Foreign Agricultural 
Service, United States 
Department of Agriculture
PARTICIPANTS AT THE PROJECT LAUNCH CEREMONY 
Faso Riibo – Burkina Faso 
Local and Regional Food Aid 
Procurement Project
BASELINE EVALUATION
OCTOBER 2020
This publication was produced at the request of the United States Department of Agriculture. It was prepared 
independently by International Solutions Group. The views in this paper do not necessarily represent those of the 
US Government. An accessible version can be made upon request by emailing 
fas.monitoring.evaluation@usda.gov
Faso Riibo Baseline Performance Evaluation Report
The United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) Local and Regional Procurement (LRP)
project in Burkina Faso, Faso Riibo, is being implemented by Catholic Relief Services from 2019
to 2023. This food aid project is focused on achieving the following objectives: increase the 
capacity of mayors’ offices, school communities, and producer groups to procure, market, 
deliver and store local, culturally acceptable food commodities to supplement school feeding 
programs in a timely and cost-effective manner through training, provision of guidance and 
materials, and the joint monitoring of food quality and management processes; strengthen 
market linkages through work with value chain actors all along the four selected commodity 
value chains; and improve smallholder famers’ access to school feeding purchasing markets by 
providing training in storage and delivery, and food quality and safety standards.
Agreement Number: LRP-686-2019/015-00
Project Duration: October 2019 to September 2023
Implemented by: Catholic Relief Services
Evaluation Authored by: SECODEV Consulting
Blaise KIENOU
COMBASSERE Sibiri Celestin
SANOU Adama Frédéric
Mr. W. Fabris COMPAORE
Table of Contents
Table of Contents ....................................................................................................................... 3
Acronym/Abbreviations ............................................................................................................. 4
Executive summary .................................................................................................................... 5
Background ................................................................................................................................ 7
Methodology .............................................................................................................................. 8
Key findings of the assessment ................................................................................................ 14
1. Reminder of mechanisms and regulations for the purchase of food and the supply of 
school canteens ........................................................................................................................... 14
2. Functioning of the communes in relation to the purchase of food and the supply of 
canteens ...................................................................................................................................... 15
2.1. Time taken to supply foodstuffs to the communes ........................................................... 15
2.2. Functioning of the SMCs and canteen supply timeline ..................................................... 16
3. Production and supply capacities of agricultural producers and cooperatives .................... 17
3.1. Production and sales .......................................................................................................... 17
3.2. Annual value of production sold ....................................................................................... 19
3.3. Production techniques and crop management practices .................................................... 22
3.4 Supply capacity of agricultural producers and cooperatives ......................................... 25
4. Local traders and capacity to participate in the food procurement process ........................ 26
5. Transporters and ability to participate in the canteen procurement process ....................... 27
6. Functioning of canteens ...................................................................................................... 27
7. Canteens and impacts .......................................................................................................... 30
8. Design of Faso Riibo: Obstacles and Challenges ................................................................ 32
8.1. Obstacles and Challenges .............................................................................................. 32
8.2. Proposal of exit strategies ................................................................................................. 33
Conclusion and recommendations ........................................................................................... 34
Annexes .................................................................................................................................... 35
Page 4 of 131
Acronym/Abbreviations
AAP: Annual Action Plan 
ANR: Assisted Natural Regeneration 
BED: Basic Education District 
CRS: Catholic Relief Service
DSF: Defense and Security forces 
FAO: Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations 
IDPs: Internally Displaced Persons
IPTT: Indicator Performance Tracking Table 
LEAP: Local Education Assistance and Procurement 
LRP: Local and Regional Procurement 
MENAPLN: Ministry of Education, Literacy, and Promotion of National Languages 
MFIs: Microfinance Institutions 
NGOs: Non-Governmental Organization 
PMP: Performance Monitoring Plan 
PSDBE: Program for the Strategic Development of Basic Education 
SMCs: School Management Committees 
USDA: United States Department of Agriculture
VDC: village development committee
VIM: Victory Against Malnutrition
Page 5 of 131
Executive summary
Through the Faso Riibo Project, a Local and Regional Procurement (LRP) project in Burkina Faso, 
Catholic Relief Service (CRS), with the financial support of the United States Department of 
Agriculture (USDA), plans to support school canteens from October 2019 to September 2023 for 
the benefit of 191 schools in nine communes in the Centre-North region. This food aid project aims 
to build the capacity of local actors such as mayors, the education community and producer groups 
to purchase, market, deliver and store culturally acceptable local food products to complement 
school feeding programs in a timely and cost-effective manner. Thus, knowledge of the current 
conditions of the food procurement and supply process is necessary to guide project 
implementation and contribute to performance management of the defined indicators.
Data collection for the baseline evaluation was conducted from June 3 to 13 using two types of 
tools: surveys of 259 students in 18 sample schools and 186 producers, as well as individual semi￾structured interviews with mayors and canteen managers at the commune level (17), buyers (23), 
transporters (24), teachers (97), cooks (37) and basic education district managers (04) or in focus 
groups with producer groups (18), processor groups (09) and with members of school management 
committees (18). The study took place in a national context marked by the COVID-19 pandemic, 
one of the restrictive measures of which was the closure of intermediate classes. In addition, the 
degrading security situation in the region was a limiting factor in the selection of sampled schools.
The results of the assessment reveal the following key findings: 
The complexity of the procurement procedures and the slowness of the quality control process are 
the main obstacles to the rapid execution of the contract and thus to the acquisition and distribution 
of food within a reasonable time frame: only 22% of the SMCs were able to carry out their 
procurement program properly; 22% of the communes were able to deliver the necessary quantities 
and quality of food to the schools on time and 34% of the schools actually received their allocations 
on time. 
Local producers, producer cooperatives and processors have the capacity to meet in quantity the 
annual planning needs of the project over the period 2021-2023, which vary from 294 to 318 tons 
for millet, 224 to 242 tons for local rice and 137 to 148 tons for cowpea. For the 2018/2019 
marketing year, producers' sales through cooperatives or contracts were about 183 tons for an 
estimated sales value of USD 85.435. However, producers have expressed the need to strengthen 
technical capacity and equipment in the areas of production, conservation and processing. 
Regarding canteens, 68% of the buildings used as kitchens are made of permanent materials 
compared to 32% made of tenuous materials, and 87% of the cooks consider the quantity of cooking 
utensils to be insufficient. However, hygienic conditions are on the whole well observed. 
The students generally have one meal a day prepared mainly from rice or cowpea or both and 
accompanied by oil. Overall, 99% of students find the meal served at school culturally acceptable. 
Also, in 89% of the cases, they consider the quality of the meals to be good and in 79% of the 
cases, they are satisfied with the quantities of food served. In terms of learning outcomes, teachers 
estimate that 61% of students are attentive to their lessons (59% of boys and 63% of girls). 
Page 6 of 131
In its implementation, Faso Riibo plans for training and capacity building activities for 
stakeholders, as well as equipment support. In addition to this, it would be important to develop 
communication throughout the duration of the project through stakeholder meetings between CRS, 
town halls, Basic Education District (BED), School Management Committees (SMCs), and 
suppliers. Furthermore, agreements should be established with the quality control laboratories in 
order to allow the transmission of analysis results within a reasonable time. 
During the data collection, the discussions with the populations and school staff indicated that they 
are informed of the existence of COVID-19 and are sensitized through local radio and television 
on the symptoms and methods of prevention. The strategy of the Ministry in charge of education 
is not yet clearly defined for the reopening of classrooms scheduled for October. Until then, the 
government is committed to provide with masks for students and school staff, and the community 
should ensure the implementation of hand-washing facilities. In the meantime, CRS should support 
all intervention schools and canteens to have handwashing facilities and a stock of soap. This is 
recommended for each class. In addition to prevent COVID-19, this can help to strengthen hygiene 
in schools. 
Page 7 of 131
Background
In 2010-2011, Catholic Relief Services (CRS) implemented a one-year pilot project entitled "Local 
Education Assistance and Procurement (LEAP)", with funding from the United States Department 
of Agriculture (USDA). Faso Riibo is the second USDA Local and Regional Procurement (LRP) 
activity in Burkina Faso and will be implemented by CRS in 191 schools in the North Central 
region. From October 2019 to September 2023, the project will reach 47,670 students and an 
additional 1,433 direct beneficiaries (teachers, producers, buyers, transporters). It will consist of 
the purchase, delivery and distribution of rice, millet, cowpea and cotton oil for 191 school canteens 
in the communes of Boroum, Dargo, Guibare, Korsimoro, Mane, Nagbingou, Tikare, Tougouri,
and Yalgo. The intervention logic of the project is based on the statement (theory of change) that 
IF the cost-effectiveness and timeliness of food assistance improves, and the use of nutritious and 
culturally acceptable foods that meet quality standards improves THEN local and regional supply 
will be an effective modality for supplying school canteens and ensuring a sustainable school 
feeding program. The project’s critical assumptions are that, during project duration, 1) The 
security situation in Burkina Faso does not worsen and that 2) Average temperatures and rainfall 
continue (see annex 14 for results framework). 
The main stakeholders are:
- The School Management Committees (SMCs), 
- Town Halls, 
- Agricultural producers, 
- Ministry of Education, Literacy, and Promotion of National Languages (MENAPLN) 
through its decentralized structures, and
- The transporters. 
For the implementation of Faso Riibo, CRS established a monitoring and evaluation system based 
on project results. The purpose of this study is to establish a baseline of its performance indicators. 
Specifically, the baseline should answer the following key questions: 
- What are the current conditions in the coverage area in relation to each of the project's non￾zero baseline indicators?
- To what extent does the design of Faso Riibo respond to the needs and challenges identified 
by the reference scenario? What design changes could be made to improve this? 
- How could the integration of the strategic objective be strengthened to further impact the 
positive effects of the project?
- What barriers could hinder sustainability and impact? And how can an exit strategy be 
better integrated at the start of the project to ensure a more sustainable impact?
This project is especially relevant in a context where the school system, particularly the North 
Central region, is facing many challenges which negatively affect school attendance, including 
Page 8 of 131
traditional gold panning and growing insecurity. It is also in line with the overall objective of the 
government Program for the Strategic Development of Basic Education (PSDBE) 2012-2021, i.e. 
"to ensure access to school canteens for all students". 
Methodology
The methodological approach for the assessment of the situation of Faso Riibo was based on 
various steps including the organization of scoping meetings, document review, design of data 
collection tools, and a survey of the people, groups of people, and institutions targeted by the 
baseline. Given the restrictive measures related to COVID-19, virtual scoping meetings were 
favored between CRS and the SECODEV Consulting team. A total of four meetings were 
organized to facilitate the firm's understanding of the mission, clarify the understanding of the 
project's performance indicators and validate the tools and methodology for data collection and 
processing. The firm also had discussions with USDA on the implementation approach and quality 
assurance. 
On the basis of the guidelines received during the scoping meetings and the project documents: (i) 
Evaluation plan; (ii) Indicator Performance Tracking Table (IPTT); (iii) Performance Monitoring 
Plan (PMP), (iv) Criteria for reviewing CRS reports for USDA projects, the firm's experts 
proceeded to design the collection tools. Two types of tools were designed: 
Qualitative tools for conducting semi-structured individual or focus group interviews. These tools 
are:
- Semi-structured interviews with each mayor and canteen manager in the 9 communes; 
- Semi-structured individual interviews with teachers, BEDs and canteen cooks;
- Semi-structured individual interviews with transporters and food buyers; and
- Focus groups with SMCs, producer and processor groupings. 
Quantitative tools in the form of questionnaires to conduct direct individual interviews with:
- Students, 
- School Directors, and 
- Producers. 
The unit of observation for this baseline is the school. A random sample of schools was thus drawn 
from the list of all schools in the four intervention communes and all schools in the five pilot 
communes. Within each school in the sample, interviews were conducted with students, teachers, 
canteen cooks, the president of the SMC and the school principal. The interviews also made it 
possible to determine the students' attendance at lessons, the students' appreciation of the meals 
served in the canteen, and the assessment of the operation of the canteen and the SMCs. Also, in 
Page 9 of 131
each village hosting the sampled school, interviews were conducted with individual producers to 
assess production and sales volumes and agricultural practices.
Producer groups (microenterprises) and processors of agricultural products have been identified by 
non-random sampling with the support of resource persons at the level of the commune's chief 
towns. 
For each of the targets, the evaluation plan for the Faso Riibo project established the minimum 
sample size that could detect anticipated changes due to the project intervention (see terms of 
reference). 
Schools’ selection
Given the differences between the sizes of the communes in terms of the number of schools, a 
stratified sampling method was chosen in order to ensure the representativeness of the context of 
each Faso Riibo intervention commune in the sample. The communes were therefore considered 
as strata for an independent and representative sampling. Thus, 12 schools were selected in the four 
intervention communes and 5 schools in the five pilot intervention communes. Within each 
commune, the number of schools to be selected was calculated on the basis of the proportion of its 
total number of schools in relation to the total number of schools in the 4 communes on the one 
hand and the 5 pilot intervention communes on the other. Thus, the schools to be drawn per 
commune were selected using the probability sampling method proportional to size (in terms of 
number of students).
The formula used was calculated in two sequences: 
Step 1: Calculate a variable containing the weights of the girls (W_i^2) and a variable containing 
the weights of the boys (W_i^1) 
Step 2: Calculate a variable containing the weights of the students (W_i=W_i^1+W_i^2).
The weight of a pupil depends on the number of schools selected in his Commune, the size of his 
school, his gender and his class (level).
Thus, we have the following selection probabilities: 
For k = {1,2}, (k=1 for boys ad 2 for girls), we have : 
𝑃𝑃𝑖𝑖
𝑘𝑘 = 𝑚𝑚 ∗
𝑀𝑀𝑖𝑖
𝑀𝑀 ∗
𝑛𝑛𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖
𝑘𝑘
𝑁𝑁𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖
2
𝑊𝑊𝑖𝑖
𝑘𝑘 = 1/𝑃𝑃𝑖𝑖
𝑘𝑘
With
k = {1,2}. K=1 for boys and 2 for girls 
Pi= Probability of selection of a student of sex k from class j of school i 
Page 10 of 131
Wi = Weight of students of sex k in class j of school i 
m = Number of schools to be selected in the Commune 
Mi = School size (number of students in the school) 
M = Size of the Commune (number of students in the Commune) 
nij = number of girls surveyed in class j of school i 
Nij = Total number of girls in class j of school i. 
School weight 
𝑃𝑃𝑖𝑖 = 𝑚𝑚 ∗
𝑀𝑀𝑖𝑖
𝑀𝑀
 𝑊𝑊𝑖𝑖 = 1/𝑃𝑃𝑖𝑖
Table 1: Distribution of the sample of pilot and non-pilot schools per Commune and per BED 
COMUNE BED Boy Girl Total
Bouroum Bouroum 12 11 23
Nagbingou Nagbingou 15 15 30
Tougouri Tougouri I 21 24 45
Tougouri Tougouri II 15 15 30
Yalgo Yalgo 24 27 51
Non-Pilot Schools 87 92 179
Dargo Dargo 8 7 15
Guibare Guibare 7 8 15
Korsimoro Korsimoro II 7 8 15
Manne Manne 7 8 15
Tikare Tikare 8 7 15
Pilot schools 37 38 75
Package (Pilot and Non-Pilot 124 130 254
Students’ Selection
For the selection of students in each sampled school, a systematic random sampling method of 15 
students was used, with 3 students in each class (Grade 2, Grade 3, Grade 4, Grade 5, and Grade
6). The selection was made on the basis of gender parity (50% boys, 50% girls). 
Producers’ selection
Page 11 of 131
Once in the villages where the schools to be surveyed were located, the surveyors drew up a list of 
village producers with the support of resource persons (VDCs, neighborhood representatives, etc.). 
The selection of the producers to be interviewed (10 per village) was made using a simple random 
sampling method. 
Since neither the list of producers nor the map of villages was available, the selection of producers 
was made using the random walk method. 
All the selected producer households with a member other than the head of household who 
independently produces millet, rice or cowpea recorded two producer interviews: one with the head 
of household and the other with the member of the household who independently produces the 
above-mentioned speculations. A total of 186 individual producers were surveyed. 
Table 2: Number of interviews per target
No 
Target
Target groups Number of 
clusters
Number of 
interviews 
per cluster 
Total 
Targets
Total 
interviews
Response 
rate
1 Students 17 15 255 254 99.6%
2 Producers 17 10 170 186 109.4%
3 Cooks 17 2 34 37 108.8%
4 Producer groups 90F
1 2 18 18 100.0%
5 Carriers 9 3 18 24 133.3%
6 Buyers 9 3 27 23 85.2%
7 Teachers 17 5 85 97 114.1%
8 Directors 17 1 17 18 106%
9 Town Halls 9 2 18 15 83.33%
10 SMC 18 1 18 18 100.0%
11 BED 11 1 11 11 100.0%
Data collection 
Given the nature of the assessment tools (individual and focus group interviews) and also the 
security risks in the study area, the firm prioritized the recruitment of local surveyors and 
supervisors. A total of 18 interviewers were recruited and matched in pairs for data collection in 
one commune. They were recruited on the basis of their level of education (at least baccalaureate), 
their experience in semi-structured surveys and the local languages spoken (preferably Mooré). To 
support the interviewers, 4 supervisors were also recruited. 
A three-day training session was organized for surveyors and supervisors. 
The main task of the surveyors was to collect data from the targets affiliated to the schools
(Principals, students, teachers, cooks and SMCs) and from producers. In addition to their 
supervisory role, the supervisors contributed to collecting data from local project partners, 
1 These clusters represent Communes and not schools.
Page 12 of 131
including mayors and canteen managers at the commune level and heads of basic education 
districts. The expert consultants also participated in collecting data from buyers, processors and 
producer groupings, among others. SECODEV firm provided general supervision of the study, 
facilitated the introduction of the teams in the field and resolved any difficulties that arose. 
Quantitative data were collected using questionnaires, previously programmed in Survey CTO and 
deployed in tablets. At the end of the collection, the data were exported in CSV format, then 
processed and analyzed using SPSS software. 
The key informant interview and focus group guides were developed in hard copy format to 
facilitate notetaking by interviewers.
Prior to the deployment of the teams in the field, the firm, in collaboration with CRS, issued 
information letters to the mayors of the 9 communes and the provincial directors of education in 
Bam, Namentenga and Sanmatenga to facilitate the introduction and movement of the teams in the 
field.
Data Quality Assurance Plan 
Three levels of data quality assurance were considered in the design and implementation of the 
data collection.
The first level of control was carried out when the questionnaires were scanned under the mobile 
platform. Indeed, during the design phase, control and skipping procedures were developed and 
integrated into the forms in order to avoid out-of-range or inconsistent entries during the field 
phase. In addition, GPS coordinates were integrated into the forms in order to follow the itinerary 
of each interviewer. 
During data collection, interviewers are asked to send data to the server at the end of each working 
day. The data sent were exported and reviewed for quality by the data manager with the support of 
the supervisors. Input errors or apparent inconsistencies were noted and communicated to the 
interviewers concerned for possible corrections. 
The second level of control was carried out in the field during data collection and concerned both 
the quantitative and qualitative survey. It was carried out by the supervisors and consisted in 
supervising the data collection process to ensure that the questions were properly asked and that 
the interviewers respected the overall methodology of the study. The supervisors were in constant 
contact with the interviewers to guide and support them to better understand the questions and 
verify the data before it was sent to the server. The supervisor was also in charge of transmitting to 
them all new guidance provided by the consultant team. 
In addition to all these measures, a guide is available to surveyors which has served as a reference 
in the field. It indicates the roles and responsibilities of the interviewers, and contains practical 
advice for a successful survey, definitions of certain concepts and a detailed description of each 
question in the questionnaires and interview guide. 
Page 13 of 131
Difficulties encountered and solutions provided
The study took place in a national context marked by the COVID-19 pandemic. Throughout the 
survey, the teams were advised to strictly adhere to barrier measures: wearing masks, use of hydro 
alcoholic solution, distancing. The number of participants in the focus groups was limited to a 
maximum of 10. Intermediate class schools remained closed, which led the investigators to compile 
lists of students for these classes by village hosting the school with the support of the students' 
parents. Given the trips made by some students and the absence of any non-resident students, and 
the fact that the school in their village does not have the level they attend, the lists thus reconstituted 
were not exhaustive. This could be a source of bias in the choice of students, depending on whether 
the characteristics of students who had travelled at the time of the survey or those of students living 
outside the host village may or may not affect their assessment of the operation of the canteen. 
At the time of the survey, some teachers and commune mayors were absent. This necessitated 
telephone interviews and limited their responses to certain questions.
Insecurity has also been a limiting factor in the choice of schools. In fact, several of the schools 
initially sampled were replaced because of inaccessibility due to insecurity.
Page 14 of 131
Key findings of the assessment
1. Reminder of mechanisms and regulations for the purchase of food and the supply of school 
canteens
The acquisition of food takes into account the regulations in force in terms of public procurement 
and is governed by a large number of texts including Law No. 039-2016 /AN on the general 
regulation of public procurement and its implementing decree No. 2017-
0049/PRES/PM/MINEFID of February 1, 2017 on procedures for the award, execution and 
regulation of public contracts and public service delegations. 
The purchase or ordering of food is currently carried out by the municipal councils in collaboration 
with the SMCS and the BEDs or any other structure. This assembly must proceed to the choice and 
define the criteria of the foodstuffs. It must ensure that the food respects local eating habits and is 
of good nutritional and taste quality. It must ensure that the ratio of the amounts allocated is 
respected, i.e. 67% for cereals, mainly rice, 16% for cowpeas and 17% for oil. The commune 
therefore proceeds by launching a national call for tenders or by signing an agreement with a local 
producers' grouping or association. The end of the acquisition process is materialized by the 
reception of the food ordered in the shops of the commune. 
The food distribution table drawn up by the BED when the food arrives in the commune's stores 
gives the quantities of rice, cowpea and oil for all the establishments. This distribution must take 
into account the number of students in each school according to the following formula: Quantity 
per school and per commodity = total stock per commodity divided by the number of students in 
the commune and multiplied by the number of students in the school. 
Supplying canteens is the first step in the operation of canteens. As soon as the food has been 
declared fit for consumption after the various quality controls, the heads of the BED proceed to 
distribute the food in accordance with the table drawn up beforehand, to collect it and then to send 
it by the supplier to the stores of the various schools in the district. The food is then received by 
the SMCs, which have it stored in the school's stores or, failing that, in a store made available to 
them free of charge.
As soon as all the schools receive their allocation, the BED then sets the date for the start of food 
preparation in the canteens.
Page 15 of 131
2. Functioning of the communes in relation to the purchase of food and the supply of canteens
2.1. Time taken to supply foodstuffs to the communes
There is a general delay in supplying the Communes with food for the canteens: Only 22% of the 
communes are able to obtain food within the time limits set out in their procurement plans. Most 
of the communes declared an average delay of forty-five (45) days for the publication of the 
contract and ninety (90) days during the procurement procedure. Several factors contribute to this 
delay, including the capacity of the dedicated commune staff, the complexity of the procurement 
procedure and the current quality control system.
Out of the nine communes covered by the assessment, each has one person in charge of the 
transferred subjects, i.e. education (especially canteens) and health, and generally two persons in 
charge of the tendering procedures. Out of 13 persons interviewed in the 9 communes, only 4 
(30.76%) had received training in planning food purchases for canteens. These are also the same 
people who are trained in the management of school canteens.
The complexity of the state's public procurement process, particularly the prior control carried 
out by the regional financial services, is a hindrance to the rapid execution of the contract and thus 
to the acquisition of food within a reasonable period of time. This delay in the procurement of 
food supplies from suppliers to the communes results in the late delivery of food to the schools.
Quality control is the most time-consuming step in the current process. Indeed, the delays in 
sampling, analysis and transmission of the results of the quality tests carried out by the laboratories 
are a handicap to the rapid supply of school canteens and therefore to their opening on time. For 
example, for food available in the shops of the commune since October 1, 2019, the results of the 
analysis of samples taken six days later did not come back until the first week of January 2020, i.e. 
CRS custom indicator 1.2.1: Percent of 
commune and COGES (SMCs) implement 
their procurement plans as planned: 22%
In general, the communes in collaboration with 
the SMCs are able to plan food purchases. 
However, only two communes out of nine 
manage to respect the timetable for carrying out 
calls for tenders and the final receipt of food at 
the commune's stores. Non-compliance with 
the purchase schedule is linked to, among other 
factors:
• The delay by the SMCs in launching 
calls for tenders;
• The delay by the suppliers; and 
• Adequate time for analyses to be carried 
 
CRS custom indicator 1.2.3: Percent of 
commune with timely food distribution at 
school level: 22%
In accordance with the purchase and supply 
schedules of the canteens, only two of the nine 
communes were able to distribute food on time at 
the level of their harvests. Between the order and 
delivery of the food to the schools, the first 
commune carried out its purchase and delivery 
schedule within 60 days and the second within 30 
days. The early launch of calls for tenders, the 
privilege granted to local suppliers and the support 
of the communities in transporting food to schools 
with difficult access were the factors of success of 
these communes.
Page 16 of 131
three months later. During this time, the food remains stored without maintenance or treatment, 
which affects its quality. For cowpea in particular, when it was removed from the commune's stores 
by BED inspectors and distributed to the establishments, stocks were unfit for consumption due to 
the presence of weevils and mushrooms. 
The expertise firms are recruited at the national level by the State and their number is insufficient 
to respond in time to the requests of the communes. In addition, most of these firms are located in 
the capital (100 km from the capital of the Centre-North region) or in Bobo-Dioulasso (more than 
460 km away), 
2.2. Functioning of the SMCs and canteen supply timeline 
The SMCs are the school's administrative and management bodies whose aim is to participate in 
the improvement of the education system at the local level. The functionality of a SMC is measured 
through the development of its Annual Action Plan (AAP), the number of general assemblies and 
the submission of its annual balance sheet. The balance sheet should mention the activities carried 
out, the resources mobilized and any equipment acquired. 
The deteriorating security situation in the region and COVID-19 have likely slowed the actions of 
the SMCs during this school year. Nevertheless, it can be seen that some SMCs carried out 
activities until the discontinuation of classes on March 14, 2020 and resumed them to meet the 
needs of examination students by restarting canteens and purchasing hand washing devices. 
Out of a total of 368 schools surveyed in the nine communes, only 125 schools (34%) were supplied 
on time with the planned quantities of food, the quality of which was approved by the analysis 
laboratories.
The supply times for the canteens are first of all a function of the lead times consumed in supplying 
the shops in the commune. In addition, there are logistical problems. Indeed, some transporters do 
not have a knowledge of the realities of the field, whereas in remote and difficult to access areas, 
the transport trucks are often not adapted. In this case, we must commend the accompaniment of 
the transporters by the population of the beneficiary schools, who come to the support with tricycles 
or carts for transport.
Hence this shows the need, as envisaged by the project, to entrust transport to people who have a 
better knowledge of the road network in the municipalities. Transport by tricycles (with a capacity 
of one ton) is sometimes more efficient, especially on rural roads. 
CRS custom indicator 1.2. Percent of schools that receive timely food assistance according to 
criteria (date delivery, quantity and quality): 34%. 125 out of 368 schools received their food 
allocations on time after certification of quality for consumption. 
Page 17 of 131
Table 3: Average food supply delivery time in number of days 
Communes
Between the order and 
the delivery of the 
food at the stores of 
the commune
Stays of food 
supplies at the 
commune stores 
level 
Food supplies 
distribution to 
all schools
Overall 
duration
Dargo 60 0 10 70
Guibare 15 90 5.5 110.5
Korsimoro 45 0 0 45
Manne 30 14.5 7 51.5
Pilot 
communes
36.4 29.9 6.4 72.7
Bouroum 45 0 2 47
Nagbingou 120 30 3 153
Tougouri 105 120 7,5 232.5
Non-pilot 
municipalities
84 54 4.4 142.4
Together 56.3 39.9 5.6 101.8
3. Production and supply capacities of agricultural producers and cooperatives
3.1. Production and sales 
The survey of individual producers covered a sample of 186 individual producers, of which 24% 
were women and 76% men. Large producers, i.e. those farming at least 5 ha, accounted for 12.4% 
and small producers 87.6%. All women are found among the small producers. 81% of producers 
(93% of women and 77% of men) have no education level.
In terms of cultivation practices during the 2018/2019 season, production was as follows: 
- 82% of producers (88% of men and 62% of women) produced millet.
- 70% of producers (66% of men and 84% of women) produced cowpea. 
- 19% of producers (23% of men and 4% of women) produced rice. 
In the 2018/2019 crop year, average production per producer was 307 kg for millet, 26 kg for paddy 
rice and 89 kg for cowpea. However, in a normal year, production can reach 614 kg for millet, 51 
kg for paddy rice and 146 kg for cowpea. 
Page 18 of 131
The marketing rate is 1% for millet, 4% for paddy rice and 58% for cowpea. However, the share 
of production sold through groupings or contracts is 4% for millet, 22% for local rice and 16% for 
cowpea. 
The volume of production sold is obtained by adding the aggregated individual sales to all 
producers and the sales of cooperatives. Here, cooperatives are considered micro enterprises 
(employing between 10 and 249 people). Because they represent organizations of professional 
farmers, involved in processing of production or transformation and benefiting from a status in 
accordance with the OHADA law (Organization for the Harmonization of Business Law in Africa). 
Thus, the total volume of sales during the year amounts to 183 tons (115 tons of cowpeas, 61 tons 
of local rice and 6 tons of millet). 
NB: Producers and cooperatives do not produce cotton or cotton oil. It would be more interesting 
to separate the project's local needs for food from the other needs that will be met with edible oil 
production companies. 
Table 4: Sales volume (in tons) by commodity at the level of the nine communes
1. Volume of 
commodities sold by 
farms and firms: by 
smallholder 
Total volume 
sold from plots 
cultivated by 
female 
participants 
who are 
smallholder 
producers 
Total volume 
sold from plots 
cultivated by 
male 
participants 
who are 
smallholder 
producers 
Total volume 
sold from plots 
cultivated by 
mixed 
participants 
who are 
smallholder 
producers 
Total volume 
sold from plots 
cultivated by 
15-29 year old
participants 
who are 
smallholder 
producers 
Total volume sold 
from plots 
cultivated by 30+ 
year old
participants who 
are smallholder 
producers
Total volume sold 
from plots 
cultivated by 
mixed age
participants who 
are smallholder 
producers
1.1. Volume of 
Millet 
2.6
6.6 - 1.4 7.8 -
1.2. Volume of 
local rice 
1.4 3,6 - 0.3
4.7 -
1.3. Volume of 
cowpea
4.1 10.5 - 1.7 12.9 -
LRP Standard Indicator #8: Volume of commodities sold by farms and firms receiving USDA 
assistance: 183 tones. 
In accordance with the guidelines in the Handbook on LRP indicator 8, the variables included 
in the calculation of output sold are:
The number of potential producers in the 9 communes determined from the results of the last 
general census of agriculture (RGA, 2010) is 26400. Thus, to aggregate the sold production of 
the categories of producers, we use their weights in the sample and the rate of practice of the 
crop in question. The number of groupings or small businesses with 10-249 employees: 18 
Page 19 of 131
2. Volume of commodities 
sold by farms and firms: 
by large producers
Total volume 
sold from 
plots 
cultivated by 
female 
participants 
who are large 
producers 
Total volume 
sold from 
plots 
cultivated by 
male 
participants 
who are large 
producers 
Total volume 
sold from 
plots 
cultivated by 
mixed 
participants 
who are large 
producers 
Total volume 
sold from 
plots 
cultivated by 
15-29 year old
participants 
who are large 
producers 
Total volume 
sold from 
plots 
cultivated by 
30+ year old
participants 
who are large 
producers 
Total volume 
sold from plots 
cultivated by 
mixed age
participants 
who are large 
producers 
2.1. Volume of Millet 0 
33.7 - 0.2 33.5
- 
2.2. Volume of local rice 
0 3.3 - 0 3.3 - 
2.3. Volume of cowpea
0 27.4 - 0.2 27.2 -
3. Volume of 
commodities sold 
by farms and 
firms: by 
microenterprises 
Total volume 
sold from plots 
cultivated by 
female 
participants 
who are 
microenterprise 
producers 
Total volume 
sold from plots 
cultivated by 
male 
participants 
who are 
microenterprise 
producers 
Total volume 
sold from plots 
cultivated by 
mixed 
participants 
who are 
microenterprise 
producers 
Total volume 
sold from plots 
cultivated by 
15-29 year old
participants 
who are 
microenterprise 
producers 
Total volume 
sold from plots 
cultivated by 
30+ year old 
participants 
who are 
microenterprise 
producers 
Total volume 
sold from plots 
cultivated by 
mixed age
participants 
who are 
microenterprise 
producers 
3.1. Volume of 
Millet 
- - 5.5 - - 5.5
3.2. Volume of 
local rice 
- - 60.0 - - 60.0
3.3. Volume of 
cowpea
- - 24.7 - - 24.7
3.2. Annual value of production sold 
Producers and cooperatives state that they have no fixed buyers. Stocks are generally sold to local 
traders (from Kaya, Sebba, and Dori) for millet and cowpea. Paddy rice stocks are sold to local 
processors (Tougouri, Yalgo, and Kaya). 
Insecurity limits buyer attendance to some markets, and producers are sometimes forced to sell off 
their stocks on local markets. In quieter areas, NGO food distributions and government-subsidized 
grain sales (usually during the period April to December) also disrupt markets by reducing local 
demand. As a result, selling prices are considered low by producers. This negatively affects their 
dynamism. Most of the groupings have an account at the level of the commune's credit unions, but 
LRP Standard #7: Value of annual sales of farms and firms receiving USDA assistance: 
On the basis of production sold, individual producers and cooperatives reported sales values that 
were extrapolated across the nine communes to about FCFA 51 million, or USD 86,456.
Page 20 of 131
of the 12 organizations met, half do not have a receipt in accordance with the new law on 
organizations. This is linked to their low level of operation. 
Table 5: Value of sales by commodity in USD
1. Value of 
commodities 
sold by farms 
and firms: by 
smallholder 
Total value 
sold from plots 
cultivated by 
female 
participants 
who are 
smallholder 
producers (in 
USD) 
Total value 
sold from plots 
cultivated by 
male 
participants 
who are 
smallholder 
producers (in 
USD)
Total value 
sold from plots 
cultivated by 
mixed 
participants 
who are 
smallholder 
producers (in 
USD)
Total value 
sold from plots 
cultivated by 
15-29 year old
participants 
who are 
smallholder 
producers (in 
USD)
Total value 
sold from plots 
cultivated by 
30+ year old
participants 
who are 
smallholder 
producers (in 
USD)
Total value 
sold from plots 
cultivated by 
mixed age
participants 
who are 
smallholder 
producers (in 
USD)
1.1. Value of 
Millet 
483 2714 - 487 2711 -
1.2. Value of 
local rice 
230 595 - 50 776 - 
1.3. Value of 
cowpea
2969 9373 - 1437 10905 -
2. Value of 
commodities 
sold by farms 
and firms: by 
large producers 
Total value 
sold from plots 
cultivated by 
female 
participants 
who are large
producers (in 
USD) 
Total value 
sold from plots 
cultivated by 
male 
participants 
who are large 
producers (in 
USD) 
Total value 
sold from plots 
cultivated by 
mixed 
participants 
who are large 
producers (in 
USD) 
Total value 
sold from plots 
cultivated by 
15-29 year old
participants 
who are large 
producers (in 
USD) 
Total value 
sold from plots 
cultivated by 
30+ year old
participants 
who are large 
producers (in 
USD) 
Total value 
sold from plots 
cultivated by 
mixed age
participants 
who are large 
producers (in 
USD) 
2.1. Value of 
Millet 
0 12317 - 73 12244 - 
2.2. Value of 
local rice 
0 589 - 0 589 -
2.3. Value of 
cowpea
0 25619 - 187 25432 -
3. Value of 
commodities 
sold by farms 
and firms: by 
microenterprises 
Total value sold 
from plots 
cultivated by 
female 
participants 
who are 
microenterprise 
producers (in 
USD) 
Total value of 
vegetables sold 
from plots 
cultivated by 
male 
participants 
who are 
microenterprise 
producers (in 
USD) 
Total value of 
vegetables sold 
from plots 
cultivated by 
mixed 
participants 
who are 
microenterprise 
producers (in 
USD) 
Total value of 
vegetables sold 
from plots 
cultivated by 
15-29 year old
participants 
who are 
microenterprise 
producers (in 
USD) 
Total value of 
vegetables sold 
from plots 
cultivated by 
30+ year old
participants 
who are 
microenterprise 
producers (in 
USD) 
Total value of 
vegetables sold 
from plots 
cultivated by 
mixed age
participants 
who are 
microenterprise 
producers (in 
USD) 
3.1. Value of 
Millet 
- - 1514 - - 1514
3.2. Value of 
local rice 
- - 14841 - - 14841
3.3. Value of 
cowpea
- - 15208 - - 15208
Page 21 of 131
In terms of commercial practice, at least half of the sales are generally made on the market of the 
commune's capital city to local traders. Contract production sales are almost non-existent for millet 
and paddy rice and account for 7% for cowpea. 
Figure 1: Proportion of sales by product and according to sales areas
On the main markets monitored by the market information system (SIM/SONAGESS), average 
millet prices in 2020 (January to June) are globally lower than last year, but between 10% and 20%
lower than the five-year average. Cowpea prices are slightly higher on the Yalgo market compared 
to last year and to the average. Similarly, the price of local husked rice in Yalgo is 31% higher than 
the five-year average. The upward trend in prices on the Yalgo market could be explained by the 
24%
4% 
17%
56%
0%
Millet
border-field
through
clusters
on the local
village market
on the
municipality's
main market
by contract
21%
22%
1%
56%
0%
Paddy rice
edge-field
through clusters
on the local 
village market
on the 
municipality's 
main market
by contract
19%
9%
16% 50%
7%
Cowpea border-field
through clusters
on the local village 
market
on the 
municipality's 
main market
by contract
Page 22 of 131
increase in demand related to the strong presence of internally displaced persons (IDPs), who in 
March represented 27% of the commune's population (CONASUR, April 2020). 
Table 6: Average prices of target products in the main markets of the region
Market average 
price 5 years
average 
price 2019
average price 2020 
(Jan-June)
Change 
2020/2019
Variation 
2020/average
Millet
Boulsa 176 159 159 0% -10%
Kaya 205 175 171 -3% -17%
Kongoussi 193 149 155 4% -20%
Yalgo 232 209 204 -2% -12%
Cowpea
Boulsa 270 226 247 9% -8%
Kaya 284 251 266 6% -6%
Kongoussi 277 234 235 1% -15%
Yalgo 302 275 320 16% 6%
Local rice
Boulsa 312 315 315 0% 1%
Yalgo 295 358 387 8% 31%
Source: from SIM/SONAGESS data
3.3. Production techniques and crop management practices
Producers in the Centre-North region benefit from technical assistance and production support from 
the government and its partners. The NERTAMBA and PRRIA projects support producers with 
inputs for production, particularly cowpea and rice production. Storage infrastructures are also 
being built through the construction of 28 stores of 50 tons in the chief towns of the communes. 
Technical partners such as FAO (Food and Agriculture organization), CRS and VIM (Victory over 
Malnutrition Project) are supporting cowpea production and conservation through the distribution 
of improved seeds, capacity building and promotion of triple bottom bags. Other local NGOs also 
support the structuring of producers by commodity chains. The cowpea sector seems to be the most 
structured through the establishment of producers' unions in the majority of communes. 
Consequently, over the last two campaigns, cowpea production has increased by an average of 72% 
compared to the average over the period 2010-2017 and represents 16% of national production 
(Processing based on statistics from the Ministry of Agriculture). 
Page 23 of 131
The production techniques adopted by the majority of producers include: 
- The use of improved seeds: 67% of producers (70% for men and 58% for women); 
- Soil water conservation (SWC): 66% of producers (61% for men and 73% for women); and 
- Agroforestry or Assisted Natural Regeneration (ANR): 41% of producers (41% for men and 
42% for women). 
As for post-harvest techniques, we note that:
- 57% of producers (57% for men and 58% for women) use triple-bottomed bags for cowpea 
conservation. 
- 71% of producers (70% for men and 76% for women) sort their products for better preservation.
Table 7: Number of producers according to the types of techniques applied 
Practice per category Total 
number of 
female 
smallholder 
farmers 
activity 
participants 
who are 
applying 
techniques
Total 
number of 
male 
smallholder 
farmers 
activity 
participants 
who are 
applying 
techniques
Total 
number of 
15-29-year￾old 
smallholder 
farmers 
activity 
participants 
who are 
applying 
techniques
Total 
number of 
30+ year 
old 
smallholder 
farmers 
activity 
participant
s who are 
applying 
techniques
Number of 
smallholder 
farmers by 
millet 
activity 
participant
s who are 
applying 
techniques
Number of 
smallholder 
farmers by 
local rice 
activity 
participant
s who are 
applying 
techniques
Number of 
smallholde
r farmers 
by cowpea 
activity 
participant
s who are 
applying 
techniques
1. Cultural Practices 
Use improved seeds 26 81 3 104 91 17 74
2.0 Plague and disease 
management
2.1 Use of natural insecticides 
and fungicides 17 74 3 88 75 21 67
3.0 Fertility and conservation 
related to the soil
3.1 Incorporation of organic 
material in the soil 21 72 1 92 77 12 69
3.2 Use of improved fertilizers 21 70 6 85 73 22 60
3.3 Soil and water
conservation 33 72 6 99 80 23 70
3.4 Agroforestry 19 50 1 68 59 12 33
LRP Standard Indicator # 12: Number of individuals in the agriculture system who have 
applied improved management practices or technologies with USDA assistance: 76 
producers, or 41% of total producers. 
41% of producers (76 producers) adopt both appropriate production and post-harvest techniques 
and in relation to climate change, soil fertilization and conservation of their production. 
Page 24 of 131
4.0 Postharvest management 
and storage 
4.1 Select of agricultural 
products 34 80 4 110 87 25 83
4.2 Improved storage 26 63 4 85 75 19 76
Total 
number of 
female 
large
farmers
activity 
participants 
who are 
applying 
techniques 
Total 
number of 
male large
farmers
activity 
participants 
who are 
applying 
techniques 
Total 
number of 
15-29-year￾old large 
farmers 
activity 
participants 
who are 
applying 
techniques 
Total 
number of 
30+ year
old large 
farmer 
activity 
participant
s who are 
applying 
techniques 
Number of 
large 
farmers by 
millet
activity 
participant
s are 
applying 
techniques
Number of 
large 
farmers by 
local rice
activity 
participant
s are 
applying 
techniques
Number of 
large 
farmers by 
cowpea
activity 
participant
s are 
applying 
techniques
1. Cultural Practices 
Use improved seeds 0 18 0 18 17 4 13
2.0 Plague and disease 
management
2.1 Use of natural insecticides 
and fungicides 0 16 0 16 16 4 12
3.0 Fertility and conservation 
related to the soil
3.1 Incorporation of organic 
material in the soil 0 11 0 11 10 3 8
3.2 Use of improved fertilizers 0 17 0 17 16 3 12
3.3 Soil and water
conservation 0 17 0 17 16 5 12
3.4 Agroforestry 0 8 0 8 7 1 4
4.0 Postharvest management 
and storage 
4.1 Select of agricultural 
products 0 18 0 18 17 5 14
4.2 Improved storage 0 17 0 17 16 4 16
Page 25 of 131
3.4 Supply capacity of agricultural producers and cooperatives 
On the whole, millet and local rice production is self-consumed as the marketing rate of these 
products is 1% and 4% respectively. In contrast, 58% of cowpea production is sold on the market. 
For the 2018/2019 marketing year, sales through cooperatives or contracts1F
2
 were about 183 tons 
(67 tons for cowpea, 68 tons for local rice and 6 tons for millet). Direct market sales were 500 tons 
(477 tons for cowpea, 3 tons for local rice and 21 tons for millet). 
Most of the local rice marketed is held by local rice processing cooperatives. For the two largest 
processing cooperatives, Wendwaogo Cooperative of Louda (Kaya commune) and Kiswensida 
Cooperative (Yalgo commune), the daily processing capacity of paddy rice into milled (for the 
first) or parboiled (for the second) rice is estimated at two (02) tons each. These two cooperatives 
each have a storage capacity according to standards of 300 tons. In the other communes rice 
processor cooperatives exist, but are less equipped and less organized and do not yet have a 
recognition receipt in accordance with the new law governing organizations. 
With the exception of edible oil based on cotton, the commune officials believe that their food 
needs for the canteens can be met either at the commune level or at the regional level.
In general, producer cooperatives and processors have expressed their willingness to participate in 
the program to purchase food for school canteens. However, they suggest, among other things: 
- Transparency in the process through an increase in the number of consultation frameworks and 
a strengthening of communication; 
- Timely information to cooperatives on expressions of need (4 to 6 months before delivery 
dates); 
- The down payment on the order and the remainder upon delivery of the food; and 
- A purchase price higher than the market price.
22 According to the survey data, sales through cooperatives or contracts represent 4% for millet, 22% for local rice 
and 16% for cowpea.
CRS custom indicator 1.2.2: Percent of producer organizations that comply with 
contracted delivery criteria (dates, quantity and quality): 22%.
Out of a total of 18 producer or processor organizations met, only four (04) declared that they 
had contracts with town halls or other local rice processing cooperatives, which they executed 
on time and in accordance with the quantity and quality of products requested by the client. 
Page 26 of 131
4. Local traders and capacity to participate in the food procurement process
In the course of the assessment, 23 wholesale or semi-wholesale traders were interviewed in the 
nine communes. In general, the shares of stocks acquired from producer cooperatives are low, on 
average: 10% for millet, 12% for local rice and 21% for cowpea. These traders prefer to buy directly 
from producers through local collectors. Indeed, the selling prices offered by the cooperatives are 
very often higher than local market prices. Nevertheless, in 90% of the cases, the traders recognize 
that the products acquired from the cooperatives are of acceptable or good quality. Similarly, 95% 
of traders are satisfied with the cooperatives' compliance with delivery deadlines. 
During the last marketing season, traders purchased a total volume of 31 tons of millet, 127 tons
of local rice and 476 tons of cowpea from producer cooperatives. They also estimate that during 
the period from November to December, supply from the cooperatives can reach 126 tons of millet, 
341 tons of rice and 272 tons of cowpeas, for a cumulative volume of 739 tons, corresponding 
to 106% of the project's needs for the second year, including edible oil requirements. 
In the last three years, 30% of traders have successfully participated in a tender process. The 
cumulative volumes delivered are 155 tons of millet, 108 tons of local rice and 87 tons of cowpea. 
With regard to local food purchases by town halls in particular, only 17% of traders said they had 
taken part with cumulative volumes of 30 tons of millet, 52 tons of local rice and 35 tons of cowpea. 
The low participation of traders in tenders is mainly linked to the lack of timely information on the 
process (reported by 80% of traders). A few traders also mention the low financial capacity (19%) 
and complex procedures (13%). 
For traders who were able to participate in food purchases with the town halls, in 44% of cases, 
they are not satisfied with the execution of their contracts because procedures are considered long 
and there are delays in payment. 
Complex 
procedures, 
12.5%
No bank 
account, 
0.0%
Limited 
financial 
capacity, 
18.8%
No access to 
information in 
time, 81%
Figure 3: Reason for no 
participation of merchants 
in calls for tenders
Figure 2: Local production (in tons) trends in the region
Source: Statistics division/Ministry of Agriculture
0
50000
100000
150000
2,010 2,011 2012 2013 2,014 2015 2016 2,017 2018 2019
Local production (in tons) trends in the region
Millet Local rice Cowpea
Page 27 of 131
All the traders interviewed are ready to collaborate with the project, but insist on:
- Strengthening communication during the process, and
- Compliance with payment deadlines. 
5. Transporters and ability to participate in the canteen procurement process
The survey involved 24 transporters, 9 of which operate with tricycles, 8 with trucks of 10 tons or 
less and 7 with trucks over 10 tons. The average length of time in business for these transporters is 
9 years. Overall, 75% of the transporters confirmed that they had already been involved in 
transporting and delivering food in the North Central Region. In terms of training in food transport 
and delivery:
- 21% confirm that they have received training on the rules for loading/unloading goods; 
- 25% have been trained on delivery contract management; 
- 13% on the management of delivery notes. 
The cost of transportation is usually a function of distance, road conditions, fuel prices and handling 
charges. For the transport of one ton of foodstuffs over a distance of 50 km, the average cost is 
estimated at:
- 8 844 F CFA (15 USD) on a tarred road; 
- 12,934 F CFA (22 USD) on an earth road; and 
- 16 188 F CFA (28 USD) on a rural track. 
The average driving time over a distance of 50 km is estimated at one hour on tarred road, two 
hours on a paved red lane and three hours on a rural track. 
Handling costs for loading and unloading one ton of foodstuffs are on average 2,000 F CFA (USD 
3.4) for millet, local rice and cowpea, but reach 2,600 F CFA (USD 4) for edible oil in 20-litre 
cans.
Notwithstanding the impacts of this security situation and the poor state of the roads, transporters 
are in favor of reducing transport costs according to the quantities of foodstuffs to be delivered. 
6. Functioning of canteens
All canteens have canteen cards that indicate the composition of the students' food ration. This 
sheet is entrusted to the teachers who are members of the SMCs and in charge of the canteen. The 
latter are made aware of the strict respect of the instructions for the delivery of food to the canteen 
Page 28 of 131
girls, the respect of the quantities per meal, the standards of food storage, the management and 
control documents to be provided in case of an inspection visit. 
Table 8: Daily ration per pupil 
Designation Daily ration
Rice 0,150 kg
Bean (cowpea) 0.035 kg
Oil 0.016 liters
The amount of food to be taken for a meal is obtained by multiplying the daily ration per pupil by 
the number of students in the school. 
At the beginning of the school year, the parents' contribution is sometimes necessary for the running 
of the canteen while waiting for the school to be supplied by the commune. Likewise, when 
supplies run out at the end of the year, the parents' contribution is used to make up for the gap and 
accompany the students in the examination classes until the date of the examinations. The 
contribution is either in kind or in cash, but rarely both at the same time. The assessment reveals 
that, on average, contributions in kind for the running of the canteens were 3 kg of millet and 2 kg 
of cowpea per pupil. Cash contributions averaged 758 CFA francs (US$1.3) per pupil. They are 
generally used to purchase condiments for the canteen.
On average each school has two cooks, all of whom are women, 46% of whom are over 40 years 
old and 54% between 20 and 40 years old. The operation of the canteen requires precautionary 
measures to be taken in terms of health and hygiene. For example, the use of hand washing facilities 
in front of the canteen and toilets and the availability of good quality drinking water play an 
important role in maintaining health, which is essential for good school attendance. Interviews with 
cooks show that only 24% of them have received hygiene training. Nevertheless, with regard to the 
respect of hygiene conditions in the canteen:
- 95% of cooks say that meals are always protected against dust. 
- 95% of cooks say that kitchen utensils are always well washed and well protected after each 
preparation. 
- 76% of cooks say that the kitchen is always well cleaned. 
For the storage of foodstuffs in the dedicated store integrated into the school building, the 
following safety measures must be taken:
- doors, windows and roof in good condition, 
- a ventilated room with air holes, 
- an absence of holes (inside and outside) and grass around, 
- locks for the doors and protective grilles, and 
Page 29 of 131
- a guard.
In terms of infrastructure, 60% of the canteens in the so-called pilot schools are made of permanent 
materials, compared with 58.8% in the other communes. The following table summarizes the 
situation in the various communes. 
Table 9: Distribution of canteens by type of building material 
Commune In final material In tenuous material Straw shed Other
Commune Pilot
Dargo 0% 100% 0% 0%
Guibare 100% 0% 0% 0%
Korsimoro 100% 0% 0% 0%
Manne 100% 0% 0% 0%
Tikare 0% 100% 0% 0%
Pilot assembly 43% 58% 0% 0%
Commune non-Pilot
Bouroum 0% 60% 40% 0%
Nagbingou 100% 0% 0% 0%
Tougouri 71% 18% 12% 0%
Yalgo 70% 30% 0% 0%
Non-pilot assembly 52% 32% 16% 0%
It should be noted that no school has a kitchen made of straw in the communes with pilot schools. 
In the communes where there are no pilot schools, the situation seems to be identical in terms of 
infrastructure made of final materials. However, several communes have their kitchens made of 
straw, which shows the dangerousness of these infrastructures which can catch fire at any time.
The majority of cooks (87%) consider the quantity of cooking utensils to be insufficient. Wood is 
used as fuel and only 22% of the canteens have improved stoves. On average the time used to cook 
meals is 3 hours.
During the week, five recipes are usually provided to the students. In the canteens where all three 
products are used, cowpea is cooked five times, rice four times and millet once a week. 
Indicator 1.3: Percent of schools with culturally acceptable foods that Meet Quality 
Standards: 100%
Indicator 1.3.1: Percent of children that report eating culturally acceptable foods at 
school: 99%.
MGD Standard Indicator #2: Average student attendance rate in USDA supported 
classrooms/schools: 61% of which 63% for girls and 59% for boys.
Page 30 of 131
Figure 4: Nature of buildings used as kitchens Figure 5: Number of times the product is cooked 
throughout the week
7. Canteens and impacts 
One of the objectives of the canteens is to encourage school retention and attendance. In all schools, 
the food provided is considered culturally acceptable. Similarly, overall (99%), students find the 
meal served at school to be culturally acceptable. 
Also, in 89% of the cases they consider the quality of the meals to be good and in 79% of the cases 
they are satisfied with the quantities of food served. 
In terms of health, students who report having had at least one episode of discomfort (especially 
stomach aches) or indigestion at school after a meal account for about 8%. It is difficult to link 
these ailments directly to the meal because 16% of students do not wash their hands before eating. 
It is also noted that 21% of students do not wash their hands after using the toilet. Hence the need 
to strengthen awareness and respect of hygiene rules by students. 
Table 10: Distribution of students by cultural acceptance of prepared meals 
Culturally acceptable food
Yes No Don't know Total
Girls 100% 0% 0% 100%
Boys 98% 2% 0% 100%
Total 99% 1% 0% 100%
In terms of learning outcomes, teachers estimate that 56% of students are attentive to the lesson 
(31% of boys and 61% of girls). However, the proportions are lower in Grade 2 and Grade 4 (40%).
Final 
materials, 
68%
Precarious 
materials, 
24%
Straw shed, 
3%
Others, 5%
Nature of buildings used as kitchens
Millet;1
Cowpea; Rice; 4 
5
Number of times the product is cooked 
throughout the week
Page 31 of 131
The analysis between pilot and non-pilot municipalities reveals that, in general, students from 
schools belonging to pilot municipalities have a higher level of attention and participation in 
lessons than students from non-pilot municipalities. Only the grade 4 and grade 6 classes (at the 
boys' level) seem to be an exception. 
The comparison of average participation rates of students by gender between pilot and non-pilot 
communities provides some interesting results. In fact, according to the results in the table below, 
in most cases, these rates are significantly different between these two types of communities. It is 
only in grade 2 classes that the difference in rates is not significant. It also appears from this analysis 
that the participation of boys in grade 4 class is not significantly different between pilot and non￾pilot communes.
Table 11: Proportion of attentive and participative students per class and gender
Class Students Pilot commune Non-pilot commune
Grade 2 Girls 50% 40%
Boys 52% 33%
Grade 3 Girls 62% 29%
Boys 62% 37%
Grade 4 Girls 44% 57%
Boys 37% 50%
Grade 5 Girls 81% 41%
Boys 76% 37%
Grade 6 Girls 73% 66%
Boys 48% 64%
Whole 57% 45%
Data on student attendance in class was collected from teachers in collaboration with school principals.
According to USDA's approach, this indicator should be determined by counting in classrooms on the 
day of the survey with the actual presence of students. However, due to the course terminations 
following the COVID-19 pandemic, investigators did not have access to classrooms. Finally, the 
teachers of each class were interviewed and were able to provide a statement on the number of students 
attending the class as a proportion of the total number of students in the class.
As a result, when classes open in October, CRS field teams will be collecting data to update this 
indicator.
Page 32 of 131
Table 12: Test on equality of averages of participation rates 
T-test for equality of averages IC 95% of the 
difference
Proportion of 
students who 
are 
participatory 
and attentive
t ddl P-value Average 
Difference 
Standard 
deviation Lower Superior
Grade 2 Girls 0.013 155 0.99 0.00079 0.06224 -0.12217 0.12374
Grade 2 Boys 1.285 155 0.201 0.07561 0.05883 -0.04061 0.19183
Grade 3 Girls 4.376 93 0*** 0.27032 0.06177 0.14766 0.39298
Grade 3 boys 4.593 93 0*** 0.3304 0.07193 0.18755 0.47325
Grade 4 Girls -2.439 155 0.016* -0.16921 0.06937 -0.30625 -0.03217
Grade 4 boys -1.486 155 0.139 -0.09755 0.06566 -0.22727 0.03216
Grade 5 Girls 2.577 79 0.012* 0.24096 0.09349 0.05485 0.42707
Grade 5 Boys 6.586 79 0*** 0.4014 0.06095 0.28008 0.52273
Grade 6 girls -3.693 155 0*** -0.26703 0.07231 -0.40988 -0.12419
Grade 6 Boys -3.215 155 0.002** -0.21065 0.06551 -0.34007 -0.08124
***<0.001; **<0.01; *<0.05 
8. Design of Faso Riibo: Obstacles and Challenges
 8.1. Obstacles and Challenges
The deterioration of the security situation in the north-central region, particularly in the communes 
in the north of the region, is having a negative impact on agricultural activities. Indeed, 7.5% of 
producers report having inaccessible plots of land for cultivation. The region also has a large 
number of Internally Displaced Persons (IDPs) and 8% of surveyed producers claim to share land 
with IDPs. Insecurity also affects the availability and cost of agricultural labor. About 9% of 
producers report that the average daily cost of labor has risen from F CFA 1600 (USD 2.72) before 
the crisis to now F CFA 3500 (USD 5.95).
In addition to the deteriorating security situation, rainfall deficits are identified by producers as 
factors limiting productivity. Lack of financial resources also limits producers' access to inputs, 
which reduces their yields. 
At the level of local rice processors, the lack of adequate equipment reduces their processing 
capacity.
The deterioration of the security situation is also negatively affecting transport activity in the region 
by increasing transport costs (mentioned by 58% of transporters) and delivery times (mentioned by 
Page 33 of 131
50% of transporters). The additional costs over a distance of 50 km are estimated on average at 7 
286 F CFA (USD 12.4). In terms of adaptation strategies, transporters often use the services of 
local security volunteers. They learn more about the security situation on the roads and observe the 
instructions given by the national security forces. 
In addition to contextual factors, the cumbersome tendering process and food quality control 
described above, if not addressed, could negatively hamper project implementation.
Finally, in the context of COVID-19, throughout the survey the teams were advised to strictly 
adhere to barrier measures (wearing masks, use of hydro alcoholic solution, distancing), and the 
number of participants in the focus groups was limited to a maximum of 10. Intermediate class 
schools remained closed, which led the investigators to compile lists of students for these classes 
by the village hosting the school with the support of the students' parents. Given the trips made 
by some students and the absence of any non-resident students, and the fact that the school in 
their village does not have the level they attend, the lists thus reconstituted were not exhaustive. 
This could be a source of bias in the choice of students, depending on whether the characteristics 
of students who had travelled at the time of the survey or those of students living outside the host 
village may or may not affect their assessment of the operation of the canteen. At the time of the 
survey, some teachers and commune mayors were absent. This necessitated telephone interviews 
and limited their responses to certain questions. That bias will limit comparison of attendance and 
attentiveness indicators with the future evaluations, unless the data will be recorded later once the 
classes are opened.
8.2. Proposal of exit strategies 
In its implementation, Faso Riibo includes training and capacity building activities for 
stakeholders. Similarly, equipment support is envisaged to increase production, processing and 
storage capacities. This already responds to the concerns raised by the various stakeholders 
interviewed. Nevertheless, these stakeholders would like to see communication and transparency 
developed throughout the project's duration. To this end, a CRS- Town Halls - SMC -Suppliers 
consultation framework would be necessary to enable all stakeholders to be at the same level of 
information and to resolve any bottlenecks. 
With regard to delays due to food quality controls, agreements could be established between town 
halls and analytical laboratories. This agreement should ensure that samples of food to be analyzed 
are taken at the time of receipt of the food in the commune's stores. Social networks could be used 
to speed up the transmission of results pending their official return. 
Page 34 of 131
Conclusion and recommendations
The diagnosis of the conditions before the start of the Faso Riibo project shows that the bottlenecks 
in the timely supply of school canteens in the project coverage area mainly lie in the timely 
acquisition and the final reception of the food at the level of the stores of the various communes. 
Due to cumbersome tender procedures and slow quality control, the foodstuffs arrive late in the
majority of schools. 
The project will be able to rely on the capacity of producer and processor groupings to meet food 
needs in quantity. However, in order to meet quality standards, technical capacity and equipment 
for processing and storage should be strengthened. The project will also have to address the 
deteriorating security situation and recurrent rainfall deficits that affect agricultural productivity in 
the region. 
The potential for means of transport exists at the level of communes. However, this sector is also 
affected by the deteriorating security situation, which leads to an increase in transport costs and 
delivery times. To this end, the effectiveness of endogenous strategies developed by local 
transporters could be strengthened by the involvement and support of parents, especially in areas 
that are difficult to access. 
Thus, in its implementation the project should take into account the following recommendations: 
- Initiate a framework for CRS-Town Halls-BED-SMCs-Suppliers in order to facilitate the 
information flow and the understanding of the roles and expectations of each stakeholder. 
- Establish agreements with quality analysis laboratories in order to allow the timely transmission 
of control results to town halls. 
- Strengthen the technical and material capacities of producers and cooperatives through training 
in post-harvest production management and food supply standards for canteens and through 
support for storage infrastructure and processing equipment. 
- Promote hygiene in schools by renovating or equipping canteens and raising awareness among 
teachers, cooks and students. 
- Collect baseline student attendance data once the schools are opened.
Page 35 of 131
Annexes
A1: Baseline situation of the indicators
Project-Level Results 
Framework
Performance Indicators 
(standard included with 
formulas)
Baseline
1.2 Improved Timeliness of 
Food Assistance
Percent of schools that receive 
timely food assistance according to 
criteria (date delivery, quantity and 
quality). 
34%
1.2.1: Improved Timeliness 
of Procurement
Percent of commune and COGES 
implement their procurement plans 
as planned
22%
1.2.2: Improved Timeliness 
of Delivery
Percent of producer organizations 
that comply with contracted 
delivery criteria (dates, quantity 
and quality) 
22%
1.2.3: Improved Timeliness 
of Distribution
Percent of commune with timely 
food distribution at school level
22%
1.3 Improved Utilization of 
Nutritious and Culturally 
Acceptable Food that Meet 
Quality Standards
Percent of schools with culturally 
acceptable foods that Meet Quality 
Standards 
100%
1.3.1 Improved Access to 
Culturally Acceptable Foods
Percent of children that report 
eating culturally acceptable foods 
at school 
99%
1.3.2.1 Increased 
Agricultural Productivity
 
Value of annual sales of farms and 
firms receiving USDA assistance
$ 86 456
Volume of commodities sold by 
farms and firms receiving USDA 
assistance
183 MT
1.3.3 Improved Access to 
Nutritious Foods
Average student attendance rate in 
USDA supported 
classrooms/schools 
61%
Page 36 of 131
1.4.3 Improved Capacity of 
Relevant Organizations 
Number of individuals in the 
agriculture system who have 
applied improved management 
practices or technologies with 
USDA assistance
76
A2: Situation of foodstuffs received by the SMCs of the schools surveyed 
BED Schools Millet 
(Tons)
Beans (Tons) Rice 
(Tons)
Oil (Tons)
GUIBARE Watinoma 11.2 11.6 20.5 2.4
TIKARE Kilou 7.4 14.4 33.5 3,0
KORSIMORO 
2
Tangporin 0 6.5 27.5 4
MANNE Silmidgou A 0 9 38.5 3,8
DARGO Sanga 3.1 3.8 8 1,2
TOUGOURI 1 Pilga 0 16 67 1,6
TOUGOURI 2 Taonsgo 0 3.5 14 1,4
YALGO Bissighin 0 6 34 3.4
YALGO Franco-Arab School 0 20 30 4.2
YALGO Wapassi 0 6.5 30.5 1.8
TOUGOURI 2 Nabelin 0 4.5 18.5 2
BOUROUM Bouroum B 0 10 10 5
NAGBINGOU Kouini A 0 3.7 17.2 1.9
NAGBINGOU Bissighin 0 3.0 13.6 1.5
TOUGOURI 1 Sagouem 0 5 40 0
TOUGOURI 1 Tougouri 1 sector2 0 12 25 5
BOUROUM Ouayalgué 5 6 0 0
BOUROUM Logbilin 6 6 20.5 5
A3: Distribution of producers according to the crops grown
Characteristics of the producer MILLET RICE COWPEA
Yes No Yes No Yes No
Man 87.9% 12.1% 23.4% 76.6% 66.0% 34.0%
Woman 62.2% 37.8% 4.4% 95.6% 84.4% 15.6%
Small producer 79.8% 20.2% 17.8% 82.2% 69.9% 30.1%
Major producer 95.7% 4.3% 26.1% 73.9% 73.9% 26.1%
All 81.7% 18.3% 18.8% 81.2% 70.4% 29.6%
Page 37 of 131
A4: Distribution of producers per sales organization and per product 
Characteristics of the 
producer
border￾field
through 
grouping
on the local 
village market
on the commune's 
main market
by contract 
basis 
Millet
Man 25% 4% 11% 60% 0%
Woman 0% 0% 100% 0% 0%
Small producer 12% 0% 29% 59% 0%
Major producer 30% 6% 11% 54% 0%
All 24% 4% 17% 56% 0%
Local rice
Man 21% 22% 1% 56% 0%
Woman , , , , ,
Small producer 21% 18% 0% 62% 0%
Major producer 20% 34% 2% 44% 0%
All 21% 22% 1% 56% 0%
Cowpea
Man 20% 11% 16% 45% 8%
Woman 13% 0% 13% 75% 0%
Small producer 17% 12% 16% 56% 0%
Major producer 21% 5% 15% 43% 15%
All 19% 9% 16% 50% 7%
A5: Average costs (in FCFA) of transporting a ton of food 
COMMUNE 50 km of asphalt 50 km of red track 50 km of rural track
Bouroum 11,750 21,250 24,000
Dargo 6 667 11 667 11 667
Guibare 6 167 7,500 9,500
Korsimoro 7 333 11 667 15,000
Manna 5,000 6,250 6,750
Nagbingou 10,000 12,500 17,500
Tikare 9,417 11 833 12,000
Tougouri 6 667 10,000 15,000
Yalgo 20,000 30,000 42,500
All 8 844 12 938 16 188
 
A6: Average handling charges for loading and unloading a ton of food 
COMMUNE A ton of millet A ton of rice A ton of 
cowpea
One ton of 
vegetable oil (50 
cans of 20 liters)
Page 38 of 131
Bouroum 1,750 1,250 1,750 2,000
Dargo 1000 3000 1000 4,167
Guibare 1,667 1,833 1,833 4,167
Korsimoro 2 167 2 167 2 167 4,167
Manna 1,500 1,500 1,500 1,500
Nagbingou 1000 1000 1000 1,250
Tikare 2,000 1,333 1,333 1,500
Tougouri 2,500 2 167 2 833 1,833
Yalgo 7,500 3000 6,250 2,000
All 2 188 1,917 2,063 2,594
 
 
A7 : Distribution of students by sex 
Commune Girls Boys
Bouroum 52.2% 47.8%
Dargo 53.3% 46.7%
Guibare 46.7% 53.3%
Korsimoro 46.7% 53.3%
Manna 46.7% 53.3%
Nagbingou 50.0% 50.0%
Tikare 53.3% 46.7%
Tougouri 48.0% 52.0%
Yalgo 47.1% 52.9%
All 48.8% 51.2%
 
 
A8 : Breakdown of students by level 
Level Girls Boys
CP2 43% 57%
CE1 53% 47%
CE2 54% 46%
CM1 51% 49%
CM2 44% 56%
All 49% 51%
 
Page 39 of 131
A9: Percentage of students who attend classes regularly
Commune Grade 
1 girls
Grade 
1 
Boys
Grade 
2 
Girls
Grade 
2 Boys
Grade 
3 
Girls 
Grade 
3 boys
grade 
4 
Girls
Grade 
4 boys
grade 
5 
Girls
Grade 
5 
Boys
Grade 
6 girls
Grade 
6 boys
Bouroum - - 17% 11% 17% 25% 37% 24% 100% 43% 73% 76%
Dargo - - 0% 0% - - 0% 0% - - 0% 0%
Guibare 100% 100% 75% 83% 50% 64% 65% 77% 67% 68% 48% 64%
Korsimoro 82% 90% 77% 68% 59% 72% 82% 86% 83% 68% 88% 69%
Manne 86% 100% 92% 94% 100% 100% 97% 90% 97% 97% 100% 100%
Nagbingou 40% 32% 59% 36% 49% 41% 66% 55% 71% 53% 95% 77%
Tikare 28% 28% 69% 71% 0% 0% 29% 47% 50% 64% 61% 87%
Tougouri 17% 22% 53% 48% 33% 42% 49% 46% 41% 40% 50% 56%
Yalgo 116% 133% 55% 35% 186% 236% 70% 70% 315% 640% 100% 88%
Pilot 
communes
68% 73% 70% 70% 60% 56% 59% 57% 80% 77% 79% 70%
Non-pilot 
communes
60% 59% 41% 34% 58% 62% 51% 45% 77% 66% 66% 67%
All 63% 64% 49% 44% 59% 60% 54% 49% 79% 71% 72% 68%
A10: T-test for equality of averages
 Confidence interval 95% 
of the difference
Proportion of students who are 
participatory and attentive t ddl P￾value
Average 
Difference
Difference 
standard 
deviation
Lower Superior
Grade 1 girls 2.652 8 0.0145 0.45346 0.17102 0.0591 0.84783
Grade 1 Boys 2.537 8 0.0175 0.49348 0.19452 0.04493 0.94204
Grade 2 Girls 1.223 14 0.1205 0.2037 0.16652 -0.15344 0.56084
Grade 2 Boys 1.817 14 0.0455 0.29559 0.16265 -0.05325 0.64443
Page 40 of 131
A11: Consultants’ Biographies 
N
° Position Role
Last and 
first 
name(s) Profile
1 
Rural 
Develop
ment 
Engineer 
option 
Rural 
Sociolog
y and 
Economy 
(Expert 
in market 
and food 
security).
Head of 
Mission
, Chief 
Evaluat
or
Mr.
Blaise 
KIENOU 
Holder of an engineering degree in rural development with a specialization 
in rural sociology and economy, Mr. KIENOU Blaise has more than 15 
years of experience.. He has a very good knowledge of food markets 
(sesame, rice, millet, cowpea...), actors in the chain (producers, distribution 
circuit, value chains), as well as structure, conduct and performance, after 
having conducted several joint assessments covering the different regions 
of Burkina Faso. 
In addition, he has had to participate in several missions of study, 
evaluation, data collection and analysis, and reporting, including the 
following:
• Conducting Post Monitoring Assessments, December 2016, as 
part of the Project for Resilience, Food and Nutritional Security 
of Poor and Very Poor Households in the North and North￾Central Regions Affected by the 2012 Food Crisis - PRSAN 
North, North-Central ;
• Senior consultant for the baseline evaluation of the Faso Riibo 
Project, the final external evaluation of the Alistequal Project 
(CRS and OCADES Dori), the market study of local rice, beans, 
groundnuts, millet and cotton oil in the North Central and Western 
regions of Burkina Faso, in April 2019, on behalf of Catholic 
Relief Services (CRS) of SECODEV Consulting Sarl;
• Senior consultant for a market assessment for the cash transfer 
response to the crisis of displaced persons in north-central 
Burkina Faso, on behalf of Catholic Relief Services (CRS) and 
SECODEV Consulting Sarl;
• Head of Mission for the Final External Evaluation of 
ALISTEQLAL IN-HANAN IV project on behalf of Catholic 
Relief Services (CRS) and SECODEV Consulting Sarl. 
2 
Specialis
t in 
educatio
n and 
school 
canteen
Associa
te 
Consult
ant
Mr.
COMBAS
SERE 
Sibiri 
Celestin
Mr. COMBASSERE Sibiri Célestin is a graduate of the University of 
Provence Aix Marseille I in France. Holder of a Master's degree in Cellular 
Biochemistry and Fundamental Organic Chemistry, he was recruited in the 
job of professor which he will exercise for about fifteen years, then 
assigned in 1999 to the Statistical and School Map Service at the 
Directorate of Studies and Planning (DEP) of the Ministry in charge of 
Basic Education. He was appointed head of this service the following year. 
He then underwent various training courses in statistics and computer 
database management at the Polytechnic University of Bobo-Dioulasso 
and sub-regional training at the International Institute for Educational 
Planning (IIEP) in Paris and the UNESCO Institute for Statistics (UIS). In 
January 2005, he left this institution to join the Ministry of Secondary and 
Higher Education where he was appointed Head of Department of 
Educational Policy Analysis, Studies and School and University Map 
(SAPEE-CSU) at the DEP. In 2010, he continues his journey within the 
Ministry as a resource person in charge of the development of planning 
Page 41 of 131
N
° Position Role
Last and 
first 
name(s) Profile
and management tools for the department (CDMT, Program Budget and 
other educational policy documents such as PNADES, PDSEB, and FTI). 
At the same time, Mr. COMBASSERE provides financial surveys and 
training in MTEF, Program Budget and has participated as lead or 
associate trainer in several sessions organized by consulting firms and sub￾regional and international organizations such as UNDP in Ouagadougou 
and Lomé (Togo). Mr. COMBASSERE contributed to the elaboration of 
the document on ONAPAD indicators - Education Metadata of Burkina 
Faso. Admitted for retirement in April 2014, Mr. COMBASSERE has put 
his skills to work in the field of education policy by providing studies and 
training on improving the living and study conditions of students and 
students in Burkina Faso.
3 
Economi
st￾Statistici
an
Data 
manage
r 
Associa
te 
Consult
ant
Mr. 
SANOU 
Adama 
Frédéric
M SANOU Adama Frédéric hold a degree in Applied Economics and 
Statistics and has more than 5 years of experience in qualitative and 
quantitative research, particularly in the process of conducting surveys 
(planning, recruitment and training of interviewers, supervision of data 
collection, data processing and analysis, reporting). Acting as Data 
Manager, he will ensure the appropriate use of statistical and computer 
tools in the production of indicators to guide the decision-maker on 
existing information to assist in decision-making. He has a solid expertise 
in planning, monitoring-evaluation of projects, in particular the design, 
management and updating of monitoring-evaluation tools. He also has a 
good command of geographic information systems and more specifically 
cartography.
Page 42 of 131
N
° Position Role
Last and 
first 
name(s) Profile
4 
Economi
st￾Statistici
an, 
Expert in 
project 
monitori
ng and 
evaluatio
n
Support 
staff 
(quality 
review 
of 
delivera
bles)
Mr. W. 
Fabris 
COMPA
ORE
Mr. W. Fabris COMPAORE is a Statistical Economist, expert in 
monitoring-evaluation with more than 10 years of experience in the design 
and monitoring-evaluation of projects in various fields including maternal 
and child health. He holds a Master 2 in Public Economics and Applied 
Statistics. He is specialized in the monitoring-evaluation of development 
projects, with experience in the procedures of various donors (USAID, EU, 
DFID, World Bank, GIZ, etc.). He has a rich background in the field of 
monitoring and evaluation, some of which are listed below:
• MEAL Lead (Monitoring & Evaluation) / DFSA/USAID 
proposal
- Organization and coordination of the literature review ; 
- Participation in problem analysis (problem tree and solution 
tree)
- Design and coordination of baseline studies ; 
- Design of the theory of change, logical framework and 
definition of indicators in accordance with FFP/USAID's 
M&E policy,
- Design of the Results Framework,
- Design of the performance indicator monitoring plan (PMP) 
; 
- Elaboration of the narrative plan for monitoring and 
evaluation of the proposal;
• January 2016-January 2019: M&E, Accountability and 
Learning (MEAL) Coordinator, FASO Program, Catholic 
Relief Services /Burkina Faso: Design and coordination of the 
implementation of the M&E, Accountability and Learning 
system for the integrated multisector program (Agriculture and 
Livelihoods, Health/Nutrition/WASH, Local Governance) 
funded to more than $55 million over 8 years (2010-2018) by 
USAID.
In particular, it will be responsible for the quality review of the 
deliverables.
A12: Collection tools 
Guide focus group - Producers 
Page 43 of 131
Introduction
Hello,
I am….. And I am a surveying officer/supervisor of SECODEV Consulting SARL, located in 
Ouagadougou and specialized in project monitoring-evaluation, statistical work and socio￾economic studies.
We are conducting a CRS-commissioned study as part of the project entitled "Faso Riibo LRP -
686 - 2019/015-00-A". The project is funded by the U.S. Department of Agriculture. It is a food aid 
project using Local and Regional Purchases (LRP) to support the school canteen program in the 
north-central region of Burkina Faso. 
During this interview, we would like you to freely express your opinion and do not hesitate to stop 
us on subjects that seem taboo to you or that are opposed to your habits and customs. 
Your participation in this survey does not necessarily make you a beneficiary of the project, but 
will help to ensure its successful implementation. Your answers will be kept confidential and 
depersonalized.
You are completely free to accept or refuse to participate in this survey which will last about… 
……minute. 
Do you agree to participate in the survey? 1 = Yes; 2 = No |__|
Code Section: Questions Answers
I
Section I: Identification and location of the local Rice Processors' 
Grouping
1.00 Name of Surveyor ………………………… 
1.01 Card number ………………………… 
Page 44 of 131
1.02 Date of interview |__|__| |__|__| |__|__|
1.03 
Province 
1 = Namentenga; 2= Sanmatenga; 3= Bam |__|
1.04 
Commune 
1 = Bouroum 2 = Nagbingou 3 = Tougouri 4 = Yalgo; 
5=Manna, 6=Korsimoro, 7=Tikare; 8=Guibare; 9=Dargo |__|
1.05 Name of the Grouping/ ………………………………… ..
1.06
Number of members: Union/cooperative men
 Women 
|__|__|
|__|__|
1.07 Number of years in existence : __|__|
1.08
Number of participants : Men
 Women 
|__|__|
|__|__|
1.09 Names and contacts of bureau members present :
1.10 GPS coordinates Lat.... Lon ……Acc
II Section II: General information on the grouping/union/cooperative
2.01 
Production lines
……………………………………………………………………………………… 
……………………………………………………………………………………… 
……………………………………………………………………………………… 
……………………………………………………………………………………… 
Page 45 of 131
2.02 Number of years of effective production since the 
creation of the grouping |__|__|
2.03 
Partners in production
……………………………………………………………………………………… 
……………………………………………………………………………………… 
……………………………………………………………………………………… 
……………………………………………………………………………………… 
2.04 
Partners in marketing
……………………………………………………………………………………… 
……………………………………………………………………………………… 
……………………………………………………………………………………… 
……………………………………………………………………………………… 
2.05 
Financial Partners 
……………………………………………………………………………………… 
……………………………………………………………………………………… 
……………………………………………………………………………………… 
……………………………………………………………………………………… 
2.06 Working capital available in CFA francs |__|__|__|__|__|__||__|
2.07 Financial capital available in CFA francs |__|__|__|__|__|__||__|
2.08 
Does the grouping have an active account at the 
Bank/MFI level?
1 = Yes 2 = No |__|
Page 46 of 131
2.09 If yes, how many years has this account been in 
existence? |__|__|
2.10 If no, has the grouping already taken steps to open an 
account 1 = Yes 2 = No |__|
2.11 
Has the grouping/union/cooperative taken any steps to 
comply with the new law on organizations? 
1 = Yes 2 = No |__|
2.12 If yes, did he get his receipt? 1 = Yes 2 = No |__|
2.13 
Types of equipment owned: Specify number Tractors|__|; Carts|__|; Tricycles|__|; motor 
pump|__|; proofer |__| ; Mill |__| ;
ginner/decortizer|__| ; Weighing scales |__| ;
Sorter/ valve driver|__| 
III Section III: Functioning of the grouping/union/cooperative
3.01
Volume of production and marketing in tons achieved over the last two seasons by the grouping?
Season 2019/2020 Season 2018/2019
Production Sale Value/sale (in 
CFA francs)
Production Sale Value/sale 
(in CFA 
francs)
Millet
cowpea 
Local rice
3.02 
Has the security situation affected your production volumes in the last two seasons 1 = Yes 2 = No 
||||
Explain how and how this affects your production:……………………………. 
………………………………………………………………………………… 
………………………………………………………………………………………………………… 
3.03 
Volume and value of product marketed under contract during the 2018/2019 season by the 
grouping? 
Season 2018/2019
Page 47 of 131
Volume sold under contract in 
tons
Value of sale under contract
Millet
Cowpea 
Local rice
3.04 
Has the security situation affected the sales volumes of your production in 2018/2019? 1 = Yes 2 = No 
|__|
Explain how and how this affects your sales:………………………… . 
………………………………………………………………………………… ..
………………………………………………………………………………………………………… .. 
3.05 
Has the security situation affected the value of your sales in 2018/2019? 1 = Yes 2 = No |__|
Explain how and how this affects the value of your sales:…………………………… . 
………………………………………………………………………………… ..
………………………………………………………………………………………………………… .. 
3.06 
How production is organized within the grouping 
……………………………………………………………………………………… 
……………………………………………………………………………………… 
……………………………………………………………………………………… .
……………………………………………………………………………………… 
.. 
3.07 
What are the major production constraints faced by members?
……………………………………………………………………………………… .
……………………………………………………………………………………… 
3.08 
How is the mobilization and management of stocks organized within the grouping?
……………………………………………………………………………………… 
……………………………………………………………………………………… 
……………………………………………………………………………………… 
……………………………………………………………………………………… 
Page 48 of 131
3.09 
How is marketing organized within the grouping?
……………………………………………………………………………………… .
……………………………………………………………………………………… .
……………………………………………………………………………………… .
……………………………………………………………………………………… 
3.10 
What are the major marketing constraints faced by the grouping?
……………………………………………………………………………………… 
……………………………………………………………………………………… 
……………………………………………………………………………………… 
……………………………………………………………………………………… .
3.11 
How is the distribution of profits organized within the grouping?
……………………………………………………………………………………… 
……………………………………………………………………………………… 
……………………………………………………………………………………… 
……………………………………………………………………………………… 
3.12 Does the grouping have product storage facilities?
1 = Yes 2 = No
|__| 
3.13 If yes, what is the total storage capacity in tons? |__|__|__|__|
Page 49 of 131
3.14 
In general, how is the storage of the products done? 
1 = Storage in compliance with standards 2 = Mixed 
storage but with sufficient space between products 3 = 
Mixed storage without respect of space between 
products
|__| 
3.15 
Is the production generally stored with other 
products and equipment: Fertilizers, chemicals, 
agricultural equipment, etc.?
1 = Yes 2 = No
|__| 
IV Section IV: Compliance with production, storage and conservation 
techniques
4.01 What proportion of your members are trained in quality 
production techniques? |__|__|
4.02 What proportion of your members are trained in quality 
storage and preservation techniques? |__|__|
4.03 What proportion of your members use improved seed? 
|__|__|
4.04 What proportion of your members use organic manure 
only? |__|__|
4.05 Proportion of members using mineral fertilizers only 
|__|__|
4.06 What proportion of your members use both mineral 
fertilizer and organic manure? |__|__|
4.07 What proportion of your members use registered 
chemical treatments for crop maintenance? |__|__|
4.08 What proportion of your members use biological 
treatment for crop maintenance? |__|__|
4.09 What proportion of your members practice crop rotation 
on their plots of land? |__|__|
4.10 What is the proportion of your members practicing 
CES/DRS techniques?
|__|__|
4.11 What proportion of your members are involved in 
agroforestry or ANR?
|__|__|
Page 50 of 131
4.12 What is the proportion of your members using organic 
products for conservation of its products?
|__|__|
4.13 What proportion of your members use registered 
chemicals to preserve its products? 
|__|__|
4.14 What is the proportion of your members who sort their 
products for a better preservation?
|__|__|
4.15 What proportion of your members use triple-bottomed 
bags for cowpea conservation?
|__|__|
V Section V: Experience of the grouping in participating in local or 
regional purchases
5.01 
Over the last three years, which are the main partners or purchasing customers of the grouping? For 
each partner, please specify the quantities purchased by product.
……………………………………………………………………………………… 
……………………………………………………………………………………… 
……………………………………………………………………………………… 
……………………………………………………………………………………… 
5.02 
Has the grouping always been able to meet delivery 
deadlines? 
1 = Yes 2 = No
|__| 
5.03 
Has the security situation affected your delivery 
times? 
1 = Yes 2 = No
|__| 
Explain 
……………………………………………………………………………………… 
……………………………………………………………………………………… 
Page 51 of 131
……………………………………………………………………………………… 
……………………………………………………………………………………… 
5.04 
With which partners was the grouping able to meet the delivery deadlines and why?
……………………………………………………………………………………… 
……………………………………………………………………………………… 
……………………………………………………………………………………… 
……………………………………………………………………………………… 
5.05 
Which partners did the grouping not meet the delivery deadlines and why?
……………………………………………………………………………………… 
……………………………………………………………………………………… 
……………………………………………………………………………………… 
……………………………………………………………………………………… 
5.06 
What are the major constraints that the Grouping has been able to capitalize on in the execution 
of previous purchase contracts?
……………………………………………………………………………………… 
……………………………………………………………………………………… 
……………………………………………………………………………………… 
……………………………………………………………………………………… 
5.07 
CRS in collaboration with the local town halls, 
intend to purchase food (millet, cowpea and local 
rice) from local groupings to supply school canteens 
from December each year. Do you think you have 
the capacity to participate in this program?
|__| 
Page 52 of 131
1 = Yes 2 = No
5.08 
Justify your answer
……………………………………………………………………………………… 
……………………………………………………………………………………… 
……………………………………………………………………………………… 
……………………………………………………………………………………… 
5.09 
Do you think there would be prerequisites that 
would have to be met by both CRS and its partners 
and the consortium in order to be successful in this 
program? 
1 = Yes 2 = No
|__| 
5.10 
Explain
……………………………………………………………………………………… 
……………………………………………………………………………………… 
……………………………………………………………………………………… 
……………………………………………………………………………………… 
5.11 
We are at the end of our interview, what suggestions or recommendations would you have for 
CRS and its partners for the success of the program as a whole at the commune level?
……………………………………………………………………………………… 
……………………………………………………………………………………… 
……………………………………………………………………………………… 
……………………………………………………………………………………… 
We are at the end of this interview and we thank you for your participation. Do you have any 
questions for us?
Page 53 of 131
Focus Group Guide - Local Rice Processors 
Introduction
Hello,
I am….. And I am a surveying officer/supervisor of SECODEV Consulting SARL, located in 
Ouagadougou and specialized in project monitoring-evaluation, statistical work and socio￾economic studies.
We are conducting a CRS-commissioned study as part of the project entitled "Faso Riibo LRP -
686 - 2019/015-00-A". The project is funded by the U.S. Department of Agriculture. It is a food aid 
project using Local and Regional Purchases (LRP) to support the school canteen program in the 
north-central region of Burkina Faso. 
During this interview, we would like you to freely express your opinion and do not hesitate to stop 
us on subjects that seem taboo to you or that are opposed to your habits and customs. 
Your participation in this survey does not necessarily make you a beneficiary of the project, but 
will help to ensure its successful implementation. Your answers will be kept confidential and 
depersonalized.
You are completely free to accept or refuse to participate in this survey which will last about… 
……minute. 
Do you agree to participate in the survey? 1 = Yes; 2 = No |____|
Page 54 of 131
Code Section: Questions Answers
I
Section I: Identification and location of the local Rice Processors' 
Grouping
1.00 Name of Surveyor …………………
……… 
1.01 Card number …………………
……… 
1.02 Date of interview
|__|__| |__|__| 
|__|__|
1.03 
Province 
1 = Namentenga; 2= Sanmatenga; 3= Bam |__|
1.04 
Commune 
1 = Bouroum 2 = Nagbingou 3 = Tougouri 4 = Yalgo; 5=Manna, 6=Korsimoro, 
7=Tikare; 8=Guibare; 9=Dargo |__|
1.05 Name of the grouping/union/cooperative
1.06 GPS coordinates Lat.... Lon ……Acc
1.07
Number of members: Men
 Women 
|__|__|
|__|__|
1.08 Number of years in existence :
1.09
Number of participants : Men
 Women |__|__|
Page 55 of 131
|__|__|
1.10
Names and contacts of bureau members present :
……………………………………………………………………………………………… 
……………………………………………………………………………………………… 
……………………………………………………………………………………………… 
……………………………………………………………………………………………… 
II 
Section II: General information about the 
grouping/union/cooperative
2.01 Number of years in local rice processing |__|__|
2.02 
Origin of the rice to be processed: 1= Own production of members, 
2=Purchase at the local level of the commune, 3=Purchase outside the commune, 
4= Own production and purchase |__|
2.03 Total volume processed in 2019 in tons |__|__|__|__|
2.04 Total volume processed in 2019 in tons for others |__|__|__|__|
2.05 Total volume sold in 2019 in tons |__|__|__|__|
2.06 
Total value of the sale in 2019 in CFA francs |__|__|__|__|__|__|
|__|__|
2.07 Total volume processed since the beginning of 2020 in tons |__|__|__|__|
2.08 Total volume sold since the beginning of 2020 in tons |__|__|__|__|
2.09 
Total value of the sale since the beginning of 2020 in F CFA |__|__|__|__|__|__|
|__|__|
Page 56 of 131
2.10 Daily processing capacity in tons |__|__|__|__|
2.11 Number of storage locations available |__|__|
2.12 Total storage capacity according to standards in tons |__|__|__|__|
2.13 
Processing equipment available
……………………………………………………………………………………………… 
……………………………………………………………………………………………… 
……………………………………………………………………………………………… 
……………………………………………………………………………………………… 
2.14 
Partners in transformation
……………………………………………………………………………………………… 
………………………………………………………………………………………………… 
……………………………………………………………………………………………… 
………………………………………………………………………………………………… 
2.15 
Partners in marketing
……………………………………………………………………………………………… 
……………………………………………………………………………………………… 
……………………………………………………………………………………………… 
……………………………………………………………………………………………… 
2.16 
Financial Partners 
……………………………………………………………………………………………… 
……………………………………………………………………………………………… 
……………………………………………………………………………………………… 
Page 57 of 131
………………………………………………………………………………………………
2.17 Working capital (financial capital) available in CFA francs |__|__|__|__|__|__|
2.18 Financial capital available in CFA francs |__|__|__|__|__|__|
2.19 
Does the grouping/union/cooperative have an active account at Bank/IMF 
level?
1 = Yes 2 = No |__|
2.20 If yes, how many years has this account been in existence?
2.21 
If not, has the grouping already taken steps to open an account?
1 = Yes 2 = No |__| 
Explain………………………………………………………………………………... 
……………………………………………………………………………………………… 
……………………………………………………………………………………………… 
2.22 
Has the grouping/union/cooperative taken any steps to comply with the 
new law on organizations? 
1 = Yes 2 = No |__|
2.23 If yes, did he get his receipt? 1 = Yes 2 = No |__|
III Section III: functioning of the Grouping
3.01 
How is the rice collection for processing organized?
……………………………………………………………………………………………… 
……………………………………………………………………………………………… 
……………………………………………………………………………………………… 
……………………………………………………………………………………………… 
Page 58 of 131
3.02 
What are the major constraints the grouping faces in rice collection?
……………………………………………………………………………………………… 
………………………………………………………………………………………………… 
……………………………………………………………………………………………… 
……………………………………………………………………………………………… 
3.03 
How does the grouping ensure that the rice collected has been produced according to quality 
standards? 
……………………………………………………………………………………………… 
……………………………………………………………………………………………… 
……………………………………………………………………………………………… 
……………………………………………………………………………………………… 
3.04 
What are the major constraints at the transformation level?
……………………………………………………………………………………………… 
……………………………………………………………………………………………… 
……………………………………………………………………………………………… 
……………………………………………………………………………………………… 
3.05 
How is the marketing of rice organized within the grouping?
……………………………………………………………………………………………… 
……………………………………………………………………………………………… 
……………………………………………………………………………………………… 
……………………………………………………………………………………………… 
3.06 
What are the major marketing constraints faced by the grouping?
……………………………………………………………………………………………… 
Page 59 of 131
………………………………………………………………………………………………
……………………………………………………………………………………………… 
……………………………………………………………………………………………… 
3.07 
How is the distribution of profits organized within the grouping?
……………………………………………………………………………………………… 
……………………………………………………………………………………………… 
……………………………………………………………………………………………… 
……………………………………………………………………………………………… 
3.08 
In general, how is the storage of the products done? 
1 = Storage in compliance with standards 2 = Mixed storage but with 
sufficient space between products 3 = Mixed storage without respect of 
space between products |__|
3.09 
How does the grouping organize the quality control of its products? Does it collaborate with 
control structures and which ones and how often? Explain 
……………………………………………………………………………………………… 
……………………………………………………………………………………………… 
……………………………………………………………………………………………… 
……………………………………………………………………………………………… 
3.10 
How many members of the grouping have already benefited from the following trainings? 
Men Women
Rice processing |__| |__|
Quality control |__| |__|
Compliance with processing and marketing standards |__| |__|
Use and maintenance of equipment |__| |__|
Page 60 of 131
IV Section IV: Experience of the grouping/union/cooperative in 
participating in local or regional purchases
4.01 
Has the consortium ever successfully participated in a tendering process? 1=yes; 2=no 
|__| 
If yes, in which year? and specify the quantities delivered in tons __|__|__|__| 
If not, what are the main reasons for non-participation in tenders?
……………………………………………………………………………………………… 
……………………………………………………………………………………………… 
4.02 
Over the last three years, which are the main partners or purchasing customers of the 
grouping? For each partner specify the quantities purchased 
……………………………………………………………………………………………… 
……………………………………………………………………………………………… 
………………………………………………………………………………………………… 
……………………………………………………………………………………………… 
4.03 Has the grouping always been able to meet delivery deadlines? 
1 = Yes 2 = No |__|
4.04 
Explain
………………………………………………………………………………………………… 
………………………………………………………………………………………………… 
………………………………………………………………………………………………… 
………………………………………………………………………………………………… 
4.05 With which partners was the grouping able to meet the delivery deadlines and why?
Page 61 of 131
………………………………………………………………………………………………
……………………………………………………………………………………………… 
……………………………………………………………………………………………… 
………………………………………………………………………………………………… 
4.06 
Which partners did the grouping not meet the delivery deadlines and why?
………………………………………………………………………………………………… 
………………………………………………………………………………………………… 
……………………………………………………………………………………………… 
……………………………………………………………………………………………… 
4.07 
What are the major constraints that the Grouping has been able to capitalize on in the 
execution of previous purchase contracts? 
………………………………………………………………………………………………… 
……………………………………………………………………………………………… 
………………………………………………………………………………………………… 
………………………………………………………………………………………………… 
4.08 
CRS Ii collaboration with the local town halls intend to purchase 
food (millet, cowpea and local rice) from local groupings to supply 
school canteens from December each year. Do you think you have 
the capacity to participate in this program?
1 = Yes 2 = No
|__|
4.09 
Justify your answer
………………………………………………………………………………………………… 
………………………………………………………………………………………………… 
………………………………………………………………………………………………… 
………………………………………………………………………………………………… 
Page 62 of 131
4.10 
Do you think there would be prerequisites that would have to be met by both CRS and its 
partners and the consortium in order to be successful in this program? 
………………………………………………………………………………………………… 
……………………………………………………………………………………………… 
………………………………………………………………………………………………… 
……………………………………………………………………………………………… 
4.11 
Explain
……………………………………………………………………………………………… 
………………………………………………………………………………………………… 
………………………………………………………………………………………………… 
……………………………………………………………………………………………… 
4.12 
We are at the end of our interview, what suggestions or recommendations would you have 
for CRS and its partners for the success of the program as a whole at the commune level?
………………………………………………………………………………………………… 
………………………………………………………………………………………………… 
……………………………………………………………………………………………… 
……………………………………………………………………………………………… 
We are at the end of this interview and we thank you for your participation. Do you have any 
questions for us?
Page 63 of 131
Focus Questionnaire - Member of the SMCs 
Introduction
Hello,
I am….. And I am a surveying officer/supervisor of SECODEV Consulting SARL, located in 
Ouagadougou and specialized in project monitoring-evaluation, statistical work and socio￾economic studies.
We are conducting a CRS-commissioned study as part of the project entitled "Faso Riibo LRP -
686 - 2019/015-00-A". The project is funded by the U.S. Department of Agriculture. It is a food aid 
project using Local and Regional Purchases (LRP) to support the school canteen program in the 
north-central region of Burkina Faso. 
During this interview, we would like you to freely express your opinion and do not hesitate to stop 
us on subjects that seem taboo to you or that are opposed to your habits and customs. 
Your participation in this survey does not necessarily make you a beneficiary of the project, but 
will help to ensure its successful implementation. Your answers will be kept confidential and 
depersonalized.
You are completely free to accept or refuse to participate in this survey which will last about… 
……minute. 
Do you agree to participate in the survey? 1 = Yes; 2 = No |____|
Code Questions Answers
I Section I: Identification and location of the SMC
1.00 Name of Surveyor ………………………… 
1.01 Card number ………………………… 
1.02 Date of interview |__|__| |__|__| |__|__|
1.03 
Province 
1 = Bam 
2 = Namentenga 
3 = Sanmatenga |__| 
Page 64 of 131
1.04 
Rural commune of :
1 = Bouroum 2 = Nagbingou 3 = 
Tougouri 4 = Yalgo; 5=Manna, 
6=Korsimoro, 7=Tikare; 8=Guibare; 
9=Dargo |__| 
1.05 School district :
1.06 Primary school of :
1.07 GPS coordinates Lat.... Lon ……Acc
II INFORMATION ON THE FUNCTIONING OF THE SMCS
2.01 
Give the number of GA (General 
Assembly) held in the previous 
year 
|__| 
2.02 
Has the SMC filed its AR (Annual 
Report) for the past year?
1 = Yes 2 = No
|__| 
2.03 If not, why not? …………………………………………………………… .
2.04 
Has the SMC developed its AP 
(Action Plan) for the current year?
 
1 = Yes 2 = No 
|__| 
2.05 If not, why not? …………………………………………………………… 
.. 
2.06 
Source of supply for the canteen
 
(Check all that apply) 
State |__|
WFP |__| 
CRS |__| 
Community || 
Other || 
Page 65 of 131
2.07 
According to the source of supply 
of the canteens, how many school 
meals on average (breakfast, 
snacks, lunch) are provided to 
school-age children per day thanks 
to : 
USDA/CRS
State of Burkina Faso 
Community
|__|__| 
|__|__| 
|__|__| 
2.08 
Number of school SMC members 
trained in commodity management 
(procurement, delivery, storage 
and distribution) in the previous or 
current school year :
|__|__| 
2.09 What product(s) were recently 
delivered for the school canteen?
Millet|__|__|__|__|__|__|__|__|kg
Rice|__|__|__|__|__|__|__|__|kg 
Cowpea|__|__|__|__|__|__|__|kg 
Oil|__|__|__|__|__|__|__|__|__|__L 
Other |__|__|__|__|__|__|__|__|kg…………………… 
2.10 
For each product, what was the 
main source of supply: 1= 
commune; 2= region; 3= outside 
region 
Millet …………………|__|
Rice ……………………|__| 
Cowpea ………………|__| 
Oil ……………………|__| 
Other …………………|__| 
2.11 For each product what was the 
main means of transport? 1= Cart; 
Millet ……………………………__| 
Page 66 of 131
2=Tricycle; 3= public transit 
vehicle; 4= Truck 
Rice …………………………|__|
Cowpea ………………………|__| 
Oil ……………………………|__| 
Other ……………………………|__| 
2.12 
For each product, indicate the 
average transport cost per ton in F 
CFA?
Millet |__|__|__|__|__|__|__|__|__|
Rice|__|__|__|__|__|__|__|__|__|__| 
Cowpea|__|__|__|__|__|__|__|__|__| 
Oil|__|__|__|__|__|__|__|__|__| 
Other ……………|__|__|__|__|__|__|__|__|__|__| 
2.13 
For each product, indicate the 
average cost (in FCFA) of 
handling one ton: 
Millet |__|__|__|__|__|__|__|__|__|
Rice|__|__|__|__|__|__|__|__|__|__| 
Cowpea|__|__|__|__|__|__|__|__|__| 
Oil|__|__|__|__|__|__|__|__|__| 
Other …………|__|__|__|__|__|__|__|__|__|__| 
2.14 Monthly cost (in FCFA) of storing 
one ton of products 
Millet |__|__|__|__|__|__|__|__|__|
Rice|__|__|__|__|__|__|__|__|__|__| 
Cowpea|__|__|__|__|__|__|__|__|__| 
Oil|__|__|__|__|__|__|__|__|__| 
Other……………… |__|__|__|__|__|__|__|__|__|__| 
2.15 
Month of receipt of the first food 
allocation in this school year from 
any source(mm/yyyy) |__|__|/|__|__|__|__| 
2.16 When was the first meal served in 
the canteen this school year? |__|__|/ |__|__|/ |__|__| 
Page 67 of 131
2.17 Quantity of food received by 
commodity for this school year : 
Millet |__|__|__|__|__|__|__|__|kg
Rice|__|__|__|__|__|__|__|__|kg 
Cowpea|__|__|__|__|__|__|__|kg 
Oil|__|__|__|__|__|__|__|__|__|__L 
Other ………………|__|__|__|__|__|__|__|__|kg 
2.18 
Quality of food received by 
product this school year: 1= Good; 
2= Acceptable; 3= Poor
Millet ……………………|__|
Rice ………………………|__| 
Cowpea …………………|__| 
Oil ……………………….|__| 
Other ……………………|__| 
2.19 Per-pupil contribution of each 
parent in kind 
Millet|__|__|__|__|__|__|__|__|kg
Rice|__|__|__|__|__|__|__|__|kg 
Cowpea|__|__|__|__|__|__|__|kg 
Oil|__|__|__|__|__|__|__|__|__|__L 
Other………………… |__|__|__|__|__|__|__|__|kg 
2.20 Contribution per pupil of each 
parent in cash in F CFA 
|__|__|__|__|__||__| F CFA
2.21 
Do you accept to consume the 
food received at school? 
1 = Yes 2 = No
|__| 
2.22 
Is there a storage area within the 
school? 
1 = Yes 2 = No |__| 
2.23 
If yes, what is its storage capacity 
(in tons) in compliance with the 
standards?
|__|__|__|__| 
Page 68 of 131
2.24 
Is the volume of the storage 
warehouse sufficient for the food 
delivered to the school? 
1 = Yes 2 = No
|__| 
2.25 
Is the food in the store arranged on 
storage pallets?
1 = Yes 2 = No
|__| 
2.26 Is the food in the store protected 
from: 
(multiple responses possible)
Yes No 
Rain |__| |__|
Humidity |__| |__|
insects and other 
pests 
|__| |__|
Excessive heat |__| |__|
Other------------- |__| |__|
2.27 
Number of checks carried out on 
the quality of stock in the 
warehouse by the BED controller |__| 
2.28 
Number of checks carried out on 
the quality of the stock present in 
the warehouse by the SMC? |__| 
2.29 
What happens to the rest of the 
food at the end of the school year? 
1 = Distributed 
2 = Postponed to the following 
year
|__| 
2.30 If the rest of the food is 
distributed, who are the 
beneficiaries?
Students |__|
Teachers |__|
Page 69 of 131
(Check all that apply) BED |__|
BED Controller |__| 
Parents Association staff |__| 
Town Hall |__| 
Other (specify)……………………
2.31 Explains; is there a school 
garden/school fields? 
We are at the end of this interview and we thank you for your participation. Do you have any 
questions for us?
Page 70 of 131
Individual Questionnaire - Cook 
Introduction
Hello,
I am….. And I am a surveying officer/supervisor of SECODEV Consulting SARL, located in 
Ouagadougou and specialized in project monitoring-evaluation, statistical work and socio￾economic studies.
We are conducting a CRS-commissioned study as part of the project entitled "Faso Riibo LRP -
686 - 2019/015-00-A". The project is funded by the U.S. Department of Agriculture. It is a food aid 
project using Local and Regional Purchases (LRP) to support the school canteen program in the 
north-central region of Burkina Faso. 
During this interview, we would like you to freely express your opinion and do not hesitate to stop 
us on subjects that seem taboo to you or that are opposed to your habits and customs. 
Your participation in this survey does not necessarily make you a beneficiary of the project, but 
will help to ensure its successful implementation. Your answers will be kept confidential and 
depersonalized.
You are completely free to accept or refuse to participate in this survey which will last about… 
……minute. 
Do you agree to participate in the survey? 1 = Yes; 2 = No |____|
Code Section: Questions Answers
I Section I: School Identification and Location
1A Name of Surveyor ………………………… 
Page 71 of 131
1B Card number ………………………… 
1.00 Date of interview |__|__| |__|__| |__|__|
1.01 
Province 
1 = Bam 
2 = Namentenga 
3 = Sanmatenga |__| 
1.02 
Rural commune of :
1 = Bouroum 2 = Nagbingou 3 = Tougouri 4 = Yalgo; 5=Manna, 
6=Korsimoro, 7=Tikare; 8=Guibare; 9=Dargo |__| 
1.03 School district :
1.04 Primary school of :
1.05 GPS coordinates Lat ……Lon ……Acc…….
1.06 Name and surname of the cook ………………………… ..
1.07 Age: |__|__|
1.08 Number of years of experience in school canteen kitchens 
 |__|__| 
II Section II: Canteen Data 
2.1 
Is the canteen room built? (Observe)
1 = in final material
2 = made of precarious material 
3 = straw shed
|__| 
Page 72 of 131
4=other (Specify other) …………………………………
2.2 ……………………… 
2.3 
How many times is the same product prepared in a week?
 Millet
 Cowpea
 Local rice 
 Other
|__| 
|__| 
|__| 
|__| 
2.4 
What is the average cooking time (in hours) per type of 
recipe? 
Recipe 1:……………………………………… 
Recipe 2 :……………………………………… 
Recipe 3 :……………………………………… 
Recipe 4 :……………………………………… 
Recipe 5 :……………………………………… 
|__| 
|__| 
|__| 
|__| 
|__| 
2.5 
How are the cooks paid?
1 = Nature only 2 = Cash only 3 = Nature and cash 
4=other (specify)………………………… .
|__| 
2.6 
Amount of the monthly remuneration per cook in FCFA
If the answer to question 2.5 is 2 or 3
|__|__|__|__|__|__|
2.7 
Are kitchen utensils the property of the school? 
1 = Yes 2 = No
|__| 
Page 73 of 131
2.8 
Are there enough kitchen utensils?
1 = Yes 2 = No
|__| 
2.9 If No, what are your utensil needs? 
………………………… 
………………………… 
………………………… 
2.10 
Does the canteen use improved energy-saving fireplaces? 
(Observe) 
1 = Yes 2 = No |__| 
2.11 
What food preservation process do you practice?
Are the meals covered against dust and insects?
Are meals served hot?
Do you get enough soap for the dishes? 
Are kitchen utensils washed properly after each cooking 
session?
Are kitchen utensils well protected after each cooking 
session?
Is the kitchen regularly cleaned and disinfected?
1 = Yes 2 = No (Multiple answers applicable)
 
 |__| 
 |__| 
 |__| 
 |__| 
 |__| 
 |__| 
 |__| 
We are at the end of this interview and we thank you for your participation. Do you have any 
questions for us?
Page 74 of 131
Individual Questionnaire - Teacher 
Introduction
Hello,
I am….. And I am a surveying officer/supervisor of SECODEV Consulting SARL, located in 
Ouagadougou and specialized in project monitoring-evaluation, statistical work and socio￾economic studies.
We are conducting a CRS-commissioned study as part of the project entitled "Faso Riibo LRP -
686 - 2019/015-00-A". The project is funded by the U.S. Department of Agriculture. It is a food aid 
project using Local and Regional Purchases (LRP) to support the school canteen program in the 
north-central region of Burkina Faso. 
During this interview, we would like you to freely express your opinion and do not hesitate to stop 
us on subjects that seem taboo to you or that are opposed to your habits and customs. 
Your participation in this survey does not necessarily make you a beneficiary of the project, but 
will help to ensure its successful implementation. Your answers will be kept confidential and 
depersonalized.
You are completely free to accept or refuse to participate in this survey which will last about… 
……minute. 
Do you agree to participate in the survey? 1 = Yes; 2 = No |____|
Code Section: Questions Answers
I. Section I: School Identification and Location
1.00 Name of Surveyor ………………………… 
1.01 Card number ………………………… 
Page 75 of 131
1.02 Date of interview |__|__| |__|__| |__|__|
1.03 
Province 
1 = Bam 
2 = Namentenga 
3 = Sanmatenga |__| 
1.04 
Rural commune of :
1 = Bouroum 2 = Nagbingou 3 = Tougouri 4 = Yalgo; 5=Manna, 
6=Korsimoro, 7=Tikare; 8=Guibare; 9=Dargo |__| 
1.05 School district :
1.06 Primary school of :
1.07 GPS coordinates Lat.... Lon ……Acc
II Section II: School Teacher Data
2.01 Name and first name(s) of teacher : …………………………… .
2.02 
Sex:
1 = Male 2 = Female
|__| 
2.03 
Are you an ex-officio member of the school's SMC? 
1 = Yes 2 = No
|__| 
2.04 
If Yes, in what capacity are you an ex-officio member of 
the SMC? |__| 
Page 76 of 131
1 = Teacher representative
2 = Trade union representative 
2.05 
Are you satisfied with the diversity of food in the canteen? 
: 
1 = Yes 2 = No 3 = Don't know
|__| 
2.06 
Are you satisfied with the quality of the meals served in the 
canteen : 
1 = Yes 2 = No 3 = Don't know
|__| 
2.07 
Are you satisfied with the quantity of meals served per 
pupil in the canteens? 
1 = Yes 2 = No 3 = Don't know
|__| 
We are at the end of this interview and we thank you for your participation. Do you have any 
questions for us?
Page 77 of 131
Individual Questionnaire - Buyer 
Introduction
Hello,
I am….. And I am a surveying officer/supervisor of SECODEV Consulting SARL, located in 
Ouagadougou and specialized in project monitoring-evaluation, statistical work and socio￾economic studies.
We are conducting a CRS-commissioned study as part of the project entitled "Faso Riibo LRP -
686 - 2019/015-00-A". The project is funded by the U.S. Department of Agriculture. It is a food aid 
project using Local and Regional Purchases (LRP) to support the school canteen program in the 
north-central region of Burkina Faso. 
During this interview, we would like you to freely express your opinion and do not hesitate to stop 
us on subjects that seem taboo to you or that are opposed to your habits and customs. 
Your participation in this survey does not necessarily make you a beneficiary of the project, but 
will help to ensure its successful implementation. Your answers will be kept confidential and 
depersonalized.
You are completely free to accept or refuse to participate in this survey which will last about… 
……minute. 
Do you agree to participate in the survey? 1 = Yes; 2 = No |____|
Code Section: Questions Answers
I Section I: Identification and location of buyer
1.00 Name of Surveyor ………………………… 
1.01 Card number ………………………… 
Page 78 of 131
1.02 Date of interview |__|__| |__|__| |__|__|
1.03 
Province 
1 = Namentenga; 2= Sanmatenga; 3= Bam |__|
1.04 
Commune 
1 = Bouroum 2 = Nagbingou 3 = Tougouri 4 = Yalgo; 5=Manna, 
6=Korsimoro, 7=Tikare; 8=Guibare; 9=Dargo |__|
1.05 Surname and first names of the trader ………………………… 
1.06
Type of trader : 
1= wholesaler 2= half-wholesaler |__|
1.07
Marketed Products
…………………………………………………………………………………………………… .. 
…………………………………………………………………………………………………… .. 
…………………………………………………………………………………………………… .. 
…………………………………………………………………………………………………… .. 
1.08 Contacts 
1.09 GPS coordinates Lat.... Lon ……Acc
II Section II: Information on procurement activities
2.01
Can you name the producer groupings and/or unions with which you collaborate or have 
collaborated in the North Central region?
…………………………………………………………………………………………………… .. 
…………………………………………………………………………………………………… .. 
…………………………………………………………………………………………………… .. 
Page 79 of 131
…………………………………………………………………………………………………… ..
2.02
For your food purchases over the last 12 months, what are the 
shares (in %) acquired from groupings and/or unions? 
Millet 
Local rice 
Cowpea
|__|__|
|__|__|
|__|__|
2.03
For your food purchases over the last 12 months, what are the 
volumes in tons purchased from groupings and/or unions? 
Millet 
Local rice 
Cowpea
|__|__|__|__|__|
|__|__|__|__|__|
|__|__|__|__|__|
2.04
How do you assess the quality of the products purchased from the 
groupings and/or unions in the region? 
1= good quality; 2= acceptable quality; 3= poor quality
Millet 
Local rice 
Cowpea 
|__|
|__|
|__|
2.05
For your food purchases made from groupings and/or unions, were 
you satisfied with the delivery times?
1= deadline met; 2= late but justified delivery; 3= deadlines not met and 
incomprehensive 
Millet 
Local rice 
Cowpea
|__|
|__|
|__|
Page 80 of 131
2.06
Based on your knowledge of the actual capacities of the groupings 
and unions in the region, what are the maximum delivery volumes 
they can meet in November-December?
Millet 
Local rice 
Cowpea
|__|__|__|__|__|
|__|__|__|__|__|
|__|__|__|__|__|
2.07 Has the current security situation affected the overall volume of 
your purchases in the North Central Region? 1=Yes 2= No |__|
2.08
If yes, how much do you estimate the proportion of decrease in 
your purchases in the last 12 months compared to the situation 
before the crisis?
Millet 
Local rice 
Cowpea
|__|__|__|
|__|__|__|
|__|__|__|
2.09 Have you ever successfully participated in a food tendering 
process? 1=Yes 2= No |__|
2.10
If yes, what are the cumulative quantities delivered over the last 
three years in tons?
Millet 
Local rice 
Cowpea
|__|__|__|__|__|
|__|__|__|__|__|
|__|__|__|__|__|
2.11
If not, tell us what is the main reason for non-participation? 1= 
Complex procedures; 2= No bank account; 3= Limited financial 
capacity; 4= No access to information in time; 5= Other (specify) |__|
2.12
Have you ever participated in a food purchase program by town 
halls? 
1=Yes 2= No
|__|
2.13 If yes, what are the quantities (in tons) of food you delivered under 
your last contract?
Page 81 of 131
Millet 
Local rice 
Cowpea
Others to be specified
|__|__|__|__|__|
|__|__|__|__|__|
|__|__|__|__|__|
|__|__|__|__|__|
2.14 Were you able to meet the delivery deadlines? 
1=Yes 2= No 
|__|
2.15
Justify your answer
…………………………………………………………………………………………………… .. 
…………………………………………………………………………………………………… .. 
…………………………………………………………………………………………………… .. 
…………………………………………………………………………………………………… .. 
2.16
Were you satisfied with the execution of the contracts carried out 
within the framework of the delivery of food for the benefit of the 
town halls or any other actor? 
1=Yes 2= No 
|__|
2.17
Justify your answer
…………………………………………………………………………………………………… .. 
…………………………………………………………………………………………………… .. 
…………………………………………………………………………………………………… .. 
…………………………………………………………………………………………………… .. 
2.18 CRS and its partners plan to purchase food (millet, local rice, and 
cowpea, vegetable oil) to be delivered to the town halls each year 
from the first of December for the benefit of school canteens. 
Would you be willing to join such a program? 
1=Yes 2= No 
|__|
2.19 Justify your answer
Page 82 of 131
…………………………………………………………………………………………………… ..
…………………………………………………………………………………………………… .. 
…………………………………………………………………………………………………… .. 
…………………………………………………………………………………………………… .. 
2.20 Are there any prerequisites that CRS and its partners would have to meet to further motivate your 
participation in this program?
…………………………………………………………………………………………………… .. 
…………………………………………………………………………………………………… .. 
…………………………………………………………………………………………………… .. 
…………………………………………………………………………………………………… .. 
2.21 We are at the end of our interview. Do you have any other comments or suggestions to help make 
the program a success?
…………………………………………………………………………………………………… .. 
…………………………………………………………………………………………………… .. 
…………………………………………………………………………………………………… .. 
…………………………………………………………………………………………………… .. 
We are at the end of this interview and we thank you for your participation. Do you have any 
questions for us?
Page 83 of 131
Individual Questionnaire - Town Hall 
Introduction
Hello,
I am….. And I am a surveying officer/supervisor of SECODEV Consulting SARL, located in 
Ouagadougou and specialized in project monitoring-evaluation, statistical work and socio￾economic studies.
We are conducting a CRS-commissioned study as part of the project entitled "Faso Riibo LRP -
686 - 2019/015-00-A". The project is funded by the U.S. Department of Agriculture. It is a food aid 
project using Local and Regional Purchases (LRP) to support the school canteen program in the 
north-central region of Burkina Faso. 
During this interview, we would like you to freely express your opinion and do not hesitate to stop 
us on subjects that seem taboo to you or that are opposed to your habits and customs. 
Your participation in this survey does not necessarily make you a beneficiary of the project, but 
will help to ensure its successful implementation. Your answers will be kept confidential and 
depersonalized.
You are completely free to accept or refuse to participate in this survey which will last about… 
……minute. 
Do you agree to participate in the survey? 1 = Yes; 2 = No |____|
Code Section: Questions Answers
I Section I: Identification and location of the Town Hall
1.00 Name of Surveyor ………………………… 
Page 84 of 131
1.01 Card number ………………………… 
1.02 Date of interview |__|__| |__|__| |__|__|
1.03 
Province 
1 = Namentenga; 2= Sanmatenga; 3= Bam |__|
1.04 
Commune 
1 = Bouroum 2 = Nagbingou 3 = Tougouri 4 = Yalgo; 5=Manna, 
6=Korsimoro, 7=Tikare; 8=Guibare; 9=Dargo |__|
1.05 Surname & first name of respondent
1.06 Position
1.07
Sex
1 = Male 2 = Female |__|
1.08 Contact 
1.09 GPS coordinates Lat.... Lon ……Acc
II 
Section II: General information on school 
canteens
2.01 Number of schools in the commune |__|__|__|
2.02 Number of schools with a canteen |__|__||__|
2.03
Number of schools with a functional canteen throughout the 
school year 
|__|__|__|
2.04 Number of government-supported canteens only |__|__||__|
Page 85 of 131
2.05 Number of canteens supported only by partners |__|__||__|
2.06 Number of canteens supported solely by the community |__|__||__|
2.07 Number of commune staff in charge of managing the canteens |__|
2.08 Number of commune staff in charge of the award of contracts |__|
2.09 Number of commune staff in charge of education |__|
III 
Section III: Experience in procurement and management of food 
for canteens
3.01
How many years of experience do you have in the process of 
purchasing and supplying food for school canteens? |__|__|
3.02
In general, what are the major difficulties your commune faces 
in purchasing food and supplying schools? 
3.03
Have you ever been trained in planning food purchases for 
canteens?
1 = Yes 2 = No |__|
3.04
Have you ever been trained in the management of school 
canteens?
1 = Yes 2 = No |__|
3.05
For this school year, were you able to execute your procurement 
plan as planned?
1 = Yes 2 = No |__|
3.06 Explain 
Page 86 of 131
3.07
What initiatives have been taken to successfully execute the 
procurement plan or to successfully execute future plans? 
3.08
For the current school year, were you able to correctly execute 
the delivery of food to schools according to your planning? 
1 = Yes 2 = No |__|
3.09 If not, why not? …………………… 
3.10
How many schools have received their living allowance on time 
relative to the total number of schools covered? |__|__|__|/|__|__|__|
3.11
What initiatives have been taken to successfully implement the 
delivery of food to schools or to ensure the success of future 
deliveries?
IV Section IV: Information on procurement and delivery plans
4.01 Total quantities of food purchased by communes in tons |__|__|__|__|
4.02 Quantities purchased in millet in tons |__|__|__|__|
4.03 Purchase price of one ton of millet |__|__|__|__|__|__|__|__|
4.04 Quantities bought in cowpea/beans in tons |__|__|__|__|
4.05 Purchase price per ton of cowpea/bean |__|__|__|__|__|__|__|__|
4.06 Quantities purchased in rice in tons |__|__|__|__|
4.07 Purchase price per ton of rice |__|__|__|__|__|__|__|__|
4.08 Quantities purchased in vegetable oil in tons |__|__|__|__|
4.09 Purchase price per ton of vegetable oil |__|__|__|__|__|__|__|__|
Page 87 of 131
4.10 Quantities purchased in other products in tons (to be specified) |__|__|__|__|
4.11 Total budget spent on transporting food to the commune's shops |__|__|__|__|__|__|__|__|
4.12 If the commune has borne the handling costs, what was the total 
amount spent? 
4.13 If the commune has borne the costs of storage (rental, repair, 
security, treatment), what was the total amount spent?
4.14 Duration in number of days between the order and delivery of 
the food at the shops of the commune |__|__|
4.15 Duration in number of days of stay of the food in the shops of 
the commune 
4.16 Total budget spent on transporting food to all schools |__|__|__|__|__|__|__|__|
4.17 Number of days of food distribution to all schools |__|__|
4.18 If the commune incurred handling costs during the distribution 
to the schools, what was the total amount spent? 
4.19 Number of storage warehouses complying with the standards 
belonging to the commune |__|__|
4.20 Total storage capacity according to the standards of the local 
authority's warehouses |__|__|__|__|__|__|
V Section V: Origin and purchase price of products
5.01 
For each of the products acquired for the canteens, what was the 
% acquired within the commune? 
Millet
Cowpea/bean 
|__|__|
|__|__|
Page 88 of 131
Rice 
Vegetable oil 
Other (please specify)
|__|__|
|__|__|
|__|__|
5.02 
For each of the products acquired for the canteens, what was the 
% acquired outside the commune but within the province? 
Millet
Cowpea/bean 
Rice 
Vegetable oil 
Other (please specify)
|__|__|
|__|__|
|__|__|
|__|__|
|__|__|
5.03 
For each of the products acquired for the canteens, what was the 
% acquired outside the province but within the region? 
Millet
Cowpea/bean 
Rice 
Vegetable oil 
Other (please specify)
|__|__|
|__|__|
|__|__|
|__|__|
|__|__|
5.04 
For each of the products acquired for the canteens, what was the 
% acquired outside the region? 
Millet
Cowpea/bean 
Rice 
|__|__|
|__|__|
Page 89 of 131
Vegetable oil
Other (please specify)
|__|__|
|__|__|
|__|__|
VI Section VI: Endogenous capacities for program implementation
6.01 
Do the producer groupings in the commune have the capacity to 
meet an order for food for the canteens in the commune in terms 
of quantity and quality and within a reasonable time? 
Proportion of the order that can be met at the community level
Millet
Cowpea/bean 
Rice 
Vegetable oil 
Other (please specify)
|__|__|
|__|__|
|__|__|
|__|__|
|__|__|
6.02 
Do the producer groupings in the commune have the capacity to 
meet an order for food for the canteens in the commune in terms 
of quantity and quality and within a reasonable time? 
Proportion of the order that can be met at the region level 
Millet
Cowpea/bean 
Rice 
Vegetable oil 
Other (please specify)
|__|__|
|__|__|
|__|__|
|__|__|
|__|__|
Page 90 of 131
6.03 
As part of the local food procurement process, CRS and its 
partners want the food to be acquired and stored in local shops 
by 1 December at the latest. What strategies could the actors in 
the commune develop to make this wager a success?
6.04 How can producer groupings be supported to ensure timely 
delivery? 
6.05 
In the program, food must then be distributed to schools by 31 
January at the latest to allow canteens to open. Do you think 
there might be any prerequisites for this to be possible?
6.06 Is there community-wide transport logistics capacity to ensure 
the timely distribution of food to schools? 1 = Yes 2 = No |__|
6.07 Explain
6.08 
We are at the end of our interview, what suggestions or 
recommendations would you have for CRS and its partners for 
the success of the program as a whole at the commune level?
 
We are at the end of this interview and we thank you for your participation. Do you have any 
questions for us?
Page 91 of 131
Individual Guide – Transporters 
Introduction
Hello,
I am….. And I am a surveying officer/supervisor of SECODEV Consulting SARL, located in 
Ouagadougou and specialized in project monitoring-evaluation, statistical work and socio￾economic studies.
We are conducting a CRS-commissioned study as part of the project entitled "Faso Riibo LRP -
686 - 2019/015-00-A". The project is funded by the U.S. Department of Agriculture. It is a food aid 
project using Local and Regional Purchases (LRP) to support the school canteen program in the 
north-central region of Burkina Faso. 
During this interview, we would like you to freely express your opinion and do not hesitate to stop 
us on subjects that seem taboo to you or that are opposed to your habits and customs. 
Your participation in this survey does not necessarily make you a beneficiary of the project, but 
will help to ensure its successful implementation. Your answers will be kept confidential and 
depersonalized.
You are completely free to accept or refuse to participate in this survey which will last about… 
……minute. 
Do you agree to participate in the survey? 1 = Yes; 2 = No |____|
Code Section: Questions Answers
I Section I: Identification and location of transporter
1.00 Name of Surveyor ………………………… 
1.01 Card number ………………………… 
1.02 Date of interview |__|__| |__|__| |__|__|
Page 92 of 131
1.03
Province 
1 = Namentenga; 2= Sanmatenga; 3= Bam |__|
1.04
Commune 
1 = Bouroum 2 = Nagbingou 3 = Tougouri 4 = Yalgo; 5=Manna, 
6=Korsimoro, 7=Tikare; 8=Guibare; 9=Dargo |__|
1.05 Area/Village 
1.06 Name & first name of the transporter
1.07 Type of means of transport: 1= Tricycle; 2= Truck less than 10 
tons; 3= Truck more than 10 tons |__|
1.08 Duration in the job
1.09
Have you ever received training (1=yes; 2=no): 
On the rules for loading/unloading goods? |__|
On the management of delivery contracts? |__|
On the management of delivery notes? |__|
II Section II: Information on food transport activity
2.01
Have you ever been involved in the transport and delivery of food to any commune in the North 
Central Region? 1=yes; 2=no |____| 
Explain in what context?…………………………………………………………………… . 
…………………………………………………………………………………………………… 
. 
…………………………………………………………………………………………………… 
. 
…………………………………………………………………………………………………… 
. 
2.02
If yes, can you name the locations served and the partners you have worked with? 
…………………………………………………………………………………………………… 
. 
Page 93 of 131
…………………………………………………………………………………………………… 
. 
…………………………………………………………………………………………………… 
. 
…………………………………………………………………………………………………… 
. 
2.03
In general, partners very often complain about losses during the process of transporting and 
handling food: damaged bags, perforated oil cans, etc. How do you minimize these losses? 
…………………………………………………………………………………………………… 
. 
…………………………………………………………………………………………………… 
. 
…………………………………………………………………………………………………… 
. 
…………………………………………………………………………………………………… 
. 
2.04
In your opinion, what factors should be taken into account in determining transportation costs 
within the communes of the Central-North region? 
…………………………………………………………………………………………………… 
. 
…………………………………………………………………………………………………… 
. 
…………………………………………………………………………………………………… 
. 
…………………………………………………………………………………………………… 
. 
2.05
Taking into account these factors and past deliveries, can you 
indicate the average cost (in CFAF) of transporting one ton of 
food (millet, cowpea, rice) for
50 km of tarred road 
|__|__|__|__|__|__|__|__|
|__|__|__|__|__|__|__|__|
|__|__|__|__|__|__|__|__|
Page 94 of 131
50 km of red lane 
50 km of rural track
2.06 Has insecurity in the region affected transportation costs? 1=yes; 
2=no |__|
2.07 If yes, how much do you estimate the additional costs you incur 
for each 50 km due to insecurity (in CFA francs)? |__|__|__|__|__|
2.08
For the following products, what are the handling charges for 
loading and unloading per ton? 
A ton of millet 
A ton of rice 
A ton of cowpea 
One ton of vegetable oil (50 20-litre cans)
|__|__|__|__|__|__|__|__|
|__|__|__|__|__|__|__|__|
|__|__|__|__|__|__|__|__|
|__|__|__|__|__|__|__|__|
2.09
Taking into account road conditions and your past experience in 
delivering food (millet, cowpea, rice), what are the average 
delivery times in hours for the following distances?
50 km of tarred road 
50 km of red lane 
50 km of rural track
|__|__|__|__|__|__|__|__|
|__|__|__|__|__|__|__|__|
|__|__|__|__|__|__|__|__|
2.10
Does insecurity in the region affect delivery times in zone 1=yes; 
2=no 
Give an example……………………………………………. 
………………………………………………………………… |__|
2.11
What strategies are you developing to adapt to the current security situation?
…………………………………………………………………………………………………… 
. 
…………………………………………………………………………………………………… 
. 
Page 95 of 131
…………………………………………………………………………………………………… 
. 
…………………………………………………………………………………………………… 
. 
…………………………………………………………………………………………………… 
. 
2.12
In the North-Central Region, apart from road conditions, what can make a transporter accept 
the reduction in food transportation costs? : 
…………………………………………………………………………………………………… 
. 
…………………………………………………………………………………………………… 
. 
…………………………………………………………………………………………………… 
. 
…………………………………………………………………………………………………… 
. 
…………………………………………………………………………………………………… 
. 
2.13
In your opinion, are there differences in the costs of transporting food under a contract with a 
partner and in general trade? Justify your answer 
…………………………………………………………………………………………………… 
. 
…………………………………………………………………………………………………… 
. 
…………………………………………………………………………………………………… 
. 
…………………………………………………………………………………………………… 
. 
2.14
We are at the end of our interview, what suggestions or recommendations would you have for 
CRS and its partners for the success of its program of purchasing and transporting food for school 
canteens?
Page 96 of 131
…………………………………………………………………………………………………… 
. 
…………………………………………………………………………………………………… 
. 
…………………………………………………………………………………………………… 
. 
…………………………………………………………………………………………………… 
. 
…………………………………………………………………………………………………… 
. 
We are at the end of this interview and we thank you for your participation. Do you have any 
questions for us?
Individual Questionnaire - Head of BED 
Introductory Text 
Hello,
Page 97 of 131
I am….. And I am a surveying officer/supervisor of SECODEV Consulting SARL, located in 
Ouagadougou and specialized in project monitoring-evaluation, statistical work and socio￾economic studies.
We are conducting a CRS-commissioned study as part of the project entitled "Faso Riibo LRP -
686 - 2019/015-00-A". The project is funded by the U.S. Department of Agriculture. It is a food aid 
project using Local and Regional Purchases (LRP) to support the school canteen program in the 
north-central region of Burkina Faso. 
During this interview, we would like you to freely express your opinion and do not hesitate to stop 
us on subjects that seem taboo to you or that are opposed to your habits and customs. 
Your participation in this survey does not necessarily make you a beneficiary of the project, but 
will help to ensure its successful implementation. Your answers will be kept confidential and 
depersonalized.
You are completely free to accept or refuse to participate in this survey which will last about… 
……minute. 
Do you agree to participate in the survey? 1 = Yes; 2 = No |____|
Code Section: Questions Answers
I Section I: Identification and location of the BED
1.00 Name of Surveyor ………………………… 
1.01 Card number ………………………… 
Page 98 of 131
1.02 Date of interview |__|__| |__|__| |__|__|
1.03 
Province 
 1 = Bam 
2 = Namentenga 
 3 = Sanmatenga |__|
1.04 
Rural Commune of :1 = Bouroum 2 = Nagbingou 3 = Tougouri 
4 = Yalgo; 5=Manne, 6=Korsimoro, 7=Tikare; 8=Guibare; 
9=Dargo |__|
1.05 Name of BED ................................ 
1.06 GPS coordinates Lat.... Lon ……Acc
1.07 Surname & first names of the BED respondent ................................ 
1.08 Function ................................ 
1.09 
Sex
1 = Male 2 = Female |__|
1.10 What are your contact numbers
II Section II: Statistical data of the BED and management of the 
canteens
2.01 Number of schools in the BED |__|__|
2.02 Number of active SMCs in the BED |__|__|
2.03 Number of BED staff appointed canteen controller |__|__|
Page 99 of 131
2.04 
Number of visits by BED inspectors to school canteens :
 the previous school year 
this school year
 |__|__|
|__|__|
2.05 
Number of BED controllers involved in product 
management? (supply, delivery, storage and distribution 
in the canteens) |__|__|
2.06 
Number of teachers served per day by type of canteen
State |__|__|__|
WFP |__|__|__| 
CRS |__|__|__| 
 Community |__|__| 
 Other |__|__| 
2.07 
Number of cookers served per day according to the type 
of canteen
State |__|__|__|
WFP |__|__|__| 
CRS |__|__|__| 
Community |__|__| 
 Other |__|__| 
2.08 
Were school canteens opened on time this year? 
1 = Yes 2 = No |__|
Page 100 of 131
2.09 If so, when? (month of opening) |__|__| 
2.10 
Do school canteens operate every school day? 
1 = Yes 2 = No
|__|
|__|
2.11 
How do you appreciate the functioning of school 
canteens when they are under the responsibility of the 
town halls? 
1= Very Satisfied 2= Satisfied 
3= Indifferent 4= Dissatisfied |__|
2.12 
How do you assess the functioning of school canteens 
when they are under the responsibility of partners 
(NGOs)?
1= Very Satisfied 2= Satisfied 
3= Indifferent 4= Dissatisfied |__|
2.13 
How do you assess the functioning of school canteens 
when they are under the responsibility of the State?
1= Very Satisfied 2= Satisfied 
3= Indifferent 4= Dissatisfied |__|
We are at the end of this interview and we thank you for your participation. Do you have any 
questions for us?
Individual Questionnaire – School Director 
Page 101 of 131
Introduction
Hello,
I am….. And I am a surveying officer/supervisor of SECODEV Consulting SARL, located in 
Ouagadougou and specialized in project monitoring-evaluation, statistical work and socio￾economic studies.
We are conducting a CRS-commissioned study as part of the project entitled "Faso Riibo LRP -
686 - 2019/015-00-A". The project is funded by the U.S. Department of Agriculture. It is a food aid 
project using Local and Regional Purchases (LRP) to support the school canteen program in the 
north-central region of Burkina Faso. 
During this interview, we would like you to freely express your opinion and do not hesitate to stop 
us on subjects that seem taboo to you or that are opposed to your habits and customs. 
Your participation in this survey does not necessarily make you a beneficiary of the project, but 
will help to ensure its successful implementation. Your answers will be kept confidential and 
depersonalized.
You are completely free to accept or refuse to participate in this survey which will last about… 
……minute. 
Do you agree to participate in the survey? 1 = Yes; 2 = No |____|
Code Section: Questions Answers
II. Section I: School Identification and Location
Page 102 of 131
1A Name of Surveyor ………………………… 
1B Card number ………………………… 
1.00 Date of interview |__|__| |__|__| |__|__|
1.02 
Province 
1 = Bam 
2 = Namentenga 
3 = Sanmatenga |__| 
1.03 
Rural commune of :
1 = Bouroum 2 = Nagbingou 3 = Tougouri 4 = Yalgo; 
5=Manna, 6=Korsimoro, 7=Tikare; 8=Guibare; 9=Dargo |__| 
1.06 School district :
1.07 Primary school of :
1.08 School Code 
1.09 GPS coordinates Lat.... Lon ……Acc
1.10 
Type of school
1=Classical2=Satellite3=Bilingual4=Franco-Arabic |__| 
1.11 
Status of the school
1=public 2=private Catholic 3=private Protestant 
4=private secular 5=private Muslim 6=community 
7=bridge school |__| 
1.12 Surname and first name(s) of the Director surveyed:
Page 103 of 131
1.13 
Gender of the Director
1 = Male 2 = Female |__| 
1.14 Number of open classes : |__|__|
1.15 Number of functional classes : |__|__|
1.16 
Number of teachers : 
 Women 
 Men
 Total
|__|__| 
|__|__| 
|__|__| 
1.17 
Total number of students enrolled in school this year 
by level and gender: 
Grade 1
Grade 2
Grade 3
Grade 4
Grade 5
Grade 6
(enter number)
G:|__|__|__| B:|__|__|__| 
G:|__|__|__| B:|__|__|__| 
G:|__|__|__| B:|__|__|__| 
G:|__|__|__| B:|__|__|__| 
G:|__|__|__| B:|__|__|__| 
G:|__|__|__| B:|__|__|__| 
1.18 
Distribution of students present on the day of the 
survey by level and gender: 
Grade 1
Grade 2
(enter number)
G:|__|__|__| B:|__|__|__| 
G:|__|__|__| B:|__|__|__| 
G:|__|__|__| B:|__|__|__| 
Page 104 of 131
Grade 3
Grade 4
Grade 5
Grade 6
G:|__|__|__| B:|__|__|__|
G:|__|__|__| B:|__|__|__| 
G:|__|__|__| B:|__|__|__| 
1.19 
Distribution of attentive and participatory students in 
class during the course by level and gender: 
Grade 1
Grade 2
Grade 3
Grade 4
Grade 5
Grade 6
Answers must be provided by each class teacher.
(enter number)
G:|__|__|__| B:|__|__|__| 
G:|__|__|__| B:|__|__|__| 
G:|__|__|__| B:|__|__|__| 
G:|__|__|__| B:|__|__|__| 
G:|__|__|__| B:|__|__|__| 
G:|__|__|__| B:|__|__|__| 
III. Section II: School Canteen Data
2.1 
Is the canteen room built? (Observe)
1 = in final material
2 = made of precarious material 
3 = straw shed
4=other
|__| 
2.2 Does the canteen work? |__|
Page 105 of 131
1 = Yes 2 = No
2.3 
Do you use the formula on the canteen card to 
determine the amount of food to be prepared per meal?
1 = Yes 2 = No
|__| 
2.4 If not, how do you determine the daily amount of food 
to be prepared? 
……………………………… 
……………………………… 
2.5 
Number of students fed by the canteen per day (on 
average): 
(refer to the management booklet for information) 
 Girls
 Boys 
|__|__|__| 
|__|__|__| 
2.7 Number of girls receiving take-home food rations (To 
date: last day of service) : |__|__|__| 
 
2.8 
Number of dishes in the take-out ration (To date: last 
day of service) : |__|__|__| 
2.9 
Total number of cooks present : 
 the previous school year 
 this school year 
|__|__| 
|__|__| 
2.10 Number of cooks mobilized per canteen day : |__|__|
Page 106 of 131
2.11 
Number of cooks with the following levels of 
education : 
 No education
 Alpha course 
 Primary
 Secondary 
|__| 
|__| 
|__| 
|__| 
2.12 
Number of cooks who received training (Hygiene, 
conservation, nutrition, safety...) in the previous school 
year
|__|__| 
2.13 Number of cooks trained (hygiene, conservation, 
nutrition, safety...) this school year |__|__| 
2.14 Combined years of seniority of cooks in the school 
|__|__| 
2.15 
Age of cooks (enter the number of cooks per age 
group) : 
 <20 years old 
>20 years old<30 years old 
>30 years old<40 years old 
 >40 years old 
|__|__| 
|__|__| 
|__|__| 
|__|__| 
2.16 
How many times do you prepare the same product in a 
week
 Millet
Page 107 of 131
 Cowpea
 Local rice
 Other
|__|
|__| 
|__| 
|__| 
2.17 
How many recipes provided by products : 
• product 1 ……………number of recipes 
• product 2 ………… ....number of recipes 
• produces 3 ……………number of recipes
• product 4 ……………number of recipes 
• produced 5 ……………number of recipes
|__|__| 
|__|__| 
|__|__| 
|__|__| 
|__|__| 
2.18 
Are kitchen utensils the property of the school? 
1 = Yes 2 = No
|__| 
2.19 
Type of fuel used? 
(Check all that apply) 
Wood |__|
Gas |__| 
Coal |__| 
Other |__| 
 (Specify)………………….
2.20 
Do you pay for fuel?
1 = Yes 2 = No
|__| 
2.21 If yes, Cost of fuel used during the week in FCFA 
|__|__|__|__|__|__| 
Page 108 of 131
2.22 Number of visits to the canteen by nurses (in the 
previous school year) |__|__| 
2.23 Number of visits to the canteen by social workers 
(during the previous school year) : |__|__| 
2.24 
Is there a vegetable garden at the school to supply the 
school canteen?
1 = Yes 2 = No
|__| 
IV. Section III: School SMC Data
3.01 
Does the school have an active School Management 
Committee (SMC)?
1 = Yes 2 = No |__| 
3.02 
Number of teachers who are members of the school's 
SMC board : 
 Women
 Men
|__| 
|__| 
3.03 
Number of teachers involved in the day-to-day 
management of food and canteens : 
 Women
 Men
|__| 
|__| 
3.04 Number of teachers involved in monitoring 
compliance with quality standards in the canteens : 
Page 109 of 131
 Women
 Men
|__|
|__| 
 
We are at the end of this interview and we thank you for your participation. Do you have any 
questions for us?
Individual Questionnaire – Pupil
Page 110 of 131
Introduction
Hello,
I am….. And I am a surveying officer/supervisor of SECODEV Consulting SARL, located in 
Ouagadougou and specialized in project monitoring-evaluation, statistical work and socio￾economic studies.
We are conducting a CRS-commissioned study as part of the project entitled "Faso Riibo LRP -
686 - 2019/015-00-A". The project is funded by the U.S. Department of Agriculture. It is a food aid 
project using Local and Regional Purchases (LRP) to support the school canteen program in the 
north-central region of Burkina Faso. 
During this interview, we would like you to freely express your opinion and do not hesitate to stop 
us on subjects that seem taboo to you or that are opposed to your habits and customs. 
Your participation in this survey does not necessarily make you a beneficiary of the project, but 
will help to ensure its successful implementation. Your answers will be kept confidential and 
depersonalized.
You are completely free to accept or refuse to participate in this survey which will last about… 
……minute. 
Do you agree to participate in the survey? 1 = Yes; 2 = No |__|
Code Section / Question Answers
I Section I: Pupil Identification
1.A Name of Surveyor 
1.B Card number
1.1 Date of interview
1.3 
Province 
1 = Bam 
Page 111 of 131
2 = Namentenga
3 = Sanmatenga
1.4 
Rural commune of :
1 = Bouroum 2 = Nagbingou 3 = Tougouri 4 = Yalgo; 5=Manna, 
6=Korsimoro, 7=Tikare; 8=Guibare; 9=Dargo
Surname and first names
1.5 
Age 
(refer to the registers for small classes)
|____| years 
1.6 
Sex
1 = Male2 = Female
|__|
1.7 
Class 
2=Grade 2 3=Grade 3 4=Grade 4 5=grade 5 6=grade 6 |__| 
1.8 Primary School of 
1.9 GPS coordinates Lat.... Lon ……Acc
II II/ School canteen
2.1 Number of meals served per day |__|__|
2.2 
Is this number satisfactory? 
1 = Yes 2 = No |__|
2.3 
Do you know the amount of ladleful received per meal?
1 = Yes 2 = No
|__|
2.4 If so, how many ladles do you get? |__|
Page 112 of 131
2.4 
Is this quantity satisfactory? 
1 = Yes 2 = No |__|
2.5 
What is your preference (in terms of food prepared in the 
canteen:)?
1=Rice 2=Millet 3=Bean bean 4=Mung bean 5=Other
|__| 
2.6 
What is the quality of the school meals served 
1 = Poor 2 = Fair 3 = Good 4 = Very good
|__|
2.7 So bad, explain? …………………… ..
2.8 
Do you accept to consume all meals served in the canteen? 
1 = Yes 2 = No
|__|
III Hygiene and Sanitation
3.1 
Do you wash your hands with soap before meals?
1 = Yes 2 = No |__|
3.2 If not, why not?
3.3 
Do you use the school washroom for your needs?
1 = Yes 2 = No |__|
3.4 If not, why not?
3.5 
Do you wash your hands with soap after using the toilet? 
1 = Yes 2 = No |__|
3.6 Do you use the school drinking water? 
Page 113 of 131
1 = Yes 2 = No |__|
3.7 
Have you ever had at least one bout of indigestion or discomfort 
after drinking water at school 
after a canteen meal
(Check all that apply) 
Yes No
|__| |__| 
|__| |__| 
3.8 
If so, were you consulted or followed up after this discomfort?
1 = Yes 2 = No |__|
3.9 
If yes, name the discomforts you have already felt: 
...………………………………………………………………………………………………
………………………………………………………………………………………………
……………………………………………………………………………………………… . 
3.10 
Are you receiving the following micro-nutrients?
1 = Yes 2 = No
Vitamin |__|
 Iron |__|
3.11 
Do you receive any anti-parasitic?
1 = Yes 2 = No |__|
We are at the end of this interview and we thank you for your participation. Do you have any 
questions for us?
Page 114 of 131
Individual Questionnaire - Producer 
Introduction
Hello,
I am….. And I am a surveying officer/supervisor of SECODEV Consulting SARL, located in 
Ouagadougou and specialized in project monitoring-evaluation, statistical work and socio￾economic studies.
We are conducting a CRS-commissioned study as part of the project entitled "Faso Riibo LRP -
686 - 2019/015-00-A". The project is funded by the U.S. Department of Agriculture. It is a food aid 
project using Local and Regional Purchases (LRP) to support the school canteen program in the 
north-central region of Burkina Faso. 
During this interview, we would like you to freely express your opinion and do not hesitate to stop 
us on subjects that seem taboo to you or that are opposed to your habits and customs. 
Your participation in this survey does not necessarily make you a beneficiary of the project, but 
will help to ensure its successful implementation. Your answers will be kept confidential and 
depersonalized.
You are completely free to accept or refuse to participate in this survey which will last about… 
……minute. 
Do you agree to participate in the survey? 1 = Yes; 2 = No |__|
A: General information
Code Questionnaire number |___|___|___|
Page 115 of 131
A.01 Name of Surveyor | |_______________________________________
A.02 Survey date |___|___|/|___|___|/|___|___||___|___|
A.03 Province 
1= Namentenga, 2= Sanmatenga 
3= Bam
|___|
A.04 Commune
1 = Bouroum 2 = Nagbingou 3 = 
Tougouri 4 = Yalgo; 5=Manna, 
6=Korsimoro, 7=Tikare; 
8=Guibare; 9=Dargo
|___|
A.05 Village
A.06 GPS coordinates Lat.... Lon ……Acc
A.07 Producer household code |___|___|___|
A.08 Name and surname of the 
producer 
A.09 Age of the producer |___|___|___|
A.10 Gender of producer Male ||; Female ||
A.11 Household size Total /_/_/, Men /_/_/, Women /_/_/
A.12 Number of children currently 
attending school
|___|
A.13 Producer's level of education 
1= None; 2= Primary (normal or medersa); 3= 
Secondary (normal or medersa); 4= high school 
(normal or medersa)
Page 116 of 131
B: Characteristics of the producer
B.01 Total area of agricultural land owned in ha………………… ………|__||__| 
B.02 Total number of cattle owned (including dairy cows) ………………|__||__||__| 
B.03 Total number of small ruminants owned ………………….………. |__|__||__| 
B.04 Total number of poultry owned (including layers and broilers)……………….|__|__||__| 
B.05 Total number of farm operators employed by the producer…………………|__||__| 
C: Agricultural Production and Utilization
C. 01 for the past agricultural season, what was the total area of crops sown (in ha) and what were the 
areas under the following crops?
Total area |__|__|; area in millet|__|__|; area in rice|__|__|; area in cowpeas|__|__|; 
C.02 For each of the following products, what was the level of production, as well as the quantities sold in 
number of tines (6 tines = 100 kg)
Season 2018/2019 In a normal year
Total 
production 
Total Sale Total 
production 
Total Sale
Millet |___|___||___| |___|___||___| |___|___||___| |___|___||___|
Local rice |___|___||___| |___|___||___| |___|___||___| |___|___||___|
Cowpea |___|___||___| |___|___||___| |___|___||___| |___|___||___|
Other (please 
specify)
|___|___||___| |___|___||___| |___|___||___| |___|___||___|
C.03 In general, how did you organize the sale of your own production for the 2018/2019 season?
Page 117 of 131
Proportion sold 
on the edge of 
the field
Proportion sold 
through 
groupings
Proportion sold 
on the local 
village market
Proportion sold on 
the commune’s 
main market
Proportion sold on 
a contract basis
Millet |___||___|___| |___||___|___| |___||___|___| |___||___|___| |___||___|___|
Local rice |___||___|___| |___||___|___| |___||___|___| |___||___|___| |___||___|___|
cowpea |___||___|___| |___||___|___| |___||___|___| |___||___|___| |___||___|___|
C.04 For the 2018/2019 season production, what is your estimate of the value of sales from your 
own production?
Total value of the sale in CFA francs
Millet |___|___||___|___||___|___|
Local rice |___|___||___|___||___|___|
Cowpea |___|___||___|___||___|___|
Other agricultural products |___|___||___|___||___|___|
C.05 In general, do you practice storage/preservation for later sale to take advantage of the higher price 
level?
Proportion sold at harvest 
time (August-December)
Proportion sold in the 
post-harvest period 
(January-March)
Proportion sold during the 
lean season (April￾September)
Millet |___||___|___| |___||___|___| |___||___|___|
Local rice |___||___|___| |___||___|___| |___||___|___|
Cowpea |___||___|___| |___||___|___| |___||___|___|
C.06 Do you feel that you receive a remunerative price for the products sold?
Remunerative price 1=Yes; 
2=No; 3=Don't know
Justify your answer
Page 118 of 131
Millet /__ /
Local 
rice /__ / 
Cowpea /__ /
D: Agricultural and storage/conservation practices
D.01 Do you adopt the following production techniques?
Code Production techniques Yes No 
1 Trained in quality production techniques |__| |__|
2 Uses improved seeds |__| |__|
3 Practices crop rotation on the plots of land |__| |__|
4 Uses organic manure only |__| |__|
5 Uses mineral fertilizers only |__| |__|
6 Uses both mineral fertilizers and organic manure |__| |__|
7 Uses chemical treatments for crop maintenance |__| |__|
8 Uses biological treatment for crop maintenance |__| |__|
9 Practices CES/DRS techniques |__| |__|
10 Practices agroforestry or Assisted Natural Regeneration (ANR) |__| |__|
D.02 Do you adopt the following appropriate post-harvest techniques?
Code Post-harvest management techniques Yes No 
Page 119 of 131
1 Trained on storage and quality conservation techniques |__| |__|
2 Uses triple bottom bags for cowpea conservation |__| |__|
3 Uses organic products for the preservation of its products |__| |__|
4 Uses registered chemicals for the preservation of its products |__| |__|
5 Sorts products for better preservation |__| |__|
6 Husking rice for marketing |__| |__|
E: Security situation and impact on agricultural activities 
E.01 Do you have crop plots that are inaccessible due to insecurity? 1=Yes; 2=No |__| . 
E.02 If yes, what is the total area of inaccessible parcels (in ha) |__||__| 
E.03 Do you have any crop plots given for cultivation to IDPs? 1=Yes; 2=No |__|
E.04 I If yes, what is the total area of the plots granted to IDPs (in ha) |__||__|
E.05 Are there any markets that you can no longer go to because of insecurity? 1=Yes; 2=No |__|
E.06 If yes, what are these markets? 1=primary (frequented mainly by retailers and collectors), 
2=principal (frequented by wholesalers)……………………………………………………|__|
E.07 Does the deteriorating security situation affect the availability and/or cost of agricultural labor? 
1=Yes; 2=No |__|
E.08 If the cost of labor has changed, give us an idea: Pre-crisis daily cost in CFA francs 
|___|___||___||___| ; Current daily cost in CFA francs |___|___||___|___|
F: Access to microfinance institutions (MFIs) and market information
F.01 Does the producer have access to market information (price, demand, buyers) for the 
marketing of his products? 1=Yes; 2=No |__| 
F.02 What is the information channel most used by the producer?
Page 120 of 131
1= Telephone; 2= Television; 3= Radio; 4= Grouping/Technical Services; Other (specify) 
|__|
F.03 What is the main source through which the producer finances its production and marketing 
activities? 1= Self-financing; 2= Tontine/Grouping/Association; 3= MFI; 4= Bank; 5= 
Individual/parents; 6= Trader; 7=Other (specify) 
|__|
G: Participation in school canteen programs
G.01 Has the producer ever participated in a contribution in kind for the running of the school canteen? 
1=Yes; 2=No |__| 
G.02 If yes, what was the quantity brought in kg per child? Millet |___|___|, rice|___|___|___|, 
cowpea|___|___|, other (specify-------------- ) |___|___|___|
G.03 Has the producer ever participated in a cash contribution for the operation of the school canteen? 
1=Yes; 2=No |__| 
G.04 If yes, what was the total amount contributed per child during the school year |__|__|__|__|__| F 
CFA
G.05 How does the producer rate the quality of the meals served to the children in the canteen: 1=poor 
quality, 2=acceptable quality, 3=good quality |__| 
G.06 Justify your answer ………………………………………………………………………………
G.07 How does the producer assess the quantity of meals served to the children in the canteen: 1= 
sufficient quantity, 2= insufficient quantity, 3= very insufficient quantity |__| ?
G.08 Justify your answer ……………………………………………………………………………
We are at the end of this interview and we thank you for your participation. Do you have any 
questions for us?
Page 121 of 131
A13: Baseline study TOR
TERMS OF REFERENCE (TOR)
Baseline Evaluation 
Burkina Faso Local and Regional Procurement FY20-FY23
1. Purpose and Overview: 
The purpose of these Terms of Reference (TOR) is to outline the conditions and responsibilities 
of the external evaluator who will undertake the baseline study of the Faso Riibo (“[Burkina] 
Faso’s Food” in the Mòoré language) project, a United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) 
funded Local and Regional Procurement project in the Burkina Faso. 
Please note these ToR and their annexes are subject to donor approval, and thus may change 
before contract signing.
Note these ToR rely heavily on Annex 1. Evaluation Plan for the Faso Riibo project; specific 
relevant sections are outlined below. The external evaluator should be very familiar with Annex 
1, Annex 2. Indicator Performance Tracking Table (IPTT), and Annex 3. Performance 
Monitoring Plan (PMP), in addition to the USDA’s Food Assistance Indicators and Definitions
and its Monitoring and Evaluation Policy. 
Please note that all evaluation reports will be reviewed in line with Annex 4. Checklist for 
Evaluating USDA Evaluation Reports (CRS internal). 
2. Project Background: 
Section B of Annex 1 provides an overview of the Faso Riibo project, including the Faso Riibo
Results Framework
3. Evaluation Purpose, Scope, Approach, and Methodology: 
Page 122 of 131
Please note that Section D and E of Annex 1 provides an overview of evaluation activities and the 
baseline study including stakeholders, anticipated data collection tools, and sample size 
requirements. 
Information in this section, and in Annex 1, outline the standards expected of the external 
evaluator during data collection and analysis. Justified deviations from these standards, after 
consultation with CRS, are possible. 
Data Collection Tools. The selected external evaluator will need to work with CRS to develop 
these tools, keeping in mind the project’s PMP. 
Use random samples and document any sample bias due to non-random sampling.
Representative samples should always be selected randomly, ideally from a list or using a random 
walk, etc. However, often due to resource constraints, sample selection bias does occur. This 
frequently happens due to security constraints that prevent study teams from reaching an off￾limits area or when the rosters from which individuals or clusters are randomly selected are 
outdated, and it would prove too costly or impossible to locate those randomly selected. In this 
case, in the limitations section of the evaluation report, describe any sources of bias as best as 
possible. 
For example, if students are not present in school the day of evaluation, how do absent students 
differ from those present? Does a t-test of means show that the proportion of key groups (gender, 
ethnicity, geographic area)2F
3
 in the sample is the same as those that were not included? If not, how 
might the sample be biased? How else might students not present that day be different? Might 
they not perform as well on literacy tests, etc. because they might frequently miss school? 
Sample weights. Sample weights should always be used when providing unconditional 
descriptive statistics (means or totals) for the underlying population. However, results from 
regression analyses, would ideally report unweighted and weighted results, and where there are 
differences, include a discussion of the underlying reasons. For example, observations from a 
school that has 90 second-graders vs. 30 will carry 3 times the weight; if there are heterogenous 
project effects for large vs. small schools (e.g. larger schools have a higher teacher/ student ratio; 
3 The analyst may not have much information about students not present. However, based on student names and 
school locations, they might at least have this information.
Page 123 of 131
perhaps this lack of student attention results in poorer educational outcomes, etc.) then the 
conditional means might be different for weighted vs. unweighted analyses (Solon, Haider, and 
Wooldridge 2015). 
Clustered or stratified samples and regression analysis. When reporting weighted conditional 
means from regression analyses, weighted values should use the appropriate weighted 
counterpart (e.g. weighted least squares, weighted maximum likelihood, etc.). 
Additionally, because observations within a cluster are likely correlated, standard errors should 
always be clustered at the cluster-level (Cameron and Miller 2015). Statistical packages have 
functions for this; the appropriate function will vary depending on the method of analysis. 
Control for any sample stratification in regression analyses by using binary variables for each 
stratum (excluding one to avoid the dummy variable trap). 
Population Proportional to Size (PPS) cluster selection may not appropriate. PPS is a 
quantitative sample selection methodology commonly used to account for the size of clusters 
when selecting them in the first stage of evaluation studies, in which every person in every cluster 
has an equal probability of being selected into the sample. If, in the second stage, a simple 
random sample is used to select each individual among all individuals in the cluster, then the 
sample is “self-weighting” and no sample weights need be applied at the analysis stage. 
Analysts of data collected via a PPS-selected sample should understand that if the sample was 
stratified, or if a simple random sample was not used in the second stage, then the sample is not 
self-weighting and sample weights must be used. 
At the analysis stage, the Hansen-Hurwitz or Horvitz-Thompson estimators should be used to 
estimate the sample mean, and variance in any regression models (Hansen and Hurwitz 1942, 
Horvitz and Thompson 1952). 
When using PPS, the measure of size should be accurate, otherwise it will over- or underestimate 
the sample variance, as compared to simple random selection of clusters (Thomsen, Tesfu, and 
Binder 1986), despite using the estimators described above. Even if baseline measures of size are 
accurate, if using a repeated cross-section (schools are commonly maintained across all three 
evaluation points) when evaluating in the same clusters at midterm or final evaluation and the 
Page 124 of 131
“size” of the clusters changes notably over time (likely to occur, as we expect enrollment to 
increase as a result of project activities), the same issue of mis-estimating the sample variance 
will occur. 
For all these reasons, using PPS is likely too complex and not appropriate for these evaluations, 
and therefore not recommended. In lieu of PPS, clusters and individuals can be selected via a 
random sample, and sample weights used in analysis. 
Project indicators. Only the eight indicators with non-zero baseline values in Annex 2 are 
collected during the baseline study. All individual-level data must be disaggregated by gender. 
4. Deliverables:
The evaluator is expected to follow American Evaluation Association’s Guiding Principles for 
Evaluators (http://www.eval.org/p/cm/ld/fid=51). Dependent upon participants in the evaluation, 
the evaluator should specify steps that will be taken to ensure informed consent, confidentiality, 
and protection of minors. The evaluator should specify steps taken to safeguard data collected 
and data management procedures to be used in the evaluation. There will be a data rights clause 
in the signed contract, and the external evaluator should obtain permission from CRS before 
sharing the final evaluation report with any external party, including posting it to their 
organization’s website.
All deliverables should be completed in English (and data collection tools must also be in 
French), be free of typos or grammatical errors, and be a polished document ready for submission 
to USDA. This means the document contains no factual errors or inaccuracies and citations are 
properly used. 
Deliverables include the following:
• Work plan (including evaluator responsibilities for identifying, interviewing, contracting, 
training and overseeing a balanced team of male and female enumerators and enumerator 
supervisors).
• Sampling plan, including if the sample sizes will differ from Annex 1, approved by CRS. 
Page 125 of 131
• Instruments, data collection manual, and training materials for enumerators (i.e., focus 
group guides, key informant interview guide, observation checklist), approved by CRS. 
• Quality Assurance Plan (including training of enumerators and weekly check-ins during 
data collection, approved by CRS.
• Data sets with accompanying codebook/data dictionary (original paper and/or electronic 
as well as final, clean electronic data sets with syntax). 
 If the evaluator provides .dta, .do, .sps, or .sav files, they must also provide open 
source file versions (.txt, .csv, .doc, etc.) 
 If part of a longitudinal design, an identifier file that links respondent PII with ID 
numbers in the data file(s)
 Deidentified transcripts of selected interviews and focus groups and/or data files 
of coded sections of text from interviews and focus groups 
• A 10-page preliminary report, suitable for presentation to USDA, 6 weeks after the end of 
data collection. The report will only contain: 
 An IPTT for the indicators with non-zero baseline values, including relevant 
disaggregates;
 Enough information about the methodology to engender confidence in the data 
quality. This should include a list of the data collection tools, number and gender of 
people interviewed, any information about stratification, and any data limitations. 
Whenever possible, the preliminary report should simply refer to the approved ToR 
and/ or Evaluation Plan, rather than incorporate the information; 
 Annex with description of team members’ qualifications and their positionality.
• Draft Baseline Report with one round of edits from CRS and another subsequent round from 
USDA
• Final Baseline Report with the following sections: 
 Executive summary 2 to 3 pages (including brief introduction of program 
evaluated, key evaluation questions, findings, and conclusions); 
 Background; 
 Evaluation questions 
 Evaluation design including assumptions and limitations; 
Page 126 of 131
 Methodology; 
 Findings; 
 Conclusions, lessons learned and effective practices (if any), and 
 Recommendations (should be clear, concise, relevant, specific and practical, 
following directly from findings and conclusions established in report); 
 Annex with original scope of work (marked for redaction from final web version);
 Annex with final data collection instruments;
 Annex with description of team members’ qualifications and their positionality;
 Annex with additional methodological discussion/ robustness checks as needed. 
 Annex with updated IPTT. 
• Final reports must not contain any propriety or personally identifiable information (PII). 
PII is any information that directly or indirectly identifies an individual. This information 
can be used on its own or with other information to identify, contact or locate a single 
person, or to identify an individual in a specific situation. This may include, for example, 
a name, national ID number, address, birthplace, etc. PII includes both direct and indirect 
identifiers that, when taken together, could allow for identification of an individual (such 
as a village name, gender, age, name, and/ or facial image).” 
 In addition, final reports should not allow for the identification of individual 
schools or communities. Any list of schools or communities provided should be 
included as in the report annex, so that it can be easily removed before submitting 
to USDA for external sharing.
• Final reports must be compliant with Section 508 of the United States Access Board 
which requires that information and services are accessible to persons with disability. (See 
https//section 508.gov/create). 
• A two to four-page outward-facing summary document, with easily accessible graphics, 
highlighting the project’s key successes, for sharing with a larger audience 
• Presentation of final baseline evaluation to stakeholders. This can occur before or after 
report submission to USDA, as long as any key feedback is incorporated into the final 
version of the report (that USDA posts to the Development Experience Clearinghouse). 
This can be done via an additional annex, if the report is in its final stages before this 
presentation is conducted. 
• A webinar of key findings and lessons learned for CRS globally and USDA (if requested). 
Page 127 of 131
5. Items provided to the external evaluator by CRS: 
• All Annexes to this ToR 
6. Timetable:
Sections E of Annex 1 outlines the timelines of the baseline study. 
7. Evaluator Qualifications: 
Team must have the following qualifications 
a) Advanced Degree in social sciences with strong knowledge of statistics/ demography; 
b) Knowledge and experience in survey and sampling design; 
c) Experience managing complex and multi-sectoral evaluations; 
d) Knowledge of performance evaluations, especially in the education sector;
e) Knowledge of the education sector; basic education in the development context; school 
feeding programs especially in West Africa, preferably Burkina Faso;
f) Demonstrated experience in conducting evaluation surveys of similar nature, preferably for 
USDA-funded projects; 
g) Good verbal and written communication skills in English and French; 
h) Willingness to work in remote areas without electricity and running water.
8. Evaluation team, management and coordination: 
Section H of Annex 1 broadly describes evaluation management. In addition, please see Table 2 
below 
Table 2. Evaluation team members
Page 128 of 131
Team Member CRS Staff or hired 
independently by the 
evaluation firm 
Main Roles and Responsibilities
External evaluator Hired independently Preside over the conduct of the entire 
evaluation, from methodology and tool 
development to training in the use of the 
tool to field testing, data collection, entry 
and analysis and report writing. 
Enumerators/data 
collectors
Hired independently 
by the evaluation firm 
Receive training and undertake data 
collection in the field. 
Data Collection 
Supervisors
Hired independently 
by the evaluation firm 
Receive training in data collection and 
supervise data collectors daily for the 
duration of the data collection exercise.
Data entry clerks Hired independently 
by the evaluation firm 
Receive training in data entry and enter data 
collected from the field.
Data Entry 
Supervisors
Hired independently 
by the evaluation firm 
Receive training in data entry and supervise 
data entry clerks throughout the data entry 
exercise.
Faso Riibo Director 
and MEAL Officer 
CRS Staff Supports the entire evaluation process 
ensuring compliance on the part of the 
evaluation firm 
CRS MEAL 
Advisors in West 
Africa and Baltimore
CRS Staff Supports the entire evaluation process 
ensuring compliance on the part of the 
evaluation firm. 
USDA will act as a key informant and hold a stakeholder call with the selected evaluator prior to 
field data collection. USDA is also the funder of the evaluation, and will review, provide 
comment, and approve the final report.
9. Structure of Proposal and Submission Guidelines
CRS will publish a request for bids (financial and technical proposals) for the conduct of the 
baseline evaluation of the Faso Riibo project domestically. Applicants should meet the 
qualifications stipulated in these ToR. The bid evaluation process will be managed by the CRS 
Page 129 of 131
Procurement Office in Burkina Faso and will follow the standard rules and procedures for the 
competitive and transparent procurement of consultancy services. 
Key criteria that will be considered during the bid evaluation process will include the following: 
1. Bidders must submit a technical proposal including a detailed description of the study 
design and methodology for the baseline.
2. Bidders must submit a detailed financial proposal.
3. Bidders should submit a detailed work plan showing clearly how they wish to accomplish 
the study. 
4. Profile of the bidders including relevant knowledge and experience to undertake the 
assignment
5. Bidders should have stated their relevant qualification and demonstrate relevant 
experience in the project area and experience in evaluating education programs. 
6. Delivery timeline.
The proposal should contain no more than a total of 25 pages of which; technical proposal 20 
pages and financial proposal 5 pages. See table 3 below. 
Table 3: Proposal layout and number of pages
Proposal content layout Maximum pages 
Technical Proposal 20
 Expression of interest 1
 Table of content 1
 Introduction and background 1 ½
 Qualification and profile of team members 2 ½
 Evaluation methodology 5
 Evaluation questions 2 ½
Page 130 of 131
 Work plan and deliverables 2 ½
 Technical reference of the firm 4
Financial Proposal 5
 Summary 1
 Detailed budget 3
 Budget explanatory notes 1
Total 25
Sealed bids must be delivered in electronic and/or hard copy to: 
CRS/Cathwel
Zone Industrielle Gounghin, 01 BP 469 
Ouagadougou, Burkina Faso 
Email: BF_HR@crs.org
The proposals must be submitted no later 17 December 2019 at midnight GMT. 
Table 4. List of Annexes (attached as separate documents)
Annex Number Document
1 Faso Riibo Evaluation Plan (redacted)
2 Faso Riibo Indicator Performance Tracking Table
3 Faso Riibo Performance Monitoring Plan
4 CRS Report Review Template for USDA Evaluations
Page 131 of 131
A14: Local and Regional Procurement CRS Burkina Faso Project Result Framework