloa Soubré Mean N Mean N Mean N Household head age 18-34 527.0 38 466.0 80 577.0 70 35-49 494.0 160 395.9 167 613.2 103 50+ 433.7 168 363.7 113 541.9 110 Sig * ns ns Household head work on cocoa farm Never 388.4 12 406.1 5 587.8 12 Full time 471.1 305 400.8 347 569.4 227 Occasionally 478.7 45 480.8 7 551.6 38 Only during harvest 484.8 4 80.0 1 765.6 9 Sig ns ns ns Household largest income source is cocoa No 416.3 17 389.0 35 490.1 13 Yes 472.2 349 402.9 325 578.6 273 Sig ns ns ns Years of experience in cocoa farming 1 to 5 526.9 6 443.8 15 562.8 9 6 to 10 430.3 41 398.9 68 667.1 25 11 to 15 503.2 61 356.5 79 602.0 22 16 to 20 457.1 70 450.7 84 698.4 22 20 to 24 487.5 49 433.2 37 656.3 21 Over 25 465.5 139 368.7 77 537.6 187 Sig ns ns ns MAXIMIZING OPPORTUNITIES IN COCOA ACTIVITY BASELINE EVALUATION REPORT CNFA.ORG Abengourou Daloa Soubré Mean N Mean N Mean N Note: there are 272 missing observations for productivity. Household head information is missing for 34 households; for those it is replaced by respondent information. Note: significance from an ANOVA test. ***, **, * indicate significance levels of 1%, 5% and 10% respectively; ns means not significant Note that this baseline study reports higher yields than the reported means in Bymolt et al. (2018), of which the majority of respondents is not organized in a cooperative. Bymolt et al. (2018) reported for cocoa season 2015/2016 mean cocoa yields of 353 kg per ha. Table 7 summarizes the yield estimates of other studies in Côte d’Ivoire for comparison. Table 7. Recent yield estimates for Côte d’Ivoire Yield Source 447 kg/ha Tano (2012)9 493 kg/ha Ingram et al. (2013)10 300-500 kg/ha Ingram et al. (2014)11 500 kg/ha Lambert et al. (2014)12 500 kg/ha Barry Callebaut (2014)13 300-400 kg/ha FLA (2015)14 PRODUCTIVITY QUARTILES In the remainder analysis, farmers are classified in four quartiles according to their overall productivity level (total cocoa yield in kg per ha) over the 2017-2018 campaign: 1. Quartile 1 comprises farmers whose productivity is lower than the 25th percentile of the productivity of their region – lowest 25 percent of farmers. 9 Tano, M.A. (2012). Crise cacaoyère et stratégies des producteurs de la sous-préfécture de Meadji au sud-ouest ivoirien (Doctoral dissertation, Université Toulouse le Mirail-Toulouse II). 10 Ingram V., Waarts Y., van Vugt S.M., Ge L., Wegner L., Puister-Jansen L. (2013). Towards sustainable cocoa: Assessment of Cargill and Solidaridad cocoa farmer support activities in Côte d’Ivoire 2008-2012. LEI, Wageningen UR. 11 Ingram, V., Waarts, Y., Ge, L., van Vugt, S., Wegner, L., Puister-Jansen, L., Ruf, F., Tanoh, R. (2014). Impact of UTZ certification of cocoa in Ivory Coast; Assessment framework and baseline. Wageningen, LEI Wageningen UR, LEI Report 2014-010. 12 Lambert, A., Gearhart, J. McGill, A. & Wrinkle, H. (2014). The Fairness Gap: Farmer incomes and root cause solutions to ending child labor in the cocoa industry. International Labour Rights Forum, Washington D.C. 13 Barry Callebaut (2014). Cocoa Sustainability Report 103/2014. 14 FLA (2015). Evaluer la situation actuelle des femmes et des jeunes agriculteurs et l’état nutritional de leurs familles dans deux communautés productrices de cacao en Côte d’Ivoire. Rapport prepare par Fair Labour Association, Juillet 2015. MAXIMIZING OPPORTUNITIES IN COCOA ACTIVITY BASELINE EVALUATION REPORT CNFA.ORG 2. Quartile 2 comprises farmers whose productivity is higher than the lowest 25th percentile but lower than the median of the productivity of their region – second lowest 25 percent of farmers. 3. Quartile 3 comprises farmers whose productivity is higher than the median but lower than the 75th percentile of the productivity of their region – second highest 25 percent of farmers. 4. Quartile 4 comprises farmers whose productivity is higher than the 75th percentile of the productivity of their region – highest 25 percent of farmers. Dividing farmers into region-specific quartiles allows accounting for the specific distribution of each region. As can be seen in Figure 5 (left), in all three regions farmers produce mostly below 500 kg per ha. However, there are some differences in the regional distributions. For example, in Daloa, a larger share of sample values are clustered around the lowest productivity values. The median in this region (401.5 kg per ha) is significantly lower than in the other two regions (469.7 kg per ha in Abengourou and 574.0 kg per ha in Soubré). In Soubré, in the higher end of the distribution farmers are producing at a higher productivity than in Abengourou, as can be seen by the share of observations above 800 kg per ha. The 90th percentile (10 percent of observations with the highest values) in Soubré is 833.5 kg per ha whereas in Abengourou it is 754.2 kg per ha. By dividing the sample into region-specific quartiles, we are able to explore whether differences in practices may explain these differences in yield. Figure 5. Distribution of total cocoa productivity over 2017-2018 per region and per quartile The average productivity is disaggregated by cocoa farm size in Figure 6 and MAXIMIZING OPPORTUNITIES IN COCOA ACTIVITY BASELINE EVALUATION REPORT CNFA.ORG Table 8. The average productivity is significantly higher on smaller cocoa farms (less than 2 ha) than larger cocoa farms. Figure 6. Productivity quartiles and size of cocoa farms MAXIMIZING OPPORTUNITIES IN COCOA ACTIVITY BASELINE EVALUATION REPORT CNFA.ORG Table 8. Average productivity (kg per ha) by cocoa farm size Abengourou Daloa Soubré Mean N Mean N Mean N Cocoa farm size Less than 2 Ha 630.6 36 457.4 80 634.1 23 2 to 5 Ha 458.4 199 397.2 212 625.9 163 5 to 10 Ha 441.4 103 334.7 57 504.7 73 More than 10 Ha 453.0 28 488.0 11 399.3 27 Sig *** ** *** Cocoa farm size in total cultivated land Less than 50% of cultivated land 588.1 39 425.9 96 538.8 28 50-75% of cultivated land 483.5 114 401.6 119 641.4 71 More than 75% of cultivated land 435.8 210 389.7 139 557.2 184 Sig *** ns ns Note: there are 272 missing observations for productivity. There are also 49 and 68 missing observations for cocoa land size and total cultivated land, respectively. Note: significance from an ANOVA test. ***, **, * indicate significance levels of 1%, 5% and 10% respectively; ns means not significant USE OF INPUTS AND SERVICES (FFPR 1.2.1) Regarding the use of inputs for cocoa, cocoa farmers were asked at baseline about application (yes/no), frequency, source, the conditions under which it was applied, and the average annual expenditure for the input or service. In the baseline we asked whether the input was: i) paid; ii) received for ‘free’; iii) partly paid and partly received for ‘free’. However, the notion ‘for free’ can be misleading, as it can be paid actually by the premium (which otherwise might be paid to the farmers directly). Unfortunately, the baseline questionnaire did not capture this distinction. Herbicides • A minority of farmers use herbicides: 16% of MOCA farmers vs 25% of control farmers. Bymolt et al (2018) reported that 32% of the cocoa households applied herbicides. • 2017/2018 expenditure on herbicides: MOCA farmers (37,445 FCFA per year) vs control farmers (24,350 FCFA per year) Insecticides • A majority of farmers (88%) apply insecticides (similar findings for treatment and control group, and in each region). In Bymolt et al. (2018), 75% of the Ivorian cocoa households reported to apply insecticides. • The majority of farmers (62%) receive ‘free’ insecticides (table 99, appendix 1); MOCA farmers (64%) more often than control farmers (52%). These ‘free’ insecticides are mostly obtained through the cooperatives (88% of cases) and/or the Conseil du Café-Cacao (CCC) (23%) (table 100, appendix 1). • The majority (71%) of the farmers also purchase insecticides themselves (table 102, appendix 1). A significantly larger proportion of farmers in Soubré (87%) purchases insecticides than in Abengourou (63%) and Daloa (55%). For farmers who purchase insecticides, the average annual MAXIMIZING OPPORTUNITIES IN COCOA ACTIVITY BASELINE EVALUATION REPORT CNFA.ORG expenditure (2017/2018) on insecticides is 29,623 FCFA (table 103, appendix 1). In Daloa, however, farmers spent significantly less (23,567 FCFA) on insecticides than farmers in Abengourou and Soubré (31,794 FCFA and 31,407 FCFA respectively). • The majority of farmers (62%) reported that the insecticides are applied by the cooperative (as service provider), though some use private service providers (13%) (table 111, appendix 1). The average annual expenditure for this service was 1,789 FCFA. Fungicides • About a quarter of the farmers (23%) use fungicides. This percentage is higher than what the 15% reported in Bymolt et al. (2018). The majority (69%) of those applying fungicides reported that they received the fungicides for ‘free’, mostly from (and applied by) the cooperative. Fertilizers • Less than half (45%) of the farmers use granular fertilizer; its use is most common in Soubré (61%) and least common in Daloa (26%). In Bymolt et al (2018) the reported use of granular fertilizer was much lower, only 16%. • The FGD confirms the lower use of granular fertilizer in Daloa. According to FGD participants the affordability of fertilizer is poor. In some cases, farmers said they saw no need for fertilizer (when trees are considered too old). • Expenditure on granular fertilizer is significantly higher in Soubré (176,422 FCFA) than in Daloa (104,981 FCFA). • Few farmers use liquid fertilizer (8%) or compost (9%) on cocoa. Bymolt et al (2018) also report low percentages; only 6% reported the use of liquid fertilizer and 4% for compost. • The FGD-data suggests that, comparing with 5 years ago, for the majority of farmers access to fertilizer has improved. The improved access to fertiliser is attributed to cooperatives that provide fertiliser on credit, and training on how to make compost. The FGD-data suggests that in the majority of cases, farmers’ access to insecticides improved over time. The CCC and the cooperatives are the main providers of inputs (often for ‘free’ or on credit), but, according to the FGD participants, these providers do not hand-out inputs in sufficient quantities; additional inputs can be bought by farmers on the market. When farmers indicated that they obtained the input ‘for free’, it was mostly provided by the cooperative or the CCC, and it is likely that the costs were discounted in the price or premium that the farmers received for their cocoa. In cases where farmers ‘paid’ for the input, they purchased the input from an input supplier or the cooperative with cash or obtained it on credit. In these cases, their expenditures on agro-chemical inputs could be estimated. Table 9 provides an overview of number of farmers applying different agro-chemical inputs and the type of access (paid vs ‘free’). The following can be observed: MAXIMIZING OPPORTUNITIES IN COCOA ACTIVITY BASELINE EVALUATION REPORT CNFA.ORG • There are regional differences in how farmers access insecticides. In Abengourou, only 21% of farmers purchased insecticides, whereas in Daloa and Soubré, this share is 40% and 48% respectively. In Soubré, only 12% of farmers used ‘free’ insecticides only compared to 35% of farmers in Abengourou and 45% in Daloa. • Herbicides are applied by a minority of farmers, but when this is the case it is mostly purchased (90%) by farmers. • Fungicides are mostly accessed when ‘for free’; 83% of farmers in Abengourou, compared to 63% of farmers in Daloa and 35% of farmers in Soubré. About half (51%) of Soubré farmers purchased fungicide themselves, compared to 32% of Daloa farmers and 8% of Abengourou farmers. • Granular fertiliser is also in the large majority purchased (87%, 77%, 85% of farmers in Abengourou, Daloa and Soubré, respectively). Similar for liquid fertiliser. Overall, farmers in Soubré thus seem to be more likely to purchase agro-chemical inputs themselves compared to the other two regions where farmers tend to access inputs if provided ‘for free’ by cooperatives or the CCC. Fungicide is mostly reported to be used in Abengourou, where it is also mostly provided ‘for free’. Table 9. Overview of use and access of agro-chemical inputs Abengourou (N=428) Daloa (N=447) Soubré (N=425) Farmers using insecticides (n) 382 385 376 insecticide partly paid and partly for free 43% 15% 39% insecticide only received for free 35% 45% 12% insecticide only paid 21% 40% 48% Farmers using herbicides (n) 64 73 91 herbicide partly paid and partly for free 5% 3% 7% herbicide only received for free 2% 7% 3% herbicide only paid 94% 90% 89% Farmers using fungicides (n) 156 81 75 fungicide partly paid and partly for free 8% 2% 15% fungicide only received for free 83% 63% 35% fungicide only paid 8% 32% 51% Farmers using granular fertilizers (n) 153 111 258 granular fertilizer partly paid and partly for free 1% 5% 3% granular fertilizer only received for free 10% 18% 9% MAXIMIZING OPPORTUNITIES IN COCOA ACTIVITY BASELINE EVALUATION REPORT CNFA.ORG granular fertilizer only paid 87% 77% 85% Farmers using liquid fertilizers (n) 26 11 47 liquid fertilizer partly paid and partly for free 0% 0% 0% liquid fertilizer only received for free 12% 6% 2% liquid fertilizer only paid 88% 94% 96% The use of inputs has a positive effect on the productivity except for herbicides (Table 10); although these effects are less obvious at regional level, there are significant differences in productivity between farmers who apply inputs and those who do not. Table 10. Average productivity (kg per ha) by input use Yes No Sig Herbicides 463.9 (N=178) 493.0 (N=834) Insecticides 499.5 (N=909) 384.4 (N=103) *** Fungicides 527.8 (N=268) 474.7 (N=744) ** Granular fertilizers 533.5 (N=404) 452.4 (N=608) *** Liquid fertilizers 577.2 (N=69) 480.8 (N=943) *** Note: significance from an ANOVA test. ***, **, * indicate significance levels of 1%, 5% and 10% respectively; sampling weights applied Total expenditures per hectare (shown in Figure 7) comprise product purchase cost and labour cost for application.15 Insecticide is the most frequently used type of input, but expenditures do not vary much across productivity quartiles. Total costs for applying granular fertilizer are the most relevant correlation with productivity (as granular fertilizer is mostly purchased, and not offered for ‘free’): they increase significantly with each productivity quartile, especially in Soubré and Abengourou. Fungicide costs are very low, but nevertheless higher for the highest productivity quartiles in Daloa and Soubré. Herbicide costs per hectare are highest in Daloa, and increase with productivity quartile for the first three quartiles in Daloa and Soubré. Liquid fertilizer expenditures are positively correlated with productivity in Soubré, but less in the other two regions, although in Daloa the lowest productivity quartile spent nothing on liquid fertilizer in 2017-2018. 15 Non-missing observations: 194 out of 227 that report applying herbicide; 844 out of 1,138 that report applying insecticide; 224 out of 308 that report applying fungicide; 445 out of 514 that report applying granular fertilizer; and 77 out of 88 that report applying liquid fertilizer MAXIMIZING OPPORTUNITIES IN COCOA ACTIVITY BASELINE EVALUATION REPORT CNFA.ORG Figure 7. Total input expenditures (FCFA per ha) per productivity quartile POST-HARVEST PRACTICES AND INFRASTRUCTURE FOR POST-HARVEST PROCESSING (FFPR 1.2.2) Cocoa harvesting takes place in the main season (October – December/January) and the light season (April – May/June). In Soubré, 28% of the farmers harvest throughout the year (see table 216, appendix 1), which is a significantly larger proportion of farmers than in Abengourou (4%) and Daloa (1%). On average, harvesting is done 6.4 times a year (table 215, appendix 1), but significantly more frequently (7.7 times per year) in Soubré than in Abengourou and Daloa (5.2 and 5.5 respectively). Harvesting is mostly done by male household members (89% of cases), but also by farm workers (especially in Abengourou: 62%) and labour exchange groups (21%) (table 218, appendix 1). Very few farmers actually hire casual labourers (2%) or service providers (1%) for the harvesting of cocoa. Pod breaking happens, on average, 2.7 days after the harvest (table 223, appendix 1). In Abengourou, farmers wait on average one day longer (3.5 days) than in the other two regions (2.5 days). A third (32%) of the farmers indicated that the waiting period depended on the availability of workers. Pod breaking is mostly done by male household member and labour exchange groups, and to a lesser extent farmer workers. Very few farmers (1%) hire casual labourers for pod breaking (table 225, appendix 1). Bymolt et al. (2018) confirm that pod breaking is primarily done by household labour and communal labour (i.e. labour exchange groups); 91% of the respondents using households for pod breaking and 80% using communal labour. Post-harvest practices (fermentation and drying) determine the quality of the cocoa. Inadequate practices can result in a loss of cocoa sales, and with that cocoa income. MAXIMIZING OPPORTUNITIES IN COCOA ACTIVITY BASELINE EVALUATION REPORT CNFA.ORG Inadequate storage can also lead to losses. Fresh cocoa beans are usually fermented between 5-7 days and dried immediately after fermentation.16 The majority of the farmers (93%) ferment the cocoa beans. Fermentation period varies between regions; 39% of farmers in Soubré indicated that they fermented cocoa beans for less than 6 days, compared to 52% in Abengourou and 58% in Daloa. The other farmers ferment the beans for 6-7 days; only 1% of farmers (0% in Abengourou, 1% in Daloa and 2% in Soubré) ferment beans between 7-10 days (table, appendix 1). Banana leaves are the most commonly used material for the fermentation process. The majority of the farmers (93%) dry the cocoa beans. The average drying period is 6 days. In Abengourou, the drying is mostly done on racks or scaffolding (78% of farmers), but in Daloa and Soubré the majority of farmers (77% and 85% respectively) dry the cocoa on plastic sheets in the sun (table 236, appendix 1). Half of the farmers (51%) reported that they store the dried beans at the cooperative but there are significant regional differences: 61% of farmers in Soubré store their cocoa at the cooperative, compared to 47% and 40% in Abengourou and Daloa respectively (table 236, appendix 1). Alternatively, famers store the beans in their own house but only few farmers (15%) have a separate storage room. In Daloa and Soubré, the dried cocoa is mostly stored in jute bags (82% and 92% of farmers respectively) or alternatively in polyester bags. In Abengourou, however, 49% of the farmers store the cocoa in jute bags, 40% use polyester bags, and 11% use ‘other’ materials (table 237, appendix 1). In Soubré, 17% of the farmers reported storage losses, compared to only 2% and 1% in Abengourou and Daloa respectively. In most cases, this was categorized as ‘a slight loss’. During some FGDs (6 out of 22), farmers reported that sometimes smaller beans receive a lower price or are rejected by the cooperative (during the light season only), and that farmers need to search for another buyer, for example pisteurs/processors who process the beans within the country. No problems were reported related to quality production in the main season, only in the light season. FINANCIAL SERVICES (FFPR 1.2.3) Only 1% of the farmers reported that they received financial support from a bank (table 253, appendix 1). Support from microfinance institutions for the cocoa farm is equally rare (table 255, appendix 1). Only 6% of the farmers reported that their household owns a current bank account (table 269, appendix 1) and 8% that their household has a savings account (table 270, appendix 1). However, 62% of the households have a mobile money account; in Daloa this is the case for 44% of the households compared to 65% and 73% in Abengourou and Soubré respectively (table 272, appendix 1). Individual ownership of these various types of accounts seems to be slightly higher than household ownership (table 273, appendix 1). Cocoa farmers in Abengourou are most likely to have a bank or 16 Guehi, T.S., Zahoulo, I.B., Ban-Koffi, L., Fae, M.A., Nemlin, J.G. (2010) Performance of different drying methods and their effects on the chemical quality attributes of raw cocoa material. International Journal of Food Science and Technology 2010, 45. 1564-1571. MAXIMIZING OPPORTUNITIES IN COCOA ACTIVITY BASELINE EVALUATION REPORT CNFA.ORG microfinance account, while this is least likely in Daloa. Saving groups seem to be more popular: 17% of the cocoa farmers indicated to be a member of a VSLA, and 18% of a ROSCA (table 274, appendix 1). A minority (23%) of farmers reported that had a debt or loan in the past three years; this is more common in Abengourou and Daloa (30% and 33% respectively) than in Soubré (13%) (table 275, appendix 1). Debts are mostly with friends or family, or the cooperative (the latter especially in Abengourou) (table 276, appendix 1). Debts or loans with a financial institution is rare. Note that female-headed households are less likely to have taken out a loan in the past three years than male-headed households (p=0.012) ( Figure 8). Figure 8. Loan in past three years per household head sex The average maximum loan amount was 191,790 FCFA, with farmers in Daloa reporting significantly lower amounts (116,599 FCFA) than in the other two regions (246,216 FCFA in Abengourou and 266,591 FCFA in Soubré) (table 277, appendix 1). Only 22% of farmers reported they had successfully repaid the loan, whereas 54% had not. The crop harvest is the most commonly used collateral, but in most cases, there was no collateral at all. Loans are mostly used to pay for school fees or health expenses. Very few farmers (5%) have an insurance, either for a vehicle, a life insurance or a health insurance. No correlations could be found between the use of loans and cocoa productivity (Figure 9). No correlations were found between the source of loan and productivity, or the size of the loan and productivity (data not shown). MAXIMIZING OPPORTUNITIES IN COCOA ACTIVITY BASELINE EVALUATION REPORT CNFA.ORG The FGD-data confirm that the use of loans is mainly for payment of tuition fees/educational costs, health/emergency costs, and inputs (input on credit). The cooperative was considered an important channel to access small loans, but the cooperative often lack sufficient funds. It is common practice cooperative members pay the cooperative back in cocoa, in exchange for small loans. Family, friends, individual money lenders, saving groups, and to a lesser extent cooperative delegates, banks and pisteurs were mentioned as other channels through which farmers can access small loans. Buyers of cocoa (cooperatives and pisteurs) and friends/relatives normally do not charge interest (although in some cases friends/relatives charge 100% interest). Private moneylenders normally charge 100% interest. Individual lenders can ask the farm as guarantee for the loan. Although this is put forward as ‘a last resort’ option, in around one third of the FGDs it came up. Figure 9. Percentage of households taken out loan in past 3 years per productivity quartile Farmers reported that it is more difficult accessing a loan outside the main cocoa season, this while farmers are most in need of financial support when the schools start, which is just before the main season. High interest rates and ‘farm as guarantee’ are seen as unfavorable strategies, keeping the farmers poor. FGD-data indicates that repayment of loans was considered challenging by the farmers. GOOD AGRICULTURAL PRACTICES (GAP) IN COCOA (FFPR 1.2.4) Cocoa trees The most common cocoa variety is Amazonia (reported by 61% of farmers) in particular in Soubré (72%). About half (46%) of the farmers also grow (local) unselected varieties that they cannot identify; a significantly larger proportion of MOCA farmers (49%) reported they grow unselected varieties than control farmers (33%). The reported average age of cocoa trees is 23.4 years; the average age of the trees is significantly higher (29.4 years) in Soubré than in Abengourou and Dalao (19.6 and MAXIMIZING OPPORTUNITIES IN COCOA ACTIVITY BASELINE EVALUATION REPORT CNFA.ORG 17.4 years respectively). Bymolt et al. (2018) reported a mean age of 16.2 years for cocoa trees. The difference between the baseline and Bymolt et al. (2018) can be explained by the way the question was phrased, the latter asking for ‘most cocoa trees. Most farmers (78%) apply intercropping of cocoa with other crops/trees, for younger trees (91%). The majority of the farmers plant plantain as intercrop, in particular in Abengourou (86% compared to 53% and 50% in Daloa and Soubré respectively). Alternative crops regularly used for intercropping established cocoa are avocado (7%), coffee (10%), cassava (10%), and orange (9%) (see table 47 in Appendix 1 for more detail). The majority of the farmers (80%) have shade trees on the cocoa farms. Common varieties are: Kapok tree, Frake and Iroko. Bymolt et al. (2018) confirm that crop diversification is common practice, both as shade trees for the young cocoa and/or to provide an additional income more regularly. Agronomic practices The baseline data show that the vast majority of farmers practise good agricultural practices such as weeding (97%; table 180, appendix 1), removal of suckers or ‘égourmandage’ (96%; table 185, appendix 1), removal of mistletoe (93%; table 190, appendix 1) and pruning (85%; table 195, appendix 1), though often at irregular times (‘when we see it is necessary’). In Bymolt et al. (2018) only 40% reported pruning as an activity. The proportion of MOCA farmers applying these practices are significantly lower for removal of suckers (96%), mistletoe (92%) and pruning (84%) compared to the control farmers (98%, 97%, and 90% respectively). There are also significant regional differences in the application of agronomic practices at cocoa farms (see Table 11). Table 11. Application of agronomic practices in cocoa Agronomic practice All MOCA control sig Abengourou Daloa Soubré sig Weeding of cocoa farm (2017- 2018) (y/n) 97% 96% 98% 94% 99% 97% *** Removal of suckers on cocoa farm (2017-2018) (y/n) 96% 96% 98% *** 93% 98% 96% *** Mistletoe removal of cocoa farm (2017-2018) (y/n) 93% 92% 97% *** 91% 90% 96% *** Pruning of cocoa farm (2017- 2018) (y/n) 85% 84% 90% *** 86% 78% 89% *** Note: significance from a composite Wald statistical test. ***, **, * indicate significance levels of 1%, 5% and 10% respectively There seems to be no significant association between the agronomic practices (whether the farmer applied the practice or not) and the productivity quartiles ( Figure 10). Note that it was not considered whether the practice is executed in the correct way – the way in which farmers do the pruning or weeding can affect productivity. MAXIMIZING OPPORTUNITIES IN COCOA ACTIVITY BASELINE EVALUATION REPORT CNFA.ORG Figure 10. Agronomic practices per productivity quartile Cocoa household labour Most agronomic practices on the cocoa farms are done by (male) household members, but also by permanent farm workers although this is more common in Abengourou than in the other two regions (Table 12). Labour exchange groups are most common in Daloa. Casual labourers are rarely hired, except for weeding. Table 12. Agents of agronomic practices by region All Abengourou Daloa Soubré sig Weeding Household members ≥ 15 years 80% 58% 86% 88% *** Labour exchange group 15% 5% 28% 10% *** Permanent farm workers 30% 62% 9% 29% *** Casual labourers 9% 9% 12% 7% * Removal of suckers Household members ≥ 15 years 88% 69% 97% 91% *** Labour exchange group 7% 2% 12% 5% *** Permanent farm workers 28% 58% 8% 26% *** Casual labourers 1% 2% 1% 1% Removal of mistletoe Household members ≥ 15 years 87% 69% 98% 90% *** Labour exchange group 6% 2% 11% 4% *** Permanent farm workers 30% 60% 8% 28% *** Casual labourers 1% 0% 2% 1% Pruning Household members ≥ 15 years 87% 68% 98% 91% *** Labour exchange group 5% 1% 12% 3% *** Permanent farm workers 29% 59% 7% 28% *** Casual labourers 1% 1% 2% 1% Harvesting Household members ≥ 15 years 89% 72% 98% 92% *** Labour exchange group 21% 27% 25% 16% *** Permanent farm workers 31% 62% 8% 30% *** MAXIMIZING OPPORTUNITIES IN COCOA ACTIVITY BASELINE EVALUATION REPORT CNFA.ORG All Abengourou Daloa Soubré sig Casual labourers 2% 2% 2% 2% Note: significance from a composite Wald statistical test. ***, **, * indicate significance levels of 1%, 5% and 10% respectively Pests and diseases During the FGDs, farmers reported that the yields have been decreasing over the past five years, this despite the improved access to inputs, such as pesticides and fungicides. This decrease is mainly attributed to an increase in diseases, such as Cocoa Swollen Shoot Virus Disease (CSSVD) and black pod disease. The majority of farmers (67%) indicated they had lost cocoa in the last season due to pests and diseases, though a significantly smaller percentage of farmers (49%) in Abengourou than in Daloa and Soubré (73% and 72% respectively). Most common pests and diseases are: black pod, CSSVD, mistletoe, mirids, stem borer, rodents and black ants (Table 13). There are regional differences in the type of pests and diseases that affect cocoa productivity: farmers reported less disease prevalence (or at least that creates production losses), except for black pod, in Abengourou compared to the other two regions. In Soubré there is significantly more CSSVD among farmers with the lowest productivity quartile compared to other quartiles. In Daloa, CSSVD affects all quartiles equally (Figure 11). In Daloa, 48% of the farmers reported that the most severe pest or disease (CSSVD) resulted in significant losses, compared to 37% of farmers in Soubré (CSSVD and black pod) and 24% of farmers in Abengourou (black pod) reporting the same losses (table 204, appendix 1). In Daloa, the prevalence of pests and diseases thus seems most severe, and the least in Abengourou. A larger proportion of farmers in the lowest productivity quartile rate the crop losses due to diseases as ‘significant’ than in the higher productivity quartiles, especially in Daloa (Figure 12). Note that a smaller proportion (37%) of MOCA farmers reported a ‘significant loss’ due to diseases than the control group (45%) (see table 204, appendix 1). Table 13. Types of pests and diseases affecting cocoa (2017-2018), by region All MOCA control sig Abengourou Daloa Soubré sig Diseases/pests (y/n) 67% 66% 70% 49% 73% 72% *** … if yes: black pod 58% 59% 52% * 68% 55% 57% *** … if yes: root rot 8% 8% 10% 12% 11% 5% *** … if yes: CSSVD 36% 36% 33% 3% 51% 36% *** … if yes: mistletoe 31% 32% 27% 7% 29% 41% *** … if yes: akate 19% 18% 24% 17% 10% 26% *** … if yes: mirids 26% 23% 41% *** 24% 25% 27% … if yes: black ants 19% 20% 11% *** 10% 19% 22% *** … if yes: termites 17% 18% 13% ** 15% 14% 21% … if yes: rodents 25% 26% 19% ** 10% 30% 27% *** … if yes: stem borer 36% 34% 49% *** 26% 37% 39% *** … if yes: green moss 8% 9% 4% ** 12% 7% 7% Note: significance from a composite Wald statistical test. ***, **, * indicate significance levels of 1%, 5% and 10% respectively MAXIMIZING OPPORTUNITIES IN COCOA ACTIVITY BASELINE EVALUATION REPORT CNFA.ORG Figure 11. Most important pests and diseases by productivity quartile and region During the FGDs, farmers reported that cocoa yields have been decreasing over the past five years; this despite the improved access to inputs, such as pesticides and fungicides. This decrease is mainly attributed to an increase in diseases, such as the CSSVD and black pod disease. Farmers also noted an increase in pests such as stemborers, mirids, black ants, mainly due to a loss of forests. Other reasons for an increase in pests, according to FGD participants are: aging plantations, climate change, and inefficient or insufficient spraying. The increase of black pod is attributed to intensive rainfall. The FGD-data confirm regional differences for the occurrence of diseases: CSSVD is perceived to be a major problem in Daloa and Soubré (west), while black pod causes severe losses mainly in Abengourou (east). In relation to CSSVD, farmers suggested that there is a lack of seedlings for rehabilitation of the farms, after the trees are uprooted. MAXIMIZING OPPORTUNITIES IN COCOA ACTIVITY BASELINE EVALUATION REPORT CNFA.ORG Figure 12. Effects of most important disease per productivity quartile To control diseases, 24% of farmers in Daloa and 32% in Soubré remove infected plants, compared to only 6% in Abengourou (table 205, appendix 1), which can be explained by the fact that there is a low prevalence of CSSVD in Abengourou. In Daloa, 42% of the farmers take no action against pests and diseases, in comparison to 27% and 17% in Abengourou and Soubré respectively. The lack of appropriate action could explain the high prevalence of pests and diseases in Daloa. Only a minority (15%) of the farmers reported that they received support to address the most severe cocoa diseases; in Abengourou this percentage was significantly higher at 24%, compared to 16% and 12% in Daloa and Soubré respectively. The cooperative is the main source of support (followed by ANADER, in particular in Soubré) for farmers to deal with pests and diseases (table 207, appendix 1), but improvements in this service can still be made according to the satisfaction levels of the farmers (table 208, appendix 1). In particular in Abengourou, 68% of the farmers rated the support for disease management as insufficient compared to 34% in Daloa and 22% in Soubré. In Soubré, on the other hand, 52% of the farmers rated the support as satisfactory compared to 27% in both Abengourou and Daloa. There was no significant correlation between the level (slight, average or significant) of reported losses due to the most severe disease and whether the farmer received support or not. However, these are subjective variables. Correlating support (yes or no) with the productivity quartiles seems to suggest that a larger proportion of farmers in the highest productivity quartile received support to treat the most severe diseases than farmers in the lower productivity quartiles (Figure 13). MAXIMIZING OPPORTUNITIES IN COCOA ACTIVITY BASELINE EVALUATION REPORT CNFA.ORG Figure 13. Percentage of cocoa households receiving support for most severe diseases per productivity quartile LAND & WATER RESOURCES (FFPR 1.1) Nearly a third (29%) of household’s report that they own unexploited land (of those, on average 2.3 ha fallow, 0.3 ha forest and 1.0 ha ‘basfonds’). The size of unexploited land is the largest in Abengourou, and the smallest in Soubré (table 24, appendix 1). Cocoa farmers mostly acquired land for cocoa production through inheritance or purchase (in particular in Daloa). A quarter (23%) of the respondents indicated that they had also cleared land themselves to grow cocoa (table 29, appendix 1); this was more commonly reported in Soubré (42%) than in Abengourou and Daloa (15% and 3% respectively). This suggests that cocoa farmers in Soubré mostly acquired land for cocoa production through clearing forest. This is however not necessarily a current practice, as the average age of the cocoa trees in Soubré is 29,4 years, significantly older than trees in Abengourou and Daloa, aged 19,6 and 17,4 years on average, respectively (table 34, appendix 1). Further, 21, 13 and 15% of farmers report having increased the amount of land under cocoa in the past five years in Abengourou, Daloa and Soubré, respectively (table 36, appendix 1). Around 15% of farmers who did increase their land did so by clearing forest, significantly more in control cooperatives, 29%, compared to 11% of farmers in MOCA cooperatives. In Abengourou and Daloa. The most common way to acquire additional land for cocoa in the past five years was through bush clearing (55% and 61%, respectively), whereas in Soubré, the majority of farmers (38%) who expanded their cocoa farms did so by purchasing land (table 37, appendix 1). Bymolt et al. (2018) reported that, on average, cocoa households had 2.45 ha of unexploited (fallow) land. They also reported that 35% of the households had increased the amount of land under cocoa in the past five years; 66% of the respondents who increased their land under cocoa did so not by converting land under other crops, but by clearing bush or a natural area. MAXIMIZING OPPORTUNITIES IN COCOA ACTIVITY BASELINE EVALUATION REPORT CNFA.ORG FARM MANAGEMENT: FARMER KNOWLEDGE ON FINANCE AND BUSINESS (FFPR 1.3) A small majority (60%) of cocoa farmers keep records on their cocoa production; the percentage of MOCA farmers (61%) keeping records is significantly higher than control farmers (54%). In Daloa, only a minority of farmers (36%) keep records on cocoa production, compared to 62% in Abengourou and 76% in Soubré. Record keeping is predominantly on the volumes of cocoa produced, sold and prices received. A minority of cocoa farmers also keep records of expenditures on inputs (27% of farmers) and labour (13%) (table 71, appendix 1). There is no clear correlation between record keeping and productivity (Figure 14), or the type of record keeping and productivity levels (Figure 15). There is no correlation between record keeping and input use either (Figure 16). Figure 14. Record keeping per productivity quartile, by region MAXIMIZING OPPORTUNITIES IN COCOA ACTIVITY BASELINE EVALUATION REPORT CNFA.ORG Figure 15. Type of record keeping per productivity quartile Figure 16. Input use per record keeping status Gender division of tasks From Bymolt et al. (2018), with 34% female respondents, we know that in Côte d’Ivoire, men were reported to have very high participation rates (97-100%) for virtually all cocoa production activities (Figure 17). Women engage in cocoa production activities much less, particularly according male heads of household. In Côte d’Ivoire, the main activity where women tend to be involved in is pod breaking (50% of all respondents reported women do pod breaking), and planting (31%) and land preparation (19%). Comparing the perception of male-head of households with female-head of households on involvement of women and men in cocoa production MAXIMIZING OPPORTUNITIES IN COCOA ACTIVITY BASELINE EVALUATION REPORT CNFA.ORG activities, female-headed households report higher involvement of women in a number of activities, such as land preparation (36%), planting (76%), pruning (20%), fermentation (26%) and drying (35%).17 Figure 17. Division of tasks in cocoa farming among men and women INSTITUTIONAL SUPPORT (FFPR 1.4) Training Most farmers (71%) received training in the past three years. Among these farmers. Most common training topics were good agricultural practices, good environmental practices, child labour and post-harvest cocoa processing. Most farmers received the training from the cooperative, or ANADER. Only a few farmers reported other training providers. A significantly (p=0.002) larger percentage of male-headed household received training over the past years than female-headed households ( Figure 18). However, at regional level the number of female-headed households is too small to be confident about the difference in access to training. Other differences related to training between male-headed and female-headed households were not statistically significant, but this could be due to the small sample size of female-headed households. 17 We cannot draw firm conclusions on differences between the involvement of women in cocoa activities according to male and female heads, as the number of female heads of cocoa households that responded to this question was low. But it does give an interesting indication of differences in perceptions on roles. MAXIMIZING OPPORTUNITIES IN COCOA ACTIVITY BASELINE EVALUATION REPORT CNFA.ORG Figure 18. Cocoa training over the past three years per household head sex Figure 19 shows a positive correlation between having received cocoa training and productivity; in Abengourou about 50% of farmers in the lowest productivity quartile have received training, compared to nearly 80% of farmers in the two highest productivity quartiles. In Soubré, farmers in the highest productivity quartile stand out as being more likely to have received training compared to the other quartiles. During the FGDs, farmers noted that access to training on GAP has improved over the last five years, mainly because they joined a cooperative. Training on GAP usually takes place at Farmer Field School (champs-école Paysan), and occasionally at the cooperative warehouse. All respondents who received training agree that applying GAPs leads to higher yields and better quality (good post-harvest practices). For some cooperatives access to training is a new development, or it has been only recently since the frequency of training went up. Most farmers want more training, including on different crops. However, in some groups farmers say they have been told the same, over and over again, and they do not learn anything new. MAXIMIZING OPPORTUNITIES IN COCOA ACTIVITY BASELINE EVALUATION REPORT CNFA.ORG Figure 19. Cocoa training in the past three years per productivity quartile Cooperatives The majority of the cocoa farmers (97%) is member of a cooperative. The average distance between the home and cooperative is 19 km, but farmers in Abengourou live significantly closer to the cooperative (4.3 km) than farmers in the other two regions (23.6 km). Farmers reported multiple services provided by the cooperative; the most common services are training, input provision, certification cash premium, cocoa storage, and cocoa transport. Around half of the participants is generally satisfied with their cooperative, around one third has mixed opinions, and a few just started. Only in 2 groups focus group participants said they were ‘unhappy’. Respondents gave many different reasons for being satisfied. Access to loans, training, inputs and other services were most frequently mentioned. Other reasons had to do more with the organizational set-up and democratic functioning of the cooperative: ‘having a say/being democratic’, ‘a well-structured cooperative’, ‘the cooperative being monitored’, or with the access to premiums. The importance of coming together in a group, able to share knowledge and experiences were additional reasons. In some groups it was pointed out that they appreciated that support was given to community projects. The main reason for not being satisfied with the cooperative was (still) lacking (easy) access to loans. Another concern was cooperatives not being able to pay farmer on time. What farmers also MAXIMIZING OPPORTUNITIES IN COCOA ACTIVITY BASELINE EVALUATION REPORT CNFA.ORG highlighted was the need for more training, inputs (e.g. fertilizer, seedlings, equipment). In a few groups, farmers complained that they still could not elect the delegates, instead these were appointed. International NGOs Only 3% of the farmers reported that they had received support for their cocoa farm from an international NGO. Only 17% reported they had received support from ANADER (mostly training, coaching or seedlings). Only 6% of the farmers reported that they had received from CNRA (mostly seedlings). 15% received support from Conseil Café Cacao (28% in Abengourou) in the form of agricultural equipment, seedlings or training. There are some regional differences in the organisations, and type of support provided. Support from the private sector to cocoa farmers is very limited. During the FGDs, farmers were asked to recall previous interventions. In asking for all previous interventions that took place in the past five years, a total of 70 projects were identified. In 25 cases it occurred a project that started in 2017 or 2018. Of the 23 cooperatives, members of 10 cooperatives were exposed to 4-6 projects, the remaining groups were exposed to fewer projects. Among these projects, the majority was related to education (e.g. building new schools and housing for teachers, improving school infrastructure, school kits), water (e.g. building water pumps and water towers) and health (e.g. building health centres and kindergartens). The initiators of these projects were often cooperatives, but also involve (international) NGOs, the Ivorian government (the CCC or municipalities), Development Banks and exporters. The main impact of these projects is providing communities in their basic needs, mainly through improving access to schools, water and health care. TRADE AT FARM LEVEL (SO2) VALUE ADDITION (QUALITY, EFFICIENCY, MARKETING) (FFPR 2.1) Permanent workers18 There are strong regional differences in the use of permanent workers on cocoa farms; 67% of the cocoa households in Abengourou employ permanent workers on their cocoa farm, compared to only 19% in Dalao and 31% in Soubré (Table 14). The majority (84%) of farmers pay the permanent workers in kind, by giving them a third of the cocoa sales (share cropping); in Daloa, however, permanent workers are paid a salary by 61% of the farmers who employ permanent workers. Table 14. Cocoa households with permanent workers on cocoa farm All Abengourou Daloa Soubré sig Permanent workers on farm (2017-2018) (y/n) 36% 67% 19% 31% *** Permanent workers paid a salary (y/n) 16% 4% 61% 11% *** 18 In the baseline questionnaire, permanent workers were defined as people who are hired for the entire cocoa season (regardless whether they were paid in kind or in cash). MAXIMIZING OPPORTUNITIES IN COCOA ACTIVITY BASELINE EVALUATION REPORT CNFA.ORG All Abengourou Daloa Soubré sig Note: significance from a composite Wald statistical test. ***, **, * indicate significance levels of 1%, 5% and 10% respectively There is no clear association between permanent farm workers and the productivity quartiles. 56 | MAXIMIZING OPPORTUNITIES IN COCOA ACTIVITY BASELINE EVALUATION REPORT CNFA.ORG Figure 20). However, there is a clear positive correlation between the employment of permanent farm workers and the size of the cocoa farm, in particular in Abengourou and Soubré ( Figure 21). This is expected, as the farm size determines whether the use of household labour and/or exchange labour is sufficient to maintain the farm. Note that female-headed households are more likely to employ permanent workers on their cocoa farms than male-headed households (Figure 22). This can be explained by the fact that female-headed households might have less (male) household labour, or because some farm tasks are perceived as male tasks. 57 | MAXIMIZING OPPORTUNITIES IN COCOA ACTIVITY BASELINE EVALUATION REPORT CNFA.ORG Figure 20. Percentage of cocoa households employing permanent farm workers per productivity quartile (season 2017-2018) Figure 21. Percentage of cocoa households employing permanent farm workers per farm size (season 2017-2018) MAXIMIZING OPPORTUNITIES IN COCOA ACTIVITY BASELINE EVALUATION REPORT CNFA.ORG Figure 22. Employment of permanent workers on cocoa farms by household head sex ACCESS TO MARKETS (MARKETING, BUYERS-SELLERS LINKAGES) (FFPR 2.2) Cocoa is sold throughout the year, but mostly during October to January. Most cocoa is sold to the cooperatives, but about 20% of the farmers also sell to traders. Only 45% of farmers reported that they knew the income generated with the cocoa; in Abengourou this was 63%, compared to 48% in Daloa and only 33% in Soubré. The common price for cocoa was reported as 700 FCFA per kg (table 67, appendix 1). Farmers in Daloa reported significantly larger quantities sold to cooperatives during the season 2017-2018 (on average 428 kg) than farmers in Abengourou (305 kg) and Soubré (141 kg). However, farmers in Daloa reported significantly lower revenues (917,974 FCFA) than in Abengourou (1,234,074 FCFA) and Soubré (1,710,307 FCFA) ( Table 15). MOCA farmers reported significantly higher revenues (1,304,980 FCFA) than control farmers (1,077,733 FCFA) (table 69, appendix 1). Note that these data may be unreliable as it is based on recall and the majority of farmers was not able to provide accurate estimates on revenues. Further, the revenues were estimated much higher than the mean quantities would suggest. Table 15. Estimated quantities and revenues of cocoa sold to cooperatives, by region All Abengourou Daloa Soubré sig Quantity of cocoa production sold to cooperative main season (2017-2018) (kg) mean [Confidence Interval] 235.8 [205.44, 266.26] 236.6 [188.26, 284.97] 381.9 [320.2, 443.67] 119.5 [77.34, 161.66] *** Quantity of cocoa production sold to cooperative light season (2017-2018) (kg) mean [Confidence Interval] 42.1 [35.18, 49.11] 68.8 [54.13, 83.45] 45.9 [33.35, 58.48] 21.4 [11.92, 30.81] *** Revenue generated cocoa (2017-2018) (FCFA, not including costs) MAXIMIZING OPPORTUNITIES IN COCOA ACTIVITY BASELINE EVALUATION REPORT CNFA.ORG All Abengourou Daloa Soubré sig Quantity of cocoa production sold to cooperative main season (2017-2018) (kg) mean [Confidence Interval] 1274454 [1177687, 1371222] 1234074 [1106975, 1361174] 917974 [811751, 1024197] 1710307 [1478256, 1942358] *** Note: significance from a composite Wald statistical test. ***, **, * indicate significance levels of 1%, 5% and 10% respectively Half (51%) of the farmers take phytosanitary measures to counteract diseases; however, in Daloa only 29% of the farmers only take phytosanitary measures compared to 61% and 62% of farmers in Abengourou and Soubré respectively (table 205, appendix 1). The majority (93%) of farmers reported that they have some sort of cocoa certification (table 246, appendix 1); this is mostly UTZ (72%). A minority of farmers reported Fairtrade certification (33%) or Rainforest Alliance (33%). A significantly higher proportion of MOCA farmers reported the latter two certifications compared to control farmers. No organic certification was reported (table 247, appendix 1). Regressing estimated cocoa revenues on production and certification (Table 16) shows that Fairtrade certification has a positive effect on the estimated cocoa revenues, in particular for farmers in Abengourou and Soubré. In Daloa, Rainforest Alliance has a positive effect on the estimated revenues. Table 16. Regression results on the effect of certification on cocoa revenues by region All Abengourou Daloa Soubré Quantity cocoa (kg) 606.5*** 605.4*** 484.5*** 669.4*** UTZ 80037* 10162 113310 173091 Rainforest Alliance 62323 80148 209206** 31141 Fairtrade 177875** 209482*** 125622 353259** Constant -66563 -100647 24005 -248957 R-squared 0.7948 0.7579 0.7579 0.7845 p-value model 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 n 466 212 153 101 Note: ***, **, * indicate significance levels of 1%, 5% and 10% respectively MAXIMIZING OPPORTUNITIES IN COCOA ACTIVITY BASELINE EVALUATION REPORT CNFA.ORG MULTI-VARIATE ANALYSIS: COMBINED EFFECTS ON PRODUCTIVITY In order to understand how different factors, influence cocoa productivity, we estimated a multi-variate linear regression model with fixed effects for cooperatives. This means that we control for the factors that are fixed at cooperative level to understand what other factors determine cocoa productivity at farm level. Table 17 shows the regional difference in determining factors of cocoa productivity: • In Abengourou, inputs, household characteristics, or certification do not have any significant correlation with productivity. There is a negative correlation between farm size and cocoa productivity. Further, farmers with a larger share of cocoa relative to their total cultivated land seem to obtain lower yields than farmers with a smaller share. Intensive training is positively correlated with productivity. • In Daloa, the use of inputs do not have a significant effect, but cocoa pests and diseases have a significant negative effect on productivity. Training and Fairtrade have a positive correlation with productivity. • Only in Soubré significant positive correlations between the use of inputs (insecticide and fungicide) and productivity are found. Farmers also achieve higher yields on smaller cocoa farms, probably due to intensification. Higher yields are obtained when cocoa is the largest income source for the household. Female-headed households, however, achieve lower yields in Soubré. Training does not have any significant effect, but it could be due to correlation with other variables such as input use. Surprisingly, UTZ and Rainforest Alliance certification have a negative effect on productivity relative to no or other (e.g. Cocoa Life) certification; this result could also be caused by correlations with other variables in the model. Table 17. Results linear regression model with cooperative fixed effects for productivity (kg per ha) Variables Abengourou Daloa Soubré Total land cocoa (2017-2018) (ha) -12.93** -4.83 -21.91*** (6.54) (10.94) (6.46) Share cocoa land size in total cultivated (%) -270.03*** -36.23 43.08 (80.30) (65.02) (100.85) Application of herbicide (2017-2018) (y/n) -65.12 -104.11*** 45.27 (42.87) (39.30) (60.42) Application of insecticide (2017-2018) (y/n) 85.43 96.29 241.21*** (57.46) (60.53) (63.65) Application of fungicide (2017-2018) (y/n) -11.33 16.74 114.77* (43.78) (44.67) (67.33) Application of granular fertilizer (2017-2018) (y/n) 2.67 2.48 52.71 (38.87) (38.62) (41.38) Permanent workers on farm (2017-2018) (y/n) -12.08 -36.22 -26.11 (35.80) (46.74) (57.32) Record keeping (2017-2018) (y/n) 47.64 37.94 -123.43 (36.42) (37.67) (75.94) Household head sex 46.60 -232.17 -91.54 (48.42) (203.62) (88.38) Household largest income source is cocoa 91.54 60.49 162.94* (70.50) (51.77) (87.68) Work fulltime on cocoa farm -28.22 -115.01 -16.91 (52.67) (71.73) (70.88) Diseases/pests (2017-2018) (y/n) -2.30 -33.11 -33.87 (37.42) (52.66) (59.55) Training time in past 3 years: 1-2 days 90.43 -14.62 124.45 (55.60) (51.91) (82.27) MAXIMIZING OPPORTUNITIES IN COCOA ACTIVITY BASELINE EVALUATION REPORT CNFA.ORG Training time in past 3 years: 3-5 days 7.41 134.60** 103.78 (45.66) (57.31) (107.15) Training time in past 3 years: 5-10 days 151.17*** 62.90 69.08 (56.76) (63.61) (113.18) Training time in past 3 years: 10+ days 103.02* -39.14 -12.44 (56.03) (49.39) (71.35) Certification: UTZ 48.74 4.31 -147.51** (62.64) (63.66) (71.82) Certification: Rainforest Alliance (RA) -6.04 -113.60 -132.87** (64.11) (80.46) (63.13) Certification: Fairtrade -9.49 118.80* -80.08 (51.28) (68.18) (66.60) Certification: Do not know 70.19 40.54 -166.61 (103.71) (96.22) (133.28) Cooperative services: Provision of inputs (y/n) 1.87 -15.93 40.88 (48.08) (51.99) (66.44) Cooperative services: Provision of agricultural equipment (y/n) 68.62 68.14 -75.71 (44.59) (45.62) (63.22) Cooperative services: Organization of labour exchange groups (y/n) -52.63 74.03 33.66 (48.75) (55.67) (77.09) Cooperative services: Certification cash premium (y/n) 70.05 -24.44 -57.25 (44.97) (40.76) (92.25) Loan in past 3 years (y/n) -50.45 -53.96 85.51 (36.22) (32.77) (65.82) Constant 522.93*** 566.85** 727.35*** (145.35) (231.67) (188.32) Observations 202 182 166 R-squared 0.22 0.29 0.47 Robust standard errors in parentheses; significance: *** p<0.01, ** p<0.05, * p<0.1 BASELINE RESULTS COOPERATIVE SURVEY INTRODUCTION This chapter discusses the main findings of the baseline measurement among the cocoa cooperatives in three regions: Abengourou, Daloa and Soubré. Among the 32 cooperatives of the study, three were not operating in the 2017-2018 season, having purchased no cocoa from their members. One inactive cooperative is located in Soubré region, SCOPAB. The other two (SCAASP and AHONDJO) are located in Abengourou region. The findings of the cooperative survey (based on 29 active cooperatives) are presented and discussed according to the structure of the Results Framework (see the inception report). More detail on the baseline data is provided in the appendices. Appendix 2 presents the survey findings among cooperatives. Table 18 provides an overview of the sampled cooperatives. Table 18. Sampled cooperatives for baseline survey Region MOCA Control Inactive Abengourou BOUKLABA CAPA CAPRESSA COPPAZA FAHO N’MOH-BLA ADI CEEA AHONDJO SCAASP Daloa CAPEDIG COOP Hounou MAXIMIZING OPPORTUNITIES IN COCOA ACTIVITY BASELINE EVALUATION REPORT CNFA.ORG Case du Planteur CPR-CANAAN ECOJAD ESPOIR KAPATCHIVA SCALALAVA SCOPRANHS SOCADMV SCOOPS SAHS Soubré CAAM CAPCB ECAM SCAES SCAS SOCAGNIPI SOCOOABAS SOCOOPACDI CANOA ECASO SCOPAB The average membership of the 29 cooperatives is 957 farmers per cooperative (table 1, appendix 2). The average share of female members is 13%; however, in Abengourou this share is significantly higher at 37% compared to 4% and 7% in Daloa and Soubré respectively. This difference in Abengourou is due to three cooperatives: BOUKABLA has female members only, N’MOH-BLA has predominantly female members (69%); and ADI also has large female membership (42%). For the other cooperatives, female farmers are a minority (less than 20%). MAXIMIZING OPPORTUNITIES IN COCOA ACTIVITY BASELINE EVALUATION REPORT CNFA.ORG Table 19 summarizes the average cocoa production, sales and revenues as reported by the sampled farmers by cooperative. MAXIMIZING OPPORTUNITIES IN COCOA ACTIVITY BASELINE EVALUATION REPORT CNFA.ORG Table 19. Average cocoa production and sales per household, by cooperative Cooperative N Cocoa yield (kg per ha) Total cocoa production (kg) Quantity of cocoa sold to cooperative (kg) Farmer selling to buyers other than coop (main season) Farmer knows revenue generated from cocoa Total cocoa revenue season 2017-2018 (FCFA) Main season Light season Abengourou ADI 40 500.4 2270.9 618.9 128.6 8% 60% 1,150,310 AHONDJO 32 518.3 1730.8 123.7 46.6 59% 69% 1,040,840 BOUKABLA 16 369.8 1946.7 205.4 56.9 0% 19% 2,474,444 CAPA 22 518.3 2331.1 371.6 103.1 5% 95% 1,663,148 CAPRESSA 114 481.9 1832.2 132.1 44.8 26% 56% 1,208,312 CEEA 78 549.2 2109.5 312.9 69.4 13% 78% 1,302,891 COPPAZA 59 432.3 1854.1 394.3 126.3 10% 86% 1,332,706 FAHO 43 476.6 2294.3 195.7 70.0 9% 28% 1,691,893 N'MOH-BLA 8 462.7 2336.0 90.0 28.1 13% 50% 1,598,625 SCAASP 16 223.7 930.3 145.7 28.6 69% 81% 594,615 Daloa CAPEDIG 31 446.6 1417.0 625.3 56.2 97% 45% 1,177,304 Case du Planteur 62 300.4 915.2 267.4 34.7 31% 40% 597,501 Coop Hounou 28 213.9 658.7 155.5 32.1 25% 39% 538,427 CPR- CANAAN 16 471.1 878.2 621.5 57.1 19% 56% 686,900 ECOJAD 53 474.3 1293.3 452.8 81.9 6% 45% 915,071 ESPOIR 20 539.8 1903.2 622.6 76.3 15% 40% 1,413,750 KAPATCHIVA 35 378.1 1468.8 512.26 15.6 20% 54% 894,286 SCACALAVA 29 596.2 1690.9 111.1 0.0 59% 52% 1,178,467 SCOOPS SAHS 109 354.9 866.7 270.8 34.5 33% 50% 621,589 SCOPRANHS 39 389.8 1907.0 379.8 80.3 8% 49% 963,395 SOCADMV 25 395.1 1604.2 310.3 20.6 28% 68% 1,176,156 Soubré CAAM 33 571.4 2985.0 61.4 14.4 12% 9% 2,133,333 MAXIMIZING OPPORTUNITIES IN COCOA ACTIVITY BASELINE EVALUATION REPORT CNFA.ORG Cooperative N Cocoa yield (kg per ha) Total cocoa production (kg) Quantity of cocoa sold to cooperative (kg) Farmer selling to buyers other than coop (main season) Farmer knows revenue generated from cocoa Total cocoa revenue season 2017-2018 (FCFA) Main season Light season CANOA 48 475.2 1943.6 50.8 28.8 10% 27% 1,506,769 CAPCB 23 692.2 2773.5 265.7 94.8 4% 39% 1,622,211 ECAM 50 446.2 2057.7 232.6 32.7 10% 16% 1,424,286 ECASO 73 440.7 2009.9 77.4 9.3 34% 15% 1,580,220 SCAES 68 727.1 2746.0 136.3 21.7 0% 54% 1,974,154 SCAS 23 641.9 2411.0 229.0 8.0 4% 13% 563,333 SCOPAB 8 307.9 2302.5 0.0 0.0 50% 25% 2,200,000 SOCAGNIPI 39 910.8 4069.6 3.1 1.5 13% 51% 3,084,722 SOCOOABAS 15 547.6 2208.6 213.1 65.8 13% 0% N/A SOCOOPACDI 45 406.8 1528.0 66.9 3.8 16% 60% 1,064,612 Note: cooperative averages from farmer survey. AGRICULTURAL PRODUCTIVITY AT COOPERATIVE LEVEL (SO1) PROVISION OF INPUTS AND SERVICES (FFPR 1.2.1) Input provision Insecticides, chemical fertilizers and fungicides are provided by the majority of cooperatives (72%, 71% and 69% respectively) (table 55, appendix 2). A minority (22%) of the cooperatives also provide organic fertilizer and one cooperative (SOCOOABAS in Soubré) provides herbicides. Note that only a quarter (24%) of the cooperatives reported that all their members received inputs according to their needs (table 58, appendix 2). The reported productivity (cocoa yield) amongst its members is higher for the cooperatives that provide organic and chemical fertilizers compared to those who do not ( MAXIMIZING OPPORTUNITIES IN COCOA ACTIVITY BASELINE EVALUATION REPORT CNFA.ORG Table 20). Note that these are reported yields, often based on rough estimates by the cooperatives. The farmer data (section 3.3.3) confirm the positive effect of inputs on productivity. MAXIMIZING OPPORTUNITIES IN COCOA ACTIVITY BASELINE EVALUATION REPORT CNFA.ORG Table 20. Average productivity (kg per ha) reported by cooperatives, by input provision Productivity reported by cooperative Provision No provision Organic fertilizer 641.3 (n=6) 556.8 (n=21) Chemical fertilizer 596.6 (n=20) 513.5 (n=8) Insecticides 591.2 (n=21) 534.3 (n=8) Fungicide 573.3 (n=20) 580.4 (n=9) Herbicide 420.0 (n=1) 581.1 (n=28) Only a quarter (24%) of the cooperatives reported that they provide the inputs ‘for free’. Input provision is conditional; the majority of cooperatives only provide inputs to farmers if they are members (88% of cooperatives), if they sell all their cocoa to the cooperative (81% of the cooperatives) and/or if they have paid their social shares (65%). Remarkably, in the region where cooperatives reported most frequently to be providing input ‘for free’ (33% in Daloa), fewer cooperatives set conditions for inputs. The majority (78%) of cooperatives report that other organisations (predominantly the CCC, but in some cases also the exporter or chocolate manufacturer) are also involved in input provision. Cocoa services Only three cooperatives (ESPOIR in Daloa, SOCOOABAS in Soubré, and BOUKABLA in Abengourou) provide pruning services to their members; this service is ‘free’. The majority (90%) of the cooperatives provide spraying services, except for SOCADMV in Daloa, Case du Planteur in Daloa, and N’MOH-BLA in Abengourou. 42% of the cooperatives provide the spraying services ‘for free’. Two-third (64%) of the MOCA cooperatives provided agricultural kits (incl. boots, machete, limes and gloves) to members, vs none of the control group (table 64, appendix 2). Only 26% of MOCA cooperatives provided these kits to all members. Although 80% of the cooperatives provided cocoa seedlings to their members, only two cooperatives (SOCOOPACDI in Soubré and SCOPRANHS in Daloa) confirmed that they have provided seedlings to all their members. 76% of the cooperatives also provided shade trees to their members There is no strong positive effect of service provision on productivity, though the three cooperatives providing pruning services actually reported lower yields among their members than the other cooperatives (Table 21). Cooperatives who provided agricultural kits reported significantly higher productivity among their members than the cooperatives who did not provide these kits. However, the reported productivity by farmers did not confirm this. The same results were found for cooperatives who provided seedlings or shade trees. MAXIMIZING OPPORTUNITIES IN COCOA ACTIVITY BASELINE EVALUATION REPORT CNFA.ORG Table 21. Average productivity (kg per ha) reported by cooperatives, by service Productivity reported by cooperative Provision No provision Pruning 456.7 (n=3) 589.2 (n=26) Spraying 575.1 (n=26) 579.3 (n=8) Agricultural kit 608.6 (n=14) 537.1 (n=14) Seedlings 599.1 (n=20) 511.6 (n=5) Shade trees 607.4 (n=19) 500.0 (n=6) During the FGDs, farmers reported that their access to pesticides and fungicides has improved in the majority of cases. The CCC and the cooperatives are the main providers of inputs (often for free or on credit), but, according to the FGD participants do not provide inputs in sufficient quantities; additional inputs can be bought by farmers on the market. Access to fertilizer has also improved for the majority of farmers. The improved access to fertiliser is attributed to cooperatives that provide fertiliser on credit, and training on how to make compost. In Daloa, however, access to fertiliser did not increase; this is mainly due to the poor affordability of fertiliser. In some cases, farmers said they saw no need for fertiliser. Farmers also appreciate the access to spraying services (FGD data). This cooperative service is usually cheaper than hiring a private spraying team, as farmers usually only pay fuel, costs involved in maintenance and an optional ‘tip’ to the sprayer. The cooperative service is also perceived to be more effective and safer, comparing to untrained farmers doing the spraying themselves. The FGD-data suggests that for around half of the farmers access to seedlings has not improved over the last five years. This usually means that farmers cannot access seedlings through the cooperatives, and use their own seedlings. In relation to CSSVD, FGD-data suggests that there is a lack of seedlings for rehabilitation of the farms, after the trees are uprooted. On the other hand, around half of the FGD participants did observe an improvement in access to seedlings. Despite the improvement farmers stressed a number of challenges: • The quantities of seedlings delivered by the cooperatives are not sufficient. • Farmers face problems after seedlings are planted, mainly due to a lack of rain (plants die). MAXIMIZING OPPORTUNITIES IN COCOA ACTIVITY BASELINE EVALUATION REPORT CNFA.ORG INFRASTRUCTURE FOR PRODUCTION AND POST-HARVEST PROCESSING (FFPR 1.2.2) The cooperatives use 6.9 warehouses on average, which are either owned or rented. The average storage capacity per cooperative is 318 MT (table 36, appendix), but some cooperatives (CAPRESSA in Abengourou, ESPOIR in Daloa, SCAES and ECAM in Soubré) reported storage capacities above 600 MT (Figure 23). Figure 23. Total storage capacity per cooperative Only one cooperative (SOCOOPACDI) in Soubré reports having access to a fermentation and a drying centre. The cooperative ESPOIR in Daloa also owns a drying centre. The other cooperatives do not have these facilities. Two-third (69%) of the cooperatives reported that they received in-kind grants, in particular from government institutions. These in-kind grants are often inputs, but can also include equipment, vehicles and machinery (table 25, appendix 2). FINANCIAL SERVICES (FFPR 1.2.3) All but one cooperative (SOCADMV in Daloa) offer financial services to their members. Financial services to members primarily exist of small loans (only SCACALAVA in Daloa does not offer this). Half of the cooperatives provide inputs on credit as a financial service, in addition to small loans. Note that the cooperatives who provide inputs for free (CEEA, CPR-CANAAN, ECOJAD, ESPOIR, KAPATCHIVA, SOCOOABAS, SOCOOPACDI), do not offer the service of input on credit. In the farmer survey, a quarter of the respondents who had taken out a loan in past three years indicated that this was with the cooperative (39% in Abengourou compared to 21% and 16% in Daloa and Soubré respectively). Family and friends are a more commonly used source to access small loans than cooperatives, in particular in Daloa and Soubré (52% and 55% respectively) compared to Abengourou (27%). The cooperative is an importance channel to access small loans, but the cooperative often lack sufficient funds. It is common practice cooperative members pay the cooperative back in cocoa, in exchange for small loans. Buyers of cocoa (cooperatives and pisteurs) and friends/relatives normally do not charge interest (although in MAXIMIZING OPPORTUNITIES IN COCOA ACTIVITY BASELINE EVALUATION REPORT CNFA.ORG some cases friends/relatives charge 100% interest). It is more difficult accessing a loan outside the main cocoa season, however, while farmers are most in need of financial support when the schools start, which is just before the main harvesting season. Other sources of loans often have unfavourable conditions. FARMER KNOWLEDGE ON GAP IN COCOA (FFPR 1.2.4) Extension services On average, cooperatives employ 10 extension workers to assist farmers. However, there are huge differences between cooperatives. The cooperatives BOUKABLA (Abengourou), N’MOH-BLA (Abengourou), CAPEDIG (Daloa), Case du Planteur (Daloa), CPR-CANAAN (Daloa), SOCADMV (Daloa), and SOCOOABAS (Soubré) do not employ any extension workers. ECOJAD (Daloa) reported 111 extension workers, but these are composed of five trainers and 106 ‘formateurs relai’ (lead farmers). Note that CAPEDIG, CPR-CANAAN and ECOJAD are part of the cooperative union ECOOKIM, which provides part contributionsto extension workers. Training Most cooperatives (93%) provided GAP training to their members during the season 2017-2018; the cooperative BOUKABLA and N’MOH-BLA in Abengourou did not provide any trainings to its members. The GAP trainings are free of charge. 68% of the cooperatives reported that all members had attended the GAP training. The frequency of the GAP trainings varies between weekly, monthly and bi-monthly. Only three cooperatives mentioned that they provided GAP trainings only once a year. The majority (65%) of the cooperatives reported that they had no conditions to farmers’ attendance. One-third (35%) of the cooperatives require farmers to be a cooperative member. A minority (20%) of the cooperatives also apply additional conditions: participants should have paid their social shares or sold all their cocoa to the cooperative. The majority of cooperatives (65%) also provided training on financial management; half of these cooperatives reported that all their members had attended this training. Only 33% of the cooperatives provide this training without conditions; 44% of the cooperatives require participants to be a member. In Abengourou, three out of four cooperatives require participants to be a member, having paid their social shares and sell all their cocoa to the cooperative. The cooperatives in the other regions have less conditions for attendants of the training on financial management (table 52, appendix 2). All but one cooperative (SOCADMV in Daloa) reported that other actors also provide trainings to cooperative members. ANADER is providing trainings to half of the cooperatives. Other providers of trainings include (in declining order of frequency): NGOs, certification organizations, exporters (in particular in Abengourou), the cooperative union, chocolate manufacturers and traders (table 54, appendix 2). During the FGDs, farmers confirmed that the cooperatives and ANADER are the main providers of training. Occasionally other trainers are mentioned: traders, GIZ, CCC, CNRA, input providers, umbrella cooperative ECOOKIM. MAXIMIZING OPPORTUNITIES IN COCOA ACTIVITY BASELINE EVALUATION REPORT CNFA.ORG TRADE AT COOPERATIVE LEVEL (SO2) VALUE ADDITION (QUALITY, EFFICIENCY, MARKETING) (FFPR 2.1) Quality of cocoa Half (52%) of the cooperatives rejected (part) of their members cocoa for quality reasons. There are regional differences: only one (out of nine) cooperative in Soubré rejected cocoa in 2017-2018 compared to six (out of eight) cooperatives in Abengourou and eight (out of 12) cooperatives in Daloa. Cooperatives estimated that in these cases about 20% of the cocoa was rejected (based on the estimates of nine cooperatives). During the FGDs, farmers indicated (6 out of 22) that smaller beans receive a lower price or are rejected by the cooperative during the light season, and that farmers are then required to search for another buyer (for example pisteurs/processors who process the beans within the country). Farmers argued that the size of the beans is small due to a lack of rain (or prolonged dry season). Smaller beans are not export grade and difficult to sell. This forces farmers to sell at lower prices than the fixed price by the CCC. Value addition All but two (N’MOH-BLA and COOP Hounou) cooperatives are certified. Most common certification is UTZ (70%), followed by Fairtrade (56%) and Rainforest Alliance (33%). Half of the cooperatives have multiple certifications. The cooperatives estimated that on average 79% of the cocoa is sold as certified (Table 9, appendix 2). About two-third (62%) of the cooperatives pay a cash premium to all their members. None of the cooperatives are involved in processing, although some cooperatives (CAPRESSA and CEEA in Abengourou, and SCAES in Soubré) mentioned that they are interested in getting involved in processing. Cooperative revenues The cooperatives obtain their income from cocoa margins (100% of the cooperatives) combined with the premium (for 83% of the cooperatives). Membership fees and services were mentioned as sources of income by only 10% of the cooperatives (table 23, appendix). The average total revenue (2017/2018) of the cooperatives was estimated at FCFA 246 million (table 21, appendix 2), of which the premium revenue was estimated at FCFA 180 million (table 22, appendix 2). Note that nearly half of the cooperatives estimated their total revenue to be less than FCFA 100 million (Figure 24). MAXIMIZING OPPORTUNITIES IN COCOA ACTIVITY BASELINE EVALUATION REPORT CNFA.ORG Figure 24. Total revenue of cooperatives (season 2017-2018) The majority (79%) of the cooperatives prepare an annual financial planning (table 30, appendix 2). Half of the cooperatives indicated that they have savings (table 29, appendix 2).Two-third (62%) of the cooperatives, on the other hand, indicate that they have outstanding debts or loans. Three cooperatives (CPR-CANAAN, SCOOPS SAHS and SOCADMV, all in Daloa) reported that they have defaulted on loan repayments in the past three years. Two-third (66%) of the cooperatives confirmed that they invest in community projects, in particular in education, water women and income generation projects. (table 75, appendix 2). ACCESS TO MARKETS (MARKETING, BUYERS-SELLERS LINKAGES) (FFPR 2.2) On average, the cooperatives sold 2075 MT cocoa per cooperative. SCAES (Soubré) sold most cocoa (7,199 MT), and N’MOH-BLA (Abengourou) sold the least (223 MT). Most (24 out of 29) cooperatives sell to an exporter (table 16, appendix 2). Trade of other crops Nearly half (45%) of the cooperatives also trade other crops (cashew, coffee and rubber) for their members. We observe some regional differences; in Soubré only one (out of nine) cooperative (SOCAGNIPI) trades in other crops, compared to five (out of eight) cooperatives in Abengourou and seven (out of 12) in Daloa. There are also regional differences for the types of other crops traded by the cooperative. In Abengourou, cooperatives traded coffee, cashew or rubber in addition to cocoa. In Daloa, cooperatives traded cashew and coffee. In Soubré, the additional crop was coffee only. TRANSACTION EFFICIENCY (BUYERS-SELLERS MANAGEMENT PRACTICES) (FFPR 2.3.2) Contracts The majority (83%) of the cooperatives have contracts with exporters. In Daloa and Soubré, some cooperatives also have contracts with chocolate manufacturers, local traitants or the cooperative union (table 16, appendix 2). Most contracts are fixed contracts for one season only: MAXIMIZING OPPORTUNITIES IN COCOA ACTIVITY BASELINE EVALUATION REPORT CNFA.ORG • 66% of the cooperatives use fixed contracts with buyers in terms of tonnage. • 21% of the cooperatives uses fixed contracts with buyers in terms of price. Half of the cooperatives reported that they had difficulties complying with the contracts for various reasons. Cooperatives in Daloa and Soubré mentioned that the production was low or the beans too small due to unfavourable weather. Two cooperatives in Abengourou mentioned that cocoa was smuggled to Ghana. One cooperative was broken in so they did not have sufficient working capital to buy the beans from the farmers. Transport All but one cooperative (N’MOHBLA in Abengourou) pay for transport and storage services to cocoa farmers out of their own revenue (table 27, appendix 2). Half of the cooperatives indicated that this was their main expenditure as a cooperative (table 28, appendix 2). Cooperatives mentioned that transport was in particular expensive due to bad roads, vehicle maintenance and fuel price. Transport vehicles include: motorcycles (90% of cooperatives), trucks (83% of cooperatives), tricycles (41% of cooperatives) and cars (34% of cooperatives) (table 39, appendix 2). COOPERATIVE CAPACITIES There is high diversity among the cooperatives in terms of their capacities and service delivery to members. A tentative capacity index was made based on ten indicators (Table 22). If a cooperative complies with the ten indicators, it is assigned the maximum score of 10. Table 22. Cooperative capacity score Capacity score indicator % coops meeting indicator (N=32) Active coop: coop has bought cocoa from members in 2017/2018 91% Management: both age and sex distributions of members are known 16% Recruitment: having own extension workers 75% Production & quality: training on GAP provided to members 81% Production & quality: measuring members' land size with GPS 69% Planning & strategy: insufficient quality as main reason for not purchasing cocoa 16% Planning & strategy: annual financial planning 75% Planning & strategy: having savings 50% Market linkage: coop has (at least 1) fixed contract in terms of tonnage 66% Market linkage: coop trades other crops for its members 41% Plotting the average productivity of members against the cooperative capacity score ( Figure 25) suggests that a cooperative with more capacities has a positive correlation with the cocoa productivity of its members, but there is also a high variance in productivity between cooperatives. Strengthening the capacities of cooperatives is likely to have some effect on agricultural productivity, but other factors come into play as well that should be understood. MAXIMIZING OPPORTUNITIES IN COCOA ACTIVITY BASELINE EVALUATION REPORT CNFA.ORG Figure 25. Average productivity against cooperative capacity scores RECOMMENDATIONS KEY INSIGHTS BASELINE INFORMATION The baseline study shows that there are significant differences in productivity, practices and knowledge between regions, but in some cases also between MOCA farmers and the control group. The regional differences are more pronounced and relevant for the MOCA work plan, but the difference in productivity between MOCA farmers and the control group at baseline needs to be taken into account when measuring impact at endline. Comparing MOCA farmers with the control group we observe no significant differences in total farm size, or cocoa farm size. Overall, we observe that MOCA farmers perform better than control farmers in terms of yields (498 kg/ha for MOCA farmers, vs 435g/ha for control farmers), and better than the farmers that participated in the benchmark study. Bymolt et al. (2018) reported for cocoa season mean cocoa yields of 353 kg/ha (2015/2016). It seems plausible that these lower yields can be (at least partly) explained by the low level of organisation among the sampled farmers in Bymolt et al. (2018), limiting their access to cooperative services, such as access to inputs and training. Despite the relatively high yields found in this baseline study, the qualitative data that was collected during FGDs suggests that yields have been decreasing over the past five years, this despite the improved access to inputs and training. This productivity declines is mainly attributed to an increase in diseases, such as CSSVD and black pod disease. Reference was also made to the negative impact of climate change. MAXIMIZING OPPORTUNITIES IN COCOA ACTIVITY BASELINE EVALUATION REPORT CNFA.ORG REGIONAL DIFFERENCES Looking at regional differences, we observe three main patterns: • Farmers in Abengourou perform relatively well, seem to benefit most from access to cooperative services, and make reasonable on-farm investments. The average yield for farmers in Abengourou is 470 kg per ha. • Farmers in Daloa perform relatively poor, seem to benefit less from available services and make least on-farm investments. The average yield for farmers in Daloa is 402 kg per ha. • Farmers in Soubré perform relatively best, have less access to services, but are pro-active in making on-farm investments. In Soubré, farmers produce highest yields, on average 574 kg per ha. If we consider regional variations in access to inputs and use of inputs we observe clear differences in: • The use of insecticides: In Soubré the use of insecticides was highest, despite the fact that in this region relatively less farmers had (partly) 'free' access to insecticides (only 12%). • The use of granular fertilizer: In Soubré, the use of granular fertilizer among farmers is highest (61%), comparing to Abengourou (36%). In Daloa only 25% of the farmers uses granular fertilizer. There is a positive correlation between the use of fertilizer and productivity. Most farmers purchase fertilizer themselves. In Daloa, during FGDs, farmers argued that they use little fertilizer because of the high costs. Some farmers argued that they do not need fertilizer, as their trees are too old. • The average age of trees: In Soubré the average age of trees is higher than in the other two regions, which explains the lower percentage of farmers doing intercropping with plantain (as intercropping with plantain takes place on young cocoa farms). The data does not indicate find that the relatively high age of the trees affected productivity levels negatively. • Pests & diseases: In Abengourou, it is estimated that 49% of the farmers experience cocoa losses mainly due to Black Pod, Stem borer and Mirids. In Daloa, 73% of the farmers loose cocoa due to Black Pod, CSSVD and Rodents. In Soubré, 72% of the farmers experience cocoa losses due to Black Pod, Stem borer and CSSVD. According to FGD participants CSSVD is perceived to be more severe in Daloa and Soubré, while Black Pod caused severe losses mainly in Abengourou. • Taking action against pests & diseases: In Abengourou, 27% of the farmers responded not to take any action against the pests and diseases. In Daloa, this passive behavior was counted among 42% of the farmers. In Soubré, in line with the previous findings, farmers were more actively combatting pests and diseases, only 17% responded not taking any action. This while support to address pests and diseases was reported lowest in Soubré (12% received some type of support), comparing to 16% in Daloa, and 24% in Abengourou. • Quality: Half (52%) of the cooperatives rejected (part) of their members cocoa for quality reasons (during the light season). There are regional differences: only one (out of nine) cooperative in Soubré rejected cocoa in 2017-2018 compared to six (out of eight) cooperatives in Abengourou and eight (out of twelve) cooperatives in Daloa. Cooperatives estimated that in these cases about 20% of the cocoa was rejected. If beans are rejected by the cooperative farmers need to search for another buyer. MAXIMIZING OPPORTUNITIES IN COCOA ACTIVITY BASELINE EVALUATION REPORT CNFA.ORG In terms of record keeping and training we observe the following regional differences: • Record keeping: In Soubré 76% of the farmers keeps records on cocoa production, comparing to 62% in Abengourou and only 36% in Daloa. • Training: Access to training is positively related to productivity levels. In all regions the majority of farmers received training on GAP, in Soubré slightly more farmers received training than in Daloa. In Abengourou the percentage of farmers that received training was lowest. We have not collected data on the quality and frequency of the training. The baseline data suggests that in addition, regional differences in productivity can be (partly) explained by differences in demographics: • Household size and household labour: In Soubré, average household size is 7.9 members, while in Abengourou this is 6.3, and in Daloa 6.5. Household labour is the most important source of labour; the baseline date suggests that in Soubré more household labour is available. This is confirmed by our findings that in Soubré relatively more use is made of household labour, comparing to the other regions. • Population of migrants: 66% of farmers in Soubré is not born in the region where he/she currently farms. The high population of migrants (the majority born in Côte d’Ivoire) corresponds with our finding that in Soubré it was relatively more common that farmers cleared land themselves to grow cocoa (42%). In contrast to the other regions, we observe that farmers in Soubré seem to concentrate more on cocoa than on other crops. Other explanatory factors for differences in yields and behaviour are • Size of cocoa land, as part of total land: Although we have learned that smaller cocoa farms produce on average higher yields, this is not the case for Daloa. This might be explained by looking at the size of the land allocated to cocoa, and the total average land size. For Daloa, on average 59% of total land is allocated to cocoa, while in Abengourou this is 73% and in Soubré this is 72%. In addition, we found that the size of unexploited land is the smallest in Soubré, suggesting that farmers in this region strive towards optimal use of the available land. • Other income sources: Related to the above we observe that in Daloa, 76% of the farmers mention the sales of other agricultural products (after cocoa) as another income source (and to a lesser extent also livestock), comparing to 58% in Abengourou, and only 28% in Soubré. This suggests for Daloa that farmers attention is divided among different crops, while for Soubré on-farm investments focus more on cocoa. • Number or permanent workers: Particularly in Abengourou the use of permanent workers is high, followed by Soubré. The use of permanent workers in Daloa is by far lowest. In Daloa, farmers make relatively more use of labour exchange groups. MAXIMIZING OPPORTUNITIES IN COCOA ACTIVITY BASELINE EVALUATION REPORT CNFA.ORG GENDER DIFFERENCES The sample does not really lend itself to a gender analysis as the composition of the sample is skewed towards male respondents. When disaggregating into categories, the number of observations for female respondents becomes too small for statistical analysis, producing unreliable results. We make the following observations on gender: • Female membership in cooperatives: The average share of female members is 13%; however, in Abengourou this share is significantly higher at 37% compared to 4% and 7% in Daloa and Soubré respectively. This difference in Abengourou is due to three cooperatives: BOUKABLA has female members only, N’MOH-BLA has predominantly female members (69%); and ADI also has large female membership (42%). For the other cooperatives, female farmers are a minority (less than 20%). • Labour division: Male and female respondents agree that mainly male farmers are involved in GAP. What we should take into account is that the activities listed did not include tasks that tend to be more ‘invisible’, such as taking care of the young cocoa farms, providing food for the labourers, fetching water for spraying. The ‘supportive’ role of women in cocoa production, and joint strategies within the household, have not been captured in the baseline. • Access to labour: Female-headed households involve permanent workers more often, which involves higher costs. The explanation for more permanent workers can be threefold: either they have less access to labour (household labour or labour exchange groups), and/or women prefer not be involved in production activities that are perceived as being ‘male-tasks’ or are considered too heavy, and/or female heads are the somewhat older farmers (divorced/widowed) lacking the necessary strength to do heavy work. • Yields: In Abengourou, male-headed households obtained significantly higher yields (487.5 kg per ha) than female-headed households (385.3 kg per ha); in the other two regions no significant differences were found, probably due to small number of female-headed households in the sample. In Abengourou, younger farmers also produce higher yields than older farmers, but this trend does not apply for the other regions. DIVERSITY AMONG COOPERATIVES We observed a huge diversity among cooperatives, both in terms of inputs and services delivered as well as average cocoa productivity. There is no obvious correlation between cooperative performance and productivity due to the array of influencing factors affecting both issues. Cooperatives should be dealt with on a case by case basis (see recommendations). RECOMMENDATIONS FOR M&E Additional gender analysis is needed to further explore gender differences and better capture the role of women in cocoa farming. This baseline did explicitly not include a gender analysis. There are several small but significant observable differences in farming practices between MOCA and control farmers at baseline. It is therefore recommended that the end evaluation applies Propensity Score Matching (PSM). MAXIMIZING OPPORTUNITIES IN COCOA ACTIVITY BASELINE EVALUATION REPORT CNFA.ORG There is a significant yield difference between MOCA farmers and control farmers; the end evaluation thus needs to apply a difference-in-difference design to take this into account. Yield impacts also need to be corrected for each region, because of the regional differences in cocoa varieties and yields. The baseline sample is large enough to conduct panel survey at the next steps, i.e. to survey the same farmers again at endline (a part of the baseline could suffice for midline). There might be an issue with respondent names not matching names on membership lists, as cooperative membership lists were not updated, including not on names. One would need to generate unique identifiers based on actual data in order to be able to track precisely which farmers are surveyed again and which are not. Furthermore, if a panel survey is the chosen option for the endline, it is also very important to document precisely the reasons for not surveying. For the end line, in addition to comparing baseline and endline values for treatment and control farmers, it would also be useful to compare changes in the correlates of productivity at baseline and at endline, as it is possible that the project has an effect on which factors affect productivity (for example, making the use of inputs more significantly correlated with productivity). For next fieldwork exercises, it is recommended to allocate more time for the planning to avoid some of the shortcomings of the baseline fieldwork. In particular, it is important to spend some time to locate respondents before going to the field, especially if fieldwork is conducted over a short period of time as it is was the case now. It is also recommended to avoid as much as possible conducting the fieldwork in the midst of the harvest season, given that it is the busiest time for farmers and cooperatives. RECOMMENDATIONS FOR MOCA PROJECT IMPLEMENTATION We recommend the following entry-points for MOCA: • Adopt a regional approach in developing interventions. For example, for Soubré, where farmers seem more entrepreneurial or active in the cocoa, this could involve improved access to services (including seedlings for rehabilitation of farms affected by CSSVD). It could also be identified as a priority region to test out new strategies or activities that have a clear economic incentive. For Daloa, where crop diversification is more important, it can be worthwhile to look into service provision for other crops in addition to cocoa, and to look into interventions that facilitate changes in behaviour. • Adopt a tailored approach for strengthening the capacities of cooperatives, based on their cooperative needs. We observed a huge diversity among cooperatives, which is multi-dimensional. Therefore, we recommend a tailored approach based on a needs assessment at cooperative level, prioritization of actions, and learning from successes of other cooperatives. • Better data management and record keeping is key. It is recommended that strengthening the capacities of cooperatives involves support in their management and their capacity to make better decisions to support farmers. For example, membership lists provided to select the farmer sample were outdated, and in some cases, some entire sections had left the cooperative. This would have implications in terms of who is allowed to sell cocoa to the cooperative, who can receive a premium, etc. MAXIMIZING OPPORTUNITIES IN COCOA ACTIVITY BASELINE EVALUATION REPORT CNFA.ORG • Explore interventions to provide more direct support to farmers. For example, during many FGDs, participants expressed the need to have more information on support about what to do regarding the increase in diseases they are experiencing currently. Even large cooperatives which provide many services do not seem to meet this need of farmers. • Support farmers in accessing markets that reward smaller sized beans. Quality problems occur mainly in the light season, and seem to be related to weather conditions, rather than adequate post-harvest practices. Farmers argued that the size of the beans is small due to a lack of rain (or prolonged dry season). Smaller beans are often bought at a discount or rejected by the cooperatives. Rather than focusing on improving the infrastructure and facilities for post-harvest practices, we recommend providing support for local processing of these smaller beans. • Invest in relationship building between cooperatives and farmers. The share of cocoa that farmers sell to cooperative can be increased in the main season. Some of the reasons for not selling to the cooperative that came up during FGDs were: lack of resources to pay farmers in time (on one occasion linked to robbery), lack of funding to provide farmers with loans. Working capital is an important asset for cooperatives. • Build on good experiences in service provision. Farmers indicated that they benefit from access to cooperative spraying services, which is usually cheaper and more effective than hiring a private spraying team. Farmers have also benefited from training. All respondents who received training agree that applying GAPs leads to higher yields and better quality (good post-harvest practices). For some cooperatives providing access to training is a new or growing service. • Improve the quality of service provision. In our baseline we did not address the quality of cooperative services and whether or not services were being provided on time and in the right quantity. The FGD gave the following insights: i) Provide inputs in sufficient quantities. For example, the quantities of seedlings delivered by the cooperatives are not sufficient; ii) Avoid repetition of similar trainings; iii) Provide additional trainings on other crops than cocoa, particularly for members of cooperatives that trade already in other crops.; iv) Timeliness of the loans (outside the cocoa season); v) Conditions for providing loans to farmers (avoid high interest rates or land as collateral). Farmers are usually not using loans to make on-farm investments that have a return on investment; vi) Need for more working capital for cooperatives. During FGDs farmers argued that a lack of working capital and funding opportunities affects the relationship between farmers and cooperatives. • Gender strategy. In developing a gender strategy note that differences between male and female headed households is not the same as differences between women and men. Female headed households comprise men, and male headed households comprise women. • More in-depth gender analysis is needed. Understanding gender differences, including entry points for future interventions should be based on more in-depth gender analyses. The cooperatives with relatively higher share of female members provide an easier entry-point to developing a gender strategy with the cooperative and their members. MAXIMIZING OPPORTUNITIES IN COCOA ACTIVITY BASELINE EVALUATION REPORT CNFA.ORG APPENDIX 1. FARMER SURVEY RESULTS MOCA Baseline MAXIMIZING OPPORTUNITIES IN COCOA ACTIVITY BASELINE EVALUATION REPORT CNFA.ORG Contents 1 ADMINISTRATIVE DATA ........................................................................3 2 HOUSEHOLD ...............................................................................................5 3 RESPONDENT.............................................................................................6 4 LAND ..........................................................................................................10 5 COCOA PRODUCTION............................................................................13 6 EMPLOYMENT.........................................................................................27 7 PLANT HEALTH PRODUCTS ...............................................................28 8 AGRICULTURAL PRACTICES...............................................................52 9 POST-HARVEST PRACTICES...............................................................61 10 TRAINING AND OTHER SUPPORT ....................................................67 MAXIMIZING OPPORTUNITIES IN COCOA ACTIVITY BASELINE EVALUATION REPORT CNFA.ORG 1. ADMINISTRATIVE DATA Table 23: Administrative region Administrative region All MOCA Control sig Abengourou Daloa Soubré sig Bas-Sassandra 0% 0% 0% *** 0% 0% 0% *** Haut-Sassandra 27% 26% 28% 0% 84% 0% Indenié-Djuablin 23% 23% 26% 95% 0% 0% Loh-Djiboua 6% 8% 0% 0% 0% 15% Marahoué 2% 3% 0% 0% 7% 0% Moronou 1% 1% 0% 5% 0% 0% Nawa 38% 36% 46% 0% 0% 85% Bélier 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% Cavally 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% Gbôkle 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% Gôh 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% Grand-Ponts 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% Guémon 3% 3% 0% 0% 9% 0% Iffou 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% Mé 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% N'Zi 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% San-Pédro 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% Sud-Comoé 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% Autre 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% n 1300 924 376 428 447 425 Note: significance from a Rao-Scott second-order corrected Chi-squared statistical test. ***, **, * indicate significance levels of 1%, 5% and 10% respectively Original question: Région administrative Table 24: Departement Departement All MOCA Control sig Abengourou Daloa Soubré sig Sassandra 0% 0% 0% *** 0% 0% 0% *** Daloa 21% 20% 28% 0% 67% 0% Vavoua 7% 8% 0% 0% 21% 0% Zoukougbeu 2% 2% 0% 0% 5% 0% Abengourou 22% 22% 26% 92% 0% 0% Agnibilékro 1% 1% 0% 3% 0% 0% Divo 6% 8% 0% 0% 0% 15% Bouaflé 2% 3% 0% 0% 7% 0% Bongouanou 1% 1% 0% 5% 0% 0% Soubré 9% 2% 46% 0% 0% 19% Méagui 29% 34% 0% 0% 0% 66% MAXIMIZING OPPORTUNITIES IN COCOA ACTIVITY BASELINE EVALUATION REPORT CNFA.ORG Departement All MOCA Control sig Abengourou Daloa Soubré sig Autre 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% n 1300 924 376 428 447 425 Note: significance from a Rao-Scott second-order corrected Chi-squared statistical test. ***, **, * indicate significance levels of 1%, 5% and 10% respectively Original question: Département Table 25: Subprefecture Subprefecture All MOCA Control sig Abengourou Daloa Soubré sig Sassandra 0% 0% 0% *** 0% 0% 0% *** Daloa 18% 17% 28% 0% 58% 0% Bediala 3% 3% 0% 0% 9% 0% Vavoua 7% 8% 0% 0% 21% 0% Guessabo 2% 2% 0% 0% 5% 0% Abengourou 4% 2% 15% 17% 0% 0% Amélékia 0% 1% 0% 2% 0% 0% Anuasué 1% 1% 0% 3% 0% 0% Ebilassokro 7% 8% 0% 29% 0% 0% Niablé 5% 4% 11% 21% 0% 0% Yakasse-Feyasse 1% 1% 0% 3% 0% 0% Zaranou 4% 5% 0% 18% 0% 0% Agnibilékro 1% 1% 0% 3% 0% 0% Divo 6% 8% 0% 0% 0% 15% Bonon 2% 3% 0% 0% 7% 0% Andé 1% 1% 0% 5% 0% 0% Soubré 9% 2% 46% 0% 0% 19% Méagui 29% 34% 0% 0% 0% 66% Autre 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% n 1300 924 376 428 447 425 Note: significance from a Rao-Scott second-order corrected Chi-squared statistical test. ***, **, * indicate significance levels of 1%, 5% and 10% respectively Original question: Sous-préfecture Table 26: Cocoa cooperative member Household member membership of cocoa cooperative or association (y/n) All MOCA Control sig Abengourou Daloa Soubré sig mean [Confidence Interval] 97% [95.7%, 97.7%] 97% [95.5%, 97.8%] 97% [94.9%, 98.3%] 100% [99.2%, 100.2%] 91% [87.7%, 93.5%] 99% [98.5%, 100.1%] *** n 1300 924 376 428 447 425 Note: significance from a composite Wald statistical test. ***, **, * indicate significance levels of 1%, 5% and 10% respectively Original question: L'un des membres de ce ménage est-il membre d'une coopérative ou association de producteurs de cacao? Table 27: Respondent active in cocoa MAXIMIZING OPPORTUNITIES IN COCOA ACTIVITY BASELINE EVALUATION REPORT CNFA.ORG Respondent active in cocoa (y/n) All MOCA Control sig Abengourou Daloa Soubré sig mean [Confidence Interval] 99% [98.3%, 99.5%] 99% [98.1%, 99.4%] 100% [98.8%, 100.4%] 97% [95.2%, 98.7%] 100% [99.1%, 100.3%] 99% [98.5%, 100.1%] ** n 1300 924 376 428 447 425 Note: significance from a composite Wald statistical test. ***, **, * indicate significance levels of 1%, 5% and 10% respectively Original question: Êtes-vous impliqué(e) dans l'exploitation de cacao de ce ménage? MAXIMIZING OPPORTUNITIES IN COCOA ACTIVITY BASELINE EVALUATION REPORT CNFA.ORG 2. HOUSEHOLD Figure 26: Household size Table 28: Household size Household size All MOCA Control sig Abengourou Daloa Soubré sig mean [Confidence Interval] 6.9 [6.66, 7.12] 6.9 [6.6, 7.12] 7.1 [6.66, 7.47] 6.3 [5.92, 6.6] 7.9 [7.53, 8.29] 6.5 [6.13, 6.9] *** median 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 7.0 6.0 n 1293 917 376 428 441 424 Note: significance from a composite Wald statistical test. ***, **, * indicate significance levels of 1%, 5% and 10% respectively Original question: S1.Q2. Parmi celles-ci, combien d’entre elles vivent-elles actuellement (dorment au sein de votre habitation) ? Table 29: Household composition Categories All MOCA Control sig Abengourou Daloa Soubré sig Number of male adults over 65 years 0.1 [0.12, 0.17] 0.1 [0.12, 0.17] 0.1 [0.08, 0.14] * 0.1 [0.1, 0.16] 0.1 [0.09, 0.15] 0.2 [0.13, 0.21] Number of female adults over 65 years 0.1 [0.1, 0.14] 0.1 [0.09, 0.14] 0.1 [0.08, 0.16] 0.2 [0.15, 0.24] 0.1 [0.08, 0.16] 0.1 [0.04, 0.11] *** Number of male adults between 15 and 65 years 1.8 [1.75, 1.91] 1.8 [1.73, 1.91] 1.9 [1.73, 2.02] 1.6 [1.51, 1.76] 1.9 [1.8, 2.07] 1.9 [1.72, 1.99] *** Number of female adults between 15 and 65 years 1.7 [1.67, 1.82] 1.7 [1.66, 1.82] 1.8 [1.65, 1.92] 1.7 [1.58, 1.82] 1.9 [1.81, 2.05] 1.6 [1.52, 1.76] *** Number of boys between 5 and 14 years 1.2 [1.16, 1.33] 1.3 [1.15, 1.35] 1.2 [1.07, 1.34] 1 [0.88, 1.1] 1.6 [1.42, 1.72] 1.1 [1, 1.29] *** Number of girls between 5 and 14 years 1.1 [0.99, 1.14] 1.1 [0.98, 1.15] 1.1 [0.93, 1.2] 0.9 [0.76, 0.97] 1.4 [1.22, 1.51] 1 [0.83, 1.07] *** Number of boys between 0 and 4 years 0.4 [0.4, 0.49] 0.4 [0.39, 0.5] 0.5 [0.39, 0.55] 0.4 [0.31, 0.45] 0.6 [0.5, 0.68] 0.4 [0.32, 0.46] *** Number of girls between 0 and 4 years 0.4 [0.39, 0.48] 0.4 [0.38, 0.48] 0.4 [0.36, 0.52] 0.4 [0.3, 0.44] 0.6 [0.49, 0.67] 0.4 [0.29, 0.43] *** n 1300 924 376 428 447 425 MAXIMIZING OPPORTUNITIES IN COCOA ACTIVITY BASELINE EVALUATION REPORT CNFA.ORG Categories All MOCA Control sig Abengourou Daloa Soubré sig Note: significance from a composite Wald statistical test. ***, **, * indicate significance levels of 1%, 5% and 10% respectively Original question: S1.Q3. Parmi les membres de votre ménage vivant actuellement dans votre ménage/maison, combien d’entre eux (y compris l’enquêté(e)) sont… MAXIMIZING OPPORTUNITIES IN COCOA ACTIVITY BASELINE EVALUATION REPORT CNFA.ORG 3. RESPONDENT Figure 27: Respondent age Table 30: Respondent age Respondent age All MOCA Control sig Abengourou Daloa Soubré sig mean [Confidence Interval] 45.3 [44.49, 46.08] 45.1 [44.17, 45.97] 46.5 [45.13, 47.95] * 48.5 [47.17, 49.75] 44 [42.85, 45.16] 44.5 [43.03, 45.89] *** median 44.0 43.0 45.7 47.0 43.0 42.0 n 1293 921 372 426 447 420 Note: significance from a composite Wald statistical test. ***, **, * indicate significance levels of 1%, 5% and 10% respectively Original question: S1.Q12. Âge Table 31: Respondent sex Respondent sex All MOCA Control sig Abengourou Daloa Soubré sig Male 89% 89% 91% 75% 94% 93% *** Female 11% 11% 9% 25% 6% 7% n 1300 924 376 428 447 425 Note: significance from a Rao-Scott second-order corrected Chi-squared statistical test. ***, **, * indicate significance levels of 1%, 5% and 10% respectively Original question: S1.Q13. Sexe Table 32: Head of household Head of household All MOCA Control sig Abengourou Daloa Soubré sig mean [Confidence Interval] 88% [86.2%, 90.1%] 88% [85.6%, 90.1%] 90% [86.7%, 93.3%] 89% [85.8%, 92.0%] 92% [89.1%, 94.6%] 85% [81.5%, 88.7%] ** n 1300 924 376 428 447 425 Note: significance from a composite Wald statistical test. ***, **, * indicate significance levels of 1%, 5% and 10% respectively Original question: S1.Q14. Êtes-vous le chef du ménage ? (l’enquêté(e) lui ou elle-même) Table 33: Respondent's relationship to household head MAXIMIZING OPPORTUNITIES IN COCOA ACTIVITY BASELINE EVALUATION REPORT CNFA.ORG Respondent's relationship to household head All MOCA Control sig Abengourou Daloa Soubré sig Wife/husband 29% 29% 30% 56% 38% 14% *** Father/mother 4% 4% 4% 7% 3% 3% Brother/sister 24% 26% 16% 13% 33% 26% Son/daughter 30% 29% 30% 13% 25% 38% Uncle/aunt 4% 4% 4% 0% 0% 7% Stepfather/stepmother 1% 1% 0% 0% 0% 2% Stepson/stepdaughter 0% 0% 4% 0% 0% 1% Stepbrother/stepsister 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% Other parent 4% 4% 2% 3% 1% 6% Unrelated 1% 1% 7% 3% 0% 2% Other 3% 3% 4% 5% 0% 3% n 143 108 35 47 34 62 Note: significance from a Rao-Scott second-order corrected Chi-squared statistical test. ***, **, * indicate significance levels of 1%, 5% and 10% respectively Original question: S1.Q15. Quelle est votre relation au chef de ménage? Table 34: Respondent born in current district Respondent born in current district All MOCA Control sig Abengourou Daloa Soubré sig mean [Confidence Interval] 49% [46.5%, 52.4%] 50% [46.4%, 53.1%] 48% [42.7%, 53.2%] 72% [67.3%, 76.2%] 54% [48.8%, 58.7%] 34% [29.3%, 38.9%] *** n 1298 922 376 428 447 423 Note: significance from a composite Wald statistical test. ***, **, * indicate significance levels of 1%, 5% and 10% respectively Original question: S1.Q15.1. Etes-vous né(e) dans ce département? Table 35: Respondent born in current region Respondent born in current region All MOCA Control sig Abengourou Daloa Soubré sig mean [Confidence Interval] 52% [49.1%, 55.0%] 53% [49.2%, 55.9%] 49% [43.9%, 54.4%] 75% [70.9%, 79.4%] 56% [51.2%, 61.1%] 36% [31.6%, 41.3%] *** n 1298 922 376 428 447 423 Note: significance from a composite Wald statistical test. ***, **, * indicate significance levels of 1%, 5% and 10% respectively Original question: S1.Q15.2. Etes-vous né(e) dans cette région? Table 36: Respondent born in current country Respondent born in current country All MOCA Control sig Abengourou Daloa Soubré sig mean [Confidence Interval] 85% [82.4%, 86.7%] 84% [81.9%, 86.8%] 85% [81.6%, 89.1%] 90% [86.9%, 92.6%] 78% [74.1%, 82.5%] 86% [82.7%, 89.6%] *** n 1297 921 376 428 447 422 Note: significance from a composite Wald statistical test. ***, **, * indicate significance levels of 1%, 5% and 10% respectively Original question: S1.Q15.3. Etes-vous né(e) en Cote d'Ivoire? Table 37: Respondent education Respondent education All MOCA Control sig Abengourou Daloa Soubré sig No education/primary school not completed 65% 64% 72% * 57% 67% 68% *** Completed elementary/primary school 16% 16% 15% 19% 17% 13% Completed secondary 10% 10% 8% 12% 10% 8% University (completed) 3% 3% 2% 6% 1% 4% Technical-vocational training 1% 1% 0% 2% 1% 1% Technical/professional studies 1% 1% 0% 1% 1% 1% MAXIMIZING OPPORTUNITIES IN COCOA ACTIVITY BASELINE EVALUATION REPORT CNFA.ORG Respondent education All MOCA Control sig Abengourou Daloa Soubré sig Islamic/French-Arabic school 5% 5% 2% 4% 4% 5% Other 0% 0% 0% 0% 1% 0% Do not know 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% n 1297 922 375 427 446 424 Note: significance from a Rao-Scott second-order corrected Chi-squared statistical test. ***, **, * indicate significance levels of 1%, 5% and 10% respectively Original question: S1.Q16. Quel est le plus haut niveau d'études (dernier diplome) que vous ayez terminé ? Table 38: Respondent literate in French Respondent literate in French All MOCA Control sig Abengourou Daloa Soubré sig mean [Confidence Interval] 52% [49.4%, 55.3%] 53% [49.6%, 56.3%] 49% [43.6%, 54.1%] 57% [52.3%, 62.0%] 49% [44.0%, 53.9%] 52% [47.1%, 57.1%] * n 1300 924 376 428 447 425 Note: significance from a composite Wald statistical test. ***, **, * indicate significance levels of 1%, 5% and 10% respectively Original question: S1.Q17. Êtes-vous capable de lire une phrase en français? Table 39: Respondent marital status Respondent marital status All MOCA Control sig Abengourou Daloa Soubré sig Single, never married 11% 12% 7% ** 8% 3% 18% *** Married, civil marriage 3% 4% 2% 5% 4% 2% Married, customary-religious 67% 66% 76% 68% 78% 59% Divorced 0% 0% 0% 1% 0% 0% Widowed 4% 4% 4% 9% 2% 2% Cohabiting 14% 14% 12% 8% 13% 18% n 1300 924 376 428 447 425 Note: significance from a Rao-Scott second-order corrected Chi-squared statistical test. ***, **, * indicate significance levels of 1%, 5% and 10% respectively Original question: S1.Q18. Quel est votre statut matrimonial ? Table 40: Respondent working on farm Respondent working on farm All MOCA Control sig Abengourou Daloa Soubré sig No, never 3% 3% 3% ** 4% 1% 3% *** Yes, full time 85% 84% 91% 81% 97% 79% Yes, occasionally 11% 12% 6% 13% 2% 16% Yes, only during harvest 1% 2% 0% 2% 0% 2% n 1300 924 376 428 447 425 Note: significance from a Rao-Scott second-order corrected Chi-squared statistical test. ***, **, * indicate significance levels of 1%, 5% and 10% respectively Original question: S1.Q19. Travaillez-vous dans la plantation de cacao? Table 41: Respondent income sources (multiple choices possible) Respondent income sources All MOCA Control sig Abengourou Daloa Soubré sig None 1% [0.1%, 0.9%] 1% [0.0%, 1.0%] 1% [-0.3%, 1.5%] 1% [0.0%, 1.8%] 0% [0.0%, 0.0%] 1% [-0.1%, 1.5%] ** Sales of cocoa 98% [97.7%, 99.1%] 98% [97.5%, 99.2%] 99% [97.6%, 99.9%] 99% [97.4%, 99.7%] 98% [96.3%, 99.2%] 99% [97.6%, 99.9%] Sales of agricultural harvesting products 51% [47.6%, 53.6%] 51% [47.8%, 54.5%] 47% [42.1%, 52.6%] 58% [53.0%, 62.7%] 76% [72.2%, 80.6%] 28% [23.6%, 32.7%] *** Sales of livestock / poultry or derived products 12% [10.4%, 14.2%] 12% [10.0%, 14.4%] 13% [9.6%, 16.3%] 8% [5.2%, 9.9%] 20% [16.0%, 24.0%] 9% [6.4%, 12.4%] *** Sales of fish 0% [0.1%, 0.7%] 0% [0.0%, 0.8%] 0% [-0.2%, 1.1%] 1% [0.1%, 2.4%] 0% [-0.2%, 0.9%] 0% [0.0%, 0.0%] ** Sales of bush products 1% [0.1%, 1.0%] 1% [0.1%, 1.1%] 0% [-0.3%, 0.8%] 0% [-0.2%, 0.5%] 1% [0.0%, 2.3%] 0% [-0.3%, 0.8%] MAXIMIZING OPPORTUNITIES IN COCOA ACTIVITY BASELINE EVALUATION REPORT CNFA.ORG Respondent income sources All MOCA Control sig Abengourou Daloa Soubré sig Farm employment 2% [1.2%, 3.0%] 2% [1.2%, 3.4%] 1% [0.0%, 1.7%] ** 0% [0.0%, 0.0%] 3% [1.0%, 4.2%] 3% [1.1%, 4.6%] *** Non farm employment 2% [1.3%, 3.0%] 2% [1.2%, 3.2%] 2% [0.5%, 3.1%] 1% [0.4%, 2.5%] 2% [0.6%, 3.2%] 3% [1.0%, 4.4%] Owner of small business 9% [7.7%, 11.0%] 9% [7.3%, 11.0%] 10% [7.4%, 13.6%] 14% [11.1%, 17.8%] 8% [4.9%, 10.2%] 8% [5.1%, 10.5%] *** Formal employment in a company 1% [0.4%, 1.5%] 1% [0.3%, 1.6%] 1% [-0.2%, 1.8%] 1% [-0.1%, 1.7%] 1% [0.1%, 2.0%] 1% [-0.0%, 1.9%] Formal employment as civil servant 0% [0.1%, 0.8%] 0% [0.0%, 0.7%] 1% [-0.3%, 1.6%] 1% [0.0%, 2.0%] 0% [-0.3%, 0.9%] 0% [-0.1%, 0.5%] Sale or lease of owned land 0% [-0.0%, 0.4%] 0% [-0.1%, 0.3%] 1% [-0.3%, 1.5%] 0% [0.0%, 0.0%] 0% [-0.2%, 0.9%] 0% [-0.1%, 0.4%] Remittances from friends/family members living outside the household 2% [1.4%, 3.2%] 3% [1.5%, 3.7%] 1% [-0.2%, 1.8%] ** 1% [-0.2%, 1.3%] 5% [2.5%, 6.8%] 2% [0.3%, 3.0%] *** Other 2% [1.2%, 3.0%] 2% [1.2%, 3.1%] 2% [0.5%, 3.0%] 3% [1.2%, 4.4%] 2% [0.4%, 2.9%] 2% [0.5%, 3.5%] n 1300 924 376 428 447 425 Note: significance from a composite Wald statistical test. ***, **, * indicate significance levels of 1%, 5% and 10% respectively Original question: S1.Q20. L’an dernier (2017), quelles ont été toutes vos sources de revenu? Avez-vous VOUS-MÊME personnellement perçu un revenu provenant de… MAXIMIZING OPPORTUNITIES IN COCOA ACTIVITY BASELINE EVALUATION REPORT CNFA.ORG 4. LAND Table 42: Number of years growing cocoa Number of years growing cocoa All MOCA Control sig Abengourou Daloa Soubré sig 1 to 5 years 3% 3% 4% 2% 4% 2% *** 6 to 10 years 12% 13% 10% 12% 18% 9% 11 to 15 years 14% 15% 12% 16% 20% 9% 16 to 20 years 17% 17% 15% 19% 25% 10% 20 to 24 years 10% 10% 12% 14% 11% 8% Over 25 years 44% 43% 48% 37% 22% 63% n 1300 924 376 428 447 425 Note: significance from a Rao-Scott second-order corrected Chi-squared statistical test. ***, **, * indicate significance levels of 1%, 5% and 10% respectively Original question: S2.Q1. Depuis combien d’années votre ménage cultive-t-il le cacao ? Table 43: Total land used for cultivation known (2017-2018) Total land used for cultivation known (2017-2018) All MOCA Control sig Abengourou Daloa Soubré sig mean [Confidence Interval] 99% [98.5%, 99.7%] 99% [98.5%, 99.8%] 99% [97.7%, 100.0%] 99% [97.8%, 99.9%] 100% [99.0%, 100.2%] 99% [97.8%, 99.9%] n 1300 924 376 428 447 425 Note: significance from a composite Wald statistical test. ***, **, * indicate significance levels of 1%, 5% and 10% respectively Original question: S2.Q3. Savez-vous combien de votre ménage a-t-il consacrés à TOUTES les cultures au cours de la campagne 2017-2018 ? MAXIMIZING OPPORTUNITIES IN COCOA ACTIVITY BASELINE EVALUATION REPORT CNFA.ORG Figure 28: Total land cultivated all crops (2017-2018) (ha) (conditional on total land known by respondent) Figure 29: Total number of land parcels (2017-2018) (conditional on total land known by respondent) Table 44: Land cultivated, owned, leased, sharecropped, parcels (2017-2018) (conditional on total land known by respondent) All land All MOCA Control sig Abengourou Daloa Soubré sig Total land cultivated all crops (2017-2018) (ha) 6.3 [6.03, 6.57] 6.4 [6.05, 6.66] 6 [5.52, 6.41] 6.3 [5.85, 6.69] 5.8 [5.42, 6.24] 6.7 [6.17, 7.14] ** Total land owned (2017-2018) (ha) 6.7 [6.32, 7.11] 6.7 [6.29, 7.18] 6.6 [5.9, 7.36] 7 [6.3, 7.69] 6.1 [5.51, 6.61] 7 [6.33, 7.74] ** Total land leased (2017-2018) (ha) 0.2 [0.17, 0.26] 0.2 [0.15, 0.25] 0.3 [0.17, 0.38] 0.1 [0.05, 0.16] 0.3 [0.22, 0.4] 0.2 [0.13, 0.28] *** Total land sharecropping (2017- 2018) (ha) 0.2 [0.1, 0.3] 0.2 [0.09, 0.33] 0.2 [0.07, 0.25] 0.2 [0.09, 0.39] 0.2 [0.1, 0.26] 0.2 [0, 0.41] Total number of land parcels (2017-2018) 2 [1.92, 2.07] 2 [1.91, 2.08] 2 [1.86, 2.14] 2.2 [2.09, 2.36] 2.1 [1.9, 2.21] 1.8 [1.72, 1.93] *** n 1251 891 360 410 433 408 Note: significance from a composite Wald statistical test. ***, **, * indicate significance levels of 1%, 5% and 10% respectively Original questions: S2.Q4. Combien de ${land_unit_all} votre ménage a-t-il consacrés À TOUTES VOS CULTURES au cours de la campagne 2017-2018?, S2.Q5. Combien de ${land_unit_all} votre ménage POSSÉDAIT-il au cours de la campagne 2017-2018 ? (Terres que le ménage estime « siennes »), S2.Q6. Combien de ${land_unit_all} votre ménage LOUAIT-il (=vous payez pour utiliser la terre) au cours de la campagne 2017-2018 ?, S2.Q7. Combien de ${land_unit_all} votre ménage a-t-il utilisé sous MÉTAYAGE au cours de la campagne 2017-2018 ?, S2.Q8. Combien de parcelles séparées votre ménage cultivait-il au cours de la campagne 2017-2018 ? Table 45: Owned unexploited land (2017-2018) (conditional on total land known by respondent) Owned unexploited land (2017- 2018) All MOCA Control sig Abengourou Daloa Soubré sig mean [Confidence Interval] 29% [26.2%, 31.7%] 30% [27.1%, 33.3%] 22% [17.4%, 26.0%] *** 24% [20.2%, 28.7%] 29% [24.2%, 33.3%] 32% [26.9%, 36.3%] * n 1288 916 372 423 445 420 Note: significance from a composite Wald statistical test. ***, **, * indicate significance levels of 1%, 5% and 10% respectively Original question: S2.Q9. Possedez-vous actuellement des terres non encore exploitées? Table 46: Total land fallow, forest, shallow (2017-2018) (ha) (conditional on owned unexploited land) MAXIMIZING OPPORTUNITIES IN COCOA ACTIVITY BASELINE EVALUATION REPORT CNFA.ORG Unexploited land All MOCA Control sig Abengourou Daloa Soubré sig Total land fallow (2017-2018) (ha) 2.3 [1.7, 2.89] 2.3 [1.6, 2.91] 2.6 [1.77, 3.4] 4.6 [2.06, 7.22] 2.1 [1.61, 2.52] 1.5 [1.04, 1.87] ** Total land forest (2017-2018) (ha) 0.3 [0.18, 0.37] 0.3 [0.18, 0.38] 0.3 [0.11, 0.42] 0.4 [0.19, 0.62] 0.4 [0.2, 0.51] 0.2 [0.04, 0.3] * Total land shallow (2017-2018) (ha) 1 [0.71, 1.29] 1 [0.68, 1.31] 1.1 [0.52, 1.58] 2 [1.16, 2.79] 1.3 [0.57, 1.94] 0.4 [0.25, 0.6] *** n 351 267 84 104 123 124 Note: significance from a composite Wald statistical test. ***, **, * indicate significance levels of 1%, 5% and 10% respectively Original question: S2.Q10. Combien de ${land_unit_all} non exploités votre ménage a-t-il actuellement sous forme de jachère ?, S2.Q11. Combien de ${land_unit_all} non exploités votre ménage a-t-il actuellement sous forme de foret ?, S2.Q12. Combien de ${land_unit_all} non exploités votre ménage a-t-il actuellement sous forme de bas-fond ? MAXIMIZING OPPORTUNITIES IN COCOA ACTIVITY BASELINE EVALUATION REPORT CNFA.ORG 5. COCOA PRODUCTION Table 47: Total land used for cocoa known Total land used for cocoa known All MOCA Control sig Abengourou Daloa Soubré sig mean [Confidence Interval] 99% [98.3%, 99.5%] 99% [98.3%, 99.6%] 99% [97.3%, 99.9%] 98% [96.8%, 99.5%] 99% [98.5%, 100.2%] 99% [98.0%, 99.9%] n 1300 924 376 428 447 425 Note: significance from a composite Wald statistical test. ***, **, * indicate significance levels of 1%, 5% and 10% respectively Original question: S2.Q13. Savez-vous combien de votre ménage a-t-il consacrés à la culture du CACAO au cours de la campagne 2017-2018 ? Table 48: Land with cocoa measured (2017-2018) Land cocoa measured (2017- 2018) All MOCA Control sig Abengourou Daloa Soubré sig mean [Confidence Interval] 79% [76.8%, 81.5%] 80% [77.3%, 82.6%] 74% [70.0%, 79.0%] ** 79% [74.4%, 82.7%] 73% [68.2%, 76.8%] 84% [80.6%, 87.9%] *** n 1283 912 371 420 443 420 Note: significance from a composite Wald statistical test. ***, **, * indicate significance levels of 1%, 5% and 10% respectively Original question: S2.Q17. La superficie totale de votre plantation de cacao a-t-elle deja mesurée a l'aide d'un GPS? Figure 30: Total land cocoa used (2017-2018) (ha) Table 49: Total land cocoa used, parcels and owned (2017-2018) (ha) (conditional on total land used for cocoa known) Land cocoa All MOCA Control sig Abengourou Daloa Soubré sig Total land cocoa (2017-2018) (ha) 4.3 [4.12, 4.48] 4.3 [4.13, 4.54] 4.1 [3.79, 4.4] 4.6 [4.27, 4.87] 3.4 [3.16, 3.61] 4.8 [4.49, 5.17] *** Total number of land parcels cocoa (2017-2018) 1.4 [1.33, 1.41] 1.4 [1.33, 1.42] 1.3 [1.25, 1.38] 1.6 [1.51, 1.67] 1.4 [1.28, 1.42] 1.2 [1.19, 1.31] *** Total land owned cocoa (2017- 2018) (ha) 4.2 [4.02, 4.38] 4.2 [4.03, 4.44] 4 [3.73, 4.33] 4.5 [4.18, 4.77] 3.3 [3.11, 3.56] 4.7 [4.38, 5.05] *** n 1249 887 362 406 441 402 Note: significance from a composite Wald statistical test. ***, **, * indicate significance levels of 1%, 5% and 10% respectively Original question: S2.Q14. Combien de ${land_unit} votre ménage a-t-il UTILISÉS pour le cacao au cours de la campagne 2017-2018 ?, S2.Q15. Combien de parcelles votre ménage utilisait-il pour la culture du cacao au cours de la campagne 2017-2018 ?, S2.Q16. Parmi les terres que vous avez utilisées pour le cacao, de combien de ${land_unit} de cacao votre ménage était-il PROPRIÉTAIRE au cours de la campagne 2017-2018 ? MAXIMIZING OPPORTUNITIES IN COCOA ACTIVITY BASELINE EVALUATION REPORT CNFA.ORG Table 50: Land cocoa ownership (2017-2018) Land cocoa ownership (2017- 2018) All MOCA Control sig Abengourou Daloa Soubré sig Individual ownership 82% 82% 79% 84% 86% 77% *** Family ownership 18% 18% 21% 16% 14% 23% n 1263 895 368 411 444 408 Note: significance from a Rao-Scott second-order corrected Chi-squared statistical test. ***, **, * indicate significance levels of 1%, 5% and 10% respectively Original question: S2.Q18. Ces terres dont vous etes propriétaire sont-elles en propriété individuelle ou familiale? Table 51: Land cocoa acquisition (2017-2018) (multiple choices possible) Land cocoa acquisition (2017- 2018) All MOCA Control sig Abengourou Daloa Soubré sig Cleared by respondent 23% [20.2%, 25.6%] 24% [20.6%, 26.6%] 19% [14.3%, 23.5%] * 15% [11.4%, 19.0%] 3% [1.5%, 5.1%] 42% [36.6%, 46.7%] *** Inherited 50% [47.1%, 53.1%] 50% [46.5%, 53.3%] 52% [46.2%, 56.9%] 65% [60.4%, 69.9%] 42% [37.4%, 47.2%] 48% [42.6%, 52.8%] *** Given 10% [7.9%, 11.2%] 9% [6.9%, 10.5%] 14% [10.7%, 18.0%] *** 17% [13.5%, 20.8%] 9% [6.4%, 12.3%] 5% [3.2%, 7.8%] *** Bought 26% [23.4%, 28.6%] 25% [22.5%, 28.4%] 29% [24.2%, 33.8%] 13% [9.8%, 16.4%] 46% [41.4%, 51.4%] 18% [14.0%, 21.7%] *** Obtained through sharecropping 3% [1.7%, 3.5%] 3% [1.7%, 3.7%] 2% [0.7%, 3.9%] 5% [2.5%, 6.8%] 4% [1.7%, 5.4%] 1% [-0.0%, 1.7%] *** Other 1% [0.1%, 1.1%] 1% [0.1%, 1.3%] 0% [-0.4%, 1.2%] 0% [-0.3%, 0.9%] 0% [-0.2%, 0.8%] 1% [-0.0%, 2.2%] n 1263 895 368 411 444 408 Note: significance from a composite Wald statistical test. ***, **, * indicate significance levels of 1%, 5% and 10% respectively Original question: S2.Q19. Comment avez-vous acquis les terres utilisées pour la culture du cacao dont vous etes propriétaire? Table 52: Total land cocoa leased (2017-2018) (ha) (conditional on leasing land for cocoa) Total land cocoa leased (2017- 2018) (ha) All MOCA Control sig Abengourou Daloa Soubré sig mean [Confidence Interval] 0.3 [0.03, 0.49] 0.2 [-0.03, 0.49] 0.4 [-0.09, 0.89] 0.6 [-0.24, 1.38] 0.2 [-0.16, 0.57] 0.2 [-0.07, 0.56] median 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 n 171 106 65 26 87 58 Note: significance from a composite Wald statistical test. ***, **, * indicate significance levels of 1%, 5% and 10% respectively Original question: S2.Q20. Combien de votre ménage LOUAIT-il (=vous payez pour utiliser la terre) pour le cacao au cours de la campagne 2017-2018 ? Table 53: Total land cocoa sharecropping (2017-2018) (ha) conditional on sharecropping land for cocoa) Total land cocoa sharecropping (2017-2018) (ha) All MOCA Control sig Abengourou Daloa Soubré sig mean [Confidence Interval] 2 [0.97, 2.97] 2.2 [0.97, 3.36] 1 [0.3, 1.77] 3.8 [1.57, 5.94] 1 [0.45, 1.54] 2 [-0.62, 4.66] * median 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.5 0.0 0.0 n 70 47 23 21 34 15 Note: significance from a composite Wald statistical test. ***, **, * indicate significance levels of 1%, 5% and 10% respectively Original question: S2.Q21. Combien de votre ménage a-t-il utilisé en MÉTAYAGE pour le cacao au cours de la campagne 2017-2018 ? Table 54: Number of cocoa trees known Number of cocoa trees known All MOCA Control sig Abengourou Daloa Soubré sig mean [Confidence Interval] 8% [6.5%, 10.0%] 9% [7.1%, 11.1%] 3% [1.3%, 5.2%] *** 1% [0.1%, 2.4%] 7% [4.0%, 9.1%] 13% [9.8%, 16.7%] *** n 1297 921 376 428 446 423 Note: significance from a composite Wald statistical test. ***, **, * indicate significance levels of 1%, 5% and 10% respectively Original question: S2.Q22. Savez-vous approximativement combien de cacaoyers (pieds de cacao) votre ménage possède-t-il? Table 55: Number of cocoa trees (total per hh) (conditional on number of cocoa trees known) MAXIMIZING OPPORTUNITIES IN COCOA ACTIVITY BASELINE EVALUATION REPORT CNFA.ORG Number of cocoa trees All MOCA Control sig Abengourou Daloa Soubré sig mean [Confidence Interval] 5272.9 [4159.21, 6386.52] 5248.3 [4083.09, 6413.52] 5644.8 [2202.82, 9086.83] 3053.6 [1099.21, 5007.95] 3380.2 [2586.81, 4173.59] 6133.5 [4609.71, 7657.24] *** median 3863.9 3765.2 4254.2 1999.4 2672.7 3900.0 n 78 67 11 5 26 47 Note: significance from a composite Wald statistical test. ***, **, * indicate significance levels of 1%, 5% and 10% respectively Original question: S2.Q23. Combien de cacaoyers votre ménage cultive-t-il ? Table 56: Average age cocoa trees (years) Average age cocoa trees (years) All MOCA Control sig Abengourou Daloa Soubré sig mean [Confidence Interval] 23.4 [22.71, 24.1] 23.2 [22.38, 23.96] 24.7 [23.54, 25.96] ** 19.6 [18.67, 20.62] 17.4 [16.45, 18.31] 29.4 [28.42, 30.45] *** median 22.0 21.3 25.0 19.0 16.0 30.0 n 1138 806 332 366 382 390 Note: significance from a composite Wald statistical test. ***, **, * indicate significance levels of 1%, 5% and 10% respectively Original question: S2.Q24. Quel est l’âge de la plupart de vos cacaoyers ? En année(s) Table 57: Total land cocoa per age category (ha) (conditional on number of cocoa trees known by respondent) Categories All MOCA Control sig Abengourou Daloa Soubré sig Total land cocoa trees aged < 5 years (ha) 0.5 [0.43, 0.56] 0.5 [0.44, 0.58] 0.4 [0.34, 0.5] 0.7 [0.56, 0.86] 0.4 [0.31, 0.47] 0.5 [0.36, 0.56] *** Total land cocoa trees aged between 5-25 years (ha) 2.5 [2.23, 2.73] 2.6 [2.27, 2.85] 2 [1.73, 2.27] *** 3.3 [2.9, 3.77] 2.6 [2.36, 2.79] 1.9 [1.46, 2.42] *** Total land cocoa trees aged > 25 years (ha) 2 [1.81, 2.26] 1.9 [1.7, 2.18] 2.6 [1.99, 3.23] ** 1.5 [1.11, 1.81] 0.6 [0.43, 0.82] 3.4 [2.95, 3.78] *** n 1283 912 371 420 443 420 Note: significance from a composite Wald statistical test. ***, **, * indicate significance levels of 1%, 5% and 10% respectively Original question: Vous avez dit plus tôt que votre ménage possédait ${cocoa_land_used} ${land_unit} de cacao. De cette superficie, combien de ${land_unit} de cacao ont… Table 58: Current total land cocoa compared to 5 years ago Total land cocoa compared to 5 years ago All MOCA Control sig Abengourou Daloa Soubré sig Increased 16% 14% 22% ** 21% 13% 15% *** Decreased 8% 8% 11% 4% 12% 8% No change 76% 77% 67% 75% 75% 76% Did not grow 5 years ago 1% 1% 0% 0% 0% 1% Do not know 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% n 1249 876 373 425 445 379 Note: significance from a Rao-Scott second-order corrected Chi-squared statistical test. ***, **, * indicate significance levels of 1%, 5% and 10% respectively Original question: S2.Q28. La superficie des terres consacrées au cacao par votre ménage a-t-elle augmenté ou diminué ou est-elle restée la même par rapport à il y a 5 ans ? Table 59: How additional cocoa land was acquired (multiple choices possible) (conditional on total land cocoa ) How additional cocoa land was acquired All MOCA Control sig Abengourou Daloa Soubré sig Bush cleared 39% [31.9%, 45.9%] 41% [32.5%, 49.5%] 31% [21.1%, 41.6%] 55% [44.2%, 65.0%] 61% [46.8%, 74.2%] 10% [2.0%, 17.0%] *** Cleared forest 15% [10.2%, 20.5%] 11% [5.8%, 17.0%] 29% [18.5%, 40.3%] *** 8% [2.6%, 14.3%] 18% [6.6%, 28.7%] 20% [10.5%, 29.3%] * Exploitation or reconverted pasture ground 16% [11.1%, 21.1%] 11% [5.9%, 17.0%] 33% [22.3%, 43.0%] *** 22% [14.2%, 30.3%] 8% [0.6%, 15.9%] 16% [6.9%, 25.4%] ** Purchased land 18% [11.2%, 23.9%] 22% [13.8%, 29.6%] 3% [-1.1%, 6.2%] *** 1% [-1.3%, 4.1%] 10% [1.2%, 18.1%] 38% [24.3%, 50.8%] *** Inherited 11% [5.8%, 15.4%] 13% [6.6%, 18.6%] 3% [-1.2%, 7.8%] ** 12% [4.7%, 19.4%] 0% [0.0%, 0.0%] 17% [6.4%, 26.9%] *** Rented 1% [-0.3%, 1.4%] 0% [-0.5%, 1.4%] 1% [-0.9%, 2.7%] 1% [-1.0%, 3.2%] 1% [-0.7%, 2.2%] 0% [0.0%, 0.0%] Sharecropping 3% [0.6%, 5.4%] 4% [0.8%, 6.9%] 0% [0.0%, 0.0%] ** 4% [-0.4%, 8.5%] 6% [-0.6%, 12.7%] 0% [0.0%, 0.0%] ** MAXIMIZING OPPORTUNITIES IN COCOA ACTIVITY BASELINE EVALUATION REPORT CNFA.ORG How additional cocoa land was acquired All MOCA Control sig Abengourou Daloa Soubré sig Other 4% [1.2%, 6.2%] 3% [0.3%, 6.2%] 5% [0.7%, 9.8%] 5% [0.6%, 9.4%] 4% [-0.4%, 8.9%] 2% [-2.0%, 6.2%] n 215 133 82 96 56 63 Note: significance from a composite Wald statistical test. ***, **, * indicate significance levels of 1%, 5% and 10% respectively Original question: S2.Q29. Comment votre ménage a-t-il augmenté la superficie des terres consacrées au cacao ? Table 60: Reason for decreased land cocoa (multiple choices possible) (conditional on total land cocoa ) Reason for decreased land cocoa All MOCA Control sig Abengourou Daloa Soubré sig Deforested for other crops 22% [13.6%, 31.3%] 26% [14.8%, 36.3%] 10% [1.5%, 18.8%] ** 10% [-4.1%, 23.6%] 33% [19.8%, 46.7%] 12% [-0.7%, 25.7%] ** Deforested and left fallow 12% [5.1%, 18.0%] 14% [5.9%, 21.9%] 2% [-1.8%, 5.4%] *** 54% [29.9%, 78.0%] 7% [-0.7%, 14.4%] 4% [-3.8%, 12.2%] *** Land sold 1% [-0.8%, 3.6%] 1% [-1.3%, 3.9%] 2% [-1.8%, 5.7%] 0% [0.0%, 0.0%] 3% [-1.5%, 7.3%] 0% [0.0%, 0.0%] Other 66% [55.8%, 75.7%] 61% [48.6%, 72.8%] 86% [76.1%, 96.0%] *** 36% [13.8%, 58.8%] 59% [45.4%, 73.4%] 83% [68.5%, 98.2%] *** n 104 65 39 18 56 30 Note: significance from a composite Wald statistical test. ***, **, * indicate significance levels of 1%, 5% and 10% respectively Original question: S2.Q30. Comment votre ménage a-t-il diminué la superficie des terres consacrées au cacao ? Table 61: Cocoa varieties (multiple choices possible) Cocoa varieties All MOCA Control sig Abengourou Daloa Soubré sig Amazonia (Ghana) 61% [57.7%, 63.4%] 59% [56.2%, 62.7%] 67% [62.0%, 71.8%] ** 40% [35.7%, 45.3%] 60% [55.0%, 64.8%] 72% [67.6%, 76.6%] *** Hybrid (Mercedes) 26% [23.6%, 28.8%] 26% [23.0%, 28.8%] 28% [23.3%, 32.6%] 31% [26.7%, 35.8%] 31% [26.8%, 36.1%] 20% [15.7%, 23.7%] *** French 26% [23.3%, 28.6%] 26% [22.8%, 28.8%] 27% [22.4%, 31.7%] 25% [20.5%, 28.8%] 23% [19.0%, 27.4%] 29% [24.1%, 33.2%] Unselected variety 46% [43.5%, 49.4%] 49% [45.4%, 52.1%] 33% [28.2%, 38.1%] *** 54% [49.5%, 59.2%] 43% [37.9%, 47.7%] 45% [39.7%, 49.7%] *** Other 1% [0.7%, 2.2%] 2% [0.8%, 2.5%] 0% [-0.4%, 1.2%] ** 1% [0.2%, 2.7%] 2% [0.3%, 3.0%] 1% [0.1%, 2.6%] Do not know 2% [1.1%, 2.5%] 2% [0.9%, 2.4%] 3% [1.0%, 4.4%] 3% [1.4%, 5.0%] 2% [0.7%, 3.3%] 1% [0.1%, 1.5%] ** n 1300 924 376 428 447 425 Note: significance from a composite Wald statistical test. ***, **, * indicate significance levels of 1%, 5% and 10% respectively Original question: S2.Q31. Quelles variétés de cacao cultivez-vous dans votre plantation? Table 62: Cocoa variety used most (largest cultivated area) Cocoa variety used most (largest cultivation area) All MOCA Control sig Abengourou Daloa Soubré sig Amazonia (Ghana) 50% 49% 57% ** 32% 50% 59% *** Hybrid (Mercedes) 8% 7% 9% 12% 8% 5% French 9% 9% 10% 15% 6% 9% Unselected variety 32% 34% 23% 41% 35% 26% Other 1% 1% 0% 1% 1% 1% Do not know 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% n 1257 893 364 404 436 417 Note: significance from a Rao-Scott second-order corrected Chi-squared statistical test. ***, **, * indicate significance levels of 1%, 5% and 10% respectively Original question: S2.Q32. Quelle variétés de cacao cultivez-vous majoritairement (sur la plus grande superficie) dans votre plantation? Table 63: Cocoa trees in rows Cocoa trees in rows All MOCA Control sig Abengourou Daloa Soubré sig mean [Confidence Interval] 6% [4.5%, 7.2%] 6% [4.2%, 7.2%] 7% [4.4%, 9.4%] 5% [2.6%, 6.7%] 10% [6.8%, 12.6%] 4% [1.9%, 5.7%] *** n 1299 923 376 427 447 425 MAXIMIZING OPPORTUNITIES IN COCOA ACTIVITY BASELINE EVALUATION REPORT CNFA.ORG Cocoa trees in rows All MOCA Control sig Abengourou Daloa Soubré sig Note: significance from a composite Wald statistical test. ***, **, * indicate significance levels of 1%, 5% and 10% respectively Original question: S2.Q33. Les cacaoyers de votre ménage sont-ils plantés par rangée ? Table 64: Average distance between cocoa trees known (conditional on cocoa trees in rows) Average distance between cocoa trees known All MOCA Control sig Abengourou Daloa Soubré sig mean [Confidence Interval] 70% [58.7%, 80.7%] 68% [55.3%, 81.0%] 77% [61.7%, 92.7%] 76% [55.0%, 96.1%] 65% [50.3%, 80.2%] 74% [51.0%, 96.9%] n 84 54 30 20 48 16 Note: significance from a composite Wald statistical test. ***, **, * indicate significance levels of 1%, 5% and 10% respectively Original question: S2.Q34. Connaissez-vous la distance moyenne entre les cacaoyers sur l’exploitation de votre ménage ? Table 65: Average distance between cocoa trees (mtrs) (conditional on distance between cocoa trees known) Average distance between cocoa trees (mtrs) All MOCA Control sig Abengourou Daloa Soubré sig mean [Confidence Interval] 2.9 [2.6, 3.21] 2.9 [2.53, 3.27] 3 [2.6, 3.3] 2.8 [2.45, 3.18] 3.1 [2.49, 3.61] 2.7 [2.43, 3.06] median 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.9 2.5 2.6 n 60 37 23 16 32 12 Note: significance from a composite Wald statistical test. ***, **, * indicate significance levels of 1%, 5% and 10% respectively Original question: S2.Q35. Quelle est la distance moyenne entre les cacaoyers de votre ménage ? Table 66: Average distance between cocoa rows (mtrs) (conditional on distance between cocoa trees known) Average distance between cocoa rows (mtrs) All MOCA Control sig Abengourou Daloa Soubré sig mean [Confidence Interval] 2.9 [2.68, 3.05] 2.8 [2.59, 3.03] 3.1 [2.81, 3.37] 3 [2.58, 3.46] 2.7 [2.51, 2.98] 3 [2.61, 3.32] median 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 n 59 36 23 16 32 11 Note: significance from a composite Wald statistical test. ***, **, * indicate significance levels of 1%, 5% and 10% respectively Original question: S2.Q36. Quelle est la distance moyenne entre les rangées ? Table 67: Intercropping of cocoa Intercropping of cocoa All MOCA Control sig Abengourou Daloa Soubré sig mean [Confidence Interval] 78% [75.4%, 80.3%] 79% [76.0%, 81.4%] 73% [68.2%, 77.9%] ** 71% [66.5%, 75.4%] 86% [82.2%, 89.2%] 76% [71.9%, 80.3%] *** n 1300 924 376 428 447 425 Note: significance from a composite Wald statistical test. ***, **, * indicate significance levels of 1%, 5% and 10% respectively Original question: S2.Q37. Votre ménage associe-t-il la culture du cacao à une autre culture ? Table 68: Intercropping of cocoa < 5 years (conditional on the practice of intercropping) Intercropping of cocoa < 5 years All MOCA Control sig Abengourou Daloa Soubré sig mean [Confidence Interval] 91% [87.9%, 93.8%] 91% [87.9%, 94.5%] 88% [82.7%, 93.9%] 94% [90.1%, 97.0%] 90% [84.3%, 95.2%] 90% [84.0%, 95.2%] n 453 322 131 191 140 122 Note: significance from a composite Wald statistical test. ***, **, * indicate significance levels of 1%, 5% and 10% respectively Original question: S2.Q38. Associez-vous d’autres cultures à des cacaoyers de 5 ans ou moins ? Table 69: Intercropping of cocoa < 5 years: crop cultivated (conditional on the practice of intercropping) Intercropping of cocoa < 5 years: crop cultivated All MOCA Control sig Abengourou Daloa Soubré sig Avocado 4% 5% 0% ** 0% 3% 9% *** Akpi 0% 0% 1% 0% 0% 0% Pineapple 0% 0% 0% 0% 1% 0% Peanuts 0% 0% 2% 0% 0% 0% Eggplant 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 1% MAXIMIZING OPPORTUNITIES IN COCOA ACTIVITY BASELINE EVALUATION REPORT CNFA.ORG Intercropping of cocoa < 5 years: crop cultivated All MOCA Control sig Abengourou Daloa Soubré sig Sweet banana 1% 1% 1% 1% 0% 1% Plantain 62% 60% 79% 86% 53% 50% Coffee 3% 3% 2% 1% 7% 1% Lemon 1% 1% 0% 0% 0% 3% Lime 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% Ginger 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% Okra 0% 0% 0% 0% 1% 0% Yam 6% 7% 2% 6% 8% 5% Legumes and beans 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% Mais 1% 2% 0% 0% 1% 3% Mango 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 1% Cassava 9% 9% 11% 4% 12% 11% Orange 5% 6% 0% 0% 0% 13% Papaya 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% Chilli pepper 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% Tomato 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% Other 5% 5% 1% 2% 13% 0% n 411 296 115 176 126 109 Note: significance from a Rao-Scott second-order corrected Chi-squared statistical test. ***, **, * indicate significance levels of 1%, 5% and 10% respectively Original question: S2.Q39. Quelle autre culture associez-vous à vos cacaoyers de 5 ans ou moins ? Table 70: Intercropping of cocoa 5-25 years (conditional on the practice of intercropping) Intercropping of cocoa 5-25 years All MOCA Control sig Abengourou Daloa Soubré sig mean [Confidence Interval] 85% [82.7%, 88.0%] 86% [83.0%, 88.8%] 81% [76.2%, 86.7%] 72% [66.1%, 77.3%] 93% [89.8%, 95.8%] 86% [81.3%, 91.6%] *** n 786 572 214 260 338 188 Note: significance from a composite Wald statistical test. ***, **, * indicate significance levels of 1%, 5% and 10% respectively Original question: S2.Q40. Associez-vous d’autres cultures à des cacaoyers de 5 à 25 ans ? Table 71: Intercropping of cocoa 5-25 years: crop cultivated (conditional on the practice of intercropping) Intercropping of cocoa 5-25 years: crop cultivated All MOCA Control sig Abengourou Daloa Soubré sig Avocado 7% 7% 4% 3% 3% 13% *** Akpi 2% 2% 1% 0% 0% 5% Sweet banana 2% 2% 0% 7% 0% 1% Plantain 46% 45% 52% 48% 59% 28% Coffee 10% 11% 9% 10% 18% 0% Lemon 1% 2% 0% 0% 0% 4% Lime 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% Okra 0% 0% 0% 1% 0% 0% Mango 2% 2% 1% 0% 0% 5% Cassava 10% 9% 11% 10% 2% 18% Orange 9% 8% 11% 9% 3% 15% Papaya 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 1% MAXIMIZING OPPORTUNITIES IN COCOA ACTIVITY BASELINE EVALUATION REPORT CNFA.ORG Intercropping of cocoa 5-25 years: crop cultivated All MOCA Control sig Abengourou Daloa Soubré sig Kola 2% 2% 1% 1% 0% 5% Other 9% 9% 12% 10% 14% 4% n 658 487 171 178 316 164 Note: significance from a Rao-Scott second-order corrected Chi-squared statistical test. ***, **, * indicate significance levels of 1%, 5% and 10% respectively Original question: S2.Q41. Quelle autre culture associez-vous à vos cacaoyers de 5 à 25 ans ? Table 72: Intercropping of cocoa > 25 years (conditional on the practice of intercropping) Intercropping of cocoa > 25 years All MOCA Control sig Abengourou Daloa Soubré sig mean [Confidence Interval] 82% [78.1%, 85.7%] 83% [78.5%, 86.9%] 77% [69.4%, 84.4%] 54% [43.6%, 63.7%] 84% [75.5%, 92.9%] 87% [83.0%, 91.8%] *** n 427 302 125 106 81 240 Note: significance from a composite Wald statistical test. ***, **, * indicate significance levels of 1%, 5% and 10% respectively Original question: S2.Q42. Associez-vous d’autres cultures à des cacaoyers de 25 ans ou plus ? Table 73: Intercropping of cocoa > 25 years: crop cultivated (conditional on the practice of intercropping) Intercropping of cocoa > 25 years: crop cultivated All MOCA Control sig Abengourou Daloa Soubré sig Avocado 13% 13% 15% *** 2% 10% 16% *** Akpi 8% 9% 0% 9% 2% 9% Sweet banana 1% 1% 1% 10% 0% 0% Plantain 19% 17% 30% 24% 32% 15% Coffee 6% 5% 11% 11% 22% 2% Lemon 2% 3% 0% 0% 0% 3% Lime 0% 0% 1% 1% 0% 0% Okra 0% 0% 0% 2% 0% 0% Mango 6% 6% 1% 0% 2% 7% Cassava 14% 13% 20% 17% 5% 16% Orange 19% 21% 8% 5% 10% 23% Papaya 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% Kola 3% 4% 1% 0% 0% 5% Other 8% 8% 11% 19% 17% 5% n 335 242 93 56 69 210 Note: significance from a Rao-Scott second-order corrected Chi-squared statistical test. ***, **, * indicate significance levels of 1%, 5% and 10% respectively Original question: S2.Q43. Quelle autre culture associez-vous à vos cacaoyers de 25 ans ou plus? Table 74: Shade trees Shade trees All MOCA Control sig Abengourou Daloa Soubré sig mean [Confidence Interval] 80% [77.7%, 82.3%] 80% [77.9%, 83.0%] 77% [73.1%, 81.6%] 76% [71.3%, 79.9%] 73% [68.3%, 77.0%] 88% [84.5%, 90.9%] *** n 1300 924 376 428 447 425 Note: significance from a composite Wald statistical test. ***, **, * indicate significance levels of 1%, 5% and 10% respectively Original question: S2.Q44. Utilisez-vous des arbres d’ombrage dans votre plantation ? Table 75: Shade trees (type) (multiple choices possible) (conditional on presence of shade trees) Shade trees (type) All MOCA Control sig Abengourou Daloa Soubré sig Acacia 5% [3.7%, 6.8%] 6% [3.8%, 7.4%] 3% [1.1%, 5.4%] 1% [0.0%, 2.7%] 7% [3.8%, 9.7%] 6% [3.5%, 8.9%] *** MAXIMIZING OPPORTUNITIES IN COCOA ACTIVITY BASELINE EVALUATION REPORT CNFA.ORG Shade trees (type) All MOCA Control sig Abengourou Daloa Soubré sig Acacia mangium 7% [5.1%, 8.7%] 8% [5.5%, 9.7%] 3% [0.8%, 4.9%] *** 0% [0.0%, 0.0%] 8% [4.9%, 11.5%] 9% [6.2%, 12.6%] *** Assamela 2% [0.8%, 2.6%] 2% [0.6%, 2.7%] 2% [0.2%, 4.0%] 0% [-0.2%, 0.6%] 1% [-0.0%, 2.5%] 3% [1.0%, 4.5%] ** Iroko 33% [30.0%, 36.4%] 33% [29.1%, 36.2%] 36% [30.4%, 42.3%] 25% [20.0%, 29.7%] 27% [22.1%, 32.5%] 41% [35.4%, 45.9%] *** Bete wood 6% [4.6%, 7.7%] 6% [4.2%, 7.6%] 8% [4.6%, 11.4%] 6% [3.1%, 8.5%] 10% [6.6%, 13.5%] 4% [2.0%, 6.2%] ** Red wood 7% [5.2%, 8.4%] 7% [4.9%, 8.5%] 7% [3.9%, 10.4%] 11% [7.9%, 15.1%] 6% [3.0%, 8.4%] 5% [2.8%, 7.6%] ** Frake 37% [34.3%, 40.6%] 35% [31.5%, 38.6%] 52% [46.0%, 58.2%] *** 63% [57.8%, 68.7%] 32% [26.8%, 37.8%] 28% [23.6%, 33.1%] *** Framire 10% [7.6%, 11.5%] 10% [7.4%, 11.8%] 9% [5.7%, 12.6%] 13% [8.9%, 16.5%] 6% [3.6%, 9.3%] 10% [6.6%, 13.0%] ** Kapok tree 51% [47.5%, 54.2%] 50% [46.0%, 53.6%] 57% [51.2%, 63.1%] ** 27% [21.9%, 31.8%] 48% [42.0%, 53.7%] 64% [58.9%, 69.1%] *** Merinda 2% [1.2%, 3.1%] 2% [1.2%, 3.4%] 1% [-0.2%, 2.5%] 1% [0.0%, 2.5%] 5% [2.0%, 7.1%] 1% [-0.0%, 2.3%] * Samba 9% [6.6%, 10.5%] 9% [7.0%, 11.4%] 5% [2.4%, 7.0%] *** 7% [4.4%, 10.5%] 9% [5.8%, 12.6%] 9% [5.6%, 11.8%] Tiama 7% [5.5%, 8.4%] 7% [5.1%, 8.4%] 8% [5.2%, 11.1%] 24% [19.5%, 29.3%] 3% [0.8%, 4.6%] 1% [0.1%, 2.4%] *** Teak 5% [3.0%, 6.0%] 5% [3.1%, 6.5%] 3% [0.7%, 4.6%] 2% [0.6%, 3.7%] 3% [0.9%, 4.9%] 7% [3.8%, 9.3%] ** Do not know 10% [7.8%, 11.8%] 10% [8.1%, 12.7%] 6% [3.2%, 9.0%] ** 10% [6.6%, 13.7%] 10% [6.5%, 13.6%] 9% [6.3%, 12.7%] Other 22% [18.9%, 24.5%] 22% [18.4%, 24.6%] 23% [17.6%, 27.9%] 11% [7.4%, 14.3%] 33% [27.3%, 38.4%] 20% [15.9%, 24.5%] *** n 1011 728 283 328 314 369 Note: significance from a composite Wald statistical test. ***, **, * indicate significance levels of 1%, 5% and 10% respectively Original question: S2.Q45. Quels arbres d’ombrage utilisez-vous dans votre plantation ? Table 76: Cocoa production known (2017-2018) Cocoa production known (2017- 2018) All MOCA Control sig Abengourou Daloa Soubré sig mean [Confidence Interval] 82% [79.5%, 84.2%] 82% [79.1%, 84.5%] 82% [78.1%, 86.6%] 91% [88.8%, 94.2%] 84% [80.9%, 88.1%] 75% [70.4%, 79.1%] *** n 1300 924 376 428 447 425 Note: significance from a composite Wald statistical test. ***, **, * indicate significance levels of 1%, 5% and 10% respectively Original question: S2.Q48. Savez-vous combien de de cacao votre ménage a produits lors de la campagne 2017-2018 ? MAXIMIZING OPPORTUNITIES IN COCOA ACTIVITY BASELINE EVALUATION REPORT CNFA.ORG Figure 31: Produced cocoa high season per ha (2017-2018) (kg) (conditional on cocoa production known) Table 77: Produced cocoa high season per ha (2017-2018) (kg) (conditional on cocoa production known) Produced cocoa high season per ha (2017-2018) (kg) All MOCA Control sig Abengourou Daloa Soubré sig mean [Confidence Interval] 369.8 [352.96, 386.62] 377.6 [358.38, 396.79] 325.4 [299.63, 351.08] *** 360.2 [337.6, 382.77] 308.2 [284.43, 331.89] 428.5 [395.64, 461.3] *** median 307.8 320.0 265.1 310.9 250.0 369.6 n 1029 725 304 367 369 293 Note: significance from a composite Wald statistical test. ***, **, * indicate significance levels of 1%, 5% and 10% respectively MAXIMIZING OPPORTUNITIES IN COCOA ACTIVITY BASELINE EVALUATION REPORT CNFA.ORG Figure 32: Produced cocoa low season per ha (2017-2018) (kg) (conditional on cocoa production known) Table 78: Produced cocoa low season per ha (2017-2018) (kg) (conditional on cocoa production known) Produced cocoa low season per ha (2017-2018) (kg) All MOCA Control sig Abengourou Daloa Soubré sig mean [Confidence Interval] 128.4 [120.89, 135.94] 130.9 [122.27, 139.51] 114.5 [103.09, 125.98] ** 109.5 [101.16, 117.75] 97.8 [87.42, 108.27] 166.9 [152.01, 181.79] *** median 100.0 100.0 93.3 90.0 80.0 135.7 n 1019 715 304 368 360 291 Note: significance from a composite Wald statistical test. ***, **, * indicate significance levels of 1%, 5% and 10% respectively Figure 33: Annual cocoa production (2017-2018) (kg) (conditional on cocoa production known) MAXIMIZING OPPORTUNITIES IN COCOA ACTIVITY BASELINE EVALUATION REPORT CNFA.ORG Table 79: Annual cocoa production (2017-2018) (kg) (conditional on cocoa production known) Produced cocoa high and low season total (2017-2018) (kg) All MOCA Control sig Abengourou Daloa Soubré sig mean [Confidence Interval] 1553.5 [1469.98, 1637] 1583.7 [1489.02, 1678.31] 1383.8 [1236.02, 1531.64] ** 1586.1 [1459.53, 1712.65] 1167.9 [1050.16, 1285.59] 1852.2 [1695.75, 2008.72] *** median 1200.0 1204.0 1000.2 1205.0 800.0 1503.8 n 1046 735 311 371 372 303 Note: significance from a composite Wald statistical test. ***, **, * indicate significance levels of 1%, 5% and 10% respectively Figure 34: Annual cocoa production per ha (2017-2018) (kg) (conditional on cocoa production known) Table 80: Annual cocoa production per ha (2017-2018) (kg) (conditional on cocoa production known) Produced cocoa high and low season total per ha (2017-2018) (kg) All MOCA Control sig Abengourou Daloa Soubré sig mean [Confidence Interval] 405.7 [387.63, 423.67] 413.8 [393.19, 434.34] 359.5 [332, 386.97] *** 396.5 [371.89, 421.09] 362.7 [334.69, 390.74] 448.1 [413.72, 482.4] *** median 348.6 350.2 305.7 346.8 303.9 397.8 n 1027 723 304 366 368 293 Note: significance from a composite Wald statistical test. ***, **, * indicate significance levels of 1%, 5% and 10% respectively Table 81: Months when cocoa was sold (2017-2018) (multiple choices possible) (conditional on cocoa production known) Months when cocoa was sold (2017-2018) All MOCA Control sig Abengourou Daloa Soubré sig January 60% [56.4%, 62.7%] 60% [56.4%, 63.6%] 57% [51.1%, 62.6%] 54% [48.8%, 59.1%] 65% [59.3%, 69.7%] 59% [53.6%, 64.9%] ** February 35% [31.7%, 38.0%] 35% [31.3%, 38.3%] 35% [29.4%, 40.6%] 19% [14.6%, 22.8%] 40% [34.5%, 45.0%] 42% [36.0%, 47.4%] *** March 34% [31.2%, 37.4%] 33% [29.7%, 36.7%] 40% [34.7%, 46.2%] ** 31% [25.8%, 35.3%] 23% [18.1%, 27.2%] 46% [40.5%, 52.0%] *** April 42% [39.3%, 45.7%] 42% [37.9%, 45.1%] 48% [42.2%, 53.7%] * 62% [57.4%, 67.4%] 17% [12.9%, 21.1%] 50% [44.0%, 55.6%] *** May 38% [34.4%, 40.8%] 38% [34.5%, 41.7%] 35% [29.2%, 40.4%] 49% [44.0%, 54.3%] 9% [5.6%, 11.9%] 53% [47.4%, 58.9%] *** June 23% [20.4%, 26.2%] 23% [20.0%, 26.5%] 23% [18.3%, 28.6%] 14% [10.9%, 17.9%] 3% [1.2%, 5.1%] 46% [39.8%, 51.3%] *** MAXIMIZING OPPORTUNITIES IN COCOA ACTIVITY BASELINE EVALUATION REPORT CNFA.ORG Months when cocoa was sold (2017-2018) All MOCA Control sig Abengourou Daloa Soubré sig July 13% [10.4%, 15.1%] 12% [9.5%, 14.7%] 17% [12.1%, 21.4%] * 4% [1.8%, 5.3%] 0% [-0.3%, 1.0%] 29% [23.8%, 34.2%] *** August 11% [9.1%, 13.5%] 10% [7.8%, 12.7%] 17% [12.3%, 21.6%] ** 4% [2.0%, 5.7%] 1% [0.1%, 2.2%] 24% [19.5%, 29.4%] *** September 31% [28.1%, 34.2%] 30% [26.6%, 33.5%] 38% [32.2%, 43.6%] ** 24% [19.9%, 28.6%] 19% [14.8%, 23.3%] 46% [39.9%, 51.5%] *** October 85% [82.5%, 87.2%] 85% [82.4%, 87.7%] 84% [79.4%, 87.9%] 91% [88.5%, 94.4%] 77% [72.1%, 81.1%] 87% [83.1%, 91.0%] *** November 91% [88.8%, 92.8%] 91% [88.7%, 93.2%] 90% [86.4%, 93.6%] 98% [96.4%, 99.2%] 90% [87.2%, 93.6%] 86% [82.3%, 90.4%] *** December 89% [86.6%, 90.7%] 89% [86.8%, 91.5%] 86% [81.7%, 89.9%] 93% [90.5%, 95.8%] 86% [81.9%, 89.5%] 88% [84.3%, 91.7%] *** n 1086 769 317 391 379 316 Note: significance from a composite Wald statistical test. ***, **, * indicate significance levels of 1%, 5% and 10% respectively Original question: S2.Q51. Au cours de quels mois avez-vous vendu du cacao au cours de la campagne 2017-2018? Table 82: Quantity of cocoa production sold to cooperative high season (2017-2018) (kg) (conditional on cocoa production known) Amount of cocoa production sold to cooperative main season (2017-2018) (kg) All MOCA Control sig Abengourou Daloa Soubré sig mean [Confidence Interval] 235.8 [205.44, 266.26] 239.8 [204.98, 274.66] 212.9 [168.46, 257.42] 236.6 [188.26, 284.97] 381.9 [320.2, 443.67] 119.5 [77.34, 161.66] *** median 9.5 10.0 7.0 10.0 14.8 7.6 n 1043 738 305 370 364 309 Note: significance from a composite Wald statistical test. ***, **, * indicate significance levels of 1%, 5% and 10% respectively Original question: S2.Q52. Vous avez dit avoir produit de cacao au cours de la grande traite de la campagne 2017-2018. Sur cette quantité, combien de votre ménage a-t-il vendu à la coopérative dont vous êtes membre? Table 83: Other buyers high season (2017-2018) (multiple choices possible) (conditional on other cocoa buyers) Other buyers high season (2017- 2018) All MOCA Control sig Abengourou Daloa Soubré sig Other cooperative 8% [4.0%, 12.1%] 10% [4.6%, 14.9%] 2% [-0.7%, 4.1%] *** 16% [6.3%, 26.0%] 4% [-0.1%, 8.7%] 8% [-0.6%, 16.5%] * Traders / Private Buyer 92% [87.6%, 95.7%] 90% [84.7%, 94.9%] 98% [95.9%, 100.7%] *** 84% [74.0%, 93.7%] 93% [87.8%, 98.7%] 95% [87.2%, 101.9%] Exporter 1% [-0.6%, 1.7%] 1% [-0.7%, 2.2%] 0% [0.0%, 0.0%] 0% [0.0%, 0.0%] 1% [-1.2%, 3.8%] 0% [0.0%, 0.0%] Other chocolate company 0% [0.0%, 0.0%] 0% [0.0%, 0.0%] 0% [0.0%, 0.0%] NA 0% [0.0%, 0.0%] 0% [0.0%, 0.0%] 0% [0.0%, 0.0%] NA Other 1% [-0.4%, 2.3%] 1% [-0.5%, 2.9%] 0% [0.0%, 0.0%] 2% [-1.8%, 5.5%] 1% [-1.1%, 3.4%] 0% [0.0%, 0.0%] Do not know 0% [0.0%, 0.0%] 0% [0.0%, 0.0%] 0% [0.0%, 0.0%] NA 0% [0.0%, 0.0%] 0% [0.0%, 0.0%] 0% [0.0%, 0.0%] NA n 225 139 86 58 108 59 Note: significance from a composite Wald statistical test. ***, **, * indicate significance levels of 1%, 5% and 10% respectively Original question: S2.Q54. À qui d'autre avez-vous vendu du cacao pendant la grande traite de la campagne 2017-2018? Table 84: Mode of payment buyers (2017-2018) Mode of payment used by cocoa buyers (2017-2018) All MOCA Control sig Abengourou Daloa Soubré sig Payment of full amount in cash 66% 67% 58% ** 48% 83% 63% *** Down payment in cash 33% 31% 41% 51% 14% 36% Mobile money transfer 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% Bank transfer 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% Bank check 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% Other 1% 1% 0% 0% 2% 0% n 1300 924 376 428 447 425 Note: significance from a Rao-Scott second-order corrected Chi-squared statistical test. ***, **, * indicate significance levels of 1%, 5% and 10% respectively Original question: S6.Q42. Quel mode de paiement avez-vous utilisé principalement lors de la transaction avec vos acheteurs au cours de la campagne 2017-2018? MAXIMIZING OPPORTUNITIES IN COCOA ACTIVITY BASELINE EVALUATION REPORT CNFA.ORG Table 85: Cocoa kept by household in high season (2017-2018) (conditional on cocoa sold to cooperative) Cocoa retained main season (2017-2018) All MOCA Control sig Abengourou Daloa Soubré sig mean [Confidence Interval] 3% [0.5%, 6.1%] 3% [-0.4%, 6.1%] 5% [-0.5%, 10.4%] 0% [0.0%, 0.0%] 1% [-1.2%, 3.8%] 8% [0.7%, 15.9%] * n 226 140 86 58 108 60 Note: significance from a composite Wald statistical test. ***, **, * indicate significance levels of 1%, 5% and 10% respectively Original question: S2.Q54.1. Avez-vous gardé une partie de votre production de cacao de la grande traite? Table 86: Quantity of cocoa production sold to cooperative low season (2017-2018) (kg) (conditional on cocoa production known) Amount of cocoa production sold to cooperative light season (2017-2018) (kg) All MOCA Control sig Abengourou Daloa Soubré sig mean [Confidence Interval] 42.1 [35.18, 49.11] 42.3 [34.37, 50.27] 41.1 [29.98, 52.29] 68.8 [54.13, 83.45] 45.9 [33.35, 58.48] 21.4 [11.92, 30.81] *** median 2.0 2.0 1.0 3.0 0.0 2.0 n 1036 730 306 369 363 304 Note: significance from a composite Wald statistical test. ***, **, * indicate significance levels of 1%, 5% and 10% respectively Original question: S2.Q55. Au cours de la petite traite de la campagne 2017-2018, vous avez produit de cacao. Sur cette quantité, combien de votre ménage a-t-il vendu à la coopérative dont vous êtes membre? Table 87: Other buyers low season (2017-2018) (multiple choices possible) (conditional on other cocoa buyers) Other buyers low season (2017- 2018) All MOCA Control sig Abengourou Daloa Soubré sig Other cooperative 5% [2.1%, 8.1%] 6% [2.1%, 9.4%] 2% [-0.3%, 4.9%] 13% [3.6%, 22.4%] 1% [-0.6%, 2.9%] 9% [0.6%, 16.6%] ** Traders / Private Buyer 95% [92.0%, 98.1%] 94% [90.8%, 98.1%] 98% [95.1%, 100.3%] 91% [83.7%, 99.1%] 98% [95.7%, 100.4%] 91% [83.4%, 99.4%] * Exporter 0% [-0.4%, 1.3%] 1% [-0.5%, 1.6%] 0% [0.0%, 0.0%] 0% [0.0%, 0.0%] 1% [-0.8%, 2.4%] 0% [0.0%, 0.0%] Other chocolate company 0% [0.0%, 0.0%] 0% [0.0%, 0.0%] 0% [0.0%, 0.0%] NA 0% [0.0%, 0.0%] 0% [0.0%, 0.0%] 0% [0.0%, 0.0%] NA Other 1% [-0.6%, 2.0%] 1% [-0.8%, 2.5%] 0% [0.0%, 0.0%] 0% [0.0%, 0.0%] 0% [0.0%, 0.0%] 2% [-2.1%, 6.5%] Do not know 0% [0.0%, 0.0%] 0% [0.0%, 0.0%] 0% [0.0%, 0.0%] NA 0% [0.0%, 0.0%] 0% [0.0%, 0.0%] 0% [0.0%, 0.0%] NA n 278 180 98 51 157 70 Note: significance from a composite Wald statistical test. ***, **, * indicate significance levels of 1%, 5% and 10% respectively Original question: S2.Q57. À qui d'autre avez-vous vendu du cacao pendant la petite traite de la campagne 2017-2018? Table 88: Cocoa kept by household in low season (2017-2018) (conditional on cocoa sold to cooperative) Cocoa retained light season (2017-2018) All MOCA Control sig Abengourou Daloa Soubré sig mean [Confidence Interval] 5% [1.9%, 7.4%] 5% [1.8%, 8.3%] 3% [-0.5%, 6.4%] 0% [0.0%, 0.0%] 7% [2.6%, 11.3%] 3% [-1.3%, 6.8%] *** n 283 183 100 51 160 72 Note: significance from a composite Wald statistical test. ***, **, * indicate significance levels of 1%, 5% and 10% respectively Original question: S2.Q57.1. Avez-vous gardé une partie de votre production de cacao de la petite traite? Table 89: Current common price, highest price, lowest price cocoa per kg (2017-2018) (FCFA) Categories All MOCA Control sig Abengourou Daloa Soubré sig Common price cocoa per kg (2017- 2018) (FCFA) 699 [698, 701] 699 [698, 701] 699 [696, 702] 700 [699, 701] 697 [692, 701] 701 [700, 701] Highest price cocoa per kg (2017- 2018) (FCFA) 701 [699, 703] 701 [699, 703] 702 [699, 705] 702 [701, 704] 697 [693, 701] 703 [702, 704] ** Lowest price cocoa per kg (2017- 2018) (FCFA) 678 [675, 682] 678 [674, 682] 680 [674, 686] 698 [696, 700] 634 [625, 643] 699 [698, 700] *** n 1298 922 376 426 447 425 Note: significance from a composite Wald statistical test. ***, **, * indicate significance levels of 1%, 5% and 10% respectively Original questions: S2.Q58. Quel est le prix COURANT/LE PLUS HAUT/LE PLUS BAS que vous avez obtenu pour la majeure partie de votre cacao au cours de la campagne 2017-2018 - PAR KG Table 90: Generated income cocoa known (2017-2018) MAXIMIZING OPPORTUNITIES IN COCOA ACTIVITY BASELINE EVALUATION REPORT CNFA.ORG Income generated cocoa known (2017-2018) (y/n) All MOCA Control sig Abengourou Daloa Soubré sig mean [Confidence Interval] 45% [42.5%, 48.3%] 46% [42.8%, 49.5%] 41% [35.8%, 46.0%] * 63% [58.6%, 68.1%] 48% [43.3%, 53.3%] 33% [28.7%, 38.2%] *** n 1300 924 376 428 447 425 Note: significance from a composite Wald statistical test. ***, **, * indicate significance levels of 1%, 5% and 10% respectively Original question: S2.Q61. Connaissez-vous le montant des revenus générés par la vente de cacao par votre ménage au cours de la campagne 2017-2018 ? Table 91: Generated income cocoa (2017-2018) (FCFA, not including costs) (conditional on market income known) Income generated cocoa (2017- 2018) (FCFA, not including costs) All MOCA Control sig Abengourou Daloa Soubré sig mean [Confidence Interval] 1274454 [1177687, 1371222] 1304980 [1195692, 1414267] 1077733 [932140, 1223326] ** 1234074 [1106975, 1361174] 917974 [811751, 1024197] 1710307 [1478256, 1942358] *** median 950000 980932 800000 906038 781829 1308003 n 599 430 169 265 211 123 Note: significance from a composite Wald statistical test. ***, **, * indicate significance levels of 1%, 5% and 10% respectively Original question: S2.Q62. Quel est le montant des revenus générés par la vente de cacao par votre ménage au cours de la campagne 2017-2018 ? (en FCFA, sans inclure les coûts) Table 92: Households keeping records (2017-2018) Record keeping (2017-2018) (y/n) All MOCA Control sig Abengourou Daloa Soubré sig mean [Confidence Interval] 60% [56.9%, 62.7%] 61% [57.6%, 64.1%] 54% [48.3%, 58.8%] ** 62% [56.9%, 66.5%] 36% [30.9%, 40.5%] 76% [71.7%, 80.2%] *** n 1299 923 376 428 446 425 Note: significance from a composite Wald statistical test. ***, **, * indicate significance levels of 1%, 5% and 10% respectively Original question: S2.Q63. Votre ménage a-t-il conservé des traces écrites ou documents comptables sur la production de cacao de 2017-2018 ? Table 93: Type of record keeping (2017-2018) (multiple choices possible) (conditional on record keeping) Type of record keeping (2017- 2018) All MOCA Control sig Abengourou Daloa Soubré sig amount spent on inputs 27% [23.2%, 30.4%] 27% [23.1%, 31.2%] 24% [17.6%, 31.0%] 9% [5.6%, 13.0%] 13% [7.5%, 19.4%] 39% [33.5%, 44.7%] *** amount spent on payment of employed workers 13% [9.9%, 15.2%] 12% [8.8%, 14.7%] 18% [11.9%, 23.7%] * 7% [3.9%, 9.9%] 6% [1.6%, 9.6%] 17% [13.1%, 21.7%] *** number of days that household members worked on farm 1% [0.5%, 2.1%] 1% [0.4%, 2.1%] 2% [-0.2%, 3.3%] 2% [0.4%, 4.0%] 2% [-0.3%, 5.1%] 1% [-0.3%, 1.3%] volume of cocoa produced 49% [45.4%, 53.3%] 45% [40.7%, 49.4%] 78% [71.8%, 83.9%] *** 55% [48.7%, 61.3%] 73% [65.8%, 80.9%] 39% [33.3%, 44.3%] *** volume of cocoa sold, price and amount received 95% [93.3%, 96.9%] 95% [93.0%, 97.0%] 96% [92.7%, 98.6%] 97% [95.2%, 99.0%] 98% [95.8%, 100.4%] 93% [90.3%, 96.2%] ** Other 3% [1.7%, 4.7%] 4% [1.9%, 5.3%] 1% [-0.6%, 2.0%] *** 2% [0.1%, 3.5%] 2% [-0.6%, 3.9%] 4% [1.9%, 6.7%] Do not know 2% [0.9%, 3.4%] 2% [0.8%, 3.5%] 2% [-0.2%, 4.3%] 0% [0.0%, 0.0%] 0% [0.0%, 0.0%] 4% [1.6%, 6.0%] *** n 721 541 180 259 144 318 Note: significance from a composite Wald statistical test. ***, **, * indicate significance levels of 1%, 5% and 10% respectively Original question: S2.Q64. Avez-vous conservé des traces écrites ou documents comptables sur… MAXIMIZING OPPORTUNITIES IN COCOA ACTIVITY BASELINE EVALUATION REPORT CNFA.ORG 6. EMPLOYMENT Table 94: Permanent workers on farm (2017-2018) Permanent workers on farm (2017-2018) (y/n) All MOCA Control sig Abengourou Daloa Soubré sig mean [Confidence Interval] 36% [33.0%, 38.6%] 36% [32.8%, 39.1%] 35% [29.9%, 39.9%] 67% [62.1%, 71.4%] 19% [14.7%, 22.4%] 31% [26.6%, 35.8%] *** n 1300 924 376 428 447 425 Note: significance from a composite Wald statistical test. ***, **, * indicate significance levels of 1%, 5% and 10% respectively Original question: S2.Q65. Avez-vous employé un ou des ouvriers agricoles de facon permanente pour la campagne pour travailler dans votre exploitation ? Table 95: Number of permanent workers (2017-2018) (conditional on permanent workers) Number of permanent workers (2017-2018) All MOCA Control sig Abengourou Daloa Soubré sig mean [Confidence Interval] 2.2 [1.9, 2.52] 2.3 [1.93, 2.64] 1.8 [1.5, 2.05] ** 1.9 [1.6, 2.17] 4 [2.42, 5.51] 1.8 [1.61, 2.07] ** median 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 n 497 366 131 283 80 134 Note: significance from a composite Wald statistical test. ***, **, * indicate significance levels of 1%, 5% and 10% respectively Original question: S2.Q66. Combien d'ouvriers avez-vous employé de facon permanente pour la saison 2017-2018? Table 96: Type of payment permanent workers (conditional on permanent workers) Type of payment permanent workers All MOCA Control sig Abengourou Daloa Soubré sig Salary (FCFA) 16% 17% 10% * 4% 61% 11% *** Part of the harvest or sales of cocoa 84% 83% 90% 96% 39% 89% n 497 366 131 283 80 134 Note: significance from a Rao-Scott second-order corrected Chi-squared statistical test. ***, **, * indicate significance levels of 1%, 5% and 10% respectively Original question: S2.Q67a. Vous les rémunerez par un salaire ou par une partie de la recolte? Table 97: Salary amount permanent workers per year (2017-2018) (FCFA) (conditional on permanent workers) Salary amount permanent workers (2017-2018) (FCFA) All MOCA Control sig Abengourou Daloa Soubré sig mean [Confidence Interval] 113266 [93420, 133113] 107630 [86720, 128540] 174487 [132874, 216099] *** 129122 [44726, 213518] 100368 [78731, 122005] 144333 [104832, 183834] median 120000 110904 200000 37301 82388 150000 n 67 55 12 10 44 13 Note: significance from a composite Wald statistical test. ***, **, * indicate significance levels of 1%, 5% and 10% respectively Original question: S2.Q67b. Quel est le montant de la remuneration versée a UN employé permanent au cours de la campagne 2017-2018 ? (en FCFA) Table 98: Salary amount in kind permanent workers per year (2017-2018) (% of sales) (conditional on permanent workers) Salary amount in kind permanent workers (2017-2018) (% production) All MOCA Control sig Abengourou Daloa Soubré sig mean [Confidence Interval] 32.8 [32.62, 33.07] 32.8 [32.55, 33.1] 33 [32.85, 33.07] 33.1 [32.93, 33.2] 30.6 [28.15, 33.06] 33 [33, 33] * median 33.0 33.0 33.0 33.0 33.0 33.0 n 384 274 110 272 31 81 Note: significance from a composite Wald statistical test. ***, **, * indicate significance levels of 1%, 5% and 10% respectively Original question: S2.Q67b. Quelle est la part de la recolte ou des ventes de cacao qui revient a UN employé permanent au cours de la campagne 2017-2018 ? (en pourcentage) MAXIMIZING OPPORTUNITIES IN COCOA ACTIVITY BASELINE EVALUATION REPORT CNFA.ORG 7. PLANT HEALTH PRODUCTS Table 99: Application of herbicide (2017-2018) (if no, no further questions on herbicides) Application of herbicide (2017- 2018) (y/n) All MOCA Control sig Abengourou Daloa Soubré sig mean [Confidence Interval] 17% [14.9%, 19.3%] 16% [13.2%, 18.2%] 25% [20.4%, 29.7%] *** 12% [9.3%, 15.5%] 17% [12.8%, 20.3%] 20% [16.1%, 24.0%] *** n 1300 924 376 428 447 425 Note: significance from a composite Wald statistical test. ***, **, * indicate significance levels of 1%, 5% and 10% respectively Original question: S3.Q1. Avez-vous utilisé de l'herbicide pour le traitement de l'exploitation de cacao du ménage au cours de la campagne 2017-2018 ? Table 100: Frequency of application of herbicide (2017-2018) Frequency of application of herbicide (2017-2018) All MOCA Control sig Abengourou Daloa Soubré sig mean [Confidence Interval] 1.6 [1.45, 1.69] 1.6 [1.45, 1.73] 1.5 [1.31, 1.65] 1.5 [1.27, 1.65] 1.8 [1.62, 2] 1.5 [1.29, 1.64] ** median 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 2.0 1.0 n 226 135 91 64 72 90 Note: significance from a composite Wald statistical test. ***, **, * indicate significance levels of 1%, 5% and 10% respectively Original question: S3.Q2. Combien de fois de l'herbicide a-t-il été utilisé sur votre exploitation de cacao au cours de la campagne 2017-2018 ? Table 101: Month of latest application of herbicide (2017-2018) Month of latest application of herbicide (2017-2018) All MOCA Control sig Abengourou Daloa Soubré sig January 2% 2% 5% *** 0% 2% 4% ** February 3% 2% 6% 0% 4% 4% March 7% 7% 8% 12% 5% 7% April 6% 7% 5% 11% 11% 2% May 7% 8% 2% 2% 16% 2% June 6% 6% 6% 6% 2% 8% July 15% 17% 10% 16% 12% 18% August 19% 21% 13% 13% 18% 22% September 13% 15% 8% 20% 10% 13% October 4% 3% 9% 4% 7% 2% November 10% 6% 22% 13% 6% 11% December 7% 7% 6% 3% 7% 8% Do not know 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% n 215 129 86 58 73 84 Note: significance from a Rao-Scott second-order corrected Chi-squared statistical test. ***, **, * indicate significance levels of 1%, 5% and 10% respectively Original question: S3.Q3. A quel mois remonte la dernière application d'herbicide? Table 102: Free donation herbicide (2017-2018) Free donation herbicide (2017- 2018) (y/n) All MOCA Control sig Abengourou Daloa Soubré sig mean [Confidence Interval] 9% [5.1%, 13.7%] 10% [4.9%, 15.6%] 6% [1.5%, 11.1%] 5% [-0.3%, 10.6%] 8% [1.8%, 14.6%] 12% [4.4%, 18.7%] n 228 137 91 64 73 91 Note: significance from a composite Wald statistical test. ***, **, * indicate significance levels of 1%, 5% and 10% respectively Original question: S3.Q4. Votre ménage a-t-il recu un don (gratuit) d'herbicide en 2017/2018 ? MAXIMIZING OPPORTUNITIES IN COCOA ACTIVITY BASELINE EVALUATION REPORT CNFA.ORG Table 103: Source of free donation herbicide (2017-2018) (multiple choices possible) (conditional on free herbicide) Source of free donation herbicide (2017-2018) All MOCA Control sig Abengourou Daloa Soubré sig ANADER 0% [0.0%, 0.0%] 0% [0.0%, 0.0%] 0% [0.0%, 0.0%] NA 0% [0.0%, 0.0%] 0% [0.0%, 0.0%] 0% [0.0%, 0.0%] NA CCC 20% [0.2%, 40.5%] 17% [-4.9%, 39.6%] 38% [-3.2%, 79.1%] 0% [0.0%, 0.0%] 7% [-7.2%, 21.1%] 29% [-1.1%, 59.0%] Cooperative 81% [62.4%, 100.1%] 84% [64.0%, 104.9%] 62% [20.9%, 103.2%] 100% [100.0%, 100.0%] 71% [32.1%, 109.6%] 83% [58.6%, 106.8%] Private service provider/company 0% [0.0%, 0.0%] 0% [0.0%, 0.0%] 0% [0.0%, 0.0%] NA 0% [0.0%, 0.0%] 0% [0.0%, 0.0%] 0% [0.0%, 0.0%] NA NGO/partner 0% [0.0%, 0.0%] 0% [0.0%, 0.0%] 0% [0.0%, 0.0%] NA 0% [0.0%, 0.0%] 0% [0.0%, 0.0%] 0% [0.0%, 0.0%] NA Other 6% [-5.6%, 17.4%] 7% [-6.6%, 20.4%] 0% [0.0%, 0.0%] 0% [0.0%, 0.0%] 22% [-15.9%, 60.3%] 0% [0.0%, 0.0%] Do not know 0% [0.0%, 0.0%] 0% [0.0%, 0.0%] 0% [0.0%, 0.0%] NA 0% [0.0%, 0.0%] 0% [0.0%, 0.0%] 0% [0.0%, 0.0%] NA n 20 13 7 4 7 9 Note: significance from a composite Wald statistical test. ***, **, * indicate significance levels of 1%, 5% and 10% respectively Original question: S3.Q5. Quelle(s) institution(s) a(ont)-t-elle(s) donné de l'herbicide a votre ménage en 2017/2018? Table 104: Number of bottles free donation herbicide (2017-2018) (conditional on free herbicide) Number of bottles free donation herbicide (2017-2018) All MOCA Control sig Abengourou Daloa Soubré sig mean [Confidence Interval] 2.7 [1.98, 3.38] 2.5 [1.79, 3.28] 3.5 [1.57, 5.38] 5.6 [4, 7.27] 2.6 [1.62, 3.63] 2.2 [1.45, 2.96] *** median 2.0 2.0 2.0 4.8 2.1 2.0 n 19 12 7 4 7 8 Note: significance from a composite Wald statistical test. ***, **, * indicate significance levels of 1%, 5% and 10% respectively Original question: S3.Q6. Combien de bouteilles d'herbicide vous ont-elles été données au cours de la campagne 2017-2018 ? Table 105: Purchase herbicide (2017-2018) Purchase herbicide (2017-2018) (y/n) All MOCA Control sig Abengourou Daloa Soubré sig mean [Confidence Interval] 96% [93.7%, 98.9%] 97% [94.0%, 100.0%] 94% [88.6%, 98.9%] 99% [97.2%, 100.9%] 95% [90.6%, 99.8%] 96% [91.9%, 100.1%] n 228 137 91 64 73 91 Note: significance from a composite Wald statistical test. ***, **, * indicate significance levels of 1%, 5% and 10% respectively Original question: S3.Q7. Votre ménage a-t-il ACHETÉ de l'herbicide au cours de la campagne 2017-2018 ? Table 106: Total expenses on herbicide (2017-2018) (FCFA) (conditional on purchase of herbicide) Total costs herbicide (FCFA) All MOCA Control sig Abengourou Daloa Soubré sig mean [Confidence Interval] 34655 [24702, 44607] 37445 [24948, 49942] 24350 [17753, 30947] * 30091 [21097, 39085] 47163 [19690, 74637] 28911 [19277, 38545] median 16000 16000 15000 16832 17635 15000 n 212 128 84 60 66 86 Note: significance from a composite Wald statistical test. ***, **, * indicate significance levels of 1%, 5% and 10% respectively Table 107: Source of purchased herbicide (2017-2018) (conditional on purchase of herbicide) Source of purchased herbicide (2017-2018) All MOCA Control sig Abengourou Daloa Soubré sig Cash 87% 86% 88% 91% 90% 83% Credit 13% 14% 12% 9% 10% 17% n 218 133 85 63 68 87 Note: significance from a Rao-Scott second-order corrected Chi-squared statistical test. ***, **, * indicate significance levels of 1%, 5% and 10% respectively Original question: S3.Q10. Comment votre ménage a-t-il acheté de l'herbicide en 2017/2018? MAXIMIZING OPPORTUNITIES IN COCOA ACTIVITY BASELINE EVALUATION REPORT CNFA.ORG Table 108: Type of credit used for purchasing herbicide (2017-2018) (conditional on credit used for purchase of herbicide) Type of credit used for purchasing herbicide (2017- 2018) All MOCA Control sig Abengourou Daloa Soubré sig Supplier credit 69% 61% 100% 73% 100% 56% Credit cooperative 20% 24% 0% 27% 0% 26% Other 12% 14% 0% 0% 0% 18% n 26 17 9 5 7 14 Note: significance from a Rao-Scott second-order corrected Chi-squared statistical test. ***, **, * indicate significance levels of 1%, 5% and 10% respectively Original question: S3.Q11. Quel type de credit votre ménage a-t-il utilisé pour acheter de l'herbicide en 2017/2018? Table 109: Quantity of herbicide used known (2017-2018) Quantity of herbicide used known (2017-2018) (y/n) All MOCA Control sig Abengourou Daloa Soubré sig mean [Confidence Interval] 80% [74.5%, 86.2%] 77% [70.1%, 84.6%] 91% [85.5%, 96.6%] *** 86% [76.1%, 95.1%] 75% [64.1%, 85.6%] 82% [73.0%, 90.4%] n 226 135 91 64 71 91 Note: significance from a composite Wald statistical test. ***, **, * indicate significance levels of 1%, 5% and 10% respectively Original question: S3.Q12a. Savez-vous quelle quantite d'herbicide a été appliquée sur votre exploitation de cacao au cours de la campagne 2017-2018? Table 110: Number of bottles of herbicide used (2017-2018) (conditional on quantity of herbicide used known) Number of bottles of herbicide used (2017-2018) All MOCA Control sig Abengourou Daloa Soubré sig mean [Confidence Interval] 20.5 [-0.15, 41.2] 10.5 [7.59, 13.38] 51 [-31.82, 133.9] 65.4 [-45.39, 176.11] 10.8 [7.12, 14.39] 10.1 [6.52, 13.68] median 6.0 5.7 5.5 4.5 7.8 5.0 n 184 103 81 55 52 77 Note: significance from a composite Wald statistical test. ***, **, * indicate significance levels of 1%, 5% and 10% respectively Original question: S3.Q12b. Combien de bouteilles d'herbicide au TOTAL ont-elles été appliquées sur votre exploitation de cacao au cours de la campagne 2017-2018 ? Table 111: Volume of herbicide bottles (2017-2018) (liters) (conditional on quantity of herbicide used known) Volume of one herbicide bottle (2017-2018) (liters) All MOCA Control sig Abengourou Daloa Soubré sig mean [Confidence Interval] 1.8 [1.3, 2.38] 2 [1.24, 2.67] 1.5 [1.28, 1.71] 3.9 [1.31, 6.52] 1.4 [1.11, 1.77] 1.3 [1.09, 1.56] median 1.0 1.0 1.0 2.0 1.0 1.0 n 182 101 81 55 50 77 Note: significance from a composite Wald statistical test. ***, **, * indicate significance levels of 1%, 5% and 10% respectively Original question: S3.Q13. Quel est le volume (en litres) d’UNE bouteille d'herbicide ? Table 112: Land herbicide applied (ha) Land herbicide applied All MOCA Control sig Abengourou Daloa Soubré sig mean [Confidence Interval] 4.5 [3.68, 5.39] 4.6 [3.58, 5.72] 4.1 [3.45, 4.81] 4.7 [3.1, 6.39] 4.4 [2.36, 6.41] 4.6 [3.56, 5.55] median 3.0 2.5 3.5 3.5 2.0 3.0 n 226 135 91 64 71 91 Note: significance from a composite Wald statistical test. ***, **, * indicate significance levels of 1%, 5% and 10% respectively Original question: S3.Q14. Vous avez dit plus tôt cultiver le cacao sur . Sur combien de de l'herbicide a-t-il été appliqué ? MAXIMIZING OPPORTUNITIES IN COCOA ACTIVITY BASELINE EVALUATION REPORT CNFA.ORG Table 113: Herbicide brand Herbicide brand All MOCA Control sig Abengourou Daloa Soubré sig Bin'Fla 360 SL 5% 6% 4% 0% 6% 7% *** Bin'Fla 720 WG 1% 0% 3% 0% 1% 1% Rival 360 SL 1% 1% 0% 0% 3% 0% Touchdown Forte 500 SL 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% Kalach 360 SL 8% 9% 3% 29% 3% 5% Agriherb 360 SL 0% 0% 1% 2% 0% 0% Puissance 780 SG 3% 3% 3% 4% 8% 0% Binbana 15% 16% 10% 17% 23% 9% Tabbouma 0% 0% 1% 0% 1% 0% Other 67% 64% 74% 49% 56% 78% Do not know 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% n 143 81 62 35 46 62 Note: significance from a Rao-Scott second-order corrected Chi-squared statistical test. ***, **, * indicate significance levels of 1%, 5% and 10% respectively Original question: S3.Q15. Nom commercial du produit utilisé en majorité ou le plus fréquemment Table 114: Applier of herbicide (multiple choices possible) Applier of herbicide All MOCA Control sig Abengourou Daloa Soubré sig Household members under 15 years of age 0% [0.0%, 0.0%] 0% [0.0%, 0.0%] 0% [0.0%, 0.0%] NA 0% [0.0%, 0.0%] 0% [0.0%, 0.0%] 0% [0.0%, 0.0%] NA Household members aged 15 years and over 65% [58.4%, 72.0%] 66% [58.1%, 74.4%] 61% [50.8%, 71.8%] 45% [32.2%, 58.3%] 85% [77.0%, 93.9%] 60% [49.3%, 70.7%] *** Communal workers / labor exchange group 2% [-0.0%, 4.1%] 2% [-0.4%, 4.8%] 2% [-0.6%, 3.8%] 3% [-1.4%, 7.4%] 2% [-1.3%, 6.1%] 2% [-1.5%, 4.5%] Farm workers employed permanently 11% [7.3%, 15.3%] 10% [5.4%, 14.6%] 16% [8.7%, 23.7%] 41% [28.4%, 54.4%] 5% [0.1%, 10.6%] 5% [0.4%, 8.9%] *** Paid daily workers 4% [1.7%, 7.1%] 4% [0.8%, 6.9%] 6% [0.7%, 12.0%] 3% [-1.5%, 8.0%] 9% [1.9%, 16.5%] 2% [-0.3%, 4.2%] Applicators from the cooperative 10% [5.8%, 14.2%] 9% [3.8%, 13.6%] 15% [6.7%, 22.6%] 10% [2.5%, 18.4%] 7% [0.8%, 13.4%] 12% [4.8%, 18.2%] Private applicators 14% [9.0%, 19.9%] 17% [10.3%, 24.0%] 5% [0.4%, 8.9%] *** 8% [1.3%, 15.5%] 0% [0.0%, 0.0%] 25% [15.3%, 34.8%] *** n 228 137 91 64 73 91 Note: significance from a composite Wald statistical test. ***, **, * indicate significance levels of 1%, 5% and 10% respectively Original question: S3.Q16. Qui a effectué l’application d'herbicide sur l’exploitation de cacao: des membres du ménage, des ouvriers payés ou des ouvriers agricoles communaux/groupe d'entraide ? Table 115: Gender of applier of herbicide Gender of herbicide applicator All MOCA Control sig Abengourou Daloa Soubré sig Man 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% Woman 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% Both 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% n 228 137 91 64 73 91 Note: significance from a Rao-Scott second-order corrected Chi-squared statistical test. ***, **, * indicate significance levels of 1%, 5% and 10% respectively Original question: S3.Q17. Qui a appliqué l’herbicide sur l’exploitation de cacao: des hommes, des femmes ou les deux ? MAXIMIZING OPPORTUNITIES IN COCOA ACTIVITY BASELINE EVALUATION REPORT CNFA.ORG Table 116: Costs application of herbicide (2017-2018) (FCFA) (conditional on the use of paid daily workers, applicators from the cooperative, private applicators) Costs herbicide application (2017-2018) (FCFA) All MOCA Control sig Abengourou Daloa Soubré sig mean [Confidence Interval] 3056 [1881, 4231] 2721 [1628, 3813] 4766 [444, 9089] 3898 [1329, 6467] 4105 [183, 8027] 2795 [1475, 4115] median 2000 2000 2000 2000 1532 1989 n 43 29 14 9 5 29 Note: significance from a composite Wald statistical test. ***, **, * indicate significance levels of 1%, 5% and 10% respectively Original question: S3.Q18. Quel montant avez-vous payé pour l’application d'herbicide en 2017/2018? En FCFA Table 117: Frequency of payment application herbicide (multiple choices possible) (conditional on application costs made) Frequency of payment application herbicide All MOCA Control sig Abengourou Daloa Soubré sig Amount for each application 17% [5.5%, 28.8%] 18% [4.2%, 31.4%] 14% [-1.7%, 28.9%] 40% [5.1%, 74.3%] 58% [13.7%, 102.0%] 8% [-2.8%, 19.2%] ** Amount for each working day 8% [0.2%, 16.8%] 7% [-2.4%, 15.8%] 18% [-2.1%, 37.4%] 15% [-5.7%, 36.2%] 21% [-15.8%, 57.5%] 6% [-2.7%, 14.2%] Amount for each unit of product 66% [51.4%, 81.1%] 69% [52.7%, 86.2%] 50% [22.1%, 77.7%] 27% [-7.2%, 60.2%] 21% [-15.9%, 58.4%] 78% [62.4%, 93.5%] *** Amount for each hectare 0% [0.0%, 0.0%] 0% [0.0%, 0.0%] 0% [0.0%, 0.0%] NA 0% [0.0%, 0.0%] 0% [0.0%, 0.0%] 0% [0.0%, 0.0%] NA Amount for multiple applications during the season 2% [-1.8%, 5.4%] 2% [-2.1%, 6.4%] 0% [0.0%, 0.0%] 19% [-13.6%, 50.6%] 0% [0.0%, 0.0%] 0% [0.0%, 0.0%] Other 9% [0.0%, 18.9%] 8% [-2.6%, 17.9%] 19% [-4.5%, 42.1%] 0% [0.0%, 0.0%] 0% [0.0%, 0.0%] 12% [0.1%, 24.0%] n 43 29 14 9 5 29 Note: significance from a composite Wald statistical test. ***, **, * indicate significance levels of 1%, 5% and 10% respectively Original question: S3.Q19. A quelle fréquence avez-vous payé ce montant ? Table 118: Application of insecticide (2017-2018) (if no, no further questions on insecticides) Application of insecticide (2017- 2018) (y/n) All MOCA Control sig Abengourou Daloa Soubré sig mean [Confidence Interval] 88% [86.6%, 90.3%] 88% [86.3%, 90.6%] 88% [85.1%, 91.8%] 90% [86.6%, 92.6%] 86% [82.7%, 89.6%] 89% [86.4%, 92.5%] n 1300 924 376 428 447 425 Note: significance from a composite Wald statistical test. ***, **, * indicate significance levels of 1%, 5% and 10% respectively Original question: S3.Q20. Avez-vous utilisé de l’insecticide pour le traitement de l'exploitation de cacao du ménage au cours de la campagne 2017-2018 ? Table 119: Frequency of application of insecticide (2017-2018) Frequency of application of insecticide (2017-2018) All MOCA Control sig Abengourou Daloa Soubré sig mean [Confidence Interval] 2.4 [2.29, 2.45] 2.4 [2.28, 2.47] 2.4 [2.24, 2.48] 2.2 [2.11, 2.3] 2.2 [2.12, 2.32] 2.6 [2.41, 2.72] *** median 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 n 1129 805 324 372 383 374 Note: significance from a composite Wald statistical test. ***, **, * indicate significance levels of 1%, 5% and 10% respectively Original question: S3.Q21. Combien de fois de l'insecticide a-t-il été utilisé sur votre exploitation de cacao au cours de la campagne 2017-2018 ? Table 120: Month of latest application of insecticide (2017-2018) Month of latest application of insecticide (2017-2018) All MOCA Control sig Abengourou Daloa Soubré sig January 4% 4% 5% 4% 7% 3% February 1% 1% 3% 1% 1% 1% *** March 2% 2% 2% 2% 2% 2% MAXIMIZING OPPORTUNITIES IN COCOA ACTIVITY BASELINE EVALUATION REPORT CNFA.ORG Month of latest application of insecticide (2017-2018) All MOCA Control sig Abengourou Daloa Soubré sig April 3% 3% 2% 3% 2% 3% May 2% 2% 2% 1% 4% 1% June 6% 7% 5% 10% 6% 5% July 20% 20% 21% 24% 21% 18% August 31% 31% 29% 33% 22% 36% September 15% 15% 13% 15% 10% 18% October 4% 4% 4% 1% 3% 6% November 2% 2% 2% 2% 4% 1% December 9% 8% 13% 4% 17% 6% Do not know 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% n 1096 775 321 359 377 360 Note: significance from a Rao-Scott second-order corrected Chi-squared statistical test. ***, **, * indicate significance levels of 1%, 5% and 10% respectively Original question: S3.Q22. A quel mois remonte la dernière application de insecticide? Table 121: Free donation insecticide (2017-2018) Free donation insecticide (2017- 2018) (y/n) All MOCA Control sig Abengourou Daloa Soubré sig mean [Confidence Interval] 62% [58.9%, 65.1%] 64% [60.2%, 67.2%] 52% [46.5%, 57.8%] *** 79% [74.6%, 83.0%] 60% [54.8%, 65.3%] 54% [48.8%, 59.4%] *** n 1143 812 331 382 385 376 Note: significance from a composite Wald statistical test. ***, **, * indicate significance levels of 1%, 5% and 10% respectively Original question: S3.Q23. Votre ménage a-t-il recu un don (gratuit) d'insecticide en 2017/2018 ? Table 122: Source of free donation insecticide (2017-2018) (multiple choices possible) (conditional on free insecticide) Source of free donation insecticide (2017-2018) All MOCA Control sig Abengourou Daloa Soubré sig ANADER 1% [0.3%, 1.9%] 1% [0.1%, 1.9%] 2% [0.0%, 3.3%] 1% [0.1%, 2.0%] 1% [-0.4%, 2.6%] 1% [-0.4%, 2.7%] CCC 23% [19.3%, 25.9%] 22% [18.5%, 25.7%] 26% [19.2%, 32.6%] 25% [20.1%, 30.3%] 16% [10.8%, 20.9%] 26% [19.4%, 31.9%] ** Cooperative 88% [86.0%, 90.7%] 89% [86.9%, 92.0%] 80% [74.5%, 86.4%] *** 81% [76.5%, 85.5%] 90% [86.0%, 94.3%] 93% [89.3%, 96.3%] *** Private service provider/company 0% [0.0%, 0.0%] 0% [0.0%, 0.0%] 0% [0.0%, 0.0%] NA 0% [0.0%, 0.0%] 0% [0.0%, 0.0%] 0% [0.0%, 0.0%] NA NGO/partner 0% [0.0%, 0.0%] 0% [0.0%, 0.0%] 0% [0.0%, 0.0%] NA 0% [0.0%, 0.0%] 0% [0.0%, 0.0%] 0% [0.0%, 0.0%] NA Other 2% [0.8%, 2.7%] 2% [0.8%, 3.0%] 0% [-0.5%, 1.4%] * 3% [1.0%, 5.2%] 2% [-0.0%, 3.6%] 1% [-0.6%, 1.9%] Do not know 0% [0.0%, 0.0%] 0% [0.0%, 0.0%] 0% [0.0%, 0.0%] NA 0% [0.0%, 0.0%] 0% [0.0%, 0.0%] 0% [0.0%, 0.0%] NA n 723 537 186 298 231 194 Note: significance from a composite Wald statistical test. ***, **, * indicate significance levels of 1%, 5% and 10% respectively Original question: S3.Q24. Quelle(s) institution(s) a(ont)-t-elle(s) donné de l'insecticide a votre ménage en 2017/2018? Table 123: Number of bottles free donation insecticide (2017-2018) (conditional on free insecticide) Number of bottles free donation insecticide (2017-2018) All MOCA Control sig Abengourou Daloa Soubré sig mean [Confidence Interval] 2.6 [2.34, 2.88] 2.7 [2.37, 2.98] 2.1 [1.9, 2.37] *** 2.3 [2.09, 2.51] 3 [2.29, 3.7] 2.6 [2.17, 2.96] median 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 n 713 529 184 292 230 191 MAXIMIZING OPPORTUNITIES IN COCOA ACTIVITY BASELINE EVALUATION REPORT CNFA.ORG Number of bottles free donation insecticide (2017-2018) All MOCA Control sig Abengourou Daloa Soubré sig Note: significance from a composite Wald statistical test. ***, **, * indicate significance levels of 1%, 5% and 10% respectively Original question: S3.Q25. Combien de bouteilles d'insecticide vous ont-elles été données au cours de la campagne 2017-2018 ? Table 124: Purchase insecticide (2017-2018) Purchase insecticide (2017- 2018) (y/n) All MOCA Control sig Abengourou Daloa Soubré sig mean [Confidence Interval] 71% [68.2%, 73.8%] 70% [66.8%, 73.1%] 77% [72.9%, 81.8%] *** 63% [57.6%, 67.8%] 55% [49.7%, 60.3%] 87% [83.0%, 90.3%] *** n 1143 812 331 382 385 376 Note: significance from a composite Wald statistical test. ***, **, * indicate significance levels of 1%, 5% and 10% respectively Original question: S3.Q26. Votre ménage a-t-il ACHETÉ de l'insecticide au cours de la campagne 2017-2018 ? Table 125: Total expenses on insecticide (2017-2018) (FCFA) (conditional on purchase of insecticide) Total costs insecticide (FCFA) All MOCA Control sig Abengourou Daloa Soubré sig mean [Confidence Interval] 29623 [27656, 31591] 29764 [27503, 32026] 28906 [25579, 32234] 31794 [28085, 35503] 23567 [20452, 26682] 31407 [28446, 34368] *** median 21000 22000 21000 22735 16000 24000 n 712 486 226 222 192 298 Note: significance from a composite Wald statistical test. ***, **, * indicate significance levels of 1%, 5% and 10% respectively Table 126: Source of purchased insecticide (2017-2018) (conditional on purchase of insecticide) Source of purchased insecticide (2017-2018) All MOCA Control sig Abengourou Daloa Soubré sig Cash 79% 79% 82% 76% 80% 81% Credit 21% 21% 18% 24% 20% 19% n 788 544 244 247 213 328 Note: significance from a Rao-Scott second-order corrected Chi-squared statistical test. ***, **, * indicate significance levels of 1%, 5% and 10% respectively Original question: S3.Q29. Comment votre ménage a-t-il acheté de l'insecticide en 2017/2018? Table 127: Type of credit used for purchasing insecticide (2017-2018) (conditional on credit used for purchase of insecticide) Type of credit used for purchasing insecticide (2017- 2018) All MOCA Control sig Abengourou Daloa Soubré sig Supplier credit 54% 53% 56% 45% 77% 47% Credit cooperative 45% 46% 42% 55% 19% 53% *** Other 1% 1% 2% 0% 4% 0% n 162 115 47 58 46 58 Note: significance from a Rao-Scott second-order corrected Chi-squared statistical test. ***, **, * indicate significance levels of 1%, 5% and 10% respectively Original question: S3.Q30. Quel type de credit votre ménage a-t-il utilisé pour acheter de l'insecticide en 2017/2018? Table 128: Quantity of insecticide used known (2017-2018) Quantity of insecticide used known (2017-2018) (y/n) All MOCA Control sig Abengourou Daloa Soubré sig mean [Confidence Interval] 82% [79.4%, 84.2%] 81% [78.2%, 83.7%] 87% [83.3%, 90.4%] *** 84% [79.7%, 87.3%] 75% [70.8%, 80.0%] 85% [81.5%, 89.1%] *** n 1143 812 331 382 385 376 MAXIMIZING OPPORTUNITIES IN COCOA ACTIVITY BASELINE EVALUATION REPORT CNFA.ORG Quantity of insecticide used known (2017-2018) (y/n) All MOCA Control sig Abengourou Daloa Soubré sig Note: significance from a composite Wald statistical test. ***, **, * indicate significance levels of 1%, 5% and 10% respectively Original question: S3.Q12a. Savez-vous quelle quantite d'insecticide a été appliquée sur votre exploitation de cacao au cours de la campagne 2017-2018? Table 129: Number of bottles of insecticide used (2017-2018) (conditional on quantity of insecticide used known) Number of bottles of insecticide used (2017-2018) All MOCA Control sig Abengourou Daloa Soubré sig mean [Confidence Interval] 4.5 [4.23, 4.7] 4.5 [4.27, 4.81] 4.1 [3.73, 4.4] ** 4.1 [3.79, 4.49] 3.9 [3.47, 4.23] 5 [4.61, 5.41] *** median 4.0 4.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 4.0 n 905 628 277 308 281 316 Note: significance from a composite Wald statistical test. ***, **, * indicate significance levels of 1%, 5% and 10% respectively Original question: S3.Q31. Combien de bouteilles d'insecticide au TOTAL ont-elles été appliquées sur votre exploitation de cacao au cours de la campagne 2017-2018 ? Table 130: Volume of insecticide bottles (2017-2018) (liters) (conditional on quantity of insecticide used known) Volume of one insecticide bottle (2017-2018) (liters) All MOCA Control sig Abengourou Daloa Soubré sig mean [Confidence Interval] 1.3 [1.15, 1.48] 1.3 [1.08, 1.47] 1.5 [1.31, 1.72] * 1.6 [1.36, 1.74] 1.4 [0.84, 1.92] 1.1 [1.05, 1.23] *** median 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 n 924 647 277 315 284 325 Note: significance from a composite Wald statistical test. ***, **, * indicate significance levels of 1%, 5% and 10% respectively Original question: S3.Q31. Quel est le volume (en litres) d’UNE bouteille d'insecticide ? Table 131: Insecticide brand Brand insecticide All MOCA Control sig Abengourou Daloa Soubré sig Actara 25 WG 10% 11% 6% *** 8% 16% 7% *** Azudine 50 SL 3% 3% 2% 0% 6% 2% Boradyne Super 45 ZL 17% 16% 18% 36% 12% 12% Excell 25 EL 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% Premium 50 EL 1% 2% 0% 0% 4% 0% Voliam Flexi 300 SL 0% 1% 0% 0% 1% 1% Callifam Super 40 EL 3% 3% 2% 2% 3% 3% Crotale 46 EC 1% 1% 0% 0% 0% 1% Agricao 45 SL 1% 1% 0% 0% 2% 1% Tonnerre 88EC 1% 1% 0% 0% 1% 1% Proteus 11% 13% 0% 8% 10% 12% Propicao 2% 2% 2% 2% 5% 1% Other 51% 47% 69% 45% 40% 59% Do not know 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% n 572 397 175 162 180 230 Note: significance from a Rao-Scott second-order corrected Chi-squared statistical test. ***, **, * indicate significance levels of 1%, 5% and 10% respectively Original question: S3.Q33. Nom commercial du produit utilisé en majorité ou le plus fréquemment MAXIMIZING OPPORTUNITIES IN COCOA ACTIVITY BASELINE EVALUATION REPORT CNFA.ORG Table 132: Land insecticide applied (ha) Land insecticide applied All MOCA Control sig Abengourou Daloa Soubré sig mean [Confidence Interval] 4.5 [4.2, 4.79] 4.5 [4.18, 4.84] 4.4 [3.85, 4.96] 5 [4.49, 5.6] 3.3 [3.06, 3.58] 5 [4.46, 5.56] *** median 3.0 3.0 3.0 4.0 2.7 3.5 n 1134 805 329 376 384 374 Note: significance from a composite Wald statistical test. ***, **, * indicate significance levels of 1%, 5% and 10% respectively Original question: S3.Q32. Vous avez dit plus tôt cultiver le cacao sur . Sur combien de de l'insecticide a-t-il été appliqué ? Table 133: Applier of insecticide (multiple choices possible) Applier of insecticide All MOCA Control sig Abengourou Daloa Soubré sig Household members under 15 years of age 0% [0.0%, 0.0%] 0% [0.0%, 0.0%] 0% [0.0%, 0.0%] NA 0% [0.0%, 0.0%] 0% [0.0%, 0.0%] 0% [0.0%, 0.0%] NA Household members aged 15 years and over 19% [16.4%, 21.4%] 19% [15.9%, 21.6%] 20% [15.4%, 24.6%] 13% [9.5%, 16.5%] 19% [14.4%, 22.8%] 22% [18.0%, 26.8%] *** Communal workers / labor exchange group 1% [0.5%, 1.8%] 1% [0.4%, 1.9%] 1% [0.0%, 1.8%] 1% [0.2%, 2.6%] 1% [0.1%, 2.3%] 1% [-0.1%, 1.9%] Farm workers employed permanently 7% [5.6%, 8.8%] 7% [5.1%, 8.6%] 9% [6.0%, 12.6%] 14% [10.7%, 17.8%] 1% [-0.0%, 2.3%] 8% [4.8%, 10.3%] *** Paid daily workers 5% [3.8%, 6.2%] 4% [3.1%, 5.8%] 8% [5.5%, 11.3%] ** 5% [2.9%, 7.5%] 10% [7.3%, 13.5%] 1% [0.2%, 2.2%] *** Applicators from the cooperative 62% [59.0%, 65.1%] 63% [59.3%, 66.2%] 58% [52.0%, 63.1%] 62% [57.2%, 67.3%] 65% [59.7%, 69.8%] 60% [54.8%, 65.2%] Private applicators 13% [11.1%, 15.4%] 14% [11.4%, 16.4%] 10% [6.4%, 13.2%] * 14% [10.4%, 17.8%] 8% [5.1%, 10.7%] 17% [12.6%, 20.5%] *** n 1143 812 331 382 385 376 Note: significance from a composite Wald statistical test. ***, **, * indicate significance levels of 1%, 5% and 10% respectively Original question: S3.Q34. Qui a effectué l’application d'insecticide sur l’exploitation de cacao: des membres du ménage, des ouvriers payés ou des ouvriers agricoles communaux/groupe d'entraide ? Table 134: Gender of applier of insecticide Gender of insecticide applicator All MOCA Control sig Abengourou Daloa Soubré sig Man 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% Woman 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% Both 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% n 1143 812 331 382 385 376 Note: significance from a Rao-Scott second-order corrected Chi-squared statistical test. ***, **, * indicate significance levels of 1%, 5% and 10% respectively Original question: S3.Q35. Qui a appliqué l'insecticide sur l’exploitation de cacao: des hommes, des femmes ou les deux ? Table 135: Costs application of insecticide (2017-2018) (FCFA) (conditional on the use of paid daily workers, applicators from the cooperative, private applicators) Costs insecticide application (2017-2018) (FCFA) All MOCA Control sig Abengourou Daloa Soubré sig mean [Confidence Interval] 1789 [1654, 1923] 1757 [1608, 1907] 1967 [1676, 2258] 2112 [1881, 2344] 1875 [1651, 2100] 1534 [1310, 1758] *** median 2000 2000 2000 2000 2000 2000 n 708 499 209 221 269 218 Note: significance from a composite Wald statistical test. ***, **, * indicate significance levels of 1%, 5% and 10% respectively Original question: S3.Q36. Quel montant avez-vous payé pour l’application d' insecticide en 2017/2018? En FCFA Table 136: Frequency of payment application insecticide (multiple choices possible) (conditional on application costs made) MAXIMIZING OPPORTUNITIES IN COCOA ACTIVITY BASELINE EVALUATION REPORT CNFA.ORG Frequency of payment application insecticide All MOCA Control sig Abengourou Daloa Soubré sig Amount for each application 33% [29.1%, 36.2%] 33% [28.5%, 36.6%] 33% [26.5%, 39.5%] 31% [24.8%, 37.0%] 51% [45.0%, 57.5%] 18% [12.7%, 23.2%] *** Amount for each working day 8% [5.7%, 9.8%] 8% [5.5%, 10.2%] 7% [4.2%, 10.6%] 13% [8.8%, 17.4%] 4% [1.6%, 6.5%] 8% [4.2%, 11.8%] *** Amount for each unit produced 32% [28.0%, 35.2%] 31% [26.4%, 34.6%] 38% [31.2%, 45.3%] * 43% [36.7%, 50.1%] 13% [9.0%, 17.2%] 41% [34.0%, 47.2%] *** Amount for each hectare 4% [2.8%, 6.2%] 5% [3.0%, 7.0%] 1% [-0.2%, 3.2%] *** 4% [1.1%, 6.1%] 4% [1.6%, 6.9%] 5% [2.0%, 8.3%] Amount for multiple applications during the season 4% [2.2%, 5.0%] 4% [2.1%, 5.4%] 2% [0.4%, 4.5%] 5% [1.8%, 7.4%] 4% [1.7%, 7.0%] 2% [0.3%, 4.4%] Other 22% [18.7%, 25.4%] 22% [18.6%, 26.2%] 20% [14.6%, 25.7%] 4% [1.7%, 7.0%] 23% [18.2%, 28.6%] 31% [24.5%, 37.1%] *** n 744 530 214 229 286 229 Note: significance from a composite Wald statistical test. ***, **, * indicate significance levels of 1%, 5% and 10% respectively Original question: S3.Q37. A quelle fréquence avez-vous payé ce montant ? Table 137: Application of fungicide (2017-2018) (if no, no further questions on fungicides) Application of fungicide (2017- 2018) (y/n) All MOCA Control sig Abengourou Daloa Soubré sig mean [Confidence Interval] 23% [20.5%, 25.4%] 23% [20.6%, 26.1%] 21% [16.4%, 25.0%] 36% [31.7%, 41.2%] 20% [16.0%, 24.1%] 18% [13.8%, 21.4%] *** n 1300 924 376 428 447 425 Note: significance from a composite Wald statistical test. ***, **, * indicate significance levels of 1%, 5% and 10% respectively Original question: S3.Q38. Avez-vous utilisé du fongicide pour le traitement de l'exploitation de cacao du ménage au cours de la campagne 2017-2018 ? Table 138: Frequency of application of fungicide (2017-2018) Frequency of application of fungicide (2017-2018) All MOCA Control sig Abengourou Daloa Soubré sig mean [Confidence Interval] 2.3 [2.06, 2.62] 2.4 [2.03, 2.67] 2.3 [1.91, 2.61] 2.6 [2, 3.17] 2 [1.66, 2.35] 2.3 [1.94, 2.74] median 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 n 307 228 79 154 80 73 Note: significance from a composite Wald statistical test. ***, **, * indicate significance levels of 1%, 5% and 10% respectively Original question: S3.Q39. Combien de fois du fongicide a-t-il été utilisé sur votre exploitation de cacao au cours de la campagne 2017-2018 ? Table 139: Month of latest application of fungicide (2017-2018) Month of latest application of fungicide (2017-2018) All MOCA Control sig Abengourou Daloa Soubré sig January 2% 2% 4% 3% 3% 1% ** February 1% 1% 0% 1% 0% 2% March 1% 1% 4% 1% 2% 1% April 4% 4% 3% 3% 8% 1% May 6% 6% 4% 6% 7% 5% June 7% 8% 3% 10% 4% 7% July 19% 20% 17% 26% 16% 14% August 37% 37% 36% 33% 36% 43% September 14% 13% 19% 11% 6% 22% October 3% 3% 3% 2% 7% 2% November 2% 2% 2% 2% 3% 0% December 4% 4% 5% 2% 8% 3% MAXIMIZING OPPORTUNITIES IN COCOA ACTIVITY BASELINE EVALUATION REPORT CNFA.ORG Month of latest application of fungicide (2017-2018) All MOCA Control sig Abengourou Daloa Soubré sig Do not know 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% n 297 222 75 148 76 73 Note: significance from a Rao-Scott second-order corrected Chi-squared statistical test. ***, **, * indicate significance levels of 1%, 5% and 10% respectively Original question: S3.Q40. A quel mois remonte la dernière application de fongicide? Table 140: Free donation fungicide (2017-2018) Free donation fungicide (2017- 2018) (y/n) All MOCA Control sig Abengourou Daloa Soubré sig mean [Confidence Interval] 69% [63.2%, 74.8%] 68% [62.0%, 74.9%] 73% [62.0%, 83.6%] 90% [85.6%, 95.3%] 65% [54.2%, 75.8%] 48% [36.0%, 59.9%] *** n 312 232 80 156 81 75 Note: significance from a composite Wald statistical test. ***, **, * indicate significance levels of 1%, 5% and 10% respectively Original question: S3.Q41. Votre ménage a-t-il recu un don (gratuit) de fongicide en 2017/2018 ? Table 141: Source of free donation fungicide (2017-2018) (multiple choices possible) (conditional on free fungicide) Source of free donation fungicide (2017-2018) All MOCA Control sig Abengourou Daloa Soubré sig ANADER 3% [0.6%, 4.5%] 2% [0.0%, 4.2%] 5% [-0.9%, 11.3%] 3% [0.2%, 6.3%] 2% [-1.9%, 5.9%] 2% [-1.5%, 4.7%] CCC 21% [15.6%, 26.5%] 20% [14.2%, 26.4%] 26% [14.7%, 36.5%] 27% [19.7%, 34.8%] 13% [3.8%, 22.6%] 16% [3.7%, 28.8%] * Cooperative 81% [75.7%, 86.2%] 82% [76.6%, 88.2%] 72% [60.3%, 83.7%] 75% [67.2%, 82.0%] 94% [86.5%, 100.6%] 80% [67.3%, 93.7%] *** Private service provider/company 0% [0.0%, 0.0%] 0% [0.0%, 0.0%] 0% [0.0%, 0.0%] NA 0% [0.0%, 0.0%] 0% [0.0%, 0.0%] 0% [0.0%, 0.0%] NA NGO/partner 0% [0.0%, 0.0%] 0% [0.0%, 0.0%] 0% [0.0%, 0.0%] NA 0% [0.0%, 0.0%] 0% [0.0%, 0.0%] 0% [0.0%, 0.0%] NA Other 3% [0.2%, 5.4%] 3% [-0.0%, 5.8%] 2% [-2.3%, 7.1%] 2% [-0.6%, 4.1%] 0% [0.0%, 0.0%] 8% [-1.2%, 17.9%] * Do not know 0% [0.0%, 0.0%] 0% [0.0%, 0.0%] 0% [0.0%, 0.0%] NA 0% [0.0%, 0.0%] 0% [0.0%, 0.0%] 0% [0.0%, 0.0%] NA n 232 170 62 142 53 37 Note: significance from a composite Wald statistical test. ***, **, * indicate significance levels of 1%, 5% and 10% respectively Original question: S3.Q42. Quelle(s) institution(s) a(ont)-t-elle(s) donné du fongicide a votre ménage en 2017/2018? Table 142: Number of pouches/bottles free donation fungicide (2017-2018) (conditional on free fungicide) Number of pouches/bottles free donation fungicide (2017-2018) All MOCA Control sig Abengourou Daloa Soubré sig mean [Confidence Interval] 5.5 [4.64, 6.36] 5.2 [4.33, 6.14] 7 [4.43, 9.63] 6.1 [4.71, 7.54] 5.7 [4.09, 7.27] 3.9 [3.16, 4.7] ** median 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 n 213 154 59 130 49 34 Note: significance from a composite Wald statistical test. ***, **, * indicate significance levels of 1%, 5% and 10% respectively Original question: S3.Q43. Combien de sachets ou bouteilles de fongicide vous ont-elles été données au cours de la campagne 2017-2018 ? Table 143: Purchase fungicide (2017-2018) Purchase fungicide (2017-2018) (y/n) All MOCA Control sig Abengourou Daloa Soubré sig mean [Confidence Interval] 39% [33.2%, 45.3%] 40% [33.3%, 46.8%] 34% [22.7%, 45.7%] 16% [10.4%, 22.4%] 36% [25.1%, 47.0%] 68% [57.0%, 79.0%] *** n 312 232 80 156 81 75 Note: significance from a composite Wald statistical test. ***, **, * indicate significance levels of 1%, 5% and 10% respectively Original question: S3.Q44. Votre ménage a-t-il ACHETÉ du fongicide au cours de la campagne 2017-2018 ? MAXIMIZING OPPORTUNITIES IN COCOA ACTIVITY BASELINE EVALUATION REPORT CNFA.ORG Table 144: Total expenses on fungicide (2017-2018) (FCFA) (conditional on purchase of fungicide) Total costs fungicide (FCFA) All MOCA Control sig Abengourou Daloa Soubré sig mean [Confidence Interval] 13957 [8259, 19655] 14194 [7817, 20570] 12084 [6488, 17680] 13733 [4673, 22794] 8717 [6344, 11089] 16784 [7115, 26452] median 8270 8527 6391 10000 6230 8713 n 82 65 17 17 26 39 Note: significance from a composite Wald statistical test. ***, **, * indicate significance levels of 1%, 5% and 10% respectively Table 145: Source of purchased fungicide (2017-2018) (conditional on purchase of fungicide) Source of purchased fungicide (2017-2018) All MOCA Control sig Abengourou Daloa Soubré sig Cash 92% 91% 100% 95% 88% 92% Credit 8% 9% 0% 5% 12% 8% n 102 80 22 25 28 49 Note: significance from a Rao-Scott second-order corrected Chi-squared statistical test. ***, **, * indicate significance levels of 1%, 5% and 10% respectively Original question: S3.Q47. Comment votre ménage a-t-il acheté du fongicide en 2017/2018? Table 146: Type of credit used for purchasing fungicide (2017-2018) (conditional on credit used for purchase of fungicide) Type of credit used for purchasing fungicide (2017- 2018) All MOCA Control sig Abengourou Daloa Soubré sig Supplier credit 53% 53% 100% 67% 35% Credit cooperative 47% 47% 0% 33% 65% Other 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% n 7 7 0 1 3 3 Note: significance from a Rao-Scott second-order corrected Chi-squared statistical test. ***, **, * indicate significance levels of 1%, 5% and 10% respectively Original question: S3.Q48. Quel type de credit votre ménage a-t-il utilisé pour acheter du fongicide en 2017/2018? Table 147: Quantity of fungicide used known (2017-2018) Quantity of fungicide used known (2017-2018) (y/n) All MOCA Control sig Abengourou Daloa Soubré sig mean [Confidence Interval] 77% [71.8%, 81.9%] 75% [69.4%, 80.8%] 88% [81.3%, 95.4%] *** 85% [79.6%, 91.2%] 53% [41.4%, 63.9%] 87% [78.8%, 95.0%] *** n 311 231 80 155 81 75 Note: significance from a composite Wald statistical test. ***, **, * indicate significance levels of 1%, 5% and 10% respectively Original question: S3.Q49a. Savez-vous quelle quantite de fongicide a été appliquée sur votre exploitation de cacao au cours de la campagne 2017-2018? Table 148: Number of pouches/bottles of fungicide used (2017-2018) (conditional on quantity of fungicide used known) Number of pouches/bottles of fungicide used (2017-2018) All MOCA Control sig Abengourou Daloa Soubré sig mean [Confidence Interval] 7.2 [6.22, 8.1] 7 [5.95, 8.05] 8.1 [6.14, 9.97] 6.1 [5.13, 7.12] 7.7 [5.21, 10.27] 8 [6.26, 9.83] median 4.0 4.0 6.0 4.0 4.0 5.0 n 233 167 66 130 41 62 Note: significance from a composite Wald statistical test. ***, **, * indicate significance levels of 1%, 5% and 10% respectively Original question: S3.Q49. Combien de sachets ou bouteilles de fongicide au TOTAL ont-elles été appliquées sur votre exploitation de cacao au cours de la campagne 2017-2018 ? MAXIMIZING OPPORTUNITIES IN COCOA ACTIVITY BASELINE EVALUATION REPORT CNFA.ORG Table 149: Volume of fungicide pouches/bottles (2017-2018) (grams/liters) (conditional on quantity of fungicide used known) Volume of one fungicide pouches/bottles (2017-2018) (grams/liters) All MOCA Control sig Abengourou Daloa Soubré sig mean [Confidence Interval] 51.2 [38.23, 64.14] 51.9 [36.49, 67.28] 47.6 [40.41, 54.72] 46.8 [31.11, 62.55] 75.7 [35.45, 115.89] 45.8 [23.06, 68.53] median 50.0 50.0 50.0 42.3 32.0 50.0 n 203 143 60 124 28 51 Note: significance from a composite Wald statistical test. ***, **, * indicate significance levels of 1%, 5% and 10% respectively Original question: S3.Q50. Quel est le volume (en grammes OU en litres) d’UNE unite de fongicide ? Table 150: Fungicide brand Fungicide brand All MOCA Control sig Abengourou Daloa Soubré sig Mega Mil 72 WP 2% 3% 0% 0% 7% 0% *** Nordox 75 WG 1% 1% 0% 0% 4% 0% Ridomil Gold Plus 66 45% 46% 42% 15% 59% 47% Fantic Plus 69 WP 5% 4% 7% 0% 0% 10% Fongyp 690 WP 12% 13% 7% 11% 10% 15% Other 34% 33% 44% 74% 21% 28% Do not know 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% n 85 67 18 23 31 31 Note: significance from a Rao-Scott second-order corrected Chi-squared statistical test. ***, **, * indicate significance levels of 1%, 5% and 10% respectively Original question: S3.Q52. Nom commercial du produit utilisé en majorité ou le plus fréquemment Table 151: Land fungicide applied (ha) Land fungicide applied All MOCA Control sig Abengourou Daloa Soubré sig mean [Confidence Interval] 4 [3.55, 4.51] 4.1 [3.55, 4.6] 3.7 [2.53, 4.89] 4.8 [3.78, 5.77] 2.5 [2.18, 2.74] 4.5 [3.71, 5.22] *** median 3.0 3.0 2.5 3.0 2.0 3.4 n 310 230 80 154 81 75 Note: significance from a composite Wald statistical test. ***, **, * indicate significance levels of 1%, 5% and 10% respectively Original question: S3.Q51. Vous avez dit plus tôt cultiver le cacao sur . Sur combien de du fongicide a-t-il été appliqué ? Table 152: Applier of fungicide (multiple choices possible) Applier of fungicide All MOCA Control sig Abengourou Daloa Soubré sig Household members under 15 years of age 0% [-0.2%, 0.7%] 0% [-0.3%, 0.8%] 0% [0.0%, 0.0%] 1% [-0.6%, 1.9%] 0% [0.0%, 0.0%] 0% [0.0%, 0.0%] Household members aged 15 years and over 17% [12.8%, 22.0%] 18% [12.4%, 22.6%] 16% [7.6%, 25.3%] 11% [6.0%, 16.3%] 30% [20.0%, 40.9%] 14% [5.7%, 22.1%] *** Communal workers / labor exchange group 1% [-0.0%, 1.4%] 0% [-0.3%, 1.0%] 3% [-0.4%, 5.9%] 2% [-0.1%, 3.5%] 0% [0.0%, 0.0%] 0% [0.0%, 0.0%] Farm workers employed permanently 6% [3.0%, 8.0%] 6% [2.9%, 8.6%] 4% [-0.6%, 8.6%] 10% [5.3%, 15.4%] 3% [-1.1%, 6.8%] 2% [-1.1%, 5.5%] ** Paid daily workers 4% [1.9%, 6.2%] 3% [1.2%, 5.8%] 8% [2.0%, 13.6%] 4% [1.0%, 7.6%] 8% [1.9%, 13.5%] 1% [-0.7%, 2.2%] ** Applicators from the cooperative 70% [64.5%, 75.3%] 70% [64.4%, 76.4%] 67% [55.7%, 77.3%] 67% [59.7%, 75.0%] 65% [54.2%, 75.6%] 77% [67.0%, 86.9%] Private applicators 8% [5.1%, 11.6%] 9% [4.9%, 12.2%] 7% [1.4%, 13.5%] 12% [6.5%, 17.1%] 3% [-1.0%, 6.2%] 9% [2.4%, 15.9%] ** n 312 232 80 156 81 75 Note: significance from a composite Wald statistical test. ***, **, * indicate significance levels of 1%, 5% and 10% respectively Original question: S3.Q53. Qui a effectué l’application de fongicide sur l’exploitation de cacao: des membres du ménage, des ouvriers payés ou des ouvriers agricoles communaux/groupe d'entraide ? MAXIMIZING OPPORTUNITIES IN COCOA ACTIVITY BASELINE EVALUATION REPORT CNFA.ORG Table 153: Gender of applier of fungicide Gender of fungicide applicator All MOCA Control sig Abengourou Daloa Soubré sig Man 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% Woman 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% Both 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% n 312 232 80 156 81 75 Note: significance from a Rao-Scott second-order corrected Chi-squared statistical test. ***, **, * indicate significance levels of 1%, 5% and 10% respectively Original question: S3.Q54. Qui a appliqué le fongicide sur l’exploitation de cacao: des hommes, des femmes ou les deux ? Table 154: Costs application of fungicide (2017-2018) (FCFA) (conditional on the use of paid daily workers, applicators from the cooperative, private applicators) Costs fungicide application (2017-2018) (FCFA) All MOCA Control sig Abengourou Daloa Soubré sig mean [Confidence Interval] 1684 [1412, 1956] 1684 [1388, 1981] 1685 [1060, 2310] 2106 [1819, 2394] 1455 [957, 1953] 1366 [794, 1938] ** median 2000 2000 1500 2000 1124 0 n 190 147 43 99 40 51 Note: significance from a composite Wald statistical test. ***, **, * indicate significance levels of 1%, 5% and 10% respectively Original question: S3.Q55. Quel montant avez-vous payé pour l’application de fongicide en 2017/2018? En FCFA Table 155: Frequency of payment application fungicide (multiple choices possible) (conditional on application costs made) Frequency of payment application fungicide All MOCA Control sig Abengourou Daloa Soubré sig Amount for each application 31% [23.8%, 38.0%] 31% [23.4%, 39.0%] 29% [14.9%, 42.5%] 23% [14.6%, 30.9%] 51% [35.6%, 67.3%] 28% [14.6%, 40.8%] *** Amount for each working day 6% [2.7%, 8.5%] 4% [1.0%, 6.9%] 19% [8.1%, 29.1%] *** 11% [5.5%, 17.1%] 1% [-1.0%, 3.0%] 2% [-2.0%, 6.4%] *** Amount for each unit produced 29% [22.5%, 35.6%] 31% [23.4%, 38.0%] 16% [4.1%, 28.3%] ** 59% [49.3%, 68.8%] 1% [-1.0%, 3.0%] 13% [3.8%, 22.0%] *** Amount for each hectare 5% [1.8%, 8.8%] 5% [1.3%, 9.0%] 7% [-1.0%, 14.1%] 3% [-0.5%, 5.9%] 10% [0.1%, 18.9%] 6% [-0.9%, 12.2%] Amount for multiple applications during the season 5% [1.7%, 7.9%] 4% [0.8%, 7.3%] 10% [0.2%, 20.2%] 3% [-0.1%, 6.4%] 9% [-0.7%, 17.7%] 4% [-0.8%, 9.5%] Other 25% [18.2%, 32.4%] 26% [18.2%, 33.8%] 20% [6.0%, 33.6%] 1% [-1.0%, 3.2%] 29% [14.2%, 42.8%] 50% [35.4%, 64.0%] *** n 194 150 44 102 40 52 Note: significance from a composite Wald statistical test. ***, **, * indicate significance levels of 1%, 5% and 10% respectively Original question: S3.Q56. A quelle fréquence avez-vous payé ce montant ? Table 156: Application of granular fertilizer (2017-2018) (if no, no further questions on granular fertilizer) Application of granular fertilizer (2017-2018) (y/n) All MOCA Control sig Abengourou Daloa Soubré sig mean [Confidence Interval] 45% [41.7%, 47.7%] 46% [42.2%, 48.9%] 40% [34.2%, 44.8%] * 39% [34.0%, 43.7%] 26% [21.6%, 30.3%] 61% [56.5%, 66.2%] *** n 1300 924 376 428 447 425 Note: significance from a composite Wald statistical test. ***, **, * indicate significance levels of 1%, 5% and 10% respectively Original question: S3.Q57. Avez-vous utilisé de l'engrais granulé pour le traitement de l'exploitation de cacao du ménage au cours de la campagne 2017-2018 ? Table 157: Frequency of application of granular fertilizer (2017-2018) Frequency of application of granular fertilizer (2017-2018) All MOCA Control sig Abengourou Daloa Soubré sig mean [Confidence Interval] 1.6 [1.37, 1.78] 1.6 [1.38, 1.84] 1.4 [1.12, 1.58] 1.4 [1.16, 1.62] 1.7 [1.25, 2.22] 1.6 [1.31, 1.89] MAXIMIZING OPPORTUNITIES IN COCOA ACTIVITY BASELINE EVALUATION REPORT CNFA.ORG Frequency of application of granular fertilizer (2017-2018) All MOCA Control sig Abengourou Daloa Soubré sig median 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 n 517 391 126 149 111 257 Note: significance from a composite Wald statistical test. ***, **, * indicate significance levels of 1%, 5% and 10% respectively Original question: S3.Q58. Combien de fois de l'engrais granulé a-t-il été utilisé sur votre exploitation de cacao au cours de la campagne 2017-2018 ? Table 158: Month of latest application of granular fertilizer (2017-2018) Month of latest application of granular fertilizer (2017-2018) All MOCA Control sig Abengourou Daloa Soubré sig January 2% 1% 3% ** 0% 0% 3% *** February 2% 2% 5% 1% 6% 2% March 18% 17% 30% 14% 13% 21% April 17% 18% 15% 28% 18% 14% May 9% 10% 2% 18% 12% 6% June 10% 11% 7% 15% 12% 8% July 13% 14% 11% 13% 12% 14% August 13% 14% 10% 7% 10% 16% September 6% 6% 5% 4% 6% 7% October 3% 2% 3% 0% 7% 2% November 2% 1% 4% 0% 2% 2% December 3% 3% 4% 1% 3% 4% Do not know 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% n 485 366 119 135 105 245 Note: significance from a Rao-Scott second-order corrected Chi-squared statistical test. ***, **, * indicate significance levels of 1%, 5% and 10% respectively Original question: S3.Q59. A quel mois remonte la dernière application d'engrais granulé? Table 159: Free donation granular fertilizer (2017-2018) Free donation granular fertilizer (2017-2018) (y/n) All MOCA Control sig Abengourou Daloa Soubré sig mean [Confidence Interval] 16% [12.7%, 19.7%] 18% [13.8%, 21.7%] 6% [1.7%, 9.8%] *** 12% [6.7%, 17.5%] 24% [15.6%, 32.6%] 15% [10.4%, 20.0%] * n 522 394 128 153 111 258 Note: significance from a composite Wald statistical test. ***, **, * indicate significance levels of 1%, 5% and 10% respectively Original question: S3.Q60. Votre ménage a-t-il recu un don (gratuit) d'engrais granulé en 2017/2018 ? Table 160: Source of free donation granular fertilizer (2017-2018) (multiple choices possible) (conditional on free granular fertilizer) Source of free donation granular fertilizer (2017-2018) All MOCA Control sig Abengourou Daloa Soubré sig ANADER 0% [0.0%, 0.0%] 0% [0.0%, 0.0%] 0% [0.0%, 0.0%] NA 0% [0.0%, 0.0%] 0% [0.0%, 0.0%] 0% [0.0%, 0.0%] NA CCC 4% [-0.6%, 9.4%] 5% [-0.6%, 9.9%] 0% [0.0%, 0.0%] * 0% [0.0%, 0.0%] 4% [-3.8%, 12.1%] 6% [-2.1%, 13.7%] Cooperative 98% [95.5%, 100.8%] 99% [96.5%, 101.1%] 84% [55.3%, 112.6%] 100% [100.0%, 100.0%] 96% [87.9%, 103.8%] 99% [96.1%, 101.3%] Private service provider/company 1% [-0.7%, 2.2%] 0% [0.0%, 0.0%] 16% [-12.6%, 44.7%] 0% [0.0%, 0.0%] 0% [0.0%, 0.0%] 1% [-1.3%, 3.9%] NGO/partner 0% [0.0%, 0.0%] 0% [0.0%, 0.0%] 0% [0.0%, 0.0%] NA 0% [0.0%, 0.0%] 0% [0.0%, 0.0%] 0% [0.0%, 0.0%] NA Other 2% [-1.8%, 5.6%] 2% [-1.9%, 5.8%] 0% [0.0%, 0.0%] 0% [0.0%, 0.0%] 0% [0.0%, 0.0%] 3% [-3.1%, 9.7%] MAXIMIZING OPPORTUNITIES IN COCOA ACTIVITY BASELINE EVALUATION REPORT CNFA.ORG Source of free donation granular fertilizer (2017-2018) All MOCA Control sig Abengourou Daloa Soubré sig Do not know 2% [-1.6%, 5.0%] 2% [-1.7%, 5.3%] 0% [0.0%, 0.0%] 0% [0.0%, 0.0%] 0% [0.0%, 0.0%] 3% [-2.8%, 8.8%] n 75 67 8 17 25 33 Note: significance from a composite Wald statistical test. ***, **, * indicate significance levels of 1%, 5% and 10% respectively Original question: S3.Q61. Quelle(s) institution(s) a(ont)-t-elle(s) donné de l'engrais granulé a votre ménage en 2017/2018? Table 161: Number of bags/pouches free donation granular fertilizer (2017-2018) (conditional on free granular fertilizer) Number of bags/pouches free donation granular fertilizer (2017-2018) All MOCA Control sig Abengourou Daloa Soubré sig mean [Confidence Interval] 3.9 [3.29, 4.57] 4 [3.35, 4.7] 2.2 [1.13, 3.27] *** 5.2 [2.94, 7.4] 4.9 [3.61, 6.22] 3 [2.55, 3.4] *** median 3.0 3.0 1.7 4.0 4.1 3.0 n 67 59 8 16 24 27 Note: significance from a composite Wald statistical test. ***, **, * indicate significance levels of 1%, 5% and 10% respectively Original question: S3.Q62. Combien de sacs/sachets d'engrais granulé vous ont-elles été données au cours de la campagne 2017-2018 ? Table 162: Purchase granular fertilizer (2017-2018) Purchase granular fertilizer (2017-2018) (y/n) All MOCA Control sig Abengourou Daloa Soubré sig mean [Confidence Interval] 86% [82.5%, 89.1%] 85% [81.0%, 88.5%] 93% [88.5%, 97.3%] *** 87% [81.6%, 92.6%] 82% [73.9%, 89.2%] 87% [82.1%, 91.2%] n 522 394 128 153 111 258 Note: significance from a composite Wald statistical test. ***, **, * indicate significance levels of 1%, 5% and 10% respectively Original question: S3.Q63. Votre ménage a-t-il ACHETÉ de l'engrais granulé au cours de la campagne 2017-2018 ? Table 163: Total expenses on granular fertilizer (2017-2018) (FCFA) (conditional on purchase of granular fertilizer) Total costs granular fertilizer (FCFA) All MOCA Control sig Abengourou Daloa Soubré sig mean [Confidence Interval] 155491 [143201, 167782] 155884 [142177, 169591] 153139 [127835, 178443] 130938 [111501, 150376] 104981 [80554, 129408] 176422 [159664, 193181] *** median 120946 126000 96000 102000 75769 150000 n 409 301 108 116 78 215 Note: significance from a composite Wald statistical test. ***, **, * indicate significance levels of 1%, 5% and 10% respectively Table 164: Source of purchased granular fertilizer (2017-2018) (conditional on purchase of granular fertilizer) Source of purchased granular fertilizer (2017-2018) All MOCA Control sig Abengourou Daloa Soubré sig Cash 48% 45% 66% *** 28% 41% 57% *** Credit 52% 55% 34% 72% 59% 43% n 454 336 118 134 91 229 Note: significance from a Rao-Scott second-order corrected Chi-squared statistical test. ***, **, * indicate significance levels of 1%, 5% and 10% respectively Original question: S3.Q66. Comment votre ménage a-t-il acheté de l'engrais granulé en 2017/2018? MAXIMIZING OPPORTUNITIES IN COCOA ACTIVITY BASELINE EVALUATION REPORT CNFA.ORG Table 165: Type of credit used for purchasing granular fertilizer (2017-2018) (conditional on credit used for purchase of granular fertilizer) Type of credit used for purchasing granular fertilizer (2017-2018) All MOCA Control sig Abengourou Daloa Soubré sig Supplier credit 25% 21% 66% *** 16% 49% 21% Credit cooperative 73% 77% 31% 83% 49% 77% *** Other 2% 1% 3% 1% 2% 2% n 236 194 42 91 52 93 Note: significance from a Rao-Scott second-order corrected Chi-squared statistical test. ***, **, * indicate significance levels of 1%, 5% and 10% respectively Original question: S3.Q67. Quel type de credit votre ménage a-t-il utilisé pour acheter de l'engrais granulé en 2017/2018? Table 166: Quantity of granular fertilizer used known (2017-2018) Quantity of granular fertilizer used known (2017-2018) (y/n) All MOCA Control sig Abengourou Daloa Soubré sig mean [Confidence Interval] 90% [87.7%, 93.1%] 90% [86.9%, 93.0%] 93% [89.1%, 97.7%] 88% [82.8%, 93.0%] 93% [87.8%, 98.2%] 90% [86.7%, 94.2%] n 522 394 128 153 111 258 Note: significance from a composite Wald statistical test. ***, **, * indicate significance levels of 1%, 5% and 10% respectively Original question: S3.Q68a. Savez-vous quelle quantite d'engrais granulé été appliquée sur votre exploitation de cacao au cours de la campagne 2017-2018? Table 167: Number of bags/pouches of granular fertilizer used (2017-2018) (conditional on quantity of granular fertilizer used known) Number of bags/pouches of granular fertilizer used (2017- 2018) All MOCA Control sig Abengourou Daloa Soubré sig mean [Confidence Interval] 10.3 [9.19, 11.4] 10 [8.96, 11.09] 12 [7.49, 16.53] 10.2 [8.01, 12.47] 6.1 [4.94, 7.2] 11.6 [10.03, 13.22] *** median 6.9 7.0 6.0 6.0 5.0 8.2 n 472 353 119 133 104 235 Note: significance from a composite Wald statistical test. ***, **, * indicate significance levels of 1%, 5% and 10% respectively Original question: S3.Q68. Combien de sacs/sachets d'engrais granulé au TOTAL ont-elles été appliquées sur votre exploitation de cacao au cours de la campagne 2017-2018 ? Table 168: Volume of granular fertilizer bags/pouches (2017-2018) (kg) (conditional on quantity of granular fertilizer used known) Volume of granular fertilizer bags/pouches (2017-2018) (kg) All MOCA Control sig Abengourou Daloa Soubré sig mean [Confidence Interval] 50 [50, 50] 50 [50, 50] 50 [50, 50] 50 [50, 50] 50 [50, 50] 50 [50, 50] median 50.0 50.0 50.0 50.0 50.0 50.0 n 446 335 111 122 95 229 Note: significance from a composite Wald statistical test. ***, **, * indicate significance levels of 1%, 5% and 10% respectively Original question: S3.Q69. Quel est le volume (en kilogrammes) d’UN sac/sachet d'engrais granulé ? Table 169: Land granular fertilizer applied (ha) Land granular fertilizer applied All MOCA Control sig Abengourou Daloa Soubré sig mean [Confidence Interval] 4.3 [3.79, 4.72] 4.4 [3.85, 4.89] 3.5 [2.78, 4.29] * 5 [4, 5.91] 2.9 [2.51, 3.2] 4.4 [3.77, 5.12] *** median 3.0 3.0 2.5 3.0 2.5 3.0 n 517 389 128 149 111 257 Note: significance from a composite Wald statistical test. ***, **, * indicate significance levels of 1%, 5% and 10% respectively Original question: S3.Q70. Vous avez dit plus tôt cultiver le cacao sur . Sur combien de de l'engrais granulé a-t-il été appliqué ? MAXIMIZING OPPORTUNITIES IN COCOA ACTIVITY BASELINE EVALUATION REPORT CNFA.ORG Table 170: Applier of granular fertilizer (multiple choices possible) Applier of granular fertilizer All MOCA Control sig Abengourou Daloa Soubré sig Household members under 15 years of age 0% [-0.2%, 0.6%] 0% [-0.2%, 0.7%] 0% [0.0%, 0.0%] 0% [0.0%, 0.0%] 1% [-1.1%, 3.3%] 0% [0.0%, 0.0%] Household members aged 15 years and over 87% [83.7%, 89.8%] 86% [82.8%, 89.6%] 90% [85.2%, 95.6%] 75% [68.3%, 82.2%] 90% [83.9%, 95.9%] 90% [85.9%, 93.7%] *** Communal workers / labor exchange group 5% [3.1%, 7.1%] 5% [3.2%, 7.8%] 3% [0.3%, 5.1%] * 7% [2.8%, 11.0%] 4% [0.2%, 7.5%] 5% [2.1%, 7.6%] Farm workers employed permanently 26% [22.2%, 30.2%] 28% [23.3%, 32.2%] 16% [9.4%, 22.5%] *** 55% [46.9%, 63.0%] 6% [1.5%, 10.9%] 22% [16.9%, 27.6%] *** Paid daily workers 1% [0.4%, 2.4%] 1% [0.1%, 2.2%] 3% [0.0%, 6.4%] 2% [-0.3%, 3.9%] 3% [-0.5%, 5.8%] 1% [-0.2%, 2.0%] Applicators from the cooperative 4% [2.3%, 5.9%] 4% [2.3%, 6.3%] 3% [-0.3%, 6.2%] 6% [1.9%, 9.7%] 4% [0.2%, 8.8%] 3% [1.1%, 5.7%] Private applicators 1% [-0.2%, 1.3%] 1% [-0.2%, 1.5%] 0% [0.0%, 0.0%] 0% [0.0%, 0.0%] 0% [0.0%, 0.0%] 1% [-0.3%, 2.1%] n 522 394 128 153 111 258 Note: significance from a composite Wald statistical test. ***, **, * indicate significance levels of 1%, 5% and 10% respectively Original question: S3.Q72. Qui a effectué l’application d'engrais granulé sur l’exploitation de cacao: des membres du ménage, des ouvriers payés ou des ouvriers agricoles communaux/groupe d'entraide ? Table 171: Gender of applier of granular fertilizer (multiple choices possible) Gender of applier of granular fertilizer All MOCA Control sig Abengourou Daloa Soubré sig Male 100% [99.3%, 100.1%] 100% [99.2%, 100.1%] 100% [100.0%, 100.0%] 99% [96.8%, 100.5%] 100% [100.0%, 100.0%] 100% [100.0%, 100.0%] * Female 3% [1.4%, 4.4%] 3% [1.5%, 4.9%] 1% [-0.9%, 2.7%] * 6% [1.9%, 9.7%] 1% [-1.1%, 3.3%] 2% [0.5%, 4.5%] n 522 394 128 153 111 258 Note: significance from a composite Wald statistical test. ***, **, * indicate significance levels of 1%, 5% and 10% respectively Original question: S3.Q73. Qui a appliqué l'engrais granulé sur l’exploitation de cacao: des hommes, des femmes ou les deux ? Table 172: Costs application of granular fertilizer (2017-2018) (FCFA) (conditional on the use of paid daily workers, applicators from the cooperative, private applicators) Costs granular fertilizer application (2017-2018) (FCFA) All MOCA Control sig Abengourou Daloa Soubré sig mean [Confidence Interval] 6543 [586, 12499] 7143 [660, 13626] 347 [-318, 1012] * 548 [-387, 1483] 11647 [-1325, 24619] 5786 [-2038, 13611] median 2000 2000 0 0 2000 2000 n 16 13 3 4 5 7 Note: significance from a composite Wald statistical test. ***, **, * indicate significance levels of 1%, 5% and 10% respectively Original question: S3.Q74. Quel montant avez-vous payé pour l’application d'engrais granulé en 2017/2018? En FCFA Table 173: Frequency of payment application granular fertilizer (multiple choices possible) (conditional on application costs made) Frequency of payment application granular fertilizer All MOCA Control sig Abengourou Daloa Soubré sig Amount for each application 39% [13.8%, 64.3%] 33% [6.9%, 59.3%] 100% [100.0%, 100.0%] *** 73% [25.9%, 119.4%] 54% [6.6%, 101.5%] 22% [-8.3%, 52.0%] Amount for each working day 24% [-0.3%, 48.0%] 26% [-0.0%, 52.4%] 0% [0.0%, 0.0%] * 0% [0.0%, 0.0%] 23% [-17.5%, 63.0%] 31% [-5.4%, 68.3%] Amount for each unit produced 0% [0.0%, 0.0%] 0% [0.0%, 0.0%] 0% [0.0%, 0.0%] NA 0% [0.0%, 0.0%] 0% [0.0%, 0.0%] 0% [0.0%, 0.0%] NA Amount for each hectare 23% [-0.4%, 46.5%] 25% [-0.2%, 50.8%] 0% [0.0%, 0.0%] * 0% [0.0%, 0.0%] 23% [-17.6%, 64.1%] 30% [-6.0%, 65.4%] Amount for multiple applications during the season 0% [0.0%, 0.0%] 0% [0.0%, 0.0%] 0% [0.0%, 0.0%] NA 0% [0.0%, 0.0%] 0% [0.0%, 0.0%] 0% [0.0%, 0.0%] NA Other 14% [-5.6%, 33.6%] 15% [-6.0%, 36.8%] 0% [0.0%, 0.0%] 27% [-19.4%, 74.1%] 0% [0.0%, 0.0%] 17% [-14.0%, 48.0%] MAXIMIZING OPPORTUNITIES IN COCOA ACTIVITY BASELINE EVALUATION REPORT CNFA.ORG Frequency of payment application granular fertilizer All MOCA Control sig Abengourou Daloa Soubré sig n 16 13 3 4 5 7 Note: significance from a composite Wald statistical test. ***, **, * indicate significance levels of 1%, 5% and 10% respectively Original question: S3.Q75. A quelle fréquence avez-vous payé ce montant ? Table 174: Application of liquid fertilizer (2017-2018) (if no, no further questions on liquid fertilizer) Application of liquid fertilizer (2017-2018) (y/n) All MOCA Control sig Abengourou Daloa Soubré sig mean [Confidence Interval] 8% [6.1%, 9.5%] 8% [6.1%, 9.9%] 7% [4.1%, 9.6%] 5% [3.0%, 7.0%] 4% [2.3%, 6.5%] 12% [8.5%, 15.1%] *** n 1300 924 376 428 447 425 Note: significance from a composite Wald statistical test. ***, **, * indicate significance levels of 1%, 5% and 10% respectively Original question: S3.Q76. Avez-vous utilisé de l'engrais liquide pour le traitement de l'exploitation de cacao du ménage au cours de la campagne 2017-2018 ? Table 175: Frequency of application of liquid fertilizer (2017-2018) Frequency of application of liquid fertilizer (2017-2018) All MOCA Control sig Abengourou Daloa Soubré sig mean [Confidence Interval] 1.7 [1.43, 1.89] 1.7 [1.4, 1.91] 1.7 [1.36, 2.08] 1.4 [1.14, 1.75] 1.4 [1.07, 1.69] 1.8 [1.47, 2.11] median 1.0 1.0 2.0 1.0 1.0 1.9 n 89 65 24 26 16 47 Note: significance from a composite Wald statistical test. ***, **, * indicate significance levels of 1%, 5% and 10% respectively Original question: S3.Q77. Combien de fois de l'engrais liquide a-t-il été utilisé sur votre exploitation de cacao au cours de la campagne 2017-2018 ? Table 176: Month of latest application of liquid fertilizer (2017-2018) Month of latest application of liquid fertilizer (2017-2018) All MOCA Control sig Abengourou Daloa Soubré sig January 2% 3% 0% 5% 0% 2% ** February 4% 5% 0% 6% 0% 5% March 6% 4% 14% 8% 6% 5% April 9% 11% 0% 5% 0% 13% May 2% 2% 0% 5% 7% 0% June 17% 18% 11% 26% 13% 16% July 16% 15% 23% 10% 6% 20% August 22% 21% 28% 14% 27% 22% September 10% 9% 20% 17% 7% 9% October 4% 4% 4% 3% 0% 5% November 2% 2% 0% 0% 0% 3% December 6% 6% 0% 0% 33% 0% Do not know 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% n 87 64 23 25 15 47 Note: significance from a Rao-Scott second-order corrected Chi-squared statistical test. ***, **, * indicate significance levels of 1%, 5% and 10% respectively Original question: S3.Q78. A quel mois remonte la dernière application d'engrais liquide? MAXIMIZING OPPORTUNITIES IN COCOA ACTIVITY BASELINE EVALUATION REPORT CNFA.ORG Table 177: Free donation liquid fertilizer (2017-2018) Free donation liquid fertilizer (2017-2018) (y/n) All MOCA Control sig Abengourou Daloa Soubré sig mean [Confidence Interval] 4% [-0.2%, 8.3%] 3% [-1.3%, 8.1%] 8% [-1.0%, 17.9%] 7% [-0.9%, 14.9%] 7% [-6.2%, 19.9%] 3% [-2.5%, 7.7%] n 89 65 24 26 16 47 Note: significance from a composite Wald statistical test. ***, **, * indicate significance levels of 1%, 5% and 10% respectively Original question: S3.Q79. Votre ménage a-t-il recu un don (gratuit) d'engrais liquide en 2017/2018 ? Table 178: Source of free donation liquid fertilizer (2017-2018) (multiple choices possible) (conditional on free liquid fertilizer) Source of free donation liquid fertilizer (2017-2018) All MOCA Control sig Abengourou Daloa Soubré sig ANADER 0% [0.0%, 0.0%] 0% [0.0%, 0.0%] 0% [0.0%, 0.0%] NA 0% [0.0%, 0.0%] 0% [0.0%, 0.0%] 0% [0.0%, 0.0%] CCC 0% [0.0%, 0.0%] 0% [0.0%, 0.0%] 0% [0.0%, 0.0%] NA 0% [0.0%, 0.0%] 0% [0.0%, 0.0%] 0% [0.0%, 0.0%] Cooperative 100% [100.0%, 100.0%] 100% [100.0%, 100.0%] 100% [100.0%, 100.0%] 100% [100.0%, 100.0%] 100% [100.0%, 100.0%] 100% [100.0%, 100.0%] Private service provider/company 0% [0.0%, 0.0%] 0% [0.0%, 0.0%] 0% [0.0%, 0.0%] NA 0% [0.0%, 0.0%] 0% [0.0%, 0.0%] 0% [0.0%, 0.0%] NGO/partner 0% [0.0%, 0.0%] 0% [0.0%, 0.0%] 0% [0.0%, 0.0%] NA 0% [0.0%, 0.0%] 0% [0.0%, 0.0%] 0% [0.0%, 0.0%] Other 0% [0.0%, 0.0%] 0% [0.0%, 0.0%] 0% [0.0%, 0.0%] NA 0% [0.0%, 0.0%] 0% [0.0%, 0.0%] 0% [0.0%, 0.0%] Do not know 0% [0.0%, 0.0%] 0% [0.0%, 0.0%] 0% [0.0%, 0.0%] NA 0% [0.0%, 0.0%] 0% [0.0%, 0.0%] 0% [0.0%, 0.0%] n 5 2 3 3 1 1 Note: significance from a composite Wald statistical test. ***, **, * indicate significance levels of 1%, 5% and 10% respectively Original question: S3.Q80. Quelle(s) institution(s) a(ont)-t-elle(s) donné de l'engrais liquide a votre ménage en 2017/2018? Table 179: Number of bottles free donation liquid fertilizer (2017-2018) (conditional on free liquid fertilizer) Number of bottles free donation liquid fertilizer (2017-2018) All MOCA Control sig Abengourou Daloa Soubré sig mean [Confidence Interval] 3.2 [0.03, 6.28] 4 [0.2, 7.7] 1 [1, 1] 1 [1, 1] 1 [1, 1] 6 [6, 6] median 1.0 1.8 1.0 1 1 6 n 5 2 3 3 1 1 Note: significance from a composite Wald statistical test. ***, **, * indicate significance levels of 1%, 5% and 10% respectively Original question: S3.Q81. Combien de bouteilles d'engrais liquide vous ont-elles été données au cours de la campagne 2017-2018 ? Table 180: Purchase liquid fertilizer (2017-2018) Purchase liquid fertilizer (2017- 2018) (y/n) All MOCA Control sig Abengourou Daloa Soubré sig mean [Confidence Interval] 94% [89.3%, 99.6%] 95% [89.1%, 100.6%] 92% [82.1%, 101.0%] 93% [85.1%, 100.9%] 93% [80.1%, 106.2%] 95% [88.5%, 101.8%] n 89 65 24 26 16 47 Note: significance from a composite Wald statistical test. ***, **, * indicate significance levels of 1%, 5% and 10% respectively Original question: S3.Q82. Votre ménage a-t-il ACHETÉ de l'engrais liquide au cours de la campagne 2017-2018 ? Table 181: Total expenses on liquid fertilizer (2017-2018) (FCFA) (conditional on purchase of liquid fertilizer) Total costs liquid fertilizer (FCFA) All MOCA Control sig Abengourou Daloa Soubré sig mean [Confidence Interval] 41515 [31574, 51455] 42894 [31628, 54160] 31941 [22566, 41317] 32596 [19710, 45482] 40639 [19740, 61538] 43661 [30371, 56951] median 29886 30000 25000 24978 23455 30000 n 82 61 21 22 15 45 MAXIMIZING OPPORTUNITIES IN COCOA ACTIVITY BASELINE EVALUATION REPORT CNFA.ORG Total costs liquid fertilizer (FCFA) All MOCA Control sig Abengourou Daloa Soubré sig Note: significance from a composite Wald statistical test. ***, **, * indicate significance levels of 1%, 5% and 10% respectively Table 182: Source of purchased liquid fertilizer (2017-2018) (conditional on purchase of liquid fertilizer) Source of purchased liquid fertilizer (2017-2018) All MOCA Control sig Abengourou Daloa Soubré sig Cash 67% 66% 69% 83% 13% 77% *** Credit 33% 34% 31% 17% 87% 23% n 83 62 21 23 15 45 Note: significance from a Rao-Scott second-order corrected Chi-squared statistical test. ***, **, * indicate significance levels of 1%, 5% and 10% respectively Original question: S3.Q85. Comment votre ménage a-t-il acheté de l'engrais liquide en 2017/2018? Table 183: Type of credit used for purchasing liquid fertilizer (2017-2018) (conditional on credit used for purchase of liquid fertilizer) Type of credit used for purchasing liquid fertilizer (2017-2018) All MOCA Control sig Abengourou Daloa Soubré sig Supplier credit 97% 97% 90% * 57% 100% 100% Credit cooperative 1% 0% 10% 15% 0% 0% ** Other 2% 3% 0% 29% 0% 0% n 28 22 6 4 13 11 Note: significance from a Rao-Scott second-order corrected Chi-squared statistical test. ***, **, * indicate significance levels of 1%, 5% and 10% respectively Original question: S3.Q86. Quel type de credit votre ménage a-t-il utilisé pour acheter de l'engrais liquide en 2017/2018? Table 184: Quantity of liquid fertilizer used known (2017-2018) Quantity of liquid fertilizer used known (2017-2018) (y/n) All MOCA Control sig Abengourou Daloa Soubré sig mean [Confidence Interval] 90% [83.7%, 96.7%] 89% [81.4%, 96.2%] 100% [100.0%, 100.0%] *** 81% [64.7%, 97.8%] 87% [70.4%, 103.9%] 93% [85.6%, 100.7%] n 89 65 24 26 16 47 Note: significance from a composite Wald statistical test. ***, **, * indicate significance levels of 1%, 5% and 10% respectively Original question: S3.Q87a. Savez-vous quelle quantite d'engrais liquide a été appliquée sur votre exploitation de cacao au cours de la campagne 2017-2018? Table 185: Number of bottles of liquid fertilizer used (2017-2018) (conditional on quantity of liquid fertilizer used known) Number of bottles of liquid fertilizer used (2017-2018) All MOCA Control sig Abengourou Daloa Soubré sig mean [Confidence Interval] 4 [2.77, 5.33] 4.3 [2.85, 5.8] 2.4 [1.69, 3.1] ** 2.8 [1.31, 4.31] 3.8 [1.15, 6.46] 4.4 [2.66, 6.06] median 2.0 2.0 2.0 1.0 2.0 2.8 n 80 56 24 22 14 44 Note: significance from a composite Wald statistical test. ***, **, * indicate significance levels of 1%, 5% and 10% respectively Original question: S3.Q87. Combien de bouteilles/bidons d'engrais liquide au TOTAL ont-elles été appliquées sur votre exploitation de cacao au cours de la campagne 2017-2018 ? Table 186: Volume of liquid fertilizer bottles (2017-2018) (liters) (conditional on quantity of liquid fertilizer used known) Volume of liquid fertilizer bottles (2017-2018) (liters) All MOCA Control sig Abengourou Daloa Soubré sig mean [Confidence Interval] 2.6 [1.89, 3.34] 2.5 [1.74, 3.2] 3.5 [1.07, 5.96] 5 [2.18, 7.9] 2.7 [0.81, 4.49] 2.1 [1.45, 2.79] median 1.0 1.0 1.0 2.0 2.0 1.0 MAXIMIZING OPPORTUNITIES IN COCOA ACTIVITY BASELINE EVALUATION REPORT CNFA.ORG Volume of liquid fertilizer bottles (2017-2018) (liters) All MOCA Control sig Abengourou Daloa Soubré sig n 80 56 24 22 14 44 Note: significance from a composite Wald statistical test. ***, **, * indicate significance levels of 1%, 5% and 10% respectively Original question: S3.Q88. Quel est le volume (en litres) d’UNE bouteille/bidon d'engrais liquide ? Table 187: Liquid fertilizer brand Liquid fertilizer brand All MOCA Control sig Abengourou Daloa Soubré sig Supergrow 23% 21% 34% 53% 27% 17% Callifert 14% 15% 12% 0% 0% 18% Di-grow 3% 4% 0% 0% 0% 4% Other 60% 61% 53% 47% 73% 61% Do not know 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% n 43 32 11 12 4 27 Note: significance from a Rao-Scott second-order corrected Chi-squared statistical test. ***, **, * indicate significance levels of 1%, 5% and 10% respectively Original question: S3.Q90. Nom commercial du produit utilisé en majorité ou le plus fréquemment Table 188: Land liquid fertilizer applied (ha) Land liquid fertilizer applied All MOCA Control sig Abengourou Daloa Soubré sig mean [Confidence Interval] 3.9 [3.09, 4.71] 4.1 [3.13, 4.97] 2.9 [2.13, 3.59] * 3.9 [2.56, 5.15] 3.4 [2.07, 4.76] 4 [2.92, 5.16] median 2.8 3.0 2.0 2.9 2.1 2.9 n 89 65 24 26 16 47 Note: significance from a composite Wald statistical test. ***, **, * indicate significance levels of 1%, 5% and 10% respectively Original question: S3.Q89. Vous avez dit plus tôt cultiver le cacao sur . Sur combien de de l'engrais liquide a-t-il été appliqué ? Table 189: Applier of liquid fertilizer (multiple choices possible) Applier of liquid fertilizer All MOCA Control sig Abengourou Daloa Soubré sig Household members under 15 years of age 0% [0.0%, 0.0%] 0% [0.0%, 0.0%] 0% [0.0%, 0.0%] NA 0% [0.0%, 0.0%] 0% [0.0%, 0.0%] 0% [0.0%, 0.0%] NA Household members aged 15 years and over 46% [34.7%, 57.4%] 46% [33.5%, 58.8%] 45% [24.1%, 66.1%] 30% [11.4%, 48.5%] 37% [13.3%, 60.8%] 52% [37.2%, 67.1%] Communal workers / labor exchange group 0% [-0.4%, 1.1%] 0% [0.0%, 0.0%] 3% [-2.7%, 8.3%] 2% [-2.3%, 6.9%] 0% [0.0%, 0.0%] 0% [0.0%, 0.0%] Farm workers employed permanently 18% [9.8%, 26.8%] 19% [9.1%, 28.0%] 17% [1.1%, 32.0%] 51% [30.3%, 71.2%] 0% [0.0%, 0.0%] 16% [4.7%, 26.5%] *** Paid daily workers 6% [1.3%, 11.2%] 7% [1.5%, 12.9%] 0% [0.0%, 0.0%] ** 5% [-4.7%, 14.9%] 31% [8.3%, 53.8%] 0% [0.0%, 0.0%] ** Applicators from the cooperative 31% [20.2%, 41.1%] 28% [16.6%, 39.7%] 47% [26.5%, 68.3%] 28% [10.3%, 44.7%] 26% [4.0%, 47.7%] 33% [18.6%, 46.6%] Private applicators 8% [1.4%, 14.1%] 9% [1.3%, 15.8%] 3% [-2.7%, 8.3%] 2% [-2.3%, 6.9%] 6% [-5.5%, 17.5%] 10% [0.6%, 18.4%] n 89 65 24 26 16 47 Note: significance from a composite Wald statistical test. ***, **, * indicate significance levels of 1%, 5% and 10% respectively Original question: S3.Q91. Qui a effectué l’application d'engrais liquide sur l’exploitation de cacao: des membres du ménage, des ouvriers payés ou des ouvriers agricoles communaux/groupe d'entraide ? Table 190: Gender of applier of liquid fertilizer Gender of liquid fertilizer applicator All MOCA Control sig Abengourou Daloa Soubré sig Man 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% MAXIMIZING OPPORTUNITIES IN COCOA ACTIVITY BASELINE EVALUATION REPORT CNFA.ORG Gender of liquid fertilizer applicator All MOCA Control sig Abengourou Daloa Soubré sig Woman 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% Both 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% n 89 65 24 26 16 47 Note: significance from a Rao-Scott second-order corrected Chi-squared statistical test. ***, **, * indicate significance levels of 1%, 5% and 10% respectively Original question: S3.Q92. Qui a appliqué l'engrais liquide sur l’exploitation de cacao: des hommes, des femmes ou les deux ? Table 191: Costs application of liquid fertilizer (2017-2018) (FCFA) (conditional on the use of paid daily workers, applicators from the cooperative, private applicators) Costs liquid fertilizer application (2017-2018) (FCFA) All MOCA Control sig Abengourou Daloa Soubré sig mean [Confidence Interval] 2928 [1169, 4688] 3017 [990, 5043] 2363 [1196, 3530] 2297 [523, 4072] 6740 [1348, 12132] 1427 [586, 2267] median 2000 2000 2000 1954 2520 758 n 37 26 11 8 10 19 Note: significance from a composite Wald statistical test. ***, **, * indicate significance levels of 1%, 5% and 10% respectively Original question: S3.Q93. Quel montant avez-vous payé pour l’application d'engrais liquide en 2017/2018? En FCFA Table 192: Frequency of payment application liquid fertilizer (multiple choices possible) (conditional on application costs made) Frequency of payment application liquid fertilizer All MOCA Control sig Abengourou Daloa Soubré sig Amount for each application 42% [24.1%, 59.5%] 46% [26.3%, 66.3%] 13% [-4.7%, 30.6%] ** 40% [2.8%, 78.0%] 50% [18.4%, 81.3%] 39% [14.9%, 62.4%] Amount for each working day 7% [-1.3%, 15.8%] 6% [-2.8%, 15.7%] 12% [-10.2%, 34.7%] 21% [-14.6%, 56.9%] 0% [0.0%, 0.0%] 8% [-3.7%, 20.3%] Amount for each unit produced 19% [6.7%, 32.1%] 14% [0.7%, 26.7%] 56% [25.0%, 87.2%] ** 29% [-1.8%, 59.5%] 30% [1.0%, 58.2%] 14% [-0.6%, 28.2%] Amount for each hectare 16% [1.8%, 30.8%] 19% [2.2%, 35.4%] 0% [0.0%, 0.0%] ** 0% [0.0%, 0.0%] 0% [0.0%, 0.0%] 25% [3.9%, 46.8%] Amount for multiple applications during the season 3% [-2.6%, 7.8%] 3% [-3.0%, 9.1%] 0% [0.0%, 0.0%] 0% [0.0%, 0.0%] 10% [-8.8%, 28.5%] 0% [0.0%, 0.0%] Other 25% [9.2%, 41.3%] 26% [8.1%, 44.4%] 19% [-6.0%, 43.4%] 10% [-9.0%, 28.2%] 11% [-9.3%, 30.7%] 34% [10.9%, 56.3%] n 37 26 11 8 10 19 Note: significance from a composite Wald statistical test. ***, **, * indicate significance levels of 1%, 5% and 10% respectively Original question: S3.Q94. A quelle fréquence avez-vous payé ce montant ? Table 193: Use of compost (2017-2018) (if no, no further questions on compost) Use of compost (2017-2018) (y/n) All MOCA Control sig Abengourou Daloa Soubré sig mean [Confidence Interval] 9% [7.3%, 10.7%] 9% [7.0%, 10.9%] 9% [6.1%, 11.9%] 6% [3.5%, 7.8%] 11% [8.0%, 14.3%] 9% [6.3%, 12.2%] ** n 1300 924 376 428 447 425 Note: significance from a composite Wald statistical test. ***, **, * indicate significance levels of 1%, 5% and 10% respectively Original question: S3.Q95. Du fumier ou du composte a-t-il été appliqué sur l’exploitation de cacao de votre ménage au cours de la campagne 2017-2018 ? Table 194: Frequency of application of compost (2017-2018) Frequency of application of manure or compost (2017-2018) All MOCA Control sig Abengourou Daloa Soubré sig mean [Confidence Interval] 1.3 [1.17, 1.39] 1.3 [1.14, 1.37] 1.4 [1.11, 1.77] 1.2 [1.06, 1.42] 1.3 [1.15, 1.47] 1.3 [1.08, 1.45] median 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 n 115 79 36 29 47 39 MAXIMIZING OPPORTUNITIES IN COCOA ACTIVITY BASELINE EVALUATION REPORT CNFA.ORG Frequency of application of manure or compost (2017-2018) All MOCA Control sig Abengourou Daloa Soubré sig Note: significance from a composite Wald statistical test. ***, **, * indicate significance levels of 1%, 5% and 10% respectively Original question: S3.Q96. Combien de fois du fumier ou du composte a-t-il été appliqué sur l’exploitation de cacao de votre ménage au cours de la campagne 2017-2018 ? Table 195: Month of latest application of compost (2017-2018) Month of latest application of manure or compost (2017-2018) All MOCA Control sig Abengourou Daloa Soubré sig January 5% 4% 7% 2% 5% 5% February 6% 6% 7% 4% 9% 4% March 19% 21% 13% 14% 20% 21% April 14% 16% 2% 16% 10% 16% May 7% 7% 4% 2% 11% 4% June 15% 16% 9% 19% 17% 12% July 9% 8% 11% 19% 7% 6% August 10% 8% 26% 13% 9% 10% September 10% 9% 15% 7% 7% 14% October 4% 4% 7% 2% 5% 5% November 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% December 2% 2% 0% 0% 0% 3% n 117 80 37 30 47 40 Note: significance from a Rao-Scott second-order corrected Chi-squared statistical test. ***, **, * indicate significance levels of 1%, 5% and 10% respectively Original question: S3.Q97. A quel mois remonte la dernière application de fumier ou de composte? Table 196: Land compost applied (ha) Land manure or compost applied All MOCA Control sig Abengourou Daloa Soubré sig mean [Confidence Interval] 2.9 [2.37, 3.38] 2.8 [2.29, 3.21] 3.6 [1.46, 5.7] 2.8 [1.75, 3.8] 2.4 [2, 2.83] 3.3 [2.32, 4.28] median 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.1 2.0 2.9 n 117 80 37 30 47 40 Note: significance from a composite Wald statistical test. ***, **, * indicate significance levels of 1%, 5% and 10% respectively Original question: S3.Q98. Vous avez dit plus tôt cultiver le cacao sur . Sur combien de du fumier ou du composte a-t-il été appliqué ? Table 197: Applier of compost (multiple choices possible) Applier of compost All MOCA Control sig Abengourou Daloa Soubré sig Household members under 15 years of age 0% [0.0%, 0.0%] 0% [0.0%, 0.0%] 0% [0.0%, 0.0%] NA 0% [0.0%, 0.0%] 0% [0.0%, 0.0%] 0% [0.0%, 0.0%] NA Household members aged 15 years and over 96% [92.5%, 98.9%] 97% [93.6%, 100.1%] 89% [78.4%, 99.9%] 85% [71.1%, 98.2%] 98% [93.2%, 102.2%] 98% [94.4%, 101.0%] Communal workers / labor exchange group 1% [-0.3%, 2.8%] 0% [0.0%, 0.0%] 9% [-1.3%, 18.8%] * 4% [-1.6%, 9.9%] 0% [0.0%, 0.0%] 1% [-1.4%, 4.3%] Farm workers employed permanently 12% [6.6%, 18.1%] 11% [4.9%, 17.6%] 19% [6.5%, 31.7%] 59% [39.8%, 77.9%] 3% [-2.5%, 7.9%] 5% [-1.3%, 11.5%] *** Paid daily workers 2% [-0.9%, 5.8%] 3% [-1.1%, 6.8%] 0% [0.0%, 0.0%] 0% [0.0%, 0.0%] 3% [-2.4%, 7.6%] 3% [-2.9%, 9.1%] Company or service provider 2% [-0.8%, 4.7%] 2% [-0.9%, 5.5%] 0% [0.0%, 0.0%] 0% [0.0%, 0.0%] 5% [-1.8%, 11.8%] 0% [0.0%, 0.0%] n 117 80 37 30 47 40 Note: significance from a composite Wald statistical test. ***, **, * indicate significance levels of 1%, 5% and 10% respectively Original question: S3.Q99. Qui a effectué l’application de fumier ou de compost sur l’exploitation de cacao: des membres du ménage, des ouvriers payés ou des ouvriers agricoles communaux/groupe d'entraide ? MAXIMIZING OPPORTUNITIES IN COCOA ACTIVITY BASELINE EVALUATION REPORT CNFA.ORG Table 198: Gender of applier of compost Gender of manure or compost applicator All MOCA Control sig Abengourou Daloa Soubré sig Man 90% 89% 93% 98% 86% 90% Woman 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% Both 10% 11% 7% 2% 14% 10% n 117 80 37 30 47 40 Note: significance from a Rao-Scott second-order corrected Chi-squared statistical test. ***, **, * indicate significance levels of 1%, 5% and 10% respectively Original question: S3.Q100. Qui a appliqué le fumier ou de compost sur l’exploitation de cacao: des hommes, des femmes ou les deux ? Table 199: Total costs application of compost (2017-2018) (FCFA) (conditional on the use of paid daily workers, applicators from the cooperative, private applicators) Costs manure or compost application (2017-2018) (FCFA) All MOCA Control sig Abengourou Daloa Soubré sig mean [Confidence Interval] 50000 [NaN, NaN] 50000 [NaN, NaN] 50000 [NaN, NaN] median 50000 50000 NA NA 50000 NA n 1 1 0 0 1 0 Note: significance from a one-way ANOVA statistical test. ***, **, * indicate significance levels of 1%, 5% and 10% respectively Original question: S3.Q101. Quel montant avez-vous payé pour l’application de fumier ou de composte en 2017/2018? En FCFA Table 200: Frequency of payment application compost (multiple choices possible) Frequency of payment application compost All MOCA Control sig Abengourou Daloa Soubré sig Amount for each application 0% [NaN%, NaN%] 0% [NaN%, NaN%] 0% [NaN%, NaN%] Amount for each working day 0% [NaN%, NaN%] 0% [NaN%, NaN%] 0% [NaN%, NaN%] Amount for each unit produced 0% [NaN%, NaN%] 0% [NaN%, NaN%] 0% [NaN%, NaN%] Amount for each hectare 0% [NaN%, NaN%] 0% [NaN%, NaN%] 0% [NaN%, NaN%] Amount for multiple applications during the season 0% [NaN%, NaN%] 0% [NaN%, NaN%] 0% [NaN%, NaN%] Other 100% [NaN%, NaN%] 100% [NaN%, NaN%] 100% [NaN%, NaN%] n 1 1 0 0 1 0 Note: significance from a one-way ANOVA statistical test. ***, **, * indicate significance levels of 1%, 5% and 10% respectively Original question: S3.Q102. A quelle fréquence avez-vous payé ce montant ? Table 201: Farm equipment Farm equipment All MOCA Control sig Abengourou Daloa Soubré sig Personal protective equipment (y/n) 13% [10.8%, 14.8%] 13% [10.8%, 15.4%] 11% [7.7%, 14.5%] 15% [11.8%, 18.8%] 5% [3.0%, 7.3%] 17% [13.2%, 20.7%] *** Combination (y/n) 3% [1.7%, 3.9%] 3% [1.6%, 4.2%] 2% [0.5%, 3.9%] 2% [0.7%, 3.7%] 1% [-0.1%, 1.9%] 5% [2.3%, 7.0%] ** Nose cover (y/n) 21% [18.7%, 24.0%] 22% [18.9%, 24.9%] 18% [13.6%, 22.3%] 17% [12.8%, 20.9%] 16% [12.6%, 20.2%] 28% [22.9%, 32.8%] *** Glasses (y/n) 7% [5.0%, 8.3%] 7% [4.8%, 8.5%] 6% [3.7%, 9.3%] 5% [2.9%, 7.4%] 5% [2.6%, 7.1%] 9% [5.8%, 12.1%] * Boots (y/n) 77% [73.9%, 79.1%] 78% [74.9%, 80.7%] 69% [64.1%, 74.4%] *** 72% [67.0%, 76.7%] 71% [66.8%, 76.0%] 83% [79.4%, 87.2%] *** Gloves (y/n) 17% [14.4%, 19.3%] 18% [15.2%, 20.9%] 10% [6.9%, 13.8%] *** 10% [6.9%, 13.5%] 11% [7.9%, 14.4%] 25% [20.4%, 30.0%] *** Atomizer (y/n) 11% [9.0%, 12.7%] 10% [8.4%, 12.6%] 13% [9.1%, 16.6%] 9% [5.8%, 11.2%] 8% [5.4%, 10.9%] 14% [10.6%, 17.5%] ** MAXIMIZING OPPORTUNITIES IN COCOA ACTIVITY BASELINE EVALUATION REPORT CNFA.ORG Farm equipment All MOCA Control sig Abengourou Daloa Soubré sig Sprayers (y/n) 28% [25.2%, 30.5%] 25% [22.4%, 28.3%] 43% [37.3%, 48.0%] *** 23% [18.6%, 26.7%] 29% [24.2%, 33.2%] 30% [25.6%, 34.6%] ** n 1300 924 376 428 447 425 Note: significance from a composite Wald statistical test. ***, **, * indicate significance levels of 1%, 5% and 10% respectively Original question: Le ménage possède-t-il le matériel/équipement ci-après ? MAXIMIZING OPPORTUNITIES IN COCOA ACTIVITY BASELINE EVALUATION REPORT CNFA.ORG 8. AGRICULTURAL PRACTICES Table 202: Weeding of cocoa farm (2017-2018) (if no, no further questions on weeding) Weeding of cocoa farm (2017- 2018) (y/n) All MOCA Control sig Abengourou Daloa Soubré sig mean [Confidence Interval] 97% [95.6%, 97.7%] 96% [95.2%, 97.6%] 98% [96.4%, 99.7%] 94% [91.0%, 96.0%] 99% [98.1%, 100.0%] 97% [94.8%, 98.4%] *** n 1300 924 376 428 447 425 Note: significance from a composite Wald statistical test. ***, **, * indicate significance levels of 1%, 5% and 10% respectively Original question: S4.Q1. Votre ménage a-t-il désherbé son exploitation de cacao au cours de la campagne 2017-2018 ? Table 203: Frequency of weeding (2017-2018) Frequency of weeding (2017- 2018) All MOCA Control sig Abengourou Daloa Soubré sig Every time we go to the field 7% 8% 3% ** 5% 8% 8% *** Regularly 36% 35% 43% 42% 36% 34% When we see that it is necessary 50% 50% 50% 49% 46% 53% Occasionally 6% 6% 3% 3% 9% 5% Rarely 1% 1% 0% 1% 1% 1% Never 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% Never, I did not need it 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% n 1258 888 370 404 443 411 Note: significance from a Rao-Scott second-order corrected Chi-squared statistical test. ***, **, * indicate significance levels of 1%, 5% and 10% respectively Original question: S4.Q2. A quelle fréquence votre ménage a-t-il désherbé l’exploitation de cacao au cours de la campagne 2017-2018 ? Table 204: Agent of weeding (multiple choices possible) Agent of weeding All MOCA Control sig Abengourou Daloa Soubré sig Household members under 15 years of age 0% [-0.1%, 0.4%] 0% [-0.1%, 0.3%] 0% [-0.4%, 1.1%] 0% [0.0%, 0.0%] 0% [-0.3%, 0.9%] 0% [-0.1%, 0.4%] Household members aged 15 years and over 80% [77.8%, 82.4%] 80% [77.3%, 82.6%] 81% [77.1%, 85.0%] 58% [53.2%, 63.1%] 86% [82.1%, 89.2%] 88% [84.4%, 91.1%] *** Communal workers / labor exchange group 15% [12.5%, 16.7%] 15% [12.7%, 17.5%] 12% [8.6%, 14.7%] * 5% [2.7%, 6.9%] 28% [23.2%, 32.1%] 10% [7.1%, 13.4%] *** Farm workers employed permanently 30% [27.6%, 33.0%] 30% [27.3%, 33.4%] 30% [25.2%, 34.9%] 62% [57.2%, 67.0%] 9% [6.5%, 12.2%] 29% [24.2%, 33.4%] *** Paid daily workers 9% [7.5%, 10.9%] 9% [6.9%, 10.8%] 11% [8.1%, 14.7%] 9% [5.8%, 11.2%] 12% [9.1%, 15.8%] 7% [4.6%, 9.9%] * Company or service provider 7% [5.8%, 8.9%] 7% [5.7%, 9.2%] 7% [4.4%, 9.2%] 2% [0.7%, 3.5%] 18% [13.8%, 21.4%] 3% [0.9%, 4.2%] *** n 1258 888 370 404 443 411 Note: significance from a composite Wald statistical test. ***, **, * indicate significance levels of 1%, 5% and 10% respectively Original question: S4.Q4. Qui a effectué le désherbage sur l’exploitation de cacao: des membres du ménage, des ouvriers payés ou des ouvriers agricoles communaux/groupe d'entraide ? Table 205: Gender of Agent of weeding Gender-specific participation to weeding All MOCA Control sig Abengourou Daloa Soubré sig Man 97% 97% 99% 98% 97% 97% Woman 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 1% Both 3% 3% 1% 2% 3% 2% n 1258 888 370 404 443 411 MAXIMIZING OPPORTUNITIES IN COCOA ACTIVITY BASELINE EVALUATION REPORT CNFA.ORG Gender-specific participation to weeding All MOCA Control sig Abengourou Daloa Soubré sig Note: significance from a Rao-Scott second-order corrected Chi-squared statistical test. ***, **, * indicate significance levels of 1%, 5% and 10% respectively Original question: S4.Q5. Qui a effectué le désherbage sur l’exploitation de cacao: des hommes, des femmes ou les deux ? Table 206: Total costs of weeding (2017-2018) (FCFA) (conditional on the use of paid daily workers, applicators from the cooperative, private applicators) Weeding costs (FCFA) All MOCA Control sig Abengourou Daloa Soubré sig mean [Confidence Interval] 58966 [37790, 80142] 61923 [36795, 87051] 43827 [30232, 57423] 50556 [28715, 72397] 65895 [38206, 93584] 21358 [8569, 34147] *** median 36127 37181 30000 29493 50000 13108 n 64 41 23 16 44 4 Note: significance from a composite Wald statistical test. ***, **, * indicate significance levels of 1%, 5% and 10% respectively Original question: S4.Q6. Combien avez-vous payé pour le désherbage? Table 207: Removal of suckers on cocoa farm (2017-2018) (if no, no further questions on removal of suckers) Removal of suckers on cocoa farm (2017-2018) (y/n) All MOCA Control sig Abengourou Daloa Soubré sig mean [Confidence Interval] 96% [94.7%, 97.1%] 96% [94.2%, 96.9%] 98% [96.9%, 99.6%] *** 93% [90.1%, 95.4%] 98% [97.2%, 99.6%] 96% [93.8%, 97.9%] *** n 1300 924 376 428 447 425 Note: significance from a composite Wald statistical test. ***, **, * indicate significance levels of 1%, 5% and 10% respectively Original question: S4.Q10. Votre ménage a-t-il effectué l'égourmandage de son exploitation de cacao au cours de la campagne 2017-2018 ? Table 208: Frequency of removal of suckers (2017-2018) Frequency of removal of suckers (2017-2018) All MOCA Control sig Abengourou Daloa Soubré sig Every time we go to the field 15% 14% 18% 17% 12% 15% *** Regularly 36% 35% 37% 27% 38% 39% When we see that it is necessary 44% 44% 40% 51% 42% 41% Occasionally 5% 5% 5% 4% 7% 5% Rarely 0% 0% 0% 0% 1% 0% Never 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% Never, I did not need it 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% n 1249 880 369 402 438 409 Note: significance from a Rao-Scott second-order corrected Chi-squared statistical test. ***, **, * indicate significance levels of 1%, 5% and 10% respectively Original question: S4.Q11. A quelle fréquence votre ménage a-t-il effectué l'égourmandage l’exploitation de cacao au cours de la campagne 2017-2018 ? Table 209: Agent of removal of suckers (multiple choices possible) Agent of removal of suckers All MOCA Control sig Abengourou Daloa Soubré sig Household members under 15 years of age 0% [0.0%, 0.6%] 0% [-0.0%, 0.6%] 0% [-0.2%, 0.9%] 1% [-0.1%, 1.8%] 0% [-0.3%, 0.9%] 0% [0.0%, 0.0%] Household members aged 15 years and over 88% [85.8%, 89.6%] 87% [85.3%, 89.6%] 89% [86.1%, 92.4%] 69% [64.1%, 73.5%] 97% [95.5%, 98.7%] 91% [87.8%, 93.8%] *** Communal workers / labor exchange group 7% [5.1%, 8.2%] 7% [5.6%, 9.2%] 3% [1.1%, 4.0%] *** 2% [0.9%, 4.0%] 12% [8.3%, 14.9%] 5% [2.9%, 7.6%] *** Farm workers employed permanently 28% [24.9%, 30.3%] 28% [25.2%, 31.3%] 24% [19.4%, 28.5%] 58% [53.0%, 63.0%] 8% [5.0%, 10.2%] 26% [21.6%, 30.6%] *** Paid daily workers 1% [0.5%, 1.7%] 1% [0.4%, 1.6%] 2% [0.1%, 2.9%] 2% [0.4%, 3.2%] 1% [0.1%, 2.4%] 1% [-0.1%, 1.3%] Company or service provider 1% [0.2%, 1.1%] 1% [0.2%, 1.3%] 0% [0.0%, 0.0%] *** 0% [-0.3%, 0.9%] 1% [0.2%, 2.6%] 0% [-0.3%, 0.8%] MAXIMIZING OPPORTUNITIES IN COCOA ACTIVITY BASELINE EVALUATION REPORT CNFA.ORG Agent of removal of suckers All MOCA Control sig Abengourou Daloa Soubré sig n 1249 880 369 402 438 409 Note: significance from a composite Wald statistical test. ***, **, * indicate significance levels of 1%, 5% and 10% respectively Original question: S4.Q12. Qui a effectué l'égourmandage sur l’exploitation de cacao: des membres du ménage, des ouvriers payés ou des ouvriers agricoles communaux/groupe d'entraide ? Table 210: Gender of agent of removal of suckers Gender-specific participation to removal of suckers All MOCA Control sig Abengourou Daloa Soubré sig Man 98% 98% 99% 100% 97% 98% Woman 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 1% ** Both 2% 2% 1% 0% 3% 1% n 1249 880 369 402 438 409 Note: significance from a Rao-Scott second-order corrected Chi-squared statistical test. ***, **, * indicate significance levels of 1%, 5% and 10% respectively Original question: S4.Q13. Qui a effectué l'égourmandage sur l’exploitation de cacao: des hommes, des femmes ou les deux ? Table 211: Total costs of removal of suckers (2017-2018) (FCFA) (conditional on the use of paid daily workers, applicators from the cooperative, private applicators) Removal of suckers costs (FCFA) All MOCA Control sig Abengourou Daloa Soubré sig mean [Confidence Interval] 45470 [-33103, 124043] 45470 [-33103, 124043] 20000 [20000, 20000] 86044 [-37225, 209313] 0 [0, 0] median 1866 1866 20000 80000 0 n 4 4 0 1 2 1 Note: significance from a composite Wald statistical test. ***, **, * indicate significance levels of 1%, 5% and 10% respectively Original question: S4.Q14. Combien avez-vous payé pour l'égourmandage? Table 212: Mistletoe removal (2017-2018) (if no, no further questions on mistletoe) Mistletoe removal of cocoa farm (2017-2018) (y/n) All MOCA Control sig Abengourou Daloa Soubré sig mean [Confidence Interval] 93% [91.5%, 94.5%] 92% [90.6%, 94.0%] 97% [95.5%, 98.7%] *** 91% [88.5%, 94.3%] 90% [86.5%, 92.6%] 96% [94.4%, 98.3%] *** n 1300 924 376 428 447 425 Note: significance from a composite Wald statistical test. ***, **, * indicate significance levels of 1%, 5% and 10% respectively Original question: S4.Q18. Votre ménage a-t-il supprimé les loranthus de son exploitation de cacao au cours de la campagne 2017-2018 ? Table 213: Frequency of mistletoe removal (2017-2018) Frequency of mistletoe removal (2017-2018) All MOCA Control sig Abengourou Daloa Soubré sig Every time we go to the field 15% 14% 21% ** 15% 15% 15% *** Regularly 37% 38% 31% 33% 36% 40% When we see that it is necessary 41% 40% 42% 49% 36% 39% Occasionally 6% 6% 6% 3% 12% 4% Rarely 1% 1% 0% 0% 2% 1% Never 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 1% Never, I did not need it 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% n 1210 847 363 397 402 411 Note: significance from a Rao-Scott second-order corrected Chi-squared statistical test. ***, **, * indicate significance levels of 1%, 5% and 10% respectively Original question: S4.Q19. A quelle fréquence votre ménage a-t-il supprimé les loranthus de l’exploitation de cacao au cours de la campagne 2017-2018 ? MAXIMIZING OPPORTUNITIES IN COCOA ACTIVITY BASELINE EVALUATION REPORT CNFA.ORG Table 214: Agent of mistletoe removal (multiple choices possible) Agent of loranthus removal All MOCA Control sig Abengourou Daloa Soubré sig Household members under 15 years of age 0% [-0.0%, 0.2%] 0% [0.0%, 0.0%] 1% [-0.3%, 1.5%] 0% [-0.1%, 0.4%] 0% [0.0%, 0.0%] 0% [-0.1%, 0.4%] Household members aged 15 years and over 87% [85.3%, 89.2%] 87% [84.8%, 89.2%] 89% [85.4%, 92.0%] 69% [63.9%, 73.3%] 98% [96.0%, 99.1%] 90% [87.1%, 93.2%] *** Communal workers / labor exchange group 6% [4.1%, 7.0%] 6% [4.4%, 7.7%] 3% [1.5%, 4.6%] ** 2% [0.3%, 2.9%] 11% [8.0%, 14.8%] 4% [1.7%, 5.7%] *** Farm workers employed permanently 30% [26.8%, 32.3%] 30% [27.2%, 33.5%] 25% [20.4%, 29.7%] * 60% [55.4%, 65.4%] 8% [5.0%, 10.6%] 28% [23.3%, 32.5%] *** Paid daily workers 1% [0.5%, 1.8%] 1% [0.4%, 1.8%] 2% [0.3%, 3.4%] 0% [-0.2%, 1.1%] 2% [0.6%, 3.6%] 1% [0.1%, 1.9%] Company or service provider 1% [0.2%, 1.3%] 1% [0.2%, 1.6%] 0% [0.0%, 0.0%] *** 0% [0.0%, 0.0%] 2% [0.2%, 2.9%] 1% [-0.2%, 1.5%] ** n 1210 847 363 397 402 411 Note: significance from a composite Wald statistical test. ***, **, * indicate significance levels of 1%, 5% and 10% respectively Original question: S4.Q20. Qui a supprimé les loranthus sur l’exploitation de cacao: des membres du ménage, des ouvriers payés ou des ouvriers agricoles communaux/groupe d'entraide ? Table 215: Gender of agent of mistletoe removal Gender-specific participation to mistletoe removal All MOCA Control sig Abengourou Daloa Soubré sig Man 99% 99% 100% 100% 99% 98% Woman 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 1% Both 1% 1% 0% 0% 1% 1% n 1210 847 363 397 402 411 Note: significance from a Rao-Scott second-order corrected Chi-squared statistical test. ***, **, * indicate significance levels of 1%, 5% and 10% respectively Original question: S4.Q21. Qui a supprimé les loranthus sur l’exploitation de cacao: des hommes, des femmes ou les deux ? Table 216: Total costs of mistletoe removal (2017-2018) (FCFA) (conditional on the use of paid daily workers, applicators from the cooperative, private applicators) Mistletoe removal costs (FCFA) All MOCA Control sig Abengourou Daloa Soubré sig mean [Confidence Interval] 17786 [-1512, 37083] 17598 [-3330, 38527] 20000 [20000, 20000] 20000 [20000, 20000] 17013 [-8987, 43013] median 5832 11250 20000 20000 2244 n 5 4 1 2 3 0 Note: significance from a composite Wald statistical test. ***, **, * indicate significance levels of 1%, 5% and 10% respectively Original question: S4.Q22. Combien avez-vous payé pour la suppression des loranthus? Table 217: Pruning (2017-2018) (if no, no further questions on pruning) Pruning of cocoa farm (2017- 2018) (y/n) All MOCA Control sig Abengourou Daloa Soubré sig mean [Confidence Interval] 85% [82.5%, 86.8%] 84% [81.3%, 86.2%] 90% [87.0%, 92.6%] *** 86% [82.8%, 89.8%] 78% [73.9%, 81.9%] 89% [85.2%, 91.9%] *** n 1300 924 376 428 447 425 Note: significance from a composite Wald statistical test. ***, **, * indicate significance levels of 1%, 5% and 10% respectively Original question: S4.Q26. Votre ménage a-t-il effectué l'élagage de son exploitation de cacao au cours de la campagne 2017-2018 ? MAXIMIZING OPPORTUNITIES IN COCOA ACTIVITY BASELINE EVALUATION REPORT CNFA.ORG Table 218: Frequency of pruning (2017-2018) Frequency of pruning (2017- 2018) All MOCA Control sig Abengourou Daloa Soubré sig Every time we go to the field 12% 11% 12% ** 3% 11% 17% *** Regularly 25% 26% 19% 23% 25% 26% When we see that it is necessary 51% 50% 60% 69% 48% 44% Occasionally 9% 9% 6% 5% 11% 9% Rarely 3% 4% 2% 1% 4% 4% Never 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% Never, I did not need it 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% n 1100 773 327 378 337 385 Note: significance from a Rao-Scott second-order corrected Chi-squared statistical test. ***, **, * indicate significance levels of 1%, 5% and 10% respectively Original question: S4.Q27. A quelle fréquence votre ménage a-t-il effectué l'élagage de l’exploitation de cacao au cours de la campagne 2017-2018 ? Table 219: Agent of pruning (multiple choices possible) Agent of pruning All MOCA Control sig Abengourou Daloa Soubré sig Household members under 15 years of age 0% [0.0%, 0.0%] 0% [0.0%, 0.0%] 0% [0.0%, 0.0%] NA 0% [0.0%, 0.0%] 0% [0.0%, 0.0%] 0% [0.0%, 0.0%] NA Household members aged 15 years and over 87% [85.1%, 89.2%] 87% [84.5%, 89.2%] 89% [85.5%, 92.3%] 68% [62.7%, 72.5%] 98% [96.1%, 99.3%] 91% [87.9%, 94.1%] *** Communal workers / labor exchange group 5% [3.9%, 6.8%] 6% [4.2%, 7.7%] 2% [0.6%, 3.2%] *** 1% [0.1%, 2.7%] 12% [8.4%, 16.0%] 3% [1.2%, 5.0%] *** Farm workers employed permanently 29% [26.6%, 32.3%] 30% [26.7%, 33.2%] 27% [21.8%, 31.7%] 59% [53.5%, 63.8%] 7% [4.5%, 10.5%] 28% [22.9%, 32.4%] *** Paid daily workers 1% [0.4%, 1.7%] 1% [0.3%, 1.8%] 1% [-0.0%, 2.3%] 1% [-0.1%, 1.9%] 2% [0.1%, 3.0%] 1% [-0.1%, 1.7%] Company or service provider 1% [0.1%, 1.1%] 1% [0.1%, 1.3%] 0% [0.0%, 0.0%] ** 0% [-0.3%, 1.0%] 2% [0.2%, 3.3%] 0% [0.0%, 0.0%] ** n 1100 773 327 378 337 385 Note: significance from a composite Wald statistical test. ***, **, * indicate significance levels of 1%, 5% and 10% respectively Original question: S4.Q28. Qui a effectué l'élagage sur l’exploitation de cacao: des membres du ménage, des ouvriers payés ou des ouvriers agricoles communaux/groupe d'entraide ? Table 220: Gender of agent of pruning Gender-specific participation to pruning All MOCA Control sig Abengourou Daloa Soubré sig Man 99% 98% 100% 100% 97% 99% Woman 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% Both 1% 1% 0% 0% 3% 1% n 1100 773 327 378 337 385 Note: significance from a Rao-Scott second-order corrected Chi-squared statistical test. ***, **, * indicate significance levels of 1%, 5% and 10% respectively Original question: S4.Q29. Qui a effectué l'élagage sur l’exploitation de cacao: des hommes, des femmes ou les deux ? Table 221: Total costs of pruning (2017-2018) (FCFA) (conditional on the use of paid daily workers, applicators from the cooperative, private applicators) Pruning costs (FCFA) All MOCA Control sig Abengourou Daloa Soubré sig mean [Confidence Interval] 4000 [-517, 8516] 2231 [1809, 2652] 15000 [15000, 15000] 15000 [15000, 15000] 2231 [1809, 2652] median 2045 2250 15000 15000 2250 n 3 2 1 1 2 0 Note: significance from a composite Wald statistical test. ***, **, * indicate significance levels of 1%, 5% and 10% respectively Original question: S4.Q30. Combien avez-vous payé pour l'élagage? MAXIMIZING OPPORTUNITIES IN COCOA ACTIVITY BASELINE EVALUATION REPORT CNFA.ORG Table 222: Diseases/pests (2017-2018) (if no, no further questions on diseases/pests) Diseases/pests (2017-2018) (y/n) All MOCA Control sig Abengourou Daloa Soubré sig mean [Confidence Interval] 67% [63.9%, 69.4%] 66% [62.9%, 69.1%] 70% [65.5%, 75.0%] 49% [43.9%, 53.7%] 73% [68.4%, 77.3%] 72% [67.5%, 76.5%] *** n 1299 923 376 428 446 425 Note: significance from a composite Wald statistical test. ***, **, * indicate significance levels of 1%, 5% and 10% respectively Original question: S4.Q34. Au cours de la campagne 2017-2018, avez-vous subi des pertes de cacao liées à des maladies et/ou nuisibles? Table 223: Types of diseases/pests (2017-2018) (multiple choices possible) Types of diseases/pests (2017- 2018) All MOCA Control sig Abengourou Daloa Soubré sig Black pod 58% [54.5%, 61.7%] 59% [55.1%, 63.4%] 52% [45.4%, 58.2%] * 68% [61.6%, 74.8%] 55% [49.0%, 60.6%] 57% [51.0%, 62.5%] *** Root rot 8% [6.2%, 10.0%] 8% [5.7%, 10.0%] 10% [6.0%, 13.2%] 12% [7.6%, 17.1%] 11% [7.1%, 14.0%] 5% [2.3%, 7.3%] *** Swollen Shoot 36% [32.0%, 39.1%] 36% [32.0%, 40.1%] 33% [26.6%, 38.8%] 3% [0.3%, 4.8%] 51% [45.4%, 57.0%] 36% [30.8%, 42.1%] *** Canker 3% [1.8%, 4.2%] 3% [1.9%, 4.7%] 1% [-0.2%, 2.4%] ** 2% [0.1%, 4.2%] 6% [2.8%, 8.2%] 1% [0.1%, 2.9%] ** Mistletoe 31% [27.6%, 34.6%] 32% [27.8%, 35.8%] 27% [21.2%, 33.0%] 7% [3.6%, 11.2%] 29% [23.8%, 34.4%] 41% [35.6%, 47.1%] *** Akate 19% [16.3%, 22.2%] 18% [15.0%, 21.7%] 24% [18.1%, 29.5%] 17% [11.7%, 22.5%] 10% [6.8%, 14.0%] 26% [21.3%, 31.5%] *** Mirids 26% [22.7%, 29.0%] 23% [19.5%, 26.5%] 41% [34.8%, 47.6%] *** 24% [18.3%, 30.5%] 25% [20.2%, 30.4%] 27% [21.8%, 31.7%] Black ants 19% [16.0%, 22.0%] 20% [16.9%, 23.8%] 11% [7.4%, 15.3%] *** 10% [5.7%, 14.2%] 19% [14.8%, 24.0%] 22% [17.0%, 27.1%] *** Termites 17% [14.6%, 20.4%] 18% [15.0%, 21.6%] 13% [8.5%, 17.2%] ** 15% [9.8%, 20.1%] 14% [10.4%, 18.6%] 21% [15.7%, 25.4%] Rodents 25% [21.7%, 28.3%] 26% [22.4%, 29.8%] 19% [13.9%, 24.2%] ** 10% [5.5%, 14.1%] 30% [24.2%, 35.0%] 27% [22.1%, 32.6%] *** Stem borer 36% [32.5%, 39.5%] 34% [29.6%, 37.6%] 49% [42.4%, 55.2%] *** 26% [19.6%, 32.3%] 37% [31.0%, 42.3%] 39% [33.5%, 44.9%] *** Green moss 8% [5.9%, 9.9%] 9% [6.3%, 10.9%] 4% [1.6%, 6.6%] ** 12% [7.0%, 16.4%] 7% [4.1%, 10.0%] 7% [4.0%, 10.2%] Other 6% [4.4%, 7.8%] 6% [4.2%, 8.1%] 6% [2.8%, 8.8%] 4% [1.5%, 7.3%] 9% [5.5%, 12.1%] 5% [2.3%, 7.3%] * Do not know 0% [-0.0%, 0.1%] 0% [0.0%, 0.0%] 0% [-0.3%, 0.9%] 0% [0.0%, 0.0%] 0% [-0.1%, 0.4%] 0% [0.0%, 0.0%] n 848 590 258 209 327 312 Note: significance from a composite Wald statistical test. ***, **, * indicate significance levels of 1%, 5% and 10% respectively Original question: S4.Q35. Quelles maladies/nuisibles ont affecté votre production de cacao au cours de la campagne 2017-2018 ? Table 224: Most severe disease/pest (2017-2018) Most severe disease/pest (2017- 2018) All MOCA Control sig Abengourou Daloa Soubré sig Black pod 29% 29% 27% *** 52% 19% 28% *** Root rot 1% 1% 3% 3% 2% 0% Swollen Shoot 30% 30% 28% 1% 43% 31% Canker 0% 0% 0% 1% 1% 0% Mistletoe 4% 5% 1% 2% 2% 7% Akate 3% 3% 3% 8% 1% 3% Mirids 8% 6% 17% 8% 5% 9% Black ants 1% 1% 1% 1% 0% 2% Termites 1% 1% 1% 3% 0% 0% Rodents 4% 5% 2% 2% 9% 2% Stem borer 13% 13% 12% 16% 12% 13% MAXIMIZING OPPORTUNITIES IN COCOA ACTIVITY BASELINE EVALUATION REPORT CNFA.ORG Most severe disease/pest (2017- 2018) All MOCA Control sig Abengourou Daloa Soubré sig Green moss 1% 1% 1% 2% 1% 1% Other 4% 4% 5% 2% 6% 4% Do not know 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% n 848 590 258 209 327 312 Note: significance from a Rao-Scott second-order corrected Chi-squared statistical test. ***, **, * indicate significance levels of 1%, 5% and 10% respectively Original question: S4.Q36. Quelle maladie/nuisible a causé la PLUS IMPORTANTE perte de votre production de cacao au cours de la campagne 2017-2018 ? Table 225: Second most severe disease/pest (2017-2018) Second most severe disease/pest (2017-2018) All MOCA Control sig Abengourou Daloa Soubré sig Black pod 24% 24% 23% ** 29% 32% 16% *** Root rot 2% 2% 1% 8% 3% 0% Swollen Shoot 7% 7% 6% 1% 8% 8% Canker 1% 1% 0% 1% 0% 1% Mistletoe 10% 11% 4% 3% 7% 15% Akate 10% 11% 6% 8% 4% 16% Mirids 11% 11% 14% 19% 8% 11% Black ants 2% 3% 1% 2% 1% 3% Termites 3% 3% 1% 6% 1% 4% Rodents 5% 5% 6% 2% 8% 4% Stem borer 21% 18% 35% 15% 22% 21% Green moss 1% 2% 0% 2% 2% 1% Other 2% 2% 2% 3% 3% 1% Do not know 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% n 505 364 141 95 216 194 Note: significance from a Rao-Scott second-order corrected Chi-squared statistical test. ***, **, * indicate significance levels of 1%, 5% and 10% respectively Original question: S4.Q37. Quelle maladie/nuisible a causé la DEUXIÈME PLUS IMPORTANTE perte de votre production de cacao au cours de la campagne 2017-2018 ? Table 226: Effects most severe disease Effects most severe disease All MOCA Control sig Abengourou Daloa Soubré sig Slight loss 36% 38% 28% ** 46% 19% 45% Average loss 25% 25% 27% 30% 33% 18% *** Significant loss 39% 37% 45% 24% 48% 37% n 848 590 258 209 327 312 Note: significance from a Rao-Scott second-order corrected Chi-squared statistical test. ***, **, * indicate significance levels of 1%, 5% and 10% respectively Original question: S4.Q38. Comment votre production de cacao a-t-elle été affectée par ? Table 227: Counteractions most severe disease (multiple choices possible) Counteractions most severe disease All MOCA Control sig Abengourou Daloa Soubré sig Phytosanitary measures 51% [46.9%, 54.2%] 49% [45.1%, 53.4%] 58% [51.6%, 64.1%] ** 61% [53.9%, 67.6%] 29% [23.7%, 34.1%] 62% [56.8%, 68.1%] *** Removing infected plants 25% [21.3%, 27.9%] 26% [22.0%, 29.5%] 18% [13.4%, 23.2%] ** 6% [2.6%, 9.1%] 24% [19.5%, 29.5%] 32% [26.1%, 37.2%] *** MAXIMIZING OPPORTUNITIES IN COCOA ACTIVITY BASELINE EVALUATION REPORT CNFA.ORG Counteractions most severe disease All MOCA Control sig Abengourou Daloa Soubré sig No action 27% [24.0%, 30.4%] 27% [23.7%, 31.0%] 26% [20.8%, 31.9%] 27% [20.9%, 33.4%] 42% [36.1%, 47.6%] 17% [12.4%, 21.0%] *** Other 6% [4.5%, 7.9%] 6% [4.1%, 8.0%] 7% [3.7%, 10.2%] 8% [3.9%, 11.2%] 8% [4.8%, 11.3%] 4% [2.0%, 6.7%] n 848 590 258 209 327 312 Note: significance from a composite Wald statistical test. ***, **, * indicate significance levels of 1%, 5% and 10% respectively Original question: S4.Q39. Quelles sont les mesures/actions que vous avez prises face à ${disease_mostimp} ? Table 228: Support most severe disease management Support most severe disease management (y/n) All MOCA Control sig Abengourou Daloa Soubré sig mean [Confidence Interval] 15% [12.8%, 17.9%] 14% [11.6%, 17.3%] 20% [14.8%, 25.0%] * 24% [17.7%, 29.7%] 16% [11.3%, 19.8%] 12% [8.3%, 15.7%] *** n 848 590 258 209 327 312 Note: significance from a composite Wald statistical test. ***, **, * indicate significance levels of 1%, 5% and 10% respectively Original question: S4.Q40. Avez-vous bénéficié d’une aide ou d'un appui pour la gestion de ? Table 229: Source of support most severe disease management (conditional on receiving support) Source of support most severe disease management All MOCA Control sig Abengourou Daloa Soubré sig Family, friends, relatives 7% 8% 3% 14% 0% 9% *** ANADER 16% 13% 29% 0% 14% 31% CCC 10% 9% 13% 12% 4% 13% Lead farmer 2% 2% 1% 2% 1% 3% Cooperative 63% 65% 54% 71% 76% 45% Service provider/private company 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% NGO, partner 2% 2% 0% 0% 5% 0% n 142 91 51 50 51 41 Note: significance from a Rao-Scott second-order corrected Chi-squared statistical test. ***, **, * indicate significance levels of 1%, 5% and 10% respectively Original question: S4.Q41. De la part de qui principalement? Table 230: Rating support most severe disease management (conditional on receiving support) Self-rating support most severe disease management All MOCA Control sig Abengourou Daloa Soubré sig Useless 9% 9% 7% 1% 10% 13% *** Insufficient 39% 40% 35% 68% 34% 22% Satisfactory 37% 35% 41% 27% 27% 52% Very useful 15% 14% 16% 1% 27% 13% Essential 2% 2% 1% 3% 2% 0% n 142 91 51 50 51 41 Note: significance from a Rao-Scott second-order corrected Chi-squared statistical test. ***, **, * indicate significance levels of 1%, 5% and 10% respectively Original question: S4.Q42. Comment-jugeriez-vous l’utilité pour vous de l’appui dont vous avez bénéficié pour la gestion de ? Table 231: Effects second most severe disease Effects second most severe disease All MOCA Control sig Abengourou Daloa Soubré sig Slight loss 53% 55% 44% ** 53% 52% 54% Average loss 26% 25% 36% 27% 31% 23% Significant loss 20% 20% 20% 20% 16% 23% n 655 476 179 167 240 248 Note: significance from a Rao-Scott second-order corrected Chi-squared statistical test. ***, **, * indicate significance levels of 1%, 5% and 10% respectively Original question: S4.Q43. Comment votre production de cacao a-t-elle été affectée par ? MAXIMIZING OPPORTUNITIES IN COCOA ACTIVITY BASELINE EVALUATION REPORT CNFA.ORG Table 232: Counteractions second most severe disease (multiple choices possible) Counteractions second most severe disease All MOCA Control sig Abengourou Daloa Soubré sig Phytosanitary measures 55% [51.0%, 59.3%] 53% [48.3%, 57.6%] 69% [62.5%, 76.4%] *** 54% [45.6%, 61.5%] 42% [35.4%, 48.5%] 65% [58.5%, 71.1%] *** Removing infected plants 19% [15.6%, 22.5%] 21% [17.1%, 25.0%] 6% [2.6%, 9.7%] *** 6% [2.1%, 9.4%] 14% [9.6%, 19.1%] 27% [21.0%, 33.0%] *** No action 26% [22.4%, 29.5%] 27% [23.0%, 31.0%] 19% [13.4%, 25.3%] ** 35% [27.1%, 42.3%] 37% [30.7%, 43.7%] 15% [10.5%, 19.8%] *** Other 6% [3.7%, 7.3%] 5% [3.2%, 7.2%] 8% [3.7%, 11.4%] 6% [2.4%, 9.5%] 8% [4.7%, 12.1%] 3% [1.0%, 5.7%] * n 652 475 177 164 240 248 Note: significance from a composite Wald statistical test. ***, **, * indicate significance levels of 1%, 5% and 10% respectively Original question: S4.Q44. Quelles sont les mesures/actions que vous avez prises face à ${disease_mostimp2} ? Table 233: Support second most severe disease management Support second most severe disease management (y/n) All MOCA Control sig Abengourou Daloa Soubré sig mean [Confidence Interval] 15% [12.0%, 17.7%] 15% [12.0%, 18.5%] 12% [7.4%, 16.6%] 25% [17.9%, 31.4%] 17% [11.9%, 22.0%] 10% [5.8%, 13.7%] *** n 658 476 182 169 241 248 Note: significance from a composite Wald statistical test. ***, **, * indicate significance levels of 1%, 5% and 10% respectively Original question: S4.Q45. Avez-vous bénéficié d’une aide ou d'un appui pour la gestion de ? Table 234: Source of support second most severe disease management (conditional on receiving support) Source of support second most severe disease management All MOCA Control sig Abengourou Daloa Soubré sig Family, friends, relatives 9% 10% 0% 23% 0% 5% *** ANADER 8% 7% 13% 5% 0% 19% CCC 9% 8% 13% 18% 1% 10% Lead farmer 2% 2% 3% 0% 1% 5% Cooperative 72% 72% 71% 53% 95% 61% Service provider/private company 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% NGO, partner 1% 1% 0% 0% 3% 0% n 103 78 25 42 39 22 Note: significance from a Rao-Scott second-order corrected Chi-squared statistical test. ***, **, * indicate significance levels of 1%, 5% and 10% respectively Original question: S4.Q46. De la part de qui principalement? Table 235: Rating support second most severe disease management (conditional on receiving support) Self-rating support second most severe disease management All MOCA Control sig Abengourou Daloa Soubré sig Useless 6% 6% 9% 4% 3% 12% *** Insufficient 42% 40% 54% 60% 37% 31% Satisfactory 36% 38% 20% 28% 29% 51% Very useful 14% 14% 13% 1% 32% 5% Essential 2% 2% 3% 6% 0% 0% n 103 78 25 42 39 22 Note: significance from a Rao-Scott second-order corrected Chi-squared statistical test. ***, **, * indicate significance levels of 1%, 5% and 10% respectively Original question: S4.Q47. Comment-jugeriez-vous l’utilité pour vous de l’appui dont vous avez bénéficié pour la gestion de ? MAXIMIZING OPPORTUNITIES IN COCOA ACTIVITY BASELINE EVALUATION REPORT CNFA.ORG 9. POST-HARVEST PRACTICES Table 236: Cocoa harvesting in 2017-2018 (if no, no further questions asked on harvesting) Cocoa harvesting (2017-2018) (y/n) All MOCA Control sig Abengourou Daloa Soubré sig mean [Confidence Interval] 99% [98.1%, 99.4%] 99% [97.8%, 99.3%] 100% [99.4%, 100.2%] *** 97% [95.2%, 98.7%] 99% [98.1%, 100.0%] 99% [98.7%, 100.2%] ** n 1300 924 376 428 447 425 Note: significance from a composite Wald statistical test. ***, **, * indicate significance levels of 1%, 5% and 10% respectively Original question: S5.Q1. Avez-vous effectué des récoltes de cacao au cours de la campagne 2017-2018 ? Table 237: Frequency of cocoa harvesting (2017-2018) Frequency of cocoa harvesting (2017-2018) All MOCA Control sig Abengourou Daloa Soubré sig mean [Confidence Interval] 6.4 [6.23, 6.62] 6.4 [6.21, 6.66] 6.4 [6.01, 6.73] 5.2 [5.02, 5.39] 5.5 [5.27, 5.76] 7.7 [7.36, 8.1] *** median 6.0 6.0 6.0 5.0 5.0 7.0 n 1280 907 373 417 442 421 Note: significance from a composite Wald statistical test. ***, **, * indicate significance levels of 1%, 5% and 10% respectively Original question: S5.Q2. Combien de fois votre cacao a-t-il été récolté au cours de la campagne 2017-2018 ? Table 238: Months of cocoa harvesting (2017-2018) (multiple choices possible) Months of cocoa harvesting (2017-2018) All MOCA Control sig Abengourou Daloa Soubré sig January 55% [52.2%, 58.1%] 56% [52.6%, 59.3%] 51% [45.6%, 56.2%] 50% [45.5%, 55.5%] 61% [55.8%, 65.6%] 54% [48.7%, 58.7%] ** February 36% [33.3%, 39.1%] 36% [32.9%, 39.5%] 36% [31.3%, 41.7%] 15% [11.5%, 18.8%] 40% [35.1%, 44.9%] 45% [39.8%, 49.8%] *** March 36% [33.2%, 39.0%] 36% [32.6%, 39.1%] 37% [32.2%, 42.6%] 34% [29.5%, 39.0%] 20% [15.8%, 23.9%] 49% [43.7%, 53.7%] *** April 39% [36.2%, 42.0%] 38% [34.5%, 41.0%] 47% [41.3%, 51.9%] *** 57% [51.8%, 61.7%] 9% [6.3%, 12.2%] 51% [45.9%, 55.9%] *** May 37% [34.2%, 40.0%] 37% [33.6%, 40.2%] 38% [32.9%, 43.5%] 41% [36.0%, 45.8%] 6% [3.4%, 8.3%] 57% [52.4%, 62.4%] *** June 25% [22.0%, 27.5%] 25% [21.7%, 27.8%] 25% [20.0%, 29.9%] 10% [7.2%, 13.3%] 3% [1.0%, 4.3%] 48% [43.3%, 53.3%] *** July 15% [13.1%, 17.7%] 14% [11.8%, 17.0%] 21% [16.7%, 26.2%] ** 4% [1.8%, 5.4%] 1% [-0.2%, 1.2%] 32% [27.8%, 37.1%] *** August 14% [12.1%, 16.5%] 13% [10.4%, 15.3%] 23% [18.1%, 27.7%] *** 6% [3.4%, 7.8%] 1% [0.2%, 2.0%] 28% [24.0%, 32.9%] *** September 36% [33.3%, 39.1%] 35% [31.6%, 38.1%] 44% [38.7%, 49.3%] *** 22% [17.5%, 25.6%] 27% [22.4%, 31.3%] 51% [45.7%, 55.8%] *** October 90% [88.1%, 91.8%] 90% [87.8%, 92.0%] 90% [87.1%, 93.4%] 94% [91.1%, 96.1%] 89% [86.3%, 92.4%] 88% [85.2%, 91.8%] ** November 92% [90.0%, 93.5%] 91% [89.4%, 93.5%] 93% [90.4%, 96.0%] 95% [93.3%, 97.5%] 95% [92.3%, 96.9%] 88% [84.3%, 91.1%] *** December 87% [84.8%, 89.0%] 87% [84.4%, 89.1%] 88% [84.3%, 91.2%] 91% [88.5%, 94.1%] 87% [83.8%, 90.5%] 84% [80.6%, 88.1%] ** n 1283 908 375 417 443 423 Note: significance from a composite Wald statistical test. ***, **, * indicate significance levels of 1%, 5% and 10% respectively Original question: S5.Q3. Au cours de quels mois le cacao a-t-il été récolté ? Table 239: Average frequency of cocoa harvesting Average frequency of cocoa harvesting All MOCA Control sig Abengourou Daloa Soubré sig Each week 3% 2% 10% *** 0% 2% 5% *** Every two weeks strictly 35% 36% 31% 34% 47% 28% When we think it is the right time 47% 48% 42% 55% 37% 51% According to the availability of workers 2% 2% 1% 3% 2% 2% Other 12% 11% 17% 9% 13% 14% n 1283 908 375 417 443 423 MAXIMIZING OPPORTUNITIES IN COCOA ACTIVITY BASELINE EVALUATION REPORT CNFA.ORG Average frequency of cocoa harvesting All MOCA Control sig Abengourou Daloa Soubré sig Note: significance from a Rao-Scott second-order corrected Chi-squared statistical test. ***, **, * indicate significance levels of 1%, 5% and 10% respectively Original question: S5.Q4. A quelle fréquence récoltez-vous votre cacao habituellement ? Table 240: Agent of harvesting (multiple choices possible) Agent of harvesting All MOCA Control sig Abengourou Daloa Soubré sig Household members under 15 years of age 0% [-0.1%, 0.3%] 0% [-0.1%, 0.3%] 0% [0.0%, 0.0%] 0% [0.0%, 0.0%] 0% [-0.3%, 0.9%] 0% [0.0%, 0.0%] Household members aged 15 years and over 89% [87.4%, 90.8%] 89% [87.3%, 91.2%] 88% [85.0%, 91.5%] 72% [67.4%, 76.3%] 98% [96.2%, 99.1%] 92% [89.5%, 94.9%] *** Communal workers / labor exchange group 21% [19.0%, 23.8%] 23% [20.0%, 25.6%] 13% [10.2%, 16.8%] *** 27% [22.1%, 31.0%] 25% [20.3%, 29.0%] 16% [12.5%, 20.1%] *** Farm workers employed permanently 31% [28.0%, 33.4%] 31% [28.0%, 34.2%] 28% [23.4%, 32.8%] 62% [57.4%, 67.1%] 8% [5.4%, 10.9%] 30% [25.2%, 34.4%] *** Paid daily workers 2% [1.4%, 3.3%] 3% [1.4%, 3.6%] 1% [0.1%, 2.2%] * 2% [0.8%, 3.9%] 2% [0.6%, 3.5%] 2% [0.9%, 4.1%] Company or service provider 1% [0.3%, 1.2%] 1% [0.3%, 1.3%] 0% [-0.1%, 0.9%] 1% [0.2%, 2.5%] 1% [0.2%, 2.5%] 0% [0.0%, 0.0%] *** n 1283 908 375 417 443 423 Note: significance from a composite Wald statistical test. ***, **, * indicate significance levels of 1%, 5% and 10% respectively Original question: S5.Q5. Qui a effectué la récolte du cacao: des membres du ménage, des ouvriers payés ou des ouvriers agricoles communaux/groupe d'entraide ? Table 241: Gender of agent of harvesting Gender-specific participation to harvesting All MOCA Control sig Abengourou Daloa Soubré sig Man 90% 89% 91% 91% 83% 94% Woman 0% 0% 0% 1% 0% 0% *** Both 10% 10% 9% 9% 17% 6% n 1283 908 375 417 443 423 Note: significance from a Rao-Scott second-order corrected Chi-squared statistical test. ***, **, * indicate significance levels of 1%, 5% and 10% respectively Original question: S5.Q. Qui a effectué la récolte du cacao: des hommes, des femmes ou les deux ? Table 242: Total costs for harvesting (FCFA) (conditional on the use of paid daily workers, applicators from the cooperative, private applicators) Daily wage of workers hired for harvesting (2017-2018) All MOCA Control sig Abengourou Daloa Soubré sig mean [Confidence Interval] 13354 [8109, 18599] 13187 [7658, 18716] 15068 [-1418, 31554] 14213 [1897, 26529] 14736 [7321, 22151] 11974 [4045, 19903] median 7457 7284 6446 5093 12150 7334 n 19 15 4 7 6 6 Note: significance from a composite Wald statistical test. ***, **, * indicate significance levels of 1%, 5% and 10% respectively Original question: S5.Q7. Quel est le montant de la rémunération quotidienne en FCFA d’un ouvrier agricole employé pour la récolte ? Table 243: Pod breaking in 2017-2018 (if no, no further questions asked on pod breaking) Cocoa pod breaking (2017-2018) (y/n) All MOCA Control sig Abengourou Daloa Soubré sig mean [Confidence Interval] 98% [97.7%, 99.1%] 98% [97.4%, 99.0%] 100% [99.0%, 100.2%] *** 97% [94.8%, 98.5%] 99% [97.6%, 99.8%] 99% [98.2%, 100.1%] * n 1300 924 376 428 447 425 Note: significance from a composite Wald statistical test. ***, **, * indicate significance levels of 1%, 5% and 10% respectively Original question: S5.Q9 Votre ménage a-t-il effectué l’écabossage au cours de la campagne 2017-2018 ? Table 244: Frequency of pod breaking (2017-2018) Frequency of cocoa pod breaking (2017-2018) All MOCA Control sig Abengourou Daloa Soubré sig mean [Confidence Interval] 6.3 [6.09, 6.47] 6.3 [6.05, 6.49] 6.4 [6, 6.72] 5.2 [4.99, 5.37] 5.5 [5.24, 5.74] 7.4 [7.07, 7.8] *** median 6.0 6.0 6.0 5.0 5.0 6.0 n 1276 904 372 416 440 420 MAXIMIZING OPPORTUNITIES IN COCOA ACTIVITY BASELINE EVALUATION REPORT CNFA.ORG Frequency of cocoa pod breaking (2017-2018) All MOCA Control sig Abengourou Daloa Soubré sig Note: significance from a composite Wald statistical test. ***, **, * indicate significance levels of 1%, 5% and 10% respectively Original question: S5.Q10. Combien de fois l’écabossage a-t-il été effectué au cours de la campagne 2017-2018 ? Table 245: Number of days between harvesting and pod breaking Number of days between harvesting and pod breaking All MOCA Control sig Abengourou Daloa Soubré sig mean [Confidence Interval] 2.7 [2.56, 2.75] 2.6 [2.54, 2.76] 2.7 [2.5, 2.89] 3.5 [3.3, 3.7] 2.4 [2.26, 2.62] 2.4 [2.23, 2.5] *** median 2.0 2.0 2.0 3.0 2.0 2.0 n 1262 892 370 410 439 413 Note: significance from a composite Wald statistical test. ***, **, * indicate significance levels of 1%, 5% and 10% respectively Original question: S5.Q11. Après la récolte des cabosses, combien de jours attendez-vous avant d’effectuer l’écabossage et d’en retirer les fèves ? Table 246: Reason of waiting period between harvesting and pod breaking Reason of waiting period between harvesting and pod breaking All MOCA Control sig Abengourou Daloa Soubré sig Always up to 7 days after harvest 49% 52% 36% *** 58% 30% 59% *** Sometimes after 7 days after harvest 1% 1% 0% 1% 2% 1% When we think it is the right time 11% 10% 16% 22% 6% 9% According to the availability of workers 32% 30% 43% 12% 49% 31% Other 6% 6% 5% 8% 13% 0% n 1279 905 374 416 441 422 Note: significance from a Rao-Scott second-order corrected Chi-squared statistical test. ***, **, * indicate significance levels of 1%, 5% and 10% respectively Original question: S5.Q12. Quel est la raison pour laquelle vous effectuez l’écabossage apres ce temps? Table 247: Agent of pod breaking (multiple choices possible) Agent of pod breaking All MOCA Control sig Abengourou Daloa Soubré sig Household members under 15 years of age 0% [-0.1%, 0.5%] 0% [-0.2%, 0.5%] 1% [-0.1%, 1.3%] 0% [0.0%, 0.0%] 0% [-0.0%, 0.6%] 0% [-0.3%, 0.9%] Household members aged 15 years and over 92% [90.5%, 93.5%] 92% [90.8%, 94.1%] 89% [86.3%, 92.6%] * 79% [75.2%, 83.2%] 98% [96.5%, 99.2%] 95% [92.5%, 96.9%] *** Communal workers / labor exchange group 72% [69.5%, 74.9%] 72% [69.4%, 75.4%] 71% [66.3%, 75.9%] 64% [59.3%, 68.9%] 77% [72.9%, 81.3%] 73% [68.5%, 77.5%] *** Farm workers employed permanently 32% [28.9%, 34.3%] 32% [29.0%, 35.2%] 29% [24.1%, 33.6%] 64% [59.0%, 68.6%] 10% [6.6%, 12.5%] 30% [25.4%, 34.7%] *** Paid daily workers 1% [0.2%, 1.2%] 1% [0.2%, 1.3%] 1% [-0.3%, 1.5%] 1% [-0.0%, 2.0%] 1% [-0.2%, 1.3%] 1% [-0.1%, 1.5%] Company or service provider 0% [-0.0%, 0.5%] 0% [-0.0%, 0.5%] 0% [-0.2%, 0.6%] 0% [-0.1%, 0.4%] 1% [-0.2%, 1.3%] 0% [-0.1%, 0.2%] n 1279 905 374 416 441 422 Note: significance from a composite Wald statistical test. ***, **, * indicate significance levels of 1%, 5% and 10% respectively Original question: S5.Q13. Qui a effectué l’écabossage: des membres du ménage, des ouvriers payés ou des ouvriers agricoles communaux/groupe d'entraide ? Table 248: Gender of agent of pod breaking Gender-specific participation to pod breaking All MOCA Control sig Abengourou Daloa Soubré sig Man 89% 88% 93% * 91% 88% 88% Woman 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 1% Both 11% 12% 7% 9% 12% 12% n 1279 905 374 416 441 422 Note: significance from a Rao-Scott second-order corrected Chi-squared statistical test. ***, **, * indicate significance levels of 1%, 5% and 10% respectively Original question: S5.Q14. Qui a effectué l’écabossage: des hommes, des femmes ou les deux ? MAXIMIZING OPPORTUNITIES IN COCOA ACTIVITY BASELINE EVALUATION REPORT CNFA.ORG Table 249: Total costs for pod breaking (FCFA) (conditional on the use of paid daily workers, applicators from the cooperative, private applicators) Daily wage of workers hired for pod breaking (2017-2018) (FCFA) All MOCA Control sig Abengourou Daloa Soubré sig mean [Confidence Interval] 32763 [-18433, 83959] 33112 [-20334, 86557] 25000 [25000, 25000] 7045 [411, 13679] 1029 [-451, 2510] 79034 [-27618, 185687] median 2456 2000 25000 2000 57 8040 n 8 7 1 4 2 2 Note: significance from a composite Wald statistical test. ***, **, * indicate significance levels of 1%, 5% and 10% respectively Original question: S5.Q15. Quel est le montant de la rémunération quotidienne en FCFA d’un ouvrier agricole employé pour l’écabossage ? Table 250: Fermenting in 2017-2018 (if no, no further questions asked on fermenting) Cocoa fermentation (2017-2018) (y/n) All MOCA Control sig Abengourou Daloa Soubré sig mean [Confidence Interval] 93% [91.8%, 94.5%] 93% [91.9%, 94.8%] 92% [89.2%, 94.7%] 82% [77.9%, 85.5%] 95% [92.9%, 97.1%] 98% [96.7%, 99.4%] *** n 1300 924 376 428 447 425 Note: significance from a composite Wald statistical test. ***, **, * indicate significance levels of 1%, 5% and 10% respectively Original question: S5.Q17. Avez-vous vous-même (au sein du ménage) effectué la fermentation de votre cacao au cours de la campagne 2017-2018 ? Table 251: Duration of fermenting of cocoa Duration of cocoa fermentation All MOCA Control sig Abengourou Daloa Soubré sig Less than 6 days 48% 50% 39% * 52% 58% 39% *** Between 6 and 7 days 50% 49% 60% 47% 41% 58% Between 7 and 10 days 1% 1% 1% 0% 1% 2% When we think it is enough 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% Other 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% n 1191 847 344 352 422 417 Note: significance from a Rao-Scott second-order corrected Chi-squared statistical test. ***, **, * indicate significance levels of 1%, 5% and 10% respectively Original question: S5.Q18. Quelle est la durée de la fermentation que vous pratiquez habituellement? Table 252: Material used for fermenting of cocoa (multiple choices possible) Material used for fermenting of cocoa All MOCA Control sig Abengourou Daloa Soubré sig Rice nylon bag 1% [0.4%, 1.7%] 1% [0.4%, 2.0%] 0% [-0.2%, 0.6%] ** 2% [0.3%, 3.4%] 0% [-0.3%, 0.9%] 1% [0.0%, 2.4%] * Banana leaves (baskets) 81% [78.6%, 83.6%] 81% [78.4%, 84.0%] 81% [76.0%, 85.1%] 91% [88.1%, 94.2%] 82% [77.8%, 85.6%] 76% [71.8%, 80.4%] *** Plastic sheet 25% [22.4%, 27.9%] 25% [22.0%, 28.2%] 26% [20.8%, 30.7%] 12% [8.7%, 15.7%] 25% [20.1%, 28.9%] 32% [26.8%, 36.3%] *** Bin / crate / fermentation box 1% [0.2%, 1.1%] 1% [0.1%, 1.2%] 1% [-0.1%, 1.7%] 0% [-0.2%, 1.0%] 2% [0.4%, 3.2%] 0% [0.0%, 0.0%] ** Other 1% [0.5%, 2.0%] 1% [0.5%, 2.1%] 1% [-0.0%, 2.2%] 1% [-0.0%, 1.9%] 0% [-0.2%, 1.0%] 2% [0.6%, 3.4%] n 1191 847 344 352 422 417 Note: significance from a composite Wald statistical test. ***, **, * indicate significance levels of 1%, 5% and 10% respectively Original question: S5.Q19. Dans quoi mettez-vous vos fèves de cacao pour qu’elles fermentent ? Table 253: Agent of fermenting (multiple choices possible) Agent of fermenting All MOCA Control sig Abengourou Daloa Soubré sig Household members under 15 years of age 1% [0.1%, 1.1%] 1% [0.1%, 1.3%] 0% [0.0%, 0.0%] ** 0% [-0.3%, 0.8%] 1% [-0.1%, 1.8%] 1% [-0.2%, 1.4%] Household members aged 15 years and over 92% [90.9%, 94.0%] 92% [90.8%, 94.2%] 92% [89.4%, 95.2%] 79% [74.7%, 83.5%] 99% [97.5%, 99.7%] 94% [92.0%, 96.7%] *** MAXIMIZING OPPORTUNITIES IN COCOA ACTIVITY BASELINE EVALUATION REPORT CNFA.ORG Agent of fermenting All MOCA Control sig Abengourou Daloa Soubré sig Farm workers employed permanently 26% [23.7%, 29.1%] 27% [24.1%, 30.2%] 22% [17.7%, 27.0%] * 55% [49.2%, 60.0%] 7% [4.4%, 9.6%] 27% [22.6%, 31.6%] *** n 1191 847 344 352 422 417 Note: significance from a composite Wald statistical test. ***, **, * indicate significance levels of 1%, 5% and 10% respectively Original question: S5.Q20. Qui a effectué la fermentation ? Table 254: Gender of agent of fermenting Gender-specific participation to fermentation All MOCA Control sig Abengourou Daloa Soubré sig Man 97% 96% 98% 96% 97% 96% Woman 0% 1% 0% 1% 0% 1% Both 3% 3% 2% 3% 3% 3% n 1191 847 344 352 422 417 Note: significance from a Rao-Scott second-order corrected Chi-squared statistical test. ***, **, * indicate significance levels of 1%, 5% and 10% respectively Original question: S5.Q21. Qui a effectué la fermentation: des hommes, des femmes ou les deux ? Table 255: Drying of cocoa in 2017-2018 (if no, no further questions asked on drying and storage) Cocoa drying (2017-2018) (y/n) All MOCA Control sig Abengourou Daloa Soubré sig mean [Confidence Interval] 93% [91.7%, 94.4%] 93% [91.4%, 94.4%] 94% [91.6%, 96.5%] 79% [75.3%, 83.3%] 98% [96.3%, 99.2%] 97% [95.6%, 98.9%] *** n 1300 924 376 428 447 425 Note: significance from a composite Wald statistical test. ***, **, * indicate significance levels of 1%, 5% and 10% respectively Original question: S5.Q22. Avez-vous vous-même (au sein du ménage) séché votre cacao au cours de la campagne 2017-2018 ? Table 256: Average number of days drying of cocoa Average number of days for drying cocoa All MOCA Control sig Abengourou Daloa Soubré sig mean [Confidence Interval] 6.1 [6.01, 6.18] 6.1 [6, 6.19] 6.1 [5.92, 6.26] 6.7 [6.53, 6.78] 5.6 [5.51, 5.74] 6.2 [6.02, 6.33] *** median 6.0 6.0 6.0 7.0 5.0 6.0 n 1193 840 353 342 437 414 Note: significance from a composite Wald statistical test. ***, **, * indicate significance levels of 1%, 5% and 10% respectively Original question: S5.Q23. Combien de jours en moyenne faites-vous sécher les fèves de cacao ? Table 257: Material used for drying of cocoa Material used for drying cocoa All MOCA Control sig Abengourou Daloa Soubré sig On cement in the sun 8% 8% 6% 1% 14% 6% *** On asphalt 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% On a plastic sheet in the sun 66% 66% 69% 7% 77% 85% On racks / scaffold in the sun 23% 24% 20% 78% 9% 9% With a solar dryer 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% Other 3% 3% 5% 14% 0% 0% n 1193 840 353 342 437 414 Note: significance from a Rao-Scott second-order corrected Chi-squared statistical test. ***, **, * indicate significance levels of 1%, 5% and 10% respectively Original question: S5.Q24. Sur quoi mettez-vous vos fèves de cacao pour les faire sécher ? Table 258: Storage of dried beans Storage of dried beans All MOCA Control sig Abengourou Daloa Soubré sig In the house / at the camp 30% 29% 33% *** 29% 38% 25% *** In a storage room in the house of the household 15% 14% 22% 21% 19% 10% MAXIMIZING OPPORTUNITIES IN COCOA ACTIVITY BASELINE EVALUATION REPORT CNFA.ORG Storage of dried beans All MOCA Control sig Abengourou Daloa Soubré sig At the cooperative 51% 53% 38% 47% 40% 61% Other 4% 3% 7% 4% 3% 4% n 1193 840 353 342 437 414 Note: significance from a Rao-Scott second-order corrected Chi-squared statistical test. ***, **, * indicate significance levels of 1%, 5% and 10% respectively Original question: S5.Q25. A quel endroit stockez-vous les fèves de cacao séchées ? Table 259: Material used for storage of dried beans Material used for storage of dried beans All MOCA Control sig Abengourou Daloa Soubré sig In polyester bags 18% 18% 16% 40% 18% 8% *** In baskets 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% In jute bags 80% 80% 80% 49% 82% 92% other 2% 2% 4% 11% 0% 0% n 1193 840 353 342 437 414 Note: significance from a Rao-Scott second-order corrected Chi-squared statistical test. ***, **, * indicate significance levels of 1%, 5% and 10% respectively Original question: S5.Q26. Dans quoi stockez-vous les fèves de cacao séchées? Table 260: Storage losses (2017-2018) Storage losses (2017-2018) (y/n) All MOCA Control sig Abengourou Daloa Soubré sig mean [Confidence Interval] 9% [6.8%, 10.7%] 10% [7.5%, 12.1%] 3% [0.9%, 4.3%] *** 2% [0.6%, 3.6%] 1% [0.3%, 2.5%] 17% [13.1%, 21.0%] *** n 1193 840 353 342 437 414 Note: significance from a composite Wald statistical test. ***, **, * indicate significance levels of 1%, 5% and 10% respectively Original question: S5.Q27. Au cours de la campagne 2017-2018, avez-vous subi des pertes de cacao liées au stockage? Table 261: Effects storage losses (2017-2018) (conditional on storage losses) Effects storage losses (2017- 2018) All MOCA Control sig Abengourou Daloa Soubré sig Slight loss 65% 65% 51% 27% 80% 66% Average loss 16% 15% 22% 63% 0% 14% ** Significant loss 20% 19% 27% 10% 20% 20% n 74 65 9 8 7 59 Note: significance from a Rao-Scott second-order corrected Chi-squared statistical test. ***, **, * indicate significance levels of 1%, 5% and 10% respectively Original question: S5.Q28. Comment votre production de cacao a-t-elle été affectée par les pertes au cours du stockage ? MAXIMIZING OPPORTUNITIES IN COCOA ACTIVITY BASELINE EVALUATION REPORT CNFA.ORG 10. TRAINING AND OTHER SUPPORT Table 262: Training received in past 3 years (if no, no further questions asked on training) Training received in past 3 years (y/n) All MOCA Control sig Abengourou Daloa Soubré sig mean [Confidence Interval] 71% [68.4%, 73.7%] 72% [68.8%, 74.7%] 67% [62.3%, 72.2%] 63% [58.4%, 67.9%] 73% [68.9%, 77.5%] 74% [69.5%, 78.3%] *** n 1299 923 376 428 447 424 Note: significance from a composite Wald statistical test. ***, **, * indicate significance levels of 1%, 5% and 10% respectively Original question: S6.Q1. Avez-vous VOUS-MÊME personellement reçu une formation dans le cadre de votre activité de production et commercialisation du cacao au cours des 3 dernières années ? Table 263: Total number of training days received in past 3 years Total number of training days received in past 3 years All MOCA Control sig Abengourou Daloa Soubré sig 1-2 days 32% 32% 30% ** 32% 23% 38% *** 3-5 days 17% 17% 20% 28% 23% 8% 5-10 days 13% 14% 6% 15% 17% 8% More than 10 days 38% 37% 43% 25% 36% 46% Do not know 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% n 871 632 239 268 300 303 Note: significance from a Rao-Scott second-order corrected Chi-squared statistical test. ***, **, * indicate significance levels of 1%, 5% and 10% respectively Original question: S6.Q2. Combien de jours de formation liée à votre activite dans le cacao avez-vous reçus AU TOTAL au cours des 3 dernières années ? Table 264: Training received in 2017-2018 (conditional on training received in past 3 years) Training received in 2017-2018 (y/n) All MOCA Control sig Abengourou Daloa Soubré sig mean [Confidence Interval] 90% [88.0%, 92.0%] 92% [89.8%, 94.2%] 77% [71.9%, 83.0%] *** 96% [93.3%, 98.2%] 85% [81.3%, 89.4%] 91% [87.4%, 93.7%] *** n 897 648 249 276 310 311 Note: significance from a composite Wald statistical test. ***, **, * indicate significance levels of 1%, 5% and 10% respectively Original question: S6.Q3. Avez-vous reçu une formation liée à votre activite dans le cacao au cours de la campagne 2017-2018 ? Table 265: Total number of training days received in 2017-2018 (conditional on training received in past 3 years) Total number of training days received in past year All MOCA Control sig Abengourou Daloa Soubré sig 1-2 days 38% 38% 41% 38% 27% 46% *** 3-5 days 24% 24% 23% 35% 33% 13% 5-10 days 11% 11% 7% 10% 16% 7% More than 10 days 27% 27% 28% 17% 24% 35% Do not know 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% n 786 591 195 260 256 270 Note: significance from a Rao-Scott second-order corrected Chi-squared statistical test. ***, **, * indicate significance levels of 1%, 5% and 10% respectively Original question: S6.Q4. Combien de jours de formation liée à votre activite dans le cacao avez-vous reçus AU TOTAL au cours de la campagne 2017-2018 ? Table 266: Topic of training received (multiple choices possible) (any year) Topic of training received All MOCA Control sig Abengourou Daloa Soubré sig Good Agricultural Practices (GAP) 99% [98.0%, 99.6%] 99% [98.1%, 99.8%] 98% [95.6%, 99.6%] 99% [98.4%, 100.3%] 99% [97.6%, 100.0%] 98% [97.0%, 99.9%] Good environmental practices 84% [81.6%, 86.9%] 83% [79.9%, 86.0%] 92% [88.9%, 95.4%] *** 85% [80.2%, 89.1%] 92% [88.9%, 95.3%] 78% [73.6%, 83.3%] *** Farmer business school 21% [18.2%, 23.9%] 22% [18.6%, 25.1%] 16% [11.1%, 21.0%] * 22% [17.0%, 27.6%] 23% [17.8%, 27.7%] 19% [14.7%, 23.8%] MAXIMIZING OPPORTUNITIES IN COCOA ACTIVITY BASELINE EVALUATION REPORT CNFA.ORG Topic of training received All MOCA Control sig Abengourou Daloa Soubré sig Post-harvesting cocoa processing and storage 52% [48.2%, 55.3%] 52% [48.0%, 56.0%] 50% [43.9%, 56.9%] 44% [37.9%, 50.2%] 62% [56.3%, 67.7%] 48% [42.3%, 53.9%] *** Health and security 49% [45.5%, 52.6%] 47% [42.9%, 50.8%] 63% [56.7%, 68.7%] *** 40% [33.5%, 45.7%] 57% [51.6%, 63.2%] 48% [41.8%, 53.4%] *** Gender 34% [30.8%, 37.5%] 33% [29.1%, 36.6%] 42% [35.7%, 48.8%] ** 29% [22.9%, 34.3%] 27% [22.2%, 32.7%] 42% [35.9%, 47.3%] *** Child labor 68% [64.6%, 71.1%] 68% [64.7%, 72.0%] 64% [58.5%, 70.4%] 47% [40.7%, 53.1%] 69% [63.3%, 74.1%] 77% [72.1%, 82.0%] *** Record keeping and business management 27% [23.4%, 29.6%] 27% [23.2%, 30.2%] 25% [19.4%, 31.3%] 18% [13.2%, 23.0%] 36% [30.1%, 41.5%] 24% [19.0%, 28.7%] *** Savings and loans 20% [17.4%, 23.1%] 19% [16.1%, 22.4%] 26% [20.3%, 32.3%] ** 12% [8.3%, 16.6%] 22% [17.0%, 26.8%] 23% [18.0%, 27.5%] *** Financial Management and Planning 29% [25.6%, 32.1%] 29% [25.1%, 32.3%] 30% [23.7%, 35.9%] 19% [14.1%, 24.0%] 34% [28.6%, 39.8%] 30% [24.4%, 34.9%] *** Cooperative management 23% [20.1%, 26.1%] 22% [18.9%, 25.5%] 28% [22.3%, 34.5%] * 15% [10.5%, 19.6%] 26% [21.1%, 31.4%] 25% [19.7%, 29.5%] *** other 2% [0.7%, 2.6%] 2% [0.6%, 2.6%] 2% [0.2%, 4.1%] 1% [-0.3%, 2.1%] 2% [0.2%, 3.1%] 2% [0.4%, 3.7%] n 897 648 249 276 310 311 Note: significance from a composite Wald statistical test. ***, **, * indicate significance levels of 1%, 5% and 10% respectively Original question: S6.Q5. Laquelle des formations suivantes avez-vous reçue au cours des 3 dernières années ? ... Table 267: Source of training received (multiple choices possible) (any year) Source of training received All MOCA Control sig Abengourou Daloa Soubré sig Cooperative 93% [91.1%, 94.4%] 94% [92.7%, 96.2%] 82% [77.4%, 87.1%] *** 90% [85.8%, 93.5%] 93% [89.9%, 95.3%] 94% [91.9%, 96.8%] ANADER 24% [21.3%, 27.4%] 23% [20.0%, 26.7%] 31% [24.5%, 36.7%] ** 31% [24.8%, 36.5%] 14% [10.2%, 17.9%] 29% [23.5%, 33.9%] *** Private buyers/traders 0% [-0.1%, 0.3%] 0% [-0.1%, 0.3%] 0% [0.0%, 0.0%] 0% [-0.4%, 1.2%] 0% [0.0%, 0.0%] 0% [0.0%, 0.0%] Chocolatier or exporter 2% [0.9%, 2.8%] 2% [0.8%, 3.0%] 1% [-0.0%, 2.9%] 3% [0.9%, 5.1%] 1% [-0.0%, 2.5%] 2% [0.2%, 3.3%] NGO 3% [2.0%, 4.6%] 4% [2.3%, 5.3%] 0% [-0.3%, 0.9%] *** 7% [3.5%, 10.0%] 1% [-0.0%, 2.5%] 3% [1.0%, 5.2%] *** Other 2% [1.2%, 3.3%] 2% [1.0%, 3.3%] 3% [0.9%, 4.4%] 2% [0.5%, 4.1%] 3% [0.9%, 4.5%] 2% [0.3%, 3.6%] Do not know 1% [0.1%, 1.1%] 0% [-0.2%, 0.9%] 2% [0.0%, 4.1%] 0% [-0.2%, 0.5%] 0% [-0.4%, 1.1%] 1% [-0.1%, 2.0%] n 897 648 249 276 310 311 Note: significance from a composite Wald statistical test. ***, **, * indicate significance levels of 1%, 5% and 10% respectively Original question: S6.Q6. Qui vous a dispensé ces formations ? Table 268: Cocoa certification (if no, no further questions asked on certification) Cocoa certification (y/n) All MOCA Control sig Abengourou Daloa Soubré sig No 7% 6% 12% *** 14% 8% 3% Yes 93% 94% 88% 86% 92% 97% *** Do not know 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% n 1159 820 339 398 401 360 Note: significance from a Rao-Scott second-order corrected Chi-squared statistical test. ***, **, * indicate significance levels of 1%, 5% and 10% respectively Original question: S6.Q7. Votre cacao possède-t-il une certification UTZ, Rainforest Alliance, Fairtrade, biologique etc ? Table 269: Type of cocoa certification (multiple choices possible) Type of cocoa certification All MOCA Control sig Abengourou Daloa Soubré sig UTZ 72% [68.9%, 74.8%] 71% [67.3%, 74.0%] 79% [74.6%, 83.3%] *** 78% [73.4%, 82.0%] 60% [54.4%, 65.2%] 78% [72.8%, 82.3%] *** Rainforest Alliance (RA) 27% [24.4%, 30.2%] 29% [26.1%, 32.7%] 15% [10.1%, 19.5%] *** 39% [34.0%, 44.9%] 27% [21.8%, 31.7%] 21% [16.7%, 25.7%] *** Fairtrade 33% [30.3%, 36.6%] 36% [32.6%, 39.7%] 17% [13.4%, 21.2%] *** 43% [37.3%, 48.2%] 28% [23.3%, 33.3%] 32% [26.9%, 37.5%] *** MAXIMIZING OPPORTUNITIES IN COCOA ACTIVITY BASELINE EVALUATION REPORT CNFA.ORG Type of cocoa certification All MOCA Control sig Abengourou Daloa Soubré sig Organic 0% [-0.1%, 0.6%] 0% [-0.1%, 0.7%] 0% [0.0%, 0.0%] 0% [-0.3%, 1.0%] 0% [0.0%, 0.0%] 0% [-0.3%, 1.1%] Other 1% [0.3%, 1.9%] 1% [0.4%, 2.2%] 0% [0.0%, 0.0%] *** 0% [-0.3%, 0.8%] 0% [-0.3%, 1.0%] 2% [0.4%, 3.8%] Do not know 6% [4.3%, 7.4%] 6% [4.1%, 7.6%] 6% [3.3%, 8.6%] 5% [2.5%, 6.9%] 6% [3.2%, 8.0%] 7% [3.8%, 9.5%] n 1051 757 294 351 354 346 Note: significance from a composite Wald statistical test. ***, **, * indicate significance levels of 1%, 5% and 10% respectively Original question: S6.Q8. Quelle(s) certification(s) possédez-vous pour le cacao ? Table 270: Respondent member of cooperative Respondent member of cooperative All MOCA Control sig Abengourou Daloa Soubré sig No 3% 3% 3% 2% 1% 4% * Yes 97% 97% 97% 98% 99% 95% Yes, but I am not up to date 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 1% No, I am no longer a member 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% n 1300 924 376 428 447 425 Note: significance from a Rao-Scott second-order corrected Chi-squared statistical test. ***, **, * indicate significance levels of 1%, 5% and 10% respectively Original question: S6.Q9. Êtes-vous VOUS-MÊME membre d’une coopérative ? Table 271: Name of cooperative Name of cooperative All MOCA Control sig Abengourou Daloa Soubré sig ADI 2% 0% 11% *** 7% 0% 0% *** AHONDJO 2% 2% 0% 8% 0% 0% BOUKABLA 1% 1% 0% 4% 0% 0% CAAM 5% 5% 0% 0% 0% 10% CANOA 3% 0% 19% 0% 0% 6% CAPA 1% 2% 0% 6% 0% 0% CAPCB 3% 3% 0% 0% 0% 6% CAPEDIG 3% 3% 0% 0% 9% 0% CAPRESSA 8% 9% 0% 33% 0% 0% CASE DU PLANTEUR 6% 7% 0% 0% 18% 0% CEEA 2% 0% 15% 9% 0% 0% COPPAZA 4% 5% 0% 16% 0% 0% CPR- CANAAN 1% 2% 0% 0% 4% 0% COOP HOUNOU 1% 0% 6% 0% 3% 0% ECAM 6% 7% 0% 0% 0% 14% ECASO 4% 0% 27% 0% 0% 9% ECOJAD 4% 5% 0% 0% 14% 0% ESPOIR 2% 2% 0% 0% 6% 0% FAHO 2% 3% 0% 10% 0% 0% KAPATCHIVA 3% 4% 0% 0% 10% 0% N'MOH-BLA 1% 1% 0% 2% 0% 0% SCAASP 1% 1% 0% 5% 0% 0% MAXIMIZING OPPORTUNITIES IN COCOA ACTIVITY BASELINE EVALUATION REPORT CNFA.ORG Name of cooperative All MOCA Control sig Abengourou Daloa Soubré sig SCACALAVA 2% 3% 0% 0% 8% 0% SCAES 8% 10% 0% 0% 0% 18% SCAS 3% 3% 0% 0% 0% 7% SCOOPS SAHS 3% 0% 22% 0% 10% 0% SCOPAB 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 1% SCOPRANHS 3% 4% 0% 0% 11% 0% SOCADMV 2% 3% 0% 0% 7% 0% SOCAGNIPI 5% 5% 0% 0% 0% 10% SOCOOABAS 2% 2% 0% 0% 0% 4% SOCOOPACDI 6% 7% 0% 0% 0% 14% Autre 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% Non applicable 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% n 1300 924 376 428 447 425 Note: significance from a Rao-Scott second-order corrected Chi-squared statistical test. ***, **, * indicate significance levels of 1%, 5% and 10% respectively Original question: S6.Q10. Nom de la coopérative de laquelle vous OU quelqu’un dans votre ménage êtes membre Table 272: Distance home and cooperative (km) Distance home and cooperative (km) All MOCA Control sig Abengourou Daloa Soubré sig mean [Confidence Interval] 18.9 [17.78, 19.98] 18.2 [17.01, 19.44] 22.7 [20.35, 25.14] *** 4.3 [3.52, 5.08] 23.8 [22.26, 25.32] 23.4 [21.4, 25.4] *** median 15.0 15.0 21.0 1.0 22.0 17.0 n 1291 921 370 427 444 420 Note: significance from a composite Wald statistical test. ***, **, * indicate significance levels of 1%, 5% and 10% respectively Original question: S6.Q11. Distance depuis votre domicile jusqu'au siege de la cooperative (km) Table 273: Membership duration cooperative Membership duration cooperative All MOCA Control sig Abengourou Daloa Soubré sig Less than 2 years 15% 15% 18% *** 15% 23% 10% *** Between 2 and 5 years 43% 46% 26% 29% 58% 40% Between 5 and 10 years 28% 29% 27% 29% 16% 37% More than 10 years 14% 11% 29% 27% 4% 13% n 1299 924 375 428 446 425 Note: significance from a Rao-Scott second-order corrected Chi-squared statistical test. ***, **, * indicate significance levels of 1%, 5% and 10% respectively Original question: S6.Q12. Depuis combien de temps êtes-vous membre de cette coopérative? Table 274: Services of cooperative (multiple choices possible) Services of cooperative All MOCA Control sig Abengourou Daloa Soubré sig Training 78% [75.7%, 80.5%] 78% [75.4%, 80.8%] 78% [74.3%, 82.4%] 69% [64.5%, 73.6%] 79% [75.5%, 83.2%] 82% [78.3%, 86.1%] *** Provision of inputs 67% [64.6%, 70.1%] 68% [65.0%, 71.2%] 63% [57.9%, 67.9%] * 62% [57.6%, 66.9%] 68% [63.0%, 72.3%] 70% [65.2%, 74.5%] * Provision of cocoa seeds/seedlings 45% [42.0%, 47.9%] 46% [43.0%, 49.6%] 37% [32.2%, 42.7%] *** 51% [46.0%, 55.8%] 42% [37.0%, 46.9%] 44% [39.0%, 48.9%] ** Provision of agricultural equipment 36% [33.6%, 39.3%] 37% [33.8%, 40.2%] 33% [27.9%, 38.2%] 32% [27.2%, 36.6%] 38% [32.7%, 42.3%] 38% [33.3%, 43.0%] Savings 14% [12.0%, 16.2%] 13% [10.8%, 15.4%] 20% [15.5%, 24.7%] *** 9% [6.0%, 11.7%] 9% [6.4%, 12.3%] 20% [16.5%, 24.3%] *** MAXIMIZING OPPORTUNITIES IN COCOA ACTIVITY BASELINE EVALUATION REPORT CNFA.ORG Services of cooperative All MOCA Control sig Abengourou Daloa Soubré sig Loan/credit scheme 24% [21.3%, 26.3%] 22% [19.4%, 24.9%] 33% [28.1%, 38.2%] *** 21% [16.9%, 24.7%] 26% [21.9%, 30.7%] 24% [19.4%, 27.7%] Organization of labor exchange groups 22% [19.3%, 24.2%] 21% [18.6%, 24.1%] 24% [18.9%, 28.5%] 17% [12.8%, 20.4%] 22% [18.2%, 26.6%] 24% [19.8%, 28.2%] ** Storage of phytosanitary products 34% [31.1%, 36.7%] 33% [30.1%, 36.3%] 38% [33.0%, 43.6%] 32% [27.3%, 36.6%] 37% [31.8%, 41.4%] 33% [28.5%, 37.8%] Classification of approved products 24% [21.4%, 26.4%] 22% [19.6%, 25.1%] 33% [27.8%, 38.2%] *** 11% [7.6%, 14.0%] 34% [29.2%, 38.7%] 24% [19.8%, 28.0%] *** Cocoa storage 54% [51.2%, 57.1%] 54% [50.8%, 57.4%] 54% [49.1%, 59.6%] 50% [45.6%, 55.4%] 57% [52.3%, 62.1%] 54% [49.0%, 58.9%] Cocoa transport 53% [50.4%, 56.3%] 54% [50.5%, 57.2%] 51% [45.3%, 55.9%] 51% [46.2%, 56.0%] 54% [48.6%, 58.5%] 54% [49.5%, 59.4%] Certification cash premium 60% [57.4%, 63.2%] 60% [57.1%, 63.7%] 60% [54.4%, 64.6%] 58% [53.5%, 63.2%] 63% [58.5%, 68.0%] 59% [54.3%, 64.1%] Community projects 23% [20.4%, 25.4%] 24% [20.8%, 26.5%] 19% [14.7%, 23.1%] * 12% [9.0%, 15.6%] 35% [30.2%, 39.8%] 20% [16.2%, 24.2%] *** Funeral assistance 18% [15.8%, 20.4%] 19% [16.0%, 21.3%] 15% [10.9%, 18.7%] 13% [9.1%, 15.9%] 21% [16.8%, 24.9%] 19% [15.3%, 23.1%] *** None 7% [5.2%, 8.1%] 7% [4.9%, 8.2%] 7% [4.8%, 9.9%] 6% [3.4%, 7.8%] 8% [5.2%, 10.2%] 7% [4.0%, 9.0%] Other 1% [0.8%, 2.1%] 2% [0.8%, 2.3%] 1% [-0.2%, 2.0%] 3% [1.6%, 5.2%] 1% [-0.1%, 1.9%] 1% [-0.0%, 1.7%] ** Do not know 3% [1.7%, 3.4%] 3% [1.6%, 3.5%] 3% [0.8%, 4.5%] 5% [3.1%, 7.8%] 1% [0.0%, 1.7%] 2% [0.9%, 3.5%] *** n 1299 924 375 428 446 425 Note: significance from a composite Wald statistical test. ***, **, * indicate significance levels of 1%, 5% and 10% respectively Original question: S6.Q13. Quels sont tous les services proposés par cette coopérative ? Table 275: Support for cocoa farm from bank Bank (y/n) All MOCA Control sig Abengourou Daloa Soubré sig mean [Confidence Interval] 1% [0.3%, 1.5%] 1% [0.3%, 1.7%] 0% [-0.2%, 0.6%] * 1% [-0.1%, 1.5%] 0% [-0.3%, 0.8%] 1% [0.2%, 2.6%] n 1300 924 376 428 447 425 Note: significance from a composite Wald statistical test. ***, **, * indicate significance levels of 1%, 5% and 10% respectively Original question: S6.Q14. Banque Table 276: Type of support received from bank (multiple choices possible) (conditional on support by bank) Type of support received from bank All MOCA Control sig Abengourou Daloa Soubré sig Provision of seedlings / plants 16% [-13.7%, 45.0%] 16% [-14.1%, 46.4%] 0% [0.0%, 0.0%] 0% [0.0%, 0.0%] 0% [0.0%, 0.0%] 22% [-17.9%, 62.2%] GAP training / advice 14% [-12.8%, 40.9%] 15% [-13.2%, 42.3%] 0% [0.0%, 0.0%] 0% [0.0%, 0.0%] 0% [0.0%, 0.0%] 20% [-17.2%, 56.9%] Coaching 29% [-5.8%, 64.6%] 30% [-5.8%, 66.6%] 0% [0.0%, 0.0%] 0% [0.0%, 0.0%] 0% [0.0%, 0.0%] 42% [-4.6%, 87.6%] Management / Finance 57% [19.5%, 93.6%] 55% [17.1%, 93.1%] 100% [100.0%, 100.0%] 100% [100.0%, 100.0%] 100% [100.0%, 100.0%] 39% [-6.4%, 83.6%] ** Provision of agricultural equipment 0% [0.0%, 0.0%] 0% [0.0%, 0.0%] 0% [0.0%, 0.0%] 0% [0.0%, 0.0%] 0% [0.0%, 0.0%] 0% [0.0%, 0.0%] NA Quality / Certification 14% [-12.8%, 40.9%] 15% [-13.2%, 42.3%] 0% [0.0%, 0.0%] 0% [0.0%, 0.0%] 0% [0.0%, 0.0%] 20% [-17.2%, 56.9%] Other 0% [0.0%, 0.0%] 0% [0.0%, 0.0%] 0% [0.0%, 0.0%] 0% [0.0%, 0.0%] 0% [0.0%, 0.0%] 0% [0.0%, 0.0%] NA n 9 8 1 3 1 5 Note: significance from a composite Wald statistical test. ***, **, * indicate significance levels of 1%, 5% and 10% respectively Original question: S6.Q15. Quel(s) type(s) d'appui avez-vous reçus de cette organisation au cours des 3 dernières années ? Table 277: Support for cocoa farm from microfinance institution Microfinance institution (y/n) All MOCA Control sig Abengourou Daloa Soubré sig mean [Confidence Interval] 1% [0.6%, 1.8%] 1% [0.7%, 2.1%] 0% [-0.2%, 1.1%] * 4% [1.8%, 5.7%] 0% [-0.3%, 0.9%] 1% [-0.2%, 1.3%] *** n 1299 924 375 427 447 425 MAXIMIZING OPPORTUNITIES IN COCOA ACTIVITY BASELINE EVALUATION REPORT CNFA.ORG Microfinance institution (y/n) All MOCA Control sig Abengourou Daloa Soubré sig Note: significance from a composite Wald statistical test. ***, **, * indicate significance levels of 1%, 5% and 10% respectively Original question: S6.Q16. Microfinance Table 278: Type of support received from microfinance institution (multiple choices possible) (conditional on support by microfinance institution) Type of support received from microfinance institution All MOCA Control sig Abengourou Daloa Soubré sig Provision of seedlings / plants 5% [-5.3%, 16.3%] 6% [-5.7%, 17.3%] 0% [0.0%, 0.0%] 8% [-7.1%, 22.1%] 0% [0.0%, 0.0%] 0% [0.0%, 0.0%] GAP training / advice 5% [-5.3%, 16.3%] 6% [-5.7%, 17.3%] 0% [0.0%, 0.0%] 8% [-7.1%, 22.1%] 0% [0.0%, 0.0%] 0% [0.0%, 0.0%] Coaching 2% [-2.4%, 7.0%] 0% [0.0%, 0.0%] 41% [-27.9%, 110.8%] 3% [-3.2%, 9.5%] 0% [0.0%, 0.0%] 0% [0.0%, 0.0%] Management / Finance 64% [39.5%, 89.1%] 65% [38.6%, 90.6%] 59% [-10.8%, 127.9%] 75% [51.2%, 98.0%] 0% [0.0%, 0.0%] 50% [-21.4%, 121.4%] Provision of agricultural equipment 17% [-4.7%, 39.0%] 18% [-4.9%, 41.2%] 0% [0.0%, 0.0%] 0% [0.0%, 0.0%] 100% [100.0%, 100.0%] 50% [-21.4%, 121.4%] Quality / Certification 0% [0.0%, 0.0%] 0% [0.0%, 0.0%] 0% [0.0%, 0.0%] NA 0% [0.0%, 0.0%] 0% [0.0%, 0.0%] 0% [0.0%, 0.0%] NA Other 18% [-1.3%, 37.7%] 19% [-1.3%, 39.8%] 0% [0.0%, 0.0%] * 15% [-4.7%, 34.2%] 100% [100.0%, 100.0%] 0% [0.0%, 0.0%] n 17 15 2 14 1 2 Note: significance from a composite Wald statistical test. ***, **, * indicate significance levels of 1%, 5% and 10% respectively Original question: S6.Q17. Quel(s) type(s) d'appui avez-vous reçus de cette organisation au cours des 3 dernières années ? Table 279: Support for cocoa farm from local community Local community (y/n) All MOCA Control sig Abengourou Daloa Soubré sig mean [Confidence Interval] 1% [0.2%, 1.2%] 1% [0.2%, 1.4%] 0% [0.0%, 0.0%] *** 0% [-0.2%, 0.7%] 2% [0.5%, 3.6%] 0% [0.0%, 0.0%] ** n 1299 923 376 428 447 424 Note: significance from a composite Wald statistical test. ***, **, * indicate significance levels of 1%, 5% and 10% respectively Original question: S6.Q18. Collectivité locale Table 280: Type of support received from local community (multiple choices possible) (conditional on support by local community) Type of support received from local community All MOCA Control sig Abengourou Daloa Soubré sig Provision of seedlings / plants 79% [50.4%, 108.0%] 79% [50.4%, 108.0%] 0% [0.0%, 0.0%] 86% [58.7%, 113.3%] GAP training / advice 100% [100.0%, 100.0%] 100% [100.0%, 100.0%] 100% [100.0%, 100.0%] 100% [100.0%, 100.0%] Coaching 79% [50.4%, 108.0%] 79% [50.4%, 108.0%] 0% [0.0%, 0.0%] 86% [58.7%, 113.3%] Management / Finance 79% [50.4%, 108.0%] 79% [50.4%, 108.0%] 0% [0.0%, 0.0%] 86% [58.7%, 113.3%] Provision of agricultural equipment 79% [50.4%, 108.0%] 79% [50.4%, 108.0%] 0% [0.0%, 0.0%] 86% [58.7%, 113.3%] Quality / Certification 87% [61.8%, 112.3%] 87% [61.8%, 112.3%] 100% [100.0%, 100.0%] 86% [58.7%, 113.3%] Other 0% [0.0%, 0.0%] 0% [0.0%, 0.0%] 0% [0.0%, 0.0%] 0% [0.0%, 0.0%] n 8 8 0 1 7 0 Note: significance from a composite Wald statistical test. ***, **, * indicate significance levels of 1%, 5% and 10% respectively Original question: S6.Q19. Quel(s) type(s) d'appui avez-vous reçus de cette organisation au cours des 3 dernières années ? Table 281: Support for cocoa farm from international NGO MAXIMIZING OPPORTUNITIES IN COCOA ACTIVITY BASELINE EVALUATION REPORT CNFA.ORG International NGO (y/n) All MOCA Control sig Abengourou Daloa Soubré sig mean [Confidence Interval] 3% [2.3%, 4.2%] 4% [2.6%, 4.8%] 0% [-0.4%, 1.2%] *** 10% [6.9%, 13.2%] 1% [0.0%, 2.1%] 1% [-0.0%, 2.0%] *** n 1296 921 375 426 446 424 Note: significance from a composite Wald statistical test. ***, **, * indicate significance levels of 1%, 5% and 10% respectively Original question: S6.Q20. ONG internationale Table 282: Type of support received from international NGO (multiple choices possible) (conditional on support by international NGO) Type of support received from international NGO All MOCA Control sig Abengourou Daloa Soubré sig Provision of seedlings / plants 7% [-0.9%, 14.8%] 5% [-2.0%, 12.4%] 100% [100.0%, 100.0%] 3% [-2.7%, 8.5%] 28% [-18.2%, 74.3%] 13% [-13.1%, 39.7%] GAP training / advice 11% [0.5%, 21.7%] 11% [0.6%, 22.1%] 0% [0.0%, 0.0%] 6% [-2.1%, 13.6%] 28% [-18.2%, 74.3%] 28% [-18.8%, 74.4%] Coaching 15% [2.7%, 27.9%] 16% [2.8%, 28.4%] 0% [0.0%, 0.0%] 3% [-2.7%, 8.5%] 48% [-1.6%, 97.5%] 59% [9.4%, 108.4%] ** Management / Finance 0% [0.0%, 0.0%] 0% [0.0%, 0.0%] 0% [0.0%, 0.0%] 0% [0.0%, 0.0%] 0% [0.0%, 0.0%] 0% [0.0%, 0.0%] NA Provision of agricultural equipment 5% [-1.9%, 12.2%] 5% [-2.0%, 12.4%] 0% [0.0%, 0.0%] 3% [-2.7%, 8.5%] 28% [-18.2%, 74.3%] 0% [0.0%, 0.0%] Quality / Certification 72% [56.5%, 86.6%] 73% [57.8%, 88.0%] 0% [0.0%, 0.0%] 94% [86.9%, 102.0%] 0% [0.0%, 0.0%] 0% [0.0%, 0.0%] *** Other 5% [-1.7%, 10.8%] 5% [-1.8%, 11.0%] 0% [0.0%, 0.0%] 3% [-2.6%, 7.9%] 24% [-17.8%, 65.8%] 0% [0.0%, 0.0%] n 43 42 1 35 4 4 Note: significance from a composite Wald statistical test. ***, **, * indicate significance levels of 1%, 5% and 10% respectively Original question: S6.Q21. Quel(s) type(s) d'appui avez-vous reçus de cette organisation au cours des 3 dernières années ? Table 283: Support for cocoa farm from Anadar ANADER (y/n) All MOCA Control sig Abengourou Daloa Soubré sig mean [Confidence Interval] 17% [14.4%, 18.6%] 15% [13.0%, 17.8%] 23% [18.5%, 27.3%] *** 22% [18.2%, 26.5%] 15% [11.2%, 18.0%] 15% [11.2%, 18.1%] *** n 1298 923 375 428 447 423 Note: significance from a composite Wald statistical test. ***, **, * indicate significance levels of 1%, 5% and 10% respectively Original question: S6.Q22. ANADER Table 284: Type of support received from Anadar (multiple choices possible) (conditional on support by Anadar) Type of support received from Anadar All MOCA Control sig Abengourou Daloa Soubré sig Provision of seedlings / plants 44% [36.8%, 50.8%] 50% [41.4%, 58.1%] 21% [12.3%, 29.0%] *** 69% [58.6%, 78.4%] 33% [21.1%, 44.9%] 31% [18.5%, 43.0%] *** GAP training / advice 74% [67.8%, 79.9%] 78% [71.3%, 85.3%] 57% [45.7%, 67.3%] *** 77% [68.9%, 85.7%] 70% [59.1%, 81.7%] 73% [62.3%, 84.5%] Coaching 48% [40.8%, 54.9%] 50% [41.3%, 58.0%] 41% [29.9%, 51.8%] 71% [61.8%, 80.5%] 33% [20.8%, 44.3%] 39% [26.8%, 51.6%] *** Management / Finance 2% [0.3%, 4.7%] 2% [-0.3%, 4.7%] 4% [-0.6%, 7.8%] 2% [-0.9%, 4.5%] 3% [-1.4%, 7.0%] 3% [-1.3%, 6.9%] Provision of agricultural equipment 3% [0.7%, 5.1%] 2% [-0.6%, 3.9%] 8% [1.5%, 14.0%] * 1% [-0.4%, 2.5%] 3% [-1.4%, 6.9%] 5% [-0.1%, 9.2%] Quality / Certification 8% [3.5%, 11.9%] 9% [3.4%, 13.7%] 4% [-0.6%, 9.2%] 1% [-1.2%, 3.8%] 5% [-0.8%, 10.1%] 15% [5.8%, 24.8%] ** Other 2% [-0.0%, 4.5%] 3% [-0.0%, 5.7%] 0% [0.0%, 0.0%] * 1% [-1.2%, 3.7%] 4% [-1.3%, 8.5%] 2% [-2.0%, 6.2%] n 237 149 88 90 78 69 Note: significance from a composite Wald statistical test. ***, **, * indicate significance levels of 1%, 5% and 10% respectively Original question: S6.Q23. Quel(s) type(s) d'appui avez-vous reçus de cette organisation au cours des 3 dernières années ? Table 285: Support for cocoa farm from CNRA MAXIMIZING OPPORTUNITIES IN COCOA ACTIVITY BASELINE EVALUATION REPORT CNFA.ORG CNRA (y/n) All MOCA Control sig Abengourou Daloa Soubré sig mean [Confidence Interval] 6% [4.3%, 7.1%] 6% [4.0%, 7.2%] 6% [3.4%, 9.1%] 4% [2.4%, 6.5%] 5% [2.6%, 7.1%] 7% [4.5%, 9.5%] n 1299 923 376 428 447 424 Note: significance from a composite Wald statistical test. ***, **, * indicate significance levels of 1%, 5% and 10% respectively Original question: S6.Q24. CNRA Table 286: Type of support received from CNRA (multiple choices possible) (conditional on support by CNRA) Type of support received from CNRA All MOCA Control sig Abengourou Daloa Soubré sig Provision of seedlings / plants 81% [71.0%, 91.6%] 82% [70.1%, 93.4%] 79% [59.5%, 98.0%] 85% [67.8%, 101.8%] 100% [100.0%, 100.0%] 71% [53.8%, 87.7%] *** GAP training / advice 26% [14.5%, 37.9%] 30% [16.6%, 43.6%] 6% [-5.4%, 17.1%] *** 26% [4.0%, 47.2%] 12% [-3.7%, 27.8%] 33% [15.5%, 51.3%] Coaching 25% [13.4%, 35.9%] 27% [14.1%, 40.1%] 12% [-3.7%, 27.1%] 26% [4.0%, 47.2%] 19% [-0.4%, 37.5%] 27% [10.5%, 44.1%] Management / Finance 4% [-0.5%, 8.7%] 5% [-0.6%, 10.4%] 0% [0.0%, 0.0%] * 13% [-3.8%, 29.9%] 6% [-5.6%, 17.7%] 0% [0.0%, 0.0%] Provision of agricultural equipment 7% [0.5%, 14.0%] 7% [-0.8%, 14.4%] 10% [-3.9%, 23.0%] 3% [-2.6%, 7.8%] 12% [-3.7%, 28.4%] 6% [-2.9%, 15.5%] Quality / Certification 2% [-1.6%, 4.8%] 2% [-1.9%, 5.8%] 0% [0.0%, 0.0%] 0% [0.0%, 0.0%] 6% [-5.6%, 17.7%] 0% [0.0%, 0.0%] Other 0% [0.0%, 0.0%] 0% [0.0%, 0.0%] 0% [0.0%, 0.0%] NA 0% [0.0%, 0.0%] 0% [0.0%, 0.0%] 0% [0.0%, 0.0%] NA n 67 49 18 18 17 32 Note: significance from a composite Wald statistical test. ***, **, * indicate significance levels of 1%, 5% and 10% respectively Original question: S6.Q25. Quel(s) type(s) d'appui avez-vous reçus de cette organisation au cours des 3 dernières années ? Table 287: Support for cocoa farm from Conseil Café Cacao Conseil Café Cacao (y/n) All MOCA Control sig Abengourou Daloa Soubré sig mean [Confidence Interval] 15% [12.9%, 17.0%] 15% [12.3%, 16.9%] 17% [12.9%, 20.8%] 28% [23.4%, 32.3%] 8% [4.9%, 10.2%] 13% [9.8%, 16.4%] *** n 1300 924 376 428 447 425 Note: significance from a composite Wald statistical test. ***, **, * indicate significance levels of 1%, 5% and 10% respectively Original question: S6.Q26. Conseil Café Cacao Table 288: Type of support received from Conseil Café Cacao (multiple choices possible) (conditional on support by Conseil Café Cacao) Type of support received from Conseil Café Cacao All MOCA Control sig Abengourou Daloa Soubré sig Provision of seedlings / plants 27% [20.4%, 33.0%] 23% [16.3%, 30.4%] 44% [31.3%, 56.5%] *** 27% [19.2%, 35.2%] 44% [25.9%, 62.1%] 19% [8.5%, 29.4%] * GAP training / advice 20% [13.7%, 26.7%] 22% [14.6%, 29.7%] 11% [2.7%, 18.3%] ** 6% [1.7%, 10.0%] 18% [3.9%, 31.6%] 38% [24.6%, 51.5%] *** Coaching 13% [8.2%, 17.9%] 12% [6.1%, 16.9%] 21% [10.5%, 30.9%] 11% [5.3%, 16.4%] 21% [6.3%, 35.3%] 12% [3.7%, 21.1%] Management / Finance 0% [-0.4%, 1.3%] 1% [-0.5%, 1.5%] 0% [0.0%, 0.0%] 1% [-0.9%, 2.8%] 0% [0.0%, 0.0%] 0% [0.0%, 0.0%] Provision of agricultural equipment 50% [42.1%, 56.9%] 52% [43.8%, 60.8%] 35% [22.7%, 47.8%] ** 64% [55.5%, 73.0%] 34% [16.4%, 50.9%] 39% [25.5%, 52.1%] *** Quality / Certification 10% [4.8%, 14.7%] 11% [5.0%, 16.6%] 5% [-1.6%, 11.1%] 1% [-0.8%, 2.4%] 8% [-2.5%, 18.1%] 21% [9.8%, 32.4%] *** Other 12% [7.5%, 17.5%] 11% [5.7%, 16.8%] 19% [7.4%, 30.1%] 4% [0.1%, 7.3%] 26% [9.7%, 42.7%] 17% [7.3%, 26.7%] *** n 211 146 65 120 33 58 Note: significance from a composite Wald statistical test. ***, **, * indicate significance levels of 1%, 5% and 10% respectively Original question: S6.Q27. Quel(s) type(s) d'appui avez-vous reçus de cette organisation au cours des 3 dernières années ? Table 289: Support for cocoa farm from private company/chocolatier MAXIMIZING OPPORTUNITIES IN COCOA ACTIVITY BASELINE EVALUATION REPORT CNFA.ORG Private company/chocolatier (y/n) All MOCA Control sig Abengourou Daloa Soubré sig mean [Confidence Interval] 2% [1.2%, 2.8%] 2% [1.1%, 2.9%] 2% [0.5%, 3.3%] 2% [0.7%, 3.5%] 3% [1.1%, 4.4%] 1% [0.2%, 2.5%] n 1297 924 373 427 445 425 Note: significance from a composite Wald statistical test. ***, **, * indicate significance levels of 1%, 5% and 10% respectively Original question: S6.Q28. Compagnie Privée/Chocolatier Table 290: Type of support received from private company/chocolatier (multiple choices possible) (conditional on support by private company/chocolatier) Type of support received from private company/chocolatier All MOCA Control sig Abengourou Daloa Soubré sig Provision of seedlings / plants 43% [22.5%, 64.0%] 47% [23.3%, 70.4%] 22% [-6.4%, 49.8%] 45% [11.1%, 78.4%] 43% [12.5%, 74.2%] 42% [-1.4%, 85.2%] GAP training / advice 46% [25.1%, 66.6%] 45% [21.9%, 68.6%] 49% [12.5%, 86.2%] 62% [30.1%, 94.8%] 34% [4.3%, 62.8%] 49% [6.3%, 92.3%] Coaching 6% [-2.4%, 14.6%] 4% [-3.9%, 11.8%] 19% [-14.0%, 51.8%] 13% [-11.1%, 37.5%] 0% [0.0%, 0.0%] 9% [-8.9%, 26.4%] Management / Finance 15% [0.9%, 30.0%] 15% [-1.1%, 30.9%] 19% [-14.0%, 51.8%] 0% [0.0%, 0.0%] 29% [0.8%, 57.8%] 9% [-8.9%, 26.4%] Provision of agricultural equipment 13% [-1.0%, 26.6%] 15% [-1.1%, 30.9%] 0% [0.0%, 0.0%] * 0% [0.0%, 0.0%] 29% [0.8%, 57.8%] 0% [0.0%, 0.0%] * Quality / Certification 26% [7.4%, 44.4%] 27% [5.8%, 48.0%] 20% [-6.4%, 46.4%] 24% [-3.1%, 51.7%] 29% [0.8%, 57.8%] 22% [-16.0%, 60.9%] Other 22% [4.6%, 39.4%] 26% [5.5%, 45.8%] 0% [0.0%, 0.0%] ** 13% [-11.1%, 37.5%] 43% [11.4%, 74.0%] 0% [0.0%, 0.0%] ** n 27 19 8 10 11 6 Note: significance from a composite Wald statistical test. ***, **, * indicate significance levels of 1%, 5% and 10% respectively Original question: S6.Q29. Quel(s) type(s) d'appui avez-vous reçus de cette organisation au cours des 3 dernières années ? Table 291: Household ownership of current account bank Current account household ownership bank (yes/no/don't know) All MOCA Control sig Abengourou Daloa Soubré sig No 94% 94% 93% 89% 97% 94% Yes 6% 6% 7% 11% 3% 6% *** Do not know 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% n 1212 847 365 414 426 372 Note: significance from a Rao-Scott second-order corrected Chi-squared statistical test. ***, **, * indicate significance levels of 1%, 5% and 10% respectively Original question: S6.Q31. Compte courant dans une banque Table 292: Household ownership of savings account bank Savings account household ownership bank (yes/no/don't know) All MOCA Control sig Abengourou Daloa Soubré sig No 92% 93% 89% ** 86% 98% 92% Yes 8% 7% 11% 14% 2% 8% *** Do not know 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% n 1223 858 365 413 426 384 Note: significance from a Rao-Scott second-order corrected Chi-squared statistical test. ***, **, * indicate significance levels of 1%, 5% and 10% respectively Original question: S6.Q32. Compte d'épargne dans une banque Table 293: Household ownership of microfinance account Microfinance account household ownership (yes/no/don't know) All MOCA Control sig Abengourou Daloa Soubré sig No 94% 94% 94% 86% 97% 96% *** Yes 6% 6% 6% 14% 3% 4% MAXIMIZING OPPORTUNITIES IN COCOA ACTIVITY BASELINE EVALUATION REPORT CNFA.ORG Microfinance account household ownership (yes/no/don't know) All MOCA Control sig Abengourou Daloa Soubré sig Do not know 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% n 1229 865 364 415 424 390 Note: significance from a Rao-Scott second-order corrected Chi-squared statistical test. ***, **, * indicate significance levels of 1%, 5% and 10% respectively Original question: S6.Q33. Compte dans une microfinance Table 294: Household ownership of mobile money account Mobile money account household ownership (yes/no/don't know) All MOCA Control sig Abengourou Daloa Soubré sig No 38% 37% 42% 35% 56% 27% Yes 62% 63% 58% 65% 44% 73% *** Do not know 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% n 1250 882 368 415 426 409 Note: significance from a Rao-Scott second-order corrected Chi-squared statistical test. ***, **, * indicate significance levels of 1%, 5% and 10% respectively Original question: S6.Q34. Compte Mobile Money Table 295: Respondent ownership of current, savings, microfinance, mobile money bank account All MOCA Control sig Abengourou Daloa Soubré sig Current account respondent ownership bank (y/n) 8% [6.3%, 9.5%] 8% [6.1%, 9.7%] 8% [4.9%, 10.7%] 10% [7.0%, 13.1%] 4% [2.0%, 5.6%] 10% [6.6%, 12.5%] *** Savings account respondent ownership bank (y/n) 9% [7.3%, 10.6%] 8% [6.6%, 10.3%] 12% [8.3%, 15.2%] * 14% [10.4%, 17.3%] 4% [2.4%, 6.3%] 9% [6.6%, 12.3%] *** Microfinance account respondent ownership (y/n) 7% [5.5%, 8.4%] 7% [5.4%, 8.7%] 6% [3.9%, 8.9%] 14% [10.6%, 17.5%] 4% [1.9%, 5.8%] 5% [3.0%, 7.5%] *** Mobile money account respondent ownership (y/n) 70% [67.5%, 72.9%] 70% [66.9%, 73.0%] 72% [66.7%, 76.4%] 67% [62.3%, 71.5%] 67% [62.5%, 71.9%] 74% [69.8%, 78.5%] ** n 1297 922 375 428 445 424 Note: significance from a composite Wald statistical test. ***, **, * indicate significance levels of 1%, 5% and 10% respectively Original question: S6.Q36. Compte Bancaire Original question: S6.Q37. Compte d'épargne Original question: S6.Q38. Compte dans une microfinance Original question: S6.Q39. Compte Mobile Money Table 296: Membership VSLA and/or ROSCA All MOCA Control sig Abengourou Daloa Soubré sig Membership VSLA (y/n) 17% [14.8%, 19.5%] 18% [15.7%, 21.0%] 10% [7.1%, 13.1%] *** 12% [8.7%, 14.9%] 17% [12.8%, 20.3%] 20% [16.4%, 24.6%] *** Membership ROSCA (y/n) 18% [16.0%, 20.6%] 19% [15.9%, 21.1%] 17% [12.8%, 20.6%] 14% [10.5%, 17.3%] 23% [19.1%, 27.6%] 17% [13.2%, 20.8%] *** n 1300 924 376 428 447 425 Note: significance from a composite Wald statistical test. ***, **, * indicate significance levels of 1%, 5% and 10% respectively Original question: S6.Q40. Êtes-vous ou quelqu’un dans votre ménage est-il membre d'une association villageoise d'épargne et crédit (AVEC)? Original question: S6.Q41. Êtes-vous ou quelqu’un dans votre ménage est-il membre d'une tontine? Table 297: Debts in past 3 years Loan in past 3 years (y/n) All MOCA Control sig Abengourou Daloa Soubré sig mean [Confidence Interval] 23% [20.9%, 25.7%] 22% [19.8%, 25.2%] 28% [23.4%, 32.7%] ** 30% [25.4%, 34.3%] 33% [28.6%, 38.0%] 13% [9.3%, 15.8%] *** n 1300 924 376 428 447 425 Note: significance from a composite Wald statistical test. ***, **, * indicate significance levels of 1%, 5% and 10% respectively Original question: S6.Q43. Au cours des 3 dernieres annees, avez-vous personnellement emprunté de l’argent à quelqu’un ? À des amis, des banques, des prêteurs etc. Table 298: Loan source (multiple choices possible) (conditional on having debts) MAXIMIZING OPPORTUNITIES IN COCOA ACTIVITY BASELINE EVALUATION REPORT CNFA.ORG Loan source All MOCA Control sig Abengourou Daloa Soubré sig Family or friends 45% [38.9%, 50.5%] 46% [39.3%, 52.7%] 39% [29.3%, 48.1%] 27% [18.9%, 34.6%] 52% [43.2%, 60.3%] 55% [41.1%, 68.4%] *** Village lender 7% [4.0%, 9.4%] 6% [2.6%, 8.4%] 12% [5.3%, 19.0%] * 8% [3.2%, 13.4%] 4% [0.6%, 7.2%] 10% [3.1%, 16.6%] ROSCA/VSLA 3% [1.2%, 5.4%] 3% [0.5%, 5.2%] 6% [1.1%, 10.1%] 2% [-0.6%, 3.6%] 3% [0.3%, 5.3%] 7% [-0.2%, 13.4%] Savings and Credit Cooperative /Credit Union 9% [5.6%, 12.2%] 10% [6.0%, 13.9%] 4% [0.5%, 7.5%] ** 14% [7.2%, 19.9%] 7% [2.6%, 11.1%] 7% [-0.6%, 14.2%] Microfinance institution 1% [-0.3%, 2.0%] 1% [-0.4%, 2.4%] 0% [0.0%, 0.0%] 1% [-0.9%, 2.9%] 0% [0.0%, 0.0%] 2% [-2.0%, 6.3%] Bank 1% [-0.1%, 1.9%] 1% [-0.3%, 1.9%] 1% [-0.5%, 3.3%] 2% [-0.4%, 3.9%] 1% [-0.7%, 2.3%] 0% [0.0%, 0.0%] Merchant 6% [3.1%, 9.2%] 6% [2.8%, 9.8%] 5% [0.6%, 10.3%] 1% [-0.8%, 2.5%] 7% [2.2%, 10.9%] 12% [3.2%, 21.6%] *** Private company 0% [-0.3%, 1.0%] 0% [-0.4%, 1.2%] 0% [0.0%, 0.0%] 0% [0.0%, 0.0%] 1% [-0.7%, 2.3%] 0% [0.0%, 0.0%] Church / mosque 0% [-0.3%, 0.8%] 0% [-0.3%, 1.0%] 0% [0.0%, 0.0%] 1% [-0.8%, 2.5%] 0% [0.0%, 0.0%] 0% [0.0%, 0.0%] Traders 12% [8.0%, 15.2%] 11% [6.5%, 14.8%] 16% [9.3%, 22.9%] 10% [4.8%, 15.9%] 13% [7.7%, 18.8%] 10% [1.8%, 18.4%] Cooperative 25% [20.4%, 30.2%] 25% [19.7%, 31.2%] 25% [17.0%, 32.7%] 39% [30.2%, 47.5%] 21% [14.1%, 28.2%] 16% [5.3%, 26.0%] *** Other 3% [0.8%, 4.9%] 3% [0.7%, 5.6%] 1% [-1.2%, 3.8%] 1% [-0.9%, 2.8%] 3% [0.1%, 6.8%] 4% [-1.2%, 9.4%] Do not know 0% [-0.4%, 1.1%] 0% [-0.4%, 1.4%] 0% [0.0%, 0.0%] 0% [0.0%, 0.0%] 1% [-0.8%, 2.5%] 0% [0.0%, 0.0%] n 342 228 114 131 152 59 Note: significance from a composite Wald statistical test. ***, **, * indicate significance levels of 1%, 5% and 10% respectively Original question: S6.Q44. À qui avez-vous emprunté de l’argent au cours des 3 dernières années ? Table 299: Maximum loan amount in past 3 years (FCFA) (conditional on having debts) Maximum loan amount in past 3 years (FCFA) All MOCA Control sig Abengourou Daloa Soubré sig mean [Confidence Interval] 191790 [145846, 237734] 191501 [139095, 243907] 193121 [103192, 283050] 246216 [172186, 320245] 116599 [83174, 150025] 266591 [112247, 420936] *** median 100000 100000 70000 100000 50000 100000 n 340 226 114 131 152 57 Note: significance from a composite Wald statistical test. ***, **, * indicate significance levels of 1%, 5% and 10% respectively Original question: S6.Q45. Quel est le montant maximal qui vous a été prêté au cours des 3 dernières années ? (en une fois, en FCFA) Table 300: Source of maximum loan amount (conditional on having debts) Source of maximum loan amount All MOCA Control sig Abengourou Daloa Soubré sig Family or friends 40% 41% 37% 24% 46% 49% *** Village lender 5% 5% 9% 8% 2% 8% ROSCA/VSLA 3% 3% 6% 2% 3% 7% Savings and credit cooperative /Credit union 8% 9% 3% 14% 7% 4% Microfinance institution 1% 1% 0% 1% 0% 2% Bank 1% 1% 1% 2% 1% 0% Merchant 4% 4% 4% 1% 6% 6% Private company 0% 0% 0% 0% 1% 0% Church / mosque 0% 0% 0% 1% 0% 0% Traders 11% 11% 15% 10% 13% 9% Cooperative 23% 23% 24% 37% 19% 13% Other 2% 2% 1% 1% 3% 1% MAXIMIZING OPPORTUNITIES IN COCOA ACTIVITY BASELINE EVALUATION REPORT CNFA.ORG Source of maximum loan amount All MOCA Control sig Abengourou Daloa Soubré sig Do not know 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% n 341 227 114 131 151 59 Note: significance from a Rao-Scott second-order corrected Chi-squared statistical test. ***, **, * indicate significance levels of 1%, 5% and 10% respectively Original question: S6.Q46. À qui aviez-vous emprunté ce montant? Table 301: Repayment success (conditional on having debts) Repayment success All MOCA Control sig Abengourou Daloa Soubré sig Yes 22% 20% 32% * 30% 18% 22% No 54% 56% 46% 41% 66% 49% *** The repayment term has not yet been reached 24% 24% 22% 30% 16% 29% n 342 228 114 131 152 59 Note: significance from a Rao-Scott second-order corrected Chi-squared statistical test. ***, **, * indicate significance levels of 1%, 5% and 10% respectively Original question: S6.Q47. Avez-vous pu rembourser la somme prêtée en respectant le délai de remboursement prévu ? Table 302: Collateral used (conditional on having debts) Collateral All MOCA Control sig Abengourou Daloa Soubré sig Parcel 3% 3% 0% 0% 3% 4% *** House 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% Furniture /house equipment 1% 1% 0% 1% 1% 0% Harvest of crop(s) 23% 24% 21% 19% 33% 11% Livestock 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% Car / motorcycle 1% 1% 1% 1% 0% 2% Cash 4% 4% 1% 1% 6% 2% Farm 9% 9% 6% 7% 1% 26% Nothing / none 56% 54% 67% 66% 52% 50% Other 4% 4% 4% 4% 4% 4% n 342 228 114 131 152 59 Note: significance from a Rao-Scott second-order corrected Chi-squared statistical test. ***, **, * indicate significance levels of 1%, 5% and 10% respectively Original question: S6.Q48. Qu’avez-vous utilisé comme garantie ? Table 303: Use of loan (multiple choices possible) (conditional on having debts) Use of loan All MOCA Control sig Abengourou Daloa Soubré sig Seedlings 5% [1.9%, 7.4%] 5% [1.9%, 8.4%] 3% [-0.3%, 5.6%] 6% [1.8%, 10.1%] 0% [0.0%, 0.0%] 12% [2.2%, 21.6%] *** Inputs 14% [9.9%, 18.7%] 15% [10.0%, 20.3%] 11% [4.3%, 16.7%] 10% [4.4%, 15.1%] 8% [3.5%, 13.0%] 32% [18.6%, 44.8%] *** Farm workers 3% [0.7%, 4.9%] 3% [0.3%, 5.1%] 3% [-0.0%, 6.9%] 2% [-0.4%, 5.0%] 1% [-0.2%, 1.3%] 8% [0.1%, 15.3%] * Agricultural tools 1% [-0.2%, 1.4%] 1% [-0.3%, 1.7%] 0% [0.0%, 0.0%] 2% [-0.7%, 4.4%] 0% [0.0%, 0.0%] 0% [0.0%, 0.0%] Machines / tractor rental 1% [-0.1%, 2.1%] 1% [-0.2%, 2.5%] 0% [0.0%, 0.0%] * 2% [-0.7%, 4.4%] 1% [-0.8%, 2.6%] 0% [0.0%, 0.0%] Machinery / tractors 0% [0.0%, 0.0%] 0% [0.0%, 0.0%] 0% [0.0%, 0.0%] NA 0% [0.0%, 0.0%] 0% [0.0%, 0.0%] 0% [0.0%, 0.0%] NA Car / motorcycle 1% [0.0%, 2.6%] 2% [0.0%, 3.2%] 0% [0.0%, 0.0%] ** 2% [-0.7%, 4.4%] 2% [-0.6%, 4.0%] 0% [0.0%, 0.0%] Purchase or lease of land 1% [-0.0%, 1.4%] 0% [-0.4%, 1.1%] 2% [-0.3%, 4.6%] 1% [-0.9%, 2.9%] 1% [-0.1%, 1.8%] 0% [0.0%, 0.0%] Transport costs 2% [-0.2%, 3.6%] 2% [-0.2%, 4.4%] 0% [0.0%, 0.0%] * 0% [0.0%, 0.0%] 0% [0.0%, 0.0%] 7% [-0.6%, 14.9%] *** MAXIMIZING OPPORTUNITIES IN COCOA ACTIVITY BASELINE EVALUATION REPORT CNFA.ORG Use of loan All MOCA Control sig Abengourou Daloa Soubré sig Cocoa storage 0% [0.0%, 0.0%] 0% [0.0%, 0.0%] 0% [0.0%, 0.0%] NA 0% [0.0%, 0.0%] 0% [0.0%, 0.0%] 0% [0.0%, 0.0%] NA Machine repair 0% [0.0%, 0.0%] 0% [0.0%, 0.0%] 0% [0.0%, 0.0%] NA 0% [0.0%, 0.0%] 0% [0.0%, 0.0%] 0% [0.0%, 0.0%] NA Payment of membership fees to farmers' organizations 0% [0.0%, 0.0%] 0% [0.0%, 0.0%] 0% [0.0%, 0.0%] NA 0% [0.0%, 0.0%] 0% [0.0%, 0.0%] 0% [0.0%, 0.0%] NA Payment of health expenses 26% [20.7%, 30.5%] 23% [17.8%, 29.0%] 36% [26.7%, 45.1%] ** 29% [20.9%, 36.6%] 25% [17.8%, 32.5%] 22% [11.3%, 33.5%] Payment of tuition fees 38% [32.8%, 44.0%] 38% [31.8%, 44.9%] 38% [29.1%, 47.6%] 35% [26.6%, 43.6%] 44% [35.9%, 53.0%] 31% [18.2%, 44.1%] Clothing 1% [-0.3%, 2.1%] 1% [-0.4%, 2.4%] 1% [-0.7%, 2.0%] 1% [-0.6%, 3.2%] 0% [0.0%, 0.0%] 2% [-2.0%, 6.4%] Payment of food for household consumption 6% [3.3%, 8.6%] 6% [3.1%, 9.2%] 5% [1.0%, 9.5%] 8% [2.9%, 12.6%] 7% [2.8%, 11.9%] 1% [-1.0%, 3.1%] *** Payment of funeral expenses 9% [6.1%, 12.7%] 8% [4.5%, 11.8%] 16% [8.3%, 22.9%] * 6% [2.1%, 10.7%] 10% [5.3%, 15.4%] 12% [3.5%, 19.7%] Payment of wedding expenses 0% [-0.2%, 0.7%] 0% [0.0%, 0.0%] 1% [-1.2%, 3.8%] 0% [0.0%, 0.0%] 0% [0.0%, 0.0%] 1% [-0.9%, 2.9%] * Starting a small business / shop 5% [2.1%, 7.5%] 5% [1.9%, 8.2%] 4% [-0.0%, 8.0%] 5% [0.8%, 8.3%] 2% [-0.6%, 3.9%] 11% [2.3%, 20.2%] * Other 17% [12.6%, 21.9%] 20% [14.1%, 25.1%] 6% [1.9%, 10.7%] *** 11% [4.9%, 16.3%] 20% [12.6%, 26.4%] 22% [9.8%, 33.6%] * Do not know 1% [-0.1%, 1.9%] 1% [-0.3%, 1.9%] 1% [-1.2%, 3.8%] 1% [-0.9%, 2.7%] 1% [-0.8%, 2.4%] 1% [-0.9%, 2.9%] n 342 228 114 131 152 59 Note: significance from a composite Wald statistical test. ***, **, * indicate significance levels of 1%, 5% and 10% respectively Original question: S6.Q49. Q'avez-vous fait avec l’argent emprunté pour le prêt du montant maximal obtenu ? Table 304: Reason no debt (multiple choices possible) (conditional on no debt) Reason no debt All MOCA Control sig Abengourou Daloa Soubré sig Not available in the community 10% [7.5%, 11.7%] 10% [7.7%, 12.5%] 7% [3.4%, 9.9%] 8% [4.7%, 11.2%] 9% [5.6%, 12.7%] 11% [7.2%, 14.0%] Interest rate too high 4% [2.2%, 4.9%] 4% [2.4%, 5.4%] 1% [-0.2%, 2.5%] *** 2% [0.4%, 3.8%] 4% [1.8%, 6.8%] 4% [1.6%, 5.9%] Repayment period too short 2% [0.7%, 2.5%] 2% [0.8%, 2.9%] 0% [0.0%, 0.0%] *** 0% [-0.4%, 1.2%] 4% [1.6%, 6.7%] 1% [-0.3%, 1.7%] ** Lack of guarantee / security 2% [1.1%, 3.2%] 2% [1.2%, 3.6%] 1% [-0.1%, 1.8%] ** 1% [-0.0%, 2.8%] 4% [1.4%, 6.1%] 2% [0.2%, 3.1%] I did not need a loan 45% [42.0%, 48.8%] 45% [40.8%, 48.5%] 50% [44.0%, 56.6%] 43% [37.0%, 48.6%] 45% [38.7%, 50.8%] 47% [41.6%, 52.3%] I did not want to have debt 52% [49.0%, 55.9%] 51% [47.5%, 55.2%] 60% [53.3%, 65.7%] ** 48% [42.2%, 54.0%] 54% [48.4%, 60.5%] 53% [47.9%, 58.7%] My spouse did not want to 1% [0.3%, 1.7%] 1% [0.3%, 1.9%] 0% [-0.3%, 0.8%] 0% [0.0%, 0.0%] 2% [0.4%, 4.0%] 1% [-0.3%, 1.7%] ** Other 3% [1.8%, 3.9%] 2% [1.1%, 3.4%] 7% [3.3%, 10.1%] ** 2% [0.6%, 4.3%] 3% [1.3%, 5.7%] 3% [1.1%, 4.3%] n 958 696 262 297 295 366 Note: significance from a composite Wald statistical test. ***, **, * indicate significance levels of 1%, 5% and 10% respectively Original question: S6.Q50. ...Si vous n’avez pas emprunté d’argent au cours des 3 dernières années, quelle est la raison ? Table 305: Insurance in past 3 years Insurance in past 3 years (y/n) All MOCA Control sig Abengourou Daloa Soubré sig mean [Confidence Interval] 5% [3.8%, 6.5%] 5% [3.4%, 6.5%] 6% [3.5%, 8.8%] 2% [0.6%, 3.4%] 5% [2.8%, 7.0%] 7% [4.5%, 9.5%] *** n 1300 924 376 428 447 425 Note: significance from a composite Wald statistical test. ***, **, * indicate significance levels of 1%, 5% and 10% respectively Original question: S6.Q51. Vous-même ou quelqu’un dans votre ménage a-t-il souscrit à des produits d'assurance au cours des 3 dernières années ? Table 306: Insurance products in past 3 years (multiple choices possible) (conditional on insurance in past 3 years) Insurance products in past 3 years All MOCA Control sig Abengourou Daloa Soubré sig Life insurance 27% [14.8%, 39.5%] 27% [12.4%, 41.1%] 29% [9.3%, 48.8%] 6% [-5.7%, 17.2%] 31% [10.5%, 50.9%] 29% [11.3%, 46.2%] ** MAXIMIZING OPPORTUNITIES IN COCOA ACTIVITY BASELINE EVALUATION REPORT CNFA.ORG Insurance products in past 3 years All MOCA Control sig Abengourou Daloa Soubré sig Health insurance 20% [10.0%, 30.2%] 16% [5.1%, 27.1%] 39% [16.6%, 60.8%] * 74% [45.2%, 103.0%] 12% [-1.0%, 24.4%] 16% [2.9%, 28.6%] *** Fire insurance 0% [0.0%, 0.0%] 0% [0.0%, 0.0%] 0% [0.0%, 0.0%] NA 0% [0.0%, 0.0%] 0% [0.0%, 0.0%] 0% [0.0%, 0.0%] NA Vehicle insurance 34% [21.9%, 46.9%] 31% [16.6%, 44.8%] 52% [29.1%, 74.4%] 20% [-7.2%, 46.3%] 66% [44.4%, 86.7%] 21% [6.7%, 35.7%] *** Other 38% [24.6%, 52.2%] 47% [30.7%, 62.5%] 0% [0.0%, 0.0%] *** 14% [-11.6%, 40.2%] 11% [-3.4%, 24.4%] 56% [37.6%, 74.7%] *** n 62 41 21 9 23 30 Note: significance from a composite Wald statistical test. ***, **, * indicate significance levels of 1%, 5% and 10% respectively Original question: S6. Q52. Quels produits d'assurance avez-vous souscrits au cours des 3 dernières années? Table 307: Insurance in 2017-2018 Insurance in 2017-2018 (y/n) All MOCA Control sig Abengourou Daloa Soubré sig mean [Confidence Interval] 4% [2.9%, 5.2%] 4% [2.5%, 5.1%] 6% [3.0%, 8.2%] 1% [0.2%, 2.5%] 6% [3.3%, 7.9%] 4% [2.4%, 6.4%] *** n 1300 924 376 428 447 425 Note: significance from a composite Wald statistical test. ***, **, * indicate significance levels of 1%, 5% and 10% respectively Original question: S6.Q53. Vous-même ou quelqu’un dans votre ménage a-t-il souscrit à des produits d'assurance au cours de la campagne 2017-2018 ? Table 308: Insurance products in 2017-2018 (multiple choices possible) (conditional on insurance in past 3 years and past year) Insurance products in 2017-2018 All MOCA Control sig Abengourou Daloa Soubré sig Life insurance 21% [8.2%, 32.8%] 19% [5.1%, 33.9%] 25% [3.1%, 46.0%] 21% [-15.3%, 57.0%] 12% [-1.9%, 25.2%] 28% [7.6%, 49.3%] Health insurance 19% [7.5%, 29.5%] 16% [3.6%, 28.6%] 28% [6.1%, 49.9%] 70% [32.3%, 108.6%] 6% [-3.2%, 15.7%] 21% [3.1%, 38.9%] *** Fire insurance 3% [-2.8%, 8.7%] 4% [-3.5%, 10.9%] 0% [0.0%, 0.0%] 0% [0.0%, 0.0%] 0% [0.0%, 0.0%] 6% [-5.6%, 17.8%] Vehicle insurance 54% [39.5%, 69.4%] 55% [36.8%, 72.2%] 54% [29.7%, 78.4%] 30% [-8.6%, 67.7%] 82% [66.2%, 97.9%] 34% [12.4%, 54.7%] *** Other 15% [3.4%, 27.1%] 18% [3.7%, 32.7%] 4% [-3.5%, 10.8%] * 0% [0.0%, 0.0%] 6% [-3.2%, 15.7%] 26% [4.4%, 47.3%] ** n 51 33 18 6 24 21 Note: significance from a composite Wald statistical test. ***, **, * indicate significance levels of 1%, 5% and 10% respectively Original question: S6. Q54. Quels produits d'assurance avez-vous souscrits au cours de la saions 2017-2018? MAXIMIZING OPPORTUNITIES IN COCOA ACTIVITY BASELINE EVALUATION REPORT CNFA.ORG APPENDIX 3. FIELDWORK REPORT MOCA baseline 7 – 30 October 2018 MAXIMIZING OPPORTUNITIES IN COCOA ACTIVITY BASELINE EVALUATION REPORT CNFA.ORG Contents 1 INTRODUCTION 3 2 FIELDWORK PLANNING 4 3 QUALITATIVE DATA COLLECTION 6 3.1 Fieldwork process 6 3.2 Difficulties during fieldwork 6 3.2.1 GENERAL DIFFICULTIES 6 3.2.2 DALOA 6 3.2.3 SOUBRÉ 7 3.2.4 ABENGOUROU 7 3.2.5 POTENTIAL BIASES AND FLAWS IN DATA 7 4 QUANTITATIVE DATA COLLECTION 8 4.1 Enumerator training 8 4.2 Sampling & replacements 8 MAXIMIZING OPPORTUNITIES IN COCOA ACTIVITY BASELINE EVALUATION REPORT CNFA.ORG 1 Introduction This report provides insights on the execution of the data gathering in Côte d’Ivoire between the 7th and 30th of October 2018. The fieldwork was conducted by the Royal Tropical Institute (KIT) in cooperation with CNFA. The fieldwork consists of focus group discussions and surveys with farmers, and structured interviews with cooperative managers. Key Informant Interviews with local input providers and processors (SMEs) were also supposed to take place. However, in consultation with CNFA team, it was decided to postpone these interviews (apart from one in Daloa) due to a lack of time. The table below provides the names and the roles of the members of the research team. Name Organisation Role Adama Bah KIT Enumerator training, coop interviews, farmer FGD Cedric Steijn KIT Coop interviews, farmer FGD Amoiff Ehui Ernest n/a Translation to local languages for farmer FGDs Bou Diehon Valerie n/a Translation to local languages for farmer FGDs Kingoun Camara Sauveur CNFA Programme director Touré Mariame Yaya CNFA Regional director Daloa, arranging field visits with coops Kouakou Kouassi Saturnin CNFA M&E officer in Daloa, supervision of enumerator team N’Guessan Koffi Yao Lazare CNFA Assistant cocoa specialist Daloa, support during fieldwork Yao Fofié Maxime CNFA Assistant cocoa specialist Soubré, arranging visits with coops Ganon N’Bondanna Diakaridia CNFA M&E officer in Soubré, supervision of enumerator team Tapé Hugues Baï CNFA Regional director Abengourou, arranging visits with coops Traoré Zakaria CNFA M&E officer in Abengourou, supervision of enumerator team MAXIMIZING OPPORTUNITIES IN COCOA ACTIVITY BASELINE EVALUATION REPORT CNFA.ORG Gbodo Olivia CNFA Assistant cocoa specialist Abengourou, support during fieldwork Kouassi N'Deko Rose CNFA Operations director, financial administration Marc Steen CNFA Programme manager The fieldwork objective was to gather reliable data in an organised and transparent fashion. Information on data collection process and its difficulties can be found in the sections below. The objectives also include a certain number of respondents. Details can be found below: • For farmer surveys: number of respondents to include depends on the size of the cooperative (number of members). Prioritise members with lowest rank (i.e. start with #1). • For FGDs: one FGD per cooperative if possible. If not possible, as many as possible and prioritise control group cooperatives. Aim for: between 10-15 participants from different sections, the inclusion of women and the exclusion of members with a leadership role. • For cooperative KII’s: one per cooperative for all 32 cooperatives. Aim for: respondents with sufficient knowledge on the cooperative to provide accurate answers (i.e.: Directeur, ADG, Comptable, Président). • For SME KII’s: As many as possible, not a priority. 2 Fieldwork planning The consultants from KIT developed a fieldwork planning in cooperation with the regional directors from CNFA. The planning is based on the time available to the KIT advisors, travelling time and availability of the managers and farmers of cooperatives. The planning includes an interview with the management of each cooperative and a Focus Group Discussion with farmers of selected cooperatives. The KIT team made certain that an FGD took place for every control cooperative. The FGDs for the other (intervention) cooperatives were planned based on distance and available time. Table 2 below provides an overview of the fieldwork planning including the number of participants during the FGDs. Days when no fieldwork activities took place are marked in grey. MAXIMIZING OPPORTUNITIES IN COCOA ACTIVITY BASELINE EVALUATION REPORT CNFA.ORG Table 309: Fieldwork planning Date: Cooperative CNFA region: Control/intervention Facilitator(s) Total participants: 7-10- 2018 Arrival in Abidjan 8-10- 2018 Training of enumerators/field testing of survey/preparation of fieldwork 9-10- 2018 10- 10- 2018 11- 10- 2018 12- 10- 2018 CPR Canaan Daloa Intervention Cedric Steijn & Adama Bah 12 (1) 13- 10- 2018 Local elections/Sunday 14- 10- 2018 15- 10- 2018 SCALAVA Daloa Intervention Cedric Steijn 8 (0) ESPOIR Daloa Intervention Cedric Steijn & Adama Bah 8 (0) SO CADMV Daloa Intervention Adama Bah n/a CAPEDIG Daloa Intervention Cedric Steijn 15 (1) KAPATCHIVA Daloa Intervention Adama Bah 27 (8) SCOOPS SAHS Daloa Control Cedric Steijn 14 (3) MAXIMIZING OPPORTUNITIES IN COCOA ACTIVITY BASELINE EVALUATION REPORT CNFA.ORG 16- 10- 2018 HOUNOU Daloa Control Adama Bah 5 (2) 17- 10- 2018 Case du planteur Daloa Intervention Adama Bah 13 (0) Ecojad Daloa Intervention Cedric Steijn n/a SOCOOPRANHS Daloa Intervention Cedric Steijn 12 (0) Travel to Soubré 18- 10- 2018 CAAM Soubré Intervention Adama Bah 12 (0) SCAS Soubré Intervention Cedric Steijn n/a* SOCOOABAS Soubré Intervention Adama Bah n/a SCAES Soubré Intervention Cedric Steijn 16 (1) 19- 10- 2018 SOCOOPACDI Soubré Intervention Adama Bah n/a SCOPAB Soubré Intervention Adama Bah 8 (0) SOCAGNIPI Soubré Intervention Cedric Steijn 7 (0) Return to Abidjan (Adama) 20- 10- 2018 ECAM Soubré Intervention Cedric Steijn 8 (0) SCAPCB Soubré Intervention Cedric Steijn 12 (2) 21- 10- 2018 Sunday 22- 10- 2018 CANOA Soubré Control Cedric Steijn 15 (0) ECASO Soubré Control Cedric Steijn 36 (4) 23- 10- 2018 Travel to Abengourou (Cedric) MAXIMIZING OPPORTUNITIES IN COCOA ACTIVITY BASELINE EVALUATION REPORT CNFA.ORG 24- 10- 2018 ADI Abengourou Control Cedric Steijn 14 (9) CAPA Abengourou Intervention Cedric Steijn n/a 25- 10- 2018 ADHONDJO Abengourou Intervention Cedric Steijn n/a* CEEA Abengourou Control Cedric Steijn 6 (0) 26- 10- 2018 FAHO Abengourou Intervention Cedric Steijn 8 (1) SCAASP Abengourou Intervention Cedric Steijn n/a 27- 10- 2018 N'MOH-BLA Abengourou Intervention Cedric Steijn 10 (4) BOUKABLA Abengourou Intervention Cedric Steijn 8 (8) 28- 10- 2018 Sunday 29- 10- 2018 CAPRESSA Abengourou Intervention Cedric Steijn 14 (2) COPAZZA Abengourou Intervention Cedric Steijn n/a Return to Abidjan (Cedric) Total: 32 cooperatives (23 FGDs) 288 (46) *: FGD was planned, but did not take place MAXIMIZING OPPORTUNITIES IN COCOA ACTIVITY BASELINE EVALUATION REPORT CNFA.ORG 3. Qualitative data collection FIELDWORK PROCESS The fieldwork started on Friday the 12th of October with a visit to CPR Canaan in Daloa. The KIT advisors would visit the cooperative headquarters at the predetermined time in order to conduct the interview with the managers of the cooperatives and to discuss where and when the FGD would take place. Cooperatives were asked beforehand to select farmers for the FGDs based on criteria provided by KTI team and were responsible for arranging the transport of the farmers to the location of the FGD. FGDs usually took place in the cooperative headquarters (or warehouse) to minimize travelling time. In some cases, farmers were unable to come to the warehouse in which case the KIT consultant travelled to a central location (community) to conduct the FGD. A representative from the cooperative would accompany the research team to the community. The first two cooperative interviews were conducted by both Cedric and Adama in order to update the questionnaire in case of issues and to align the interpretation of questions to avoid inter￾interviewer variation. The questionnaire for cooperative managers was updated twice in first week to better capture the data. DIFFICULTIES DURING FIELDWORK GENERAL DIFFICULTIES The main difficulty in during the fieldwork was finding participants for the FGD. Cooperatives reported facing difficulties in arranging the FGD as farmers were occupied with the main harvest of their cocoa. This often led to delays, in some cases leading to shorter FGDs where questions were either skipped or discussed only briefly. This especially affected the data for the second exercise on previous projects. DALOA Daloa was the first CNFA region to be visited by the KIT research team. The planning for the cooperative visits had only been finalised a few days before the first visit, providing little time for the CNFA team to arrange the visits. The first week of fieldwork had a number of issues related to miscommunication between cooperatives and CNFA. In some cases, managers were not ready at the appointed time, or farmers had not been invited. In a few cases managers mentioned they themselves were farmers and members and could therefore also do the FGD. This caused a few delays leading to a lack of time to conduct full FGDs. However, all scheduled FGDs took place in the Daloa region. Significant delays did occur for the FGDs with members of Hounou, Case du Planteur and Kapatchiva where data on several categories is lacking. In the case of Espoir and Case du Planteur, the FGD participants consisted of farmers who are also members of the management, leading to potentially biased data. Furthermore, the interview with the director of Hounou could not take place at the scheduled time as he was travelling. The interview was later conducted over the phone by Cedric on the last day of fieldwork (30th of October). MAXIMIZING OPPORTUNITIES IN COCOA ACTIVITY BASELINE EVALUATION REPORT CNFA.ORG Figure 35: Cedric Steijn facilitating a focus group with members of Socooprahns in Fofanadougou (photo by Amoiff Ehui Ernest, 17-10-2018) SOUBRÉ The fieldwork in Soubré started on the 18th of October. The main difficulty in this CNFA region was the distance between cooperatives. Most cooperatives are located in Soubré or Méagui, but two cooperatives, SCOPAB and SOCOOPACDI, are located near Divo. Including these two cooperatives in the fieldwork planning was therefore more difficult. In the end, Adama visited both cooperatives on her way back to Abidjan on the 19th of October. Overall, the fieldwork in Soubré went well and most FGDs have relatively complete data. Managers and farmers were usually present at the scheduled times and little delays occurred. A problem did occur for SCAS: the cooperative is based in Sofoci, but the headquarters are located in Méagui. Sofoci was too far away from Méagui to do the interview as well as the FGD. The FGD therefore did not take place. Another issue occurred on the last day during the visit to Canoa. The management misunderstood the objective of the FGD and argued they themselves were farmers so they could do it. After explaining that this was not possible, farmers were gathered in a community. The community was supposed to be nearby, but it took nearly 2,5 hours to reach the community. This left time for only a short FGD and forced Cedric to travel at night during a rainstorm. The way back to Soubré was very unsafe and took nearly 3,5 hours, totalling 6 hours of travel for 1 hour of FGD. After this, agreements were made between Cedric and CNFA to avoid similar problems in the future. ABENGOUROU The last CNFA region visited during the fieldwork was Abengourou. At this time, Adama had left Côte d’Ivoire, leaving only Cedric to visit the remaining 10 cooperatives. Cedric was joined by Hugues Tapé (regional manager Abengourou) during the first visits to control group cooperatives (ADI and CEEA) and by Olivia Gbodo (assistant cocoa specialist Abengourou) for the remainder of the cooperatives. No major issues occurred during the final stage of the qualitative data collection, with the exception of the FGDs at AHONDJO and BOUKABLA. The FGD at AHONDJO was skipped to avoid travelling at night. Upon arrival in Affalikro in the afternoon, farmers were not present and it was unclear when they could arrive. At BOUKABLA, respondents had to attend a funeral and were therefore only available for a short FGD. MAXIMIZING OPPORTUNITIES IN COCOA ACTIVITY BASELINE EVALUATION REPORT CNFA.ORG POTENTIAL BIASES AND FLAWS IN DATA The data gathered through FGDs has certain short comings. First of all, participants of the FGDs were usually selected on availability (by the cooperative) as it was often difficult to find farmers during the main harvest seasons. The data from respondents might therefore not always reflect the view of the average cooperative member. Women were often underrepresented as well. A second short coming is the lack of representativeness of the sample; most FGDs consisted of members who were usually from the same section (or community). The data collected through the FGDs should therefore in no way be generalised to the cooperative as a whole but used as an indication of the current situation of cooperative members. The fact that most participating farmers are from the same community also prohibits generalisations as certain sections may receive more attention in terms of inputs and community projects than others. A third shortcoming relates to the presence of members in managing positions during focus groups. Their presence may affect answers of farmers whom might not feel completely free to express their opinions for fear of consequences. In most FGDs, cooperative managing members (delegates and managers) were asked to leave when the discussion focused on cooperatives. In a few cooperatives, however, all FGD participants were at such positions delegates and lead farmers, due to misunderstandings during communications between MOCA team and cooperatives regarding the type of respondents required for these exercises. Finally, the translation from French to local languages can be a source of misunderstanding, especially when the translators had difficulty with a certain language, or translation to multiple languages was needed. KIT advisors noted these issues, which may lead to potential biases and are thus taken into account during analysis. 4. Quantitative data collection ENUMERATOR TRAINING The quantitative data was collected by a team of enumerators using the programme ODK Collect installed on tablets. The team of enumerators consisted of 24 men and women distributed over the three CNFA regions (8 per region). The enumerators attended an intensive training on the research itself, the survey and the use of the tablet. The training, which took place in Daloa, was provided by Adama Bah and Cedric Steijn from KIT in cooperation with the regional managers and M&E officers from CNFA. The training started on Monday the 8th of October and took 4 days. The training was participatory and invited all people present to propose adjustments and clarifications to the questions in order to improve the quality of the data collected. Enumerators tested and practiced the survey multiple times, first among themselves and also during two field test days during which the enumerators surveyed cocoa farmers in a village near Daloa. The survey questionnaire was continuously updated during the four days of training to improve the use of the survey and the quality of the data collected. During the fieldwork, enumerators were in continuous contact with the M&E officers of their respective region, whom in turn were in close contact with the KIT research team in order to address unforeseen issues in the data collection process and to provide clarifications if needed. SAMPLING & REPLACEMENTS The main issue during the farmer survey data collection related to finding farmers selected on the initial list. Due to a lack of time for fieldwork preparations, it was not possible to check beforehand MAXIMIZING OPPORTUNITIES IN COCOA ACTIVITY BASELINE EVALUATION REPORT CNFA.ORG with cooperatives whether farmers selected were available. Furthermore, data collection was conducted over a relatively short period of time, during which enumerators were by contract required to conduct four surveys per day whereas, in practice, very few surveys took place during the first day at a cooperative, given the need to first locate farmers with the help of the cooperative staff. A number of farmers selected were said to be unavailable for a number of reasons. MOCA team requested for KIT to provide replacement lists to replace farmers who could not be surveyed and be able to obtain the required number of respondents for each cooperative. It was decided to replace selected farmers who could not be surveyed following the same random selection procedure as the one used for the initial list. Replacement lists were provided by KIT team upon request from MOCA M&E advisors, who supervised the fieldwork. M&E advisors were requested to implement the replacement process par releasing additional names one by one to enumerators according to a ranking established randomly by KIT (instead of providing them with a list of replacement). This was to avoid convenience replacements which could affect the representativeness of the sample. M&E advisors were asked to document why respondents included in the sample were not surveyed and why replacement respondents with a higher rank were replaced with a respondent with a lower rank. Overall, although KIT team did not receive full information, data submitted by M&E advisors suggest that the replacement process roughly followed the requested process. The table below summarizes results from the implementation of the sampling process, based on data provided by M&E advisors. It shows that there are regional differences in the number of farmers from the initial lists that could not be surveyed, with Daloa region having much less (more than half) farmers not surveyed compared to the other two regions. In terms of reasons for not being surveyed, it was more common that farmers on initial lists did not belong to the cooperative anymore in Soubre region. In Abengourou region, more farmers had permanently relocated or were not accessible by enumerators, in particular due to lack of road. MAXIMIZING OPPORTUNITIES IN COCOA ACTIVITY BASELINE EVALUATION REPORT CNFA.ORG ADDENDUM TO THE BASELINE REPORT MOCA CÔTE D’IVOIRE: RECOMMENDATIONS FOR THE FINAL EVALUATION The final evaluation of MOCA will seek to determine the extent of the change experienced by beneficiary cocoa farmers after participation in MOCA activities and attribute these changes to MOCA interventions. In particular, the end-line impact evaluation is expected to provide answers to the following impact evaluation questions: Did MOCA activities produce increases in cocoa farmer: − Access to inputs and services: improved planting material, spraying, loans, improved storage? − Productivity (kg/ha of cocoa produced)? − Diversification of crops? − Incomes? The evaluation will seek to find evidence of a cause-effect relationship between the project interventions and results at farmer level based on a counterfactual evaluation design. The baseline survey can be used to collect a panel dataset, or at least apply a difference-in-difference design. In addition, it is recommended to apply Propensity Score Matching in order to correct for confounding factors and selection bias that are likely to influence the outcome indicators independent of exposure to the intervention. Indeed, the baseline study showed that significant differences exist between the beneficiaries and non-beneficiaries prior to the implementation of MOCA. However, other issues will need to be considered at the final evaluation as well: - Spillover effects: the control group may have been affected indirectly by MOCA in certain ways (e.g. improved access to inputs). - Contamination: the treatment and/or control group has access to other interventions that also affect the outcomes. - Impact heterogeneity: differences in impact among beneficiaries due to differences in beneficiary type and context. It is recommended that the final evaluation first reviews the intervention landscape as well as the actual MOCA project activities to assess the likelihood of spillover effects and contamination so these can be taken into account when designing the survey tool. We advise against a simple comparison of outcome indicators between the treatment and control group. The baseline study shows that there are significant differences in outcome indicators between regions and cooperatives at baseline. These factors are likely to cause impact heterogeneity. Furthermore, MOCA will carry out a multitude of activities to strengthen the cocoa value chain in general and the cooperative capacities in particular. The intervention activities will vary by cooperative, depending on their existing capacity and ambitions. As such, there will be multiple ‘treatment arms’ that are not predefined. It is thus important that the evaluation also captures the intervention activities received, and change in capacity achieved, at cooperative level as this will influence the outcome at farmer level. A survey at cooperative level will be necessary to MAXIMIZING OPPORTUNITIES IN COCOA ACTIVITY BASELINE EVALUATION REPORT CNFA.ORG collect the required data on the capacities of the cooperatives, the type of support received, and services provided to farmers.19 In order to correct for the expected heterogeneity in treatment and impact, it is recommended to use multivariate regression techniques20 to control for the variation in ‘treatment’ interventions as well as important confounding factors (e.g. cooperative capacity, region) to estimate the true effect21 of MOCA on cocoa farmers. Treating each intervention package at cooperative level as a separate treatment arm, to be compared against other treatment arms and controls, will be unpractical as the number of treatment arms are likely to require a very large sample size22. In addition to analyzing baseline and endline values of the outcome indicators, it would also be useful to compare changes in the correlates of productivity at baseline and at endline, as it is possible that the project has an effect on which factors affect productivity (for example, making the use of inputs more significantly correlated with productivity). In case the decision is made to obtain a new sample of respondents for the final evaluation (rather than collecting a panel dataset), the sampling procedure should follow the two-stage sampling strategy applied at baseline: random sampling of cooperatives followed by random sampling of cooperative members. The procedure is described in the inception report of the baseline study. 19 King EM, Behrman JR. 2008. Timing and duration of exposure in evaluations of social programs. Policy Research Working Paper 4686. The World Bank 20 See for example: Elbers C, Gunning JW. 2012. Evaluation of development programs: using regression to assess the impact of complex interventions. Tinbergen Institute Discussion Paper TI2012-081/2. Faculty of Economics and Business Administra tion, VU University Amsterdam, AIID, and Tinbergen Institute 21 Reeves BC, Wells GA, Waddington H. 2017. Quasi-experimental study design series – paper 5: a checklist for classifying studies evaluating the effects on health interventions – a taxonomy without labels. J. Clin. Epidemiol. 89: 30-42 22 https://siteresources.worldbank.org/EXTHDOFFICE/Resources/5485726-1295455628620/Impact_Evaluation_in_Practice.pdf MAXIMIZING OPPORTUNITIES IN COCOA ACTIVITY BASELINE EVALUATION REPORT CNFA.ORG ANNEX 1: REFERENCE STUDY REPORT ON AGRO DEALERS RAPPORT DE L’ETUDE DE REFERENCE SUR LES AGRO DEALERS 3. ANNEXES MAXIMIZING OPPORTUNITIES IN COCOA ACTIVITY BASELINE EVALUATION REPORT CNFA.ORG Tables des matières INTRODUCTION 179 MÉTHODOLOGIE 180 1.1. Echantillonnage 180 1.2. Questionnaire et stratégie de collecte de données 180 1.3. Analyse des données 180 RÉSULTAT DE L’ÉTUDE 180 2.1. Localisation et caractéristiques des MPMEs interviewés 180 2.1.1. LOCALISATION DES MPMES 180 2.1.2. CARACTÉRISTIQUES DES MPMES 181 2.2. Principales activités réalisées par les MPMEs interviewés 181 2.2.1. ACTIVITÉS RÉALISÉES 181 2.2.2. VENTE DE PRODUITS AGRICOLES 183 2.2.3. SERVICES VENDUS PAR LES MPMES 184 2.3. Employés 185 2.4. Dépenses 186 2.5. Revenus 186 2.6. Bénéfices 186 2.7. Types de clients 187 RECOMMANDATIONS 187 Liste des tableaux Tableau 1: Répartition des MPMEs interviewés par sexe selon la zone MOCA 181 Tableau 2: Répartition des MPMEs interviewés par type d'activités menées 182 Tableau 3: Répartition des MPMEs interviewés par type de service vendus 185 Liste des figures Figure 1: Pourcentage des répondants par type de produits vendus. 184 179 | MAXIMIZING OPPORTUNITIES IN COCOA ACTIVITY BASELINE EVALUATION REPORT CNFA.ORG INTRODUCTION Le projet MOCA (« Maximiser les opportunités d’activité du cacao ») est un projet de trois ans financés par le programme Food for Progress du Département de l’agriculture des États-Unis (USDA) et mis en œuvre par CNFA avec le sous-traitant SOCODEVI en Côte d’Ivoire. Le MOCA vise à accroître l’efficacité et le professionnalisme des acteurs de la chaîne de valeur du cacao et à améliorer le commerce du cacao afin d’accroître les revenus des agriculteurs. Le projet a débuté en octobre 2017 et devrait se terminer en septembre 2020. Il est mis en œuvre dans trois zones de micro-production situées dans la ceinture cacaoyère de la Côte d’Ivoire (Abengourou, Daloa et Soubré). Le projet MOCA a deux grands objectifs stratégiques qui sont : Objectif stratégique 1 : Augmenter la productivité et l'efficacité des acteurs de la chaîne de valeur du cacao en renforçant les capacités des coopératives / groupements de producteurs, des instituts de recherche, des fournisseurs d'intrants et des transformateurs de cacao. Objectif stratégique 2 : Améliorer et développer le commerce du cacao et des produits à base de cacao en améliorant la qualité globale de la récolte, les techniques de transformation et de traitement après récolte, et en renforçant les liens de marché et l'organisation de groupes pour fournir des produits répondant aux demandes du marché. Les activités du projet sont axées sur l'amélioration de la production de cacao (objectif stratégique 1) et la commercialisation du cacao fermenté et séché, ainsi que sur la production et la commercialisation de produits de cacao transformés à valeur ajoutée (objectif stratégique 2). Les bénéficiaires directs comprennent les producteurs de cacao, les coopératives de cacao, les transformateurs qui transforment le cacao en produits à valeur ajoutée et le CNRA, qui produit des matériels de plantation de cacao approuvés. Le projet s’intéresse aussi aux agrodealers et MPME Le CNFA a confié au KIT le mandat de fournir une expertise technique pour la conception de la méthodologie de l’étude de base, le développement d’outils d’étude, le contrôle de la qualité pendant le travail sur le terrain, ainsi que pour l’analyse et le reporting. Cependant pour une question de logistique le volet MPME du baseline n’a pas pu être réalisé par KIT. Ainsi cette étude de base des MPMEs vise à établir la situation de base des MPMEs locales des trois régions du projet MOCA. METHODOLOGIE ECHANTILLONNAGE Ne disposant pas de base de sondage, la stratégie d’échantillonnage adoptée dans le cadre de cette étude est l’interview de MPMEs précédemment identifiés lors des différentes missions dans les zones d’intervention de MOCA avec un effectif total de N=55 qui correspond au nombre total des agrodealers/MPME identifiés dans les trois régions CNFA. QUESTIONNAIRE ET STRATEGIE DE COLLECTE DE DONNEES Le questionnaire ayant servi de base d’enquête a été élaboré par le KIT et numérisé par MOCA. Ce questionnaire prend en compte l’ensemble des informations sur - la localisation des MPMEs ; - les activités réalisées par les enquêtés ; - les informations sur la vente des produits ; - les différents services offerts par les MPMEs ; - le niveau d’employabilité des MPMEs ; - les dépenses, revenues et bénéficies des MPMEs ; - la clientèle des MPMEs ; Par sa simplicité, sa gratuité et sa robustesse, la plateforme KoboToolBox a été choisie pour numériser et permettre la collecte efficace des données. Les interviews ont été réalisé à l’aide des tablettes par les M&E régionaux de CNFA. ANALYSE DES DONNEES Après la collecte des données sur la plateforme des premières analyses sur les effectifs étaient systématiquement disponible. Par la suite nous avons pu procéder à l’analyse plus précise des données à l’aide des logiciels Excel et Stata. RESULTAT DE L’ETUDE LES MPMES Les interviews ont été réalisés au sein des MPMEs locales (fournisseurs d'intrants et transformateurs). Ainsi, nous avons pu réaliser dans l’ensemble 45 MPME sur les 55 soit un taux de réalisation de 81.8%. Les M&E ont été chargés d'administrer l'enquête à tous les MPMEs locales (fournisseurs d'intrants et transformateurs) identifiées dans leur région (Voir graphique 1). Caractéristiques des MPMEs La majorité des MPMEs est détenue par les hommes (86.7%) et en minorité par les femmes (13.3%) avec une certaine variation en fonction de la région. En effet, 27.3% des MPMEs interviewés à Abengourou sont détenues ou gérées par les femmes avec 14.3% à Soubré et 5.0% à Daloa. Il faut signifier que cette zone de Abengourou est la zone dans laquelle les femmes sont beaucoup plus impliquées dans les activités agricoles du fait d’une culture moins rigide. Aussi, la majorité des MPMEs locales ont moins de dix (10) années d’existence dans la communauté (55.6%) dont 33.3 % ont même moins de cinq (05) années de prestation dans la communauté. Force est de savoir que dans les régions d’Abengourou et de Daloa les MPMEs interviewés sont en grande partie ancienne (plus de 10 années d’existence), avec respectivement (72.7%) et (50.0%). En revanche, elles sont relativement récentes à Soubré (85%) ont moins de 10 ans et la moitié des MPMEs à Soubré ont moins de cinq (05 ans). La moitié des MPMEs détenues par les femmes (50.0%) ont plus de 10 années d’existence contre (43.6%) chez celles détenues par les hommes. Cela pourrait sous-entendre que cela fait longtemps que les femmes se sont intéressées au domaine. Tableau 1: Répartition des MPMEs interviewés par sexe selon la zone MOCA. GENRE ABENGOUROU DALOA SOUBRE ENSEMBLE Homme 3 (27.27%) 1 (5.00%) 2 (14.30%) 6 (13.33%) Femme 8 (72.73%) 19 (95.00%) 12 (85.70%) 39 (86.67%) Ensemble 11 (100.00%) 20 (100.00%) 14 (100.00%) 45 (100.00%) Source : Etude agrodealeur Janvier 2019, CNFA Les activités des MPMEs sont pour la plupart des activités de vente de produits et services et de matériels agricoles. Ces activités peuvent être regroupées en 11 catégories (Voir Tableau 2). Tableau 2: Répartition des MPMEs interviewés par type d'activités menées. Catégories Effectifs % Vente d'intrants et produits phyto 42 93,33% Application d'intrants et produits phyto 10 22,22% Vente de pépinières 12 26,67% Conseils agricoles 18 40,00% Démarrage de plantation 8 17,78% Entretien de plantation 11 24,44% Réhabilitation de plantation 12 26,67% Vente d'équipement agricole 26 57,78% Location d'équipement agricole 10 22,22% Services financiers 1 2,22% Business development services 1 2,22% Autre 2 4,44% Source : Etude agrodealeur Janvier 2019, CNFA. Il ressort que dans toutes les trois régions l’activité prédominante des différentes MPMEs à 93.3% est la vente d’intrants et de produits phytosanitaires. Cette activité est la plus menée par les MPMEs suivit de la vente d’équipement et des activités d’appuis conseil. Très peu de MPME pratiquent l’application d’intrants et produits phyto dans les zones de Daloa et Abengourou, avec respectivement 5.0% et 18.2%. Cependant, dans la zone de Soubré la moitié des MPMEs font l’application d’intrants et produits phytosanitaires. La vente de pépinière n’est pratiquée par aucune des MPMEs identifiées dans la zone d’Abengourou. Cette activité est pratiquée par seulement 5.0% des MPMEs de Daloa. En revanche à Soubré 78.7% des MPMEs enquêtés s’adonnent à la vente de pépinières. Dans l’ensemble 26.7% des MPMEs pratiquent cette activité. Le conseil agricole est pratiqué par 36.4% et 20.0% par les MPMEs d’Abengourou et Daloa contre 71.4% à Soubré. Retenons que dans l’ensemble 40% des MPMEs pratique cette activité. Les activités de démarrage et entretien de plantations sont quasi inexistantes à Abengourou, faiblement pratiquées par les MPMEs de Daloa (5.0%), toutefois relativement pratiquées par les MPMEs de Soubré avec respectivement 43% et 64.2%. Dans l’ensemble c’est respectivement 17.8% et 24.2% des MPMEs qui pratiquent les activités démarrage et entretien de plantions. Seulement 9.2% et 5.0% des MPMEs locales qui font de la réhabilitation de parcelles une activité, cependant à Soubré ce taux est de 71.4%. Dans l’ensemble c’est 26.8% des MPMEs qui font cette activité. Dans l’ensemble plus de la moitié des MPMEs vendent des équipements agricoles (57.7%). Cependant ce taux varie d’une région à une autre : 36% à Abengourou, 35.7% à Soubré et 95.0% à Daloa. Quant à la location d’équipement agricole, elle est inexistante à Abengourou et relativement faible dans les deux régions avec 30% et 28.5% respectivement à Daloa et Soubré. En somme c’est seulement 22.2% des MPMEs qui pratiquent cette activité. Les MPMEs qui pratiquent des activités de services financiers et du business development services sont faiblement représentées (4.4%). Cette activité est inexistante à Abengourou, elle est de 5.0% et 7.1% à Daloa et Soubré. Le projet MOCA pourrait permettre, par l’entremise des Grants, l’intensification des autres catégories d’offre des MPMEs (les services de réhabilitation de plantation, application d’intrants et produit phytositaire, …) dans les régions concernées et améliorer les services déjà prédominants mais pas forcément bien appliquées... De tous les types d’activités cités plus haut, la vente de produit d’intrant et de phytosanitaire est de façon générale l’activités principale de de la majorité des MPMEs qui la pratiquent. En effet, 71.1% des MPMEs qui ont cette activité dans leur package la classifient comme activité principale menées. Les type de produits agricoles vendus sont les herbicides, insecticides, fongicides, de l’engrais et le matériel d’équipement agricole. Figure 36: Pourcentage des répondants par type de produits vendus. Source : Etude agrodealeur Janvier 2019, CNFA. Le nombre moyen de produits différents vendus par MPME varie d’une région à une autre. Dans l’ensemble, le nombre moyen de type de produits vendus par MPME est de deux (2) avec un maximum de 6 produits et un minimum de 1 produits. A Abengourou et Daloa cette moyenne est de 2 avec un maximum de 5 et 3 respectivement. Tandis qu’à Soubré elle est de 2.6 avec un maximum de 6. Une analyse selon le sexe fait sortir qu’il n’existe pas de différence significative du nombre moyen de type de produits vendus selon que la MPME soit détenue par un homme ou par une femme. Dans l’ensemble la vente totale de produits pour chaque MPME en 2017 est de 21 millions de FCFA avec un maximal de 205 millions. Une analyse selon la région montre que cette vente totale moyenne est relativement plus élevée dans les régions de Daloa (21.9 millions FCFA) avec un maximal de (110 millions FCFA), Soubré (26.5 millions FCFA) avec un maximal de (205 millions FCFA) que dans la région d’Abengourou (10.9 millions FCFA) avec un maximal de (35 millions FCFA). Une analyse selon le genre met en exergue une forte disparité chez les hommes et les femmes avec seulement (3 088 500 FCFA) contre (23.1 millions FCFA) chez les hommes. Au cours de l’exercice 2017, dans l’ensemble c’est la vente d’intrants et de produits phyto qui a généré plus de revenu chez (90.9% des MPME). A Abengourou, cela a été le cas pour l’ensemble des toutes les MPMEs (100%), Daloa (85.0%) et Soubré (92.3%). Une analyse selon le sexe 93.33% 66.67% 0.00% 6.67% % des repondants par type de produit intrants / produits phyto equipement agricole produits financiers Autre montre que dans toutes les MPMEs détenues par des femmes, c’est la vente d’intrants et de produits phyto qui a générée le plus de revenu (100%) contre (89.5%) chez les hommes. SERVICES VENDUS PAR LES MPMES Dans l’ensemble (82.2%) des MPMEs interviewés fournissent plusieurs services aux producteurs. Ces services sont regroupés en 08 catégories (voir Tableau 3). Tableau 3: Répartition des MPMEs interviewés par type de service vendus. Catégories Effectifs % Développement des capacités 7 18,92% Services financiers 6 16,22% Distribution d'intrants 12 32,43% Services de conseil 25 67,57% Services de transport 4 10,81% Services d'emploi 0 0,00% Services de démarrage, entretien, ou réhabilitation de plantation 10 27,03% Service de stockage 3 8,11% Autre 2 5,41% Source : Etude agrodealeur Janvier 2019, CNFA. Dans l’ensemble les MPMEs qui fournissent des services aux clients (40%) fournissent 2 types de services et 14.8 % fournissent plus de 2 types de services. Dans l’ensemble le revenu moyen des services fournis aux clients au cours de l’année 2017 s’élève à 8.4 millions FCFA, avec un maximal de 70 millions FCFA. En revanche il ressort que pour plus du tiers des MPMEs (34.6%) les services fournis aux clients sont gratuits. De nombreux MPMEs n’ont aucun revenu provenant des services fournis aux clients. En effet, les services sont pour la plupart des services de marketing (appuis conseil) ou services après-vente (application de produit phytosanitaires) liées à la vente de produits agricoles (engrais et phytosanitaire). Le projet MOCA pourrait aider les MPMEs à formaliser leurs activités de vente de produits et services. Aussi, MOCA pourrait aider ces MPMEs dans la maitrise de l’effort marketing Dans l’ensemble plus de la moitié (53.3%) des MPMEs ont des employés permanents/temporaires. Cette tendance varie d’une zone à une autre selon les MPMEs interviewés. En effet, elle est de (27.3%) à Abengourou, (40%) à Daloa puis (92.9%) à Soubré. En moyenne au cours de l’année 2017 les entreprises interrogées ont employé 3 personnes à temps pleins, toutefois il y a de fortes dispersions par région. A Abengourou les MPMEs n’ont employé qu’en moyenne 1 personne chacune, contre 2 à Daloa et 4 à Soubré. En moyenne, au cours de l’année 2017, les MPMEs ont employé 11 personnes chacune de manière temporaire, toutefois il y a de fortes dispersions par région. A Abengourou les MPMEs ont employé temporairement environ 7 personnes chacune, contre 2 à Daloa et 17 à Soubré. Dans l’ensemble il y’a 47 employés hommes dont 23 sont âgés de moins de 35 ans. Il n’y a pas d’employé homme dans la zone d’Abengourou. Dans l’ensemble il y’ a 19 employés femmes dont 15 sont âgés de moins de 35 ans. En 2017 plus de la moitié (54.5%) des MPMEs ont eu des employés intérimaires/journaliers et un effectif total de 302 dont 22 à Abengourou, 20 à Daloa et 260 à Soubré. En général ils sont recrutés pour charger et décharger les produits du véhicule de livraison, pour la mise en place et l’offre de service saisonniers (pépinières, mise en place d’une plantation, …). L’intensification des activités à travers le projet MOCA permettrait une augmentation des employés de façon générale et donc l’augmentation de l’employabilité communautaire. Dans l’ensemble les MPMEs ont dépensé en moyenne 20.2 millions chacune au cours de l’année 2017 et plus de la moitié des MPMEs ont dépensé au moins 8 millions au cours de l’exercice écoulé. C’est seulement 6.6% soit trois MPMEs qui ont eu des dépenses annuelles supérieures ou égales à 100 millions dont deux sont à Abengourou et une à Soubré. Cette dépense est de 21.5 millions à Abengourou, 16.9 millions à Daloa et de 23.9millions à Soubré. Une analyse selon le sexe fait ressortir une disparité selon le genre, en effet cette dépense est de 1.7 million chez les femmes contre 23 millions chez les hommes. Les dépenses les plus importantes sont l’achat de produits/matières premières (83.7%), les salaires des employés permanents/temporaires /journaliers (11.6%), les frais de location et de transport respectivement (2.3%). Toutefois il y a aussi des lignes de dépenses non négligeables qui sont entre autres, le loyer, les taxes et impôts, le carburant et l’électricité… La différence selon le sexe est remarquable et en défaveur des femmes : 1.7 millions FCFA contre 23 millions FCFA chez les hommes. REVENUS Le revenu moyen annuels de l’ensemble des MPMEs de cette étude est de 16.4 millions FCFA. Il est de 11.9 millions avec un maximal de 35 millions à Abengourou, 14.8 millions avec un maximal de 85 millions à Daloa et de 22.8 millions avec un maximal de 90 millions à Soubré. Le revenu annuel moyen est de 2.4 millions avec un maximal de 6 millions chez les femmes, en revanche il est de 18.5 millions avec un maximal de 90 millions chez les hommes. Ces revenus sont issus de la vente des intrants/ produits phyto (97.6%), le paiement pour service (30.9%), les intérêts sur crédits/prêts accordés (14.3%), les prêts (11.9%). Cependant les revenus les plus importants proviennent de la vente des intrants / produits phyto (83.7%), du paiement pour service (13.9%), formation conseil encadrement (2.3%). BENEFICES Il ressort de l’analyse que 93.2% des MPMEs ont eu des bénéfices pendant l’année 2017. Le bénéfice annuel moyen est de 5.1 millions FCFA pour l’ensemble des MPME. Cependant plus de la moitié des entreprises ont eu un bénéfice inférieur à 2 millions. Ce bénéfice est de 1.5 million FCFA à Abengourou, 3.1 millions FCFA à Daloa et 11 millions FCFA à Soubré. On remarque une forte différence selon le sexe du gérant/propriétaire de l’entreprise. Le bénéfice annuel moyen est de 829 milles FCFA chez les femmes contre 16 millions FCFA chez les hommes. TYPES DE CLIENTS Les planteurs de cacao représentent la grande partie des clients dans la majorité des MPMEs (93.2%), ensuite autres planteurs de cultures de rente (70.5%), autres planteurs de cultures vivrières (63.6%), ONG (18.2%), coopératives de producteurs de cacao (31.8%), coopérative d’autres producteurs (11.4%), gouvernement et agence de cacao (6.8%). En 2017 pour l’ensemble des MPMEs, les planteurs de cacao ont constitué le principal type de clients (77.3%), suivi des autres planteurs de cultures vivrières (9.1%), autres planteurs de cultures de rente (4.6%), les coopératives de producteurs (4.6%) et enfin le ONG (2.3%). En moyenne chaque MPME a eu 236 clients au cours de l’année 2017, toutefois il ressort que la moitié des MPMEs ont eu moins de 103 clients au cours de l’année 2017. Cette moyenne est de 438 à Abengourou, 105 à Daloa et 303 à Soubré. Une analyse selon le sexe donne une moyenne annuelle de 167 chez les femmes contre 248 chez les hommes. En moyenne au cours de l’année 2017 les femmes représentaient à peine 13.5% de la clientèle dans l’ensemble des MPMEs et plus de la moitié des MPMEs ont moins de 10% de clients femmes. Cette proportion est très faible dans les trois régions, elle est de 7.3% à Soubré, 11.8% à Abengourou et 22.4% à Daloa. La proportion des femmes clientes est indépendante du sexe du gestionnaire de l’entreprise. Les jeunes (moins de 35 ans) représentaient environ 25% des clients de l’ensemble des MPME. Cette proportion est 30.0% à Abengourou, 12.3% à Daloa et 36.5% à Soubré. Cette proportion est de 31.7% dans les entreprises de femmes et de 23% dans les entreprises détenues par les hommes. RECOMMANDATIONS - Aider les agro-dealers à tirer les dividendes ou profit des services fournis aux clients afin d’accroitre leurs revenus ; - Faciliter la mise en relation des agro-dealers notamment les femmes avec les structures financières afin d’obtenir des prêts et agrandir leurs entreprises ; - Sensibiliser les agro-dealers à créer une association ou syndicat afin de renforcer les capacités des membres sur la gestion des revenus, à l’utilisation des intrants car beaucoup d’entre eux sont sans formation ; - Former les responsables des MPMEs en comptabilités simplifiée afin de maitriser leurs comptes ; - Faciliter l’accès au financement des MPMEs ; ANNEX 2: BASELINE INCEPTION REPORT BASELINE STUDY MAXIMIZING OPPORTUNITIES IN COCOA ACTIVITY, CO TE D’IVOIRE Inception report – final Date: 5-10-2018 Cocoa farm. Helena Posthumus© KIT evaluation team: Adama Bah Anna Laven Cedric Steijn Jesse D’Anjou Helena Posthumus ACRONYMS ANADER Agence National d'Appui au Développement Rural BDS Business Development Services CCC Conseil du Café et Cacao CNFA Cultivating New Frontiers in Agriculture CNRA Centre National de Recherche Agriculture CSSV Cocoa Swollen Shoot Virus FAS Foreign Agricultural Service FCIA Fine Chocolate Industry Association FCS Farmer Service Center FI Finance Institution GAP Good Agricultural Practices GDP Gross Domestic Product M&E Monitoring and Evaluation MOCA Maximizing Opportunities for Cocoa Activity NGO Non-Governmental Organisation PPP Public-Private Partnership PSM Propensity Score Matching R&D Research and Development SOCODEVI Société de Coopération pour le Développement International SOW Statement of Work SPU Service Provision Unit USDA United States Department of Agriculture WCF World Cocoa Foundation 1. INTRODUCTION 1 1.1 Background to the assignment 1 1.2 The cocoa sector in Côte d’Ivoire 1 2. THEORY OF CHANGE MOCA 3 2.1 Program logic 3 PROBLEM STATEMENT 3 LONG-TERM OUTCOMES 3 MEDIUM-TERM OUTCOMES 3 SHORT-TERM OUTCOMES 4 OUTPUTS: ACTIVITIES 4 OUTPUTS: PARTICIPATION 6 INPUTS 6 EXTERNAL FACTORS 8 2.2 Evaluation questions 8 2.3 Results framework 9 3. BASELINE METHODOLOGY 12 3.1 Sampling strategy 12 SAMPLING STRATEGY FOR THE FARMER SURVEY 12 SAMPLING STRATEGY FOR THE FGDS AND KIIS 17 3.2 Data collection tools 17 FARMER QUESTIONNAIRE 17 QUESTIONNAIRE TOOL 20 FOCUS GROUP DISCUSSIONS (FGDS) 21 KEY INFORMANT INTERVIEWS (KIIS) 21 3.3 Data treatment and analysis plan 21 SAMPLING WEIGHTS 21 DATA CLEANING AND QUALITY CHECKS 22 INDICATOR TABULATION 22 PSM PROCEDURE 22 DATA ANALYSIS 22 QUALITATIVE DATA FGDS 22 4. WORKPLAN 24 4.1 Schedule of baseline study 24 4.2 Fieldwork protocol 26 REFERENCES 29 ANNEX 1. EVALUATION MATRIX 31 ANNEX 2. FARMER QUESTIONNAIRE 32 ANNEX 3. FOCUS GROUP DISCUSSIONS GUIDELINES 45 ANNEX 4. INTERVIEW GUIDELINES 49 TABLE OF CONTENTS INTRODUCTION BACKGROUND TO THE ASSIGNMENT The ‘Maximizing Opportunities in Cocoa Activity’ (MOCA) project is a three-year project funded by the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) Food for Progress program and implemented by CNFA with subcontractor SOCODEVI in Côte d’Ivoire. MOCA focuses on increasing the efficiency and professionalism of actors in the cocoa value chain and improving the cocoa trade in order to boost farmers’ income. The project started in October 2017 and is scheduled to end in September 2020. The project is implemented in three micro-production zones in the Côte d’Ivoire’s cocoa belt (Abengourou, Daloa and Soubre). The MOCA project has the following objectives: Strategic Objective 1: To increase productivity and efficiency of actors in the cocoa value chain through strengthening the capacities of cooperatives/producer groups, research institutions, input suppliers and processors of cocoa. Strategic Objective 2: Improve and expand the trade of cocoa and cocoa products through improving the overall quality of the crop, the processing and post-harvest handling techniques, and strengthening market linkages and organization of groups to supply product to fulfil market demands. Project activities are focused around improvements to cocoa production (Strategic Objective 1) and marketing of fermented and dried cocoa as well as production and marketing of transformed, value-added cocoa products (Strategic Objective 2). Direct beneficiaries include cocoa producers, cocoa cooperatives, processors that transform cocoa into value-added products, and CNRA, which produces approved cocoa planting materials. The target number of beneficiaries over the life of project is 5,709; this overall target includes a target of 5,625 beneficiary cocoa farmers. The target number cooperatives and farmer organizations directly assisted over the life of the project is 26. CNFA has contracted KIT to provide technical expertise for the design of the baseline study methodology, development of study tools, quality control during field work, and analysis and reporting. The baseline study aims at 1) establishing quantitative values for the MOCA performance indicators before the start of project activities, and 2) establishing baseline values for all measures (both quantitative and qualitative) needed to assess project outcomes through the mid-term performance evaluation and the final evaluation of impact. The study will establish the baseline situation of three target beneficiary populations: cocoa producers; micro and small enterprises; and producer groups/cooperatives. The baseline study will provide the information needed for conducting the midterm and final evaluations. THE COCOA SECTOR IN CÔTE D’IVOIRE Côte d’Ivoire is the market leader in cocoa and was responsible for 39% of world’s production (1.518 million tons) in the cocoa season 2015-2016. Cocoa is an important crop for the country’s foreign exchange earnings, although the share of cocoa over total exports earnings has been decreasing recently due to growing exports of oil and to declines in cocoa prices and poor cocoa production. Since the 2012 reform of the sector, the government, through the Conseil du Café￾Cacao (CCC) which was created in 2011 to be the sole independent cocoa market regulator,23 fixes 23 Besides price regulation and price stabilization, the Ivorian government is involved in finance of the crop, future trade, quality control, international trade, and coordinating domestic trade through handing out licenses for buying. The government, in collaboration with public and private partners, is also involved in extension services, certification, input distribution, and sustainability projects and programs. Other institutions that play a role in (some) of these activities are private sector companies, farmer organizations and NGOs. the farm-gate price at 60% of the ‘reference export price’, which translated for the 2015/16 season into 1,000 FCFA/kg of dried beans. The fixed farm-gate price should guarantee a minimum revenue to farmers and avoid price volatility within each harvest season. However, the recent price drop in cocoa prices made the Ivorian government decide to lower the farm-gate price by 36% (effectively meaning a price drop from FCFA 1,100/kg to FCFA700/kg). Cocoa is also the main income source for between 650,000 and 800,000 cocoa farmers throughout the country, the majority being smallholders. The average size of land under cocoa in Côte d’Ivoire is 3.48 ha. Next to price, yield is often projected as the most important factor by which farmer income can be increased (Asamoah et al. 2013). Yields in Côte d’Ivoire are known to be low; the average yield is currently estimated at 362kg/ha (Bymolt et al. forthcoming). For Côte d’Ivoire, projections of yield averages generally vary between 300 and 500 kg/ha. In 2015, it was estimated that 41% of cocoa farmers were ‘low yield’ farmers, with averages < 250 kg/ha, and 44% belonging to the ‘medium yield farmers’, with averages of 250-600 kg/ha. The remaining part were so-called high-yield farmers producing on average between 600-2,500 kg/ha.24 Studies25 indicate that low yields are the result of a number of factors, such as pests and diseases, poor extension services and (late) input delivery, low soil fertility, low producer prices, low adoption rates of GAP, inefficient use and allocation of resources, relatively old trees, absence of row planting, inadequate supply/high cost of improved planting material, poor harvest practices, etc. Implementation of GAP is often associated with a higher production cost per kg due to the need to spend more time on the farm. When the cost of labor and inputs are high, the adoption rates of GAP tend to be low. Low GAP adoption rates can also result from no secure land ownership, constraints in the supply of inputs (e.g. not providing inputs at the right time or at an affordable price), a lack of knowledge, financial means or labor. It is also argued that farmers sometimes lack the appropriate tools, for example for pruning. 26 The lack of tools compels farmers to hire labor to climb the trees to remove mistletoe, for example, at a high cost. There are a number of ways to increase yield, and it is argued that these measures work best in combination. Key ways are applying GAP, use of appropriate inputs, (partial) replanting with selected planting material and rehabilitation (Maytak, 2014). Some authors stress the need for financial assistance to enable farmers to adopt these practices (Asamoah et al., 2013). The application of these practices, and the extent to which this will result in an increase in income, depends very much on the producer price. Other factors that influence yields and return on investments are the age of the trees, the farm location, irregular rainfall and pests and diseases (Barrientos & Akyere 2012). A recent study by Balineau et al. (2017) argues that key variables for yields are fertilizer use and the age of the trees. The economic lifetime of a cocoa tree is between 30 and 40 years, and old age of trees is seen as one of the main causes of low yields (Wessel & Quint-Wessel, 2015). Farmers also use fewer inputs on ‘older plantations’ as the return on their investment is less (Tano, 2012). The recent study conducted by KIT (Bymolt et al., 2018) shows that, in Côte d’Ivoire, yields were found to be around 10% lower than Ghana, averaging 362 kg/ha, with a median of 320 kg/ha. In terms of distribution, Ivorian farmers also typically yielded between 100 and 1,000 kg/ha, with 24 ICI, 2015 25 See, among others, Aneani et al., 2011; Asante-Poku & Angelucci, 2013; Baah & Anchinirah, 2010; Balineau et al., 2017; Barrientos & Akyere, 2012; Oomes et al., 2016. 26 Pruning is seen as an important operation and can affect yield for months, even years, as well as affecting the shape and structure of the tree for the rest of its life. Insects and diseases multiply more on unpruned cocoa trees with dense canopies than on trees that have been opened up by pruning and display well-aired canopies. Pruning can also stimulate flowering and pod production. ICCO (2009) the majority grouping between 100 and 500 kg/ha. The difference with Ghana is that, in Côte d’Ivoire, there is a higher proportion of farmers with a very low yield of 0-100 kg/ha (9% of farmers), and a significantly lower proportion of farmers with more than 500 kg/ha. In contrast to what earlier studies suggest, the difference between male (363 kg/ha) and female respondents (352 kg/ha) was found to be small and not significant. THEORY OF CHANGE MOCA PROGRAM LOGIC The program logic as summarized in this section is derived from the MOCA work plan 2018-2020 (CNFA, 2018). PROBLEM STATEMENT The cocoa sector in Côte d’Ivoire is the number-one export and foreign-exchange earner, valued at US$4 billion in 2017. The majority of cocoa producers are smallholder farmers; the cocoa sector is thus also important for the social and economic wellbeing of rural communities. However, cocoa incomes are estimated to amount to only 37% of the living income in rural Côte d’Ivoire (CNFA, 2018). The cocoa sector still faces many challenges that hamper its competitiveness, including: poor agricultural practices and post-harvest handling, pests and diseases, aging cocoa producers, aging cocoa plantations, low soil fertility, lack of coordination of initiatives, low level of organization among producers, limited local value addition, and precarious living conditions in cocoa producing communities (CCC, 2014). The CCC has set out a long-term sector-wide strategy, the 2QC27 program (2014-2023), to improve the productivity, quality and sustainability of the cocoa sector. The CCC strategy objectives for the cocoa sector are: i) improve productivity; ii) improve the quality of cocoa; iii) improve the commercialization; iv) increase local transformation; v) improve the producers and their communities’ livelihoods; and vi) improve the professionalism of cocoa producers and producer organizations. LONG-TERM OUTCOMES The MOCA intervention is aligned with the ambitions of the 2QC program of CCC as well as the Cocoa Action Program of the World Cocoa Foundation (WCF) 28 . The MOCA project aims to improve the competitiveness of the cocoa sector in Côte d’Ivoire as part of the Food for Progress goal of the USDA29. MOCA will contribute to the two strategic objectives of the Food for Progress program as follows: 1. Increased agricultural productivity: MOCA aims to increase the productivity and efficiency in the cocoa value chain by strengthening the capacities of the main value chain actors (cooperatives/producer groups, research institutions, input suppliers and processors of cocoa). 2. Expanded trade of agricultural products: The MOCA project aims to expand the trade of cocoa and cocoa products through improving the overall quality of the crop, the processing and post-harvest handling techniques, and strengthening market linkages and organization of groups. MEDIUM-TERM OUTCOMES MOCA seeks to provide added value to the 2QC strategy of CCC and the Cocoa Action Plan of WCF existing strategies by implementing a market-based intervention that uses a ‘market-pull’ strategy instead of a technology-push approach. It is within the context of this market-pull strategy that MOCA will focus on the following medium-term goals to contribute to the sustainability of the cocoa sector in Côte d’Ivoire: 27 Quantité- Qualité-Croissance; http://www.conseilcafecacao.ci/docs/PROGRAMME_2QC_2014-2023.pdf 28 For more information see: https://www.worldcocoafoundation.org/about-wcf/cocoaaction/ 29 For more information see: https://www.fas.usda.gov/programs/food-progress - Cocoa quality (fine-flavor beans): the quality of the cocoa beans will be improved to a standard that is acceptable to the international fine-flavor cocoa market. Côte d’Ivoire is the biggest producer of ‘ordinary’ cocoa beans but does not supply the fine-flavor beans that obtain a premium price. - Certified organic cocoa: cocoa cooperatives will obtain organic certification status. Many cocoa producers grow organic cocoa by default as they cannot access agro-chemical inputs, but certification of organic cocoa production requires considerable investments. - Professionalization and diversification of cocoa producers to achieve higher incomes from cocoa and other income activities. - Women entrepreneurship and leadership: women within the cocoa sector will be empowered to benefit more from the cocoa revenues and strengthen their influence in their communities, cooperatives and cocoa businesses. MOCA will not address intra￾household gender dynamics. - Local transformation: increased engagement of Ivoirian entrepreneurs in cocoa value addition through local and national cocoa transformation industries. - Access to finance: cooperatives become eligible for credit lending due to strengthened capacities in finance and business management. - Access to markets: cooperatives will export cocoa directly to alternative international niche markets (e.g. fine-flavor, certified organic). - Cooperative management capacities: cooperative operations will become more efficient and compliant with cooperative principles. SHORT-TERM OUTCOMES The expected short-term outcomes are the strengthened capacities and skills of the direct beneficiaries of the MOCA program, as a result of capacity building and training, in-kind grants for inputs and equipment, and access to loans. MOCA distinguishes four groups of direct beneficiaries: 1. Government research and regulatory bodies working in the cocoa value chain; in particular CCC, ANADER and CNRA 2. Cooperative / producer groups 3. Agro-dealers and input suppliers 4. Financial service providers and Mobile Network Operators (MNOs) The end-beneficiaries are the cocoa producers who are expected to benefit from capacity building activities directly as well as from the improved effectiveness of the other value chain actors. A different kind of short-term outcomes are the strengthened partnerships, improved synergies between interventions and leverage of funds. OUTPUTS: ACTIVITIES The main instruments of MOCA are capacity building (across the value chain), in-kind grants, coaching, access to finance, and the facilitation of public-private partnerships within the cocoa sector. MOCA covers eight activity areas: 1. Capacity building: producer groups / cooperatives − MOCA will select cocoa cooperatives and producer groups based on their partnerships with exporters, chocolate makers and/or finance institutions identified to date and/or depending on cooperatives’ ambitions and vision. MOCA will focus on cocoa cooperatives near the regional offices for project efficiency reasons. − MOCA will develop a tailor-made organizational capacity strengthening plan to improve the efficiency of cooperatives in its governance, service provision and economic activities. 2. Capacity building: government institutions − MOCA will strengthen the capacity of ANADER to provide advisory services in three thematic areas: weather resilience, farm business plans and sustainable cocoa production. − MOCA provides financial support to CNRA for research on soil fertility, swollen shoot virus, weather resilience and increasing farmer income through better agricultural practices and diversification 3. Capacity building: provide business development services − MOCA will support Business Development Service (BDS) providers and promote local value addition and women entrepreneurship & leadership. 4. Financial services: facilitate agricultural lending − MOCA will partner with several financial institutions (e.g. OikoCredit, Advans) to improve farmers’ access to financial services through training of FI staff and cooperatives’ management. − New loan products and financial services will be developed that are better suited to cocoa cooperatives. 5. In-kind grants: equipment and inputs − MOCA will manage a competitive fund for in-kind matching grants for inputs and equipment to improve the productivity of cooperatives, producers, input supply professionals and processors. − Three grant windows will be opened, and grants will be awarded based on a competitive application process. 6. Inputs: develop agro-dealers and/or other input suppliers − MOCA will review and update the Farmer-to-Farmer Programmatic Pesticide Evaluation Report and Safer Use Action Plan (USAID) for West Africa. − MOCA – in collaboration with Callivoire – will establish five Farm Service Centers (FCS) to facilitate access to input services, agro-chemical inputs, and technical advice on cocoa. − An additional five Service Provision Units (SPUs) will be established to employ youth for improved input service provision (spraying, fertilization, harvesting, fermentation), in partnership with OLAM, GIZ and Jacobs Foundation. 7. Training of improved agricultural production techniques − MOCA, in collaboration with other actors from the cocoa sector (e.g. ECOM, Touton, ECOOKIM, OCEAN SA), will support cocoa farmers to develop Farm Business Plans for their cocoa plantations. − In addition, farmers will be coached by the cooperatives on their farm management. 8. Market access: facilitate buyer-seller relationships − MOCA signed a MoU with FCIA to facilitate access to the fine-flavor cocoa markets. Selected cooperatives will be supported in quality improvement. MOCA will also pilot the production of certified organic cocoa. − MOCA will supported selected cooperatives in improving their cocoa bean quality to facilitate direct exports. The MOCA activities are implemented within the cocoa belt, in particular the areas around Abengourou (Mid-East), Daloa/Duekoue (West and Mid-West) and/or Soubre/Nawa (South￾West). OUTPUTS: PARTICIPATION The key partners of MOCA are: - Le Conseil du Café – Cacao is the Ivorian government authority, established within the Ministry of Agriculture, that regulates the cocoa sector. The CCC sets bean quality standards and farm-gate prices and regulates input and service providers (improved seeds and seedlings, extension services) and forward selling contracts within the cocoa sector. MOCA will collaborate with CCC to support the implementation of the 2QC agenda and coordinate efforts of common interests. - Agence National d'Appui au Développement Rural (ANADER) is the leading extension service in Côte d’Ivoire. MOCA will work with ANADER to build its capacity in extension and tailor its services to cocoa producers. - The Centre National du Recherche Agronomique (CNRA) is the country’s agronomical research center, which coordinates the country’s agricultural research efforts. MOCA will provide short-term technical assistance, project support and research and development (R&D) grants for CNRA’s research activities on cocoa production. - World Cocoa Foundation (WCF) is an international membership organization that promotes sustainability in the cocoa sector. Its members include private sector actors such as manufacturers, processors and supply chain managers. MOCA will collaborate with the WCF on common areas of interest, e.g. innovative approaches for extension services. - (Micro) Finance Institutions (FIs): MOCA will work with financing institution (e.g. OikoCredit) to increase access to credit (work capital or investment lending) for cocoa farmers and cooperatives. MOCA will support cooperatives and farmer organizations by building their financial and business management capacities. MOCA will introduce the concept of mobile money using mobile phones and smart cards, in collaboration with Digital Agri-Service. - Input and service providers: many cocoa producers have limited access to inputs of services of good quality. MOCA will introduce the Farm Service Center concept, which will provide local services for spraying, planting, harvesting and post-harvest processing, together with input provider Callivoire, OLAM, GIZ and the Jacobs Foundation. - Cocoa industry actors: MOCA has signed MoUs with Callivoire, ECOM, OLAM, Nestlé, ECOOKIM and Guittard and is in advanced discussions with Touton, Blommer, Tony’s Chocolonely, Barry Callebaut and OCEAN SA, in order to help them achieve their sustainability agendas. - Fine Chocolate Industry Association (FCIA) is an association of chocolatiers that is a key partner for MOCA to facilitate access to better flavor quality markets. - Cocoa Sector Development Organizations and Projects: MOCA looks for opportunities to combine efforts and leverage funds from other development organizations, such as GIZ, the Jacobs Foundation, Solidaridad and SOCODEVI. INPUTS The MOCA project started in September 2017. The first year was used as a preparation phase to mobilize the Chief of Party to Cote d’Ivoire, the recruitment of key personnel and national staff, monetization process, establishing public-private partnerships, value chain assessments, etc. The second phase of implementation is scheduled to start in October 2018, for a period of two years (until September 2020). However, MOCA is considering requesting a no-cost extension until September 2021 to allow for a third year of implementation due to a delay in the monetization process. MOCA is implemented by a project team consisting of CNFA and SOCODEVI staff, based in Abidjan. Regional offices are established in the three intervention areas. SOCODEVI staff will focus on the capacity building activities of cocoa cooperatives under the strategic objective 1. The MOCA team includes expertise on cocoa production, value chains and gender, as well as necessary project management skills (finance, M&E, communications, operations manager, etc.). MOCA is governed by a steering committee that advises on the management and direction of MOCA, and a technical committee that will support the implementation of MOCA. The MOCA team has developed internal coordination procedures including regular monitoring of progress and an internal communication plan for coordination and reflection. The team will take an adaptive management approach, using annual project performance results to revise and update its strategies and activities if needed. The three-year MOCA budget amounts to US$10.5 million. Activity area 5 (in-kind grants) receives the largest allocation (US$1 million) of the operational budget. The operational budgets for the other activity areas are smaller in size, but of similar magnitudes between them. ASSUMPTIONS Based on the MOCA workplan, the following underlying assumptions can be identified: Activity area 1: - Capacity strengthening of cooperatives and producer groups will improve the products and services delivered to their members. - Capacity strengthening of cooperatives and producer groups will make them more reliable and bankable for FIs and buyers / exporters. Activity area 2: - Strengthening of technical capabilities of ANADER and CNRA will improve the extension and R&D services provided. - The strengthened capabilities will be directed towards cocoa research and extension, staff turnover will be low (i.e. trained staff are working on cocoa and will remain in their positions). - Technical capability is the main limiting factor in cocoa R&D and extension. Activity area 3: - Individual entrepreneurs (in particular youth and women) are interested in establishing themselves as BDS providers or other opportunities within the value chain (aggregation, transformation, transport, etc.), and are able to turn this into profitable businesses. - Local MSMEs and producer groups will submit grant proposals of sufficient quality (i.e. feasible five-year business plans) and are capable of implementing these plans. - Women entrepreneurship and leadership is accepted within the cocoa producer community. Women entrepreneurship and leadership will have a positive effect on productivity and trade. Activity area 4: - Cocoa cooperatives and producers will be interested and capable in taking out loans to improve their productivity. - Default rates of loan repayments will remain low. - FIs are willing to provide access to credit against reasonable terms and conditions. Activity area 5: - MSMEs and cooperatives / producer groups are capable of investing matching grants for the purchase of inputs and/or equipment. - Grant applications are sufficient (in terms of quantity and quality) to award the expected number of grants in time. - MSMEs and cooperatives / producer groups will put inputs and equipment into productive use and remain in business (i.e. cocoa trade). - The purchased inputs and/or equipment have the appropriate specs that match the needs of the grantees; spare parts and repairing skills are locally available in case of breakdowns. - Investments in inputs and/or equipment will results in increased productivity or trade, and subsequently increase in job creation. Activity area 6: - Cocoa producers are willing and (financially) capable to purchase services from the FCS and/or SPUs. EXTERNAL FACTORS Multiple external factors will influence the ultimate achievements of the MOCA project. The most obvious factors include: - Weather resilience; - Occurrence of (cocoa) pests and diseases; - Fluctuation of (inter)national market prices; - Actions of other players (NGOs, government, private sector, certification bodies); - International demand for organic and fine-flavor cocoa from Côte d’Ivoire. MOCA tries to manage some of these external factors either by improving the technical and economic resilience of the cocoa sector, or through partnerships with other actors. EVALUATION QUESTIONS In line with the OECD/DAC criteria, the following evaluation questions can be formulated for the mid-term and end evaluation: 1. Relevance − To what extent has the project responded to the actual needs and interests of the target producers? − To what extent does the project integrate or strengthen the national cacao strategy of Cote d’Ivoire? 2. Effectiveness − To what extent have the expected results of the project been achieved? What factors have been critical to the achievement or non-achievement of project objectives? − What were the unplanned outcomes that can be attributed to the project? 3. Efficiency • To what extent have the various units / levels of management and coordination (grants, program staff, M&E) supported the implementation of the project? 4. Impact Did MOCA activities produce increases in cocoa farmer: − Access to improved planting material? Access to spraying services. Access to loans? − Access to improved storage? − Productivity (kg/ha of cocoa produced)? − Diversification of crops? − Incomes? 5. Sustainability − To what extent have local actors (cooperatives and farmers' organizations, government agencies, microfinance institutions) been involved in the management of the project? What is the probability that these actors will be able to provide succession? − Are project outcomes likely to be sustained and/or scaled-up after the project closes? MOCA specifically focuses on women empowerment and public-private partnerships. This provides an opportunity for two specific learning questions: 6. What is the effect of women empowerment and leadership on productivity / trade? 7. What makes PPPs successful in enhancing productivity / trade? RESULTS FRAMEWORK The Results Framework of MOCA is based on USDA Foreign Agricultural Service (FAS) M&E framework, and identifies the expected short-term outcomes under the two strategic objectives: Strategic objective 1: increased agricultural productivity: - Results stream: increased use of improved agricultural techniques and technologies (FFPr 1.2) o Increased availability of improved inputs (FFPr 1.2.1): training and establishment of spray-service professionals o Improved infrastructure to support on-farm production (FFPr 1.2.2): post￾harvest processing facilities at cooperatives o Increased use of financial services (FFPr 1.2.3): increased use of mobile money, insurance and credit services among cocoa producers o Increased knowledge by farmers of improved agricultural techniques and technologies (FFPr 1.2.4): regeneration of cocoa plantations, good agricultural practices (to improve productivity and quality), safe input application, business development, intercropping o Improved quality of land and water resources (FFPr 1.1) - Results stream: Improved farm management (FFPr 1.3) o Improved knowledge regarding farm management (FFPr 1.3.1): financial literacy and planning, business plan - Foundational results: o Increased capacity of government institutions (FFPr 1.4.1): CCC, CNRA, ANADER o Improved capacity of key groups in the agricultural production sector (FFPr 1.4.4): cocoa cooperatives and producer groups o Increased leverage of private sector30 resources (FFPr 1.4.5) Strategic objective 2: expanded trade of agricultural products: - Results stream: increased value added to post-production agriculture products (FFPr 2.1) o Improved quality of post-production agricultural products (FFPr 2.1.1) o Increased efficiency of post-production processes (FFPr 2.1.2) o Improved marketing of agricultural products (FFPr 2.1.3 & 2.2.1) - Results stream: increased access to markets to sell agricultural products (FFPr 2.2) o Improved marketing of agricultural products (FFPr 2.1.3 & 2.2.1) o Improved linkages between buyers and sellers (FFPr 2.2.2) - Results stream: improved transaction efficiency (FFPr 2.3) o Improved management practices of buyers and sellers groups within the trade sector (FFPr 2.3.2) Note that the strategies and activities of MOCA go above and beyond the indicators identified in the Results Framework. It is therefore recommended that additional (qualitative) indicators are formulated for the mid-term and final outcomes to complement the Results Framework. This will allow MOCA to monitor its full range of objectives and achievements, as well as demonstrate its additionality (i.e. added value in comparison to other interventions in the cocoa sector). It is recommended to monitor the intended and unintended effects of MOCA’s efforts in women empowerment, public-private partnership building, facilitating direct access of cooperatives to niche markets, and capacity strengthening of supporting actors (e.g. ANADER, CCC, CRNA, FIs). The additional outcomes have been added to the impact pathways of the results framework, as depicted in Figure 37 and Figure 38. 30 In the case of MOCA, this will include public sector resources CAPACITY BUILDING Strategic objective 1: increased agricultural productivity Improved quality of land and water resources (FFPr 1.1) (Activity 7) Increased use of improved agricultural techniques and technologies (FFPr 1.2) (Activity 7) GOAL: STRENGTHEN COMPETITIVENESS ACROSS THE COCOA ECOSYSTEM IN CÔTE D IVOIRE Improved farm management (operations, financial) (FFPr 1.3) (Activity 1) Increased availability of improved inputs (FFPr 1.2.1) (Activities 2, 6) Improved infrastructure to support on-farm production (FFPr 1.2.2) (Activities 4, 5) Increased use of financial services (FFPr 1.2.3) (Activity 4) Increased knowledge by farmers of improved agricultural techniques and technologies (FFPr 1.2.4) (Activity 7) Improved knowledge regarding farm management (FFPr 1.3.1) (Activity 1) Foundational results: Increased capacity of Government Institutions (FFPr 1.4.1) – Activity 2 Improved capacity of key groups in the agriculture production sector (FPPr 1.4.4) – Activity 1 Increased leverage of private-sector resources (FFPr 1.4.5) – Activity 5 Activity 1: CB producer groups / cooperatives Activity 2: CB Government Institutions Activity 4: facilitate agricultural lending Activity 5: in-kind grants Activity 6: develop agro-dealers and input suppliers Activity 7: training of improved agricultural production techniques Improved cocoa quality Certified organic cocoa Professionalization and diversification of cocoa producers Women entrepreneurship and leadership Local transformation Access to finance Access to markets Cooperative management capacities Figure 37. Impact pathways for strategic objective 1 Increased agricultural productivity Strategic objective 2: expanded trade of agricultural markets Increased value added to post-production agricultural products (FFPr 2.1) (Activity 5) Increased access to markets to sell agricultural products (FFPr 2.2) (Activity 3) GOAL: STRENGTHEN COMPETITIVENESS ACROSS THE COCOA ECOSYSTEM IN CÔTE D IVOIRE Improved transaction efficiency (FFPr 2.3) (Activity 1) Improved quality of post￾production agricultural products (FFPr 2.1.1) (Activity 5) Increased efficiency of post-production processes (FFPr 2.1.2) (Activity 3) Improved marketing of agricultural products (FFPr 2.1.3, 2.2.1) (Activity 3) Improved linkages between buyers and sellers (FFPr 2.2.2) (Activity 8) Improved management of buyer/seller groups within trade sector (FFPr 2.3.2) (Activity 1) Activity 1: CB producer groups / cooperatives Activity 3: CB provide business development services Activity 5: in-kind grants Activity 8: facilitate buyer-seller relationships Improved cocoa quality Certified organic cocoa Professionalization and diversification of cocoa producers Women entrepreneurship and leadership Access to markets Cooperative management capacities Increased adoption of established standards by industry(FFPr 2.1.1.1) (Activity 5) Increased use of improved post￾production processing and handling practices (FFPr 2.1.2.1) (Activity 3) Improved post￾harvest infrastructure (FFPr 2.1.2.2) (Activity 5) Local transformation Figure 38. Impact pathways for strategic objective 2 Expanded trade of agricultural markets BASELINE METHODOLOGY SAMPLING STRATEGY FOR THE FARMER SURVEY Sample size calculation Defining an appropriate sampling approach for the baseline study is important to produce robust results and to be able to statistically identify the impact of the project. There are several options that will depend on: i) Sampling calculations to be made using existing information about beneficiary selection and about expected project effect size. ii) Budget availability for a certain survey sample size (see budget) iii) A survey sample that fits well with existing data and with the way in which the program will be practically rolled out over the years. MOCA developed a matrix to quantify and measure performance. This matrix includes activities, the indicators, as well as the targets for year 2018, 2019 and 2020. Furthermore, an additional matrix was developed which lists the results, the indicators, the hypothesized baseline values for these indicators, as well as the final target values. However, the majority of these indicators are output indicators of activities (and are not fully operationalized yet), which are not the preferable indicators to use for the power calculations of the sample size. For most of these indicators, the baseline value is zero, which should increase through the intervention. The number of people who have benefitted directly as a result of USDA assistance is an example here. Nevertheless, since a productivity increase of the cocoa producing farmers which are a member of a treatment cooperative of MOCA is the primary strategic objective, we have used this indicator as the basis for the power calculations. Yields in Côte d’Ivoire are known to be low. A recent study by KIT (Bymolt et al. 2018) reports for 2015/2016 average yields of 362 kg/ha for Côte d’Ivoire. For Côte d’Ivoire, studies show differences in yield between certified and non-certified farmers. For example, Ingram et al. (2014) show that certified farmers average yield was 467 kg/ha, while for uncertified farmers this was only 315 kg/ha.[2] In a more recent study, we see also higher averages in yields reported by farmers that fall under CocoaAction; these farmers were targeted by cocoa and chocolate companies for support in improving productivity. In 2016/2017, CocoaAction farmers reported an average yield of 629 kg/ha in Côte d’Ivoire. [3] Hence, average annual yields are estimated at 362 kg per ha. We take this conservative average to make sure the sample size is large enough to measure any possible effects of the program. Productivity increases are however difficult to bring about. To still be able to measure any effects of this support program, we take a 20% increase in production as the hypothesized endline value (with a standard deviation of 200 kg per ha). Using a conservative endline value will allow us to measure small effects for certain indicators related to other outcome/impact variables, which can be expected in terms of changing the practice of cocoa farmers. Moreover, by using this small [2] Ingram, V., Waarts, Y., Ge, L., van Vugt, S., Wegner, L., Puister-Jansen, L., Ruf, F., Tanoh, R. (2014). Impact of UTZ certification of cocoa in Ivory Coast; Assessment framework and baseline. Wageningen, LEI Wageningen UR (University & Research centre), LEI Report 2014-010. Available at http://edepot.wur.nl/307584 [3] DRAFT Sustainable Livelihoods Baseline Report July 2018, Cocoa Action. percentage we make sure the sample is large enough to measure change in other performance indicators listed by MOCA. An adequate sample size is calculated as the optimum number of respondents required to be able to arrive at ethically and scientifically valid results. Sample size calculations require a precise specification of the primary hypothesis to be tested (Wittes, 2002). For impact evaluations, this is usually the expected effect size of a key indicator. In the case of this baseline study, this is therefore the 20% increase in cocoa production of targeted producers, in kilograms per hectare per year. The formula to calculate the sample size based on the effect size is: 𝑛 = 2𝜎 2 (𝑍𝛽 + 𝑍𝛼⁄2) 2 (𝜇2 − 𝜇1) 2 Where: n = sample size σ = standard deviation β = power, set at 80% (Zβ = 0.8416) α = level of significance, set at 0.05 (Zα/2 = 1.96 for two-sided tests; Zα = 1.65 for one-sided tests) (μ2-μ1) = difference in mean between treatment (μ2) and control (μ1), i.e. the effect size With the power set at 0.8 (1-β) and the type I error rate (α) at 5%, the total sample size required is N=242. However, uptake will probably not be 100%, yielding partial or incomplete compliance. This boosts the sample size required: if compliance would be 80%, the sample size would need to increase to N=386. If the compliance rate is increased to 90%, the required sample size would be 298, and with 95% to 264. Furthermore, the randomization is performed at cluster level, the cooperatives, which gives rise to intra-cluster correlation (ICC Based on the ICC used in similar studies, we assume an ICC of 0.05. With an average of 15 to 20 farmers per cluster, the design effect (DEFF) will be 1.95 according to the following formula: 𝐷𝐸𝐹𝐹 = 1 + 𝛿(𝑛 − 1) Where: δ = interclass correlation for the statistic n = the average size of the cluster It was found that the DEFF is on average 2 in similar studies in LMICs; when the ICC is unknown, the DEFF is set at 2, as MOCA did in the previous calculations. Assuming an attrition rate of 10% (conservative percentage here for the worst-case scenario, in case at the endline 10% of the producers cannot be found or are not willing/able to participate anymore), the required sample sizes increase to respectively 811 (partial compliance of 80%), 646 (partial compliance of 90%), and 572 (partial compliance of 95%). There are however two other considerations to take into account. First, MOCA highlights that considerable heterogeneous effects between and within the cluster can be expected with respect to the treatment itself. Support to cooperatives will be tailor-made according to their needs, and even members of the same cooperative may make use of different types of services (and at different levels of intensity). Second, although we aim to use a more rigorous econometric technique to analyze the endline data, the default option for the analysis is PSM, as MOCA highlighted in the SOW. As explained in our proposal, this requires a further inflation of the sample size, as not all observations in the control and treatment groups will be used, an additional 40%, again to assure we are able to measure all possible effects of the intervention through PSM or a more rigorous econometric technique. This results in a total sample size of respectively 1352 (compliance 80%), 1077 (compliance 90%), and 954 (compliance 95%). This sample has to be divided between the total number of eventual treatment and control clusters, as well as treatment and control producers. Sample selection Randomization is extremely important for ensuring that the baseline study is representative of beneficiary and non-beneficiary cocoa farmers in the project areas. We propose a two-stage stratified random sampling approach (Figure 39) in each of the three micro-production zones where the project will be implemented. This allows comparisons between the three zones and ensures that our sample is representative of beneficiary and non-beneficiary cocoa farmers in the project areas. First, cooperatives and/or farmer groups within each micro-production zone should be randomly selected using a randomizing program. With the cooperatives and/or farmer groups identified, the second stage is to randomly sample farmers from the cooperative membership lists. The Sampling Frame for the treatment and control groups will thus comprise of the membership of beneficiary and non-beneficiary cooperatives / farmer groups respectively. Figure 39. Two-stage random sampling MOCA has selected a number of beneficiary cooperatives based on recommendations from government institutions, certification and sustainability organizations, and exporters. As such, MOCA selected some cooperatives who are targeting direct exports, that want to add additional value (flavor quality/organic – on recommendation of chocolate makers) and some women-led cooperatives, based on Government recommendations. The other cooperatives were selected based on recommendations of exporters of certified cocoa beans. Ideally, the evaluation team would randomize on the cooperative level. However, as MOCA has already selected the cooperatives it aims to work with (or is in the process of doing so), the treatment cooperatives will not be selected randomly among a pool of possible cooperatives. This creates selection bias. To still be able to attribute effects to the MOCA intervention, a number of options are available for the control group selection. The three most suitable options for MOCA are summarized in Table 310. Table 310. Potential impact evaluation designs for MOCA Phase-in design Difference-in￾Differences and Fixed Effects Controlling for selection bias based on observables Description Randomize eligible farmers into several groups, which over the course of time all receive treatment, but one group at the time. For example with 3 groups: first only group 1, with groups 2 & 3 as control groups; then group 2, with only group 3 as the remaining control group; and in the final evaluation period all three groups as treatment groups. A frequently used in applied work, the difference-in-difference estimates use baseline differences in outcomes or impacts between the treatment and control group to control for pre￾existing differences between the groups, when data is available before and after the treatment. Conditional on a set of observable variables, the treatment can be considered to be as good as randomly assigned or is in fact randomly assigned Benefit Thorough design; divides eligible farmers into random groups – support to each group will be phased in over time Less thorough technique than randomization but allows to study treatment effects by comparing treatment and control groups over time (before and after the intervention). Fixed effects generalize difference-in-differences when there is more than one time period or more than one treatment group (controlling for year and group dummies) Far less thorough technique than randomization, but allows to study effects under identifying assumptions when randomization is not or only partly possible Counterfactual Random group of eligible farmers whose treatment is delayed Selected control group Control group of non￾random farmers, for example not eligible or farmers not growing cocoa Weakness Long-run impacts difficult to measure; MOCA should be willing to randomize over the eligible cooperatives / producer The parallel trend assumption: in the absence of the treatment, both groups would have evolved in exactly the Assumption is that appropriately controlling the observables variables Phase-in design Difference-in￾Differences and Fixed Effects Controlling for selection bias based on observables groups and apply a phase￾in design for ‘treatment’ (preferably with a delay of 2-3 years between treatment of the first and the second group). same way with respect to the outcomes and impacts. is sufficient to eliminate selection bias Omitted variable bias: Set of observable variables must contain all relevant differences between the treatment and control groups This assumption is not testable, but its plausibility must be evaluated in its context Risks Contamination of control groups before receiving treatment Treatment and control group are not comparable Expectation of treatment may affect comparison groups, reducing attrition Treatment and control groups very different at baseline Assumption not found plausible (wrong or not enough control variables) Feasible if… No other interventions are received by farmers, or planned to be received over the course of the evaluation before treatment of phase-in design MOCA is willing to randomize treatment and ‘control’ (selection into the groups), and to postpone treatment for selected ‘control’ groups for considerable time Serves as a back-up when randomization not possible/allowed Credible comparable control and treatment groups can be selected Serves as a back-up when randomization not possible/allowed MOCA can choose for a non-random phased-in design. Next to the cooperatives already selected by MOCA for treatment, MOCA could select a number of cooperatives in these regions it would like to work with in the future, following the same selection criteria. These control cooperatives would serve first as the counterfactual, after which these control cooperatives will become treatment cooperatives in two phases (for example with 3 groups: first only group 1 with the cooperatives already selected by MOCA, with groups 2 & 3 as control groups; then group 2, with only group 3 as the remaining control group; and in the final evaluation period all three groups as treatment groups). These phases could be year 1, year 2 and year 3, corresponding to three groups of cooperatives which are all equally eligible for MOCA. However, it is unlikely that this will make a good fit with the implementation strategy of MOCA. Alternatively, we recommend selecting cooperatives for the control group as comparable as possible to the treatment cooperatives (comparable on key characteristics, and in same region). Nevertheless, these will not be exactly the same as the treatment cooperatives. This demands selection bias corrections, for example a Heckman correction. The evaluation team could also use the proposed matching technique PSM, selecting observations within the total sample of treatment and control cooperatives as comparable as possible. The sample size inflation needed for this has been taken into account in the calculations.31 For both options, a list of cooperatives is needed, with a description per cooperative related to the selection criteria used by MOCA. For the second stage of the random sampling, full lists of members of the treatment and control cooperatives are required prior to the data collection. A random selection of producers will be selected from these lists, including substitutes in case initially selected respondents are not available to participate in the survey. As each cooperative will receive support tailored to their present level of operation and capacity and depending on the vision/target they want to achieve with MOCA, the exact support provided by MOCA needs to be carefully recorded for all the surveyed cooperatives and therefore producers.32 This to take into account the heterogeneous effects, for which the sample size has been inflated in the calculations. Notwithstanding the econometric technique to be used at the end line for the evaluation, PSM will be used by the evaluation team at the baseline. This to check whether the control observations are similar to the treatment observations.33 For the analysis at baseline, the evaluation team should explore the possibility to analyze the data through more rigorous econometric techniques, 31 Regression discontinuity design is not possible for the endline evaluation, as the selection criteria are partly based on recommendations instead of strict criteria, which do not allow for an objective cut-off point within the sample. 32 Low capacity cooperatives will receive more intense capacity building support, high performing less. Cooperatives who will enter the quality flavor market will be in a different trajectory then those that want to increase production, improve the service provision to farmers or need access to additional finance. Within cooperatives the same will apply in cases: not all farmers will be directly reached by MOCA’s interventions. MOCA will for instance develop farm business plans with a selected number of cooperative members, with the objective to gain experience and provide for practical training to the cooperative extension workers who will then take over and expand the practice. In the case of quality, we will start with a selected number of farmers to increase flavor quality and gradually expand that practice throughout the cooperative. 33 This need is of course smaller when randomization is applied for the selection of treatment and control cooperatives, or when the control cooperatives are selected based on the premise that these will be treatment cooperatives in the future through the phased-in design. such as diff-in-diff/fixed effects. The back-up option of PSM to analyze the final data will always remain. Risks Uptake/imperfect compliance: Not all the producers in the treatment group will be willing to participate in the MOCA program. Different compliance rates have been used for the sample size calculation. Contamination: Next to imperfect compliance issues, the control cooperatives can get contaminated through spillover effects or alternative interventions over a certain number of years. As highlighted by MOCA, due to the prescribed method of selecting cooperatives, with a recommendation of exporters, cooperatives are in most cases already in a contractual relationship with exporters and certified, and thus benefit(ted) from CocoaAction. Several cooperatives have additional support partnerships. Also MOCA will work in partnership as foreseen in the program through PPPs with for instance GIZ and Olam or with ECOM to support cooperatives and leverage additional investments in the sector. Therefore, at baseline, both the treatment and control cooperatives are already being treated by several other organizations like MOCA, and it cannot be assumed that the control cooperatives will not receive additional support during the evaluation period. This jeopardizes the evaluation and cannot easily be resolved. What the evaluation team can do is record closely all support given to all producers in the treatment and control cooperatives, and by all organizations. Furthermore, through the triangulation with other data collection tools, the evaluation team should still be able to attribute or contribute effects to the MOCA intervention. Attrition: attrition can form a large risk in evaluations. When the attrition is non-random, results will be biased. When random, the reduction of the sample size might cause power problems. For this evaluation, the risk of attrition is minimal, as the producers are tied to their farm and the cacao trees. However, as we will also need to survey the voluntary non-takers over the course of the survey, attrition could become a bigger issue. For the power calculations, we have taken this into account and set the attrition rate at a conservative 10%. SAMPLING STRATEGY FOR THE FGDS AND KIIS The sampling strategy for the FGDs with cooperative members and KIIs with cooperative management, processors and SMEs will depend on: − Distance and travel time − Budget availability for involving enumerators in part of the data collection − The consent of key informants and exporters There is currently a list of 26 identified cooperatives, which have a supply contract with an exporter. These will only be accessible with the consent of the exporter or even the chocolate maker. There is an additional number of cooperatives that might be included in the MOCA programme at a later stage and could serve as an initial control group. The aim of the research team is to involve at least 12 cooperatives and/or producer groups, with a good mix of cooperatives with a small/large member base, and a mix of well-established (before 2008) and more recently established cooperatives (after 2013). At each cooperative an FGD with the group members and conduct short semi-structured interviews with the management. The final sample will be decided upon in consultation with MOCA. The cooperative questionnaires could be administered to all identified cooperatives and producer groups (treatment and control) by the enumerators (to be discussed with MOCA). Of the 72 MSMEs, we will select a mix of: processors, BDS, agro dealers and MFIs. There are different options for sampling: - Random sampling of a pre-defined list of SMEs per district - Snowball / purposeful sampling to include a range of SMEs A final selection will be made based on list of identified MSMEs, in consultation with MOCA. DATA COLLECTION TOOLS FARMER QUESTIONNAIRE The M&E team of MOCA developed a questionnaire for the farmer survey. KIT proposes several modifications as described below. The revised questionnaire is presented in Annex 2: General A time frame referring to the past cocoa season (2017-2018) was added to most questions. This is important to ensure uniform understanding of the questions across different types of respondents. Note that for some topics, such as the diseases that affect cocoa production, it may be better to leave the question open about the timing. This is to be discussed further within the team. A number of filter questions have been added, to ensure that respondents know the answer that is required of them (“do you know…”) and/or that their household is involved in the activity concerned (“do you do that..”). Section 0 Addition of consent to be read to each respondent to explain the purpose of the survey and guarantee confidentiality in the treatment of information provided It appears unlikely that the survey will take place at the farm of respondents. It is common that the survey takes place at the house of respondent. Enumerators are thus asked to take GPS coordinates of the location of the survey and subsequently specify the type of location, whether the farm or the house. To obtain information on distances between respondents’ farm(s) and the village, three questions are added, asking the average, minimum and maximum distance between farm(s) and village. To facilitate data cleaning and minimize the risk of error, it is best to reduce the number of open questions which enumerator have to type in the answers and propose instead multiple choices for questions sur as region, district, sub-district, as well as cooperative name. Section 1 Instead of asking individual information on all household members, which would be rather time￾consuming, the total number of household members and their distribution by age and gender is first asked. Then individual information is asked only for adult members (aged 15 and above). The question on whether a household member has another farm than the household farm is proposed to be replaced by a question on the main source of income for each adult household member. The rationale for this change is that for household where some members have other sources of income than cocoa farming, there may be other incentives and/or other means to apply good practices and seek to increase productivity. Section 2 Different respondent may use different land units. In order to avoid enumerators having to manually convert a given land unit into hectares, which may increase errors, we suggest keeping the unit used by respondent and integrate in the ODK questionnaire a calculation of the equivalent amount in hectares. It is key to obtain accurate information about land size allocated to cocoa. In an attempt to minimize errors, a number of questions are added, first to ask the total amount of land used for agriculture, as well as the distribution of this land between bought, rented, sharecropped and others. The land used for cocoa is subsequently asked in the same way. In the ODK questionnaire, additional checks will be added, to calculate the total of all land reported by respondents and verify that they all add up. It is likely that farmers possess more than one parcel on which they cultivate cocoa. Therefore, it may be misleading to ask about parcel. Instead, we propose to ask about the amount of land with trees of different ages. For the question on farm workers, we added a question about labor sharing groups, which are becoming more common among cocoa farmers due to labor scarcity. We also recommend improving the accuracy of the questions by asking for specific tasks (such as weeding, pruning, harvest, applying fertilizers and pesticides) whether additional workers (i.e. hired labor input) were hired to help. For cocoa production and income derived from selling cocoa, we added a set of questions in an attempt to minimize the risk of errors. First, a set of answers focus on understanding the distribution of production between different uses – selling, bartering or others. The ODK questionnaire will also include some automatic calculations that totals match. In addition, we asked about price per unit instead of asking about total amount received, and differentiate between average, lowest and highest prices. Section 3 In this section, the main changes concern the addition of filtering questions to verify whether the respondent used the different inputs and at which frequency before asking any further questions. It is also asked separately about inputs received for free and inputs purchased. For the latter, information on price and quantity is sought as well. Lastly, the size of the land covered by input use is asked. To know the commercial name of product used, we suggest proposing a number of options, again to avoid potential mistakes in inputting names. Section 4 Cocoa diseases and pests were separated. A number of cocoa disease and pest types were added, in an attempt to reduce the amount that will be entered as “other”. For diseases and pests that affect cocoa production, the questions on the timing, the measures taken, support received, and its effectiveness will be asked for each one that the respondent replies yes to. Currently, a respondent who would have several diseases but would have had treated only for one would have the same answer key as another respondent who would have only one disease and treat only this disease. Section 5 For each post-harvest practice, a question is first asked to determine whether respondents perform the task, and the frequency, before asking when it was last done. Section 6 For bank account ownership question, it is specified that it is about whether it is personally owned or by someone in the household. Questions on recordkeeping on cocoa production, which is linked to financial literacy, are added as well. For each institution which has provided support in the past 3 years, the type of support provided will be asked, to avoid confusion. Missing questions A number of questions that would provide useful information for the result framework are missing. These include: - Questions regarding the certification (in particular, awareness of certification held by the cooperative that respondents are member of, and training received on GAP/GEP/productivity to comply with certification requirements). Furthermore, questions on training and other type of support received by different types of organizations are needed to understand better the environment in which MOCA is being implemented and may help control for contamination issues. - Financial literacy questions, including financial management. These questions have been included after consulting the MOCA team. QUESTIONNAIRE TOOL The survey tools will be converted to a digital format using KOBO Toolbox. KoBo Toolbox is fully compatible and interchangeable with the open source software Open Data Kit (ODK), 34 but delivers more functionality, in particular for data collection monitoring and integrated data management. The survey tool will be deployed on digital Android tablets running the ODK (Figure 40). 34 See Open Data Kit: https://opendatakit.org Figure 40. Example screenshots of ODK running on an Android device Tablets running ODK have many advantages over paper-based surveys. Primarily, they allow for the collection of higher quality and more reliable data: - Enumerators enter data directly into the ‘ODK collect’ software application running on the tablets. This saves time, as there is no need for an additional data entry step and eliminates errors which typically occur when transcribing from paper to digital formats. - Surveys will be programmed to run live calculations. Enumerators receive warnings or errors on screen when unexpected values are entered (e.g. values which obviously too high or too low, based on known ranges). - Surveys will be programmed with constraints, so that enumerators can only enter valid data types in each field (e.g. text, integers, decimals, select multiple from a list etc.). - Surveys will be programmed with skip logic, so enumerators only see and ask relevant questions based on a respondent’s previous responses. Non-relevant questions are skipped to avoid confusion. - Surveys are pushed to a cloud server using mobile data, backing them up safely and allowing remote monitoring of survey progress from anywhere in the world via an online control panel. Via KoboToolbox, each completed survey can be displayed on a map and data is accessible moments after it was collected. KIT will deploy ODK on KoBo Toolbox where it will be securely password protected. The database is automatically generated to match the survey scheme. When desired, the database can be downloaded from KoBo Toolbox as a .csv file and imported into STATA (or other software) for analysis. FOCUS GROUP DISCUSSIONS (FGDS) Farmers and local entrepreneurs are generally rational actors who try to make the best possible decisions for themselves and their families one way or another. Due to various reasons (e.g. distance, access to finance, access to inputs etc.) cocoa farmers may make sub-optimal decisions in terms of economic efficiency, but it is of the utmost importance to understand the constraining and enabling factors behind their choices. The FGDs with cooperative members will provide more detailed information about the local context in which MOCA will operate. The FGDs will be based on specific exercises to allow for a structured collection of qualitative data. The FGDs also allow the evaluators to discuss current practices before the components of the program in depth, to understand what worked well and what challenges remain. Participants will also be probed to understand how they can themselves make certain changes that may improve their livelihood situation. Where possible, male and female focus group participants are separated into two groups. If, due to resource constraints, there is only one focus group per community, men and women sit on opposite sides of the hall, and both men and women are asked for their views on each topic, with the women responding first on each occasion. Exercises that will be included (and have worked very well in similar research by KIT team): • Intervention recall – This exercise helps to understanding the context: Which projects are happening in the area (if any), both past and present, presence of off taker companies, certification bodies, extension services, and presence of cooperatives (or other type of farmer organisations). This exercise will help to understand more precisely the attribution and complementarity of MOCA. • Changes – Understanding changes in key domains of the farming system (e.g. input distribution, finance) in recent years and the reasons for these changes. This exercise also intends to reveal challenges and farmers’ perceptions on how these can be overcome. This helps to validate elements of MOCAs’ programme. The FGD tool is included in the annex. KEY INFORMANT INTERVIEWS (KIIS) An interview tool will be developed to use with key informants, in particular producer group leaders, processors, SMEs, BDS and agro-dealers. The KIT team will be utilizing digital tablets, running on ODK, to conduct the KIIs. The KII baseline questions are straightforward, with pre￾designed responses (i.e. categories), easy to replicate at midterm or end line. The structured interviews will also allow enumerators to interview the key informants. The interview tool will ensure that the main issues which are central to the research questions are covered. DATA TREATMENT AND ANALYSIS PLAN SAMPLING WEIGHTS Sampling weights are the inverse of the probability of selection in the sample. Their calculation therefore depends on the sampling design. For MOCA baseline, the actual sample design will be made in consultation with MOCA project team, as it has logistical implications for the fieldwork. There are a number of options being considered for the sample design. One option is to randomly select farmers from the population of members of MOCA and control cooperatives, given that we have membership lists for all cooperatives provided by MOCA team.35 In this case, the sample is 35 This option generates in practice cooperative-level sample sizes which are close to the sample size we would obtain if we would select a sample proportional to cooperative size. self-weighted. Another option is a two-stage stratified cluster design: first we select a sample of cooperatives from all cooperatives; then farmers are selected from this sample of cooperatives only. In this case, the overall sampling weight attached to each farmer respondent will be the product of two intermediate weights: the first stage (cooperative) weight and the second stage (farmer) weight. A farmer-level nonresponse adjustment will be applied to the farmer weight. Note that control cooperatives will be oversampled so that their share in the sample reaches 30 percent (instead of 17 percent, based on data provided by MOCA team). Weights will therefore need to adjust for that, so that the original population is correctly approximated. In practice, the impact of those under-represented (treatment) will inflated, and the impact of those who ore over-represented (control) will be deflated. DATA CLEANING AND QUALITY CHECKS We remove extreme values from continuous variables. We use an iterative trimming procedure, with 4 standard deviations. The procedure works as follows: the average and standard deviation of a variable is computing and all values which are outside the range of the average plus or minus 4 standard deviations are replaced by a missing value. The new average and standard deviation is computed and the trimming is repeated. The procedure is applied until no values need to be trimmed anymore. INDICATOR TABULATION For major indicators, tables will comprise mean, number of non-missing observations, standard deviation and 95 percent confidence interval. PSM PROCEDURE First, we will identify variables to be used to estimate the probability of receiving the program by using either a stepwise or bestrew approach. Then, based on the estimated probabilities we will classify respondents into treatment and control groups. DATA ANALYSIS Analysis will be performed in STATA, and will utilize ‘.do files’, so MOCA will be able to see in detail how all tests were conducted and will be able to replicate the analysis if desired. By default, all tables will include summary statistics by treatment and control status. Additionally, by utilizing loop structures in STATA, KIT will be able to disaggregate data as relevant according to the data and to the project’s needs, such as by (MOCA) region, district, gender of the household head, age category of respondent or any other way. All data will be initially output into .xlsx (Excel) files for easy viewing by MOCA and CNFA team. The most relevant and statistically significant data points will be included in the final report. QUALITATIVE DATA FGDS The focus group discussion exercises with cooperative members are designed to complement data from the survey and answer the questions ‘why’, ‘how’, and ‘for whom’. The exercises include ranking and scoring components. For example, the Changes exercise asks whether changes have been positive, negative or whether no change occurred. These rankings can be analyzed to provide a picture on which categories are most problematic in the view of the farmers (i.e. in which areas changes have been negative or positive). The analysis is done by aggregating and then calculating an average of the scores from all FGDs, providing an overall picture of the changes that have occurred for each of the categories in the past five years. This analysis will be done in Microsoft Excel through the use of Pivot Tables. The descriptions provided by the FGD participants will highlight why certain changes have occurred, why they are positive or negative and which actor has been involved in the change, or which one should be more involved in the future to improve the situation. Analyzing the descriptions by comparing the different FGDs will provide an overview of the perspective of farmers and highlight recurring themes that are often mentioned in different groups. This will show whether different groups of farmers from different locations encounter similar problems. The qualitative analysis of the FGDs will be done in Microsoft Excel through the use of filters on aggregated and cleaned data. WORKPLAN SCHEDULE OF BASELINE STUDY The following deliverables and deadlines have been agreed upon: − Inception report including full research design description, data collection tools and work plan (by 25th of September 2018) − Draft baseline reports (by 5th of November 2018) − Final report, including summary in French (14th of December 2018) The project leader, Helena Posthumus (HP), is responsible for the overall methodology, the reporting, quality assurance and project management. Adama Bah (AB) is taking the lead in the farmer survey (design, data collection, and analysis) with technical support of Jesse d’Anjou (JdA). Anna Laven (AL) is taking the lead in the development of the data collection tools for the KIIs and FGDs, with support of Cedric Steijn (CS). Cedric is taking the lead in the data collection and analysis of the KII and FGD data. All team members contribute to deliverables (inception report and draft/final report). The more detailed schedule is presented in Table 311. The final report will include: − Baseline values of all key indicators − All major data points with standard errors, coefficients of variation, and 95 percent confidence intervals − Output of all major variables in tabular format − Presentation of data in graphical format − Farmer profiles according to certain characteristics of interest (e.g. gender, age, land size, access to market towns, use of financial services, socioeconomic status, etc.) and understand the extent to which these characteristics may correlate with relevant indicators, such as input use, types of agricultural and farm management practices applied, farm productivity or profitability. Analysis of similarities and differences between the three micro-production zones where the project will be implemented. Table 311. Schedule for the baseline activities Activity Resp. Level of effort (# days) HPAL JdAABCS Total September October November December 3 6 3 7 3 8 3 9 4 0 4 1 4 2 4 3 4 4 4 5 4 6 4 7 4 8 4 9 5 0 5 1 INCEPTION PHASE Contract / consultation with MOCA HP x 0 x Document review and methodology development HP 1 2 3 x Survey design, sampling, tools and protocols AB/Jd A 1 2 5 5 1 14 x x Development KII and FGD guidelines AL 1 2 2 5 x Inception report HP 1 1 2 5 FIELDWORK Fieldwork preparations / transit AB 1 1 2 x Training AB 4 4 x Farmer survey AB 4 2 0 24 x x KIIS and FGDs CS 4 4 x x x Data control, database cleaning, variable creation. AB 4 4 x x Data analysis, statistical outputs and draft quantitative report JdA 4 4 x x x Draft report with descriptive statistics JdA/A B 1 1 2 5 Compilation of interview data CS/AB 2 6 8 x x x Analysis FGDs PO members CS 4 4 x x x REPORTING Analysis and full report writing HP 3 5 5 4 2 19 x x Full baseline report HP 3 3 1 4 Short briefing note (in French) on main findings AB 1 1 14 PROJECT MANAGEMENT HP 5 5 x x x x x x x x x x x x x x Baseline study (total effort) 15 9 15 32 36 107 FIELDWORK PROTOCOL Fieldwork responsibilities KIT will be responsible for development of the data collections tools and the training of the local enumerators. KIT advisors will conduct the key informant interviews and lead the FGDs. KIT carries the overall responsibility for ensuring the process is professional and that data is of a high quality. MOCA is responsible for contracting the local field team, the logical arrangements and the supervision of the enumerators. The local field team will comprise of MOCA staff and a team of enumerators that have prior experience conducting farmer surveys in cocoa growing areas of Cote d’Ivoire. MOCA staff are responsible for forming the enumerator team, all logistics and planning with local authorities and farmer groups, practical support for the sampling procedure (e.g. providing lists of cooperatives and membership lists, notifying respondents), and the management of the enumerator team. Additionally, a translator will be hired to support the KIT researchers during FGDs. Training of the local field team (enumerators and MOCA staff) KIT is responsible for training the local field team over a period of four days. The training focuses first on the basic objectives of the research, reading through the survey together, developing familiarity with the questions, and ensuring that the meaning and intention of all questions is clear to the entire team. Enumerators also become comfortable with using the tablets and all of the common ODK inputs and functions. Later, enumerators will practice asking and answering questions with each other under the observation of the trainer, with regular feedback intervals. When in the field, the KIT advisor, in collaboration with MOCA staff, will continue to train and troubleshoot any issues arising with each enumerator during the first week. Piloting survey tools (field testing) The farmer survey tool will be piloted with farmers that are not included in the sampling frame prior to rolling out the final version. Piloting will occur during the enumerator training, so that enumerators can gain practical experience with the survey tool, as well as testing the appropriateness of the questions. Immediately following the testing period the team will sit with the KIT advisor to make final changes. All survey changes will be logged and updated for MOCA to review. Identification of respondents A random sample of respondents (both treatment and control groups) will be drawn from membership lists of the cooperatives. The enumerators will be provided with the list of sampled respondents, including a list of randomly sampled substitutes in case some respondents from the initial sample are not available or willing to participate in the survey. Data collection targets KIT targets collecting approximately 4 farmer surveys per enumerator per day (on days that no extensive travel between locations is required), as well as one FGD per day. KIIs will be conducted throughout the fieldwork period as efficiently as possible. To ensure consistency and data quality, FGDs and KIIs are conducted by KIT team with the support of a translator. KIT notes that some communities may comprise only few beneficiaries, therefore our sampling plan will need to take account of this. it is recommended to conduct research in neighboring communities on the same day to improve efficiency and reduce fieldwork costs where possible (if both are selected during random sampling). Travel days Invariably, there will be some days where surveys cannot be collected. These are denoted as ‘Travel days. For example, the day travelling from Abidjan to the field will not allow time for any survey collection. Furthermore, the team may encounter market days, church days, and religious holidays, all of which will affect the ability to collect a full quota of surveys. Health and safety Fieldwork days can be long and hard. Taking good care of the enumerators is important so they remain safe and healthy. It is inconvenient and costly if enumerators drop out of the study because they feel underpaid or overworked. The supervisors will contact the enumerators on a daily basis to enquire after their progress, concerns regarding their health and safety, or any incidents that may have occurred. It is advised that enumerators travel in pairs or small groups. Showing respectful behavior towards the local community is the most important factor in one’s own security. A short code of conduct has therefore been developed for the enumerators to adhere to. Code of conduct KIT researchers will comply with KIT’s code of conduct as part of its Integrity Policy. KIT employees are obliged to comply with legal requirements (including international human rights norms) and abide by common social norms and values. Key values of KIT are inclusion, transparency, independence and sustainability. The MOCA staff will be coordinating the enumerators and also supervise their conduct. Conduct guidelines will be discussed during the training. In order to safeguard the dignity and privacy of the respondents, the enumerators will be asked to adhere to the following code of conduct (which is derived from KIT’s Code of Conduct and also applies to the KIT researchers): - Respondents’ participation in the survey is voluntarily; respondents cannot be forced to participate and are free to finish the interview at any time. The enumerators cannot force participants to participate, nor persuade with promises of preferential treatment during the MOCA project or any other incentives unless this has been collectively agreed during the enumerators’ training. - Enumerators will treat the respondents with respect and dignity at all times. - Enumerators are obliged to ask the respondents’ consent to participate in the study, and the enumerators should explain that the information will be used for the study in order to inform and improve the MOCA activities. Enumerators should explain that individual data will be anonymized and personal data will be kept confidential and not shared beyond the KIT/MOCA team. If the respondent does not give his/her consent, the interview has to be abandoned. - If enumerators take pictures of the respondents and/or their belongings, they should ask explicit permission for a) the picture(s) to be taken, and b) the picture(s) to be used by the evaluation team for non-commercial purposes (e.g. baseline report). - The enumerators will make sure that the collected data is accurate and updated if necessary. Enumerators will upload the collected data to the cloud database at regular intervals as agreed during the enumerators’ training. - Enumerators will not work under the influence of alcohol or any other illegal substances during the fieldwork. - Enumerators will be provided with tablets for work-related duties only. They are expected to handle the tablets with care. Occasionally and briefly the enumerators are permitted to use the tablets for personal use, provided that this use does not disrupt normal daily activities and/or the technical infrastructure. They are not allowed to download or install unauthorized content on the tablets. - Enumerators will report any incidents that affect their safety and/or ability to conduct the survey to their supervisors. REFERENCES Appelman R, Ammerlaan T, Oomes N, Laven A. 2017. De oorzaken van armoede onder cacaoboeren. In Economisch Statistische Berichten No 4650-15 June 2017-Jaargang 102. Boomsma M, Laven A, Steenhuijsen Piters B de. 2011. Facilitating pro-poor business. Why advice goes further when it's backed by investment. KIT Publishers Bymolt R, Laven A, Steijn C, Tyszler M. 2018. Demystifying the cocoa sector in Ghana and Côte d’Ivoire. The Royal Tropical Institute (KIT) , in collaboration with Hütz-Adams F (Südwind Institute), and Ruf F (CIRAD). Supported by the Jacobs Foundation, International Trade Initiative (IDH), UTZ, the Lindt Cocoa Foundation and the German Initiative for Sustainable Cocoa (GISCO). Available at https://www.kit.nl/sed/project/demystifying-cocoa-sector/ CCC. 2014. Programme quantité-qualité-croissance (2QC) 2014-2023. Le Conseil du Café-Cacao; Ministère de l’Agriculture, Republique de Côte d’Ivoire. CNFA. 2018. Maximizing Opportunities for Cocoa Activity (MOCA); Draft Activity 2 Year Work Plan (September 2018 – September 2020). USDA Ingram V, Laven A, van Rijn F, Judge L, Jansen D, Boomsma M. 2014 Opschalen van diensten aan kleinschalige koffie- en cacaoboeren. In Syscope. Magazine van Systeeminnovatieprogramma’s. Editie najaar 2014, nummer 32. KIT, Agri-ProFocus and IIRR. 2012. Challenging chains to change: Gender equity in agricultural value chain development. KIT Publishers, Royal Tropical Institute, Amsterdam. KIT and IIRR. 2010. Value Chain Finance: Beyond microfinance for rural entrepreneurs. KIT Publishers, Royal Tropical Institute, Amsterdam Laven A, Bymolt R, Tyszler M, Steijn C, Hütz-Adams F, Ruf, F. 2017. The importance of cocoa in a diversified farm. 2017 International Symposium on Cocoa Research (ISCR), Lima, Peru, 13-17 November 2017 Laven A. 2016. Cocoa and Coconut in the Solomon Islands: A Family Affair. Technical report Technical Report #096. AECOM Services Pty Ltd. http://phama.com.au/wp￾content/uploads/2016/12/PHAMA-TR096-Solomon-Islands-Cocoa-Coconut-161213.pdf Laven A. 2010. The risk of inclusion. Shifts in governance processes and upgrading opportunities for cocoa farmers in Ghana. Dissertation. Amsterdam: KIT Publishers. Laven A. et al. 2009."Special report: the power of value chains" The Broker, Issue 16, October 2009. Laven AC. 2007. Marketing reforms in Ghana’s cocoa sector. Partial liberalisation, partial benefits? Background note. December 2007 Overseas Development Institute (ODI). http://www.odi.org.uk/publications/background-notes/0712-marketing-ghana-cocoa. Pdf Laven AC. 2007. Who is interested in good quality cocoa from Ghana? in R. Ruben, M. van Boekel, A. van Tilburg en J. Trienekens (eds) Tropical Food Chains, Governance regimes for quality management, Wageningen Academic Publishers, pp. 189-211. Laven AC. 2007. 'The Risky Business of Cocoa in Ghana: Local Entrepreneurs in a Buyer-Driven Chain', in. B. Hogenboom and A. E. F. Jilberto (eds) Business on the Rise: Conglomerates and Economic Groups in Developing Countries and Transition Economies Under Globalization, London: Routledge, pp. 317-40. Laven AC, Boomsma M. 2012. Incentives for sustainable cocoa production in Ghana. Moving from maximizing outputs to optimizing performance. Royal Tropical Institute. Laven A, Bymolt R. 2012. Experiences of P4P capacity building efforts and procurement from farmers’ organisations Kenya, Tanzania, Burkina Faso, Mali, El Salvador, and Nicaragua with contributions from Guatemala, Honduras and Rwanda. World Food Programme and KIT. http://documents.wfp.org/stellent/groups/public/documents/reports/wfp244737.pdf Laven A, Pyburn R. 2015. Facilitating gender inclusive agri-business. In Special Issue Facilitating multi-stakeholder processes: Balancing internal dynamics and institutional politics, CIAT. Laven AC. 2011. Ghanaian state and inclusive upgrading in the global cocoa chain. In B. Helmsing and S. Vellema Value Chains, Social Inclusion an Economic Development Contrasting Theories and Realities. Routledge: London Laven AC, Pelders P. 2010. Chocolate Forever. Dutch knowledge on sustainable cocoa. The Dutch Ministry of Economic Affairs, Agriculture and Innovation. Amsterdam: KIT Publishers. Laven AC, Verhart N. 2011. Addressing gender equality in agricultural value chains. Sharing work in progress. Paper in the context of On Track with Gender February 2011 Oomes N, Tieben B, Laven A, Ammerlaan T, Appelman R, Biesenbeek C, Buunk E. 2016 Market Concentration and Price Formation in the Global Cocoa Value Chain. Ministry of Foreign Affairs. Vellema S, Laven A, Ton G, Muilerman S. 2015. Policy Reform and Supply Chain Governance. Insights from Ghana, Côte d’Ivoire, and Ecuador. In Jo Swinnen and Mara Squicciarini (eds) “The Economics and Politics of Chocolate", Oxford University Press: Oxford. Wittes J. 2002. Sample size calculations for Randomized Controlled Trials. Epidemiological Reviews 24(1): 39-53. ANNEX 1. EVALUATION MATRIX The following matrix (Figure 41) is an illustration of the sources of data that will be drawn on for analysis and reporting. The research applies a mixed-methods approach, implying that often one data type is employed to support another in order to triangulate findings and explain processes. For example, survey data can show what levels of fertilizer use are and the effects of this, whereas FGDs or KIIs can help explain why fertilizer usage is at a certain level (enablers and barriers) and differences between regions and other characteristics. Figure 41. Matrix of research questions and data sources for analysis Indicator Farmer survey Focus group discussions Key informant interviews Agricultural productivity Local availability and use of services by cocoa farmers ✓ ✓ ✓ Knowledge and application of good agricultural practices by cocoa farmers ✓ Level of financial literacy and business planning of cocoa farmers ✓ Cocoa yield levels, sale volumes, and income of cocoa farmers ✓ Services and inputs provided by cooperatives and producer groups ✓ ✓ ✓ Trade Capacity of cooperatives, processors and SMEs ✓ Value addition of post-production cocoa beans ✓ ✓ Access to markets (type of buyers and sellers, purchases, sale volumes, turnover) ✓ ✓ Transaction efficiency ✓ ✓ ✓ ANNEX 2. FARMER QUESTIONNAIRE CONSENTEMENT Veuillez lire cette demande de consentement avant de commencer l’entretien. Bonjour Madame/Monsieur, je m’appelle ............. et je travaille pour CNFA Cote d’Ivoire. Nous collectons des données dans le cadre d’une étude sur la culture du cacao en Côte d’Ivoire. Cette étude est menée par l’institut royal des tropiques (KIT) des Pays-Bas pour le compte de CNFA. Les résultats de cette étude permettront de mieux comprendre la culture du cacao et aideront les organisations à concevoir de meilleurs projets à l’avenir. Vous avez été sélectionné de façon aléatoire pour participer à cette étude. Nous souhaitons nous entretenir avec vous au sujet de votre expérience en matière de culture du cacao. Si vous choisissez de participer à cette enquête, vous êtes libres de refuser de répondre à certaines questions et vous avez également la possibilité de terminer l’entretien quand vous le souhaitez. Vous pouvez m’interrompre à tout moment pour demander des clarifications sur les questions posées. Cet entretien durera environ 1 heure. Nous vous présentons nos excuses par avance pour le temps que cela prendra et pour les interruptions que cela peut causer dans votre programme. Votre participation à cette enquête est volontaire, vous n’êtes pas obligés d’y participer mais nous espérons que vous accepterez de répondre à nos questions car votre opinion est importante pour nous. Votre participation à cette enquête ne vous affectera en aucune manière puisque l’objectif est seulement de mener ce projet de recherche. Les informations que vous partagerez seront conservées en toute sécurité et resteront confidentielles. Votre nom et toute autre information permettant de vous identifier ne seront accessibles qu’aux chercheurs et n’apparaitront jamais dans aucune publication. Si vous avez des questions sur cette enquête, veuillez contacter : CNFA Cote d’Ivoire, XXXX. Donnez-vous votre consentement pour participer à cette enquête ? SECTION 0 : IDENTIFICATI ON / LOCALISATIO N ID Questions Codes ID01 Nom de l’agent enquêteur……………………………………………. Proposer options ID02 Date de l’interview ID03 Région Abengourou / Daloa / ID04 Préfecture Soubre ID05 Sous-Préfecture ID06 Village de rattachement……………………………………... ID07 Localité/Quartier du champ:…………………………………………………………………… ……………….. ID08 Type de localité Village / campement ID09 Numéro d’ordre du planteur - Région (1), S/P (02), Village (4), Num d’ordre ds village (2) |__||__|__|__|__||__||__|__| __|__| Coordonnées GPS du lieu de l'enquête ID10 Latitude |__|__|. |__|__|__||__|__| ID11 Longitude |__|__|__|. |__|__|__|__|__| ID12 Dans quel endroit les coordonnes GPS ont été prises Domicile du planteur / Champ du planteur / autre ID13 Distance moyenne de la (des) parcelle(s) du planteur au village (en km) # ID14 Distance minimale de la (des) parcelle(s) du planteur au village (en km) # ID15 Distance maximale de la (des) parcelle(s) du planteur au village (en km) # ID16 Etes-vous membre d’une coopérative ? Oui/Non ID17 Nom de la Coopérative :…………………………………. Proposer options ID18 Siege Social de la coopérative / localité :………………… Proposer options? SECTION 1 : CARACTERISTIQUES SOCIO-DEMOGRAPHIQUES DU MENAGE Tout d’abord, je voudrais vous poser des questions sur vous et les membres de votre ménage\ Q100 Questions Codes 101 Quel est le nombre total de personnes dans votre ménage ? Y compris enfants pour lesquelles vous êtes responsables financièrement # 102 Parmi celles-ci, combien d’entre elles vivaient-elles en 2018 dans votre ménage/maison ? # Parmi les membres de votre ménage qui vivaient en 2018 dans votre ménage/maison, combien d’entre eux sont... 103 Des hommes de plus de 65 ans # 104 Des femmes de plus de 65 ans # 105 Des hommes entre 15 et 65 ans # 106 Des femmes entre 15 et 65 ans # 107 Des garçons entre 5 et 14 ans # 108 Des filles entre 5 et 14 ans # 109 Des garçons entre 0 et 4 ans # 110 Des filles entre 0 et 4 ans # Nom et prénoms (SVP donnez-moi les noms et prénoms des personnes âgées de 15 and et plus qui vivent habituellement dans votre ménage) Commencer par le chef de Ménage Q111 Lien avec le chef de ménage (Inscrire le code) 1.Chef de ménage 2.Femme/Mari 3.Fils/Fille 4.Frère/Sœur 5.Père/Mère 6.Autre parent 7.Sans parente Q112 Age (Inscrire l’âge au dernier anniversaire) Q113 Sexe 1.Masculin 2. Féminin Q114 Quel est le plus haut niveau d'études que (NOM) a atteint ? (Inscrire le code) 1. Aucun Niveau 2. Primaire 3. Secondaire 4. Supérieur 5. Actuellement à l’école primaire 6. Actuellement au Collège Q115 (Nom) Travaille-t￾il/elle dans la plantation ? (Inscrire le code) 1. Non Jamais 2. Oui en permanence 3. Oui de façon occasionnelle 4. Oui uniquement lors de la récolte Q116 Quelle est la source principale de revenus de (Nom) au cours de la campagne 2017/2018? (Inscrire le code) 1. Aucune 2. Vente de cacao 3. Vente des produits de récolte de culture de rente 4. Vente des produits de récolte de culture de vivrier 5. Travail pour d’autres dans l’agriculture 6. Travail pour d’autres dans un domaine autre que l’agriculture 7. D’un petit commerce ou d’une petite entreprise en tant que propriétaire 8. Emploi salarié comme fonctionnaire 9. Autre SECTION 2 : CARACTERISTIQUES DE L’EXPLOITATION AGRICOLE Je voudrais vous poser des questions sur les caractéristiques de votre plantation de Cacao Q200 0 Questions Codes Terres agricoles utilisées par le ménage 201 Quelle est l’unité de superficie la plus répandue dans votre village ? 1.Hectares 2. Pôles 3. carre 0.25ha 202 Savez-vous quelle superficie votre ménage a-t-il consacrés à TOUTES les cultures pendant la saison 2017/2018? # 203 Quelle superficie votre ménage POSSÉDAIT-il en 2017/2018 ? (Terres que le ménage estime « siennes ») Pour toute culture, tout pâturage, toute jachère etc # 204 Quelle superficie votre ménage LOUAIT-il en 2017/2018 ? Payer pour utiliser les terres d’autrui / Garantie # 205 Quelle superficie votre ménage a-t-il utilisé sous MÉTAYAGE en 2017/2018 ? Il n’était ni propriétaire ni locataire des terres, mais donnait une portion de sa récolte au propriétaire des terres. # 206 Disposez-vous actuellement de terres non encore exploitées? Oui/Non 207 De quelle superficie non encore exploitée sous forme de forets disposez-vous actuellement ? # 208 De quelle superficie non encore exploitée sous forme de jachère disposez-vous actuellement ? « en jachère » signifie « au repos, non cultivé » # 209 De quelle superficie non encore exploitée sous forme de bas￾fonds disposez-vous actuellement ? # 210 Combien de parcelles séparées votre ménage cultivait-il en 2017/2018 ? # Parcelles, terres sous cultures séparées 211 Savez-vous quelle superficie votre ménage a-t-il consacrés à la culture du CACAO en 2017/2018 ? # Terres - Cacao 212 Quelle superficie votre ménage a-t-il UTILISÉS pour le cacao en 2017/2018 ? 213 Parmi les terres que vous avez utilisées pour le cacao, de Quelle superficie de cacao votre ménage était-il PROPRIÉTAIRE en 2017/2018 ? 214 Comment avez-vous acquis cette plantation ? 1. Planté par lui-même 2. Héritage 3. Don 4. Achat Autre à préciser 215 Combien de terre votre ménage LOUAIT-il pour le cacao en 2017/2018 ? Louer des terres possédées par d’autres (payer pour utiliser les terres d’autrui) # 216 Combien de terre votre ménage a-t-il utilisé en MÉTAYAGE pour le cacao en 2017/2018 ? Il n’était ni propriétaire ni locataire des terres, mais donnait une portion de sa récolte au propriétaire des terres. # 217 Combien de parcelles votre ménage utilisait-il pour la culture du cacao en 2017/2018 ? Parcelles de cacao séparées 218 Quelle est la superficie totale de votre plantation pendant la saison 2017/2018? # 219 Quelle est la superficie de votre plantation qui est effectivement en production pendant la saison 2017/2018 # 220 Savez-vous approximativement combien de cacaoyers votre ménage possède-t-il? Oui/Non 221 Combien de cacaoyers votre ménage cultive-t-il ? # 222 Depuis combien d’années votre ménage cultive-t-il le cacao ? # 223 Quel est l’âge de la plupart de vos cacaoyers ? En année(s) # 224 Vous avez dit plus tôt que votre ménage possédait XX ha de cacao. De cette superficie, quelle superficie de cacao ont... 225 5 ans ou moins ? # 226 Entre 5 et 25 ans ? # 227 Plus de 25 ans réhabilité? # 228 Plus de 25 ans - non réhabilité? # 229 Quelles variétés de Cacao cultivez-vous dans votre plantation? 1. Mercedes 2. Ghana Autre 230 Votre ménage associe-t-il la culture du cacao à une autre culture ? Associer plusieurs cultures, c’est planter d’autres cultures entre les cacaoyers. Les arbres d’ombrage ne comptent pas comme culture associée. Oui/Non. 231 Associez-vous d’autres cultures à des cacaoyers de 5 ans ou moins ? Oui/Non/Ne sait pas 232 Associez-vous d’autres cultures à des cacaoyers de 5 à 25 ans ? Oui/Non/Ne sait pas 233 Associez-vous d’autres cultures à des cacaoyers de 25 ans ou plus ? Oui/Non/Ne sait pas 234 Quelle(s) autre(s) culture(s) associez-vous à celle du cacao ? Liste de cultures Principale autre culture ; L’utilisation d’arbres d’ombrage ne compte pas comme culture associée. 235 Utilisez-vous des arbres d’ombrage dans votre plantation ? Oui/Non 236 Quels arbres d’ombrage utilisez-vous dans votre plantation ? A. B. C. 237 En dehors des membres du menage, y a-t-il d'autres ouvriers agricoles/manoeuvres qui ont travaillé dans votre plantation pendant la saison 2017/2018? Oui/Non 238 Employez-vous des ouvriers agricoles de facon permanente pour votre plantation? Oui/Non 239 Combien d'ouvriers agricoles hommes âgés de plus de 15 ans employez-vous de façon permanente pour votre plantation en 2017/2018? 240 Combien d'ouvriers agricoles femmes âgés de plus de 15 ans employez-vous de façon permanente pour votre plantation en 2017/2018? 241 Combien d'ouvriers agricoles âgés de moins de 15 ans employez-vous de façon permanente pour votre plantation en 2017/2018? 242 Employez-vous des ouvriers agricoles a la journée ou pour une certaine période pour votre plantation? Oui/Non 243 Combien de journaliers hommes âgés de plus de 15 ans employez-vous pour votre plantation en 2017/2018? 244 Combien de journaliers femmes âgés de plus de 15 ans employez-vous pour votre plantation en 2017/2018? 245 Combien de journaliers âgés de moins de 15 ans employez￾vous pour votre plantation en 2017/2018? 246 Employez-vous des ouvriers agricoles communaux ou faites￾vous partie d'un groupe d'entraide ? Oui/Non Je voudrais à présent avoir les informations sur votre production au cours des 3 dernières saisons 247 Quelle unité de mesure utilisez-vous pour le cacao ? 248 Quelle est le poids en kg d’une unité de mesure? Ne sait pas 999 ; si kg écrire 1 249 Savez-vous combien d'unités de cacao votre ménage a produits lors de la campagne 2017-2018 ? Grande et petite campagne/traite ensemble Oui/Non 250 Combien d'unités de cacao votre ménage a-t-il produits au cours de la grande traite 2017-2018 ? 251 Combien d'unités de cacao votre ménage a-t-il produits au cours de la petite traite 2017-2018 ? Au total, vous avez produit XX unités de cacao au cours de la campagne 2017-2018. Sur cette quantité, combien de cacao votre ménage a-t-il... 252 Vendus (contre de l’argent) # 253 Consommés au sein du ménage # 254 Donnés sans rien attendre en échange # 255 Obligation métayage # 256 Donnés en échange d’autres biens (troc) # 257 Donnés en guise de paiement pour un travail # 258 Perdus (par exemple à cause de la mauvaise qualité, de la pourriture ou du vol) # 259 Quel est le prix COURANT que vous avez obtenu pour la majeure partie de votre cacao en 2017-2018 - par unité # 260 Quel est le prix LE PLUS HAUT que vous ayez obtenu pour votre cacao en 2017-2018 – par unité # 261 Quel est le prix LE PLUS BAS que vous ayez obtenu pour votre cacao en 2017-2018 – par unité # 262 Au cours de quels mois avez-vous vendu du cacao en 2017- 2018 ? Plusieurs réponses possibles Janvier / Février / mars / Avril / Mai / Juin / Juillet / Aout / Septembre / Octobre / Novembre / Décembre 263 À qui avez-vous vendu du cacao en 2017-2018? Plusieurs réponses possibles Coopérative / société prive / exportateur / pisteur /autre 264 Connaissez-vous le montant des revenus générés par la vente de cacao par votre ménage en 2017-2018 ? Oui/Non 265 Quel est le montant des revenus générés par la vente de cacao par votre ménage en 2017-2018 ? (en FCFA, sans inclure les coûts) Ne sait pas ou ne souhaite pas le dire 999 266 Votre ménage a-t-il des documents comptables sur la production de cacao de 2017-2018? Oui/Non/Ne sait pas Avez-vous conservé des documents comptables sur... 267 montant dépensé dans les intrants Oui/Non 268 montant dépensé dans le paiement des travailleurs employés Oui/Non 269 nombre de jours que des membres du ménage ont passé à labourer Oui/Non 270 le volume de cacao produit Oui/Non 271 le volume de cacao vendu, le prix et l’argent reçu Oui/Non SECTION 3 : UTILISATION DES INTRANTS/PHYTOSANITAIRES Je voudrais vous poser des questions sur l’utilisation des intrants et produits phytosanitaires Q300 Questions Codes 301 Avez-vous utilisé des insecticides ou pesticides pour le traitement de vos plants pendant la saison 2017/2018? (un insecticide est un type de pesticide) Oui/Non 302 Combien de fois du pesticide a-t-il été utilisé sur votre exploitation de cacao en 2017/2018 ? # 303 A quand remonte la dernière application de pesticide? # jrs 304 Votre ménage a-t-il reçu un don (gratuit) de pesticide en 2017/2018 ? Oui/Non 305 Quelle institution a-t-elle donné du pesticide a votre ménage en 2017/2018? ANADER / CCC/ Coopérative / Prestataire, société privée / ONG, partenaire / autre 306 Combien de bouteilles de pesticide vous ont-elles été données l’an dernier ? # 307 Votre ménage a-t-il ACHETÉ du pesticide en 2017/2018 ? Oui/Non 308 Comment votre ménage a-t-il acheté du pesticide en 2017/2018? Cash/Crédit 309 Quel type de crédit votre ménage a-t-il utilisé pour acheter du pesticide en 2017/2018? Crédit fournisseur / crédit coop / autre 310 Combien coûte une bouteille de pesticide ? # 311 Combien de bouteilles de pesticide votre ménage a-t-il achetées l’an dernier ? # 312 Combien de bouteilles de pesticide au TOTAL ont-elles été appliquées sur votre exploitation de cacao l’an dernier ? # 313 Quel est le volume (en litres) d’UNE bouteille de pesticide ? # 314 Vous avez dit plus tôt cultiver le cacao sur XX superficie. Sur quelle superficie du pesticide a-t-il été appliqué ? # 315 Nom Commercial du Produit …………………… Proposer options 316 Avez-vous utilisé du fongicide pour le traitement de vos plants pendant la saison 2017/2018? Oui/Non 317 Combien de fois du fongicide a-t-il été utilisé sur votre exploitation de cacao en 2017/2018 ? # 318 A quand remonte la dernière application de fongicide? # jrs 319 Votre ménage a-t-il reçu un don (gratuit) de fongicide en 2017/2018 ? Oui/Non 320 Quelle institution a-t-elle donné du fongicide a votre ménage en 2017/2018? ANADER / CCC/ Coopérative / Prestataire, societe privee / ONG, partenaire / autre 321 Combien de bouteilles de fongicide vous ont-elles été données l’an dernier ? 322 Votre ménage a-t-il ACHETÉ des fongicides en 2017/2018 ? Oui/Non 323 Comment votre ménage a-t-il acheté des fongicides en 2017/2018? Cash/Crédit 324 Quel type de crédit votre ménage a-t-il utilisé pour acheter des fongicides en 2017/2018? Crédit fournisseur / crédit coop / autre 325 Combien coûte une bouteille de fongicide ? # 326 Combien de bouteilles de fongicide votre ménage a-t-il achetées l’an dernier ? # 327 Combien de bouteilles de fongicide au TOTAL ont-elles été appliquées sur votre exploitation de cacao l’an dernier ? # 328 Quel est le volume (en litres) d’UNE bouteille de fongicide ? # 329 Vous avez dit plus tôt cultiver le cacao sur XX superficie. Sur quelle superficie du fongicide a-t-il été appliqué ? # 330 Nom Commercial du Produit ………………… Proposer options 331 Avez-vous utilise des engrais chimiques pour le traitement de vos plants pendant la saison 2017/2018? Oui/Non 332 Combien de fois des engrais chimiques a-t-il été utilisé sur votre exploitation de cacao en 2017/2018 ? # 333 A quand remonte la dernière application d'engrais chimique? # jrs 334 Votre ménage a-t-il reçu un don (gratuit) d'engrais chimique en 2017/2018 ? Oui/Non 335 Quelle institution a-t-elle donné de l’engrais chimique a votre ménage en 2017/2018? ANADER / CCC/ Coopérative / Prestataire, societe privee / ONG, partenaire / autre 336 Combien de bouteilles d'engrais chimique vous ont-elles été données l’an dernier ? # 337 Votre ménage a-t-il ACHETÉ de l’engrais chimique en 2017/2018 ? Oui/Non 338 Comment votre ménage a-t-il acheté des engrais chimiques en 2017/2018? Cash/Crédit 339 Quel type de crédit votre ménage a-t-il utilisé pour acheter de l’engrais chimique en 2017/2018? Crédit fournisseur / crédit coop / autre 340 Combien coûte une bouteille d'engrais chimique ? # 341 Combien de bouteilles d'engrais chimique votre ménage a-t-il achetées l’an dernier ? # 342 Combien de bouteilles d'engrais chimiques au TOTAL ont-elles été appliquées sur votre exploitation de cacao l’an dernier ? # 343 Quel est le volume (en litres) d’UNE bouteille d'engrais chimiques ? # 344 Vous avez dit plus tôt cultiver le cacao sur XX superficie. Sur quelle superficie de l'engrais chimique a-t-il été appliqué ? # 345 Nom Commercial du Produit ………………… Proposer options 346 Avez-vous utilisé des engrais organiques (fumier/composte) pour le traitement de vos plants pendant la saison 2017/2018? Oui/Non 347 Combien de fois des engrais organiques ont-t-il été utilisé sur votre exploitation de cacao en 2017/2018 ? # 348 A quand remonte la dernière application d'engrais organiques? # jrs 349 Vous avez dit plus tôt cultiver le cacao sur XX superficie. Sur quelle superficie de l'engrais organique a-t-il été appliqué ? # Disposez-vous du matériel/équipement ci-après ? Citez le nom du matériel/équipement, si l’enquête en dispose préciser le nombre, s’il n’en dispose pas inscrivez 0 351 A. Combinaison # 352 B. Cache nez # 353 C. Atomiseur # 354 D. Lunettes # 355 E. Bottes # 356 F. Gants # 357 G. Pulvérisateurs # SECTION 4 : PRATIQUES AGRICOLES Je voudrais vous poser des questions sur vos pratiques agricoles Q400 Questions Codes 401 Avez-vous fait de l’égourmandage au cours de la saison 2017/2018? L’égourmandage est l’élimination sélective de nouvelles pousses Oui/Non 402 Combien de fois votre ménage a-t-il effectué l'égourmandage sur l’exploitation de cacao au cours de la saison 2017/2018 ? # 403 A quand remonte la dernière fois que vous avez effectué l'égourmandage? # jrs 404 Avez-vous supprimé les loranthus des cacaoyers au cours de la saison 2017/2018? Oui/Non 405 Combien de fois votre ménage a-t-il supprimé les loranthus des cacaoyers sur l’exploitation de cacao au cours de la saison 2017/2018 ? # 406 A quand remonte la dernière fois que vous avez supprimé les loranthus des cacaoyers? # jrs 407 Votre ménage a-t-il effectué de la taille ou élagage pour la culture du cacao l’an dernier ? L’élagage est l’élimination sélective de certaines branches et nouvelles pousses Oui/Non 408 Combien de fois votre ménage a-t-il effectué l'élagage sur l’exploitation de cacao au cours de la saison 2017/2018 ? # 409 A quand remonte la dernière fois que vous avez effectué l'élagage? # jrs 410 Votre ménage a-t-il désherbé votre exploitation de cacao au cours de la saison 2017/2018 ? Le désherbage est parfois appelé « débroussaillement » Oui/Non 411 Combien de fois votre ménage a-t-il désherbé l’exploitation de cacao au cours de la saison 2017/2018 ? # 412 A quand remonte la dernière fois que vous avez effectué le désherbage? # jrs 413 Les cacaoyers de votre ménage sont-ils plantés par rangée ? Oui/Non 414 Connaissez-vous la distance moyenne entre les cacaoyers sur l’exploitation de votre ménage ? Espacement moyen # 415 Quelle est la distance moyenne entre les cacaoyers de votre ménage ? Mètres 416 Quelle est la distance moyenne entre les rangées ? Mètres 417 Réglez-vous la densité des cacaoyers et l’ombrage en vue d’une meilleure production Oui/Non 418 Combien de fois votre ménage a-t-il réglé la densité des cacaoyers sur l’exploitation de cacao au cours de la saison 2017/2018 ? # 419 A quand remonte la dernière fois que vous avez réglé la densité des cacaoyers ? # jrs Pertes de cacao 420 Au cours des 12 derniers mois, avez-vous subi des pertes de cacao liées à : 421 A. ...des maladies du cacao Oui/Non 422 B. ...des nuisibles/ravageurs s’attaquant au cacao Oui/Non 423 C. ...des pertes au cours du stockage ? Oui/Non Maladies du cacao 424 Quel (s) cas de maladie(s) du cacao avez-vous déjà connu? 425 A. Pourriture brune Oui/Non 426 B. Pourriture noire Oui/Non 427 C. Les pourridiés Oui/Non 428 D. Swollen shoot Oui/Non 429 E. Chancre Oui/Non 430 Autre préciser……………………….. Oui/Non 431 Quand avez-vous connu ce(s) cas de maladie (s) ? Actuellement présente / moins de 3 mois / entre 3 mois et 1 an / Un an et plus 432 Comment votre production de cacao de 2017-2018 a-t-elle été affectée par ce(s) cas de maladie (s) ? Légère perte / Moyenne perte / perte importante 433 Quelles sont les mesures/actions que vous avez prises face à cette situation ? Traitement phytosanitaire/ Arrachage des plants / aucune action / autre 434 Avez-vous bénéficié d’une assistance/appui pour la gestion de cette(s) maladie (s) Oui/Non 435 Pour quelle maladie avez-vous reçu de l’assistance/appui ? Pourriture brune / Pourriture noire / les pourridies / Swollen shoot / chancre / autre 436 De la part de qui principalement? Parents,amis,proches / ANADER / CCC/ Cooperative / Prestataire, societe privee / ONG, partenaire / autre 437 Comment-jugeriez-vous l’utilité pour vous de l’appui dont vous avez bénéficié pour la gestion de la maladie Inutile/ Insuffisant / Satisfaisant / Très utile / Indispensable Nuisibles/ravageurs s’attaquant au cacao 438 Quel (s) cas de nuisibles/ravageurs s’attaquant au cacao avez-vous déjà connu ? 439 A. Loranthus Oui/Non 440 B. Akate / punaise verte Oui/Non 441 C. des mirides Oui/Non 442 D. des fourmis noires Oui/Non 443 E. des termites Oui/Non 444 F. des rongeurs Oui/Non 445 G. Foreuse de tige Oui/Non 446 H. Mousse verte Oui/Non 447 I. Inconnu / non-identifie Oui/Non 448 X. Autre préciser……………………….. Oui/Non 449 Quand avez-vous connu ce(s) cas de nuisibles/rongeurs (s) ? Actuellement présente / moins de 3 mois / entre 3 mois et 1 an/ Un an et plus 450 Comment votre production de cacao de 2017-2018 a-t-elle été affectée par ce(s) cas de nuisible (s) ? Légère perte / Moyenne perte / perte importante 451 Quelles sont les mesures/actions que vous avez prises face à cette situation ? Traitement phytosanitaire/ Arrachage des plants / aucune action / autre 452 Avez-vous bénéficié d’une assistance/appui pour la gestion de ce(s) nuisible (s) Oui/Non 453 De la part de qui principalement? Parents,amis,proches / ANADER / CCC/ Cooperative / Prestataire, societe privee / ONG, partenaire / autre 454 Comment- jugeriez-vous l’utilité pour vous de l’appui dont vous avez bénéficié pour la gestion de ce ravageur ? Inutile/ Insuffisant / Satisfaisant / très utile / Indispensable SECTION 5 : EVALUATION DE LA QUALITE DU CACAO Je voudrais vous poser des questions sur la Récolte, Fermentation, Séchage, stockage du cacao Q500 Questions Codes 501 Avez-vous récolté du cacao pendant la saison 2017/2018 ? Oui/Non 502 Combien de fois avez-vous récolté du cacao pendant la saison 2017/2018 ? # 503 A quelle fréquence récoltez-vous votre cacao habituellement ? Avant chaque semaine / Chaque quinzaine strictement / quand on estime que c'est le moment / selon la disponibilite des travailleurs / autre 504 Avez-vous effectué l’écabossage du cacao l’an dernier ? Oui/Non 505 Combien de fois avez-vous effectué l’écabossage de votre cacao l’an dernier ? # 506 Après la récolte des cabosses, combien de jours attendez-vous avant d’effectuer l’écabossage pour retirer les fèves ? # 507 A quel moment l’ecabossage est-il effectué habituellement ? Au maximum 7 jours après récolte / Parfois au-dela de 7 jours apres recolte / quand on estime que c'est le moment / selon la disponibilite des travailleurs / autre 508 Avez-vous effectué la fermentation des fèves de cacao l’an dernier ? Oui/Non 509 Dans quoi mettez-vous vos fèves de cacao pour qu’elles fermentent ? sac riz / feuilles de bananiers (paniers / tapis / boite a fermentation / ne sait pas / autre 510 Combien de jours laissez-vous les fèves de cacao fermenter ? # 511 Quelle est la durée de la fermentation que vous pratiquez habituellement? Moins de 6 jours / Entre 6 et 7 jours / Entre 7 et 10 jours / quand on estime que c'est suffisant / autre 512 Votre cacao a-t-il été séché l’an dernier ? Oui/Non 513 Combien de jours faites-vous sécher les fèves de cacao ? # 514 Dans quoi mettez-vous vos fèves de cacao pour les faire sécher ? Sur le goudron au soleil / sur claie et au soleil / sur des baches/plastiques au soleil / autre 515 Comment les fèves de cacao séchées sont-elles stockées ? Dans des sacs et dans un magasin avec les produits phytosanitaires / Sacs en jute dans un endroit sans aeration / sacs en jutes loin de la fumee et des produits phytosanitaires dans un endroit aere SECTION 6 : INTERRACTIONS AVEC LES AUTRES ACTEURS DE LA CHAINE DES VALEURS Accès au crédit/ compte bancaire, types d’appuis reçus au cours des 3 dernières années, Formations/coaching reçus, circuit de commercialisation Q60 0 Questions Codes Possédez-vous (quelqu'un dans le ménage ou planteur personnellement) un de ces comptes ? 601 A. Compte Bancaire Oui/Non 602 B. Compte dans une microfinance Oui/Non 603 C. Compte Mobile Money Oui/Non 604 D. Aucun compte Oui/Non 605 X. Autre à préciser …………………… Oui/Non 606 Avez-vous bénéficié d’un prêt financier d’une quelconque organisation au cours des 3 dernières années ? Oui/Non Quelle organisation était l’auteur de ce prêt ? 607 A. Institution Bancaire Oui/Non 608 B. Microfinance Oui/Non 609 C. Coopérative Oui/Non 610 D. Collectivité locale Oui/Non 611 E. Particuliers Oui/Non 612 X. Autre à préciser …………………… Oui/Non 613 Quel est le montant maximal qui vous a été prêté au cours des 3 dernières années ? (en une fois, en FCFA) # Avez-vous bénéficié d’un quelconque appui d’une de ces organisations au cours des 3 dernières années ? 614 A. Institution Bancaire Oui/Non 615 B. Microfinance Oui/Non 616 C. Coopérative Oui/Non 617 D. Collectivité locale Oui/Non 618 E. ONG internationale Oui/Non 619 F. Collectivité locale Oui/Non 620 G. ANADER Oui/Non 621 H. CNRA Oui/Non 622 I. CCC Oui/Non 623 J. Compagnie Privée Oui/Non 624 X. Autre préciser………………………………….. Oui/Non Pour chaque organisation qui a fourni un appui (réponse Oui), quel(s) type(s) d'appui avez-vous reçu ? 625 A. Mise à disposition de plants Oui/Non 626 B. Formation/conseils en PBA Oui/Non 627 C. Coaching permanent Oui/Non 628 D. Gestion /finances Oui/Non 629 E. Mise à disposition de matériels Oui/Non 630 F. Qualité/Certification Oui/Non 631 X. Autre préciser………………………………….. |__| Oui/Non 632 Comment commercialisez-vous principalement vos produits ? A des pisteurs particuliers / A la coopérative / au plus offrant / autre 633 Quel mode de paiement est utilisé principalement lors de la transaction avec vos acheteurs ? Paiement cash sur place / paiement cash différé / transfert mobile money / virement bancaire / autre ANNEX 3. FOCUS GROUP DISCUSSIONS GUIDELINES Farmer FGDs - KII data entry form - Baseline October 2018 - Maximizing Opportunities for Cocoa Activity (MOCA) Facilitator Name(s): CNFA production zone: Region: Community/Village: Cooperative: Date: # of participants # of male participants # of female participants Introduction Nous travaillons pour KIT, un institut de connaissance indépendant basé à Amsterdam. On nous a demandé de mener une étude de base pour un nouveau programme sur le cacao, appelé MOCA, financé par le gouvernement des États-Unis et le CNFA. On vous invite a repondre a nos questions et de donner votre avis sur les sujets concernant le cacao. Notes Check Time: 100 minutes Total time: Process: Ask if the identity and contact details of the respondent can be shared Yes/No CHANGEMENTS Sujet de discussion Aller en profondeur, demander des détails Maintenant / aujourd'hui Il y a 5 ans Raisons du changement? Institution Note Futur Demander pourquoi/pourquoi pas; comment; pour ou par qui Decriere la situation actuelle Decrire la situation il y a 5 ans/ avant Tony's ou avant d'integrer la cooperative Essayer de saisir a qui le changement est attribue Quelle(s) institution(s ) vous soutiens? 1 negatif, 2 pas de changemen t/mix, 3 positif Comment la situation peut etre ameliore? Par qui? Productivite Produits Phyto (Pesticide, fongicide) Accès, utilisation, donné/acheté, type, biologique/chimique Engrais Accès, utilisation, donné/acheté, type, biologique/chimique Équipement (machète, bottes, pulvérisateu r) Accès, utilisation, donné/acheté, type Pépiniere/se mences Acces, utilisation, donné/acheté, type Maladies du cacao Augmentation/dimin ution, type CHANGEMENTS Sujet de discussion Aller en profondeur, demander des détails Maintenant / aujourd'hui Il y a 5 ans Raisons du changement? Institution Note Futur Demander pourquoi/pourquoi pas; comment; pour ou par qui Decriere la situation actuelle Decrire la situation il y a 5 ans/ avant Tony's ou avant d'integrer la cooperative Essayer de saisir a qui le changement est attribue Quelle(s) institution(s ) vous soutiens? 1 negatif, 2 pas de changemen t/mix, 3 positif Comment la situation peut etre ameliore? Par qui? Formation Recue, a quelle frequence, si appliquee. Si non appliquée, pourquoi pas? Dans quel endroit? Ferme￾ecole? Etes-vous toujours informes? Par qui? (Cooperative ou autres) Production Augmentation (due a une augmentation de la plantation ou augmentation de la productivite)/Diminu tion Qualite Et la qualite? Diversificati on/plantatio n mixte Augmentation/dimin ution, types de diversification/ est-il important de diversifer? CHANGEMENTS Sujet de discussion Aller en profondeur, demander des détails Maintenant / aujourd'hui Il y a 5 ans Raisons du changement? Institution Note Futur Demander pourquoi/pourquoi pas; comment; pour ou par qui Decriere la situation actuelle Decrire la situation il y a 5 ans/ avant Tony's ou avant d'integrer la cooperative Essayer de saisir a qui le changement est attribue Quelle(s) institution(s ) vous soutiens? 1 negatif, 2 pas de changemen t/mix, 3 positif Comment la situation peut etre ameliore? Par qui? Credit/facilit es de pret Groupes d'epargne et credit/ acces au credit Cooperative Comment fonction la cooperative? Satisfait des services? Prime/bonu s de cacao (montant) Recevez-vous un bonus ou une prime pour votre cacao? Expliquer les raisons pour lesquelles une prime est recue? Rappel des projets Durée: 45 minutes Ask for all previous interventions that took place in the passed 5 years Note down as many as possible time wise. Focus as much as possible on cocoa/agriculture projects. Nom du projet Secteur Nom(s) de(s) initiateur(s) Type d'initiateur Description du projet (opbreken) Date(s) de- a Impact Evaluation de l'impact Si ils ne connaisent pas le nom, demander l'objectif Agriculture (cacao/non cacao), eau, sante, infrastructure, education, autre Notez tout les noms qui sont mentionner en tant que organisations qui ont initier ce projet Gouvernement, ONG- non religieuse, ONG religieuse, Entreprise, Cooperative, propre initiative, autre Qui sont les principales beneficaires? Quelles etait les actions? Quelles etait les resultats? Quand es ce que le projet a commence? Duree? Frequence Negative= 1, pas d'impact= 2, Positive=3, tres positive= 4 Raison de l'impact. Explication de la note Meilleur projet? Quelle projet etait le meilleur? Et pourquoi? 253 | MAXIMIZING OPPORTUNITIES IN COCOA ACTIVITY BASELINE EVALUATION REPORT CNFA.ORG Quelle est (approximativement) la composition en termes d'âge? # of male members < 35 years # of male members > 35 years # of female members < 35 years # of female members > 35 years Quelle est la composition du conseil d'administration de la coopérative? # males/# females Quelle est la composition du personnel la cooperative (management staff)? # males/# females Volume of production Quelle est la production totale en volume de cacao achetée par la coopérative en 2017/2018? Metric Tonnes La coopérative achète-t-elle uniquement le cacao de ses membres ? yes/no Si non, quelle est la part (en %) des fèves de cacao achetées des membres par rapport aux non-membres? estimate share in % La coopérative achète-t-elle tout le cacao produit par ses membres? yes/no Si non, quelle part la coopérative achète-t-elle à la production totale de cacao des membres? estimated share in % Quality Est-ce que tout le cacao que vous achetez aux membres est de qualité suffisante? yes/no La coopérative rejette-t-elle (une partie des) fèves de cacao de ses membres en raison de sa qualité insuffisante? yes/no Quelle est la part totale des fèves de cacao que la coopérative refuse, car les exigences de qualité ne sont pas satisfaites? estimated share in % Certification Is the cooperative certified? yes/no If so, which one(s)? Fairtrade, UTZ, RA, Organic, Company Sustainability Programme (e.g. CocoaLife, CocoaPlan, CocoaPromise), none (more options possible) What percentage of the cocoa bought by the cooperative is sold as UTZ/Rainforest or Fairtrade in 2017/2018? estimate share in % What percentage of the cocoa bought by the cooperative is sold as organic in 2017/2018? estimate share in % What percentage of the cocoa bought by the cooperative is sold as part of company sustainable programme in 2017/2018? estimate share in % What percentage of the cocoa bought by the cooperative is sold as conventional (non-certified or non-verified) in 2017/2018? estimate share in % Yields What is the average land size of the cooperative members used for cocoa production? # hectares How does the cooperative measure/estimate land size? GPS, poles, measuring tape, self￾reported What is the average productivity per hectare? kgs/ha Export In 2017/2018 , what was the total volume of beans sold by the cooperative? # in MT In 2017/2018, what was the average price received per MT beans? # in MT In 2017/2018, what were the total revenues of the cooperative? estimate # in CFA In 2017/2018, to whom did the cooperative sell the beans? exporter/traitant/processor/chocolate manufacturer/other (more options possible) Does the cooperative usually work with fixed contract in terms of tonnage? (per contract) yes/no Does the cooperative usually work with fixed contract in terms of price? (per contract) yes/no What is the average duration of a contract with a buyer? 1 cocoa season, 2,3 or more In 2017/2018, did the cooperative have any difficulties complying with the contract(s) they had? don't know/yes/no Do you process currently (part of the) cocoa beans into cocoa products or chocolate? yes/no Do you have concrete plans to start processing beans in the coming 2 years? yes/no Do you have concrete plans to start chocolate making in the coming 2 years? yes/no Other crops Do you trade other crops besides cocoa for your members? yes/no If so, which crops? List of options (more options possible): include coffee, cashew, palm oil, rubber, cassava, maize, vegetables, fruits, other Finance Does the cooperative make an financial annual planning? don't know/yes/no In 2017/2018 what kind of income sources/revenues did the cooperative have? don't know/marketing margins/premiums/membership fees/savings/service payment/grants/other (more options possible) In 2017/2018, what was the main source of revenue? don't know/marketing margins/premiums/membership fees/savings/service payment/grants/other (more options possible) In 2017/2018 did your cooperative receive any in￾kind grants (e.g. equipment and inputs)? yes/no In 2017/2018, were your actual income sources in line with the cooperatives' financial planning? don't know/yes/no if no, were your actual income sources in 2017/2018 higher or lower than planned? higher/lower In 2017/2017 what kind of expenditures did the cooperative have? don't know/cooperative costs//service delivery/community development/cash premium to farmers/debt-repayment/other (more options possible) What were in 2017/2018 the main expenditures of your cooperatives? (more options) don't know/cooperative costs//service delivery/community development/cash premium to farmers/debt-repayment/other (more options possible) In 2017/2018 did your cooperative invest in a matching grant for the purchase of inputs and/or equipment> any in-kind grants (e.g. equipment and inputs)? don't know/yes/no In 2017/2018 did your cooperative have any savings? yes/no In 2017/2018 did the cooperative have any outstanding debts or loans? yes/no In 2017/2018, were your actual expenditures in line with the cooperatives' financial planning? don't know/yes/no if no, were your actual expenditures in 2017/2018 higher or lower than planned? higher/lower Have you ever defaulted on your loan repayment? don't know/yes/no When was the last time you defaulted? year Capacity assessment How many trainers/extension workers do you currently employ? # number What is the number of male trainers/extension workers? # males What is the number of female trainers/extension workers? # females Does the cooperative have access to a service provision unit that operates in its zone? yes/no The last three years, did the cooperative management receive any training to improve its management skills? yes/no The last three years, did the cooperative management receive any training related to certification? yes/no The last three years, did the cooperative management receive any training related to gender equality? yes/no The last three years, did the cooperative management receive any training related to child labour? yes/no Does your cooperative participate in CLMRS - Child Labour Monitoring and Remediation System? yes/no Service delivery to members - 2017/2018 season Categories Training Did the cooperative provide training to its members in 2017/2018? yes/no On what topic(s)? GAP/GEP/FBS/IPM/Child labour/diversification/savings/nut rition/gender/certification/other (more options possible) If yes, how frequently did you give the training to the members in 2017/2018? # What was the duration of the training? 1-2 days, 3-5 days, 5-10 days, 10+ days Where did the training take place? Office/demonstration-plot/on farm/other Did the cooperative provide this training for free? yes/no/partly What was the condition for providing the training? no condition/membership of cooperative/selling all cocoa to cooperative/on credit/other (more options possible) Last cocoa season, were there other actors that trained members of your cooperative? don't know/yes/no Provision of inputs In 2017/2018 did the cooperative provide any of the following inputs to its members: chemical fertilizer: yes/no organic fertilizer (manure): yes/no pesticides: yes/no fungicides: yes/no herbicides: yes/no weedicides: yes/no If yes, are they provided for free? yes/partly/no What was the condition for providing the input? no condition/membership of cooperative/selling all cocoa to cooperative/on credit/other (more options possible) In 2017/2018 were there other actors that provided inputs to your members? don't know/yes/no If yes, who was involved ? ANADER/CCC/Pisteur/NGO/Comp any/Certifier/other (more options possible) what input? chemical fertilizer/organic fertilizer/pesticides/fungicides/he rbicides/weedicides/other (more options possible) In 2017/2018 did the cooperative provide pruning services to its members? yes/no If yes, are these services provided for free? yes/partly/no What was the condition for providing pruning services no condition/membership of cooperative/selling all cocoa to cooperative/on credit/other (more options possible) In 2017/2018 were there other actors that provided pruning services to the cooperative members? don't know/yes/no If yes, who was involved ? ANADER/CCC/Pisteur/NGO/Comp any/Farmer or labour group/other (more options possible) In 2017/2018 did the cooperative provide spraying services? yes/no If yes, are these services provided for free? yes/partly/no What was the condition for providing spraying services? no condition/membership of cooperative/selling all cocoa to cooperative/on credit/other (more options possible) In 2017/2018 were there other actors that provided spraying services to the cooperative members? don't know/yes/no If yes, who was involved ? ANADER/CCC/Pisteur/NGO/Comp any/Certifier/farmer or labour group/other (more options possible) Nursery Does the cooperative manage a cocoa nursery? yes/no Does the cooperative provide seedlings to members? yes/no What kinds of seedlings Mercedez/Ghana/French/Hybrid/ Fine flavour/Others (more options possible) If yes, are these seedlings provided for free? yes/partly/no What was the condition for providing seedlings? no condition/membership of cooperative/selling all cocoa to cooperative/on credit/other (more options possible) In 2017/2018, were there other actors that provided seedlings to your members? yes/no If yes, who was involved ? ANADER/CCC/Pisteurs/NGO/Com pany/Certifier/community nursery/other (more options possible) what types of varieties? Mercedez/Ghana/French/Hybrid/ Fine flavour/others (more options possible) In 2017/2018 did your cooperative provide seedlings for shade trees to your members? yes/no If yes, are these seedlings provided for free? yes/no/partly in 2017/2018 did your cooperative provide any other seedlings to your members? yes/no What kind of seedlings? vegetables/fruits/other Is yes, are these seedlings provided for free? yes/no/partly Transport and storage In 2017/2018 did you provide transport and storage services to your members in 2017/2018? yes/no If yes, did the cooperative provide this service for free? yes/no/partly What was the condition for provising transport and/or storage services no condition/membership of cooperative/selling all cocoa to cooperative/on credit/other (more options possible) Financial services Did you provide any financial services to your members in 2017/2018? yes/no What kind of services? small loan/input on credit/saving groups/mobile savings/mobile payment/other (more options possible) Under what conditions? no condition/membership of cooperative/selling all cocoa to cooperative/on credit/other (more options possible) Marketing services Do you buy all the cocoa from your members? yes/no If not, why? No funds/no market/quality issues/other Do you also buy other (non-cocoa) crops from your members? yes/no Do you pay a cash premium (certification) to all your members? yes/no/only to part of members If yes/part, in which month do you pay the premium? Jan/Feb/March/Apr/May/June/Jul y/Aug/Sept/Oct/Nov/Dec community projects Does your cooperative invest in any community projects dans votre zone d'activite? yes/no What type of projects? education/health&hygiene/water/ child labour/food&safety/income generation/employment/other SMEs - KII data entry form - Baseline October 2018 - Maximizing Opportunities for Cocoa Activity (MOCA) Facilitator Name(s): Name of business: Name of respondent(s): Function of respondent(s): Contact details (phone and/or email): Region: Community/Village: Date: Geolocation: We work for KIT, which is an independent knowledge institute. We have been asked to conduct a baseline study for a new cocoa programme, called MOCA, financed by the US government and CNFA. Because you have first￾hand knowledge on the research topic of interest you are invited to participate in this interview. Time: 30 minutes Total time: Process: Ask if the identity and contact details of the respondent can be shared Yes/No Fact sheet - about the SME 2017 Introduction Categories What is your core business? agrodealer/financial service supplier/business development services/other Since when are you operational? year Since when are you operational in this community/district? year What is your area coverage? zone/region/district/country/regional/global Sales Do you sell any products? yes/no if yes, what kinds of products do you sell? inputs/equipment/financial products/other Last year, what was your total volumes of sales? # in CFA Last year, what was the total value of your sales? estimate # in CFA last year, which product generated most value for your business? inputs/equipment/financial products/other Services Do you provide any services? yes/no if yes, what kinds of services do you provide? capacity development/financial services/input distribution/advisory services/transport services/labour services/land services/storage services/other (more options possible) Last year, what was the total payment received for your services provided? # in CFA Last year, what was the total value of your service provision? estimate # in CFA last year, which service generated most value for your business? capacity development/financial services/input distribution/advisory services/transport services/labour services/land services/storage services/other (more options possible) Labour costs In 2017, how many people were fulltime employed in your business? # In 2017, how many people were partime employed in your business? # What was the composition of employees? # of men < 35 years # of men > 35 years # of women < 35 years # of women > 35 years In 2017, did you have any temporary/seasonal workers? yes/no How many? Costs and revenues Last year, what were your total expenses? estimate # in CFA Last year, what type of expenses did you have? transport/storage/purchase price of products/rent/salaries/wages/interest on loan/other (more options possible) Last year, what was your largest type of expenses? transport/storage/purchase price of products/rent/salaries/wages/interest on loan/other (more options possible) Last year, what were your total revenues? estimate # in CFA Last year, what types of revenues did you have? sales of products/payment for services/interest/loan/grant/other (more options possible) Last year, what was your largest type of revenues? sales of products/payment for services/interest/loan/grant/other (more options possible) In 2017, did you make any profit? yes/no In 2017, what was your actual profit? estimate # in CFA Customers In 2017, what was the total number of clients? # How much of your client base is women? estimate % How much of your client base is <35 years? estimate % Fact sheet - about the processor 2017 Introduction Categories What is your core business? processing cocoa beans/manufacturing cocoa beans/trading cocoa beans/exporting cocoa beans/other (more options possible) Since when are you operational? year Since when are you operational in this community/district? year What is your area coverage? zone/region/district/country/regional/glob al Processing capacity What is your annual processing capacity? beans in MT What was last cocoa season the volume of beans processed? beans in MT What was last cocoa season the volume of beans bought? beans in MT Sourcing Where do you source your beans from? direct from farmers/cooperatives/pisteurs/traitants/int ernational companies/other (different options possible) In 2017, what price did you pay per MT of beans? # CFA Do you usually work with a fixed contract with your supplier? yes/no if yes, what is usually fixed in these contracts? price/tonnage/duration/quality/other (more options possible) Do you source certified cocoa beans? yes/no If yes, what type of certification? Fairtrade,UTZ/RA, Organic, Company Sustainability Programme), other (more options possible) If yes, do you pay a premium for certified beans to your suppliers? yes/no If yes, how much premium for you per MT # CFA Sales To whom do you sell your end product? processor/chocolate maker/trader/exporter other (more options possible) Last year, what was your total volumes of sales? # in MT Last year, what was your selling price? # per MT Last year, what was the total value of your sales? estimate in # CFA Services Do you provide any services? yes/no if yes, what kinds of services do you provide? capacity development/financial services/input distribution/advisory services/transport services/labour services/land services/storage services/other (more options possible) Last year, what was the total payment received for your services provided? # in CFA Last year, what was the total value of your service provision? estimate # in CFA last year, which service generated most value for your business? capacity development/financial services/input distribution/advisory services/transport services/labour services/land services/storage services/other (more options possible) Labour costs In 2017, how many people were fulltime employed in your business? # In 2017, how many people were parttime employed in your business? # What was the composition of employees? # of men < 35 years # of men > 35 years # of women < 35 years # of women > 35 years In 2017, did you have any temporary/seasonal workers? yes/no How many? Costs and revenues Last year, what were your total expenses? estimate # in CFA Last year, what type of expenses did you have? transport/storage/purchase price of products/rent/salaries/wages/interest on loan/other (more options possible) Last year, what was your largest type of expenses? transport/storage/purchase price of products/rent/salaries/wages/interest on loan/other (more options possible) Last year, what were your total revenues? estimate # in CFA Last year, what types of revenues did you have? sales of products/payment for services/interest/loan/grant/other (more options possible) Last year, what was your largest type of revenues? sales of products/payment for services/interest/loan/grant/other (more options possible) In 2017, did you make any profit? yes/no In 2017, what was your actual profit? estimate # in CFA Customers In 2017, what was the total number of customers? # Do you usually work with a fixed contract with your customers? yes/no if yes, what is usually fixed in these contracts? price/tonnage/duration/quality/other (more options possible) Do you sell certified cocoa beans? yes/no If yes, what type of certification? Fairtrade,UTZ/RA, Organic, Company Sustainability Programme), other (more options possible) If yes, does your customer pay a premium for certified beans? yes/no If yes, how much premium do your customers pay for certified beans per MT? # CFA