Aybar Performance Evaluation 
Broadbed and Furrow Maker in Ethiopia
SECURING WATER FOR FOOD
AUGUST 2019
Prepared By: Mohammed Ogeto (Assistant Professor of Agricultural Economics and Agribusiness) 
Haramaya University, Ethiopia 
The Kaizen Company | Contract #: AID-OAA-C-15-00011 
www.securingwaterforfood.org | securingwaterforfood@gmail.com
TABLE OF CONTENTS
ABSTRACT 2
INTRODUCTION 3
BACKGROUND 5
Gender 5
Farm Size 6
Farmer’s Experience 7
Other Occupations or Sources of Income 7
Family Size 7
METHODOLOGY 9
Sample Selection 10
RESULTS 11
EXPERIENCE WITH INNOVATOR 12
BENEFITS OF INNOVATION 13
Agricultural Activities Benefits 13
Water Benefits 14
Crop Benefits 14
Income Benefits 18
Poverty Reduction Benefits 18
Gender Differences 19
Regional Differences 20
Comparison between latest Innovator M&E and latest SWFF M&E 20
DISCUSSION 21
Usage/Availability 23
Crop Yield/Survival 24
Changes in Income 25
Gender Differences 26
Affordability 26
Other Benefits 27
Impact on Poverty 28
Benefits of Innovation on Community 29
Comparison of latest innovator M&E statistics with latest SWFF M&E statistics 30
CONCLUSION 31
REFERENCES 33
ANNEX 1 35
2 SECURING WATER FOR FOOD: AYBAR PERFORMANCE EVALUATION | AUGUST 2019
Aybar Broad Bed and Furrow Maker was a Securing Water For Food (SWFF) supported agricultural 
innovation project targeting the pressing challenge of waterlogging in Vertisols of Ethiopia. This report 
presents impact analysis results conducted in July and August, 2019, in West Shewa Zone of Oromia 
National Regional State in Ethiopia. Farmers have been using the innovation for four years.
A total of 50 end users (46 male and four female) of the innovation were individually interviewed from 
nine villages in West Shewa Zone. In consultation with West Shewa Zone Bureau of Agriculture, the lists of 
innovation adopting villages were identified. Accordingly, nine villages were purposively selected from the 
zone and used for this performance evaluation study. Data was collected on farm information, income, 
expenditures, and perceptions on the innovation. Gender observations and questions raised by respondents 
also are included in this report.
Wheat and Teff are cereals mainly grown in the study area. However, Aybar Broad Bed and Furrow Maker 
(Aybar BBM) is solely used for growing wheat. Following adoption of the innovation, row-planting of Teff 
is practiced. The mean farm size of sampled respondents is six acres with minimum and maximum sizes 
of 1.23 acres and 14.82 acres, respectively. After the innovation, the average yield of wheat increased by 
115 percent (from 0.26 MT/acre to 0.57 MT/acre). The average annual farm income of end users before 
the innovation was 10,313 Ethiopian Birr (ETB) (approximately USD 362). It increased to 24,155 ETB 
(approximately USD 847) after the innovation. Despite reduced waterlogging, no crop diversification is 
practiced due to the innovation. Reducing the unit price of Aybar BBM (currently USD 12) and an adequate 
supply of the innovation that can be used for other crops other than wheat are requested by end users 
in the study area. Strong commitment is needed by the innovator and higher officials in the Ministry of 
Agriculture to resolve the indirect and controlled supply of the innovation to end users in the study area. 
Otherwise, continued dissemination of the innovation is challenging. 
ABSTRACT
SECURING WATER FOR FOOD: AYBAR PERFORMANCE EVALUATION | AUGUST 2019 3
INTRODUCTION
4 SECURING WATER FOR FOOD: AYBAR PERFORMANCE EVALUATION | AUGUST 2019
Ethiopia has a total population of 112,078,730 and is ranked 12th in the world and 2nd in Africa 
after Nigeria, with a population of 200,963,599. Oromia National Regional State has the largest 
population in Ethiopia with an estimated population of 38.36 million in 2019 (World Population 
Prospects, 2019). Rainfed mixed-agriculture by smallholders constitutes the dominant share of 
Ethiopia’s economic sectors in foreign exchange earnings and employment opportunities for the 
growing population. The country achieved a 10 percent increase in public investment in agriculture, 
a target set by the African Union Comprehensive Africa Agricultural Development Program (CAADP) 
and marked as among major successes (The World Fact Book, 2016).
Less than three percent of farmers have access to small-scale irrigation in Ethiopia. This figure is 
less than one percent for cereal acreage. Land degradation and the erratic nature of rainfall are 
exacerbating the impacts of climate on smallholder rainfed subsistence farmers in the country. 
Increasing the application of fertilizers to 95 percent of wheat farm lands increased yield per 
hectare only by 3.38 percent. Low quality and insufficient quantities of fertilizers are the challenges 
in Ethiopia (Mann and Warner, 2017). According to Minot et al. (2015), 4.7 million farmers grow 
wheat on 1.6 million hectares of land, constituting 18 percent of the total cropped area in Ethiopia. 
Lower productivity of crops in Ethiopia is due to waterlogging on Vertisols, inadequacy of inputs, 
soil degradation, and declining soil fertility. Central highland Vertisols in Ethiopia cover about 7.6 
million hectares, and vulnerability to water logging is a challenge among smallholder farmers 
(Adamu, 2018). The Aybar BBM was developed to address the Vertisols waterlogging problem in 
the central highlands of Ethiopia. Due to waterlogging of Vertisols, less than 2 million hectares of the 
approximately 7.6 million hectares of the highlands are cultivated. The innovation reduced water 
logging by constructing broad beds and furrows that drain excess water from the fields. As a result 
of excess water draining from the fields, the Aybar BBM increased crop yield. 
An impact assessment was carried out by a Field Evaluator in July and August, 2019, by 
interviewing 50 farmers that are using Aybar BBM in West Shewa Zone of Oromia National 
Regional State in Ethiopia. The Fulcrum mobile application, supported by GPS system, was used 
to store interview responses. The main purpose of this assessment was to identify the benefits, 
limitations, and impacts for farmers using Aybar BBM innovation. 
SECURING WATER FOR FOOD: AYBAR PERFORMANCE EVALUATION | AUGUST 2019 5
A total of 50 interviews were conducted from nine villages in West Shewa Zone of Oromia National 
Regional State, Ethiopia. All interviews were conducted individually, with no group interviews used 
for this study. In consultation with the West Shewa Zone Bureau of Agriculture and considering the 
proportion of Aybar BBM innovation end users in each village in the study area, availability sampling 
technique was used to select sample respondents. Accordingly, 80 percent of the respondents were 
selected from four major Aybar BBM adopting villages: Sarawa Debissa (24 percent), Chalalaka 
Bobe (22 percent), Qella Imbortu (20 percent), and Simbo Goro (14 percent). The Fulcrum mobile 
application, supported by GPS system, was used to store interview responses. Due to respondents’ 
refusal for audio recording, photos are used for documentation in this study. 
The survey questionnaire has four major parts and one other component. These are farmer 
information, income and expenditures, and perceptions on the innovation. Each section has its 
respective questions. The last section mainly constitutes three issues. These are poverty, gender 
observation, and questions/requests by the respondents. Information gathered from each section 
was used to achieve the objectives of this field report.
Gender 
From a total of 50 respondents, 92 percent (46) are male and eight percent (four) are female. This 
is in accordance with information obtained from the West Shewa Zone Bureau of Agriculture in 
which the number of male Aybar BBM end users is significantly higher than female end users. Clear 
reason for this disparity was not provided (Figure 1).
FIGURE 1. GENDER DISTRIBUTION OF THE 
SAMPLED RESPONDENTS (%) IN THE STUDY AREA
N=50
92%
8%
SEX OF THE SAMPLED RESPONDENTS (%) 
IN THE STUDY AREA
Female
Male
BACKGROUND
6 SECURING WATER FOR FOOD: AYBAR PERFORMANCE EVALUATION | AUGUST 2019
Farm Size 
The local land measurement unit in the study area is called ‘Qarxii’ and has different conversion 
rates to hectare (ha). Three types of land conversation rates are identified during the survey in the 
selected villages. These are 4 Qarxii = 1 hectare, 5 Qarxii = 1 hectare, and 6 Qarxii = 1 hectare. Each 
village’s respective conversion rate is used to record the farm size in hectares for this study. The 
mean farm size of sampled respondents is 2.42 hectares [six acres] with minimum and maximum 
farm sizes of 0.5 hectare [1.23 acres] and six hectares [14.82 acres], respectively (Table 1).
 TABLE 1. FARM SIZE OF SAMPLED RESPONDENTS: DESCRIPTIVE STATISTICS
OBS MINIMUM MAXIMUM MEAN STD. DEV VARIANCE
Total land (in ha) 50 .50 6.00 2.42 1.36811 1.872
A t-test statistic is estimated to identify mean farm size difference between male and female 
end users of the innovation. The mean farm size owned by female respondents is 2.125 hectares 
[5.25 acres], and it is lower than the sample average of 2.42 hectares [six acres]. In contrast, the 
average farm size owned by male respondents is 2.445 hectares [6.04 acres], and it is higher than 
the sample average. Statistically, there is no significant difference in farm size between female and 
male respondents (Table 2).
 TABLE 2. FARM SIZE COMPARISON: TWO-SAMPLE T-TEST WITH EQUAL VARIANCE
GROUP OBS MEAN STD. ERR STD.DEV [95% CONF INTERVAL]
Female 4 2.125 .590727 1.181454 .2450432 4.004957
Male 46 2.445 .205185 1.39163 2. 032388 2. 858917
Combined 50 2.42 .19348 1.368114 2.031186 2.808814
 diff -.320652 .719081 -1.766462 1.125158
 diff = mean (Female) - mean (Male) t = -0.4459
H0 : diff = 0 degrees of freedom = 48
Ha : diff < 0 Ha : diff !=0 Ha : diff > 0
Pr (T < t) = 0.3288 Pr (└T┘ > └t┘ = 0.6577 Pr (T > t) = 0.6712 
SECURING WATER FOR FOOD: AYBAR PERFORMANCE EVALUATION | AUGUST 2019 7
Farmer’s Experience 
All the respondents indicated that farming is their primary occupation. Farming experience with the 
innovation ranges from two to four years in the study area. Those who adopted the innovation for 
three years constitute 42 percent (21), followed by two years by 36 percent (18), and four years by 
22 percent (11). Chalalaka Bobe, Sarawa Debissa, Qella Imbortu, Jamjam Lega Batu, and Kataa 
Handodee villages are the first end users of this innovation in the study area (Table 3). 
TABLE 3. FARMING EXPERIENCE WITH AYBAR 
BBM INNOVATION BY END USERS (IN YEARS)
USING AYBAR BBM
NAME OF THE VILLAGES 2-YEARS 3-YEARS 4-YEARS TOTAL
Chalalaka Bobe 3 (6%) 3 (6%) 5 (10%) 11 (22%)
Sarawa Debissa 9 (18%) 2 (4%) 1 (2%) 12 (24%)
Qella Imbortu 3 (6%) 5 (10%) 2 (4%) 10 (20%)
Fincha’a Godeti - 3 (6%) - 3 (6%)
Jamjam Lega Batu - 1 (2%) 2 (4%) 3 (6%)
Kataa Handodee - 1 (2%) 1 (2%) 2 (4%)
Simbo Goro 3 (6%) 4 (8%) - 7 (14%)
Goru Kurkufa - 1 (2%) - 1 (2%)
Ejersa Lafo - 1 (2%) - 1(2%)
Total 18 (36%) 21 (42%) 11 (22%) 50 (100%)
Other Occupations or Sources of Income 
All the sampled respondents have only one source of income from farming, and they are not 
engaged in other occupations. 
Family Size 
The mean family size of sampled respondents is six with a median value of six. The minimum and 
the maximum family sizes are two and 13, respectively (Table 4).
 TABLE 4. FAMILY SIZE OF RESPONDENTS: DESCRIPTIVE STATISTICS
OBS MEAN MEDIAN ST. DEV. VARIANCE MIN MAX
Total land (in ha) 50 6.02 6.00 2.607 6.796 2 13
8 SECURING WATER FOR FOOD: AYBAR PERFORMANCE EVALUATION | AUGUST 2019
SECURING WATER FOR FOOD: AYBAR PERFORMANCE EVALUATION | AUGUST 2019 9
METHODOLOGY
10 SECURING WATER FOR FOOD: AYBAR PERFORMANCE EVALUATION | AUGUST 2019
Sample Selection 
Due to unavailability of lists of the end users from the innovator, it is not possible to apply a random sampling 
technique for this impact evaluation study. This is mainly due to an approach followed to disseminate the 
innovation to final users in which the innovator does not directly distribute to the beneficiaries. This mandate 
is from the Regional Bureau of Agriculture and Rural Development that distributes the innovation to each 
Woreda as well as respective villages, even though it is difficult to identify the criterion used for distribution. 
After desk reviews, it is evident that the Aybar BBM is mainly disseminated in Oromia National 
Regional State of Ethiopia. Within Oromia region, the innovation is particularly distributed in central 
highland areas where water logging is a major constraint to crop production among smallholder 
farmers. In particular, the central highland areas are covered with Vertisols characterized by poor 
infiltration that exacerbate water logging. Information from the Ministry of Agriculture and Rural 
Development also indicates that the innovation is exclusively used for improved wheat growing. 
West Shewa Zone is among the major wheat producing areas in central highlands of Ethiopia and 
mainly covered with Vertisols. Besides, the Aybar BBM is mainly introduced in West Shewa Zone 
and the zone is purposively selected for this study. In consultation with West Shewa Zone Bureau 
of Agriculture, the list of innovation adopting villages was identified. Accordingly, nine villages were 
purposively selected from the zone and used for this study. The proportion of respondents from 
each village was determined by considering both the proportion of innovation end user and applying 
random availability sampling technique. The randomization is applied to avoid selection bias. 
A total of 50 end users of the innovation were individually interviewed from nine villages in West Shewa 
Zone. Due to the upcoming national election and farmer training, it was not possible to find all respondents 
in their field for the interview. Instead, for those who were not available in their field, farmer training centers 
were used to individually interview respondents. This was one of the major challenges for this survey. The 
other challenge was unwillingness of respondents to be audio recorded, perhaps due to the influence of 
the local political officials. Alternatively, photos of respondents were used for supportive evidence. 
The nine villages used for this study with their respective number of respondents are Chalalaka Bobe 
(11), Sarawa Debissa (12), Qella Imbortu (10), Fincha’a Godeti (three), Jamjam Lega Batu (three), 
Kataa Handodee (two), Simbo Goro (seven), Goru Kurkufa (one), and Ejersa Lafo (one). Only four of the 
sampled respondents are female.
Field evaluator’s first day visit to discuss with village leaders in Chalalaka Bobe
SECURING WATER FOR FOOD: AYBAR PERFORMANCE EVALUATION | AUGUST 2019 11
RESULTS
12 SECURING WATER FOR FOOD: AYBAR PERFORMANCE EVALUATION | AUGUST 2019
All 50 end users indicated that no new crops were introduced due to the innovation. Difficulties 
were experienced by respondents in using the innovation in the study area, and all respondents 
agreed that reduced use of water was due to the innovation. 
Eighty-eight percent (44) of the end users mentioned no improvement of access to credit due to the 
innovation in the study area. Hence, most (88 percent) finance their agricultural activities using their 
own savings. Only 10 percent (five) changed their irrigation system due to the innovation. In contrast, 
98 percent (49) noted that the innovation assisted them with when to plant (Table 5).
TABLE 5. CHALLENGES AND BENEFITS OF USING THE AYBAR BBM
FREQUENCY PERCENT
VALID 
PERCENT
CUMMULATIVE 
PERCENT
Access to credit 
Not Improved 44 88.0 88.0 88.0
Improved 6 12.0 12.0 100.0
Total 50 100.0 100.0
Financing agriculture 
Own Savings 44 88.0 88.0 88.0
Credit and saving 6 12.0 12.0 100.0
Total 50 100.0 100.0
New crops introduced
No 50 100.0 100.0 100.0
What crop to plant 
No 50 100.0 100.0 100.0
Difficulties of Aybar BBM
No 50 100.0 100.0 100.0
Reduced water use 
Yes 50 100.0 100.0 100.0
Change in irrigation 
No 45 90.0 90.0 90.0
Yes 5 10.0 10.0 100.0
Total 50 100.0 100.0
When to plant 
No 1 2.0 2.0 2.0
Yes 49 98.0 98.0 100
Total 50 100.0 100.0
EXPERIENCE WITH INNOVATOR
SECURING WATER FOR FOOD: AYBAR PERFORMANCE EVALUATION | AUGUST 2019 13
Agricultural Activities Benefits 
With a four month growing season for 
major cereals (wheat and Teff), end 
users of the innovation harvest twice a 
year in the study area. The innovation is 
used only for wheat growing. After the 
major crop harvest, farmers grow the 
second crop (mainly chickpea) using the 
residual moisture.
BENEFITS OF INNOVATION
Farming and Wheat field ploughed by Aybar BBM in West Shewa, Ethiopia
14 SECURING WATER FOR FOOD: AYBAR PERFORMANCE EVALUATION | AUGUST 2019
Water Benefits 
All the respondents indicated that wheat yield increased by using less water. This is attributed to the 
reduced water logging benefit of the innovation. Except one respondent, 98 percent (49) indicated 
improved water access due to the innovation in the study area (Table 6).
TABLE 6. ACCESS TO WATER DUE TO AYBAR BBM: FREQUENCY DISTRIBUTION
ACCESS TO WATER FREQUENCY PERCENT
VALID 
PERCENT
CUMMULATIVE 
PERCENT
Improved 49 98.0 98.0 98.0
Fundamentally improved 1 2.0 2.0 100.0
Total 50 100.0 100.0
Despite reduced water logging and increased access to water due to the innovation, the practice of 
water storage is not used by respondents in the study areas. Introducing small-scale water storage 
practices can possibly increase water use efficiency and improve people’s livelihood if practiced 
properly through consultation with professionals.
Crop Benefits 
Wheat and Teff are the two cereals grown in West Shewa Zone of Oromia National Regional State, 
Ethiopia. However, during the survey respondents indicated that the innovation is solely used for 
growing wheat. Row-planting of Teff, following adoption of Aybar BBM, is considered a secondary 
benefit. Yield level differences due to the innovation for both wheat and Teff are estimated. 
The average yield level of wheat in the study area before the innovation was 0.26 MT/acre (Figure 
2). After the innovation, the average yield level of wheat increased to 0.57 MT/acre (Figure 3). Due 
to the innovation, the average yield level of wheat increased by 115 percent in the study area.
SECURING WATER FOR FOOD: AYBAR PERFORMANCE EVALUATION | AUGUST 2019 15
FIGURE 2. AVERAGE YIELD LEVEL OF WHEAT (QUINTAL/HA) BEFORE THE INNOVATION
Mean = 13.26
Std. Dev. = 4.897
N = 50
20
15
10
5
AVERAGE YIELD LEVEL OF WHEAT (QUINTAL/HA) 
BEFORE THE INNOVATION
Mean = 13.26
Std. Dev. = 4.897
N = 50
FREQUENCY
2% 2%
16%
10%
2%
1% 1%
10%
6%
0
5.00 10.00 15.00 20.00 25.00 30.00 35.00
FIGURE 3. AVERAGE YIELD LEVEL OF WHEAT (QUINTAL/HA) AFTER THE INNOVATION
Mean = 28.58
Std. Dev. = 12.049
N = 50
12.5
10
7.5
5
2.5
AVERAGE YIELD LEVEL OF WHEAT (QUINTAL/HA) 
BEFORE THE INNOVATION
Mean = 28.58
Std. Dev. = 12.049
N = 50
FREQUENCY
2%
5%
14%
8%
5%
2%
3%
3%
8%
0
10.00 20.00 30.00 40.00 50.00 60.00 70.00
The average yield level of Teff before the innovation was 9.39 quintal/ha [0.18 MT/acre] (Figure 
4). After the introduction of row-planting, the average yield level of Teff was 16.55 quintal/ha 
[0.33 MT/acre] (Figure 5). The row-planting innovation increased the average yield level of Teff by 
76 percent in the study area.
16 SECURING WATER FOR FOOD: AYBAR PERFORMANCE EVALUATION | AUGUST 2019
FIGURE 4. AVERAGE YIELD LEVEL OF TEFF (QUINTAL/HA) 
BEFORE ROW-PLANTING INNOVATION
Mean = 9.39
Std. Dev. = 2.714
N = 40
12
10
8
6
4
2
AVERAGE YIELD LEVEL OF TEFF (QUINTAL/HA) 
BEFORE ROW-PLANTING INNOVATION
Mean = 9.39
Std. Dev. = 2.714
N = 40
FREQUENCY
11%
10%
6%
11%
1% 1%
0
7.50 10.00 12.50 15.00 17.50 20.00
FIGURE 5. AVERAGE YIELD LEVEL OF TEFF (QUINTAL/HA) 
AFTER ROW-PLANTING INNOVATION
Mean = 16.55
Std. Dev. = 7.669
N = 40
15
10
5
 AVERAGE YIELD LEVEL OF TEFF (QUINTAL/HA) 
AFTER ROW-PLANTING INNOVATION
Mean = 16.55
Std. Dev. = 7.669
N = 40
FREQUENCY
3%
5%
13%
15%
1% 1% 1% 1%
0
0.00 10.00 20.00 30.00 40.00 50.00
SECURING WATER FOR FOOD: AYBAR PERFORMANCE EVALUATION | AUGUST 2019 17
The other benefit of using this innovation is crop survival. End users were asked to express their 
perception toward crop survival due to the innovation. Accordingly, 76 percent (38) indicated 
crop survival due to more resilience, followed by the same resilience with 12 percent (six), and less 
resilience among 10 percent (five) (Figure 6). Some indicated expanding weed invasion, particularly 
on wheat farms, as the main cause for reduced crop resilience in the study area. 
Despite the desire for crop diversification, end users of the innovation do not practice diversifying 
the crops they grow. There is a potential demand for the innovation to be used for crops other than 
wheat. The limit to only using this innovation for wheat growing was not clarified by respondents or 
the innovator. Hence, there is a need to identify the applicability of this innovation for other crops, 
which, with possible modifications, can realize crop diversification in the study area. 
FIGURE 6. PERCEPTION OF CROPS SURVIVAL DUE TO AYBAR BBM IN THE STUDY AREA
N=50
76%
12%
10%
2%
PERCEPTION OF CROPS SURVIVAL DUE TO AYBAR 
BBM IN THE STUDY AREA
Less resilient
Same resilience
More resilient
Very resilient
18 SECURING WATER FOR FOOD: AYBAR PERFORMANCE EVALUATION | AUGUST 2019
Income Benefits 
The average annual farm income of end users before the innovation was 10,313 ETB (approximately 
USD 362), and it increased to 24,155 ETB (approximately USD 847) after the innovation. This implies 
that the average annual farm income increased by 134 percent due to the innovation. The minimum 
and maximum farm incomes also increased by 200 percent and 42 percent, respectively (Table 7).
TABLE 7. FARM INCOME OF RESPONDENTS BEFORE AND AFTER THE INNOVATION
BEFORE THE INNOVATION
(IN ETB)
AFTER THE INNOVATION
(IN ETB)
RATE OF CHANGE
(IN %)
N Valid 46 47
 Missing 4 3
Mean (in ETB) 10,313 24,155 134 (increased
Std. Dev 11,348 20,260 78 (increased)
Minimum 1,000 3,000 200 (increased)
Maximum 70,000 100,000 42 (increased)
Poverty Reduction Benefits 
To estimate poverty reduction benefits of using the innovation, a non-parametric Friedman mean 
rank was estimated on how end users spent their increased income. 
Friedman’s test result indicates that end users rated the innovation’s poverty reduction benefits 
differently, and the difference is statistically significant at a one percent significance level. The 
highest mean rank (2.81) is obtained for spending new income on children for school which is 
followed by investment in farming, improving a house, and spending on weeding (Table 8).
TABLE 8. AYBAR BBM POVERTY REDUCTION BENEFITS: MEAN RANK TEST
INCREASED INCOME BENEFITS MEAN RANK
Spent on children for school 2.81
Spent for weeding 2.21
Spent as investment in farming 2.68
Spent on improving a house 2.30
TEST STATISTICS
N 47
Chi-Square 11.978
df 3
Asymp. Sig. 0.007***
a. Friedman Test, *** significant at 1% significance level
SECURING WATER FOR FOOD: AYBAR PERFORMANCE EVALUATION | AUGUST 2019 19
Gender Differences 
Before the innovation, female farmers generated an average household income of 1,766 ETB 
(approximately USD 62) while male farmers generated 10,909 ETB (approximately USD 383). The 
difference is significant at a 10 percent significance level (Table 9).
TABLE 9. GENDER AND HOUSEHOLD INCOME DIFFERENCE BEFORE INNOVATION (IN ETB)
GROUP OBS MEAN STD. ERR STD.DEV [95% CONF INTERVAL]
Female 3 1766.667 317.9797 550.7571 398.5103 3134.82
Male 43 10909.3 1754.607 11505.73 7368. 361 14450. 24
Combined 46 10313.04 1673.183 11348.08 6943.079 13683.01
 diff -9142.636 6713.055 -22671.91 4386.638
 diff = mean (Female) - mean (Male) t = 1.3619
H0 : diff = 0 degrees of freedom = 48
Ha : diff < 0 Ha : diff !=0 Ha : diff > 0
Pr (T < t) = 0.0901* Pr (└T┘ > └t┘ = 0.1802 Pr (T > t) = 0.9099 
*-significant at 10% significance level
After the innovation, female farmers generated an average household income of 4,433 ETB 
(approximately USD 155) while male farmers generated 25,500 ETB (approximately USD 895). The 
difference is significant at a five percent significance level (Table 10).
TABLE 10. GENDER AND HOUSEHOLD INCOME DIFFERENCE AFTER INNOVATION (IN ETB)
GROUP OBS MEAN STD. ERR STD.DEV [95% CONF INTERVAL]
Female 3 4433.33 470.2245 814.4528 2410.12 6456.546
Male 44 25500.00 3052.926 20250.82 19343.19 31656.81
Combined 47 24155.32 2955.253 20260.2 18206.7 30103.94
 diff -21066.67 11812.69 -44858.65 2725.319
 diff = mean (Female) - mean (Male) t = 1.7834
H0 : diff = 0 degrees of freedom = 45
Ha : diff < 0 Ha : diff !=0 Ha : diff > 0
Pr (T < t) = 0.0406** Pr (└T┘ > └t┘ = 0.0813 Pr (T > t) = 0.9594 
 **- Significant at 5% significance level
20 SECURING WATER FOR FOOD: AYBAR PERFORMANCE EVALUATION | AUGUST 2019
Regional Differences 
An earlier case study report by the innovator in 2012 indicated that Aybar BBM was first introduced 
at selected sites in Oromia National Regional State in Ethiopia. In 2013, the Ministry of Agriculture 
(MoA) conducted a survey to assess the performance of this innovation and confirmed increased 
crop yield due to the innovation. With some exceptions in Amhara National Regional State, the 
innovation is mainly distributed in central highland areas of Oromia National Regional State in 
Ethiopia. 
There is no updated and clarified distribution of the innovation in various regions of Ethiopia. This 
requires commitment of the innovator and other stakeholders to realize the intended objectives of 
expanding and disseminating this innovation in Ethiopia and other East African countries. 
Comparison between latest Innovator M&E and latest SWFF M&E 
Lack of lists of innovation end users and how Aybar BBM is sold and distributed is a challenge when 
comparing the result of this impact analysis with that of the innovator. In particular, the higher 
number of female innovation users over male users contradicts information obtained from the East 
Shewa Zone Bureau of Agriculture and Rural Development. 
SECURING WATER FOR FOOD: AYBAR PERFORMANCE EVALUATION | AUGUST 2019 21
DISCUSSION
22 SECURING WATER FOR FOOD: AYBAR PERFORMANCE EVALUATION | AUGUST 2019
The main challenge encountered during the survey for this impact evaluation study is the lack of 
the list of innovation end users with the innovator and the indirect supply of the innovation. The 
innovator does not directly supply the Aybar BBM to end users, rather it is only supplied through 
regional and zonal Bureaus of Agriculture and Rural Development. Due to the upcoming national 
election in Ethiopia, farmers were engaged in different trainings. As a result, one-half of the 
individual interviews were conducted in training centers.
Lack of transparency on how the innovation is distributed to end users and why they are unable to 
afford a durable and relatively cheap Aybar BBM was not clarified. There is a need to identify the 
stakeholders involved in disseminating the innovation to address the increasing demands of end 
users. All the sampled respondents’ areas are interested in using this innovation in the next five 
to 10 years but indicated an inadequate supply of Aybar BBM. Whether the limited supply of the 
innovation is due to innovator’s capacity or the indirect mechanism used for dissemination needs to 
be investigated. 
From left to right, Gemechu (agriculture DA) and the field evaluator (Mohammed) traveling by cart to Chalalaka Bobe village
SECURING WATER FOR FOOD: AYBAR PERFORMANCE EVALUATION | AUGUST 2019 23
Usage/Availability 
One of the major challenges faced by end users in adopting the innovation is its availability. This 
is due to the mechanism in which the innovation is distributed to end users. It is rare to find the 
supply of the innovation to end users directly from the innovator. Instead, the innovator supplies the 
Regional Bureau of Agriculture and Rural Development. The Zonal agricultural offices receive the 
Aybar BBM from regional bureaus and distribute to their respective woredas. As a result, there are 
possible differences in the availability of the innovation in each woredas. 
The availability challenge was identified during the survey, with 54 percent (27) of respondents 
indicating they shared or borrowed the innovation from neighbors or relatives rather than 
purchasing it. Only 46 percent (23) indicated they purchased the Aybar BBM (Figure 7). Those who 
borrowed or shared the innovation also are considered end users in this study.
Cart transportation to rural villages off the main roads, West Shew Zone.
24 SECURING WATER FOR FOOD: AYBAR PERFORMANCE EVALUATION | AUGUST 2019
FIGURE 7. SHARING/BORROWING AYBAR BBM WITH 
NEIGHBORS/RELATIVES BY RESPONDENTS
N=50
54%
46%
SHARING/BORROWING AYBAR BBM WITH 
NEIGHBORS/RELATIVES BY RESPONDENTS
No
Yes
Adequate supply of the innovation with a lower price is one of the questions/suggestions raised 
by end users during the survey. Without a feasible supply channel of the innovation to final users 
through forum and discussion with stakeholders, including the innovator and officials from the 
Ministry of Agriculture and Natural Resources, it is not possible to solve availability problems in the 
study area. As a result, the number of innovation end users can increase both in the study area and 
in other parts of Ethiopia.
Crop Yield/Survival 
Among respondents, 90 percent (45) agreed that the innovation reduced water logging in their 
farm and increased crop yield in the study area. The innovation also helped respondents to 
adjust their sowing time. As a result, survival of the crop increased. High rates of weed invasion, 
particularly in wheat farms, coupled with inadequate supply and high cost of herbicide are among 
challenges respondents face. Moreover, escalating costs of fertilizer and labor also are concerns in 
the study area. 
Wheat and Teff are the two cereals mainly grown in the study area. Due to the innovation, the 
average yield level of wheat increased by 115 percent compared to a 76 percent increase in 
average Teff yield. Compared to the average yield increment of wheat, the yield increment of Teff 
is lower. This is mainly because the innovation is solely used for wheat growing. During the survey, 
respondents indicated their need for Aybar BBM that can be used to grow Teff and other crops. 
Hence, based on farmers’ needs assessment, there is a need to further extend how to use the 
innovation to grow Teff and other crops.
SECURING WATER FOR FOOD: AYBAR PERFORMANCE EVALUATION | AUGUST 2019 25
Changes in Income 
Respondents were asked to rank the change in their family income due to the Aybar BBM 
innovation. For 54 percent of the respondents (27), family income significantly increased due to 
the innovation. Another 28 percent (14) perceived their family income somewhat increased, and 18 
percent (nine) indicated their family income increased very significantly (Figure 8).
FIGURE 8. PERCEPTION OF CHANGE IN FAMILY INCOME DUE TO AYBAR BBM
60
50
40
30
20
10
PERCEPTION OF CHANGE IN FAMILY INCOME 
DUE TO AYBAR BBM
FREQUENCY
28%
18%
54%
0
Somewhat Significantly Very Significantly
One factor that can influence income level obtained by respondents is the amount and price of 
inputs used. Except for fertilizer and labor, the amount and costs of other inputs was not obtained 
from respondents. The change in amount and cost of fertilizer and labor was estimated. 
Before Aybar BBM, the average amount of fertilizer used by end users was 137.2 kg/ha. After the 
innovation, the average amount of fertilizer was 252 kg/ha. This shows an 84 percent increase in 
the average amount of fertilizer used. The average expenditure on fertilizer increased from 1,189.7 
ETB (approximately USD 42) before the innovation to 3,787.8 ETB (approximately USD 133) after 
the innovation (Table 11). The average expenditure on fertilizer increased by 218 percent. Whether 
the increased amount of fertilizer is due to the innovation or consultation by other stakeholders 
needs further investigation.
The daily average labor requirement (no/ha) increased from seven to eight before and 
after innovation, respectively. The average labor expenditure also increased from 386 ETB 
(approximately USD 16) to 667 ETB (approximately USD 23), respectively (Table 11). The average 
expenditure on labor increased by 73 percent. Whether the increased amount of labor use and cost 
is due to the innovation needs further investigation and is not in the scope of this study.
26 SECURING WATER FOR FOOD: AYBAR PERFORMANCE EVALUATION | AUGUST 2019
 TABLE 11. FERTILIZER, LABOR USE AND COST: BEFORE AND AFTER INNOVATION
FERTILIZER USE (KG/HA) N MINIMUM MAXIMUM MEAN STD. DEVIATION
Before innovation 50 25.00 300.00 137.2 59.26557
After innovation 50 100.00 400.00 252.0 70.99152
Valid N (listwise) 50
FERTILIZER COST (IN ETB)
Before innovation 50 200.00 4200.00 1,189.7 810.06828
After innovation 50 1363.00 5729.50 3,787.8 1055.18155
Valid N (listwise) 50
FERTILIZER USE (KG/HA) N MINIMUM MAXIMUM MEAN STD. DEVIATION
Before innovation 12 2.00 20.00 7.4167 5.72805
After innovation 11 2.00 36.00 8.7273 9.79889
Valid N (listwise) 11
FERTILIZER COST (IN ETB)
Before innovation 11 120.00 1080.00 386.36 296.25235
After innovation 12 200.00 1440.00 667.5 361.18806
Valid N (listwise) 11
Gender Differences 
For female respondents, the mean household income due to the innovation increased from 1,766 
ETB (approximately USD 62) to 4,433 ETB (approximately USD 155). This implies that the mean 
household income for female respondents increased by 150 percent 
For male respondents, the mean household income due to the innovation increased from 10,909 
ETB (approximately USD 383) to 25,500 ETB (approximately USD 895). This implies that the mean 
household income for male respondents increased by 134 percent. 
Even if the average household income of male respondents is significantly higher than female 
respondents, the percentage change in income is higher for females (150 percent) than for males 
(134 percent). With other things remaining the same, the innovation can contribute more to the 
income of female headed households if it is scaled-up in the study area.
Affordability 
The average unit price of an Aybar BBM is 345 ETB (approximately USD 12). However, 50 percent 
(25) of the respondents indicated their willingness to pay 50 percent less, and 26 percent (13) are 
willing to pay the same price (Table 12). The remaining 24 percent (12) did not comment on the price 
they are willing to pay for the innovation.
SECURING WATER FOR FOOD: AYBAR PERFORMANCE EVALUATION | AUGUST 2019 27
TABLE 12. UNIT PRICE OF AYBAR BBM THAT END USERS ARE WILLING TO PAY
PRICE WILLING TO PAY FREQUENCY PERCENT
Same as what I pay now 13 26
50% Less 25 50
Missing 12 24
Total 50 100
Compared to the durability of the innovation and the average farm income level of end users, the 
Aybar BBM can be considered affordable. With the exception of two missing responses, 85 percent 
(41) of the respondents rated themselves as middle-income, and the remaining 15 percent (seven) 
chose low-income (Table 13). 
 TABLE 13. RESPONDENTS’ PERCEPTION OF THEIR ANNUAL INCOME LEVEL
INCOME LEVEL FREQUENCY PERCENT VALID PERCENT
CUMULATIVE 
PERCENT
MIddle 41 82 85 85
Low 7 14 15 100
Total 48 96 100
Missing 2 4
Total 50 100
The increasing price of inputs like fertilizer and labor can be possible reasons for end users 
willingness to pay one-half the price for Aybar BBM. Realizing the supply of the innovation at one￾half price depends on the cost-benefit analysis of the innovator, among other issues.
Other Benefits 
The sample respondents suggested modifications are needed on Aybar BBM to further maximize 
their benefits. Suggestions constituted weight (an Aybar BBM weighs approximately 3.5 kilograms), 
price, Aybar BBM suitable for other crops (in the study area they solely use the innovation for 
growing wheat), adequate supply, and better extension services. 
Even if it is not related to the innovation, end users also suggested an effective mechanism to 
control weeds. Of 50 respondents, only 20 suggested the aforementioned modifications on the 
innovation. Adequate supply at lower price was suggested by 25 percent, followed by weed control 
with adequate extension service (20 percent), lower price and use for other crops (20 percent), 
and the same price and use for other crops (15 percent) (Table 14). Realization of the suggested 
modifications depends on transparent discussion with the innovator and responsible stakeholders. 
28 SECURING WATER FOR FOOD: AYBAR PERFORMANCE EVALUATION | AUGUST 2019
TABLE 14. SUGGESTED MODIFICATIONS ON AYBAR BBM BY END USERS
SUGGESTED MODIFICATIONS ON AYBAR BBM FREQUENCY PERCENT VALID PERCENT
Less weight and lower price 1 2 5
Lower price and for other crops 4 8 20
Same price and for other crops 3 6 15
Lower price, less weight and for other crops 1 2 5
Weed control and better extension service 4 8 20
Adequate supply at lower price 5 10 25
Adequate supply and for other crops 2 4 10
Total 20 40 100
Missing 30 60
Total 50 100
Impact on Poverty 
Even if detailed data is not collected to measure impact on poverty, this study attempts to 
measure using proxy measures. The proportion of low-income end users of the innovation that 
spend their new income on children for school is 8.7 percent (four) and is higher than those in the 
same category who do not spend. This can be a promising result to further promote access for the 
innovation by low-income end users (Figure 9).
FIGURE 9. SPENDING OF NEW INCOME ON CHILDREN FOR SCHOOL
40
30
20
10
SPENDING OF NEW INCOME ON CHILDREN 
FOR SCHOOL
FREQUENCY
6
13.4% 2
4.35%
0
No
34
73.91%
4
8.7%
Yes
Middle income
Low income
How do you rate your annual income?
SECURING WATER FOR FOOD: AYBAR PERFORMANCE EVALUATION | AUGUST 2019 29
Compared to low-income end users, most of the middle-income end users of the innovation (69 
percent) spent their new income as an investment in farming. The possible reason is that low￾income level end users mostly spend their new income on household consumption rather than on 
investment (Table 15).
TABLE 15. INCOME SPENT AS INVESTMENT ON FARMING: 
LOW AND MIDDLE INCOME END USERS
LEVEL OF ANNUAL INCOME
SPENT ON FARMING INVESTMENT MIDDLE INCOME (%) LOW INCOME (%) TOTAL
No 17.4 6.5 23.9
Yes 69.6 6.5 76.1
Total 87.0 13.0 100.0
Benefits of Innovation on Community 
Four major benefits of the innovation were identified during the survey. These are yield, income, 
reduced labor, and reduced water logging benefits. Yield benefit of the innovation is agreed on by 
92 percent (46) of respondents and reduced water logging by 90 percent (45). According to the 
respondents, reducing labor is the least benefit of Aybar BBM and is perceived only by 26 percent 
(13) of the end users. The benefit perception difference is statistically significant at a one percent 
significance level (Table 16).
TABLE 16. AYBAR BBM BENEFITS: FRIEDMAN MEAN RANK TEST
BENEFITS MEAN RANK
The innovation has yield benefit 2.87
The innovation has income benefit 2.75
The innovation has (lowered) labor benefit 1.55
The innovation has (reduced) water logging benefit 2.83
TEST STATISTICSa
N 50
Chi-Square 63.503
df 3
Asymp. Sig. 0.000***
****- significant at 1% significance level
Comparison of latest innovator M&E statistics with latest SWFF M&E statistics
30 SECURING WATER FOR FOOD: AYBAR PERFORMANCE EVALUATION | AUGUST 2019
As there are no available lists of innovation end users, it is difficult to confirm the numbers indicated. 
Lack of transparency on how the innovation is sold and distributed to customers is another 
challenge to accepting the innovator’s negative profit margin, given the increasing demand for 
the innovation. In contrast to information from West Shewa Zone Bureau of Agriculture and Rural 
Development, the number of females using the innovation (5,741) is higher than male users (5,627).
During the survey, some respondents indicated they have been using Aybar BBM for the last four 
years. During the impact analysis survey, customers’ satisfaction with the innovation was identified 
and all respondents indicated their intention to use it in future with some suggested modifications. 
This can be an input for the innovator in future planning.
SECURING WATER FOR FOOD: AYBAR PERFORMANCE EVALUATION | AUGUST 2019 31
CONCLUSION
32 SECURING WATER FOR FOOD: AYBAR PERFORMANCE EVALUATION | AUGUST 2019
Aybar Broad Bed and Furrow Maker was a SWFF-supported agricultural innovation project 
targeting to solve the pressing challenge of waterlogging in Vertisols of Ethiopia. This report presents 
performance analysis results conducted in July and August, 2019, in West Shewa Zone of Oromia 
National Regional State in Ethiopia. The innovation was active in the study area for four years.
All 50 end users indicated that no new crops were introduced due to the innovation, and the 
innovation does not help them decide what crops to plant. No difficulties were experienced by 
respondents in using the innovation in the study area. All respondents agreed on reduced use of 
water due to the innovation. 
The four major benefits of the innovation are yield, income, reduced labor, and reduced water 
logging. Yield benefit of the innovation is agreed upon by 92 percent (46) of respondents and 
reduced water logging by 90 percent (45). The least perceived benefit of Aybar BBM is reduced 
labor, with only 26 percent (13) of the end users indicating this benefit.
Among the respondents, 90 percent (45) agree that the innovation reduced water logging on their 
farm and increased crop yield in the study area. Accordingly, the average wheat yield increased by 
115 percent (from 0.26 MT/acre to 0.57 MT/acre) and Teff increased by 76 percent (from 0.18 MT/
acre to 0.33 MT/acre). The average annual farm income of end users before the innovation was 
10,313 ETB (approximately USD 362) and increased to 24,155 ETB (approximately USD 847) after 
the innovation. Even if the average household income of male respondents is significantly higher 
than female respondents, the percentage change in income is higher for females (150 percent) than 
it is for males (134 percent).
The average unit price of an Aybar BBM is 345 ETB (approximately USD 12). However, 50 percent 
(25) of the respondents indicated their willingness to pay 50 percent less and 26 percent (13) are 
willing to pay the same price. Reduced unit price and applicability for crops other than wheat are 
among suggested modifications on the innovation by end users in the study area. 
SECURING WATER FOR FOOD: AYBAR PERFORMANCE EVALUATION | AUGUST 2019 33
REFERENCES
34 SECURING WATER FOR FOOD: AYBAR PERFORMANCE EVALUATION | AUGUST 2019
Adamu Molla. 2018. Response of Wheat to NP Fertilizer Rates, Precursor Crops and Types of 
Vertisols in Central Highlands of Ethiopia. Journal of Agricultural Science, 10 (4): 231-244.
Headey, D., Mekdim Dereje and Alemayehu Seyoum. 2014. Land constraints and agricultural 
intensification in Ethiopia: A village-level analysis of high-potential areas. Food Policy, 48: 129–141. 
Mann, M. L. and Warner, J. M. 2017. Ethiopian wheat yield and yield gap estimation: A spatially 
explicit small area integrated data approach. Field Crops Research, 201: 60–74.
Minot, N., Warner, J., Lemma, S., Abate, G. and Rashid, S. 2015. The Wheat Supply Chain in 
Ethiopia: Patterns, Trends, and Policy Options (Addis Ababa, Ethiopia).
The World Fact Book. 2016. Ethiopia country profile. Retrieved on July 15, 2017. http://bit.ly/
lyAYHLA.
World Population Prospects. 2019. The 2019 Revision of World Population Prospects: United 
Nations Population Division. 
SECURING WATER FOR FOOD: AYBAR PERFORMANCE EVALUATION | AUGUST 2019 35
ANNEX I
36 SECURING WATER FOR FOOD: AYBAR PERFORMANCE EVALUATION | AUGUST 2019
FARMER INFORMATION
NAME 
AGE 
DATE TIME 
GROUP INTERVIEW? o Yes o No
GROUP INTERVIEW NOTES
HOW MANY FAMILY MEMBERS LIVE WITH YOU? 
GENDER o Male o Female
WHAT IS YOUR PRIMARY OCCUPATION?
o Farming
o Wage Labor
o Seasonal Migrant Labor
o Small Enterprise
o Other: 
DO YOU HAVE ANOTHER OCCUPATION?
o Farming
o Wage Labor
o Seasonal Migrant Labor
o Small Enterprise
o Other: 
SIZE OF FARM (ACRES) 
NAME OF VILLAGE 
HOW MUCH LAND DO YOU OWN? 
HOW LARGE IS YOUR FARM/PLOT? 
o Large
o Medium
o Small
o Very Small
SECURING WATER FOR FOOD: AYBAR PERFORMANCE EVALUATION | AUGUST 2019 37
HOW MUCH IS LAND RENT? 
OTHER LAND NOTES
HOW LONG HAVE YOU BEEN USING AYBAR? 
DID YOU PARTICIPATE IN AGRICULTURAL ACTIVITIES THIS YEAR? o Yes o No
HOW MANY MONTHS IS THE PRIMARY GROWING SEASON? 
HOW MANY TIMES DO YOU HARVEST PER YEAR? 
FARM INFORMATION
WHAT CROPS DO YOU GROW AS A RESULT OF THE INNOVATION? LIST FROM MOST IMPORTANT 
TO LEAST IMPORTANT:
1.
2.
3.
DID THE MOST IMPORTANT CROP BENEFIT FROM AYBAR? o Yes o No
DID THE SECOND MOST IMPORTANT CROP BENEFIT FROM AYBAR? o Yes o No
DID THE THIRD MOST IMPORTANT CROP BENEFIT FROM AYBAR? o Yes o No
WHAT IS THE WATER SOURCE FOR YOUR IRRIGATION OF CROPS?
o Own pond
o River
o Groundwater
o Innovation Source
o Other: 
38 SECURING WATER FOR FOOD: AYBAR PERFORMANCE EVALUATION | AUGUST 2019
WHAT IS YOUR METHOD OF IRRIGATION?
o Drip feed
o Flooding
o Hand watering
o Rainfed
o Other: 
HOW MUCH HAS YOUR WATER USAGE CHANGED SINCE USING AYBAR, IF AT ALL?
USING AYBAR HAS YOUR ACCESS TO WATER:
o Had no change
o Improved
o Fundamentally improved (Improved a lot)
o Other: 
PREVIOUSLY GROWN CROPS: DID YOUR FARM PRODUCE DIFFERENT CROPS IN THE PAST THAT 
ARE NO LONGER GROWN HERE? IF SO, WHICH ONES? 
MASS OF PRODUCE: WHAT YIELDS DID YOU HAVE FOR EACH CROP YOU MENTIONED?
MASS OF PRODUCE 2: WHAT YIELDS DID YOU HAVE FOR YOUR CROPS BEFORE USING AYBAR? 
USING AYBAR HAVE YOU, FOR EACH CROP:
o Used more water
o Had no change in water use
o Used less water
o Other: 
USING AYBAR HAVE YOUR CROP YIELDS (ASK FOR EACH CROP):
o Declined
o Remained the same
o Increased
o Substantially increased
SECURING WATER FOR FOOD: AYBAR PERFORMANCE EVALUATION | AUGUST 2019 39
IS THERE A DIFFERENCE IN THE SURVIVAL RATES OF YOUR CROPS DUE TO AYBAR? o Yes o No
HOW MUCH OF YOUR PRODUCE DID YOU CONSUME IN YOUR HOUSEHOLD? (PERCENTAGE – 
NOTE IF DIFFERENT FOR EACH CROP) 
HOW MUCH OF EACH OF THE FOLLOWING INPUTS DID YOU USE BEFORE AYBAR?
FERTILIZER (KG)
PESTICIDE (KG)
HERBICIDE (L)
CHARCOAL (KG)
WATER (TOTAL)
LABOR (DAYS)
OTHER 
HOW MUCH DID YOU SPEND ON EACH OF THE FOLLOWING INPUTS BEFORE AYBAR? 
FERTILIZER (KG)
PESTICIDE (KG)
HERBICIDE (L)
CHARCOAL (KG)
WATER (TOTAL)
LABOR (DAYS)
OTHER 
HOW MUCH OF EACH OF THE FOLLOWING INPUTS DO YOU USE AFTER AYBAR?
FERTILIZER (KG)
PESTICIDE (KG)
HERBICIDE (L)
CHARCOAL (KG)
WATER (TOTAL)
LABOR (DAYS)
OTHER 
HOW MUCH DID YOU SPEND ON THE FOLLOWING INPUTS AFTER AYBAR? 
FERTILIZER (KG)
PESTICIDE (KG)
HERBICIDE (L)
CHARCOAL (KG)
WATER (TOTAL)
LABOR (DAYS)
OTHER 
40 SECURING WATER FOR FOOD: AYBAR PERFORMANCE EVALUATION | AUGUST 2019
HOW MUCH DID YOU SPEND ON EQUIPMENT BEFORE AND AFTER AYBAR? 
HOW MUCH DID YOU SPEND ON TRANSPORT AND STORAGE BEFORE AND AFTER AYBAR? 
DO YOU HAVE PROBLEMS FINDING A MARKET TO SELL YOUR CROPS IN? o Yes o No
PLEASE EXPLAIN. 
DO YOU HAVE PROBLEMS GETTING YOUR CROPS TO THE MARKET? o Yes o No
PLEASE EXPLAIN. 
OTHER FARM NOTES (OPTIONAL).
INCOME AND EXPENDITURES
WHAT IS YOUR ANNUAL HOUSEHOLD INCOME? 
HOW MUCH INCOME DID YOU MAKE BEFORE AYBAR? 
AFTER AYBAR? 
HAS AYBAR IMPROVED YOUR FAMILY INCOME? 
WHAT PERCENTAGE OF YOUR INCOME DO YOU GET FROM NON-FARM SOURCES? 
HOW MUCH PRODUCE DID YOU SELL FOR EACH OF YOUR CROPS IN THE LAST SEASON AND THE 
LAST YEAR? 
WHAT IS THE PRICE PER KILO YOU RECEIVED FOR EACH OF YOUR CROPS FOR THE LAST SEASON?
SECURING WATER FOR FOOD: AYBAR PERFORMANCE EVALUATION | AUGUST 2019 41
USING AYBAR HAS YOUR ACCESS TO CREDIT:
o Not improved
o Improved
o Improved and have been able to repay over a short period
HOW DO YOU CURRENTLY FINANCE AGRICULTURAL ACTIVITIES?
o Own savings
o Credit and savings scheme
o Other credit
HOW MUCH DO YOU PAY FOR AYBAR? 
HOW MUCH ARE YOU WILLING TO PAY FOR AYBAR?
o Nothing
o AYBAR is free
o The same as what I pay now
o 50% less
o 50% more
o Other: 
HOW HAVE YOU SPENT YOUR NEW INCOME?
o N/A (if no new income)
o Send children to school or keep children in school
o Social functions (like weddings)
o Investment in farming
o Improving house
o Other: 
OTHER INCOME NOTES (OPTIONAL)
42 SECURING WATER FOR FOOD: AYBAR PERFORMANCE EVALUATION | AUGUST 2019
PERCEPTIONS OF AYBAR
WILL YOU USE AYBAR IN THE FUTURE (5 TO 10 YEARS)? o Yes o No
WHY? 
HOW, IF AT ALL, HAVE YOU CHANGED YOUR FARMING PRACTICES DUE TO AYBAR?
o No change
o Introduced new crops
o Changed irrigation system
o Reduced water usage
o It helps me decide when to plant
o It helps me decide which crops to plant
HAVE YOU FACED ANY DIFFICULTIES OR PROBLEMS USING AYBAR? o Yes o No
HOW CAN AYBAR BE IMPROVED? 
HOW DID YOU HEAR ABOUT AYBAR?
o Wealthy farmer
o Neighbor
o Innovation personnel
o Extension worker
o Other: 
WHAT FACTORS INFLUENCED YOU TO TRY AYBAR?
o Demonstration from neighbor’s farm
o Innovation is free from extension services
o No alternative water source
o Other: 
DO YOU SHARE YOUR KNOWLEDGE SKILLS FROM AYBAR WITH OTHERS? o Yes o No 
IF SO, HOW? 
WHAT DO YOU FEEL ARE THE BENEFITS OF AYBAR? 
SECURING WATER FOR FOOD: AYBAR PERFORMANCE EVALUATION | AUGUST 2019 43
HAVE YOU HEARD ABOUT CLIMATIC VARIATION? HAVE CHANGES IN RAINFALL OR TEMPERATURE 
AFFECTED YOUR FARMING PRACTICES OR CROP YIELDS COMPARED TO YOUR HISTORICAL 
RAINY/DRY SEASON PERIODS? o Yes o No
PLEASE SPECIFY HOW. 
HOW HAS AYBAR HELPED YOU? PLEASE RANK THE TOP 3 AND EXPLAIN POSITIVES/NEGATIVES.
 Makes water reusable 
 Helps women farmers as well as men 
 They made a special effort to include women farmers 
 Helps in producing more of our most important crop 
 Increases my yield through timely forecasts 
 Helps by lowering cost of inputs 
 Improves health and strength of livestock 
 Helps reduce labor 
 Reduces crop wastage 
 Helps me decide when to plant 
 Helps me decide which crops to plant 
 Other: 
WOULD YOU RECOMMEND AYBAR?
o No
o Yes
o Yes, would strongly recommend
ARE THERE NEGATIVE IMPACTS FROM AYBAR IN THE COMMUNITY? o Yes o No
PLEASE EXPLAIN IF YES. 
44 SECURING WATER FOR FOOD: AYBAR PERFORMANCE EVALUATION | AUGUST 2019
IF THERE HAVE BEEN ANY NEGATIVE IMPACTS, HAVE EFFORTS BEEN MADE TO RESOLVE THEM? 
o Yes o No
EXPLAIN. 
OTHER
INCOME/POVERTY NOTES
GENDER OBSERVATIONS
QUESTIONS/REQUESTS
OTHER NOTES

Securing Water for Food has sourced and invested in a portfolio of innovative 
solutions that aim to help farmers use water more efficiently and effectively, 
improve water storage for lean times, and remove salt from water to make more 
food. Our cohort of innovators are helping people in 35 low-resource countries 
with tools they need to produce more food with less water.
To learn more about Securing Water for Food, 
visit www.securingwaterforfood.org.