Baseline Study of the Resilience Food Security Activities (RFSAs) in Niger: Final Report July 2021 | Volume III Annexes 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, & 8 IMPEL | Implementer-Led Evaluation & Learning Associate Award ABOUT IMPEL The Implementer-Led Evaluation & Learning (IMPEL) Associate Award works to improve the design and implementation of Bureau for Humanitarian Assistance (BHA)-funded resilience food security activities (RFSAs) through implementer-led evaluations and knowledge sharing. Funded by the United States Agency for International Development (USAID) BHA, IMPEL will gather information and knowledge in order to measure performance of RFSAs, strengthen accountability, and improve guidance and policy. This information will help the food security community of practice and USAID to design projects and modify existing projects in ways that bolster performance, efficiency, and effectiveness. IMPEL is a seven-year activity (2019- 2026) implemented by Save the Children (lead), TANGO International, Tulane University, Causal Design, and Innovations for Poverty Action. Cooperative Agreement Number: 72DFFP19LA00003 RECOMMENDED CITATION IMPEL. (2021). Baseline Study of the Resilience Food Security Activities (RFSAs) in Niger: Final Report (Vol. III). Washington, DC: The Implementer-Led Evaluation & Learning Associate Award. STUDY TEAM Tim Frankenberger Management Oversight Jeanne Downen Chief of Party Mark Langworthy, PhD Management Oversight/Survey Methods Specialist Gheda Temsah, PhD Baseline Study Lead Monica Mueller Senior Qualitative Specialist/Quality Assurance Victoria Brown, PhD Senior Research Methodologist/CAPI Specialist PHOTO CREDIT Gheda Temsah / TANGO International 2019. DISCLAIMER This report is made possible by the generous support of the American people through the United States Agency for International Development (USAID). The contents are the responsibility of the Implementer-Led Evaluation & Learning (IMPEL) award and do not necessarily reflect the views of USAID or the United States Government. CONTACT INFORMATION IMPEL Activity c/o Save the Children 899 North Capitol Street NE, Suite #900 Washington, DC 20002 www.fsnnetwork.org IMPEL@savechildren.org SUBMITTED BY: PREPARED BY: Baseline Study of the RFSAs in Niger: Final Report (Vol. III) Table of Contents i TABLE OF CONTENTS List of Tables and Figures...................................................................................iii Acronyms..........................................................................................................vii Annex 3: 2020 Niger Baseline Study Personnel ...................................................1 Annex 4: Summary of Data Treatment and Analysis............................................4 INTRODUCTION.....................................................................................................................................4 Data Collection Mode and Data Transmission Procedures ........................................................4 ODK Data Entry Training .............................................................................................................4 Field Quality Control Procedures................................................................................................4 Data Processing Quality Control Procedures..............................................................................5 HANDLING OF MISSING DATA AND “DON’T KNOW” RESPONSES........................................................6 BHA INDICATOR DEFINITIONS...............................................................................................................6 DESCRIPTION OF PROMOTED AGRICULTURAL PRACTICES.................................................................10 DATA ANALYSIS...................................................................................................................................14 Sociodemographic Characteristics of the Study Population.....................................................15 Calculation and Tabulation of Indicators..................................................................................15 Descriptive Analyses.................................................................................................................16 Bivariate Analyses.....................................................................................................................17 Econometric Modeling..............................................................................................................20 HOUSEHOLD WEIGHTS .......................................................................................................................23 Annex 5: Tabular Summary of Indicators ..........................................................25 Annex 6: Descriptive Tables..............................................................................52 Annex 7: Bivariate and Multivariate Tables.....................................................103 Annex 8: COVID-19 Knowledge, Practices, Impacts, and Coping Strategies .....145 Report Volume I A Baseline Study of the Resilience Food Security Activities (RFSAs) in Niger: Final Report IMPEL | Implementer-Led Evaluation and Learning ii Table of Contents Annex Volume II Annex 1: FFP Burkina Faso and Niger Baseline Protocol Annex 1a: Revisions to Sampling and Selected Villages Annex 1b: Training Schedule Annex 1c: Informed Consent Statement Annex 2: Questionnaire Baseline Study of the RFSAs in Niger: Final Report (Vol. III) List of Tables and Figures iii LIST OF TABLES AND FIGURES Table 1: Indicators measured in the 2020 “Baseline Lite” survey of the BHA RFSAs in Niger......................7 Table 2: Summary of descriptive analyses conducted for the 2020 baseline study of the BHA RFSAs in Niger............................................................................................................................................................16 Table 3: Summary of bivariate analyses conducted for the 2020 baseline study of the BHA RFSAs in Niger ....................................................................................................................................................................17 Table 4: Summary of multivariate analyses conducted for the 2020 baseline study of the BHA RFSAs in Niger............................................................................................................................................................20 Table 5: BHA Niger Baseline Indicators - Combined BHA RFSA Areas........................................................25 Table 6: BHA Niger Baseline Indicators - Girma..........................................................................................29 Table 7: BHA Niger Baseline Indicators - Hamzari ......................................................................................34 Table 8: BHA Niger Baseline Indicators - Wadata.......................................................................................40 Table 9: BHA Niger Baseline Indicators - Comparison Across RFSA Areas..................................................44 Table 10: A6.1. Estimated population in the RFSA areas [Baseline Study, Niger 2020] .............................53 Table 11: A6.2. Household characteristics in the RFSA areas [Baseline Study, Niger 2020] ......................53 Table 12: A6.3. Percentage of households receiving social assistance among direct and indirect RFSA participants, by type of assistance [Baseline Study, Niger 2020]...............................................................54 Table 13: A6.4. Percent of households consuming FCS food groups and frequency of consumption in days [Baseline Study, Niger 2020]...............................................................................................................56 Table 14: A6.5a. Percentage of sorghum farmers by age, in total and by farmers' sex [Baseline Study, Niger 2020] .................................................................................................................................................57 Table 15: A6.5b. Percentage of millet farmers by age, in total and by farmers' sex [Baseline Study, Niger 2020]...........................................................................................................................................................58 Table 16: A6.5c. Percentage of cowpea farmers by age, in total and by farmers' sex [Baseline Study, Niger 2020] .................................................................................................................................................59 Table 17: A6.5d. Percentage of peanut farmers by age, in total and by farmers' sex [Baseline Study, Niger 2020]...........................................................................................................................................................60 Table 18: A6.5e. Percentage of goat farmers by age, in total and by farmers' sex [Baseline Study, Niger 2020]...........................................................................................................................................................61 Table 19: A6.5f. Percentage of sheep farmers by age, in total and by farmers' sex[Baseline Study, Niger 2020].................................................................................................................................................62 Table 20: A6.5g. Percentage of poultry farmers by age, in total and by farmers' sex[Baseline Study, Niger 2020].................................................................................................................................................63 Table 21: A6.6a. Percentage of farmers by land access type and farmland size, in total and by farmers' sex and age [Baseline Study, Niger 2020]...................................................................................................64 Table 22: A6.6b. Percentage of sorghum farmers by area cultivated, in total and by farmers' sex and age [Baseline Study, Niger 2020].......................................................................................................................66 Table 23: A6.6c. Percentage of millet farmers by area cultivated, in total and by farmers' sex and age [Baseline Study, Niger 2020].......................................................................................................................67 Table 24: A6.6d. Percentage of cowpea farmers by area cultivated, in total and by farmers' sex and age [Baseline Study, Niger 2020].......................................................................................................................68 IMPEL | Implementer-Led Evaluation and Learning iv List of Tables and Figures Table 25: A6.6e. Percentage of peanut farmers by area cultivated, in total and by farmers' sex and age [Baseline Study, Niger 2020].......................................................................................................................69 Table 26: A6.7. Percentage of farmers using financial services by type of financial service, in total and by farmers' sex [Baseline Study, Niger 2020] ..................................................................................................70 Table 27: A6.8a. Percentage of sorghum farmers who applied targeted improved post-harvest handling and storage practices, in total and by farmers’ sex and age [Baseline Study, Niger 2020].....................71 Table 28: A6.8b. Percentage of millet farmers who applied targeted improved post-harvest handling and storage practices, in total and by farmers’ sex and age [Baseline Study, Niger 2020]...............................72 Table 29: A6.8c. Percentage of cowpea farmers who applied targeted improved post-harvest handling and storage practices, in total and by farmers’ sex and age [Baseline Study, Niger 2020]........................73 Table 30: A6.8d. Percentage of peanut farmers who applied targeted improved post-harvest handling and storage practices, in total and by farmers’ sex and age [Baseline Study, Niger 2020]........................74 Table 31: A6.9a. Percentage of sorghum farmers who applied targeted improved crop and NRM practices and technologies by type, in total and by farmers’ sex and age [Baseline Study, Niger 2020]...................76 Table 32: A6.9b. Percentage of millet farmers who applied targeted improved crop and NRM practices and technologies by type, in total and by farmers’ sex and age [Baseline Study, Niger 2020]..................78 Table 33: A6.9c. Percentage of cowpea farmers who applied targeted improved crop and NRM practices and technologies by type, in total and by farmers’ sex and age[Baseline Study, Niger 2020] ..................81 Table 34: A6.9d. Percentage of peanut farmers who applied targeted improved crop and NRM practices and technologies by type, in total and by farmers’ sex and age [Baseline Study, Niger 2020]...................83 Table 35: Table A6.10a. Percentage of goat farmers who applied targeted improved management practices and technologies by type, in total and by farmers’ sex and age [Baseline Study, Niger 2020] ..85 Table 36: A6.10b. Percentage of sheep farmers who applied targeted improved management practices and technologies by type, in total and by farmers’ sex and age [Baseline Study, Niger 2020]..................86 Table 37: A6.10c. Percentage of poultry farmers who applied targeted improved management practices and technologies by type, in total and by farmers’ sex and age [Baseline Study, Niger 2020] .................87 Table 38: A6.11. Household sanitation, water and knowledge of critical moments for handwashing [Baseline Study, Niger 2020].......................................................................................................................88 Table 39: A6.12. Percentage of women 15-49 years of age by food groups consumed [Baseline Study, Niger 2020] .................................................................................................................................................90 Table 40: A6.13. Use of antenatal care services (ANC) [Baseline Study, Niger 2020]................................91 Table 41: A6.14. Percentage of non-pregnant women 15-49 years who are married or in a union and using a contraceptive method by type of method [Baseline Study, Niger 2020].......................................92 Table 42: A6.15. Percentage of children 6-23 months by food groups consumed [Baseline Study, Niger 2020]...........................................................................................................................................................93 Table 43: A6.16. Percentage of women and men in a union participating in community groups, by type of group [Baseline Study, Niger 2020] ............................................................................................................94 Table 44: A6.17. Component of household social capital index [Baseline Study, Niger 2020] ..................95 Table 45:......................................................................................................................................................96 Table 46: A6.19. Percentage of households who experienced COVID-19 impacts on livelihoods, by type of impact [Baseline Study, Niger 2020]...........................................................................................................97 Table 47: A6.20. Percentage of households who experienced COVID-19 impacts on food security, by type of impact [Baseline Study, Niger 2020].......................................................................................................98 Baseline Study of the RFSAs in Niger: Final Report (Vol. III) List of Tables and Figures v Table 48: A6.21. Coping strategies for COVID-19 impacts on livelihoods [Baseline Study, Niger 2020]....98 Table 49: A6.22. Coping strategies for COVID-19 impacts on food security, by RFSA area [Baseline Study, Niger 2020] ...............................................................................................................................................100 Table 50: A7.1a. Percentage of households by food consumption score (FCS) groups, by household characteristics and intervention-specific practices [Baseline Study, Niger 2020]....................................104 Table 51: A7.1b. Mean household food consumption score (FCS), by household characteristics and intervention-specific practices [Baseline Study, Niger 2020] ...................................................................106 Table 52: A7.1c. OLS regression of household food consumption score, combined RFSA areas [Baseline Study, Niger 2020] ....................................................................................................................................111 Table 53: A7.1d. OLS regression of household food consumption score, Girma RFSA area [Baseline Study, Niger 2020] ...............................................................................................................................................112 Table 54: A7.1e. OLS regression of household food consumption score, Hamzari RFSA area [Baseline Study, Niger 2020] ....................................................................................................................................113 Table 55: A7.1f. OLS regression of household food consumption score, Wadata RFSA area [Baseline Study, Niger 2020] ....................................................................................................................................114 Table 56: A7.2. Percentage of sorghum farmers applying targeted improved crop and post-harvest practices by use of agricultural-related financial services [Baseline Study, Niger 2020] .........................115 Table 57: A7.3. Percentage of millet farmers applying targeted improved crop management and post￾harvest handling and storage practices by use of agricultural-related financial services [Baseline Study, Niger 2020] ...............................................................................................................................................118 Table 58: A7.4. Percentage of cowpea farmers applying targeted improved crop management and post￾harvest handling and storage practices by use of agricultural-related financial services [Baseline Study, Niger 2020] ...............................................................................................................................................121 Table 59: A7.5. Percentage of peanut farmers applying targeted improved crop management and post￾harvest handling and storage practices by use of agricultural-related financial services [Baseline Study, Niger 2020] ...............................................................................................................................................124 Table 60: Table A7.6. Percentage of goat farmers applying targeted improved livestock management practices by use of agricultural-related financial services [Baseline Study, Niger 2020] .........................127 Table 61: A7.7. Percentage of sheep farmers applying targeted improved livestock management practices by use of agricultural-related financial services [Baseline Study, Niger 2020] .........................128 Table 62: A7.8. Percentage of poultry farmers applying targeted improved livestock management practices by use of agricultural-related financial services [Baseline Study, Niger 2020] .........................129 Table 63: A7.9. Percentage of women 15-49 years achieving a diet of minimum diversity by individual and household characteristics [Baseline Study, Niger 2020]....................................................................130 Table 64: A7.10a. Multivariate logistic regression of women's minimum dietary diversity (MDD-W), combined RFSA areas [Baseline Study, Niger 2020].................................................................................135 Table 65: A7.10b. Multivariate logistic regression of women's minimum dietary diversity (MDD-W), Girma RFSA areas [Baseline Study, Niger 2020] .......................................................................................136 Table 66: A7.10c. Multivariate logistic regression of women's minimum dietary diversity (MDD-W), Hamzari RFSA areas [Baseline Study, Niger 2020]....................................................................................137 Table 67: Table A7.10d. Multivariate logistic regression of women's minimum dietary diversity (MDD-W), Wadata RFSA areas [Baseline Study, Niger 2020].....................................................................................138 IMPEL | Implementer-Led Evaluation and Learning vi List of Tables and Figures Table 68: A7.11. Percentage of children 6-23 months achieving a diet of minimum diversity by individual and household characteristics[Baseline Study, Niger 2020] ....................................................................139 Table 69: A7.12. Prevalence of diarrhea among children under five by household WASH status [Baseline Study, Niger 2020] ....................................................................................................................................143 Baseline Study of the RFSAs in Niger: Final Report (Vol. III) Acronyms vii ACRONYMS ANC Antenatal care BHA Bureau for Humanitarian Assistance DEMI-E Développement pour un Mieux Être DFAP Development Food Assistance Program DHS Demographic and Health Survey ECVM/A Niger National Survey On Household Living Conditions and Agriculture FAO Food and Agriculture Organization FCS Food Consumption Score FEWS NET Famine Early Warning Systems Network FFP Food for Peace FMNR Farmer-managed natural resource generation GIEWS Global Information and Early Warning System IMPEL Implementer-Led Evaluation and Learning Associate Award IP Implementing partner MDD-C Minimum Dietary Diversity – Children MDD-W Minimum Dietary Diversity – Women NRM Natural resource management OFDA Office of Foreign Disaster Assistance ORT Oral rehydration therapy RFSA Resilience Food Security Activity RISE Resilience in the Sahel-Enhanced PBS Population-based survey TANGO Technical Assistance to NGOs ToT Training of trainers USAID United States Agency for International Development VSLA Village Savings and Loan Association WASH Water, sanitation, and hygiene WFP World Food Program Baseline Study of the RFSAs in Niger: Final Report (Vol. III) Annex 3: 2020 Niger Baseline Study Personnel 1 ANNEX 3: 2020 NIGER BASELINE STUDY PERSONNEL BAGNA SOLUTIONS STAFF Director Ibrahima Issa Bagna Survey Manager Zakou Issaka Moussa Technical Specialists Dr. Moumouni Dagna Zeinabou Dan Bouzoua Dr. Elh Aboubcar Abass Oumarou Arzika Alka Lawan Ibrahim Dr. Boubakar Maizoumbou Data processing staff and IT Specialists Aboubacar Sayabou Abdoulrazak Keita Amadou Sahirou Garba Babba CAPI Specialists Mounkaila Idrissa Nafissa Hama Quality Control/Field Supervisors and Coordinators Oumarou Arzika Boubakar Maizoumbou Alka Lawan Ibrahim Household Listing Supervisors Ide Maiguizo Hamani Abdou Household Listers and Mappers Hamadou Yacouba Haoua Agadé Soumaila Albagne Abdoubacar Abdou Amadou Nadia Haoua Siddo Hama Abdou Hamani Issoufou Mahazatou Hamadou Djibo Lawan Boukar Hadjara Andrawas Hassan Djamila Lawali Maman Moussa Djibo Nadiya Aboubacar Tondy Harouna yacouba Hamadou Seydou Dantchoukou Aliatou Nana Hadiza Abdou Harouna Moumouni Mme Moctar Hadiza Abdou Hassane Issoufoulé Mamadou Djamila Nasser Mme Idrissa Faridatou Hamani Djibo Hassana Souleymane Idrissa Kanda Ibrahim Seini Hadjara Halidou Fati Seyni IMPEL | Implementer-Led Evaluation and Learning 2 Annex 3: 2020 Niger Baseline Study Personnel Household Survey Team Leads Hamani Djibo Ali Tahirou Amadou Ali Mahaman Elh Manzo Tchiroma Issoufoulé Mamadou Elhadji Aboubacar Abass Mounkaila Issa Idé Maiguizo Hamadou Adamou Ismael Garba Ismael Boukary Ousseini Omar Abdou Maman Moctar Boubacar Ousmane Saadou Abdoul Nasser Amadou Amadou Lawan Household Survey Enumerators Hadiza Maman Narou Balkissa Halidou Mariama Inoussa Balki Maman Abba Nana Aichatou Ibrahim Halima Iri Mamane Habsatou Ali bµBala Rabiatou Inoussa Rachida Moussa Dillé Aichatou Garba Aichatou Souleymane Maimouna Amadou Zakou Nana Haoua Hassane Aminatou Manou Waziri Jamila Mahamadou Zalika Amadou Harira Sani Nana Souweiba Yacouba Roukaya Soumaila Jamila Mahamadou Hadjara Andrawas Hassan Bintou Djibrilla Haoua Siddo Hama Rahanatou Issoufou Rachida Ibrahim Rakiya Abdou Halimatou Mayaki Alzouma Ouma Jamila Ibrahim Roukayatou Amadou Oumoulkher Issoufou Djamila Nasser Rachida Albert Haoua Agadé Nafissatou Aboubacar Zeinabou Zakari Hassana Almadjir Djamila Lawali Fatima Mahamadou Moumeye Baguido Mme Ibrahim Aichatou Fati Mamane keita Inayatou Abdoulaye Housseina Issoufou Djamila Moumouni Aichatou Manou Aida Dakini Iro Zeinabou Ibrahim Nana Hadiza Abdou Maimouna Hamani Saratou Mahamane Keita Hadiza Tankaono Aichatou Maman Mato Zouera Abdoulaye Nana Mariama Kaouara Faridatou Saadou Hamsatou Moussa Mariama Haya Halima Abdoulkarim Hadjara Amadou Garba Nafissatou Baro Saratou Salifou Aichatou Hassane Bamé Roukaya Yahaya Saratou Mahaman Ragi Saida Hima Barkiré Salamayou Kalla Adamou Hadiza Idi Kadidja Issaka Aissa Kamou Hassana Souley Aissa Siddo Mariama Djibo Soumana Haoua Djibril Nakata Djamila Bouba Soumana Mariama Moussa Baseline Study of the RFSAs in Niger: Final Report (Vol. III) Annex 3: 2020 Niger Baseline Study Personnel 3 EXTERNAL QUALITY CONTROL MONITORS Ali Ousmane Askia Makhamed Oumaro Zakari Nakoari Abdoulaye TANGO INTERNATIONAL STAFF Tim Frankenberger Management Oversight Jeanne Downen Chief of Party Mark Langworthy, PhD Management Oversight/Survey Methods Specialist Gheda Temsah, PhD Baseline Study Lead Monica Mueller Senior Qualitative Specialist/Quality Assurance Thomas Bower Survey Methods Specialist Victoria Brown, PhD Senior Research Methodologist/CAPI Specialist Elizabeth Cuellar Survey Operations Coordinator/Lead TANGO Trainer Padriac Finan Data Processing Specialist Lindsey Deeren Accounts and Contracts Manager IMPEL | Implementer-Led Evaluation and Learning 4 Annex 4: Summary of Data Treatment and Analysis ANNEX 4: SUMMARY OF DATA TREATMENT AND ANALYSIS INTRODUCTION This annex provides information about the procedures used to clean and weight data and compute indicators from the 2020 baseline survey of the Bureau for Humanitarian Aid (BHA) Resilience Food Security Activities (RFSAs) in Niger. It also outlines the descriptive, inferential, and econometric data analysis that was conducted. Data Collection Mode and Data Transmission Procedures The 2020 BL household survey data for the BHA RFSAs in Niger were collected using Computer￾Assisted Personal Interviewing (CAPI) by TANGO’s local partner, Bagna Solutions. Tablets were loaded with the Open Data Kit (ODK) data entry application developed at TANGO for BHA surveys. Enumerators entered data directly into the tablets and team leads reviewed and edited interviews in the field prior to transmission to a secure server. Completed interviews were uploaded to a TANGO cloud server via secure transmission. ODK Data Entry Training All enumerators, team leads, field supervisors, and local independent survey monitors participated in the training and pilot pre-test prior to the start of fieldwork to ensure thorough understanding the of the survey protocols, instrument, and the successful use of tablets during data collection. Pre-fieldwork ODK data entry training focused on the following:  Basic use of tablets, including how to turn devices on/off; scrolling; swiping and charging batteries.  Navigation of the ODK form including how to start, edit, save, and upload interviews, and moving between modules.  Review of ODK-specific formatting and notation that provide instructions to the enumerators.  Review of different types of responses and entering responses, including programmed numeric and alpha responses, open-ended numeric and text responses, and multiple responses.  Mock interviews, including starting/stopping the interview, reading questions, entering different types of responses, and entering household roster information.  Workflow, including assigning interviews, sending completed enumerator to team leads, reviewing saved interviews and uploading finalized interviews to the server. Field Quality Control Procedures TANGO ensures high-quality data through a strong emphasis on training field staff, monitoring data collection and quality control during fieldwork. Quality control procedures established in the field include: Fieldwork oversight: Assignment of one team lead to oversee every five enumerators. The team lead should observe at least one interview per day/enumerator during the fieldwork, with the heaviest observation at the beginning and end. Local survey monitors, hired directly by TANGO, provided an additional layer of quality control independent of the Bagna field supervisors. Survey monitors accompanied the data collection teams throughout the period of fieldwork, overseeing fieldwork and providing feedback to Bagna supervisors to communicate back to Team Leads. TANGO convened daily de-briefs with the survey monitors to review issues encountered and how they were addressed. Baseline Study of the RFSAs in Niger: Final Report (Vol. III) Annex 4: Summary of Data Treatment and Analysis 5 Inconsistency checks: The ODK data entry application includes respondent eligibility checks, checks for questionnaire skip patterns and filters, valid response range checks and other quality control checks. Data review: Team Leads reviewed saved interviews daily to identify any missing or problematic data items before uploading the completed interviews to the server. Re-interviews: During fieldwork, team leads randomly selected households interviewed to conduct a short re-interview of the roster and compare the results to the questionnaire completed by the enumerator. Completion of interviews: Enumerators made up to three visits to the household to interview a respondent and planned one to two visits with respondents to successfully complete the interview, when necessary. Data Processing Quality Control Procedures The ODK data entry program was initially designed based on the English-language version of the questionnaire and incorporates valid data ranges, skip rules, filters, and consistency checks. After the English version of the electronic form was tested and validated, the French translation was added. The following quality control checks were used during the data processing cycle: 1) Data Capture (During field work/in the field) a) Identifier integrity: ODK data entry forms were prefilled with geographic identifiers (region, commune, and village) and household identifiers (name of household head and unique household ID) using information from the household listing files. This step ensures that the correct identifier is associated with each record and that the correct household that was sampled is interviewed. b) Correct member selection: The ODK form was designed to auto-fill the respondent selection items with the names and line numbers of eligible members based on information collected from the household roster. This step ensures the correct identification and selection of eligible household members for each module. c) Range checks for close-ended numeric responses: The program ensures that only values within that range of numeric values listed in the ODK dictionary can be entered. d) Range checks for alphabetic responses: The ODK program is fitted so that only letters listed in the response options can be entered. e) Multiple responses: For questions that allow multiple responses to be selected, the ODK program is fitted so that responses that must appear in isolation from any other response do not appear in combination with any other letter/number. f) “Other” responses: For questions that allow “other” responses, the program is designed to ensure that responses requiring an "other" text entry are not skipped. g) Blank responses: The ODK program is design so that fields cannot be left blank. Enumerators cannot move on to the next question without entering a valid response. The ODK dictionary includes pre-programmed codes for respondents who don’t know (usually ‘8’) and respondents who refuse to answer (usually ‘9’). h) Skips: If a skip is present, then based on the respondent's answer to the question, the skip will be applied by the ODK program. Responses that are skipped (i.e., valid skips) will be designated as missing (“.”) by the ODK program. i) Filters: If a question should not be asked, for example, it will be skipped. For example, children 24 months or older are not asked about their food and liquid intake and pregnant women are IMPEL | Implementer-Led Evaluation and Learning 6 Annex 4: Summary of Data Treatment and Analysis not asked about current use of contraception. In such cases, the question or set of questions will be skipped over. 2) Structure Checks (During fieldwork at TANGO offices) Data were downloaded from the server daily and the total number of completed surveys for that day and the aggregated number of completed surveys across all collection days were confirmed with the local field collection teams. The household response rate was tracked and flagged to field teams if it dropped below 95 percent. The numbers of eligible children ages 0-4 years and women ages 15- 49 years were checked to ensure they are within range of the expected values. Age data were also checked for age displacement and age heaping. In addition, data from select modules were reviewed to ensure that the modules were completed correctly and that “no” responses for skip orders were not unexpectedly high. 3) Consistency Checks (After completion of fieldwork at TANGO offices) Following the completion of field work and receipt of final datasets from Bagna Solutions, TANGO performed additional checks and data cleaning protocols that included: (a) consistency checks for information recorded in more than one module (e.g., age, sex, marital status, and work status); and (b) checks on numeric responses to identify and address outliers; and (c) recoding “other” text responses and to available response codes if applicable. HANDLING OF MISSING DATA AND “DON’T KNOW” RESPONSES Missing data points are not included in calculations for BHA indicators (i.e., they are excluded from the denominator and numerator). “Don’t Know” responses are recoded to the null value and included in the denominator, i.e., “Yes,” “No” and “Don’t Know” responses are included in the denominator, but only “Yes” responses are counted in the numerator. BHA INDICATOR DEFINITIONS The questionnaire used for the baseline survey was streamlined from the core BHA population-based household questionnaire to reflect a “Baseline Lite” approach, with more limited but critical lower-level indicators.1 Questions and response options were adapted to the country context, such as those that involve food in modules C, D and E, and F. The survey was also contextualized to capture information on different improved agricultural practices promoted in each RFSA area. A COVID-19 module was added to collect information on knowledge and adoption of COVID-19 mitigation practices, the impacts of COVID-19 on households’ livelihoods and food security, as well as coping strategies to manage those impacts. Another module was incorporated to collect information on household participation in the RFSA given that RFSA interventions commenced before the baseline study could be conducted (due to delays from the COVID-19 pandemic) and that some life-saving activities and essential services may have continued throughout the COVID-19 pandemic. Table 1: 1 illustrates the indicators measured, the level of disaggregation as prescribed in the FFP Handbook supplement on indicator tabulations, and reference documents providing the indicator definition and method of calculation. 1 The survey tool did not collect anthropometric measurements for children or women, or consumption expenditures data for households. Baseline Study of the RFSAs in Niger: Final Report (Vol. III) Annex 4: Summary of Data Treatment and Analysis 7 Table 1: Indicators measured in the 2020 “Baseline Lite” survey of the BHA RFSAs in Niger Indicator Disaggregation Level Reference Documents Indicator Description/Reference Sheet1 Indicator Tabulation Instructions2 FOOD SECURITY Percentage of households with poor, borderline, and adequate Food Consumption Score (FCS) Mean FCS Gendered household type* FFP Indicators Handbook Part 1, pp. 13–16 Supplement to Part I, pp. 17–19 WATER, SANITATION AND HYGIENE Percentage of households using basic drinking water services Gendered household type FFP Indicators Handbook Part 1, pp. 54–56 Supplement to Part I, pp. 55 Percentage of households with access to a basic sanitation service Gendered household type FFP Indicators Handbook Part 1, pp. 60–61 Supplement to Part I, pp. 56 Percentage of households with soap and water at a hand–washing station on premises Gendered household type FFP Indicators Handbook Part 1, pp. 64–65 Supplement to Part I, pp. 57 AGRICULTURE Percentage of farmers who used financial services (savings, agricultural credit and/or agricultural insurance) in the past 12 months Sex FFP Indicators Handbook Part 1, pp. 67–69 Supplement to Part I, pp. 71 Percentage of farmers who used improved storage practices in the past 12 months Sex Proportion of producers who have applied targeted improved management practices or technologies** Commodity Sex Age (15–29, 30+) Management Practice or Technology Type FFP Indicators Handbook Part 1, pp. 73–77 Supplement to Part I, pp. 71–72 Yield of targeted agricultural commodities within target areas2 Crops: commodity, farm size, sex, age (15–29, 30+) Livestock: commodity, production system, sex, age Aquaculture: commodity, sex, age FFP Indicators Handbook Part 1, pp. 78–82 Supplement to Part I, pp. 72–74 WOMEN’S HEALTH AND NUTRITION Percentage of women of reproductive age consuming a diet of minimum diversity (MDD–W) Age: <19, 19+ years FFP Indicators Handbook Part 1, pp. 39–41 Supplement to Part I, pp. 46–47 Percent of births receiving at least four antenatal care (ANC) visits during pregnancy None FFP Indicators Handbook Part 1, pp. 42–43 Supplement to Part I, p. 47 Contraceptive prevalence rate (CPR) Traditional, modern FFP Indicators Handbook Part 1, pp. 49–50 Supplement to Part I, p. 49 IMPEL | Implementer-Led Evaluation and Learning 8 Annex 4: Summary of Data Treatment and Analysis Indicator Disaggregation Level Reference Documents Indicator Description/Reference Sheet1 Indicator Tabulation Instructions2 Percent of women in union who have knowledge of modern family planning methods that can be used to delay or avoid pregnancy Age: 15–19, 20–29 and 30–49 FFP Indicators Handbook Part 1, pp. 44–45 Supplement to Part I, pp. 47–48 Percent of women in union who made decisions about modern family planning methods in the past 12 months Decision-making: Alone, jointly, spouse Ages: 15-19, 20-29, 30-49 FFP Indicators Handbook Part 1, pp. 46-48 Supplement to Part I, p. 48 CHILD HEALTH AND NUTRITION Prevalence of children 6-23 months consuming a diet of minimum diversity (MDD-C) Sex FFP Indicators Handbook Part 1, pp. 26-27 Supplement to Part I, pp. 32–33 Percent of children under age five (0-59 months) who had diarrhea in the prior two weeks Sex FFP Indicators Handbook Part 1, pp. 28-29 Supplement to Part I, pp. 33–34 Percentage of children under age five (0-59 months) with diarrhea treated with Oral Rehydration Therapy (ORT) Sex FFP Indicators Handbook Part 1, pp. 30-31 Supplement to Part I, p. 34 GENDER – CASH Percent of women/men in union who earned cash in the past 12 months Sex Age: Female 15–19, 20– 29, 30–49, ≥50; Male 15– 19, 20–29, 30–49, ≥50 FFP Indicators Handbook Part 1, pp. 94–96 Supplement to Part I, p. 86 Percent of women in union and earning cash who report participation in decisions about the use of self-earned cash4 Age: 15–19, 20–29, 30– 49, ≥50 FFP Indicators Handbook Part 1, pp. 97–98 Supplement to Part I, p. 86 Percent of women in union and earning cash who report participation in decisions about the use of spouse/partner's self￾earned cash4 Age: 15–19, 20–29, 30– 49, ≥50 FFP Indicators Handbook Part 1, pp. 99–100 Supplement to Part I, p. 86 Percent of men in union and earning cash who report spouse/partner participation in decisions about the use of self￾earned cash4 Age: 15–19, 20–29, 30– 49, ≥50 FFP Indicators Handbook Part 1, pp. 101–102 Supplement to Part I, p. 87 GENDER ACCESS TO CREDIT AND GROUP PARTICIPATION Percent of women/men who are members of a community group Sex Age: Female 15–19, 20– 29, 30–49, ≥50; Male 15– 19, 20–29, 30–49, ≥50 FFP Indicators Handbook Part 1, pp. 108–110 Supplement to Part I, p. 93 Percent of women/men in a union with access to credit Age: Female 15–19, 20– 29, 30–49; Male 15–19, 20–29, 30–49, ≥50 FFP Indicators Handbook Part 1, pp. 104–105 Supplement to Part I, p. 92 Baseline Study of the RFSAs in Niger: Final Report (Vol. III) Annex 4: Summary of Data Treatment and Analysis 9 Indicator Disaggregation Level Reference Documents Indicator Description/Reference Sheet1 Indicator Tabulation Instructions2 Percent of women/men in a union who make decisions about credit Decision actors: Alone, jointly Sex Age: Female 15–19, 20– 29, 30–49, ≥50; Male 15–19, 20–29, 30– 49, ≥50 FFP Indicators Handbook Part 1, pp. 106–107 Supplement to Part I, pp. 92–93 RESILIENCE–RELATED Proportion of households that believe local government will respond effectively to future shocks and stresses Gendered household type FFP Indicators Handbook Part 1, pp. 126–127 Index of social capital at the household level Social capital components: overall index, bonding sub-index, bridging sub-index Gendered household type FFP Indicators Handbook Part 1, pp. 117–119 Resilience and Resilience Capacities Measurement Options Full Approach Methodological Guide, pp. 29–30 Proportion of households participating in group-based savings, micro-finance or lending programs Financing type Gendered household type FFP Indicators Handbook Part 1, pp. 115–116 Supplement to Part I, pp. 121– 122 NOTES: * Following FFP indicator descriptions, FTF defines four gendered household types: households with i) female and male adults, ii) adult female, no adult male, ii) adult male, no adult female, and iv) child, no adults. USAID, 2020. Food for Peace Indicators Handbook. Part I: Indicators for Baseline and Endline Surveys for Development Food Security Activities. May. **This applies to crops and livestock of interest. For Niger, the crops of interest are sorghum, millet, cowpeas, and peanuts. The livestock of interest are goats, sheep, and poultry. 1 Available at: https://www.usaid.gov/food-assistance/documents/ffp-indicators-handbook-part-i-indicators-baseline-and-endline￾surveys-dfsa. 2 Available at: https://www.usaid.gov/food-assistance/documents/ffp-indicators-handbook-supplement-part-1. 3 The survey collected information on agricultural yield; however, due to measurement challenges, particularly in relation to size of farmland and weight of livestock, no further analysis of the yield data was performed. Therefore, indicator estimates for agricultural yield are omitted from the report and Annex 5. 4 Due to the ODK program skip logic, indicators on gender and cash could not be calculated. The program skip logic resulted with the exclusion of: (i) respondents who worked for a combination of cash and in-kind, whereas all cash earners (i.e., respondents who worked for cash OR cash and in-kind) should have been interviewed; and (2) respondents who reported not discussing their earnings with anyone, whereas information on self-earned cash decision-making should have been asked to all eligible respondents regardless of whether they discuss their earnings. IMPEL | Implementer-Led Evaluation and Learning 10 Annex 4: Summary of Data Treatment and Analysis DESCRIPTION OF PROMOTED AGRICULTURAL PRACTICES This section describes the improved agricultural practices and technologies promoted by the RFSAs in their respective implementation areas. Table 2: Targeted Improved Crop Practices - Sorghum, Millet, Cowpeas, and Peanuts Targeted Improved Management Practice/technology Description Crop genetics Use of improved seeds Involves using varieties bred by local or international research institutions (e.g., ICRISAT), and private seed companies (like the seed farm Amaté) mostly for the following characteristics – yield, drought tolerance, disease resistance, ease of preservation, taste, etc. Cultural practices/technologies Control of sida cordifolia growth Sida cordifolia is an invasive weed and not palatable by animals. It is mainly found in pasture areas and animals’ corridors. There are several means of control: physical, chemical, and biological. In Niger, the combination of physical and biological control is most practiced. Sida cordifolia can also serve as an indicator of soil fertility in farmland. It can be used to identify spots where the application of fertilizer can be used. Thus, this practice leverages local knowledge to manage the use of limited resources to improve agricultural productivity. Crop rotations Involves changing the type of crop that is grown on a piece of land in order to maintain soil fertility and/or break pest and disease cycles. In typical smallholder farming systems, cereal crops (maize, sorghum, millet) are rotated with nitrogen fixing legumes such as beans, soybeans, and groundnuts. Crop association (inter-cropping) Traditional farming technique that involves growing more than one crop on the same piece of land or in the same hole to mitigate some production risks (e.g., pests, drought, etc.). Examples of intercropping involve planting or cereal (e.g., millet) intercropped with a legume (such as cowpeas). Intercropped crops may be planted in the same row, alternated rows, or alternate strips. Sowing after useful rain In the Sahel, useful rains usually occur in the month of June and range between 15 mm and 20 mm. This practice avoids the loss of seedlings and wasted seeds. It supports a local system for monitoring rainfall and raising community awareness on climate information. Improved pest and disease management practices/technologies Delay of seedlings until third or fourth rains to control pests Agricultural technique used to prevent pest attacks which usually invade crops at the first sowing. This practice allows the farmer to save their seeds. The adoption of this practice depends on the date of rains installations as the delay must not be too long due to the short timeframe and the uncertainty of rainfall in the Sahel region. Seed treatment with fungicides Mixing seeds with fungicide before sowing. The technique makes it possible to prevent and fight against attacks by fungi and other parasites. It is recommended to prevent attacks of telluric parasite, and when the crawler and grasshopper attacks occur during the plant lifting. Baseline Study of the RFSAs in Niger: Final Report (Vol. III) Annex 4: Summary of Data Treatment and Analysis 11 Targeted Improved Management Practice/technology Description Improved soil-related fertility and conservation practices/technologies Zaï pits Traditional agricultural technique used to cultivate and rehabilitate hard or heavily degraded soil. Holes are dug by hand, and are approximately 20 to 40 cm in diameter, 20 cm deep and spaced 90 cm apart. Zaï pits act as micro catchments within the field for collecting runoff water and minimizing erosion. During crop production, inputs such as fertilizers/manure, seed, water, and lime all concentrate in the prepared hole as opposed to being spread over an area in furrow cultivation. This concentration of growth enhancing factors around the plant significantly increases yield. Refers to a conservation farming technique that involves making holes in the field. During crop production, inputs such as fertilizers/manure, seed, water, and lime all concentrate in the prepared hole as opposed to being spread over an area in furrow cultivation. This concentration of growth enhancing factors around the plant significantly increases yield. Organic manure Use of manure for fertilization of soil. Organic manure typically refers to cow dung, chicken droppings, goat or sheep droppings or any other waste produced by domesticated animals. Phosphatic manure Manure composed mainly of phosphate. Natural phosphate is available and produced in the Tahoua region. Phosphate is the element which has the largest deficit in soils in Niger. Phosphorus deficiency in the soil reduces and inhibits symbiotic nitrogen fixation by legumes. On the other hand, its presence helps to facilitate growth through better metabolism of sugars at the time of reproduction, thus increasing crop yields, and quality of fruits and seeds. For cereals, it promotes the production of flowers, panicles and grains per panicle. Compost Use of compost for the maintenance and improvement of the structure of the soil. Compost is fermented vegetable matter which is partially decomposed by mineralizing micro-organisms. Composting is a practice of making compost from various plants. Micro-doses of fertilizer Localized application of a fertilizer (manure, compost, or mineral) in small quantities, most often during sowing or the very early phase of plant lifting. The input can be manual or mechanized. Fertilizer that is applied to a single planting station (i.e., hole where the seed is placed) is measured with a three-finger pinch or a soft drink/beer bottle top – level at the top as opposed to heaping (approximately 6-gram dose). This technique replaces the practice of spreading fertilizer over the entire farm. It is, therefore, less costly and allows for more efficient use of fertilizer. This technique is well-suited to millet and sorghum crops. The technology improves tolerance of sorghum and pearl millet to drought and temperature stress and can boost productivity by enhancing nutrient uptake and root and seedling growth. Agricultural half￾moons Water catchment/water-trapping technique used to increase infiltration and retention of runoff water. Holes in the shape of a semi-circle or earth embankments are used to capture and store run-off rainwater. Half-moons can be constructed in a variety of sizes, with a range of both radius and bund dimensions. The half-moons are staggered and spaced 10 x 10 m apart. Construction is always by hand. Demi-lunes are lined with manure and compost, and seeds are placed in and around them. Half-moon is a water catchment/water￾trapping technique where holes in the shape of a semi-circle or earth embankments are used to capture and store run-off rainwater. The demi-lunes are lined with manure and compost, and seeds are placed in and around them. IMPEL | Implementer-Led Evaluation and Learning 12 Annex 4: Summary of Data Treatment and Analysis Targeted Improved Management Practice/technology Description Improved climate adaptation/climate risk management practices/technologies Use of climate information Use of climate information or data (rainfall depth, occurrence of drought pockets, early installation, late rains, early withdrawal of rain) to help farmers make decisions (e.g., time of sowing, choice of varieties, labor schedules, etc.) to secure production. Climate information can also indicate whether vital infrastructure – such as roads and communications systems, essential for market access – are likely to be impacted. This information is accessible through CILSS bulletins, the National Directorate of Metrology, or for rainfall depths, locally with the installation of rain gauges. Community radios play an important role in the dissemination of information, and more recently cell phones are also used for this purpose. Other improved practices/technologies Performing at least three weedings Involves removing or suppressing weeds in a cropped piece of land using mechanical tools and equipment or hand hoeing during the rainy season (three to four months-cycle). Table 3: Targeted Improved NRM Practices – All Farmers Targeted Improved Natural Resource Management Practice/Technology Description Farmer managed natural regeneration (FMNR) Involves farmers selecting and pruning growth from stumps of fallen but living trees, and/or seedlings that emerge naturally in a way that encourages the shoots’ growth into straight tree trunks. It is a particular sub-set of agroforestry and constitutes one way of stimulating the recreation of parkland agroforestry systems where these have been degraded. It allows reforestation of soils, enrichment of fields and fights against the wind. Delimitation of animal corridors and pasture areas Biological or mechanical technique which makes it possible to delineate and protect grazing areas and passage corridor. The delineation and protection of transhumance corridors are increasingly seen as critical to maintaining livestock mobility in agropastoral areas by allowing passage through areas of increasing cropping pressure. This technique also aids in reducing conflicts between farmers and breeders. Protection of ponds against silting up Agricultural technique allowing the construction of half-moons and other soil conservation structures upstream from the water point to avoid silting up by runoff and wind. Functional community￾based conflict management mechanisms There are two types of community-based mechanisms dedicated to conflict management: (i) informal committees established by communities themselves upon a social agreement, and (ii) formal committees so-called COFOB (community-based land commissions) established by the government and/or development partners. These community-based committees carry out sensitization around natural resources management based on law and regulations; assist farmers and herders to protect their lands/fields; and serve as the very first actors that intervene to mitigate conflicts and facilitate agreement between protagonists. Community-based approaches will empower local community groups and institutions by building capacity for managing investment decisions and project planning, execution and monitoring using a process that emphasizes inclusive participation and management. Baseline Study of the RFSAs in Niger: Final Report (Vol. III) Annex 4: Summary of Data Treatment and Analysis 13 Table 4: Targeted Improved Post-Harvest Handling and Storage Practices - Sorghum, Millet, Cowpeas and Peanuts Post-Harvest Handling and Storage Practice/Technology Description Locally made storage structures such as sheet metal silos Structure used in agriculture for the bulk storage of grain. Sealed/airtight bags Any storage container that can be sealed in a way that creates an airtight environment inside the container thus inhibiting spoilage. Community storage facilities, including warehouse receipting Community-based improved storage structures such as warehouses that inhibit spoilage and pest damage and allow farmers to deposit their surplus crops for future domestic consumption or surplus sale. Use of solar or fuel-powered dryers to reduce post-harvest moisture Post-harvest techniques whereby harvested crops are dried using solar of fuel￾powered dryers. These techniques help reduce post-harvest loss due to growth of aflatoxin-producing and other molds. Seed or grain treatment techniques including botanical pest control agents or phytosanitary irradiation Pest control technique to reduce loss of seeds of grains. Botanical pest control agents are plant-based pesticides. They are considered safer/less toxic than common synthetic chemicals because they degrade rapidly from sunlight, air, proper moisture. Phytosanitary irradiation uses ionizing radiation to disinfect fruit and vegetable commodities of surface pests. Grain treatment with agro￾chemicals Pesticides applied to protect crops from damaging influences, such as plant diseases or insects. It will protect grain from moisture and other contamination/adulteration. Triple bags for cowpea grain preservation Technique in which the grain is hermetically stored in two heavy-duty plastic bags that are then placed in an outer woven jute or polypropylene bad. Other post-harvest practices that reduce pre-storage losses Post-harvest practice other than those listed that are used to reduce post-storage losses. Table 5: Targeted Improved Livestock Practices – Goats and Sheep Improved Livestock Management Practice Description Improved fodder production Fodder production refers to the exercise of deliberately planting certain types of grasses in your pastures to improve the quality and quantity of your natural grasslands. In this case, we want to investigate whether the farmer either used legumes or oilseeds to produce fodder (food given to livestock), or practiced veld reinforcement by planting legumes, grasses or oilseeds to increase the nitrogen content of the soil. Use of licking and/or multi-nutritional block Use of complementary feed for livestock that supplements the mineral and protein deficiencies of animals, especially during the dry period when the feed is poor in nutrients. The multi-nutritional block is made from local fodder such as millet stalks, pods of Faidherbia albida, cottonseed meal, bran, minerals, and binders (gum Arabic / cassava flour). The licking stone made locally is mainly composed of mineral salts (sodium chloride), cement, and bran. Animal selection The choice of the best species and the right breed depending resistant to dry conditions and the farmers’ objectives (production of meat, milk, leather, etc...). Vaccinations Use of vaccines for livestock to prevent disease. IMPEL | Implementer-Led Evaluation and Learning 14 Annex 4: Summary of Data Treatment and Analysis Improved Livestock Management Practice Description Antiparasitic treatments Combat parasites through administering products by oral route (Albendazole) or injectable route (Iver mectin,). Veterinary monitoring of food quality and quantity over time Monitoring of the quantity and quality of by-products derived from animals (e.g., milk, meat, cheese). Weight monitoring Regular weighing of animals to assess the growth of animals against the food provided. Optimum weight-market price criteria for the sale decision Seeking information on livestock prices on the market through the Livestock Market Information System (SIM-B), community radios, National Network of Niger Chamber of Agriculture (RECA), etc... This assists the herder to make timely decisions about buying or selling livestock. Use of para-veterinary services for goats and sheep Used or consulted with public or government animal workers for veterinary services such as prevention/treatment of livestock disease, production, artificial insemination, etc. Table 6: Targeted Improved Livestock Practices - Poultry Targeted Improved Livestock Management Practice Description Use of improved poultry variety/breed Process of choosing animals that meet the requirements of the breeding objective and will pass traits onto their progeny, e.g., choice of the best locally adaptable poultry species for egg and pulp production. Use of improved feed Use of a diverse, vitamin-rich diet for poultry. Generally, thus is a mixture of food rich in calcium and protein. Improved feed is expected to improve the production of eggs and pulp. Use of improved shelters Construction of cages, sheds, or pens (enclosures for holding livestock) using local material to house livestock. The shelter be airy and waterproof. The place should also be lit to facilitate the consumption of food for a long time. Vaccinations Use of vaccines for livestock to prevent disease. Use of veterinary products and services (antibiotics, vitamins, etc.) Used or consulted with public or government animal workers for veterinary services such as prevention/treatment of livestock disease, production, artificial insemination, etc. DATA ANALYSIS One dataset will be prepared for the 2020 baseline survey with a RFSA variable to facilitate analysis by RFSA area. The baseline study includes the following analyses:  Key demographic characteristics of the study population  Calculation of BHA indicators and disaggregation by key sub-groups as defined by BHA (e.g., gendered household type, age, sex, decision actor, etc…)  Descriptive analyses of the components of composite indicators  Bivariate analyses to explore associations among key variables based on the project theory of change  Additional econometric analyses Baseline Study of the RFSAs in Niger: Final Report (Vol. III) Annex 4: Summary of Data Treatment and Analysis 15 All analyses are conducted using Stata Version 15. Results are weighted to reflect the full target population, for the combined RFSA areas and for each RFSA area separately. Details of the analyses for the baseline study are provide below. Sociodemographic Characteristics of the Study Population The baseline report provides an overview of the size and sociodemographic characteristics of the population in the RFSA areas. This includes the percentage and number of individuals in the following key target population groups:  Individuals (15+ years), total and by sex  Cash earners (15 + years), total and by sex  Farmers (15+ years), total and by sex  Women of reproduction age (15-49 years) o Married or in a union o With a live birth in the past 5 years  Children under 5 years, total and by sex  Children 6 -23 months, total and by sex This analysis also includes the following household-level statistics:  Average household size (number of persons)  Average number of working age persons (15+ years) per household  Percent of households with children under 5 years of age  Percent of households with a child 6-23 months of age  Percent of female-headed households  Gendered household type (percent and number of households) Calculation and Tabulation of Indicators All indicators are generated using relevant sampling weights to represent the full target population and tabulated for the combined RFSA areas and for each RFSA separately as specified in Table 1. Point estimates with 95 percent confidence intervals and variance estimations using Taylor series expansion were derived for all indicators for the combined RFSA areas and for each RFSA area separately. The variance estimation considers the design effect associated with the complex sampling design. IMPEL | Implementer-Led Evaluation and Learning 16 Annex 4: Summary of Data Treatment and Analysis Descriptive Analyses Table 2 summarizes the descriptive analyses conducted for the 2020 baseline study of the BHA RFSAs in Niger. Table 7: Summary of descriptive analyses conducted for the 2020 baseline study of the BHA RFSAs in Niger SOCIO-DEMOGRAPHIC CHARACTERISTICS OF THE STUDY AREA Estimated population in the DFSA areas Household characteristics in the DFSA areas Percentage of households receiving social assistance among direct and indirect DFSA participants, by type of assistance FOOD CONSUMPTION Percent of households consuming FCS food groups and frequency of consumption in days AGRICULTURE Percentage of farmers by age, in total and by farmers’ sex, by commodity Percentage of farmers by type of land access and farm size, in total and by farmers' sex and age Percentage of farmers by area cultivated, in total and by farmers' sex and age, by commodity Percentage of farmers using financial services by type of financial service, in total and by farmers' sex Percentage of farmers who applied targeted improved post-harvest handling and storage practices, in total and by farmers’ sex and age, by commodity Percentage of farmers who applied targeted improved crop and NRM practices and technologies by type, in total and by farmers’ sex and age, by commodity Percentage of farmers who applied targeted improved livestock management practices and technologies by type, in total and by farmers’ sex and age, by commodity WATER, SANITATION, AND HYGIENE (WASH) Household sanitation, water, and knowledge of critical moments for handwashing MATERNAL AND CHILD HEALTH AND NUTRITION (MCHN) Percentage of women 15-49 years of age by food groups consumed Use of antenatal care services (ANC) Percentage of non-pregnant women 15-49 years who are married or in a union and using a contraceptive method by type of method Percentage of children 6-23 months by food groups consumed GENDER ACCESS TO CREDIT AND COMMUNITY PARTICIPATION Percentage of women and men in a union participating in community groups, by type of group RESILIENCE Component of household social capital index COVID-19 AWARENESS, MITIGATION PROTOCOLS, IMPACTS, AND COPING STRATEGIES COVID-19 awareness and adoption of COVID-19 mitigation protocols Percentage of households who experienced COVID-19 impacts on livelihoods, by type of impact Percentage of households who experienced COVID-19 impacts on food security, by type of impact Coping strategies for COVID-19 impacts on livelihoods Coping strategies for COVID-19 impacts on food security Note: Results are provided for the combined RFSA areas and for each RFSA area separately. Sampling weights included. Baseline Study of the RFSAs in Niger: Final Report (Vol. III) Annex 4: Summary of Data Treatment and Analysis 17 Bivariate Analyses Select bivariate analyses were conducted to explore relationships between key indicators and between indicators and important household and individual characteristics. These analyses are intended to provide useful information to help identify sub-groups on which to focus or to help inform program design by illustrating the factors that are associated with the indicators. Differences in means or proportions between groups or correlations are tested using appropriate statistical test of differences (such as t-test or chi square test). Table 3 summarizes the bivariate analyses conducted for the 2020 baseline study of the BHA RFSAs in Niger. Table 8: Summary of bivariate analyses conducted for the 2020 baseline study of the BHA RFSAs in Niger Outcome indicators Intermediate indicators (I) (II) (III) (IV) (V) FCS MDD-W MDD-C Diarrhea Agri. practices1 Women's characteristics Age X Education level X Pregnancy status X Participation in cash-earning activities X Child's characteristics Sex X Age X Household sociodemographic characteristics Number of children 0-4 years X X X Number of children 5-17 years X X X Number of adult females X X X Number of adult males X X X Male-headed household X X X Household head age in years X X X Household head education level X X X Gendered household type X X X Household food security Food consumption score/group X X Percent of harvest completed X X X Household WASH status Basic sanitation facility X Water source X Water treatment X Handwashing station with water soap/ash/cleaning agent X Knowledge of 3 of the 6 critical moments for handwashing X Household livestock holding Household raises sheep X X X IMPEL | Implementer-Led Evaluation and Learning 18 Annex 4: Summary of Data Treatment and Analysis Outcome indicators Intermediate indicators (I) (II) (III) (IV) (V) FCS MDD-W MDD-C Diarrhea Agri. practices1 Household raises goat X X X Household raises poultry X X X Use of agriculture-related financial service Use of any agriculture-related financial service X X X X Participation in agriculture-related savings scheme X X X X Borrowed agricultural credit X X X X Has agricultural insurance X X X X Access to community-based savings or credit groups Participation in group-based savings, microfinance, or lending programs X X X X Participation in group-based saving programs X X X X Participation in group-based credit programs X X X X Use of targeted improved crop management practices1 Crop genetics practices/technologies Use of improved seeds X X X Cultural practices/technologies Control of sida cordifolia growth X X X Crop association X X X Crop rotation X X X Sowing after useful rain X X X Improved natural resources or ecosystem management practices/technologies Farmer managed natural regeneration (fmnr) X X X Delimitation of animal corridors and pasture areas X X X Protection of ponds against silting up X X X Functional community-based conflict management mechanisms X X X Improved pest and disease management practices/technologies Delay of seedlings until third or fourth rains to control pests X X X Seed treatment with fungicides X X X Improved soil-related fertility and conservation practices/technologies Zai pits X X X Organic manure X X X Phosphatic manure X X X Compost X X X Microdoses of fertilizer X X X Baseline Study of the RFSAs in Niger: Final Report (Vol. III) Annex 4: Summary of Data Treatment and Analysis 19 Outcome indicators Intermediate indicators (I) (II) (III) (IV) (V) FCS MDD-W MDD-C Diarrhea Agri. practices1 Improved agriculture water management non-irrigation-based practices/technologies Agricultural half-moons X X X Improved climate adaptation/climate risk management practices/technologies Use of climate information (rain forecast, disaster risks, etc.) X X X Improved post-harvest handling and storage practices/technologies Locally made storage structures such as sheet metal silos X X X Sealed/airtight bags X X X Community storage facilities, including warehouse receipting X X X Use of solar or fuel-powered dryers to reduce post-harvest moisture X X X Seed or grain treatment techniques including botanical pest control agents or phytosanitary irradiation X X X Grain treatment with agro-chemicals X X X Triple bags for cowpea grain preservation X X X Other post-harvest practices that reduce pre-storage losses X X X Other improved practices/technologies Performing at least three weedings X X X Improved livestock management practices or technologies Improved fodder production X X X Use of licking and/or multi-nutritional block X X X Animal selection X X X Vaccinations X X X Antiparasitic treatments X X X Veterinary monitoring of food quality and quantity over time X X X Weight monitoring X X X Optimum weight-market price criteria for the sale decision X X X Use of para-veterinary services for sheep and sheep X X X Use of improved poultry variety/breed X X X Use of improved feed X X X Use of improved shelters X X X Use of veterinary products and services (antibiotics, vitamins, etc.) X X X Exposure to COVID-19 impacts Household livelihood/income was impacted by COVID-19 X X X IMPEL | Implementer-Led Evaluation and Learning 20 Annex 4: Summary of Data Treatment and Analysis Outcome indicators Intermediate indicators (I) (II) (III) (IV) (V) FCS MDD-W MDD-C Diarrhea Agri. practices1 Household food security was impacted by COVID-19 X X X Participation in social assistance activities Direct participation in RFSA activities X X X X X Receipt of food rations X X X Participation in nutrition trainings/meetings X X X Participation in agriculture-related trainings/meetings X X X X NOTES: 1 Bivariate analysis of each type of improved management practice was performed for each commodity separately. Note: Results are provided for the combined RFSA areas and for each RFSA area separately. Sampling weights included. Some variables were subsequently omitted from the multivariate analyses to reduce multicollinearity. Econometric Modeling Multivariate analyses were performed to assess the correlates of household food consumption score (FCS), and the percentage of women achieving a diet of minimum diversity (see Table 4). Multivariate analyses of the percentage of children 6-23 months achieving a data of minimum diversity (MDD-C) was not conducted due to relatively sample size (particularly when the analyses is conducted for each RFSA area separately), and also because many of the intervention-specific indicators have low variance. These outcome indicators were selected for additional analyses to help inform the design of future interventions. Multivariate regression models included village fixed effects and key socio-economic and intervention-specific factors as covariates to explore whether intervention-specific factors may influence the outcome indicators, while controlling for background socio-economic factors and village-specific influences that are unrelated to the RFSA. Table 9: Summary of multivariate analyses conducted for the 2020 baseline study of the BHA RFSAs in Niger FOOD CONSUMPTION OLS regression of household food consumption score, combined RFSA areas OLS regression of household food consumption score, Girma RFSA areas OLS regression of household food consumption score, Hamzari RFSA areas OLS regression of household food consumption score, Wadata RFSA areas MATERNAL AND CHILD HEALTH AND NUTRITION (MCHN) Logistic regression of women's minimum dietary diversity (MDD-W), combined RFSA areas Baseline Study of the RFSAs in Niger: Final Report (Vol. III) Annex 4: Summary of Data Treatment and Analysis 21 Data Used in the Analysis The data used in these analyses were collected in the 2020 baseline survey of the BHA RFSAs in Niger. The survey collected standard information on household and respondent characteristics; food security; adoption of improved agricultural practices and technologies; access to and use of financial services; and women’s health and nutrition. The analyses are restricted to cases with complete information on the dependent and explanatory variables; cases with missing values for one or more variables are excluded. Definitions of Variables Dependent variables The main outcomes of interest are the food consumption score (FCS) and the percentage of women achieving a diet of minimum diversity (MDD-W). The survey asked respondents “How many days did you or members of your household eat [FOOD] during the past seven days both inside or outside your home?”; enumerators repeated this question foreach of the food groups relevant to this study: cereals, tubers, meat, meat, poultry, fish, dairy and milk, legumes, vegetables, and fruits.2 The FCS is calculated as the weighted sum of those frequencies. Higher weights are assigned to more nutrition, micronutrient dense foods.3 The resulting score ranges from 0 to 112. Using World Food Programme (WFP) thresholds households are then categorized into three FCS groups based on standard thresholds: poor food consumption (<21); borderline food consumption (21.5 – 35); and acceptable food consumption (>35). MDD-W was calculated based on questions about the food groups consumed by the woman in the day or night prior to the interview. Each woman 15-49 years was asked “Yesterday, during the day or night, did you eat or drink any [FOOD]?”; enumerators repeated this question for each of the ten food groups relevant to this indicator. A woman is considered to achieve an MDD-W is she consumed at least 5 of the 10 food groups during the period day. Explanatory variables The analyses controlled for individual, household and intervention-specific factors that can influence household food consumption and women diets. The selection of covariates is based on a simplified theory of change as well as data availability. The working hypothesis for these analyses is that if household access to and use of financial services is improved and application of improved agricultural practices is enhanced, then household agricultural productivity and income will rise and improvements in food security and women diets should be achieved. Control variables included household and individual sociodemographic characteristics such as the age, sex, and education level of the household head; gendered household type; household size; and household livestock holdings. Models of women’s dietary diversity controlled for women’s age, education level, pregnancy status and participation in cash-earning opportunities. The models also control for several key interventions promoted by the RFSAs that aim to increase household food security and dietary diversity through increased food production, food availability, and economic resources: taking out an agricultural loan; participating in an ag-related savings scheme; participating in a community-based savings group; participating in a community-based credit group; and 2 Cereals and tubers are combined under one food group as “staples.” Meat, fish, and poultry are combined under one group as “Meat.” For additional details refer to the FFP Indicators Handbook Part 1: Indicators for Baseline and Endline Surveys for Development Food Security Activities. 3 For additional details refer to the FFP Indicators Handbook Part 1. IMPEL | Implementer-Led Evaluation and Learning 22 Annex 4: Summary of Data Treatment and Analysis applying improved management practices (crop, NRM, post-harvest handling and storage, and livestock). These variables are included to better understand their potential role in improving food security and women diets. This analytical approach assumes that if a single household member participates in a particular practice, e.g., taking agricultural credit, participating in group-based savings, or adopting an improved agricultural technology or technique, then the benefits of this practice accrue to the household as a whole. To conduct this analysis, information collected at the individual level was collapsed to create a single record for each household.4 Information on livestock holdings, use of agriculture-related financial services, and the application of improved management practices was collected through interviews with individual farmers in the household, with a recall period spanning the 12 months prior to the survey.5 A household is considered to have taken out agricultural credit or participated in an agriculture-related savings scheme if any farmer in the household reported taking out an agriculture loan or participating in an agriculture savings scheme in the 12 months prior to the survey. A household is considered to use an improved management practice if at least one farmer reported using any targeted practice for any of the crops or livestock of interest. Similarly, a household is considered to raise livestock if at least one farmer reported raising any of the livestock of interest. Participation in community-based credit and savings group was collected by asking the survey respondent whether any member of the household took out a loan or borrowed from a community-based group or held their savings in a community-based group in the 12 months prior to the survey. Because these measures were collected on the household level it was not necessary to perform any additional aggregation. Given that data collection extended into the first week of the harvest period and food consumption including diversity of diets, is expected to be higher in the harvest period compared to the lean season, the models control for the percent of harvest completed. Dummy variables were included for participation in social assistance such as receipt of food rations, participation in nutrition and agriculture meetings and trainings. Because RFSA interventions began before the survey could be conducted, the models control for potential differences between direct and indirect RFSA participants. A dummy variable is included for households in which any member participated in the RFSA. The designation of the household as a direct beneficiary is based on the household survey respondent’s reply and is not verified using project documents. Village dummy variables are included to capture variations in macro￾or systems-level factors that can affect outcomes such as markets, prices, infrastructure, and availability of services (e.g., health, veterinary, extension, etc.). The multivariate models included all variables that are expected to influence the outcome indicator regardless of the results of the bivariate associations. In some cases, associations that are statistically insignificant in the bivariate analysis can become significant in the multivariate analysis (and vice versa). Variables that are highly correlated with each other were omitted. For example, household size was included in lieu of dummies accounting for the number of adult males, adult females, children under 15 and children 15 and over. 4 For the analyses of women’s dietary diversity, this information was linked back to the household to which the woman belongs. 5 Enumerators interviewed all farmers with access to a plot of land over which they make decisions and farmers with livestock over which they make decisions. In this study, characterizing farmers as having access to a plot of land does not require legal ownership of the land. Similarly, identifying farmers as having livestock does not require that they own the livestock, but they should be able to make decisions about their management or how to dispose, store, or sell production. Baseline Study of the RFSAs in Niger: Final Report (Vol. III) Annex 4: Summary of Data Treatment and Analysis 23 Statistical Methods FCS was analyzed using ordinary least squares (OLS regression) technique. This method was adopted after preliminary analysis indicated that using ordered logistic regression to analyze FCS groups is not suitable because of the violation of the parallel regression assumption, and that a generalized ordered logistic regression is not suitable because there are relatively too few cases in the poor FCS group (n=84) compared to the other two groups (borderline, n=272; acceptable, n=1,534). Logistic regression models were used to analyze the correlates of the percentage of women achieving a diet of minimum diversity. The results are reports as odds ratios (OR). The overall sequence of the econometric analyses starts with a base model that includes household and individual characteristics as well as village dummies. Next, intervention-specific factors are added, first those related to access to financial services followed by adoption of improved management practices. The final model controls for participation in social assistance programs, including direct RFSA participation. Post-estimation tests were performed to check for model misspecification and goodness of fit as well as multicollinearity. Variables were omitted to reduce collinearity and improve overall model fit.6 The analyses account for the two-stage stratified cluster sampling design. All analyses were conducted using STATA 15. One limitation of multivariate regression is that it does not address selection bias. The sample of households with higher FCS and the sample of women who achieve a diet of minimum diversity are not a random selection of households or individuals. Observed and unobserved heterogeneity in their characteristics results in self-selection bias. Examples of observed heterogeneity are when households with a higher FCS are systematically more likely to be educated or when women with an MDD-W are systematically more likely to participate in cash-earning opportunities. Unobserved heterogeneity arises if households that achieve an acceptable FCS are more likely to engage in risk-taking behavior (e.g., trying a new agricultural technique) or are more likely to have a growth-oriented mindset (e.g., participate in technical capacity building trainings/meetings). Thus, the positive effects of adopting intervention-specific practices, such as accessing financial services or applying improved management practices, may be overstated using ordinary multivariate regression even if these factors are controlled for because selection bias can result when the distribution of the characteristics of households with higher FCS differ from those with lower FCS. Similarly, selection bias can arise if the distribution of the characteristics of women achieving an MDD differ from those who do not. HOUSEHOLD WEIGHTS Household weights were applied for household level indicators derived from modules C, F, H and R and included in the construction of individual weights for all other modules. Household design weights were calculated based on the separate sampling probabilities for each sampling stage and for each cluster (village). 𝑃1ℎ𝑖= first-stage sampling probability of the i-th cluster in stratum h 𝑃2ℎ𝑖= second-stage sampling probability within the i-th cluster (household selection). 6 All models passed the tests of misspecification and goodness of fit with two exceptions. The model of MDD-W for the combined RFSAs and Girma do not pass the misspecification and goodness of fit tests. IMPEL | Implementer-Led Evaluation and Learning 24 Annex 4: Summary of Data Treatment and Analysis The probability of selecting cluster i in the sample is: 𝑃1ℎ𝑖= 𝑚ℎ × 𝑁ℎ𝑖 𝑁ℎ × 𝑏ℎ𝑖 The second-stage probability of selecting households in cluster i is: 𝑃2ℎ𝑖 = 𝑛ℎ𝑖 𝐿ℎ𝑖 ⁄ Where: 𝑚ℎ= number of sample clusters selected in stratum h. 𝑁ℎ𝑖= total households in the frame for the i-th sample cluster in stratum h. 𝑁ℎ= total households in the frame in stratum h. 𝑏ℎ𝑖= the number of selected segments7 divided by the total number of segments in the i-th sample cluster in stratum h 𝑛ℎ𝑖 = number of sample households selected for the i-th sample cluster in stratum h. 𝐿ℎ𝑖= number of households listed in the household listing for the i-th sample cluster in stratum h. The overall selection probability of each household in cluster i of stratum h is the product of the selection probabilities of the two (or three) stages: 𝑃ℎ𝑖 = 𝑃1ℎ𝑖 x 𝑃2ℎ𝑖 = 𝑚ℎ × 𝑁ℎ𝑖 𝑁ℎ × 𝑏ℎ𝑖 × 𝑛ℎ𝑖 𝐿ℎ𝑖 ⁄ The household design weight for each household in cluster i of stratum h is the inverse of its overall selection probability: 𝑊ℎ𝑖 = 1 𝑃ℎ𝑖 = 𝑁ℎ×𝐿ℎ𝑖 𝑚ℎ×𝑁ℎ𝑖×𝑛ℎ𝑖×𝑏ℎ𝑖 The household sampling weight is calculated using the household design weight corrected for household non-response in each of the selected clusters. Response rates are calculated at the cluster level as ratios of the number of interviewed households divided by the number of selected households. The household sampling weight is calculated by dividing the household design weight by the household response rate. INDIVIDUAL WEIGHTS Individual sampling weights will be applied for indicators derived from modules D (children), E (women of reproductive age), G (farmers), J (cash earners), KF (youngest female in a union), and KM (partners of youngest female in a union). Since all eligible individuals will be selected for each Module the probability of selecting eligible individuals within sampled households is always one. Therefore, the individual weights will consist of an individual non-response adjustment only. The individual nonresponse adjustment will be applied using the inverted proportion of the total number of completed interviews for each group divided by the total number of eligible individuals for each group. This non-response adjustment is calculated at the RFSA level. The final individual weights will then be computed as the product of the household weights and the individual nonresponse adjustment. Baseline Study of the RFSAs in Niger: Final Report (Vol. I) Annex 4: Summary of Data Treatment and Analysis 25 ANNEX 5: TABULAR SUMMARY OF INDICATORS Table 10: A5 BHA Niger Baseline Indicators - Combined BHA RFSA Areas Table A5. BHANiger Baseline Indicators- Combined BHARFSAAreas Indicators, 95% Confidence Intervals and Base Population [Niger, 2020] Confidence Interval Indicator Value Lower Upper Number of Records Weighted Population Standard Deviation Standard Error DEFT FOOD SECURITY INDICATORS Percentage of households with poorfood consumption score (FCS) 5.7 3.6 7.8 2,239 166,739 23.2 1.1 2.2 Male and female adults 5.6 3.1 8.0 1,919 140,416 23.1 1.2 2.3 Adult female, no adult male 8.3 4.2 12.4 204 17,548 25.7 2.0 1.1 Adult male, no adult female 2.7 -0.2 5.6 109 8,335 16.0 1.5 1.0 Child, no adults ^ ^ ^ 7 439 ^ ^ ^ Percentage of households with borderline FCS 16.1 12.3 19.8 2,239 166,739 36.7 1.9 2.4 Male and female adults 15.3 11.7 18.8 1,919 140,416 36.3 1.8 2.2 Adult female, no adult male 18.0 11.7 24.4 204 17,548 35.8 3.2 1.3 Adult male, no adult female 23.0 11.2 34.8 109 8,335 41.5 5.9 1.5 Child, no adults ^ ^ ^ 7 439 ^ ^ ^ Percentage of households with acceptable FCS 78.3 73.5 83.1 2,239 166,739 41.3 2.4 2.8 Male and female adults 79.2 74.5 83.9 1,919 140,416 41.0 2.3 2.5 Adult female, no adult male 73.7 65.6 81.8 204 17,548 41.0 4.1 1.4 Adult male, no adult female 74.3 62.5 86.1 109 8,335 43.1 5.9 1.4 Child, no adults ^ ^ ^ 7 439 ^ ^ ^ Food consumption score (0-112) 50.8 48.2 53.3 2,239 166,739 20.3 1.3 3.0 Male and female adults 51.2 48.6 53.7 1,919 140,416 20.4 1.3 2.8 Adult female, no adult male 47.9 44.0 51.9 204 17,548 19.6 2.0 1.5 Adult male, no adult female 50.3 44.2 56.3 109 8,335 19.8 3.0 1.6 Child, no adults ^ ^ ^ 7 439 ^ ^ ^ WASH INDICATORS Percentage of households using a basic waterservice NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA Distance/Time from service NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA On premises NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA ≤ 30-minute roundtrip NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA Gendered household type NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA Male and female adults NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA Adult female, no adult male NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA Adult male, no adult female NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA Child, no adults NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA Percentage of households with accessto a basic sanitation facility 5.9 3.7 8.1 2,250 167,559 23.6 1.1 2.3 Male and female adults 6.5 4.0 9.0 1,927 140,924 24.9 1.2 2.2 Adult female, no adult male 3.2 0.6 5.8 203 17,532 16.3 1.3 1.1 Adult male, no adult female 2.0 0.0 3.9 113 8,664 13.7 1.0 0.8 Child, no adults ^ ^ ^ 7 439 ^ ^ ^ Percentage of households with soap/ash and water at a handwashing station on premises 12.1 8.3 15.8 1,297 119,483 32.6 1.9 2.1 Male and female adults 12.2 8.3 16.0 1,087 99,780 32.3 1.9 1.9 Adult female, no adult male 8.8 1.2 16.4 132 13,027 24.7 3.8 1.8 Adult male, no adult female 16.9 3.1 30.7 73 6,277 35.0 6.9 1.7 Child, no adults ^ ^ ^ 5 399 ^ ^ ^ AGRICULTURAL INDICATORS Percentage of farmers who used financialservicesin the past 12 months 32.0 27.4 36.6 3,358 274,281 46.7 2.3 2.9 Male 36.5 31.1 42.0 1,773 142,052 48.6 2.7 2.4 Female 27.1 21.5 32.8 1,585 132,229 44.0 2.8 2.6 Percentage of farmers who used improved storage practicesin the past 12 months 36.1 29.1 43.1 2,790 228,472 48.0 3.5 3.9 Male 42.3 35.7 48.9 1,712 137,404 49.9 3.3 2.7 Female 26.8 18.6 35.0 1,078 91,068 43.6 4.1 3.1 Proportion of producers who have applied targeted improved management practices ortechnologies Sorghum Crop genetics practices/technologies Use of improved seeds 7.7 4.6 10.8 2,203 181,596 26.7 1.6 2.7 Cultural practices/technologies Control ofsida cordifolia growth 12.2 7.2 17.2 2,203 181,596 32.7 2.5 3.6 Crop association 49.0 40.7 57.2 2,203 181,596 50.0 4.1 3.9 Crop rotation 1.6 0.9 2.3 2,203 181,596 12.6 0.4 1.4 Sowing after useful rain 33.8 27.4 40.2 2,203 181,596 47.3 3.2 3.2 Improved natural resources or ecosystem management practices/technologies Farmermanaged natural regeneration (fmnr) 37.4 31.1 43.6 2,203 181,596 48.4 3.1 3.0 Delimitation of animal corridors and pasture areas 35.2 27.7 42.6 2,203 181,596 47.8 3.7 3.7 Protection of ponds againstsilting up 6.9 4.9 8.8 2,203 181,596 25.3 1.0 1.8 Functional community-based conflict management mechanisms 3.7 1.9 5.5 2,203 181,596 18.9 0.9 2.2 Improved pest and disease management practices/technologies Delay of seedlings at third or fourth rains to control pests 5.9 3.4 8.5 2,203 181,596 23.7 1.3 2.5 Seed treatment with fungicides 5.1 3.3 6.8 2,203 181,596 21.9 0.9 1.9 Improved soil-related fertility and conservation practices/technologies Zai pits 6.1 2.3 9.9 2,203 181,596 24.0 1.9 3.7 Organic manure 64.4 58.6 70.2 2,203 181,596 47.9 2.9 2.8 Phosphatic manure 8.4 6.0 10.8 2,203 181,596 27.7 1.2 2.0 IMPEL | Implementer-Led Evaluation and Learning 26 Annex 4: Summary of Data Treatment and Analysis Table A5. BHANiger Baseline Indicators- Combined BHARFSAAreas Indicators, 95% Confidence Intervals and Base Population [Niger, 2020] Confidence Interval Indicator Value Lower Upper Number of Records Weighted Population Standard Deviation Standard Error DEFT Compost 23.7 15.3 32.2 2,203 181,596 42.6 4.2 4.7 Microdoses of fertilizer 2.9 1.8 4.0 2,203 181,596 16.8 0.5 1.5 Improved agriculture water management non-irrigation-based practices/technologies Agricultural half-moons 1.4 0.6 2.1 2,203 181,596 11.6 0.4 1.5 Improved climate adaptation/climate risk management practices/technologies Use of climate information (rain forecast, disaster risks, etc.) 0.9 0.3 1.4 2,203 181,596 9.2 0.3 1.5 Improved post-harvest handling and storage practices/technologies Locally made storage structuressuch as sheet metal silos 13.2 8.0 18.3 1,905 164,149 33.8 2.6 3.3 Sealed/airtight bags 4.7 3.0 6.4 1,905 164,149 21.2 0.9 1.8 Community storage facilities, including warehouse receipting 3.3 1.6 5.0 1,905 164,149 17.9 0.8 2.1 Use ofsolar or fuel-powered dryersto reduce post-harvest moisture 0.2 0.0 0.4 1,905 164,149 4.2 0.1 1.0 Seed or grain treatmenttechniquesincluding botanical pest control agents or phytosanitary irradiation 0.3 -0.1 0.7 1,905 164,149 5.7 0.2 1.6 Grain treatment with agro-chemicals 0.7 -0.2 1.5 1,905 164,149 8.3 0.4 2.2 Triple bagsfor cowpea grain preservation 0.5 0.0 1.0 1,905 164,149 7.3 0.3 1.5 Other post-harvest practicesthatreduce pre-storage losses 2.6 1.4 3.7 1,905 164,149 15.9 0.6 1.6 Other improved practices/technologies Performing atleastthreeweedings 30.4 24.6 36.2 2,203 181,596 46.0 2.9 3.0 Millet Crop genetics practices/technologies Use of improved seeds 7.6 4.6 10.6 2,663 219,159 26.5 1.5 2.9 Cultural practices/technologies Control ofsida cordifolia growth 12.7 7.4 18.1 2,663 219,159 33.3 2.7 4.2 Crop association 49.0 41.0 57.0 2,663 219,159 50.0 4.0 4.1 Crop rotation 2.4 1.2 3.6 2,663 219,159 15.3 0.6 2.1 Sowing after useful rain 34.4 28.0 40.7 2,663 219,159 47.5 3.2 3.5 Improved natural resources or ecosystem management practices/technologies Farmermanaged natural regeneration (fmnr) 37.2 31.3 43.0 2,663 219,159 48.3 2.9 3.1 Delimitation of animal corridors and pasture areas 33.1 25.9 40.3 2,663 219,159 47.1 3.6 3.9 Protection of ponds againstsilting up 6.4 4.6 8.2 2,663 219,159 24.5 0.9 1.9 Functional community-based conflict management mechanisms 3.4 1.7 5.1 2,663 219,159 18.1 0.8 2.4 Improved pest and disease management practices/technologies Delay of seedlings at third or fourth rains to control pests 5.1 2.9 7.2 2,663 219,159 22.0 1.1 2.5 Seed treatment with fungicides 5.0 3.3 6.6 2,663 219,159 21.7 0.8 2.0 Improved soil-related fertility and conservation practices/technologies Zai pits 5.8 2.4 9.3 2,663 219,159 23.5 1.7 3.8 Organic manure 60.5 55.1 65.8 2,663 219,159 48.9 2.7 2.8 Phosphatic manure 9.5 6.9 12.1 2,663 219,159 29.3 1.3 2.3 Compost 24.9 17.0 32.9 2,663 219,159 43.3 4.0 4.8 Microdoses of fertilizer 2.9 2.0 3.7 2,663 219,159 16.7 0.4 1.4 Improved agriculture water management non-irrigation-based practices/technologies Agricultural half-moons 1.2 0.6 1.9 2,663 219,159 11.0 0.3 1.5 Improved climate adaptation/climate risk management practices/technologies Use of climate information (rain forecast, disaster risks, etc.) 0.7 0.0 1.3 2,663 219,159 8.2 0.3 2.1 Improved post-harvest handling and storage practices/technologies Locally made storage structuressuch as sheet metal silos 15.1 9.3 20.9 2,517 210,550 35.8 2.9 4.1 Sealed/airtight bags 3.8 2.7 5.0 2,517 210,550 19.2 0.6 1.5 Community storage facilities, including warehouse receipting 6.0 3.2 8.7 2,517 210,550 23.7 1.4 2.9 Use ofsolar or fuel-powered dryersto reduce post-harvest moisture 0.4 0.1 0.8 2,517 210,550 6.7 0.2 1.4 Seed or grain treatment techniquesincluding botanical pest control agents or phytosanitary irradiation 0.2 -0.1 0.5 2,517 210,550 4.6 0.1 1.5 Grain treatment with agro-chemicals 0.7 0.0 1.4 2,517 210,550 8.5 0.3 2.0 Triple bagsfor cowpea grain preservation 0.8 0.3 1.3 2,517 210,550 9.0 0.3 1.4 Other post-harvest practicesthatreduce pre-storage losses 3.1 1.7 4.6 2,517 210,550 17.5 0.7 2.1 Other improved practices/technologies Performing atleastthreeweedings 30.9 24.7 37.2 2,663 219,159 46.2 3.1 3.5 Cowpeas Crop genetics practices/technologies Use of improved seeds 8.4 5.0 11.7 2,582 216,511 27.7 1.7 3.1 Cultural practices/technologies Control ofsida cordifolia growth 12.4 6.9 17.8 2,582 216,511 32.9 2.7 4.2 Crop association 49.0 40.9 57.0 2,582 216,511 50.0 4.0 4.1 Crop rotation 1.9 1.0 2.7 2,582 216,511 13.5 0.4 1.7 Sowing after useful rain 33.4 26.5 40.2 2,582 216,511 47.2 3.4 3.7 Improved natural resources or ecosystem management practices/technologies Farmermanaged natural regeneration (fmnr) 37.6 31.6 43.6 2,582 216,511 48.5 3.0 3.1 Delimitation of animal corridors and pasture areas 33.1 25.7 40.5 2,582 216,511 47.1 3.7 4.0 Protection of ponds againstsilting up 6.3 4.5 8.1 2,582 216,511 24.3 0.9 1.9 Functional community-based conflict management mechanisms 3.6 1.8 5.4 2,582 216,511 18.6 0.9 2.5 Improved pest and disease management practices/technologies Delay of seedlings at third or fourth rains to control pests 6.8 4.3 9.3 2,582 216,511 25.2 1.2 2.5 Seed treatment with fungicides 5.1 3.3 6.8 2,582 216,511 22.0 0.9 2.0 Improved soil-related fertility and conservation practices/technologies Zai pits 5.2 2.4 8.0 2,582 216,511 22.2 1.4 3.2 Organic manure 59.8 54.4 65.2 2,582 216,511 49.0 2.7 2.8 Baseline Study of the RFSAs in Niger: Final Report (Vol. I) Annex 4: Summary of Data Treatment and Analysis 27 Table A5. BHANiger Baseline Indicators- Combined BHARFSAAreas Indicators, 95% Confidence Intervals and Base Population [Niger, 2020] Confidence Interval Indicator Value Lower Upper Number of Records Weighted Population Standard Deviation Standard Error DEFT Phosphatic manure 9.6 6.9 12.3 2,582 216,511 29.4 1.4 2.4 Compost 23.4 15.3 31.5 2,582 216,511 42.4 4.1 4.9 Microdoses of fertilizer 2.6 1.7 3.5 2,582 216,511 15.9 0.4 1.4 Improved agriculture water management non-irrigation-based practices/technologies Agricultural half-moons 1.6 0.9 2.4 2,582 216,511 12.6 0.4 1.5 Improved climate adaptation/climate risk management practices/technologies Use of climate information (rain forecast, disaster risks, etc.) 0.5 -0.1 1.2 2,582 216,511 7.4 0.3 2.2 Improved post-harvest handling and storage practices/technologies Locally made storage structuressuch as sheet metal silos 4.7 2.9 6.5 2,367 205,553 21.1 0.9 2.1 Sealed/airtight bags 8.4 5.3 11.6 2,367 205,553 27.8 1.6 2.8 Community storage facilities, including warehouse receipting 1.8 0.9 2.8 2,367 205,553 13.4 0.5 1.7 Use ofsolar or fuel-powered dryersto reduce post-harvest moisture 0.3 0.0 0.6 2,367 205,553 5.8 0.2 1.3 Seed or grain treatment techniquesincluding botanical pest control agents or phytosanitary irradiation 1.0 0.1 1.9 2,367 205,553 10.1 0.5 2.2 Grain treatment with agro-chemicals 2.0 0.7 3.4 2,367 205,553 14.1 0.7 2.3 Triple bagsfor cowpea grain preservation 3.3 1.2 5.4 2,367 205,553 17.9 1.1 2.9 Other post-harvest practicesthatreduce pre-storage losses 7.2 4.2 10.3 2,367 205,553 25.9 1.5 2.9 Other improved practices/technologies Performing atleastthreeweedings 29.9 23.6 36.1 2,582 216,511 45.8 3.1 3.5 Peanuts(groundnuts) Crop genetics practices/technologies Use of improved seeds 10.4 6.8 13.9 1,132 102,961 30.5 1.8 2.0 Cultural practices/technologies Control ofsida cordifolia growth 13.6 7.4 19.8 1,132 102,961 34.3 3.1 3.1 Crop association 48.4 37.2 59.6 1,132 102,961 50.0 5.6 3.8 Crop rotation 2.4 1.0 3.7 1,132 102,961 15.2 0.7 1.5 Sowing after useful rain 33.2 24.1 42.3 1,132 102,961 47.1 4.5 3.2 Improved natural resources or ecosystem management practices/technologies Farmermanaged natural regeneration (fmnr) 40.0 32.2 47.7 1,132 102,961 49.0 3.9 2.7 Delimitation of animal corridors and pasture areas 37.8 29.0 46.5 1,132 102,961 48.5 4.4 3.0 Protection of ponds againstsilting up 8.2 5.4 11.1 1,132 102,961 27.5 1.4 1.7 Functional community-based conflict management mechanisms 5.2 2.5 8.0 1,132 102,961 22.3 1.4 2.1 Improved pest and disease management practices/technologies Delay of seedlings at third or fourth rains to control pests 10.6 6.2 15.1 1,132 102,961 30.8 2.2 2.4 Seed treatment with fungicides 5.1 3.0 7.3 1,132 102,961 22.1 1.1 1.6 Improved soil-related fertility and conservation practices/technologies Zai pits 6.2 2.9 9.5 1,132 102,961 24.1 1.7 2.3 Organic manure 67.5 62.0 73.0 1,132 102,961 46.9 2.7 2.0 Phosphatic manure 11.0 7.0 15.0 1,132 102,961 31.3 2.0 2.1 Compost 27.3 17.4 37.2 1,132 102,961 44.6 5.0 3.7 Microdoses of fertilizer 3.2 2.0 4.5 1,132 102,961 17.7 0.6 1.2 Improved agriculture water management non-irrigation-based practices/technologies Agricultural half-moons 1.7 0.4 3.1 1,132 102,961 13.1 0.7 1.8 Improved climate adaptation/climate risk management practices/technologies Use of climate information (rain forecast, disaster risks, etc.) 0.4 0.0 0.8 1,132 102,961 6.5 0.2 1.1 Improved post-harvest handling and storage practices/technologies1 Locally made storage structuressuch as sheet metal silos 3.5 1.3 5.7 998 95,470 18.5 1.1 1.9 Sealed/airtight bags 17.0 11.3 22.7 998 95,470 37.6 2.9 2.4 Community storage facilities, including warehouse receipting 2.1 0.6 3.7 998 95,470 14.5 0.8 1.7 Use ofsolar or fuel-powered dryersto reduce post-harvest moisture 0.7 -0.1 1.4 998 95,470 8.1 0.4 1.4 Seed or grain treatmenttechniquesincluding botanical pest control agents or phytosanitary irradiation 0.5 0.0 1.0 998 95,470 6.9 0.3 1.2 Grain treatment with agro-chemicals 0.5 -0.2 1.2 998 95,470 7.0 0.4 1.6 Triple bagsfor cowpea grain preservation 2.4 0.5 4.4 998 95,470 15.4 1.0 2.0 Other post-harvest practicesthatreduce pre-storage losses 5.0 2.6 7.4 998 95,470 21.7 1.2 1.7 Other improved practices/technologies Performing atleastthreeweedings 25.7 16.5 35.0 1,132 102,961 43.7 4.6 3.6 Goats Improved fodder production 9.3 4.3 14.3 1,316 115,035 29.0 2.5 3.1 Use of licking and/or multi-nutritional block 7.5 4.9 10.1 1,316 115,035 26.4 1.3 1.8 Animalselection 10.8 6.6 15.0 1,316 115,035 31.0 2.1 2.5 Vaccinations 36.6 32.0 41.1 1,316 115,035 48.2 2.3 1.7 Antiparasitic treatments 35.7 31.0 40.5 1,316 115,035 47.9 2.4 1.8 Veterinary monitoring of food quality and quantity overtime 1.5 0.7 2.2 1,316 115,035 12.0 0.4 1.2 Weight monitoring 3.4 1.0 5.7 1,316 115,035 18.0 1.2 2.3 Optimum weight-market price criteria forthe sale decision 0.5 -0.1 1.0 1,316 115,035 6.9 0.3 1.4 Use of para-veterinary services for goats and sheep 4.9 2.3 7.4 1,316 115,035 21.5 1.3 2.2 Sheep Improved fodder production 9.6 5.1 14.2 523 46,231 29.5 2.3 1.8 Use of licking and/or multi-nutritional block 7.6 4.9 10.3 523 46,231 26.6 1.4 1.2 Animalselection 13.6 9.1 18.1 523 46,231 34.3 2.3 1.5 Vaccinations 38.0 31.3 44.6 523 46,231 48.6 3.3 1.6 Antiparasitic treatments 39.2 32.8 45.6 523 46,231 48.9 3.2 1.5 Veterinary monitoring of food quality and quantity overtime 2.4 0.9 4.0 523 46,231 15.5 0.8 1.2 Weight monitoring 3.0 0.0 6.0 523 46,231 17.0 1.5 2.0 IMPEL | Implementer-Led Evaluation and Learning 28 Annex 4: Summary of Data Treatment and Analysis Table A5. BHANiger Baseline Indicators- Combined BHARFSAAreas Indicators, 95% Confidence Intervals and Base Population [Niger, 2020] Confidence Interval Indicator Value Lower Upper Number of Records Weighted Population Standard Deviation Standard Error DEFT Optimum weight-market price criteria forthe sale decision 0.1 0.0 0.1 523 46,231 2.3 0.0 0.4 Use of para-veterinary services for goats and sheep 8.3 4.3 12.2 523 46,231 27.6 2.0 1.6 Poultry Use of improved poultry variety/breed 10.3 6.4 14.3 547 46,615 30.4 2.0 1.5 Use of improved feed 9.7 4.4 15.0 547 46,615 29.6 2.7 2.1 Use of improved shelters 9.6 5.1 14.2 547 46,615 29.5 2.3 1.8 Vaccinations 17.4 11.5 23.3 547 46,615 37.9 3.0 1.8 Use of veterinary products and services (antibiotics, vitamins, etc.) 9.8 5.5 14.1 547 46,615 29.8 2.1 1.7 WOMEN'S HEALTH AND NUTRITIONINDICATORS Percentage of women of reproductive age consuming a diet of minimum diversity (MDD-W) 44.5 39.4 49.6 2,760 205,201 49.7 2.5 2.7 15-19 years 48.5 41.3 55.7 644 44,729 51.7 3.6 1.8 20-49 years 43.4 38.3 48.5 2,116 160,472 49.1 2.6 2.4 Percent of births receiving at least 4 antenatal care (ANC) visits during pregnancy 47.8 43.8 51.8 1,725 135,562 50.0 2.0 1.7 Contraceptive prevalence rate (CPR) 16.2 13.3 19.2 1,864 138,386 36.9 1.5 1.7 Modern 14.2 11.2 17.2 1,864 138,386 34.9 1.5 1.9 Traditional 2.3 1.3 3.2 1,864 138,386 14.8 0.5 1.3 Percent of women in union who have knowledge of modern family planning methods that can be used to delay or avoid pregnancy 70.0 64.4 75.7 2,278 172,782 45.8 2.9 3.0 15-19 years 59.2 50.2 68.2 306 23,247 49.2 4.5 1.6 20-29 years 72.2 65.9 78.6 926 70,626 44.8 3.2 2.2 30-49 years 71.3 64.7 77.9 1,046 78,909 45.3 3.3 2.4 Percent of women in union who made decisions about modern family planning methodsin the past 12 months 77.8 69.8 85.8 387 29,553 41.6 4.0 1.9 Decision Actors Alone 39.0 29.6 48.3 387 29,553 48.8 4.7 1.9 Jointly 38.8 29.5 48.2 387 29,553 48.8 4.7 1.9 Age 15-19 years 26 2,119 20-29 years 76.6 65.0 88.2 191 14,914 42.5 5.8 1.9 30-49 years 76.1 67.6 84.7 170 12,520 42.7 4.3 1.3 CHILDREN'S HEALTH AND NUTRITION INDICATORS Percentage of children 6-23 months consuming a diet of minimum dietary diversity (MDD-C) 42.9 37.5 48.3 834 61,232 49.5 2.7 1.6 Male 41.7 36.1 47.3 423 31,971 49.0 2.8 1.2 Female 44.2 36.2 52.2 411 29,261 50.6 4.0 1.6 Percentage of children under age 5 with diarrhea in the lasttwo weeks(Total) 32.3 29.5 35.0 3,106 231,243 46.8 1.4 1.6 Male 33.7 30.5 36.9 1,537 114,670 47.2 1.6 1.3 Female 30.9 27.1 34.7 1,569 116,572 46.3 1.9 1.6 Percentage of children under age 5 with diarrhea treatedwithORT (Total) 47.7 40.0 55.5 962 74,619 50.0 3.9 2.4 Male 44.6 34.6 54.6 494 38,622 48.8 5.0 2.3 Female 51.1 44.6 57.6 468 35,997 49.4 3.3 1.4 GENDER - CASH Percent of women/men in union who earned cash in the past 12 months Male 61.3 55.5 67.1 2,149 176,185 48.7 2.9 2.8 15-19 years ^ ^ ^ 29 3,264 ^ ^ ^ 20-29 years 63.6 54.8 72.4 367 31,810 46.8 4.4 1.8 30-49 years 67.4 62.1 72.7 1,078 87,776 47.1 2.6 1.8 ≥50 years 52.0 44.4 59.7 675 53,336 50.9 3.8 2.0 Female 32.8 28.5 37.0 2,831 217,288 46.9 2.1 2.4 15-19 years 18.3 11.3 25.2 358 28,027 38.3 3.5 1.7 20-29 years 27.8 23.0 32.6 985 76,204 44.6 2.4 1.7 30-49 years 41.6 36.9 46.2 1,113 84,826 49.5 2.3 1.6 ≥50 years 34.0 27.1 41.0 375 28,231 47.9 3.5 1.4 Percent of women in union and earning cash who report participation in decisions about the use of self-earned cash NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA 15-19 years NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA 20-29 years NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA 30-49 years NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA ≥50 years NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA Percent of women in union and earning cash who report participation in decisions about the use of spouse/partner'sself-earned cash NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA 15-19 years NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA 20-29 years NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA 30-49 years NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA ≥50 years NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA Percent of men in union and earning cash who reportspouse/partner participation in decisions about the use of self-earned cash NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA 15-19 years NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA 20-29 years NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA 30-49 years NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA ≥50 years NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA GENDER - CREDIT AND GROUP PARTICIPATION Percent of women/men who are members of a community group Male 58.2 53.2 63.3 1,685 146,631 49.3 2.5 2.1 15-19 years ^ ^ ^ 7 491 ^ ^ ^ 20-29 years 52.8 45.3 60.3 256 24,358 47.8 3.8 1.3 30-49 years 58.1 52.4 63.7 894 77,305 49.5 2.8 1.7 ≥50 years 61.8 55.1 68.4 528 44,478 49.4 3.3 1.5 Female 43.5 38.3 48.6 1,981 154,680 49.6 2.6 2.3 15-19 years 37.8 30.3 45.3 290 21,401 49.9 3.8 1.3 20-29 years 43.5 37.2 49.7 783 60,404 49.9 3.1 1.8 30-49 years 45.1 39.0 51.2 714 57,136 49.2 3.1 1.7 Baseline Study of the RFSAs in Niger: Final Report (Vol. I) Annex 4: Summary of Data Treatment and Analysis 29 Table A5. BHANiger Baseline Indicators- Combined BHARFSAAreas Indicators, 95% Confidence Intervals and Base Population [Niger, 2020] Confidence Interval Indicator Value Lower Upper Number of Records Weighted Population Standard Deviation Standard Error DEFT ≥50 years 45.4 34.0 56.8 194 15,739 48.9 5.7 1.6 Percent of women/men in a union with accessto credit Male 72.4 67.9 76.9 1,685 146,631 44.7 2.3 2.1 15-19 years ^ ^ ^ 7 491 ^ ^ ^ 20-29 years 69.4 60.0 78.8 256 24,358 44.1 4.7 1.7 30-49 years 75.3 70.2 80.4 894 77,305 43.3 2.6 1.8 ≥50 years 68.9 61.8 76.0 528 44,478 47.0 3.6 1.7 Female 61.7 56.3 67.1 1,981 154,680 48.6 2.7 2.5 15-19 years 46.5 38.4 54.6 290 21,401 51.3 4.1 1.3 20-29 years 61.9 54.5 69.3 783 60,404 48.9 3.7 2.1 30-49 years 68.0 62.3 73.8 714 57,136 46.1 2.9 1.7 ≥50 years 58.6 50.2 67.1 194 15,739 48.3 4.3 1.2 Percent of men in a union who make decisions about credit 92.0 88.9 95.1 1,200 106,185 27.1 1.5 2.0 Decision Actors Alone 58.2 52.6 63.9 1,200 106,185 49.3 2.9 2.0 Jointly 33.8 28.3 39.3 1,200 106,185 47.3 2.8 2.0 Age 15-19 years ^ ^ ^ 6 403 ^ ^ ^ 20-29 years 84.5 77.1 91.8 174 16,900 36.3 3.7 1.3 30-49 years 93.8 90.9 96.7 665 58,220 24.1 1.5 1.6 ≥50 years 92.9 88.6 97.1 355 30,661 25.8 2.1 1.6 Percent of women in a union who make decisions about credit 71.1 67.3 75.0 1,204 95,444 45.3 1.9 1.5 Decision Actors Alone 33.8 27.0 40.5 1,204 95,444 47.3 3.4 2.5 Jointly 37.3 31.1 43.6 1,204 95,444 48.4 3.1 2.3 Age 15-19 years 52.3 36.4 68.2 140 9,951 50.1 8.0 1.9 20-29 years 70.7 65.7 75.6 487 37,384 45.6 2.5 1.2 30-49 years 73.8 66.2 81.4 466 38,880 44.0 3.8 1.9 ≥50 years 81.8 74.7 89.0 111 9,231 38.7 3.5 1.0 RESILIENCE-RELATED Proportion of households that believe local government will respond effectively to future shocks and stresses 61.2 55.4 67.0 2,254 167,899 48.8 2.9 2.8 Male and female adults 60.7 54.8 66.6 1,930 141,248 49.3 3.0 2.6 Adult female, no adult male 66.0 55.8 76.1 204 17,548 44.1 5.1 1.6 Adult male, no adult female 60.4 45.4 75.4 113 8,664 48.2 7.5 1.7 Child, no adults ^ ^ ^ 7 439 ^ ^ ^ Index of social capital at the household level (overall index) 53.2 48.9 57.4 2,254 167,899 39.0 2.1 2.6 Male and female adults 53.2 49.1 57.3 1,930 141,248 39.8 2.1 2.3 Adult female, no adult male 50.6 42.6 58.5 204 17,548 34.6 4.0 1.7 Adult male, no adult female 59.5 50.1 68.8 113 8,664 35.0 4.7 1.4 Child, no adults ^ ^ ^ 7 439 ^ ^ ^ Component Bonding sub-index 57.6 53.1 62.1 2,254 167,899 42.2 2.3 2.5 Bridging sub-index 48.8 44.6 53.0 2,254 167,899 41.5 2.1 2.4 Proportion of households participating in group-based savings, micro-finance orlending programs 8.8 5.0 12.6 2,254 167,899 28.3 1.9 3.2 Male and female adults 9.2 5.4 13.0 1,930 141,248 29.2 1.9 2.9 Adult female, no adult male 10.0 2.7 17.2 204 17,548 27.9 3.6 1.9 Adult male, no adult female 0.4 -0.4 1.3 113 8,664 6.4 0.4 0.7 Child, no adults ^ ^ ^ 7 439 ^ ^ ^ Financing type Savings 7.3 3.8 10.8 2,254 167,899 26.0 1.8 3.2 Credit 3.7 1.8 5.6 2,254 167,899 18.8 0.9 2.4 NA : Not available ^ Results not statistically reliable, n<30. NOTES: 1 Number of records for improved storage practices may differ from that of other improved agricultural practices because questions on the use of improved practices were generally asked as part of the main agriculture module while questions on the use of improved storage practices were asked seperately as part of the module on crop yield. The numbers of responding farmers differ across the two modules. Table 11: A5 BHA Niger Baseline Indicators - Girma Table A5. BHA Niger Baseline Indicators-Girma Indicators, 95% Confidence Intervals and Base Population [Niger, 2020] Confidence Interval Indicator Value Lower Upper Number of Records Weighted Population Standard Deviation Standard Error DEFT FOOD SECURITY INDICATORS Percentage of households with poorfood consumption score (FCS) 5.8 2.6 9.0 766 98,325 23.4 1.5 1.8 Male and female adults 5.9 2.2 9.7 650 82,480 23.8 1.8 2.0 Adult female, no adult male 7.1 1.5 12.6 76 10,900 24.3 2.7 1.0 Adult male, no adult female 1.6 -0.9 4.0 38 4,737 12.6 1.2 0.6 Child, no adults ^ ^ ^ 2 208 ^ ^ ^ Percentage of households with borderline FCS 18.5 12.2 24.9 766 98,325 38.9 3.1 2.2 Male and female adults 17.6 11.7 23.6 650 82,480 38.4 2.9 1.9 Adult female, no adult male 19.2 9.5 29.0 76 10,900 37.3 4.7 1.1 Adult male, no adult female 28.9 9.9 48.0 38 4,737 46.1 9.2 1.2 Child, no adults ^ ^ ^ 2 208 ^ ^ ^ Percentage of households with acceptable FCS 75.6 67.8 83.5 766 98,325 43.0 3.8 2.4 Male and female adults 76.4 68.8 84.0 650 82,480 42.7 3.7 2.2 IMPEL | Implementer-Led Evaluation and Learning 30 Annex 4: Summary of Data Treatment and Analysis Table A5. BHA Niger Baseline Indicators-Girma Indicators, 95% Confidence Intervals and Base Population [Niger, 2020] Confidence Interval Indicator Value Lower Upper Number of Records Weighted Population Standard Deviation Standard Error DEFT Adult female, no adult male 73.7 61.4 86.1 76 10,900 41.7 6.0 1.3 Adult male, no adult female 69.5 50.7 88.3 38 4,737 46.8 9.1 1.2 Child, no adults ^ ^ ^ 2 208 ^ ^ ^ Food consumption score 48.3 44.2 52.4 766 98,325 19.4 2.0 2.8 Male and female adults 48.4 44.3 52.5 650 82,480 19.3 2.0 2.6 Adult female, no adult male 46.5 40.7 52.3 76 10,900 18.6 2.8 1.3 Adult male, no adult female 51.8 41.8 61.9 38 4,737 22.7 4.9 1.3 Child, no adults ^ ^ ^ 2 208 ^ ^ ^ WASH INDICATORS Percentage of households using a basic waterservice NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA Distance/Time from service NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA On premises NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA ≤ 30-minute roundtrip NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA Gendered household type NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA Male and female adults NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA Adult female, no adult male NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA Adult male, no adult female NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA Child, no adults NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA Percentage of households with accessto a basic sanitation facility 4.5 2.0 7.1 765 98,093 20.8 1.2 1.6 Male and female adults 5.1 2.3 8.0 649 82,248 22.2 1.4 1.6 Adult female, no adult male 1.6 -1.6 4.8 76 10,900 12.0 1.5 1.1 Adult male, no adult female 0.7 -0.8 2.2 38 4,737 8.4 0.7 0.5 Child, no adults ^ ^ ^ 2 208 ^ ^ ^ Percentage of households with soap/ash and water at a handwashing station on premises 8.9 4.0 13.8 674 86,050 28.5 2.4 2.2 Male and female adults 8.7 4.0 13.4 580 72,798 28.4 2.3 1.9 Adult female, no adult male 6.8 -3.6 17.2 61 9,133 23.3 5.0 1.7 Adult male, no adult female 17.6 -3.6 38.8 31 3,911 38.5 10.3 1.5 Child, no adults ^ ^ ^ 2 208 ^ ^ ^ AGRICULTURAL INDICATORS Percentage of farmers who used financialservicesin the past 12 months 36.6 29.7 43.5 1,201 171,009 48.2 3.3 2.4 Male 41.2 32.6 49.7 632 86,232 50.3 4.1 2.1 Female 31.9 23.7 40.2 569 84,778 45.6 4.0 2.1 Percentage of farmers who used improved storage practicesin the past 12 months 27.5 19.5 35.5 1,000 141,897 44.7 3.9 2.8 Male 33.8 25.9 41.7 606 83,394 48.3 3.8 1.9 Female 18.5 9.8 27.2 394 58,503 37.9 4.2 2.2 Proportion of producers who have applied targeted improved management practices ortechnologies Sorghum Crop genetics practices/technologies Use of improved seeds 8.7 4.6 12.8 785 114,039 28.1 2.0 2.0 Cultural practices/technologies Control ofsida cordifolia growth 14.2 7.2 21.2 785 114,039 34.9 3.4 2.7 Crop association 48.6 36.3 60.9 785 114,039 50.0 6.0 3.3 Crop rotation 1.4 0.4 2.5 785 114,039 11.9 0.5 1.2 Sowing after useful rain 37.1 27.6 46.6 785 114,039 48.3 4.6 2.7 Improved natural resources or ecosystem management practices/technologies Farmermanaged natural regeneration (fmnr) 42.4 33.8 51.0 785 114,039 49.5 4.2 2.4 Delimitation of animal corridors and pasture areas 38.8 26.6 50.9 785 114,039 48.8 5.9 3.4 Protection of ponds againstsilting up 5.8 3.3 8.3 785 114,039 23.4 1.2 1.5 Functional community-based conflict management mechanisms 4.6 1.8 7.5 785 114,039 21.1 1.4 1.9 Improved pest and disease management practices/technologies Delay of seedlings at third or fourth rains to control pests 7.0 3.1 11.0 785 114,039 25.6 1.9 2.1 Seed treatment with fungicides 1.8 0.6 2.9 785 114,039 13.2 0.6 1.2 Improved soil-related fertility and conservation practices/technologies Zai pits 6.0 0.3 11.7 785 114,039 23.7 2.8 3.3 Organic manure 65.4 57.6 73.2 785 114,039 47.6 3.8 2.2 Phosphatic manure 8.4 4.7 12.1 785 114,039 27.8 1.8 1.8 Compost 27.6 14.4 40.9 785 114,039 44.7 6.4 4.0 Microdoses of fertilizer 2.8 1.3 4.3 785 114,039 16.5 0.7 1.2 Improved agriculture water management non-irrigation-based practices/technologies Agricultural half-moons 1.5 0.4 2.6 785 114,039 12.0 0.5 1.2 Improved climate adaptation/climate risk management practices/technologies Use of climate information (rain forecast, disaster risks, etc.) 0.8 0.0 1.6 785 114,039 9.0 0.4 1.2 Improved post-harvest handling and storage practices/technologies Locally made storage structuressuch as sheet metal silos 2.4 0.9 3.9 753 109,002 15.3 0.7 1.3 Sealed/airtight bags 3.0 0.8 5.2 753 109,002 17.1 1.1 1.7 Community storage facilities, including warehouse receipting 3.1 0.7 5.5 753 109,002 17.4 1.2 1.8 Use ofsolar or fuel-powered dryersto reduce post-harvest moisture 0.1 -0.1 0.3 753 109,002 3.0 0.1 0.8 Seed or grain treatmenttechniquesincluding botanical pest control agents or phytosanitary irradiation 0.5 -0.1 1.1 753 109,002 7.0 0.3 1.2 Grain treatment with agro-chemicals 0.9 -0.4 2.2 753 109,002 9.3 0.6 1.8 Triple bagsfor cowpea grain preservation 0.0 753 109,002 0.0 0.0 Other post-harvest practicesthatreduce pre-storage losses 3.0 1.5 4.5 753 109,002 17.0 0.7 1.2 Other improved practices/technologies Performing atleastthreeweedings 35.8 28.1 43.6 785 114,039 48.0 3.8 2.2 Millet Crop genetics practices/technologies Baseline Study of the RFSAs in Niger: Final Report (Vol. I) Annex 4: Summary of Data Treatment and Analysis 31 Table A5. BHA Niger Baseline Indicators-Girma Indicators, 95% Confidence Intervals and Base Population [Niger, 2020] Confidence Interval Indicator Value Lower Upper Number of Records Weighted Population Standard Deviation Standard Error DEFT Use of improved seeds 8.6 4.7 12.5 968 137,803 28.1 1.9 2.1 Cultural practices/technologies Control ofsida cordifolia growth 14.5 6.8 22.1 968 137,803 35.2 3.7 3.3 Crop association 48.2 36.4 60.0 968 137,803 50.0 5.7 3.6 Crop rotation 1.4 0.1 2.7 968 137,803 11.8 0.6 1.6 Sowing after useful rain 36.6 27.8 45.3 968 137,803 48.2 4.2 2.7 Improved natural resources or ecosystem management practices/technologies Farmermanaged natural regeneration (fmnr) 42.9 35.2 50.6 968 137,803 49.5 3.7 2.3 Delimitation of animal corridors and pasture areas 36.5 24.8 48.2 968 137,803 48.2 5.7 3.7 Protection of ponds againstsilting up 5.4 3.0 7.8 968 137,803 22.6 1.2 1.6 Functional community-based conflict management mechanisms 4.3 1.6 7.1 968 137,803 20.4 1.3 2.0 Improved pest and disease management practices/technologies Delay of seedlings at third or fourth rains to control pests 5.9 2.6 9.3 968 137,803 23.6 1.6 2.1 Seed treatment with fungicides 2.1 0.7 3.5 968 137,803 14.4 0.7 1.5 Improved soil-related fertility and conservation practices/technologies Zai pits 5.1 0.3 9.9 968 137,803 22.0 2.3 3.3 Organic manure 61.1 53.9 68.2 968 137,803 48.8 3.5 2.2 Phosphatic manure 8.8 5.5 12.1 968 137,803 28.3 1.6 1.7 Compost 27.3 15.0 39.6 968 137,803 44.6 6.0 4.2 Microdoses of fertilizer 2.3 1.3 3.4 968 137,803 15.1 0.5 1.1 Improved agriculture water management non-irrigation-based practices/technologies Agricultural half-moons 1.3 0.4 2.2 968 137,803 11.3 0.4 1.2 Improved climate adaptation/climate risk management practices/technologies Use of climate information (rain forecast, disaster risks, etc.) 0.7 -0.3 1.7 968 137,803 8.2 0.5 1.9 Improved post-harvest handling and storage practices/technologies Locally made storage structuressuch as sheet metal silos 3.7 1.7 5.8 954 135,440 19.0 1.0 1.6 Sealed/airtight bags 2.0 1.0 2.9 954 135,440 14.0 0.5 1.0 Community storage facilities, including warehouse receipting 6.6 2.3 10.8 954 135,440 24.8 2.1 2.6 Use ofsolar or fuel-powered dryersto reduce post-harvest moisture 0.5 0.0 1.1 954 135,440 7.4 0.3 1.1 Seed or grain treatment techniquesincluding botanical pest control agents or phytosanitary irradiation 0.2 -0.2 0.7 954 135,440 4.9 0.2 1.3 Grain treatment with agro-chemicals 0.9 -0.2 2.0 954 135,440 9.4 0.5 1.7 Triple bagsfor cowpea grain preservation 0.1 -0.1 0.4 954 135,440 3.4 0.1 1.1 Other post-harvest practicesthatreduce pre-storage losses 3.9 1.8 6.0 954 135,440 19.3 1.0 1.6 Other improved practices/technologies Performing atleastthreeweedings 35.1 27.1 43.1 968 137,803 47.7 3.9 2.5 Cowpeas Crop genetics practices/technologies Use of improved seeds 9.9 5.3 14.6 961 138,240 29.9 2.3 2.3 Cultural practices/technologies Control ofsida cordifolia growth 14.1 6.4 21.9 961 138,240 34.9 3.8 3.3 Crop association 48.9 37.2 60.7 961 138,240 50.0 5.7 3.5 Crop rotation 1.2 0.3 2.0 961 138,240 10.9 0.4 1.2 Sowing after useful rain 35.4 25.8 45.0 961 138,240 47.8 4.6 3.0 Improved natural resources or ecosystem management practices/technologies Farmermanaged natural regeneration (fmnr) 42.5 34.8 50.3 961 138,240 49.5 3.8 2.4 Delimitation of animal corridors and pasture areas 36.5 24.5 48.5 961 138,240 48.2 5.8 3.7 Protection of ponds againstsilting up 5.2 2.9 7.6 961 138,240 22.2 1.1 1.6 Functional community-based conflict management mechanisms 4.4 1.6 7.3 961 138,240 20.6 1.4 2.1 Improved pest and disease management practices/technologies Delay of seedlings at third or fourth rains to control pests 7.5 3.8 11.2 961 138,240 26.4 1.8 2.1 Seed treatment with fungicides 2.1 0.6 3.6 961 138,240 14.3 0.7 1.6 Improved soil-related fertility and conservation practices/technologies Zai pits 4.0 0.5 7.5 961 138,240 19.6 1.7 2.7 Organic manure 60.0 52.7 67.2 961 138,240 49.0 3.5 2.2 Phosphatic manure 8.7 5.2 12.2 961 138,240 28.2 1.7 1.9 Compost 25.8 13.3 38.2 961 138,240 43.8 6.0 4.3 Microdoses of fertilizer 2.2 1.0 3.4 961 138,240 14.6 0.6 1.2 Improved agriculture water management non-irrigation-based practices/technologies Agricultural half-moons 2.0 0.8 3.1 961 138,240 13.9 0.6 1.2 Improved climate adaptation/climate risk management practices/technologies Use of climate information (rain forecast, disaster risks, etc.) 0.5 -0.5 1.5 961 138,240 7.0 0.5 2.1 Improved post-harvest handling and storage practices/technologies Locally made storage structuressuch as sheet metal silos 1.7 0.2 3.2 951 136,460 12.9 0.7 1.7 Sealed/airtight bags 4.0 1.7 6.3 951 136,460 19.5 1.1 1.8 Community storage facilities, including warehouse receipting 0.7 0.0 1.3 951 136,460 8.1 0.3 1.2 Use ofsolar or fuel-powered dryersto reduce post-harvest moisture 0.3 -0.1 0.7 951 136,460 5.4 0.2 1.2 Seed or grain treatment techniquesincluding botanical pest control agents or phytosanitary irradiation 1.3 -0.1 2.7 951 136,460 11.5 0.7 1.8 Grain treatment with agro-chemicals 1.4 -0.2 3.0 951 136,460 11.8 0.8 2.0 Triple bagsfor cowpea grain preservation 1.1 -0.2 2.5 951 136,460 10.6 0.7 1.9 Other post-harvest practicesthatreduce pre-storage losses 9.7 5.0 14.4 951 136,460 29.6 2.3 2.4 Other improved practices/technologies Performing atleastthreeweedings 33.3 25.4 41.3 961 138,240 47.2 3.9 2.5 Peanuts(groundnuts) IMPEL | Implementer-Led Evaluation and Learning 32 Annex 4: Summary of Data Treatment and Analysis Table A5. BHA Niger Baseline Indicators-Girma Indicators, 95% Confidence Intervals and Base Population [Niger, 2020] Confidence Interval Indicator Value Lower Upper Number of Records Weighted Population Standard Deviation Standard Error DEFT Crop genetics practices/technologies Use of improved seeds 9.9 6.3 13.4 444 72,854 29.9 1.7 1.2 Cultural practices/technologies Control ofsida cordifolia growth 12.3 4.6 20.1 444 72,854 32.9 3.7 2.4 Crop association 44.8 29.6 60.0 444 72,854 49.8 7.3 3.1 Crop rotation 1.0 -0.7 2.6 444 72,854 9.8 0.8 1.7 Sowing after useful rain 31.3 20.1 42.6 444 72,854 46.4 5.4 2.5 Improved natural resources or ecosystem management practices/technologies Farmermanaged natural regeneration (fmnr) 46.0 36.3 55.6 444 72,854 49.9 4.7 2.0 Delimitation of animal corridors and pasture areas 38.6 26.4 50.9 444 72,854 48.7 5.9 2.6 Protection of ponds againstsilting up 6.3 2.9 9.7 444 72,854 24.3 1.6 1.4 Functional community-based conflict management mechanisms 6.2 2.3 10.0 444 72,854 24.1 1.9 1.6 Improved pest and disease management practices/technologies Delay of seedlings at third or fourth rains to control pests 12.0 5.8 18.1 444 72,854 32.5 3.0 1.9 Seed treatment with fungicides 2.2 0.3 4.0 444 72,854 14.6 0.9 1.3 Improved soil-related fertility and conservation practices/technologies Zai pits 4.3 0.4 8.3 444 72,854 20.4 1.9 2.0 Organic manure 65.5 58.4 72.5 444 72,854 47.6 3.4 1.5 Phosphatic manure 9.3 5.0 13.6 444 72,854 29.1 2.1 1.5 Compost 27.2 13.3 41.1 444 72,854 44.5 6.7 3.2 Microdoses of fertilizer 2.5 1.0 3.9 444 72,854 15.6 0.7 1.0 Improved agriculture water management non-irrigation-based practices/technologies Agricultural half-moons 1.8 -0.2 3.7 444 72,854 13.2 0.9 1.5 Improved climate adaptation/climate risk management practices/technologies Use of climate information (rain forecast, disaster risks, etc.) 0.0 444 72,854 0.0 0.0 Improved post-harvest handling and storage practices/technologies Locally made storage structuressuch as sheet metal silos 2.2 -0.4 4.9 422 69,663 14.8 1.3 1.8 Sealed/airtight bags 12.8 8.3 17.4 422 69,663 33.5 2.2 1.4 Community storage facilities, including warehouse receipting 0.9 -0.7 2.5 422 69,663 9.3 0.8 1.7 Use ofsolar or fuel-powered dryersto reduce post-harvest moisture 0.7 -0.3 1.7 422 69,663 8.5 0.5 1.2 Seed or grain treatmenttechniquesincluding botanical pest control agents or phytosanitary irradiation 0.3 -0.3 1.0 422 69,663 5.6 0.3 1.1 Grain treatment with agro-chemicals 0.5 -0.5 1.5 422 69,663 6.9 0.5 1.4 Triple bagsfor cowpea grain preservation 1.1 -0.1 2.4 422 69,663 10.6 0.6 1.1 Other post-harvest practicesthatreduce pre-storage losses 6.1 2.7 9.4 422 69,663 23.9 1.6 1.4 Other improved practices/technologies Performing atleastthreeweedings 24.4 13.1 35.6 444 72,854 43.0 5.4 2.7 Goats Improved fodder production 11.0 3.7 18.4 526 77,859 31.4 3.6 2.6 Use of licking and/or multi-nutritional block 7.4 4.0 10.7 526 77,859 26.1 1.6 1.4 Animalselection 12.2 6.0 18.5 526 77,859 32.8 3.0 2.1 Vaccinations 37.5 31.3 43.7 526 77,859 48.5 3.0 1.4 Antiparasitic treatments 38.2 31.6 44.7 526 77,859 48.6 3.2 1.5 Veterinary monitoring of food quality and quantity overtime 1.2 0.2 2.2 526 77,859 10.8 0.5 1.0 Weight monitoring 4.0 0.6 7.5 526 77,859 19.7 1.7 2.0 Optimum weight-market price criteria forthe sale decision 0.3 -0.3 0.9 526 77,859 5.5 0.3 1.2 Use of para-veterinary services for goats and sheep 6.5 2.7 10.2 526 77,859 24.6 1.8 1.7 Sheep Improved fodder production 11.5 4.5 18.6 197 29,734 32.0 3.4 1.5 Use of licking and/or multi-nutritional block 7.4 4.0 10.7 197 29,734 26.2 1.6 0.9 Animalselection 16.7 9.9 23.6 197 29,734 37.4 3.3 1.2 Vaccinations 37.8 28.3 47.3 197 29,734 48.6 4.6 1.3 Antiparasitic treatments 43.2 33.4 53.0 197 29,734 49.7 4.7 1.3 Veterinary monitoring of food quality and quantity overtime 2.3 0.0 4.6 197 29,734 15.1 1.1 1.0 Weight monitoring 3.5 -1.2 8.3 197 29,734 18.5 2.3 1.7 Optimum weight-market price criteria forthe sale decision 0.0 197 29,734 0.0 0.0 Use of para-veterinary services for goats and sheep 11.7 5.8 17.7 197 29,734 32.3 2.9 1.3 Poultry Use of improved poultry variety/breed 11.2 5.4 17.1 223 29,967 31.6 2.8 1.3 Use of improved feed 10.7 2.7 18.8 223 29,967 31.0 3.9 1.9 Use of improved shelters 10.7 3.9 17.4 223 29,967 30.9 3.3 1.6 Vaccinations 18.8 10.1 27.6 223 29,967 39.2 4.3 1.6 Use of veterinary products and services (antibiotics, vitamins, etc.) 9.8 3.4 16.2 223 29,967 29.8 3.1 1.6 WOMEN'S HEALTH AND NUTRITIONINDICATORS Percentage of women of reproductive age consuming a diet of minimum diversity (MDD-W) 44.5 36.6 52.4 783 110,362 49.7 3.8 2.2 15-19 years 52.2 39.8 64.5 144 20,703 49.5 6.0 1.5 20-49 years 42.7 34.9 50.5 639 89,659 49.6 3.8 1.9 Percent of births receiving at least 4 antenatal care (ANC) visits during pregnancy 48.4 42.9 54.0 565 79,721 50.0 2.7 1.3 Contraceptive prevalence rate (CPR) 14.8 10.6 19.0 560 76,936 35.5 2.0 1.4 Modern 12.7 8.2 17.2 560 76,936 33.3 2.2 1.5 Traditional 2.5 1.0 3.9 560 76,936 15.5 0.7 1.1 Percent of women in union who have knowledge of modern family planning methods that can be used to delay or avoid pregnancy 71.6 62.5 80.7 694 97,510 45.1 4.4 2.6 15-19 years 63.2 48.5 78.0 88 13,086 48.5 7.1 1.4 Baseline Study of the RFSAs in Niger: Final Report (Vol. I) Annex 4: Summary of Data Treatment and Analysis 33 Table A5. BHA Niger Baseline Indicators-Girma Indicators, 95% Confidence Intervals and Base Population [Niger, 2020] Confidence Interval Indicator Value Lower Upper Number of Records Weighted Population Standard Deviation Standard Error DEFT 20-29 years 75.3 65.1 85.5 287 39,724 43.2 4.9 1.9 30-49 years 70.7 59.9 81.6 319 44,701 45.6 5.3 2.1 Percent of women in union who made decisions about modern family planning methodsin the past 12 months 81.0 67.8 94.2 107 16,571 39.4 6.3 1.7 Decision Actors Alone 40.5 24.6 56.4 107 16,571 49.3 7.7 1.6 Jointly 40.5 24.3 56.7 107 16,571 49.3 7.8 1.6 Age 15-19 years ^ ^ ^ 7 1,317 ^ ^ ^ 20-29 years 78.9 59.8 98.0 58 8,715 41.2 9.0 1.7 30-49 years 80.0 66.4 93.7 42 6,539 40.5 6.5 1.0 CHILDREN'S HEALTH AND NUTRITION INDICATORS Percentage of children 6-23 months consuming a diet of minimum dietary diversity (MDD-C) 37.8 29.9 45.7 294 36,332 48.6 3.8 1.4 Male 36.9 28.7 45.1 146 19,466 47.2 4.0 1.0 Female 38.8 25.5 52.2 148 16,867 51.6 6.5 1.5 Percentage of children under age 5 with diarrhea in the lasttwo weeks(Total) 33.0 28.9 37.1 1,055 135,504 47.1 2.0 1.4 Male 34.0 29.3 38.6 513 67,390 46.9 2.2 1.1 Female 32.1 25.9 38.3 542 68,114 47.2 3.0 1.5 Percentage of children under age 5 with diarrhea treatedwithORT (Total) 47.9 35.4 60.5 355 44,773 50.0 6.1 2.3 Male 43.5 27.1 59.8 175 22,895 48.9 7.9 2.1 Female 52.6 43.1 62.1 180 21,878 51.4 4.6 1.2 GENDER - CASH Percent of women/men in union who earned cash in the past 12 months Male 65.5 56.2 74.9 712 100,771 47.6 4.5 2.5 15-19 years ^ ^ ^ 10 1,986 ^ ^ ^ 20-29 years 70.8 57.8 83.8 134 19,709 44.6 6.3 1.6 30-49 years 74.7 67.2 82.2 346 48,417 43.8 3.6 1.5 ≥50 years 50.7 38.3 63.1 222 30,659 50.6 6.0 1.8 Female 35.6 28.4 42.7 870 120,558 47.9 3.5 2.1 15-19 years 24.1 11.8 36.3 103 15,293 41.3 5.9 1.5 20-29 years 29.2 21.3 37.0 308 42,438 45.6 3.8 1.5 30-49 years 45.3 37.4 53.1 347 47,692 50.0 3.8 1.4 ≥50 years 34.5 23.0 46.0 112 15,135 48.2 5.6 1.2 Percent of women in union and earning cash who report participation in decisions about the use of self-earned cash NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA 15-19 years NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA 20-29 years NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA 30-49 years NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA ≥50 years NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA Percent of women in union and earning cash who report participation in decisions about the use of spouse/partner'sself-earned cash NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA 15-19 years NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA 20-29 years NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA 30-49 years NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA ≥50 years NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA Percent of men in union and earning cash who reportspouse/partner participation in decisions about the use of self-earned cash NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA 15-19 years NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA 20-29 years NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA 30-49 years NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA ≥50 years NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA GENDER - CREDIT AND GROUP PARTICIPATION Percent of women/men who are members of a community group Male 62.1 55.2 69.1 584 85,479 48.6 3.4 1.7 15-19 years ^ ^ ^ 1 139 ^ ^ ^ 20-29 years 51.9 41.7 62.1 103 15,839 48.8 4.9 1.0 30-49 years 63.4 55.4 71.4 302 43,715 48.5 3.9 1.4 ≥50 years 66.6 57.0 76.2 178 25,786 47.4 4.6 1.3 Female 45.9 38.5 53.3 666 89,746 49.9 3.6 1.9 15-19 years 37.0 25.0 49.0 88 12,042 47.9 5.8 1.1 20-29 years 46.2 36.4 56.1 256 34,002 50.3 4.8 1.5 30-49 years 47.8 39.6 56.0 255 34,531 49.9 4.0 1.3 ≥50 years 49.2 31.0 67.5 67 9,170 49.6 8.9 1.5 Percent of women/men in a union with accessto credit Male 75.1 68.6 81.7 584 85,479 43.3 3.2 1.8 15-19 years ^ ^ ^ 1 139 ^ ^ ^ 20-29 years 74.0 59.7 88.3 103 15,839 42.8 6.9 1.6 30-49 years 78.4 70.8 86.1 302 43,715 41.4 3.7 1.5 ≥50 years 70.1 58.7 81.5 178 25,786 46.1 5.5 1.6 Female 63.5 55.2 71.8 666 89,746 48.2 4.0 2.1 15-19 years 50.5 36.8 64.2 88 12,042 49.7 6.6 1.3 20-29 years 61.9 50.0 73.8 256 34,002 48.9 5.8 1.9 30-49 years 71.4 63.3 79.5 255 34,531 45.1 3.9 1.4 ≥50 years 56.7 43.5 69.9 67 9,170 49.2 6.4 1.1 Percent of men in a union who make decisions about credit 93.9 89.6 98.2 444 64,231 23.9 2.1 1.8 Decision Actors Alone 52.2 43.5 60.9 444 64,231 50.0 4.2 1.8 Jointly 41.7 32.9 50.6 444 64,231 49.4 4.3 1.8 Age 15-19 years ^ ^ ^ 1 139 ^ ^ ^ 20-29 years 86.2 76.8 95.5 78 11,723 34.8 4.5 1.2 IMPEL | Implementer-Led Evaluation and Learning 34 Annex 4: Summary of Data Treatment and Analysis Table A5. BHA Niger Baseline Indicators-Girma Indicators, 95% Confidence Intervals and Base Population [Niger, 2020] Confidence Interval Indicator Value Lower Upper Number of Records Weighted Population Standard Deviation Standard Error DEFT 30-49 years 95.5 91.7 99.4 240 34,291 20.7 1.9 1.4 ≥50 years 95.8 90.2 101.4 125 18,078 20.1 2.7 1.5 Percent of women in a union who make decisions about credit 72.8 67.1 78.5 428 56,990 44.6 2.8 1.3 Decision Actors Alone 26.9 17.7 36.2 428 56,990 44.4 4.5 2.1 Jointly 45.9 37.2 54.5 428 56,990 49.9 4.2 1.7 Age 15-19 years 51.9 26.6 77.3 49 6,083 50.5 12.2 1.7 20-29 years 74.2 67.6 80.7 163 21,050 43.9 3.2 0.9 30-49 years 74.1 62.1 86.0 181 24,660 43.9 5.8 1.8 ≥50 years 85.6 75.0 96.1 35 5,196 35.7 5.0 0.8 RESILIENCE-RELATED Proportion of households that believe local government will respond effectively to future shocks and stresses 63.8 54.1 73.4 766 98,461 48.1 4.7 2.7 Male and female adults 62.7 52.9 72.6 650 82,616 48.7 4.8 2.5 Adult female, no adult male 73.4 59.0 87.9 76 10,900 41.8 7.0 1.5 Adult male, no adult female 61.1 34.9 87.2 38 4,737 49.5 12.7 1.6 Child, no adults ^ ^ ^ 2 208 ^ ^ ^ Index of social capital at the household level (overall index) 50.9 43.8 58.1 766 98,461 38.8 3.4 2.5 Male and female adults 51.1 44.2 57.9 650 82,616 39.5 3.3 2.1 Adult female, no adult male 47.9 36.0 59.8 76 10,900 34.0 5.8 1.5 Adult male, no adult female 56.9 40.3 73.5 38 4,737 35.8 8.0 1.4 Child, no adults ^ ^ ^ 2 208 ^ ^ ^ Component Bonding sub-index 54.6 47.1 62.2 766 98,461 42.5 3.7 2.4 Bridging sub-index 47.2 40.4 54.1 766 98,461 40.8 3.3 2.3 Proportion of households participating in group-based savings, micro-finance orlending programs 12.9 6.6 19.1 766 98,461 33.5 3.0 2.5 Male and female adults 13.5 7.3 19.8 650 82,616 34.4 3.0 2.2 Adult female, no adult male 13.5 2.0 25.0 76 10,900 32.3 5.6 1.5 Adult male, no adult female 0.0 38 4,737 0.0 0.0 Child, no adults ^ ^ ^ 2 208 ^ ^ ^ Financing type Savings 10.9 5.1 16.7 766 98,461 31.2 2.8 2.5 Credit 5.1 2.1 8.2 766 98,461 22.1 1.5 1.9 NA : Not available ^ Results not statistically reliable, n<30. NOTES: 1 Number of records for improved storage practices may differ from that of other improved agricultural practices because questions on the use of improved practices were generally asked as part of the main agriculture module while questions on the use of improved storage practices were asked seperately as part of the module on crop yield. The numbers of responding farmers differ across the two modules. Table 12: A5 BHA Niger Baseline Indicators - Hamzari Table A5. BHA Niger Baseline Indicators- Hamzari Indicators, 95% Confidence Intervals and Base Population [Niger, 2020] Confidence Interval Indicator Value Lower Upper Number of Records Weighted Population Standard Deviation Standard Error DEFT FOOD SECURITY INDICATORS Percentage of households with poorfood consumption score (FCS) 8.0 2.3 13.6 752 28,037 27.1 2.7 2.8 Male and female adults 7.3 1.5 13.0 703 26,125 26.0 2.8 2.9 Adult female, no adult male 20.6 7.7 33.6 30 1,324 37.2 6.3 0.9 Adult male, no adult female ^ ^ ^ 17 568 ^ ^ ^ Child, no adults ^ ^ ^ 2 21 ^ ^ ^ Percentage of households with borderline FCS 15.5 9.8 21.3 752 28,037 36.2 2.8 2.1 Male and female adults 15.3 9.8 20.9 703 26,125 36.1 2.7 2.0 Adult female, no adult male 18.6 -3.0 40.2 30 1,324 35.8 10.5 1.6 Adult male, no adult female ^ ^ ^ 17 568 ^ ^ ^ Child, no adults ^ ^ ^ 2 21 ^ ^ ^ Percentage of households with acceptable FCS 76.5 67.2 85.8 752 28,037 42.4 4.5 2.9 Male and female adults 77.4 68.3 86.5 703 26,125 41.9 4.4 2.8 Adult female, no adult male 60.8 39.9 81.8 30 1,324 44.9 10.1 1.2 Adult male, no adult female ^ ^ ^ 17 568 ^ ^ ^ Child, no adults ^ ^ ^ 2 21 ^ ^ ^ Food consumption score (FCS) 51.5 46.4 56.6 752 28,037 21.2 2.5 3.2 Male and female adults 52.1 47.1 57.1 703 26,125 21.0 2.4 3.1 Adult female, no adult male 42.9 34.0 51.7 30 1,324 22.4 4.3 1.1 Adult male, no adult female ^ ^ ^ 17 568 ^ ^ ^ Child, no adults ^ ^ ^ 2 21 ^ ^ ^ WASH INDICATORS Percentage of households using a basic waterservice NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA Distance/Time from service NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA On premises NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA ≤ 30-minute roundtrip NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA Gendered household type NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA Male and female adults NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA Adult female, no adult male NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA Adult male, no adult female NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA Baseline Study of the RFSAs in Niger: Final Report (Vol. I) Annex 4: Summary of Data Treatment and Analysis 35 Table A5. BHA Niger Baseline Indicators- Hamzari Indicators, 95% Confidence Intervals and Base Population [Niger, 2020] Confidence Interval Indicator Value Lower Upper Number of Records Weighted Population Standard Deviation Standard Error DEFT Child, no adults NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA Percentage of households with accessto a basic sanitation facility 13.0 3.3 22.7 751 28,050 33.7 4.7 3.8 Male and female adults 13.1 3.3 22.9 703 26,153 33.8 4.7 3.7 Adult female, no adult male ^ ^ ^ 29 1,308 ^ ^ ^ Adult male, no adult female ^ ^ ^ 17 568 ^ ^ ^ Child, no adults ^ ^ ^ 2 21 ^ ^ ^ Percentage of households with soap/ash and water at a handwashing station on premises 40.6 19.7 61.6 90 2,943 49.4 9.9 1.9 Male and female adults 39.8 16.5 63.0 82 2,607 51.2 11.2 2.0 Adult female, no adult male ^ ^ ^ 5 270 ^ ^ ^ Adult male, no adult female ^ ^ ^ 2 49 ^ ^ ^ Child, no adults ^ ^ ^ 1 16 ^ ^ ^ AGRICULTURAL INDICATORS Percentage of farmers who used financialservicesin the past 12 months 23.0 14.9 31.1 1,329 52,555 42.1 3.9 3.4 Male 28.7 19.1 38.4 668 26,525 45.2 4.7 2.7 Female 17.2 10.0 24.4 661 26,031 37.8 3.5 2.4 Percentage of farmers who used improved storage practicesin the past 12 months 58.3 40.7 75.9 1,032 40,401 49.3 8.5 5.5 Male 66.8 50.8 82.9 651 25,755 47.0 7.8 4.2 Female 43.2 22.6 63.8 381 14,646 50.1 10.0 3.9 Proportion of producers who have applied targeted improved management practices ortechnologies Sorghum Crop genetics practices/technologies Use of improved seeds 12.6 1.6 23.7 822 30,783 33.2 5.4 4.6 Cultural practices/technologies Control ofsida cordifolia growth 18.9 4.8 33.0 822 30,783 39.2 6.8 5.0 Crop association 74.1 63.0 85.3 822 30,783 43.8 5.4 3.5 Crop rotation 3.6 1.7 5.4 822 30,783 18.6 0.9 1.4 Sowing after useful rain 39.4 24.7 54.1 822 30,783 48.9 7.1 4.2 Improved natural resources or ecosystem management practices/technologies Farmermanaged natural regeneration (fmnr) 19.3 11.7 26.9 822 30,783 39.5 3.7 2.7 Delimitation of animal corridors and pasture areas 33.3 25.8 40.9 822 30,783 47.2 3.7 2.2 Protection of ponds againstsilting up 9.5 4.6 14.3 822 30,783 29.3 2.3 2.3 Functional community-based conflict management mechanisms 2.7 0.3 5.0 822 30,783 16.1 1.1 2.0 Improved pest and disease management practices/technologies Delay of seedlings at third or fourth rains to control pests 8.9 4.5 13.3 822 30,783 28.5 2.1 2.1 Seed treatment with fungicides 13.5 7.1 20.0 822 30,783 34.2 3.1 2.6 Improved soil-related fertility and conservation practices/technologies Zai pits 12.2 3.1 21.3 822 30,783 32.7 4.4 3.9 Organic manure 66.0 53.8 78.3 822 30,783 47.4 5.9 3.6 Phosphatic manure 9.9 5.5 14.2 822 30,783 29.8 2.1 2.0 Compost 29.1 20.2 37.9 822 30,783 45.4 4.3 2.7 Microdoses of fertilizer 5.4 1.9 8.9 822 30,783 22.7 1.7 2.1 Improved agriculture water management non-irrigation-based practices/technologies Agricultural half-moons 2.0 0.4 3.7 822 30,783 14.1 0.8 1.6 Improved climate adaptation/climate risk management practices/technologies Use of climate information (rain forecast, disaster risks, etc.) 2.0 0.2 3.9 822 30,783 14.2 0.9 1.9 Improved post-harvest handling and storage practices/technologies Locally made storage structuressuch as sheet metal silos 37.1 18.6 55.6 683 25,612 48.3 9.0 4.8 Sealed/airtight bags 10.0 4.7 15.4 683 25,612 30.0 2.6 2.3 Community storage facilities, including warehouse receipting 3.6 0.6 6.5 683 25,612 18.5 1.4 2.0 Use ofsolar or fuel-powered dryersto reduce post-harvest moisture 0.3 -0.1 0.7 683 25,612 5.5 0.2 1.0 Seed or grain treatmenttechniquesincluding botanical pest control agents or phytosanitary irradiation 0.0 683 25,612 0.0 0.0 Grain treatment with agro-chemicals 0.7 -0.3 1.8 683 25,612 8.6 0.5 1.5 Triple bagsfor cowpea grain preservation 0.4 -0.2 1.0 683 25,612 6.5 0.3 1.1 Other post-harvest practicesthatreduce pre-storage losses 3.6 -0.5 7.7 683 25,612 18.6 2.0 2.8 Other improved practices/technologies Performing atleastthreeweedings 34.2 15.0 53.4 822 30,783 47.5 9.3 5.6 Millet Crop genetics practices/technologies Use of improved seeds 11.7 1.9 21.4 1,018 39,678 32.1 4.7 4.7 Cultural practices/technologies Control ofsida cordifolia growth 18.9 5.6 32.2 1,018 39,678 39.2 6.4 5.2 Crop association 68.7 57.4 80.0 1,018 39,678 46.4 5.5 3.8 Crop rotation 7.1 2.9 11.2 1,018 39,678 25.6 2.0 2.5 Sowing after useful rain 41.6 24.1 59.2 1,018 39,678 49.3 8.5 5.5 Improved natural resources or ecosystem management practices/technologies Farmermanaged natural regeneration (fmnr) 18.7 10.9 26.4 1,018 39,678 39.0 3.8 3.1 Delimitation of animal corridors and pasture areas 30.4 21.9 38.9 1,018 39,678 46.0 4.1 2.8 Protection of ponds againstsilting up 8.4 4.4 12.4 1,018 39,678 27.7 1.9 2.2 Functional community-based conflict management mechanisms 2.2 0.3 4.1 1,018 39,678 14.7 0.9 2.0 Improved pest and disease management practices/technologies Delay of seedlings at third or fourth rains to control pests 7.5 3.3 11.6 1,018 39,678 26.3 2.0 2.4 Seed treatment with fungicides 11.3 6.4 16.3 1,018 39,678 31.7 2.4 2.4 Improved soil-related fertility and conservation practices/technologies IMPEL | Implementer-Led Evaluation and Learning 36 Annex 4: Summary of Data Treatment and Analysis Table A5. BHA Niger Baseline Indicators- Hamzari Indicators, 95% Confidence Intervals and Base Population [Niger, 2020] Confidence Interval Indicator Value Lower Upper Number of Records Weighted Population Standard Deviation Standard Error DEFT Zai pits 12.8 3.7 21.8 1,018 39,678 33.4 4.4 4.2 Organic manure 61.5 51.4 71.7 1,018 39,678 48.7 4.9 3.2 Phosphatic manure 14.5 6.7 22.4 1,018 39,678 35.2 3.8 3.4 Compost 34.3 23.5 45.2 1,018 39,678 47.5 5.3 3.5 Microdoses of fertilizer 6.9 4.1 9.7 1,018 39,678 25.4 1.4 1.7 Improved agriculture water management non-irrigation-based practices/technologies Agricultural half-moons 1.9 0.1 3.8 1,018 39,678 13.8 0.9 2.1 Improved climate adaptation/climate risk management practices/technologies Use of climate information (rain forecast, disaster risks, etc.) 1.3 0.1 2.6 1,018 39,678 11.5 0.6 1.7 Improved post-harvest handling and storage practices/technologies Locally made storage structuressuch as sheet metal silos 40.5 19.9 61.2 973 37,981 49.1 10.0 6.3 Sealed/airtight bags 7.7 2.7 12.6 973 37,981 26.6 2.4 2.8 Community storage facilities, including warehouse receipting 5.5 2.8 8.2 973 37,981 22.8 1.3 1.8 Use ofsolar or fuel-powered dryersto reduce post-harvest moisture 0.5 -0.2 1.3 973 37,981 7.4 0.4 1.5 Seed or grain treatment techniquesincluding botanical pest control agents or phytosanitary irradiation 0.3 -0.1 0.8 973 37,981 5.5 0.2 1.2 Grain treatment with agro-chemicals 0.7 -0.1 1.4 973 37,981 8.1 0.3 1.3 Triple bagsfor cowpea grain preservation 1.2 0.3 2.2 973 37,981 11.1 0.4 1.3 Other post-harvest practicesthatreduce pre-storage losses 3.2 -0.5 7.0 973 37,981 17.7 1.8 3.2 Other improved practices/technologies Performing atleastthreeweedings 36.2 15.7 56.7 1,018 39,678 48.1 9.9 6.6 Cowpeas Crop genetics practices/technologies Use of improved seeds 12.4 1.7 23.1 909 34,841 33.0 5.2 4.7 Cultural practices/technologies Control ofsida cordifolia growth 20.1 6.5 33.6 909 34,841 40.1 6.5 4.9 Crop association 71.1 59.6 82.7 909 34,841 45.3 5.6 3.7 Crop rotation 5.7 2.2 9.3 909 34,841 23.3 1.7 2.2 Sowing after useful rain 41.1 22.6 59.6 909 34,841 49.2 9.0 5.5 Improved natural resources or ecosystem management practices/technologies Farmermanaged natural regeneration (fmnr) 18.8 10.3 27.2 909 34,841 39.1 4.1 3.2 Delimitation of animal corridors and pasture areas 30.8 22.5 39.1 909 34,841 46.2 4.0 2.6 Protection of ponds againstsilting up 8.9 4.4 13.5 909 34,841 28.5 2.2 2.3 Functional community-based conflict management mechanisms 2.6 0.4 4.8 909 34,841 16.0 1.1 2.0 Improved pest and disease management practices/technologies Delay of seedlings at third or fourth rains to control pests 11.9 5.8 18.0 909 34,841 32.4 3.0 2.8 Seed treatment with fungicides 13.5 8.1 19.0 909 34,841 34.2 2.7 2.3 Improved soil-related fertility and conservation practices/technologies Zai pits 15.2 5.4 25.0 909 34,841 35.9 4.7 4.0 Organic manure 61.5 50.2 72.8 909 34,841 48.7 5.5 3.4 Phosphatic manure 15.7 7.8 23.6 909 34,841 36.4 3.8 3.2 Compost 34.5 23.8 45.2 909 34,841 47.6 5.2 3.3 Microdoses of fertilizer 5.9 3.5 8.3 909 34,841 23.6 1.2 1.5 Improved agriculture water management non-irrigation-based practices/technologies Agricultural half-moons 1.7 0.1 3.4 909 34,841 13.0 0.8 1.9 Improved climate adaptation/climate risk management practices/technologies Use of climate information (rain forecast, disaster risks, etc.) 1.5 0.1 2.9 909 34,841 12.0 0.7 1.7 Improved post-harvest handling and storage practices/technologies Locally made storage structuressuch as sheet metal silos 7.1 2.9 11.4 779 29,558 25.8 2.1 2.2 Sealed/airtight bags 28.9 15.1 42.6 779 29,558 45.3 6.7 4.1 Community storage facilities, including warehouse receipting 5.2 1.5 8.8 779 29,558 22.1 1.8 2.2 Use ofsolar or fuel-powered dryersto reduce post-harvest moisture 0.5 -0.1 1.1 779 29,558 7.2 0.3 1.1 Seed or grain treatment techniquesincluding botanical pest control agents or phytosanitary irradiation 1.0 0.0 1.9 779 29,558 9.7 0.5 1.3 Grain treatment with agro-chemicals 5.1 0.9 9.3 779 29,558 22.1 2.0 2.6 Triple bagsfor cowpea grain preservation 11.8 1.0 22.6 779 29,558 32.3 5.3 4.5 Other post-harvest practicesthatreduce pre-storage losses 2.5 -0.5 5.5 779 29,558 15.5 1.5 2.6 Other improved practices/technologies Performing atleastthreeweedings 37.4 16.1 58.8 909 34,841 48.4 10.3 6.4 Peanuts(groundnuts) Crop genetics practices/technologies Use of improved seeds 14.6 2.9 26.3 571 22,717 35.3 5.7 3.8 Cultural practices/technologies Control ofsida cordifolia growth 21.5 8.0 34.9 571 22,717 41.1 6.5 3.8 Crop association 69.9 56.4 83.4 571 22,717 45.9 6.5 3.4 Crop rotation 7.2 4.2 10.3 571 22,717 25.9 1.5 1.4 Sowing after useful rain 43.2 23.8 62.7 571 22,717 49.6 9.4 4.5 Improved natural resources or ecosystem management practices/technologies Farmermanaged natural regeneration (fmnr) 18.5 9.7 27.3 571 22,717 38.9 4.3 2.6 Delimitation of animal corridors and pasture areas 32.6 22.6 42.6 571 22,717 46.9 4.8 2.5 Protection of ponds againstsilting up 9.3 4.1 14.6 571 22,717 29.1 2.5 2.1 Functional community-based conflict management mechanisms 3.4 0.3 6.6 571 22,717 18.2 1.5 2.0 Improved pest and disease management practices/technologies Delay of seedlings at third or fourth rains to control pests 9.6 3.5 15.8 571 22,717 29.5 3.0 2.4 Seed treatment with fungicides 15.6 9.3 21.9 571 22,717 36.3 3.1 2.0 Baseline Study of the RFSAs in Niger: Final Report (Vol. I) Annex 4: Summary of Data Treatment and Analysis 37 Table A5. BHA Niger Baseline Indicators- Hamzari Indicators, 95% Confidence Intervals and Base Population [Niger, 2020] Confidence Interval Indicator Value Lower Upper Number of Records Weighted Population Standard Deviation Standard Error DEFT Improved soil-related fertility and conservation practices/technologies Zai pits 13.3 4.9 21.7 571 22,717 34.0 4.1 2.9 Organic manure 68.5 56.8 80.3 571 22,717 46.5 5.7 2.9 Phosphatic manure 17.2 6.7 27.7 571 22,717 37.8 5.1 3.2 Compost 35.4 24.7 46.1 571 22,717 47.9 5.2 2.6 Microdoses of fertilizer 6.1 2.9 9.2 571 22,717 23.9 1.5 1.5 Improved agriculture water management non-irrigation-based practices/technologies Agricultural half-moons 1.8 0.1 3.4 571 22,717 13.1 0.8 1.4 Improved climate adaptation/climate risk management practices/technologies Use of climate information (rain forecast, disaster risks, etc.) 1.9 -0.1 3.9 571 22,717 13.7 1.0 1.7 Improved post-harvest handling and storage practices/technologies Locally made storage structuressuch as sheet metal silos 8.0 3.4 12.6 479 19,524 27.2 2.2 1.8 Sealed/airtight bags 35.4 16.4 54.3 479 19,524 47.9 9.2 4.2 Community storage facilities, including warehouse receipting 4.0 1.1 6.9 479 19,524 19.6 1.4 1.6 Use ofsolar or fuel-powered dryersto reduce post-harvest moisture 0.3 -0.3 0.9 479 19,524 5.5 0.3 1.2 Seed or grain treatmenttechniquesincluding botanical pest control agents or phytosanitary irradiation 0.8 -0.2 1.7 479 19,524 8.7 0.5 1.1 Grain treatment with agro-chemicals 0.7 -0.6 2.0 479 19,524 8.4 0.6 1.6 Triple bagsfor cowpea grain preservation 7.8 0.4 15.1 479 19,524 26.8 3.6 2.9 Other post-harvest practicesthatreduce pre-storage losses 2.7 -0.4 5.7 479 19,524 16.1 1.5 2.0 Other improved practices/technologies Performing atleastthreeweedings 37.7 17.0 58.5 571 22,717 48.5 10.1 5.0 Goats Improved fodder production 4.6 1.0 8.2 530 20,895 21.0 1.7 1.9 Use of licking and/or multi-nutritional block 3.9 -0.5 8.2 530 20,895 19.3 2.1 2.5 Animalselection 7.0 1.5 12.4 530 20,895 25.5 2.6 2.4 Vaccinations 48.2 40.2 56.3 530 20,895 50.0 3.9 1.8 Antiparasitic treatments 33.8 27.5 40.2 530 20,895 47.4 3.1 1.5 Veterinary monitoring of food quality and quantity overtime 2.2 0.4 4.1 530 20,895 14.8 0.9 1.4 Weight monitoring 3.3 1.1 5.4 530 20,895 17.8 1.1 1.4 Optimum weight-market price criteria forthe sale decision 1.5 -0.5 3.5 530 20,895 12.1 1.0 1.9 Use of para-veterinary services for goats and sheep 2.1 -1.0 5.3 530 20,895 14.4 1.5 2.4 Sheep Improved fodder production 5.4 0.8 10.0 215 9,404 22.7 2.2 1.4 Use of licking and/or multi-nutritional block 4.8 -0.8 10.3 215 9,404 21.4 2.7 1.8 Animalselection 5.9 2.4 9.4 215 9,404 23.7 1.7 1.0 Vaccinations 51.9 41.8 62.1 215 9,404 50.1 4.9 1.4 Antiparasitic treatments 33.8 28.3 39.4 215 9,404 47.4 2.7 0.8 Veterinary monitoring of food quality and quantity overtime 4.1 0.6 7.5 215 9,404 19.8 1.7 1.2 Weight monitoring 3.6 -0.2 7.4 215 9,404 18.6 1.8 1.5 Optimum weight-market price criteria forthe sale decision 0.3 -0.2 0.7 215 9,404 5.1 0.2 0.7 Use of para-veterinary services for goats and sheep 2.9 -0.4 6.2 215 9,404 16.8 1.6 1.4 Poultry Use of improved poultry variety/breed 8.8 3.6 14.0 178 6,861 28.4 2.5 1.2 Use of improved feed 8.6 1.5 15.8 178 6,861 28.2 3.5 1.6 Use of improved shelters 11.1 4.0 18.1 178 6,861 31.5 3.4 1.4 Vaccinations 30.7 20.0 41.5 178 6,861 46.3 5.2 1.5 Use of veterinary products and services (antibiotics, vitamins, etc.) 15.5 6.9 24.1 178 6,861 36.3 4.2 1.5 WOMEN'S HEALTH AND NUTRITIONINDICATORS Percentage of women of reproductive age consuming a diet of minimum diversity (MDD-W) 49.8 39.8 59.7 1,230 49,240 50.0 4.8 3.4 15-19 years 47.5 36.4 58.5 303 12,332 49.5 5.4 1.9 20-49 years 50.5 40.2 60.9 927 36,908 50.2 5.0 3.0 Percent of births receiving at least 4 antenatal care (ANC) visits during pregnancy 56.9 47.7 66.2 712 28,522 49.6 4.5 2.4 Contraceptive prevalence rate (CPR) 21.8 16.0 27.6 816 31,144 41.3 2.8 1.9 Modern 18.4 12.3 24.4 816 31,144 38.8 2.9 2.2 Traditional 3.6 1.8 5.4 816 31,144 18.7 0.9 1.3 Percent of women in union who have knowledge of modern family planning methods that can be used to delay or avoid pregnancy 74.5 65.2 83.8 990 38,607 43.6 4.5 3.3 15-19 years 62.2 43.5 81.0 124 4,357 48.7 9.1 2.1 20-29 years 76.9 68.6 85.2 374 14,673 42.2 4.0 1.8 30-49 years 75.5 65.8 85.2 492 19,577 43.0 4.7 2.4 Percent of women in union who made decisions about modern family planning methodsin the past 12 months 77.3 68.4 86.2 187 7,929 42.0 4.3 1.4 Decision Actors Alone 39.9 28.0 51.8 187 7,929 49.1 5.7 1.6 Jointly 37.4 28.8 46.0 187 7,929 48.5 4.2 1.2 Age 15-19 years ^ ^ ^ 9 262 ^ ^ ^ 20-29 years 77.1 67.4 86.8 79 3,463 42.3 4.7 1.0 30-49 years 76.1 63.3 88.9 99 4,204 42.8 6.1 1.4 CHILDREN'S HEALTH AND NUTRITION INDICATORS Percentage of children 6-23 months consuming a diet of minimum dietary diversity (MDD-C) 54.6 46.4 62.7 324 12,231 49.9 4.0 1.4 Male 53.8 43.3 64.3 158 5,774 50.8 5.1 1.3 Female 55.3 46.3 64.3 166 6,456 49.8 4.3 1.1 Percentage of children under age 5 with diarrhea in the lasttwo weeks(Total) 24.5 20.4 28.6 1,231 47,521 43.0 2.0 1.6 IMPEL | Implementer-Led Evaluation and Learning 38 Annex 4: Summary of Data Treatment and Analysis Table A5. BHA Niger Baseline Indicators- Hamzari Indicators, 95% Confidence Intervals and Base Population [Niger, 2020] Confidence Interval Indicator Value Lower Upper Number of Records Weighted Population Standard Deviation Standard Error DEFT Male 25.6 21.7 29.5 615 24,015 43.4 1.9 1.1 Female 23.4 18.4 28.4 616 23,506 42.6 2.4 1.4 Percentage of children under age 5 with diarrhea treatedwithORT (Total) 52.0 41.8 62.1 312 11,648 50.0 4.9 1.7 Male 50.7 36.6 64.9 164 6,149 50.4 6.9 1.7 Female 53.3 43.2 63.4 148 5,498 50.9 4.9 1.2 GENDER - CASH Percent of women/men in union who earned cash in the past 12 months Male 66.6 60.6 72.5 783 32,303 47.2 2.9 1.7 15-19 years ^ ^ ^ 7 338 ^ ^ ^ 20-29 years 71.3 60.0 82.7 111 3,978 48.6 5.5 1.2 30-49 years 68.9 61.9 75.8 384 16,206 45.8 3.4 1.4 ≥50 years 61.8 53.1 70.5 281 11,780 48.2 4.2 1.5 Female 37.5 32.1 42.9 1,189 47,032 48.4 2.6 1.9 15-19 years 16.4 7.8 25.0 135 4,819 39.0 4.2 1.2 20-29 years 30.8 25.0 36.6 391 15,375 46.3 2.8 1.2 30-49 years 47.3 40.4 54.2 515 20,678 49.6 3.3 1.5 ≥50 years 37.8 25.6 50.0 148 6,160 47.3 5.9 1.5 Percent of women in union and earning cash who report participation in decisions about the use of self-earned cash NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA 15-19 years NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA 20-29 years NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA 30-49 years NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA ≥50 years NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA Percent of women in union and earning cash who report participation in decisions about the use of spouse/partner'sself-earned cash NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA 15-19 years NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA 20-29 years NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA 30-49 years NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA ≥50 years NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA Percent of men in union and earning cash who reportspouse/partner participation in decisions about the use of self-earned cash NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA 15-19 years NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA 20-29 years NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA 30-49 years NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA ≥50 years NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA GENDER - CREDIT AND GROUP PARTICIPATION Percent of women/men who are members of a community group Male 58.2 43.7 72.8 623 26,703 49.4 7.1 3.6 15-19 years ^ ^ ^ 4 231 ^ ^ ^ 20-29 years 55.8 37.8 73.8 77 3,069 51.5 8.7 1.5 30-49 years 58.5 42.7 74.2 322 13,766 49.4 7.6 2.8 ≥50 years 58.6 41.4 75.8 220 9,637 48.8 8.3 2.5 Female 48.0 35.5 60.6 711 28,923 50.0 6.1 3.2 15-19 years 42.7 28.6 56.8 112 3,963 53.1 6.8 1.4 20-29 years 47.6 33.6 61.6 281 11,599 49.6 6.8 2.3 30-49 years 52.5 39.1 66.0 264 10,913 49.6 6.5 2.1 ≥50 years 38.4 20.6 56.1 54 2,448 46.1 8.6 1.4 Percent of women/men in a union with accessto credit Male 66.5 55.1 77.9 623 26,703 47.2 5.5 2.9 15-19 years ^ ^ ^ 4 231 ^ ^ ^ 20-29 years 48.6 27.9 69.4 77 3,069 51.9 10.1 1.7 30-49 years 72.6 61.4 83.9 322 13,766 44.7 5.4 2.2 ≥50 years 63.5 51.1 75.8 220 9,637 47.7 6.0 1.9 Female 55.9 43.6 68.2 711 28,923 49.7 6.0 3.2 15-19 years 37.1 23.8 50.4 112 3,963 51.8 6.5 1.3 20-29 years 56.4 41.0 71.7 281 11,599 49.3 7.4 2.5 30-49 years 61.8 49.1 74.5 264 10,913 48.2 6.2 2.1 ≥50 years 58.1 39.2 77.0 54 2,448 46.8 9.2 1.4 Percent of men in a union who make decisions about credit 93.6 89.8 97.3 426 17,751 24.6 1.8 1.5 Decision Actors Alone 82.6 78.1 87.1 426 17,751 38.0 2.2 1.2 Jointly 11.0 5.4 16.6 426 17,751 31.3 2.7 1.8 Age 15-19 years ^ ^ ^ 3 143 ^ ^ ^ 20-29 years 97.1 91.3 103.0 46 1,493 16.9 2.8 1.1 30-49 years 95.6 91.4 99.8 237 9,999 20.6 2.0 1.5 ≥50 years 90.4 83.7 97.0 140 6,116 29.6 3.2 1.3 Percent of women in a union who make decisions about credit 77.0 71.5 82.4 409 16,170 42.2 2.6 1.3 Decision Actors Alone 58.0 46.7 69.3 409 16,170 49.4 5.5 2.2 Jointly 19.0 10.6 27.3 409 16,170 39.2 4.0 2.1 Age 15-19 years 64.7 46.2 83.2 52 1,469 48.3 8.8 1.3 20-29 years 72.9 66.0 79.8 165 6,539 44.6 3.3 1.0 30-49 years 82.0 76.4 87.7 162 6,740 38.5 2.7 0.9 ≥50 years 84.3 68.2 100.4 30 1,422 37.0 7.5 1.1 RESILIENCE-RELATED Proportion of households that believe local government will respond effectively to future shocks and stresses 60.1 54.3 65.9 753 28,085 49.0 2.8 1.6 Male and female adults 61.3 55.2 67.5 704 26,172 48.8 3.0 1.6 Adult female, no adult male 48.1 34.5 61.7 30 1,324 45.9 6.6 0.8 Adult male, no adult female ^ ^ ^ 17 568 ^ ^ ^ Baseline Study of the RFSAs in Niger: Final Report (Vol. I) Annex 4: Summary of Data Treatment and Analysis 39 Table A5. BHA Niger Baseline Indicators- Hamzari Indicators, 95% Confidence Intervals and Base Population [Niger, 2020] Confidence Interval Indicator Value Lower Upper Number of Records Weighted Population Standard Deviation Standard Error DEFT Child, no adults ^ ^ ^ 2 21 ^ ^ ^ Index of social capital at the household level (overall index) 54.8 49.7 59.9 753 28,085 41.6 2.5 1.6 Male and female adults 54.2 49.3 59.1 704 26,172 41.8 2.4 1.5 Adult female, no adult male 56.5 37.7 75.3 30 1,324 36.0 9.1 1.4 Adult male, no adult female ^ ^ ^ 17 568 ^ ^ ^ Child, no adults ^ ^ ^ 2 21 ^ ^ ^ Component Bonding sub-index 56.8 52.3 61.4 753 28,085 42.7 2.2 1.4 Bridging sub-index 52.7 46.9 58.6 753 28,085 44.3 2.8 1.7 Proportion of households participating in group-based savings, micro-finance orlending programs 3.4 1.0 5.8 753 28,085 18.2 1.2 1.7 Male and female adults 3.7 1.2 6.2 704 26,172 18.9 1.2 1.7 Adult female, no adult male 0.0 30 1,324 0.0 0.0 Adult male, no adult female ^ ^ ^ 17 568 ^ ^ ^ Child, no adults ^ ^ ^ 2 21 ^ ^ ^ Financing type Savings 2.4 0.5 4.3 753 28,085 15.2 0.9 1.7 Credit 1.5 0.3 2.7 753 28,085 12.1 0.6 1.3 NA : Not available ^ Results not statistically reliable, n<30. NOTES: 1 Number of records for improved storage practices may differ from that of other improved agricultural practices because questions on the use of improved practices were generally asked as part of the main agriculture module while questions on the use of improved storage practices were asked seperately as part of the module on crop yield. The numbers of responding farmers differ across the two modules. IMPEL | Implementer-Led Evaluation and Learning 40 Annex 4: Summary of Data Treatment and Analysis Table 13: A5 BHA Niger Baseline Indicators - Wadata Table A5. BHANiger Baseline Indicators-Wadata Indicators, 95% Confidence Intervals and Base Population [Niger, 2020] Confidence Interval Indicator Value Lower Upper Number of Records Weighted Population Standard Deviation Standard Error DEFT FOOD SECURITY INDICATORS Percentage of households with poorfood consumption score (FCS) 3.8 1.5 6.0 721 40,376 19.0 1.1 1.6 Male and female adults 3.2 1.2 5.2 566 31,812 17.6 1.0 1.3 Adult female, no adult male 7.8 1.6 13.9 98 5,324 27.3 3.0 1.1 Adult male, no adult female 3.1 -2.9 9.0 54 3,029 17.2 2.9 1.2 Child, no adults ^ ^ ^ 3 211 ^ ^ ^ Percentage of households with borderline FCS 10.4 7.4 13.3 721 40,376 30.5 1.4 1.3 Male and female adults 9.1 6.3 11.9 566 31,812 28.7 1.4 1.1 Adult female, no adult male 15.5 8.6 22.4 98 5,324 36.9 3.4 0.9 Adult male, no adult female 14.5 3.3 25.7 54 3,029 35.3 5.4 1.1 Child, no adults ^ ^ ^ 3 211 ^ ^ ^ Percentage of households with acceptable FCS 85.9 81.4 90.4 721 40,376 34.9 2.2 1.7 Male and female adults 87.7 83.7 91.8 566 31,812 32.8 2.0 1.4 Adult female, no adult male 76.7 67.0 86.5 98 5,324 43.1 4.7 1.1 Adult male, no adult female 82.4 68.4 96.5 54 3,029 38.1 6.8 1.3 Child, no adults ^ ^ ^ 3 211 ^ ^ ^ Food consumption score (0-112) 56.2 52.7 59.8 721 40,376 20.8 1.7 2.2 Male and female adults 57.7 54.2 61.1 566 31,812 20.6 1.7 1.9 Adult female, no adult male 52.2 45.9 58.5 98 5,324 22.6 3.1 1.3 Adult male, no adult female 48.7 42.6 54.7 54 3,029 15.5 2.9 1.4 Child, no adults ^ ^ ^ 3 211 ^ ^ ^ WASH INDICATORS Percentage of households using a basic waterservice NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA Distance/Time from service NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA On premises NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA ≤ 30-minute roundtrip NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA Gendered household type NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA Male and female adults NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA Adult female, no adult male NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA Adult male, no adult female NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA Child, no adults NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA Percentage of households with accessto a basic sanitation facility 4.4 1.7 7.0 734 41,416 20.4 1.3 1.7 Male and female adults 4.6 1.7 7.6 575 32,523 21.0 1.4 1.6 Adult female, no adult male 5.2 -0.2 10.7 98 5,324 22.7 2.6 1.1 Adult male, no adult female 0.5 -0.5 1.4 58 3,358 6.7 0.5 0.5 Child, no adults ^ ^ ^ 3 211 ^ ^ ^ Percentage of households with soap/ash and water at a handwashing station on premises 18.2 13.4 23.1 533 30,490 38.6 2.3 1.4 Male and female adults 19.5 14.1 24.9 425 24,375 39.5 2.6 1.4 Adult female, no adult male 11.2 2.4 20.1 66 3,623 32.1 4.3 1.1 Adult male, no adult female 15.0 1.1 29.0 40 2,317 35.3 6.8 1.2 Child, no adults ^ ^ ^ 2 175 ^ ^ ^ AGRICULTURAL INDICATORS Percentage of farmers who used financialservicesin the past 12 months 25.8 20.1 31.5 828 50,716 43.8 2.8 1.8 Male 30.0 24.2 35.7 473 29,296 45.6 2.8 1.3 Female 20.1 12.7 27.5 355 21,421 40.4 3.6 1.7 Percentage of farmers who used improved storage practicesin the past 12 months 43.2 30.6 55.8 758 46,173 49.6 6.1 3.4 Male 45.0 30.8 59.1 455 28,255 49.5 6.9 3.0 Female 40.5 23.4 57.5 303 17,919 49.8 8.3 2.9 Proportion of producers who have applied targeted improved management practices ortechnologies Sorghum Crop genetics practices/technologies Use of improved seeds 0.6 -0.1 1.2 596 36,774 7.5 0.3 1.0 Cultural practices/technologies Control ofsida cordifolia growth 0.5 -0.1 1.2 596 36,774 7.3 0.3 1.0 Crop association 28.9 15.6 42.3 596 36,774 45.4 6.5 3.5 Crop rotation 0.5 -0.1 1.1 596 36,774 7.2 0.3 1.0 Sowing after useful rain 19.0 9.4 28.6 596 36,774 39.2 4.7 2.9 Improved natural resources or ecosystem management practices/technologies Farmermanaged natural regeneration (fmnr) 36.8 23.3 50.3 596 36,774 48.3 6.6 3.3 Delimitation of animal corridors and pasture areas 25.5 17.8 33.2 596 36,774 43.6 3.7 2.1 Protection of ponds againstsilting up 7.9 3.6 12.3 596 36,774 27.0 2.1 1.9 Functional community-based conflict management mechanisms 1.7 -0.2 3.5 596 36,774 12.9 0.9 1.7 Improved pest and disease management practices/technologies Delay of seedlings at third or fourth rains to control pests 0.2 -0.2 0.5 596 36,774 4.1 0.2 1.0 Seed treatment with fungicides 8.2 3.9 12.5 596 36,774 27.4 2.1 1.9 Improved soil-related fertility and conservation practices/technologies Zai pits 1.5 -0.7 3.6 596 36,774 12.1 1.0 2.1 Organic manure 59.9 47.2 72.5 596 36,774 49.1 6.1 3.0 Phosphatic manure 7.0 4.0 10.1 596 36,774 25.6 1.5 1.4 Compost 7.2 1.0 13.4 596 36,774 25.9 3.0 2.8 Microdoses of fertilizer 1.2 0.1 2.3 596 36,774 10.9 0.5 1.2 Improved agriculture water management non-irrigation-based practices/technologies Agricultural half-moons 0.5 -0.1 1.2 596 36,774 7.2 0.3 1.1 Improved climate adaptation/climate risk management practices/technologies Baseline Study of the RFSAs in Niger: Final Report (Vol. I) Annex 4: Summary of Data Treatment and Analysis 41 Table A5. BHANiger Baseline Indicators-Wadata Indicators, 95% Confidence Intervals and Base Population [Niger, 2020] Confidence Interval Indicator Value Lower Upper Number of Records Weighted Population Standard Deviation Standard Error DEFT Use of climate information (rain forecast, disaster risks, etc.) 0.0 596 36,774 0.0 0.0 Improved post-harvest handling and storage practices/technologies Locally made storage structuressuch as sheet metal silos 32.3 18.7 45.8 469 29,535 46.8 6.6 3.0 Sealed/airtight bags 6.4 4.3 8.6 469 29,535 24.5 1.0 0.9 Community storage facilities, including warehouse receipting 3.8 0.9 6.6 469 29,535 19.1 1.4 1.6 Use ofsolar or fuel-powered dryersto reduce post-harvest moisture 0.4 -0.3 1.1 469 29,535 6.1 0.3 1.2 Seed or grain treatmenttechniquesincluding botanical pest control agents or phytosanitary irradiation 0.0 469 29,535 0.0 0.0 Grain treatment with agro-chemicals 0.0 469 29,535 0.0 0.0 Triple bagsfor cowpea grain preservation 2.6 0.0 5.2 469 29,535 16.0 1.3 1.7 Other post-harvest practicesthatreduce pre-storage losses 0.3 -0.1 0.7 469 29,535 5.3 0.2 0.8 Other improved practices/technologies Performing atleastthreeweedings 10.3 3.6 17.0 596 36,774 30.4 3.3 2.6 Millet Crop genetics practices/technologies Use of improved seeds 0.3 -0.3 0.9 677 41,678 5.3 0.3 1.4 Cultural practices/technologies Control ofsida cordifolia growth 1.1 0.2 1.9 677 41,678 10.2 0.4 1.0 Crop association 33.0 18.9 47.2 677 41,678 47.1 6.9 3.8 Crop rotation 1.2 0.1 2.2 677 41,678 10.7 0.5 1.3 Sowing after useful rain 20.3 10.8 29.9 677 41,678 40.3 4.6 3.0 Improved natural resources or ecosystem management practices/technologies Farmermanaged natural regeneration (fmnr) 36.0 23.1 48.9 677 41,678 48.0 6.2 3.4 Delimitation of animal corridors and pasture areas 24.5 17.7 31.3 677 41,678 43.1 3.3 2.0 Protection of ponds againstsilting up 8.0 4.2 11.7 677 41,678 27.1 1.8 1.8 Functional community-based conflict management mechanisms 1.4 0.2 2.6 677 41,678 11.8 0.6 1.3 Improved pest and disease management practices/technologies Delay of seedlings at third or fourth rains to control pests 0.0 677 41,678 0.0 0.0 Seed treatment with fungicides 8.3 3.5 13.0 677 41,678 27.6 2.3 2.2 Improved soil-related fertility and conservation practices/technologies Zai pits 1.7 -0.3 3.8 677 41,678 13.0 1.0 2.0 Organic manure 57.5 44.4 70.6 677 41,678 49.5 6.3 3.3 Phosphatic manure 7.1 3.8 10.3 677 41,678 25.6 1.6 1.6 Compost 8.0 1.0 14.9 677 41,678 27.1 3.4 3.2 Microdoses of fertilizer 0.8 0.0 1.7 677 41,678 9.0 0.4 1.2 Improved agriculture water management non-irrigation-based practices/technologies Agricultural half-moons 0.3 -0.2 0.7 677 41,678 5.2 0.2 1.1 Improved climate adaptation/climate risk management practices/technologies Use of climate information (rain forecast, disaster risks, etc.) 0.0 677 41,678 0.0 0.0 Improved post-harvest handling and storage practices/technologies Locally made storage structuressuch as sheet metal silos 30.4 16.6 44.3 590 37,128 46.0 6.7 3.5 Sealed/airtight bags 6.6 4.4 8.9 590 37,128 24.9 1.1 1.1 Community storage facilities, including warehouse receipting 4.4 1.2 7.6 590 37,128 20.5 1.6 1.8 Use ofsolar or fuel-powered dryersto reduce post-harvest moisture 0.0 590 37,128 0.0 0.0 Seed or grain treatment techniquesincluding botanical pest control agents or phytosanitary irradiation 0.0 590 37,128 0.0 0.0 Grain treatment with agro-chemicals 0.2 -0.2 0.7 590 37,128 4.7 0.2 1.1 Triple bagsfor cowpea grain preservation 2.9 0.7 5.2 590 37,128 16.9 1.1 1.6 Other post-harvest practicesthatreduce pre-storage losses 0.3 -0.2 0.8 590 37,128 5.7 0.2 1.0 Other improved practices/technologies Performing atleastthreeweedings 12.2 4.6 19.8 677 41,678 32.7 3.7 2.9 Cowpeas Crop genetics practices/technologies Use of improved seeds 0.4 -0.1 0.9 712 43,429 6.3 0.3 1.1 Cultural practices/technologies Control ofsida cordifolia growth 0.5 -0.1 1.0 712 43,429 6.8 0.3 1.1 Crop association 31.3 17.6 45.0 712 43,429 46.4 6.6 3.8 Crop rotation 0.9 0.2 1.6 712 43,429 9.3 0.3 1.0 Sowing after useful rain 20.7 10.1 31.4 712 43,429 40.6 5.2 3.4 Improved natural resources or ecosystem management practices/technologies Farmermanaged natural regeneration (fmnr) 37.0 24.0 50.1 712 43,429 48.3 6.3 3.5 Delimitation of animal corridors and pasture areas 24.2 16.9 31.4 712 43,429 42.8 3.5 2.2 Protection of ponds againstsilting up 7.8 4.0 11.6 712 43,429 26.8 1.8 1.8 Functional community-based conflict management mechanisms 1.6 0.0 3.2 712 43,429 12.6 0.8 1.6 Improved pest and disease management practices/technologies Delay of seedlings at third or fourth rains to control pests 0.5 -0.1 1.0 712 43,429 6.8 0.3 1.0 Seed treatment with fungicides 7.8 3.4 12.2 712 43,429 26.8 2.1 2.1 Improved soil-related fertility and conservation practices/technologies Zai pits 1.0 -0.4 2.5 712 43,429 10.2 0.7 1.8 Organic manure 57.8 45.0 70.6 712 43,429 49.4 6.2 3.3 Phosphatic manure 7.4 4.3 10.6 712 43,429 26.3 1.5 1.5 Compost 7.0 1.0 13.0 712 43,429 25.5 2.9 3.0 Microdoses of fertilizer 1.3 0.2 2.4 712 43,429 11.2 0.5 1.3 Improved agriculture water management non-irrigation-based practices/technologies Agricultural half-moons 0.3 -0.1 0.8 712 43,429 5.9 0.2 1.1 IMPEL | Implementer-Led Evaluation and Learning 42 Annex 4: Summary of Data Treatment and Analysis Table A5. BHANiger Baseline Indicators-Wadata Indicators, 95% Confidence Intervals and Base Population [Niger, 2020] Confidence Interval Indicator Value Lower Upper Number of Records Weighted Population Standard Deviation Standard Error DEFT Improved climate adaptation/climate risk management practices/technologies Use of climate information (rain forecast, disaster risks, etc.) 0.0 712 43,429 0.0 0.0 Improved post-harvest handling and storage practices/technologies Locally made storage structuressuch as sheet metal silos 13.1 7.8 18.3 637 39,535 33.7 2.5 1.9 Sealed/airtight bags 8.7 5.6 11.7 637 39,535 28.2 1.5 1.3 Community storage facilities, including warehouse receipting 3.4 0.6 6.2 637 39,535 18.2 1.3 1.9 Use ofsolar or fuel-powered dryersto reduce post-harvest moisture 0.4 -0.2 1.0 637 39,535 6.1 0.3 1.2 Seed or grain treatment techniquesincluding botanical pest control agents or phytosanitary irradiation 0.0 637 39,535 0.0 0.0 Grain treatment with agro-chemicals 1.9 -0.8 4.5 637 39,535 13.5 1.3 2.4 Triple bagsfor cowpea grain preservation 4.4 1.6 7.3 637 39,535 20.6 1.4 1.7 Other post-harvest practicesthatreduce pre-storage losses 2.2 0.8 3.6 637 39,535 14.7 0.7 1.2 Other improved practices/technologies Performing atleastthreeweedings 12.8 5.0 20.7 712 43,429 33.5 3.8 3.0 Peanuts(groundnuts) Crop genetics practices/technologies Use of improved seeds 2.1 -0.7 4.9 117 7,391 14.3 1.3 1.0 Cultural practices/technologies Control ofsida cordifolia growth 2.2 -0.2 4.5 117 7,391 14.7 1.1 0.8 Crop association 17.8 6.2 29.5 117 7,391 38.4 5.5 1.6 Crop rotation 1.1 -1.0 3.2 117 7,391 10.5 1.0 1.0 Sowing after useful rain 20.2 2.6 37.8 117 7,391 40.3 8.4 2.2 Improved natural resources or ecosystem management practices/technologies Farmermanaged natural regeneration (fmnr) 46.6 33.1 60.0 117 7,391 50.1 6.4 1.4 Delimitation of animal corridors and pasture areas 45.1 28.7 61.5 117 7,391 50.0 7.8 1.7 Protection of ponds againstsilting up 23.6 11.1 36.1 117 7,391 42.6 6.0 1.5 Functional community-based conflict management mechanisms 1.7 -0.9 4.4 117 7,391 13.1 1.3 1.0 Improved pest and disease management practices/technologies Delay of seedlings at third or fourth rains to control pests 0.0 117 7,391 0.0 0.0 Seed treatment with fungicides 2.2 -1.0 5.3 117 7,391 14.6 1.5 1.1 Improved soil-related fertility and conservation practices/technologies Zai pits 2.6 -2.5 7.6 117 7,391 15.9 2.4 1.6 Organic manure 84.5 73.6 95.4 117 7,391 36.4 5.2 1.5 Phosphatic manure 8.7 2.4 14.9 117 7,391 28.3 3.0 1.1 Compost 3.1 -0.2 6.3 117 7,391 17.3 1.6 1.0 Microdoses of fertilizer 1.8 -1.1 4.6 117 7,391 13.3 1.4 1.1 Improved agriculture water management non-irrigation-based practices/technologies Agricultural half-moons 1.3 -1.2 3.8 117 7,391 11.3 1.2 1.1 Improved climate adaptation/climate risk management practices/technologies Use of climate information (rain forecast, disaster risks, etc.) 0.0 117 7,391 0.0 0.0 Improved post-harvest handling and storage practices/technologies Locally made storage structuressuch as sheet metal silos 4.1 -0.4 8.6 97 6,283 19.9 2.1 1.1 Sealed/airtight bags 5.9 0.8 10.9 97 6,283 23.6 2.4 1.0 Community storage facilities, including warehouse receipting 10.5 0.0 21.0 97 6,283 30.8 5.0 1.6 Use ofsolar or fuel-powered dryersto reduce post-harvest moisture 1.2 -1.2 3.5 97 6,283 10.7 1.1 1.0 Seed or grain treatmenttechniquesincluding botanical pest control agents or phytosanitary irradiation 1.3 -1.1 3.7 97 6,283 11.4 1.2 1.0 Grain treatment with agro-chemicals 0.0 97 6,283 0.0 0.0 Triple bagsfor cowpea grain preservation 0.0 97 6,283 0.0 0.0 Other post-harvest practicesthatreduce pre-storage losses 0.0 97 6,283 0.0 0.0 Other improved practices/technologies Performing atleastthreeweedings 2.4 -0.4 5.2 117 7,391 15.3 1.3 0.9 Goats Improved fodder production 6.8 2.1 11.5 260 16,281 25.2 2.3 1.5 Use of licking and/or multi-nutritional block 13.1 4.5 21.7 260 16,281 33.8 4.2 2.0 Animalselection 8.7 4.0 13.4 260 16,281 28.2 2.3 1.3 Vaccinations 17.3 10.3 24.2 260 16,281 37.9 3.4 1.4 Antiparasitic treatments 26.6 16.1 37.0 260 16,281 44.3 5.1 1.8 Veterinary monitoring of food quality and quantity overtime 1.8 0.0 3.6 260 16,281 13.4 0.9 1.1 Weight monitoring 0.3 -0.3 0.8 260 16,281 5.2 0.3 0.8 Optimum weight-market price criteria forthe sale decision 0.0 260 16,281 0.0 0.0 Use of para-veterinary services for goats and sheep 0.8 -0.3 1.9 260 16,281 9.0 0.5 1.0 Sheep Improved fodder production 7.4 0.7 14.1 111 7,094 26.3 3.2 1.3 Use of licking and/or multi-nutritional block 12.5 4.2 20.8 111 7,094 33.2 4.0 1.3 Animalselection 10.5 2.4 18.7 111 7,094 30.8 3.9 1.3 Vaccinations 20.1 9.8 30.4 111 7,094 40.3 5.0 1.3 Antiparasitic treatments 29.6 19.0 40.1 111 7,094 45.8 5.1 1.2 Veterinary monitoring of food quality and quantity overtime 0.8 -0.8 2.5 111 7,094 9.1 0.8 0.9 Weight monitoring 0.0 111 7,094 0.0 0.0 Optimum weight-market price criteria forthe sale decision 0.0 111 7,094 0.0 0.0 Use of para-veterinary services for goats and sheep 0.8 -0.8 2.5 111 7,094 9.1 0.8 0.9 Poultry Use of improved poultry variety/breed 8.6 1.0 16.2 146 9,787 28.1 3.7 1.6 Use of improved feed 7.2 1.0 13.5 146 9,787 26.0 3.0 1.4 Baseline Study of the RFSAs in Niger: Final Report (Vol. I) Annex 4: Summary of Data Treatment and Analysis 43 Table A5. BHANiger Baseline Indicators-Wadata Indicators, 95% Confidence Intervals and Base Population [Niger, 2020] Confidence Interval Indicator Value Lower Upper Number of Records Weighted Population Standard Deviation Standard Error DEFT Use of improved shelters 5.5 0.3 10.8 146 9,787 22.9 2.5 1.3 Vaccinations 3.5 0.4 6.6 146 9,787 18.4 1.5 1.0 Use of veterinary products and services (antibiotics, vitamins, etc.) 5.9 0.5 11.2 146 9,787 23.6 2.6 1.3 WOMEN'S HEALTH AND NUTRITIONINDICATORS Percentage of women of reproductive age consuming a diet of minimum diversity (MDD-W) 38.9 30.7 47.1 747 45,600 48.8 4.0 2.2 15-19 years 43.2 31.3 55.1 197 11,694 50.3 5.8 1.6 20-49 years 37.4 29.6 45.3 550 33,906 48.2 3.8 1.9 Percent of births receiving at least 4 antenatal care (ANC) visits during pregnancy 36.3 30.2 42.4 448 27,319 48.1 3.0 1.3 Contraceptive prevalence rate (CPR) 14.1 7.4 20.8 488 30,305 34.9 3.3 2.1 Modern 13.8 7.2 20.4 488 30,305 34.5 3.2 2.0 Traditional 0.3 -0.2 0.8 488 30,305 5.8 0.2 0.9 Percent of women in union who have knowledge of modern family planning methods that can be used to delay or avoid pregnancy 61.2 51.5 70.9 594 36,665 48.8 4.7 2.4 15-19 years 47.7 34.0 61.4 94 5,804 50.2 6.6 1.3 20-29 years 60.5 48.4 72.5 265 16,230 49.0 5.8 1.9 30-49 years 67.4 59.5 75.2 235 14,631 47.0 3.8 1.2 Percent of women in union who made decisions about modern family planning methodsin the past 12 months 68.1 52.7 83.5 93 5,054 46.9 7.4 1.5 Decision Actors Alone 32.5 22.3 42.8 93 5,054 47.1 4.9 1.0 Jointly 35.6 19.2 51.9 93 5,054 48.1 7.9 1.6 Age 15-19 years ^ ^ ^ 10 540 ^ ^ ^ 20-29 years 68.7 49.8 87.6 54 2,736 46.8 8.9 1.4 30-49 years ^ ^ ^ 29 1,778 ^ ^ ^ CHILDREN'S HEALTH AND NUTRITION INDICATORS Percentage of children 6-23 months consuming a diet of minimum dietary diversity (MDD-C) 46.3 34.2 58.5 216 12,669 50.0 5.9 1.7 Male 45.3 33.6 56.9 119 6,731 51.2 5.6 1.2 Female 47.5 32.0 63.0 97 5,938 48.5 7.5 1.5 Percentage of children under age 5 with diarrhea in the lasttwo weeks(Total) 37.7 32.2 43.3 820 48,218 48.5 2.7 1.6 Male 41.2 33.2 49.1 409 23,266 50.1 3.8 1.6 Female 34.5 29.4 39.7 411 24,952 46.8 2.5 1.1 Percentage of children under age 5 with diarrhea treatedwithORT (Total) 44.6 35.3 54.0 295 18,198 49.8 4.5 1.6 Male 43.4 32.2 54.7 155 9,578 49.3 5.4 1.4 Female 45.9 34.2 57.6 140 8,620 48.4 5.7 1.4 GENDER - CASH Percent of women/men in union who earned cash in the past 12 months Male 47.6 37.2 58.0 654 43,111 50.0 5.0 2.6 15-19 years 12 939 20-29 years 42.4 28.1 56.6 122 8,123 49.2 6.9 1.5 30-49 years 51.1 39.8 62.4 348 23,153 49.8 5.5 2.0 ≥50 years 45.2 34.6 55.7 172 10,896 50.8 5.1 1.3 Female 21.4 14.2 28.7 772 49,698 41.1 3.5 2.4 15-19 years 8.2 2.3 14.0 120 7,915 27.1 2.8 1.2 20-29 years 22.1 13.4 30.9 286 18,391 41.6 4.2 1.7 30-49 years 23.6 15.6 31.6 251 16,456 42.1 3.9 1.5 ≥50 years 29.6 19.1 40.1 115 6,936 47.2 5.1 1.2 Percent of women in union and earning cash who report participation in decisions about the use of self-earned cash NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA 15-19 years NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA 20-29 years NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA 30-49 years NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA ≥50 years NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA Percent of women in union and earning cash who report participation in decisions about the use of spouse/partner'sself-earned cash NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA 15-19 years NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA 20-29 years NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA 30-49 years NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA ≥50 years NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA Percent of men in union and earning cash who reportspouse/partner participation in decisions about the use of self-earned cash NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA 15-19 years NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA 20-29 years NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA 30-49 years NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA ≥50 years NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA GENDER - CREDIT AND GROUP PARTICIPATION Percent of women/men who are members of a community group Male 48.7 40.0 57.3 478 34,449 50.0 4.2 1.8 15-19 years ^ ^ ^ 2 121 ^ ^ ^ 20-29 years 53.8 39.4 68.1 76 5,450 50.0 7.0 1.2 30-49 years 46.1 36.6 55.6 270 19,824 49.4 4.6 1.5 ≥50 years 51.3 40.6 62.0 130 9,054 50.9 5.2 1.2 Female 33.8 24.6 42.9 604 36,011 47.3 4.4 2.3 15-19 years 36.0 24.3 47.7 90 5,396 47.9 5.7 1.1 20-29 years 33.8 24.8 42.9 246 14,802 47.1 4.4 1.5 30-49 years 30.1 16.8 43.4 195 11,692 45.8 6.4 2.0 ≥50 years 41.0 27.3 54.7 73 4,121 50.6 6.6 1.1 Percent of women/men in a union with accessto credit Male 70.3 63.0 77.5 478 34,449 45.8 3.5 1.7 15-19 years ^ ^ ^ 2 121 ^ ^ ^ IMPEL | Implementer-Led Evaluation and Learning 44 Annex 4: Summary of Data Treatment and Analysis Table A5. BHANiger Baseline Indicators-Wadata Indicators, 95% Confidence Intervals and Base Population [Niger, 2020] Confidence Interval Indicator Value Lower Upper Number of Records Weighted Population Standard Deviation Standard Error DEFT 20-29 years 67.6 58.7 76.5 76 5,450 47.0 4.3 0.8 30-49 years 70.3 60.4 80.1 270 19,824 45.3 4.8 1.7 ≥50 years 71.4 63.4 79.4 130 9,054 46.0 3.9 1.0 Female 61.9 54.9 68.8 604 36,011 48.6 3.4 1.7 15-19 years 44.4 33.3 55.6 90 5,396 49.6 5.4 1.0 20-29 years 66.2 57.6 74.7 246 14,802 47.1 4.1 1.4 30-49 years 64.0 53.0 74.9 195 11,692 47.9 5.3 1.5 ≥50 years 63.4 52.0 74.8 73 4,121 49.5 5.5 1.0 Percent of men in a union who make decisions about credit 85.8 78.1 93.5 330 24,203 34.9 3.7 1.9 Decision Actors Alone 56.6 47.3 65.8 330 24,203 49.6 4.5 1.6 Jointly 29.3 23.9 34.6 330 24,203 45.6 2.6 1.0 Age 15-19 years ^ ^ ^ 2 121 ^ ^ ^ 20-29 years 74.0 56.5 91.6 50 3,684 44.3 8.4 1.3 30-49 years 88.2 80.5 96.0 188 13,930 32.3 3.8 1.6 ≥50 years 87.0 76.6 97.4 90 6,467 33.8 5.0 1.4 Percent of women in a union who make decisions about credit 62.6 55.5 69.6 367 22,284 48.5 3.4 1.4 Decision Actors Alone 33.7 27.3 40.0 367 22,284 47.3 3.1 1.2 Jointly 28.9 24.2 33.7 367 22,284 45.4 2.3 1.0 Age 15-19 years 45.6 25.0 66.2 39 2,398 50.5 9.8 1.2 20-29 years 61.6 50.3 72.9 159 9,794 48.8 5.5 1.4 30-49 years 65.6 58.0 73.2 123 7,479 47.7 3.7 0.9 ≥50 years 73.1 59.9 86.4 46 2,612 44.8 6.3 1.0 RESILIENCE-RELATED Proportion of households that believe local government will respond effectively to future shocks and stresses 55.6 50.7 60.6 735 41,354 49.7 2.4 1.3 Male and female adults 55.1 49.1 61.0 576 32,461 49.7 2.9 1.4 Adult female, no adult male 55.2 43.3 67.1 98 5,324 50.7 5.8 1.1 Adult male, no adult female 64.3 49.4 79.2 58 3,358 47.3 7.2 1.2 Child, no adults ^ ^ ^ 3 211 ^ ^ ^ Index of social capital at the household level (overall index) 57.5 53.4 61.5 735 41,354 37.5 2.0 1.4 Male and female adults 57.8 53.2 62.5 576 32,461 37.5 2.2 1.4 Adult female, no adult male 54.5 44.4 64.7 98 5,324 39.5 4.9 1.2 Adult male, no adult female 60.2 50.5 69.9 58 3,358 34.4 4.7 1.0 Child, no adults ^ ^ ^ 3 211 ^ ^ ^ Component Bonding sub-index 65.0 60.8 69.2 735 41,354 40.1 2.0 1.4 Bridging sub-index 49.9 45.2 54.6 735 41,354 40.9 2.3 1.5 Proportion of households participating in group-based savings, micro-finance orlending programs 2.8 0.7 4.9 735 41,354 16.5 1.0 1.6 Male and female adults 2.6 0.6 4.6 576 32,461 15.9 1.0 1.4 Adult female, no adult male 5.2 0.1 10.3 98 5,324 22.7 2.5 1.1 Adult male, no adult female 1.1 -1.2 3.4 58 3,358 10.3 1.1 0.8 Child, no adults ^ ^ ^ 3 211 ^ ^ ^ Financing type Savings 2.0 0.4 3.6 735 41,354 13.9 0.8 1.5 Credit 1.7 0.4 3.0 735 41,354 12.9 0.6 1.3 NA : Not available ^ Results not statistically reliable, n<30. NOTES: 1 Number of records for improved storage practices may differ from that of other improved agricultural practices because questions on the use of improved practices were generally asked as part of the main agriculture module while questions on the use of improved storage practices were asked seperately as part of the module on crop yield. The numbers of responding farmers differ across the two modules. Table 14: A5 BHA Niger Baseline Indicators - Comparison Across RFSA Areas Table A5 BHA Niger Baseline Indicators - Comparison Across RFSA Areas Indicators, 95% Confidence Intervals and Base Population [Niger, 2020] BASELINE INDICATOR VALUES ALL GIRMA HAMZARI WADATA FOOD SECURITY INDICATORS Percentage of households with poorfood consumption score (FCS) 5.7 5.8 8.0 3.8 Male and female adults 5.6 5.9 7.3 3.2 Adult female, no adult male 8.3 7.1 20.6 7.8 Adult male, no adult female 2.7 1.6 ^ 3.1 Child, no adults ^ ^ ^ ^ Percentage of households with borderline FCS 16.1 18.5 15.5 10.4 Male and female adults 15.3 17.6 15.3 9.1 Adult female, no adult male 18.0 19.2 18.6 15.5 Adult male, no adult female 23.0 28.9 ^ 14.5 Baseline Study of the RFSAs in Niger: Final Report (Vol. I) Annex 4: Summary of Data Treatment and Analysis 45 Table A5 BHA Niger Baseline Indicators - Comparison Across RFSA Areas Indicators, 95% Confidence Intervals and Base Population [Niger, 2020] BASELINE INDICATOR VALUES ALL GIRMA HAMZARI WADATA Child, no adults ^ ^ ^ ^ Percentage of households with acceptable FCS 78.3 75.6 76.5 85.9 Male and female adults 79.2 76.4 77.4 87.7 Adult female, no adult male 73.7 73.7 60.8 76.7 Adult male, no adult female 74.3 69.5 ^ 82.4 Child, no adults ^ ^ ^ ^ Food consumption score (0-112) 50.8 48.3 51.5 56.2 Male and female adults 51.2 48.4 52.1 57.7 Adult female, no adult male 47.9 46.5 42.9 52.2 Adult male, no adult female 50.3 51.8 ^ 48.7 Child, no adults ^ ^ ^ ^ WASH INDICATORS Percentage of households using a basic waterservice NA NA NA NA Distance/Time from service NA NA NA NA On premises NA NA NA NA ≤ 30-minute roundtrip NA NA NA NA Gendered household type NA NA NA NA Male and female adults NA NA NA NA Adult female, no adult male NA NA NA NA Adult male, no adult female NA NA NA NA Child, no adults NA NA NA NA Percentage of households with accessto a basic sanitation facility 5.9 4.5 13.0 4.4 Male and female adults 6.5 5.1 13.1 4.6 Adult female, no adult male 3.2 1.6 ^ 5.2 Adult male, no adult female 2.0 0.7 ^ 0.5 Child, no adults ^ ^ ^ ^ Percentage of households with soap/ash and water at a handwashing station on premises 12.1 8.9 40.6 18.2 Male and female adults 12.2 8.7 39.8 19.5 Adult female, no adult male 8.8 6.8 ^ 11.2 Adult male, no adult female 16.9 17.6 ^ 15.0 Child, no adults ^ ^ ^ ^ AGRICULTURAL INDICATORS Percentage of farmers who used financialservices in the past 12 months 32.0 36.6 23.0 25.8 Male 36.5 41.2 28.7 30.0 Female 27.1 31.9 17.2 20.1 Percentage of farmers who used improved storage practicesin the past 12 months 36.1 27.5 58.3 43.2 Male 42.3 33.8 66.8 45.0 Female 26.8 18.5 43.2 40.5 Proportion of producers who have applied targeted improved management practices ortechnologies Sorghum Crop genetics practices/technologies Use of improved seeds 7.7 8.7 12.6 0.6 Cultural practices/technologies Control of sida cordifolia growth 12.2 14.2 18.9 0.5 Crop association 49.0 48.6 74.1 28.9 Crop rotation 1.6 1.4 3.6 0.5 Sowing after useful rain 33.8 37.1 39.4 19.0 Improved natural resources or ecosystem management practices/technologies Farmer managed natural regeneration (fmnr) 37.4 42.4 19.3 36.8 Delimitation of animal corridors and pasture areas 35.2 38.8 33.3 25.5 Protection of ponds againstsilting up 6.9 5.8 9.5 7.9 Functional community-based conflict management mechanisms 3.7 4.6 2.7 1.7 Improved pest and disease management practices/technologies Delay of seedlings at third or fourth rains to control pests 5.9 7.0 8.9 0.2 Seed treatment with fungicides 5.1 1.8 13.5 8.2 Improved soil-related fertility and conservation practices/technologies Zai pits 6.1 6.0 12.2 1.5 IMPEL | Implementer-Led Evaluation and Learning 46 Annex 4: Summary of Data Treatment and Analysis Table A5 BHA Niger Baseline Indicators - Comparison Across RFSA Areas Indicators, 95% Confidence Intervals and Base Population [Niger, 2020] BASELINE INDICATOR VALUES ALL GIRMA HAMZARI WADATA Organic manure 64.4 65.4 66.0 59.9 Phosphatic manure 8.4 8.4 9.9 7.0 Compost 23.7 27.6 29.1 7.2 Microdoses of fertilizer 2.9 2.8 5.4 1.2 Improved agriculture water management non-irrigation-based practices/technologies Agricultural half-moons 1.4 1.5 2.0 0.5 Improved climate adaptation/climate risk management practices/technologies Use of climate information (rain forecast, disaster risks, etc.) 0.9 0.8 2.0 0.0 Improved post-harvest handling and storage practices/technologies Locallymade storage structures such assheet metalsilos 13.2 2.4 37.1 32.3 Sealed/airtight bags 4.7 3.0 10.0 6.4 Community storage facilities, including warehouse receipting 3.3 3.1 3.6 3.8 Use of solar orfuel-powered dryersto reduce post-harvest moisture 0.2 0.1 0.3 0.4 Seed or grain treatment techniquesincluding botanical pest control agents or phytosanitary irradiation 0.3 0.5 0.0 0.0 Grain treatment with agro-chemicals 0.7 0.9 0.7 0.0 Triple bagsfor cowpea grain preservation 0.5 0.0 0.4 2.6 Other post-harvest practicesthat reduce pre-storage losses 2.6 3.0 3.6 0.3 Other improved practices/technologies Performing at least three weedings 30.4 35.8 34.2 10.3 Millet Crop genetics practices/technologies Use of improved seeds 7.6 8.6 11.7 0.3 Cultural practices/technologies Control of sida cordifolia growth 12.7 14.5 18.9 1.1 Crop association 49.0 48.2 68.7 33.0 Crop rotation 2.4 1.4 7.1 1.2 Sowing after useful rain 34.4 36.6 41.6 20.3 Improved natural resources or ecosystem management practices/technologies Farmer managed natural regeneration (fmnr) 37.2 42.9 18.7 36.0 Delimitation of animal corridors and pasture areas 33.1 36.5 30.4 24.5 Protection of ponds againstsilting up 6.4 5.4 8.4 8.0 Functional community-based conflict management mechanisms 3.4 4.3 2.2 1.4 Improved pest and disease management practices/technologies Delay of seedlings at third or fourth rains to control pests 5.1 5.9 7.5 0.0 Seed treatment with fungicides 5.0 2.1 11.3 8.3 Improved soil-related fertility and conservation practices/technologies Zai pits 5.8 5.1 12.8 1.7 Organic manure 60.5 61.1 61.5 57.5 Phosphatic manure 9.5 8.8 14.5 7.1 Compost 24.9 27.3 34.3 8.0 Microdoses of fertilizer 2.9 2.3 6.9 0.8 Improved agriculture water management non-irrigation-based practices/technologies Agricultural half-moons 1.2 1.3 1.9 0.3 Improved climate adaptation/climate risk management practices/technologies Use of climate information (rain forecast, disaster risks, etc.) 0.7 0.7 1.3 0.0 Improved post-harvest handling and storage practices/technologies Locallymade storage structures such assheet metalsilos 15.1 3.7 40.5 30.4 Sealed/airtight bags 3.8 2.0 7.7 6.6 Community storage facilities, including warehouse receipting 6.0 6.6 5.5 4.4 Use of solar orfuel-powered dryersto reduce post-harvest moisture 0.4 0.5 0.5 0.0 Seed or grain treatment techniquesincluding botanical pest control agents or phytosanitary irradiation 0.2 0.2 0.3 0.0 Grain treatment with agro-chemicals 0.7 0.9 0.7 0.2 Triple bagsfor cowpea grain preservation 0.8 0.1 1.2 2.9 Other post-harvest practicesthat reduce pre-storage losses 3.1 3.9 3.2 0.3 Baseline Study of the RFSAs in Niger: Final Report (Vol. I) Annex 4: Summary of Data Treatment and Analysis 47 Table A5 BHA Niger Baseline Indicators - Comparison Across RFSA Areas Indicators, 95% Confidence Intervals and Base Population [Niger, 2020] BASELINE INDICATOR VALUES ALL GIRMA HAMZARI WADATA Other improved practices/technologies Performing at least three weedings 30.9 35.1 36.2 12.2 Cowpeas Crop genetics practices/technologies Use of improved seeds 8.4 9.9 12.4 0.4 Cultural practices/technologies Control of sida cordifolia growth 12.4 14.1 20.1 0.5 Crop association 49.0 48.9 71.1 31.3 Crop rotation 1.9 1.2 5.7 0.9 Sowing after useful rain 33.4 35.4 41.1 20.7 Improved natural resources or ecosystem management practices/technologies Farmer managed natural regeneration (fmnr) 37.6 42.5 18.8 37.0 Delimitation of animal corridors and pasture areas 33.1 36.5 30.8 24.2 Protection of ponds againstsilting up 6.3 5.2 8.9 7.8 Functional community-based conflict management mechanisms 3.6 4.4 2.6 1.6 Improved pest and disease management practices/technologies Delay of seedlings at third or fourth rains to control pests 6.8 7.5 11.9 0.5 Seed treatment with fungicides 5.1 2.1 13.5 7.8 Improved soil-related fertility and conservation practices/technologies Zai pits 5.2 4.0 15.2 1.0 Organic manure 59.8 60.0 61.5 57.8 Phosphatic manure 9.6 8.7 15.7 7.4 Compost 23.4 25.8 34.5 7.0 Microdoses of fertilizer 2.6 2.2 5.9 1.3 Improved agriculture water management non-irrigation-based practices/technologies Agricultural half-moons 1.6 2.0 1.7 0.3 Improved climate adaptation/climate risk management practices/technologies Use of climate information (rain forecast, disaster risks, etc.) 0.5 0.5 1.5 0.0 Improved post-harvest handling and storage practices/technologies Locallymade storage structures such assheet metalsilos 4.7 1.7 7.1 13.1 Sealed/airtight bags 8.4 4.0 28.9 8.7 Community storage facilities, including warehouse receipting 1.8 0.7 5.2 3.4 Use of solar orfuel-powered dryersto reduce post-harvest moisture 0.3 0.3 0.5 0.4 Seed or grain treatment techniquesincluding botanical pest control agents or phytosanitary irradiation 1.0 1.3 1.0 0.0 Grain treatment with agro-chemicals 2.0 1.4 5.1 1.9 Triple bagsfor cowpea grain preservation 3.3 1.1 11.8 4.4 Other post-harvest practicesthat reduce pre-storage losses 7.2 9.7 2.5 2.2 Other improved practices/technologies Performing at least three weedings 29.9 33.3 37.4 12.8 Peanuts (groundnuts) Crop genetics practices/technologies Use of improved seeds 10.4 9.9 14.6 2.1 Cultural practices/technologies Control of sida cordifolia growth 13.6 12.3 21.5 2.2 Crop association 48.4 44.8 69.9 17.8 Crop rotation 2.4 1.0 7.2 1.1 Sowing after useful rain 33.2 31.3 43.2 20.2 Improved natural resources or ecosystem management practices/technologies Farmer managed natural regeneration (fmnr) 40.0 46.0 18.5 46.6 Delimitation of animal corridors and pasture areas 37.8 38.6 32.6 45.1 Protection of ponds againstsilting up 8.2 6.3 9.3 23.6 Functional community-based conflict management mechanisms 5.2 6.2 3.4 1.7 Improved pest and disease management practices/technologies Delay of seedlings at third or fourth rains to control pests 10.6 12.0 9.6 0.0 IMPEL | Implementer-Led Evaluation and Learning 48 Annex 4: Summary of Data Treatment and Analysis Table A5 BHA Niger Baseline Indicators - Comparison Across RFSA Areas Indicators, 95% Confidence Intervals and Base Population [Niger, 2020] BASELINE INDICATOR VALUES ALL GIRMA HAMZARI WADATA Seed treatment with fungicides 5.1 2.2 15.6 2.2 Improved soil-related fertility and conservation practices/technologies Zai pits 6.2 4.3 13.3 2.6 Organic manure 67.5 65.5 68.5 84.5 Phosphatic manure 11.0 9.3 17.2 8.7 Compost 27.3 27.2 35.4 3.1 Microdoses of fertilizer 3.2 2.5 6.1 1.8 Improved agriculture water management non-irrigation-based practices/technologies Agricultural half-moons 1.7 1.8 1.8 1.3 Improved climate adaptation/climate risk management practices/technologies Use of climate information (rain forecast, disaster risks, etc.) 0.4 0.0 1.9 0.0 Improved post-harvest handling and storage practices/technologies Locallymade storage structures such assheet metalsilos 3.5 2.2 8.0 4.1 Sealed/airtight bags 17.0 12.8 35.4 5.9 Community storage facilities, including warehouse receipting 2.1 0.9 4.0 10.5 Use of solar orfuel-powered dryersto reduce post-harvest moisture 0.7 0.7 0.3 1.2 Seed or grain treatment techniquesincluding botanical pest control agents or phytosanitary irradiation 0.5 0.3 0.8 1.3 Grain treatment with agro-chemicals 0.5 0.5 0.7 0.0 Triple bagsfor cowpea grain preservation 2.4 1.1 7.8 0.0 Other post-harvest practicesthat reduce pre-storage losses 5.0 6.1 2.7 0.0 Other improved practices/technologies Performing at least three weedings 25.7 24.4 37.7 2.4 Goats Improved fodder production 9.3 11.0 4.6 6.8 Use of licking and/or multi-nutritional block 7.5 7.4 3.9 13.1 Animalselection 10.8 12.2 7.0 8.7 Vaccinations 36.6 37.5 48.2 17.3 Antiparasitic treatments 35.7 38.2 33.8 26.6 Veterinary monitoring of food quality and quantity over time 1.5 1.2 2.2 1.8 Weight monitoring 3.4 4.0 3.3 0.3 Optimum weight-market price criteria forthe sale decision 0.5 0.3 1.5 0.0 Use of para-veterinary servicesfor goats and sheep 4.9 6.5 2.1 0.8 Sheep Improved fodder production 9.6 11.5 5.4 7.4 Use of licking and/or multi-nutritional block 7.6 7.4 4.8 12.5 Animalselection 13.6 16.7 5.9 10.5 Vaccinations 38.0 37.8 51.9 20.1 Antiparasitic treatments 39.2 43.2 33.8 29.6 Veterinary monitoring of food quality and quantity over time 2.4 2.3 4.1 0.8 Weight monitoring 3.0 3.5 3.6 0.0 Optimum weight-market price criteria forthe sale decision 0.1 0.0 0.3 0.0 Use of para-veterinary servicesfor goats and sheep 8.3 11.7 2.9 0.8 Poultry Use of improved poultry variety/breed 10.3 11.2 8.8 8.6 Use of improved feed 9.7 10.7 8.6 7.2 Use of improved shelters 9.6 10.7 11.1 5.5 Vaccinations 17.4 18.8 30.7 3.5 Use of veterinary products and services(antibiotics, vitamins, etc.) 9.8 9.8 15.5 5.9 WOMEN'S HEALTHAND NUTRITION INDICATORS Percentage of women of reproductive age consuming a diet of minimum diversity (MDD-W) 44.5 44.5 49.8 38.9 15-19 years 48.5 52.2 47.5 43.2 20-49 years 43.4 42.7 50.5 37.4 Percent of births receiving at least 4 antenatal care (ANC) visits during pregnancy 47.8 48.4 56.9 36.3 Contraceptive prevalence rate (CPR) 16.2 14.8 21.8 14.1 Baseline Study of the RFSAs in Niger: Final Report (Vol. I) Annex 4: Summary of Data Treatment and Analysis 49 Table A5 BHA Niger Baseline Indicators - Comparison Across RFSA Areas Indicators, 95% Confidence Intervals and Base Population [Niger, 2020] BASELINE INDICATOR VALUES ALL GIRMA HAMZARI WADATA Modern 14.2 12.7 18.4 13.8 Traditional 2.3 2.5 3.6 0.3 Percent of women in union who have knowledge of modern family planning methodsthat can be used to delay or avoidpregnancy 70.0 71.6 74.5 61.2 15-19 years 59.2 63.2 62.2 47.7 20-29 years 72.2 75.3 76.9 60.5 30-49 years 71.3 70.7 75.5 67.4 Percent of women in union who made decisions about modern family planning methodsin the past 12 months 77.8 81.0 77.3 68.1 Decision Actors Alone 39.0 40.5 39.9 32.5 Jointly 38.8 40.5 37.4 35.6 Age 15-19 years 0.0 ^ ^ ^ 20-29 years 76.6 78.9 77.1 68.7 30-49 years 76.1 80.0 76.1 ^ CHILDREN'S HEALTH ANDNUTRITION INDICATORS Percentage of children 6-23 months consuming a diet of minimum dietary diversity (MDD-C) 42.9 37.8 54.6 46.3 Male 41.7 36.9 53.8 45.3 Female 44.2 38.8 55.3 47.5 Percentage of children under age 5 with diarrhea in the last two weeks (Total) 32.3 33.0 24.5 37.7 Male 33.7 34.0 25.6 41.2 Female 30.9 32.1 23.4 34.5 Percentage of children under age 5 with diarrhea treated with ORT (Total) 47.7 47.9 52.0 44.6 Male 44.6 43.5 50.7 43.4 Female 51.1 52.6 53.3 45.9 GENDER - CASH Percent of women/men in union who earned cash in the past 12 months Male 61.3 65.5 66.6 47.6 15-19 years ^ ^ ^ 0.0 20-29 years 63.6 70.8 71.3 42.4 30-49 years 67.4 74.7 68.9 51.1 ≥50 years 52.0 50.7 61.8 45.2 Female 32.8 35.6 37.5 21.4 15-19 years 18.3 24.1 16.4 8.2 20-29 years 27.8 29.2 30.8 22.1 30-49 years 41.6 45.3 47.3 23.6 ≥50 years 34.0 34.5 37.8 29.6 Percent of women in union and earning cash who report participation in decisions about the use of self-earned cash NA NA NA NA 15-19 years NA NA NA NA 20-29 years NA NA NA NA 30-49 years NA NA NA NA ≥50 years NA NA NA NA Percent of women in union and earning cash who report participation in decisions about the use ofspouse/partner's self-earned cash NA NA NA NA 15-19 years NA NA NA NA 20-29 years NA NA NA NA 30-49 years NA NA NA NA ≥50 years NA NA NA NA Percent of men in union and earning cash who reportspouse/partner participation in decisions about the use ofself-earnedcash NA NA NA NA 15-19 years NA NA NA NA 20-29 years NA NA NA NA 30-49 years NA NA NA NA ≥50 years NA NA NA NA GENDER - CREDIT ANDGROUP PARTICIPATION Percent of women/men who are members of a community group Male 58.2 62.1 58.2 48.7 15-19 years ^ ^ ^ ^ 20-29 years 52.8 51.9 55.8 53.8 30-49 years 58.1 63.4 58.5 46.1 IMPEL | Implementer-Led Evaluation and Learning 50 Annex 4: Summary of Data Treatment and Analysis Table A5 BHA Niger Baseline Indicators - Comparison Across RFSA Areas Indicators, 95% Confidence Intervals and Base Population [Niger, 2020] BASELINE INDICATOR VALUES ALL GIRMA HAMZARI WADATA ≥50 years 61.8 66.6 58.6 51.3 Female 43.5 45.9 48.0 33.8 15-19 years 37.8 37.0 42.7 36.0 20-29 years 43.5 46.2 47.6 33.8 30-49 years 45.1 47.8 52.5 30.1 ≥50 years 45.4 49.2 38.4 41.0 Percent of women/men in a union with access to credit Male 72.4 75.1 66.5 70.3 15-19 years ^ ^ ^ ^ 20-29 years 69.4 74.0 48.6 67.6 30-49 years 75.3 78.4 72.6 70.3 ≥50 years 68.9 70.1 63.5 71.4 Female 61.7 63.5 55.9 61.9 15-19 years 46.5 50.5 37.1 44.4 20-29 years 61.9 61.9 56.4 66.2 30-49 years 68.0 71.4 61.8 64.0 ≥50 years 58.6 56.7 58.1 63.4 Percent of men in a union who make decisions about credit 92.0 93.9 93.6 85.8 Decision Actors Alone 58.2 52.2 82.6 56.6 Jointly 33.8 41.7 11.0 29.3 Age 15-19 years ^ ^ ^ ^ 20-29 years 84.5 86.2 97.1 74.0 30-49 years 93.8 95.5 95.6 88.2 ≥50 years 92.9 95.8 90.4 87.0 Percent of women in a union who make decisions about credit 71.1 72.8 77.0 62.6 Decision Actors Alone 33.8 26.9 58.0 33.7 Jointly 37.3 45.9 19.0 28.9 Age 15-19 years 52.3 51.9 64.7 45.6 20-29 years 70.7 74.2 72.9 61.6 30-49 years 73.8 74.1 82.0 65.6 ≥50 years 81.8 85.6 84.3 73.1 RESILIENCE-RELATED Proportion of householdsthat believe local government willrespond effectively to future shocks and stresses 61.2 63.8 60.1 55.6 Male and female adults 60.7 62.7 61.3 55.1 Adult female, no adult male 66.0 73.4 48.1 55.2 Adult male, no adult female 60.4 61.1 ^ 64.3 Child, no adults ^ ^ ^ ^ Index of social capital at the household level (overall index) 53.2 50.9 54.8 57.5 Male and female adults 53.2 51.1 54.2 57.8 Adult female, no adult male 50.6 47.9 56.5 54.5 Adult male, no adult female 59.5 56.9 ^ 60.2 Child, no adults ^ ^ ^ ^ Component Bonding sub-index 57.6 54.6 56.8 65.0 Bridging sub-index 48.8 47.2 52.7 49.9 Proportion of households participating in group-based savings, micro-finance orlending programs 8.8 12.9 3.4 2.8 Male and female adults 9.2 13.5 3.7 2.6 Adult female, no adult male 10.0 13.5 0.0 5.2 Adult male, no adult female 0.4 0.0 ^ 1.1 Child, no adults ^ ^ ^ ^ Financing type Savings 7.3 10.9 2.4 2.0 Credit 3.7 5.1 1.5 1.7 Baseline Study of the RFSAs in Niger: Final Report (Vol. I) Annex 4: Summary of Data Treatment and Analysis 51 Table A5 BHA Niger Baseline Indicators - Comparison Across RFSA Areas Indicators, 95% Confidence Intervals and Base Population [Niger, 2020] BASELINE INDICATOR VALUES ALL GIRMA HAMZARI WADATA NA : Not available ^ Results not statistically reliable, n<30. NOTES: 1 Number of records for improved storage practices may differ from that of other improved agricultural practices because questions on the use of improved practices were generally asked as part of the main agriculture module while questions on the use of improved storage practices were asked seperately as part of the module on crop yield. The numbers of responding farmers differ across the two modules. IMPEL | Implementer-Led Evaluation and Learning 52 Annex 6: Descriptive Tables ANNEX 6: DESCRIPTIVE TABLES SOCIO-DEMOGRAPHIC CHARACTERISTICS OF THE STUDY AREA Table A6.1. Estimated population in the RFSA areas Table A6.2. Household characteristicsin the RFSA areas Table A6.3. Percentage of householdsreceiving social assistance among direct and indirect RFSA participants, by type of assistance FOOD CONSUMPTION Table A6.4. Percent of households consuming FCS food groups and frequency of consumption in days AGRICULTURE Table A6.5a. Percentage of sorghum farmers by age, in total and by farmers'sex Table A6.5b. Percentage of millet farmers by age, in total and by farmers'sex Table A6.5c. Percentage of cowpea farmers by age, in total and by farmers'sex Table A6.5d. Percentage of peanut farmers by age, in total and by farmers'sex Table A6.5e. Percentage of goat farmers by age, in total and by farmers'sex Table A6.5f. Percentage of sheep farmers by age, in total and by farmers'sex Table A6.5g. Percentage of poultry farmers by age, in total and by farmers'sex Table A6.6a. Percentage of farmers by land accesstype and farmland size, in total and by farmers'sex and age Table A6.6b. Percentage of sorghum farmers by area cultivated, in total and by farmers'sex and age Table A6.6c. Percentage of millet farmers by area cultivated, in total and by farmers'sex and age Table A6.6d. Percentage of cowpea farmers by area cultivated, in total and by farmers'sex and age Table A6.6e. Percentage of peanut farmers by area cultivated, in total and by farmers'sex and age Table A6.7. Percentage of farmers using financialservices by type of financial service, in total and by farmers'sex Table A6.8a. Percentage of sorghum farmers who applied targeted improved post-harvest handling and storage practices, in total and by farmers’ sex and age Table A6.8b. Percentage of millet farmers who applied targeted improved post-harvest handling and storage practices, in total and by farmers’ sex and age Table A6.8c. Percentage of cowpea farmers who applied targeted improved post-harvest handling and storage practices, in total and by farmers’ sex and age Table A6.8d. Percentage of peanut farmers who applied targeted improved post-harvest handling and storage practices, in total and by farmers’ sex and age Table A6.9a. Percentage of sorghum farmers who applied targeted improved crop and NRM practices and technologies by type, in total and by farmers’ sex and age Table A6.9b. Percentage of millet farmers who applied targeted improved crop and NRM practices and technologies by type, in total and by farmers’ sex and age Table A6.9c. Percentage of cowpea farmers who applied targeted improved crop and NRM practices and technologies by type, in total and by farmers’ sex and age Table A6.9d. Percentage of peanut farmers who applied targeted improved crop and NRM practices and technologies by type, in total and by farmers’ sex and age Table A6.10a. Percentage of goatfarmers who applied targeted improved livestock management practices and technologies by type, in total and by farmers’sex and age Table A6.10b. Percentage ofsheep farmers who applied targeted improved livestock management practices and technologies by type, in total and by farmers’ sex and age Table A6.10c. Percentage of poultry farmers who applied targeted improved livestock management practices and technologies by type, in total and by farmers’sex and age WATER, SANITATION, AND HYGIENE (WASH) Table A6.11. Household sanitation, water and knowledge of critical momentsfor handwashing MATERNAL AND CHILD HEALTH AND NUTRITION (MCHN) Table A6.12. Percentage of women 15-49 years of age by food groups consumed Table A6.13. Use of antenatal care services(ANC) Table A6.14. Percentage of non-pregnant women 15-49 years who are married or in a union and using a contraceptive method by type of method Table A6.15. Percentage of children 6-23 months by food groups consumed GENDER ACCESS TO CREDIT AND COMMUNITY PARTICIPATION Table A6.16. Percentage of women and men in a union participating in community groups, by type of group RESILIENCE Table A6.17. Component of household social capital index COVID-19 AWARENESS, MITIGATION PROTOCOLS, IMPACTS, AND COPING STRATEGIES Table A6.18 COVID-19 awareness and adoption of COVID-19 mitigation protocols Table A6.19. Percentage of households who experienced COVID-19 impacts on livelihoods, by type of impact Table A6.20. Percentage of households who experienced COVID-19 impacts on food security, by type of impact Table A6.21. Coping strategiesfor COVID-19 impacts on livelihoods Table A6.22. Coping strategiesfor COVID-19 impacts on food security Baseline Study of the RFSAs in Niger: Final Report (Vol. I) Annex 6: Descriptive Tables 53 Table 15: A6.1. Estimated population in the RFSA areas [Baseline Study, Niger 2020] Combined RFSAs Girma Hamzari Wadata Total population 1,143,393 652,177 245,287 245,929 Male 560,495 323,577 117,691 119,227 Female 582,897 328,600 127,596 126,702 Population 15 years or older 486,372 271,904 105,260 109,208 Male 230,870 132,186 47,973 50,710 Female 255,502 139,717 57,287 58,497 Cash earners (15 years or older) 213,998 131,620 43,632 38,746 Male 131,087 81,732 24,539 24,817 Female 82,910 49,888 19,093 13,929 Farmers (15 years or older) 274,281 171,009 52,555 50,716 Male 142,052 86,232 26,525 29,296 Female 132,229 84,778 26,031 21,421 Women of reproductive age (15-49 years) 205,532 110,458 49,240 45,834 Women 15-49 years who are married or in a union 174,765 98,586 39,012 37,167 Women 15-49 years with a live birth within the past five years 135,562 79,721 28,522 27,319 Youth (15-24 years) 198,981 108,641 46,304 44,036 Male 91,027 52,377 21,057 17,592 Female 107,955 56,264 25,247 26,444 Children under 5 years of age 231,243 135,504 47,521 48,218 Male 114,670 67,390 24,015 23,266 Female 116,572 68,114 23,506 24,952 Children 6-23 months of age 61,232 36,332 12,231 12,669 Male 31,971 19,466 5,774 6,731 Female 29,261 16,867 6,456 5,938 Source: BHA 2020 Niger baseline survey weighted population estimates. Based on household counts from the baseline listing operation which defined villages based on the natural boundaries of the "main village." NOTES: As stipulated by USAID’s Feed the Future (FTF) guideline, adults for gendered household type are defined as individuals 18years of age or older. For the interviews and all other analyses, the age of respondents is 15 years or older. Table 16: A6.2. Household characteristics in the RFSA areas [Baseline Study, Niger 2020] Combined RFSAs Girma Hamzari Wadata Gendered household type (Number of households)1 168,308 98,502 28,095 41,711 Male and female adults 141,611 82,656 26,182 32,772 Female adult(s) only 17,548 10,900 1,324 5,324 Male adult(s) only 8,710 4,737 568 3,404 Child(ren) only (no adults) ^ ^ ^ ^ Gendered household type (Percentage of households) 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 Male and female adults 84.1 83.9 93.2 78.6 Female adult(s) only 10.4 11.1 4.7 12.8 Male adult(s) only 5.2 4.8 2.0 8.2 Child(ren) only (no adults) ^ ^ ^ ^ Average household size (Number of persons) 6.8 6.6 8.7 5.9 Average number of adults 15 years of age or older per household 2.9 2.8 3.7 2.6 Percentage of households with children under 5 years of age 74.5 75.0 77.9 71.1 Percentage of households with a child 6-23 months of age 31.6 32.2 35.7 27.4 IMPEL | Implementer-Led Evaluation and Learning 54 Annex 6: Descriptive Tables Combined RFSAs Girma Hamzari Wadata Household headship (Percentage female) 13.6 14.1 6.3 17.1 Number of responding households 2,261 767 754 740 Male and female adults 1,936 651 705 580 Female adult(s) only 204 76 30 98 Male adult(s) only 114 38 17 59 Child(ren) only (no adults) 7 2 2 3 Source: BHA 2020 Niger baseline survey weighted population estimates. Based on household counts from the baseline listing operation which defined villages based on the natural boundaries of the "main village." NOTES: Asstipulated by USAID’s Feed the Future (FTF) guideline, adults for gendered household type are defined asindividuals 18 years of age or older. For the interviews and all other analyses, the age for respondents is 15 or older. ^ Results notstatistically reliable, n<30. Table 17: A6.3. Percentage of households receiving social assistance among direct and indirect RFSA participants, by type of assistance [Baseline Study, Niger 2020] All households Direct RFSA participants Indirect RFSA participants Sig.a Combined RFSAs interventions 41.4 n/a n/a Receipt ofsocial assistance Food rations 22.4 31.3 16.0 ** Nutrition trainings/meetings 27.5 47.5 13.4 *** Agriculture-related trainings/meetings 32.1 53.0 17.3 *** WASH trainings/meetings 42.3 59.3 30.3 *** Number ofresponding households 2,250 1,104 1,146 Girma interventions 34.8 n/a n/a Receipt ofsocial assistance Food rations 19.0 19.2 18.9 ns Nutrition trainings/meetings 29.6 52.5 17.3 *** Agriculture-related trainings/meetings 36.0 64.4 20.9 *** WASH trainings/meetings 49.2 69.0 38.6 *** Number ofresponding households 763 296 467 Hamzari interventions 44.9 n/a n/a Receipt ofsocial assistance Food rations 17.6 23.9 12.4 *** Nutrition trainings/meetings 21.0 37.7 7.3 *** Agriculture-related trainings/meetings 26.8 43.1 13.5 *** WASH trainings/meetings 39.9 58.9 24.4 *** Number ofresponding households 751 392 359 Wadata interventions 54.9 n/a n/a Receipt ofsocial assistance Food rations 33.5 53.7 9.3 *** Nutrition trainings/meetings 27.1 45.4 5.1 *** Baseline Study of the RFSAs in Niger: Final Report (Vol. I) Annex 6: Descriptive Tables 55 All households Direct RFSA participants Indirect RFSA participants Sig.a Agriculture-related trainings/meetings 26.2 41.2 8.2 *** WASH trainings/meetings 27.5 44.7 6.9 *** Number ofresponding households 736 416 320 NOTES: Households were asked "have you or someone in your household participated in [Girma/Hamzari/Wadata]?" Households that responded 'YES' are considered direct participants of the RFSA, and households that responded 'NO' are considered indirect RFSA participants because although no household member participated directly in any of the RFSA interventions, the household falls in the RFSA intervention area. a Significance tests were performed to determine whether an association exists between the outcome indicator (type of social assistance received) and the disaggregate variable (direct vsindirect participation in RFSA interventions). Associationsfound to be statistically significant are indicated by level: * p<0.05, ** p<0.01, *** p<0.001; ns=not significant. IMPEL | Implementer-Led Evaluation and Learning 56 Annex 6: Descriptive Tables Table 18: A6.4. Percent of households consuming FCS food groups and frequency of consumption in days [Baseline Study, Niger 2020] Combined RFSA areas Girma Hamzari Wadata Total Poor FCS Borderline FCS Acceptable FCS Total Poor FCS Borderline FCS Acceptable FCS Total Poor FCS Borderline FCS Acceptable FCS Total Poor FCS Borderline FCS Acceptable Percentage of HHs by FCS group 100.0 5.7 16.1 78.3 100.0 5.8 18.5 75.6 100.0 8.0 15.5 76.5 100.0 3.8 10.4 85.9 Staples1 Percent of HHs consuming food item 99.9 98.5 100.0 100.0 99.9 98.8 100.0 100.0 99.9 98.8 100.0 100.0 99.9 96.9 100.0 100.0 Sorghum, millet, rice, etc…. 99.6 95.9 100.0 99.8 99.4 94.5 100.0 99.7 99.9 98.8 100.0 100.0 99.7 96.9 100.0 99.8 Potatoes, yam, cassava, sweet potatoe, miritchi, garin rogo, other roots or tubers 50.9 36.1 38.0 54.7 55.9 49.4 42.0 59.8 42.5 16.0 29.2 48.0 44.7 15.2 29.9 47.7 Frequency of consumption in days (mean) 6.51 4.73 5.97 6.75 6.35 4.08 5.69 6.68 6.89 6.31 6.87 6.95 6.64 4.85 6.23 6.77 Sorghum, millet, rice, etc…. 6.27 4.33 5.63 6.55 6.04 3.44 5.22 6.44 6.84 6.31 6.87 6.89 6.46 4.78 6.10 6.58 Potatoes, yam, cassava, sweet potatoe, miritchi, garin rogo, other roots or tubers 1.27 0.59 0.89 1.39 1.33 0.75 0.99 1.45 1.26 0.43 0.79 1.44 1.13 0.23 0.59 1.24 Pulses Percent of HHs consuming food item 95.7 65.3 93.7 98.3 97.5 78.1 96.2 99.3 94.0 55.1 95.8 97.7 92.6 32.2 80.3 96.7 Frequency of consumption in days (mean) 5.14 1.06 3.48 5.78 5.13 1.20 3.62 5.81 4.80 0.86 3.22 5.53 5.40 0.84 3.12 5.88 Vegetables Percent of HHs consuming food item 34.6 14.5 19.1 39.2 27.4 13.7 13.0 31.9 31.8 16.2 27.1 34.4 54.0 15.2 37.5 57.7 Frequency of consumption in days (mean) 1.03 0.23 0.45 1.21 0.64 0.14 0.28 0.77 0.98 0.22 0.55 1.15 2.01 0.57 1.06 2.19 Fruit Percent of HHs consuming food item 17.8 0.4 7.5 21.2 18.7 0.7 8.3 22.7 12.8 0.0 4.5 15.8 19.0 0.0 7.3 21.2 Frequency of consumption in days (mean) 0.39 0.00 0.14 0.47 0.42 0.01 0.17 0.52 0.30 0.00 0.05 0.39 0.38 0.00 0.09 0.44 Meat and Fish2 Percent of HHs consuming food item 39.0 0.5 16.6 48.4 40.7 0.8 17.0 51.2 33.1 0.0 14.7 43.7 38.6 0.0 17.0 44.5 Beef, pork, lamb, goat, rabbit, chicken, organ meats, etc… 36.8 3.8 7.7 45.1 34.0 5.0 5.8 43.2 41.8 0.0 13.1 52.0 40.0 4.9 10.1 45.1 Eggs 16.5 0.0 4.1 20.3 17.3 0.0 5.0 21.6 13.0 0.0 1.8 16.6 17.2 0.0 2.9 19.7 Fresh or dried fish or shellfish 28.5 3.7 11.4 33.9 33.5 6.1 14.3 40.3 17.4 0.0 3.5 22.0 24.2 0.0 6.6 27.4 Frequency of consumption in days (mean) 1.59 0.15 0.30 1.96 1.53 0.21 0.33 1.93 1.55 0.00 0.22 1.98 1.76 0.10 0.25 2.02 Beef, pork, lamb, goat, rabbit, chicken, organ meats, etc… 0.78 0.07 0.11 0.97 0.67 0.09 0.09 0.86 1.00 0.00 0.17 1.27 0.89 0.10 0.14 1.01 Eggs 0.35 0.00 0.05 0.44 0.34 0.00 0.05 0.43 0.31 0.00 0.02 0.40 0.42 0.00 0.04 0.49 Fresh or dried fish or shellfish 0.63 0.07 0.14 0.77 0.67 0.12 0.19 0.83 0.45 0.00 0.04 0.58 0.65 0.00 0.07 0.75 Milk and Dairy Percent of HHs consuming food item 71.3 23.6 40.1 81.1 72.9 39.0 46.0 82.1 62.6 0.0 20.7 77.6 73.2 0.0 34.2 81.1 Frequency of consumption in days (mean) 2.69 0.24 0.66 3.29 2.42 0.40 0.75 2.98 3.12 0.00 0.37 4.01 3.05 0.00 0.59 3.48 Sugar Percent of HHs consuming food item 76.0 36.8 51.7 83.9 71.0 35.2 45.9 80.0 75.3 48.2 62.8 80.7 88.6 26.1 65.2 94.2 Frequency of consumption in days (mean) 3.46 0.97 1.79 3.98 2.66 0.51 1.29 3.15 4.10 1.74 3.05 4.55 4.97 1.57 2.67 5.40 Oil Percent of HHs consuming food item 81.1 49.1 66.5 86.5 85.5 63.7 74.1 90.0 58.9 18.7 39.1 67.1 85.9 39.1 61.7 90.9 Frequency of consumption in days (mean) 4.08 1.13 2.33 4.65 4.04 1.24 2.50 4.63 2.64 0.46 1.07 3.18 5.18 1.72 2.95 5.60 Condiments3 Percent of HHs consuming food item 62.9 43.8 50.1 66.9 54.6 36.0 46.3 58.1 66.2 55.4 49.8 70.7 80.7 56.2 67.2 83.4 Frequency of consumption in days (mean) 3.35 1.34 2.34 3.71 2.49 0.59 1.85 2.80 3.90 2.20 2.73 4.32 5.06 2.91 4.09 5.28 Number of responding households 2,239 115 328 1,796 766 40 140 586 752 53 118 581 721 22 70 629 NOTES: FCS is a composite score based on dietary diversity, food frequency and relative nutritional value of the different food groups. Values are then weighted and summed to obtain the FCS. Households are categorized into consumption groups based on pre-established thresholds: Poor (0 - 21); borderline (21.5 - 35); and acceptable (>35). For more details refer to Supplement to Part 1 - FFP Baseline/Endline Questionnaire and Indicator Tabulations for Development Food Security Activities. 1 Staples include cereals and roots and tubers. 2 Meat and fish include meat, fish, and eggs. 3 Condiments are not included in the calculation of FCS. Baseline Study of the RFSAs in Niger: Final Report (Vol. III) Annex 6: Descriptive Tables 57 Table 19: A6.5a. Percentage of sorghum farmers by age, in total and by farmers' sex [Baseline Study, Niger 2020] Combined RFSA areas Girma Hamzari Wadata Total Male Female Total Male Female Total Male Female Total Male Female Age1 15-19 3.5 0.8 8.8 3.3 0.2 8.7 3.3 1.3 7.5 4.5 1.8 10.2 20-24 7.5 4.8 12.8 7.5 5.1 11.7 4.7 3.3 7.8 10.2 5.2 20.3 25-29 10.4 8.7 13.5 10.8 9.3 13.5 8.6 6.3 13.5 10.5 8.9 13.6 30-34 12.8 13.3 12.0 14.5 15.4 12.9 10.4 9.4 12.6 9.6 10.2 8.4 35-39 13.2 14.4 11.0 12.2 12.6 11.4 16.5 17.6 14.2 13.7 16.9 7.0 40-44 13.2 14.5 10.8 13.4 15.4 10.0 12.6 11.5 15.0 13.0 14.3 10.4 45-49 7.2 8.4 5.0 6.2 7.1 4.6 10.2 11.9 6.5 7.9 9.3 5.0 50-54 10.1 9.5 11.3 11.0 9.6 13.4 9.4 10.1 7.8 8.0 8.6 6.9 55-59 5.0 5.1 4.7 4.5 4.2 4.9 7.5 8.7 5.0 4.3 4.5 4.0 60+ 17.0 20.7 10.1 16.6 21.0 8.9 16.8 19.9 10.1 18.3 20.3 14.1 Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 Number of responding sorghum farmers 2,203 1,468 735 785 524 261 822 546 276 596 398 198 NOTES: 1Differencesin the age distribution by sex are statistically significant at the p<0.001 level. IMPEL | Implementer-Led Evaluation and Learning 58 Annex 6: Descriptive Tables Table 20: A6.5b. Percentage of millet farmers by age, in total and by farmers' sex [Baseline Study, Niger 2020] Combined RFSA areas Girma Hamzari Wadata Total Male Female Total Male Female Total Male Female Total Male Female Age1 15-19 4.4 1.1 9.5 4.9 0.9 10.6 2.8 1.1 5.8 4.4 1.8 9.2 20-24 8.4 5.2 13.5 9.2 5.8 14.1 4.6 3.3 7.0 9.5 5.2 17.7 25-29 11.5 9.5 14.6 11.6 10.3 13.4 10.8 7.4 17.1 11.9 9.2 17.0 30-34 12.9 13.6 11.7 14.5 16.0 12.2 11.2 9.4 14.3 9.2 10.4 6.9 35-39 12.9 14.3 10.7 11.3 12.0 10.2 16.9 18.7 13.8 14.3 17.0 9.2 40-44 12.9 14.6 10.4 12.7 15.3 9.0 13.4 11.7 16.4 13.3 15.1 10.0 45-49 7.2 8.3 5.4 6.3 7.1 5.1 9.5 11.1 6.6 7.8 9.1 5.3 50-54 10.1 9.3 11.4 11.1 9.3 13.6 9.0 10.2 6.8 8.0 8.3 7.4 55-59 4.4 4.8 3.9 3.9 3.9 4.0 6.4 7.7 4.0 4.3 4.8 3.3 60+ 15.3 19.3 8.9 14.6 19.3 7.8 15.4 19.5 8.2 17.2 19.0 13.9 Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 Number of responding millet farmers 2,663 1,676 987 968 592 376 1,018 648 370 677 436 241 NOTES: 1Differences in the age distribution by sex are statistically significant at the p<0.001 level. Baseline Study of the RFSAs in Niger: Final Report (Vol. III) Annex 6: Descriptive Tables 59 Table 21: A6.5c. Percentage of cowpea farmers by age, in total and by farmers' sex [Baseline Study, Niger 2020] Combined RFSA areas Girma Hamzari Wadata Total Male Female Total Male Female Total Male Female Total Male Female Age1 15-19 5.1 1.7 10.5 5.6 1.8 11.1 2.7 0.8 6.6 5.4 2.0 11.2 20-24 9.1 5.3 15.1 9.7 5.7 15.5 4.7 3.8 6.6 10.6 5.2 19.7 25-29 11.1 9.1 14.2 11.2 10.1 12.7 10.0 6.6 16.9 11.7 8.2 17.5 30-34 12.9 14.1 10.9 14.3 16.2 11.6 11.0 9.9 13.3 9.7 11.5 6.9 35-39 12.8 14.3 10.4 11.5 12.1 10.5 17.0 18.6 13.7 13.5 17.1 7.6 40-44 12.7 14.4 10.1 12.4 15.1 8.4 13.6 10.9 19.2 13.0 15.0 9.5 45-49 7.1 8.2 5.3 6.2 6.9 5.1 9.7 11.4 6.2 7.7 9.1 5.3 50-54 10.0 9.1 11.2 10.9 9.0 13.5 9.2 10.7 6.1 7.7 8.1 6.9 55-59 4.5 4.8 4.0 3.9 3.8 4.0 7.1 8.2 4.9 4.3 4.8 3.4 60+ 14.9 19.0 8.2 14.4 19.1 7.5 15.0 19.1 6.5 16.3 18.9 12.0 Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 Number ofresponding cowpea farmers 2,582 1,624 958 961 590 371 909 596 313 712 438 274 NOTES: 1Differencesin the age distribution by sex are statistically significant at the p<0.001 level. IMPEL | Implementer-Led Evaluation and Learning 60 Annex 6: Descriptive Tables Table 22: A6.5d. Percentage of peanut farmers by age, in total and by farmers' sex [Baseline Study, Niger 2020] Combined RFSA areas Girma Hamzari Wadata Total Male Female Total Male Female Total Male Female Total Male Female Age1 15-19 3.3 1.5 7.2 4.0 1.6 7.9 2.2 1.3 4.8 0.8 0.9 ^ 20-24 6.7 3.5 13.2 8.3 4.3 15.0 3.2 2.0 6.5 1.6 1.8 ^ 25-29 9.1 9.1 9.1 10.0 10.5 9.0 7.1 6.2 9.5 7.4 7.1 ^ 30-34 13.1 12.5 14.4 14.5 14.8 13.9 10.0 7.3 17.8 9.5 10.3 ^ 35-39 12.7 13.9 10.4 11.6 12.7 9.7 16.5 17.2 14.4 12.2 13.3 ^ 40-44 14.3 14.3 14.3 14.4 15.3 12.9 13.7 11.2 20.9 15.0 15.1 ^ 45-49 8.0 9.7 4.4 6.4 7.7 4.0 11.2 13.2 5.5 13.7 13.8 ^ 50-54 10.4 9.7 11.7 10.3 8.9 12.7 9.8 11.0 6.5 12.8 12.6 ^ 55-59 4.9 4.8 5.3 4.2 3.5 5.4 8.1 9.3 4.6 2.3 1.9 ^ 60+ 17.4 21.0 10.0 16.4 20.6 9.4 18.2 21.2 9.5 24.6 23.2 ^ Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 Number of responding peanut farmers 1,132 813 319 444 290 154 571 417 154 117 106 11 NOTES: ^ Results not statistically reliable, n<30. 1Differences in the age distribution by sex are statistically significant for the combined RFSA areas ( p<0.001), Girma (p<0.05), and Hamzari (p<0.01). Differences in the agedistribution between female and male peanut farmers are statistically nonsignificant for Wadata. Baseline Study of the RFSAs in Niger: Final Report (Vol. III) Annex 6: Descriptive Tables 61 Table 23: A6.5e. Percentage of goat farmers by age, in total and by farmers' sex [Baseline Study, Niger 2020] Combined RFSA areas Girma Hamzari Wadata Total Male Female Total Male Female Total Male Female Total Male Female Age1 15-19 4.3 2.8 5.1 4.2 3.0 4.9 7.2 5.4 7.7 0.9 0.9 1.0 20-24 9.7 4.5 12.6 10.3 5.4 13.1 10.3 3.7 12.1 5.7 2.2 9.9 25-29 14.7 8.7 18.2 14.5 9.0 17.8 17.3 8.8 19.6 12.0 7.6 17.4 30-34 16.8 16.2 17.2 18.8 19.3 18.4 15.9 10.8 17.3 8.6 8.5 8.7 35-39 10.7 13.6 9.0 9.6 13.0 7.7 13.2 15.0 12.7 12.5 14.9 9.7 40-44 13.0 15.8 11.3 12.8 15.9 11.0 11.1 14.6 10.2 16.4 16.4 16.4 45-49 5.5 7.5 4.3 4.9 6.4 4.1 5.2 6.6 4.8 8.4 11.6 4.5 50-54 9.3 6.8 10.8 10.0 5.5 12.6 7.4 10.6 6.5 8.6 9.0 8.0 55-59 3.7 2.9 4.1 3.5 2.4 4.2 4.1 8.0 3.1 3.7 2.3 5.5 60+ 12.4 21.1 7.5 11.4 20.1 6.3 8.1 16.4 5.9 23.2 26.7 19.0 Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 Number of responding goat farmers 1,132 813 319 444 290 154 571 417 154 117 106 11 NOTES: 1Differences in the age distribution by sex are statistically significant for the combined RFSA areas ( p<0.001), Girma (p<0.01), and Hamzari (p<0.05). Differences in the age distribution between female and male goat farmers are statistically nonsignificant for Wadata. IMPEL | Implementer-Led Evaluation and Learning 62 Annex 6: Descriptive Tables Table 24: A6.5f. Percentage of sheep farmers by age, in total and by farmers' sex[Baseline Study, Niger 2020] Combined RFSA areas Girma Hamzari Wadata Total Male Female Total Male Female Total Male Female Total Male Female Age1 15-19 2.9 2.0 4.0 3.0 2.2 3.9 3.5 3.6 3.5 2.1 0.4 5.9 20-24 7.2 6.1 8.6 7.9 7.5 8.3 4.7 3.9 5.2 7.7 2.6 18.9 25-29 13.1 9.9 16.9 13.7 10.4 17.9 12.6 5.4 17.0 11.4 11.5 11.1 30-34 15.6 16.0 15.1 16.7 18.8 14.0 13.9 7.9 17.5 13.3 12.2 15.5 35-39 12.6 12.0 13.4 9.8 9.2 10.4 20.5 16.3 23.1 14.1 18.2 5.5 40-44 15.0 17.0 12.6 15.5 18.3 11.8 17.8 22.8 14.8 9.5 8.5 11.7 45-49 6.6 9.1 3.6 5.9 9.8 1.0 8.5 6.1 10.0 7.0 9.0 2.6 50-54 10.7 9.1 12.7 12.9 9.6 17.3 3.5 4.7 2.7 11.1 10.6 12.3 55-59 5.0 4.1 6.1 4.8 1.6 9.0 5.8 13.5 1.1 4.8 5.9 2.5 60+ 11.1 14.7 6.9 9.9 12.6 6.4 9.1 15.7 5.1 19.0 21.3 14.1 Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 Number of responding sheep farmers 523 274 249 197 113 84 215 84 131 111 77 34 NOTES: 1Differences in the age distribution by sex are statistically significant in Hamzari (p<0.05). Differences in the age distribution between female and male sheep farmers arestatistically nonsignificant for the combined RFSA areas, Girma, and Wadata. Baseline Study of the RFSAs in Niger: Final Report (Vol. III) Annex 6: Descriptive Tables 63 Table 25: A6.5g. Percentage of poultry farmers by age, in total and by farmers'sex[Baseline Study, Niger 2020] Combined RFSA areas Girma Hamzari Wadata Total Male Female Total Male Female Total Male Female Total Male Female Age1 15-19 4.1 3.0 5.8 3.7 2.2 5.5 7.5 7.5 7.5 3.1 2.0 5.7 20-24 11.4 7.2 17.4 14.0 9.3 19.7 6.3 5.6 7.6 6.9 3.2 15.0 25-29 8.0 4.4 13.2 8.1 4.3 12.6 3.8 2.2 6.8 10.6 6.1 20.4 30-34 15.7 17.0 13.9 16.9 20.5 12.7 15.9 11.5 24.4 11.9 12.2 11.3 35-39 12.9 15.1 9.6 10.9 13.7 7.4 16.7 13.1 23.5 16.2 19.9 8.2 40-44 13.4 15.5 10.3 12.8 15.2 9.8 14.5 16.3 11.1 14.4 15.6 11.7 45-49 6.5 9.2 2.7 5.8 9.0 2.0 7.9 10.9 2.2 7.7 8.5 6.0 50-54 9.4 7.3 12.3 11.3 6.5 17.0 5.0 6.9 1.5 6.6 9.7 0.0 55-59 5.5 5.6 5.5 5.6 5.0 6.4 9.0 12.4 2.5 2.9 2.3 4.1 60+ … … … … … … … … … … … … Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 Number of responding poultry farmers 547 343 204 223 130 93 178 112 66 146 101 45 NOTES: 1Differences in the age distribution by sex are statistically significant in the combined RFSA areas (p<0.05). Differencesin the age distribution between female and male poultry farmers are statistically nonsignificant for Girma, Hamzari, and Wadata. IMPEL | Implementer-Led Evaluation and Learning 64 Annex 6: Descriptive Tables Table 26: A6.6a. Percentage of farmers by land access type and farmland size, in total and by farmers' sex and age [Baseline Study, Niger 2020] Total Male Female Sig.a 15-29 30+ Sig.a Combined RFSA areas Land access type Owned 89.8 91.9 86.5 *** 85.7 91.2 ** Rented 5.4 5.6 5.3 ns 6.8 5.0 ns Share-cropped 3.9 1.8 7.0 *** 6.5 3.0 * None 0.9 0.7 1.2 ns 1.0 0.9 ns Farm size (Ha) (includes owned, rented, and share-cropped) <0.5 13.7 5.1 26.9 *** 26.2 9.5 *** ≥0.5-<1.0 16.2 9.0 27.2 *** 25.9 12.9 *** ≥1.0-<2.5 42.3 45.2 38.0 ns 35.2 44.8 * ≥2.5-<5.0 15.0 21.4 5.3 *** 8.0 17.4 *** ≥5.0-<7.5 7.6 11.9 1.1 *** 2.2 9.5 *** ≥7.5-<10.0 1.6 2.6 0.0 *** 0.8 1.8 ns ≥10.0 3.5 4.9 1.5 *** 1.7 4.2 * Number of responding farmers 2,763 1,704 1,059 669 2,094 Girma Land access type Owned 91.5 92.9 89.6 ns 87.7 92.9 * Rented 4.3 4.6 3.9 ns 5.4 3.9 ns Share-cropped 3.0 1.5 5.1 ** 5.7 2.0 * None 1.2 1.0 1.4 ns 1.2 1.1 ns Farm size (Ha) (includes owned, rented, and share-cropped) <0.5 14.4 5.7 26.9 *** 26.9 9.8 *** ≥0.5-<1.0 17.3 11.4 25.8 *** 27.6 13.6 ** ≥1.0-<2.5 41.1 42.2 39.4 ns 31.9 44.4 * ≥2.5-<5.0 15.1 21.2 6.2 *** 8.9 17.3 ** ≥5.0-<7.5 7.8 12.7 0.8 *** 2.1 9.9 ** ≥7.5-<10.0 1.6 2.7 0.0 * 1.3 1.7 ns ≥10.0 2.7 4.1 0.9 * 1.4 3.2 ns Number of responding farmers 987 602 385 262 725 Hamzari Land access type Owned 80.7 86.4 70.8 *** 72.6 82.6 ns Rented 9.7 9.0 10.8 ns 10.9 9.4 ns Share-cropped 9.1 4.3 17.6 *** 15.9 7.5 ** None 0.5 0.3 0.8 * 0.5 0.4 ns Farm size (Ha) (includes owned, rented, and share-cropped) <0.5 12.4 5.8 24.2 *** 22.0 10.2 *** ≥0.5-<1.0 15.2 6.7 30.3 *** 18.8 14.4 ns ≥1.0-<2.5 51.4 57.1 41.2 ** 53.7 50.8 ns ≥2.5-<5.0 13.6 20.2 1.8 *** 2.6 16.1 *** ≥5.0-<7.5 3.8 5.2 1.2 ** 1.0 4.4 ns ≥7.5-<10.0 1.3 2.0 0.0 ns 0.0 1.6 ns ≥10.0 2.4 3.0 1.3 ns 1.8 2.5 ns Number of responding farmers 1,022 649 373 199 823 Wadata Land access type Owned 92.3 94.2 89.3 * 87.6 94.1 * Rented 5.2 5.1 5.4 ns 8.4 3.9 ns Share-cropped 2.0 0.4 4.7 *** 3.3 1.5 ns Baseline Study of the RFSAs in Niger: Final Report (Vol. III) Annex 6: Descriptive Tables 65 Total Male Female Sig.a 15-29 30+ Sig.a None 0.5 0.3 0.7 ns 0.7 0.4 ns Farm size (Ha) (includes owned, rented, and share-cropped) <0.5 12.9 2.6 29.1 *** 26.5 7.7 *** ≥0.5-<1.0 13.8 4.0 29.2 *** 25.0 9.5 *** ≥1.0-<2.5 38.3 43.0 30.7 ns 34.2 39.8 ns ≥2.5-<5.0 16.0 22.8 5.2 *** 8.6 18.8 ** ≥5.0-<7.5 10.4 15.8 2.0 *** 3.1 13.3 *** ≥7.5-<10.0 1.6 2.7 0.0 ** 0.0 2.3 ** ≥10.0 7.0 9.1 3.7 ns 2.6 8.7 * Number of responding farmers 754 453 301 208 546 NOTES: a Significance tests were performed to determine whether an association exists between the outcome indicator (land tenure type and landsize)and the disaggregate variable (sex and age). Associations found to be statistically significant are indicated by level: * p<0.05, ** p<0.01, *** p<0.001; ns=not significant. IMPEL | Implementer-Led Evaluation and Learning 66 Annex 6: Descriptive Tables Table 27: A6.6b. Percentage of sorghum farmers by area cultivated, in total and by farmers' sex and age [Baseline Study, Niger 2020] Total Male Female Sig.a 15-29 30+ Sig.a Combined RFSA areas Farm size (Ha) <0.5 13.7 8.6 23.4 *** 24.1 10.9 *** ≥0.5-<1.0 16.9 11.1 28.1 *** 27.4 14.1 ** ≥1.0-<2.5 41.2 41.8 40.0 ns 34.5 43.0 ns ≥2.5-<5.0 15.6 20.9 5.6 *** 8.6 17.5 ** ≥5.0-<7.5 7.5 10.7 1.5 *** 2.8 8.8 * ≥7.5-<10.0 1.4 2.0 0.1 *** 0.7 1.6 ns ≥10.0 3.6 4.9 1.2 *** 1.9 4.1 ns Number of responding sorghum farmers 2,183 1,457 726 449 1,734 Girma Farm size (Ha) <0.5 13.4 8.6 21.9 ** 23.9 10.5 * ≥0.5-<1.0 17.7 12.5 27.0 ** 30.4 14.2 * ≥1.0-<2.5 40.1 38.6 42.8 ns 31.3 42.6 ns ≥2.5-<5.0 16.4 22.3 6.0 *** 9.3 18.4 ns ≥5.0-<7.5 8.3 12.1 1.6 *** 3.2 9.7 ns ≥7.5-<10.0 1.2 1.9 0.0 * 0.6 1.4 ns ≥10.0 2.8 4.0 0.7 * 1.3 3.2 ns Number of responding sorghum farmers 779 520 259 163 616 Hamzari Farm size (Ha) (includes owned, rented, and share-cropped) <0.5 18.9 12.1 33.9 *** 32.0 16.3 *** ≥0.5-<1.0 16.6 12.4 26.0 ** 20.0 16.0 ns ≥1.0-<2.5 45.3 50.5 33.8 ** 38.1 46.7 ns ≥2.5-<5.0 11.7 16.0 2.1 *** 3.9 13.2 * ≥5.0-<7.5 3.1 3.9 1.3 ns 1.2 3.5 ns ≥7.5-<10.0 1.4 2.0 0.0 ns 0.0 1.6 ns ≥10.0 3.0 3.1 2.8 ns 4.9 2.7 ns Number of responding sorghum farmers 814 543 271 141 673 Wadata Farm size (Ha) <0.5 10.5 5.8 20.2 ** 20.2 7.3 *** ≥0.5-<1.0 14.7 5.7 33.2 *** 23.5 11.8 * ≥1.0-<2.5 41.1 43.8 35.5 ns 41.3 41.0 ns ≥2.5-<5.0 16.4 20.8 7.2 ** 9.0 18.8 ** ≥5.0-<7.5 8.7 12.4 1.3 *** 2.8 10.7 ** ≥7.5-<10.0 1.8 2.4 0.7 ns 1.2 2.0 ns ≥10.0 6.7 9.1 1.9 ** 2.0 8.3 ** Number of responding sorghum farmers 590 394 196 145 445 NOTES: a Significance tests were performed to determine whether an association exists between the outcome indicator (area cultivated) and the disaggregate variable (sex and age). Associations found to be statistically significant are indicated by level: * p<0.05, ** p<0.01, *** p<0.001; ns=not significant. Baseline Study of the RFSAs in Niger: Final Report (Vol. III) Annex 6: Descriptive Tables 67 Table 28: A6.6c. Percentage of millet farmers by area cultivated, in total and by farmers' sex and age [Baseline Study, Niger 2020] Total Male Female Sig.a 15-29 30+ Sig.a Combined RFSA areas Farm size (Ha) <0.5 14.3 7.4 25.2 *** 23.5 11.4 *** ≥0.5-<1.0 20.5 13.2 32.1 *** 33.8 16.3 *** ≥1.0-<2.5 39.7 42.5 35.3 * 30.3 42.8 ** ≥2.5-<5.0 14.2 20.0 5.1 *** 7.4 16.5 *** ≥5.0-<7.5 6.2 9.2 1.4 *** 2.6 7.3 ** ≥7.5-<10.0 1.7 2.7 0.1 *** 1.1 1.9 ns ≥10.0 3.3 4.9 0.8 *** 1.3 3.9 ** Number of responding millet farmers 2,647 1,666 981 610 2,037 Girma Farm size (Ha) <0.5 14.0 8.0 22.7 *** 22.4 11.1 * ≥0.5-<1.0 22.6 15.0 33.5 *** 37.9 17.2 *** ≥1.0-<2.5 37.8 39.1 36.0 ns 26.2 41.8 ** ≥2.5-<5.0 14.7 21.0 5.6 *** 8.3 16.9 ** ≥5.0-<7.5 6.5 10.0 1.6 ** 3.0 7.8 ns ≥7.5-<10.0 1.8 3.0 0.0 ** 1.4 1.9 ns ≥10.0 2.6 4.0 0.6 * 0.8 3.2 ns Number of responding millet farmers 962 587 375 246 716 Hamzari Farm size (Ha) (includes owned, rented, and share-cropped) <0.5 18.0 8.4 35.6 *** 29.3 15.5 *** ≥0.5-<1.0 19.8 15.9 27.1 *** 23.2 19.1 ns ≥1.0-<2.5 45.2 51.3 33.9 *** 40.7 46.1 ns ≥2.5-<5.0 10.5 15.4 1.5 *** 2.8 12.2 ** ≥5.0-<7.5 2.8 3.8 0.9 * 1.6 3.0 ns ≥7.5-<10.0 1.3 2.0 0.0 ns 0.0 1.6 ns ≥10.0 2.4 3.2 1.1 * 2.3 2.5 ns Number of responding millet farmers 1,014 648 366 195 819 Wadata Farm size (Ha) <0.5 11.7 4.8 24.5 *** 23.2 7.7 *** ≥0.5-<1.0 14.5 5.4 31.5 *** 27.0 10.2 *** ≥1.0-<2.5 41.0 44.7 34.2 ns 36.9 42.4 ns ≥2.5-<5.0 16.3 21.5 6.7 *** 7.4 19.5 *** ≥5.0-<7.5 8.1 12.0 0.9 *** 2.0 10.2 ** ≥7.5-<10.0 1.8 2.5 0.6 ns 1.0 2.1 ns ≥10.0 6.5 9.2 1.6 *** 2.5 7.9 ** Number of responding millet farmers 671 431 240 169 502 NOTES: a Significance tests were performed to determine whether an association exists between the outcome indicator (area cultivated) and the disaggregate variable (sex and age). Associations found to be statistically significant are indicatedby level: * p<0.05, ** p<0.01, *** p<0.001; ns=not significant. IMPEL | Implementer-Led Evaluation and Learning 68 Annex 6: Descriptive Tables Table 29: A6.6d. Percentage of cowpea farmers by area cultivated, in total and by farmers' sex and age [Baseline Study, Niger 2020] Total Male Female Sig.a 15-29 30+ Sig.a Combined RFSA areas Farm size (Ha) <0.5 17.1 10.9 27.0 *** 27.1 13.8 *** ≥0.5-<1.0 19.8 12.4 31.4 *** 31.6 15.8 *** ≥1.0-<2.5 38.4 41.1 34.0 * 29.1 41.5 ** ≥2.5-<5.0 13.6 19.2 4.6 *** 7.0 15.8 *** ≥5.0-<7.5 6.2 9.2 1.4 *** 3.1 7.2 * ≥7.5-<10.0 1.5 2.4 0.1 *** 0.5 1.8 * ≥10.0 3.5 4.8 1.6 * 1.5 4.2 * Number of responding cowpea farmers 2,559 1,610 949 616 1,943 Girma Farm size (Ha) <0.5 16.3 11.5 23.3 *** 24.8 13.2 * ≥0.5-<1.0 21.5 13.4 33.5 *** 36.3 16.2 ** ≥1.0-<2.5 36.8 38.0 35.2 ns 25.5 40.9 ** ≥2.5-<5.0 14.2 20.7 4.5 *** 7.6 16.5 ** ≥5.0-<7.5 6.7 10.1 1.6 ** 3.9 7.7 ns ≥7.5-<10.0 1.4 2.4 0.0 * 0.4 1.8 ns ≥10.0 3.1 3.9 1.9 ns 1.5 3.7 ns Number of responding cowpea farmers 951 585 366 252 699 Hamzari Farm size (Ha) (includes owned, rented, and share-cropped) <0.5 23.0 14.7 40.0 *** 34.4 20.5 *** ≥0.5-<1.0 17.8 14.4 24.8 ** 19.8 17.4 ns ≥1.0-<2.5 43.7 49.3 32.4 *** 38.9 44.8 ns ≥2.5-<5.0 9.5 13.5 1.3 *** 3.0 10.9 * ≥5.0-<7.5 2.4 3.1 1.1 ns 1.9 2.6 ns ≥7.5-<10.0 1.3 1.9 0.0 ns 0.0 1.6 ns ≥10.0 2.2 3.1 0.4 ** 1.9 2.3 ns Number of responding cowpea farmers 904 594 310 170 734 Wadata Farm size (Ha) <0.5 15.1 5.8 30.5 *** 30.6 9.2 *** ≥0.5-<1.0 15.8 7.7 29.1 *** 23.3 12.9 * ≥1.0-<2.5 38.9 43.7 31.1 ns 35.2 40.4 ns ≥2.5-<5.0 14.9 19.7 6.9 *** 6.9 17.9 ** ≥5.0-<7.5 7.5 11.7 0.8 *** 1.6 9.8 *** ≥7.5-<10.0 1.8 2.6 0.5 ns 0.9 2.2 ns ≥10.0 5.9 8.7 1.1 *** 1.6 7.5 *** Number of responding cowpea farmers 704 431 273 194 510 NOTES: a Significance tests were performed to determine whether an association exists between the outcome indicator (area cultivated) and the disaggregate variable (sex and age). Associations found to be statistically significant are indicated by level: * p<0.05, ** p<0.01, *** p<0.001; ns=not significant. Baseline Study of the RFSAs in Niger: Final Report (Vol. III) Annex 6: Descriptive Tables 69 Table 30: A6.6e. Percentage of peanut farmers by area cultivated, in total and by farmers' sex and age[Baseline Study, Niger 2020] Total Male Female Sig.a 15-29 30+ Sig.a Combined RFSA areas Farm size (Ha) <0.5 18.2 13.3 28.6 *** 27.4 16.0 *** ≥0.5-<1.0 18.4 14.4 26.9 *** 25.3 16.7 ns ≥1.0-<2.5 40.8 42.0 38.3 ns 33.0 42.7 ns ≥2.5-<5.0 13.9 18.8 3.6 *** 9.0 15.1 ns ≥5.0-<7.5 5.1 6.8 1.4 * 2.6 5.7 ns ≥7.5-<10.0 1.6 2.0 0.9 ns 0.8 1.8 ns ≥10.0 1.9 2.7 0.4 *** 1.9 1.9 ns Number of responding peanut farmers 1,092 792 300 164 928 Girma Farm size (Ha) <0.5 17.8 12.5 26.9 ** 27.1 15.0 *** ≥0.5-<1.0 20.1 15.1 28.9 ** 27.0 18.2 ns ≥1.0-<2.5 39.2 39.7 38.3 ns 30.4 41.8 ns ≥2.5-<5.0 14.2 20.5 3.2 *** 10.0 15.4 ns ≥5.0-<7.5 5.5 7.7 1.6 * 2.9 6.3 ns ≥7.5-<10.0 1.7 2.1 1.1 ns 0.9 1.9 ns ≥10.0 1.5 2.3 0.0 ns 1.7 1.4 ns Number of responding peanut farmers 431 284 147 89 342 Hamzari Farm size (Ha) (includes owned, rented, and share-cropped) <0.5 23.8 18.7 39.0 *** 36.0 22.1 ns ≥0.5-<1.0 15.2 13.9 19.1 ns 15.5 15.2 ns ≥1.0-<2.5 42.1 44.3 35.5 ns 41.3 42.2 ns ≥2.5-<5.0 12.8 15.6 4.4 * 3.5 14.1 * ≥5.0-<7.5 3.2 4.0 0.9 ns 2.1 3.3 ns ≥7.5-<10.0 1.6 2.2 0.0 ns 0.0 1.9 ns ≥10.0 1.3 1.4 1.1 ns 1.6 1.3 ns Number of responding peanut farmers 548 406 142 65 483 Wadata Farm size (Ha) <0.5 5.1 4.9 ^ … ^ 5.7 … ≥0.5-<1.0 10.8 10.8 ^ … ^ 9.1 … ≥1.0-<2.5 52.9 52.2 ^ … ^ 52.5 … ≥2.5-<5.0 14.7 15.1 ^ … ^ 15.4 … ≥5.0-<7.5 7.2 7.8 ^ … ^ 8.0 … ≥7.5-<10.0 0.9 1.0 ^ … ^ 1.0 … ≥10.0 8.4 8.2 ^ … ^ 8.4 … Number of responding peanut farmers 113 102 11 10 103 NOTES: ^ Results not statistically reliable, n<30. a Significance tests were performed to determine whether an association exists between the outcome indicator (area cultivated) and the disaggregate variable (sex and age). Associations found to be statistically significant are indicated bylevel: * p<0.05, ** p<0.01, *** p<0.001; ns=not significant. IMPEL | Implementer-Led Evaluation and Learning 70 Annex 6: Descriptive Tables Table 31: A6.7. Percentage of farmers using financial services by type of financial service, in total and by farmers' sex [Baseline Study, Niger 2020] Combined RFSA Area Girma Hamzari Wadata Total Male Female Sig.a Total Male Female Sig.a Total Male Female Sig.a Total Male Female Sig.a Any financialservices 32.0 36.5 27.1 ** 36.6 41.2 31.9 * 23.0 28.7 17.2 *** 25.8 30.0 20.1 * Savings 16.9 17.9 15.7 ns 20.1 21.1 18.9 ns 7.6 7.7 7.5 ns 15.7 17.8 13.0 ns Credit 18.2 22.0 14.1 *** 19.5 23.2 15.8 ** 18.3 24.1 12.3 *** 13.4 16.2 9.5 * Insurance 1.0 1.2 0.8 ns 1.2 1.4 1.0 ns 0.4 0.5 0.4 ns 1.1 1.3 0.8 ns Percentage of farmers not using any financialservices 68.0 63.5 72.9 ** 63.4 58.8 68.1 * 77.0 71.3 82.8 *** 74.2 70.0 79.9 * Number of responding farmers 3,358 1,773 1,585 1,201 632 569 1,329 668 661 828 473 355 NOTES: a Significance tests were performed to determine whether an association exists between the outcome indicator (use of financialservices) and the disaggregate variable (sex). Associationsfound to be statistically significant are indicated by level: * p<0.05, ** p<0.01, *** p<0.001; ns=not significant. Baseline Study of the RFSAs in Niger: Final Report (Vol. III) Annex 6: Descriptive Tables 71 Table 32: A6.8a. Percentage of sorghum farmers who applied targeted improved post-harvest handling and storage practices, in total and by farmers’ sex and age [Baseline Study, Niger 2020] Sex Age Total Male Female Sig.a 15-29 30+ Sig.a Combined RFSA areas Improved post-harvest handling and storage practices/technologies Locally made storage structures such as sheet metal silos 13.2 14.8 10.1 ns 11.5 13.6 ns Sealed/airtight bags 4.7 4.6 5.0 ns 2.3 5.4 * Community storage facilities, including warehouse receipting 3.3 4.3 1.3 ** 1.8 3.7 ns Use ofsolar orfuel-powered dryersto reduce post-harvest moisture 0.2 0.3 0.0 ns 0.0 0.2 ns Seed or grain treatment techniques (e.g., botanical pest control agents or phytosanitary irradiation) 0.3 0.5 0.1 ns 0.9 0.2 ns Grain treatment with agro-chemicals 0.7 0.4 1.2 * 0.0 0.9 ns Triple bags for cowpea grain preservation 0.5 0.4 0.7 ns 1.4 0.3 ** Other post-harvest practicesthatreduce pre-storage losses 2.6 2.7 2.3 ns 1.4 2.9 ns Number of responding sorghum farmers who stored their harvest1 1,905 1,284 621 384 1,521 Girma Sex Age Total Male Female Sig.a 15-29 30+ Sig.a Improved post-harvest handling and storage practices/technologies Locally made storage structures such as sheet metal silos 2.4 3.2 0.9 * 1.3 2.7 ns Sealed/airtight bags 3.0 2.4 4.1 ns 1.1 3.5 ns Community storage facilities, including warehouse receipting 3.1 4.1 1.3 * 1.1 3.7 ns Use ofsolar orfuel-powered dryersto reduce post-harvest moisture 0.1 0.1 0.0 ns 0.0 0.1 ns Seed or grain treatment techniques (e.g., botanical pest control agents or phytosanitary irradiation) 0.5 0.7 0.1 ns 1.4 0.3 ns Grain treatment with agro-chemicals 0.9 0.5 1.6 * 0.0 1.1 ns Triple bags for cowpea grain preservation 0.0 … … … … … Other post-harvest practicesthatreduce pre-storage losses 3.0 3.4 2.3 ns 1.2 3.5 ns Number of responding sorghum farmers who stored their harvest1 753 509 244 156 597 Hamzari Sex Age Total Male Female Sig.a 15-29 30+ Sig.a Improved post-harvest handling and storage practices/technologies Locally made storage structures such as sheet metal silos 37.1 42.9 23.4 *** 28.3 38.7 ns Sealed/airtight bags 10.0 11.1 7.3 ns 3.1 11.3 * Community storage facilities, including warehouse receipting 3.6 4.5 1.3 ns 4.1 3.5 ns Use ofsolar orfuel-powered dryersto reduce post-harvest moisture 0.3 0.4 0.0 ns 0.0 0.4 ns Seed or grain treatment techniques (e.g., botanical pest control agents or phytosanitary irradiation) 0.0 … … … … … Grain treatment with agro-chemicals 0.7 0.7 0.8 ns 0.0 0.9 ns Triple bags for cowpea grain preservation 0.4 0.6 0.0 ns 1.2 0.3 ns Other post-harvest practicesthatreduce pre-storage losses 3.6 2.9 5.2 ns 5.6 3.2 ns Number of responding sorghum farmers who stored their harvest1 683 463 220 117 566 Wadata Sex Age Total Male Female Sig.a 15-29 30+ Sig.a Improved post-harvest handling and storage practices/technologies Locally made storage structures such as sheet metal silos 32.3 30.9 34.9 ns 34.8 31.4 ns Sealed/airtight bags 6.4 6.4 6.4 ns 5.4 6.7 ns IMPEL | Implementer-Led Evaluation and Learning 72 Annex 6: Descriptive Tables Sex Age Total Male Female Sig.a 15-29 30+ Sig.a Combined RFSA areas Community storage facilities, including warehouse receipting 3.8 4.9 1.5 * 2.5 4.2 ns Use ofsolar orfuel-powered dryersto reduce post-harvest moisture 0.4 0.6 0.0 ns 0.0 0.5 ns Seed or grain treatment techniques (e.g., botanical pest control agents or phytosanitary irradiation) 0.0 … … … … … Grain treatment with agro-chemicals 1.0 … … … … … Triple bags for cowpea grain preservation 2.6 1.9 4.0 ns 5.7 1.6 ** Other post-harvest practicesthatreduce pre-storage losses 0.3 0.2 0.4 ns 0.0 0.4 ns Number of responding sorghum farmers who stored their harvest1 469 312 157 111 358 NOTES: a Significance tests were performed to determine whether an association exists between the outcome indicator (agricultural practice) and the disaggregate variable (sex and age). Associations found to be statistically significant are indicated by level: * p<0.05, ** p<0.01, *** p<0.001; ns=not significant. 1 Number ofrecordsfor improved storage practices may differ from that of other improved agricultural practices because questions on the use of improved practices were generally asked as part of the main agriculture module while questions on the use of improved storage practices were asked seperately as part of the module on crop yield. The numbers of responding farmers differ across the two modules. Table 33: A6.8b. Percentage of millet farmers who applied targeted improved post-harvest handling and storage practices, in total and by farmers’ sex and age [Baseline Study, Niger 2020] Sex Age Total Male Female Sig.a 15-29 30+ Sig.a Combined RFSA areas Improved post-harvest handling and storage practices/technologies Locally made storage structures such as sheet metal silos 15.1 17.4 11.4 ** 12.1 16.0 ns Sealed/airtight bags 3.8 4.7 2.4 * 2.7 4.2 ns Community storage facilities, including warehouse receipting 6.0 8.4 2.1 *** 2.2 7.1 *** Use ofsolar orfuel-powered dryersto reduce post-harvest moisture 0.4 0.7 0.0 *** 0.2 0.5 ns Seed or grain treatment techniques (e.g., botanical pest control agents or phytosanitary irradiation) 0.2 0.3 0.1 ns 0.6 0.1 * Grain treatment with agro-chemicals 0.7 0.7 0.8 ns 0.1 0.9 ** Triple bags for cowpea grain preservation 0.8 0.7 1.0 ns 0.6 0.9 ns Other post-harvest practicesthatreduce pre-storage losses 3.1 4.0 1.7 * 0.9 3.8 ** Number of responding sorghum farmers who stored their harvest1 2,517 1,607 910 562 1,955 Girma Sex Age Total Male Female Sig.a 15-29 30+ Sig.a Improved post-harvest handling and storage practices/technologies Locally made storage structures such as sheet metal silos 3.7 5.4 1.4 ** 2.1 4.3 * Sealed/airtight bags 2.0 2.7 1.0 ns 0.7 2.4 ns Community storage facilities, including warehouse receipting 6.6 9.6 2.0 *** 1.5 8.3 *** Use ofsolar orfuel-powered dryersto reduce post-harvest moisture 0.5 0.9 0.0 ns 0.3 0.6 ns Seed or grain treatment techniques (e.g., botanical pest control agents or phytosanitary irradiation) 0.2 0.3 0.1 ns 0.9 0.0 * Grain treatment with agro-chemicals 0.9 0.8 1.0 ns 0.0 1.2 ns Triple bags for cowpea grain preservation 0.1 0.2 0.0 ns 0.0 0.2 ns Other post-harvest practicesthatreduce pre-storage losses 3.9 5.3 1.9 * 0.8 4.9 * Number of responding sorghum farmers who stored their harvest1 954 587 367 239 715 Hamzari Sex Age Total Male Female Sig.a 15-29 30+ Sig.a Improved post-harvest handling and storage practices/technologies Baseline Study of the RFSAs in Niger: Final Report (Vol. III) Annex 6: Descriptive Tables 73 Sex Age Total Male Female Sig.a 15-29 30+ Sig.a Locally made storage structures such as sheet metal silos 40.5 45.0 32.1 * 33.9 41.9 ns Sealed/airtight bags 7.7 8.7 5.6 ns 8.0 7.6 ns Community storage facilities, including warehouse receipting 5.5 6.9 3.0 ** 4.8 5.7 ns Use ofsolar orfuel-powered dryersto reduce post-harvest moisture 0.5 0.8 0.0 *** 0.3 0.6 ns Seed or grain treatment techniques (e.g., botanical pest control agents or phytosanitary irradiation) 0.3 0.2 0.5 ns 0.0 0.4 ns Grain treatment with agro-chemicals 0.7 0.8 0.4 ns 0.6 0.7 ns Triple bags for cowpea grain preservation 1.2 0.9 1.8 ns 0.9 1.3 ns Other post-harvest practicesthatreduce pre-storage losses 3.2 3.9 2.0 ns 2.7 3.3 ns Number of responding sorghum farmers who stored their harvest1 973 625 348 185 788 Wadata Sex Age Total Male Female Sig.a 15-29 30+ Sig.a Improved post-harvest handling and storage practices/technologies Locally made storage structures such as sheet metal silos 30.4 28.7 33.9 ns 33.5 29.4 ns Sealed/airtight bags 6.6 7.4 5.1 ns 6.5 6.7 ns Community storage facilities, including warehouse receipting 4.4 5.7 1.8 * 3.2 4.8 ns Use ofsolar orfuel-powered dryersto reduce post-harvest moisture 0.0 … … … … Seed or grain treatment techniques (e.g., botanical pest control agents or phytosanitary irradiation) 0.0 … … … … Grain treatment with agro-chemicals 0.2 0.0 0.7 ns 0.0 0.3 ns Triple bags for cowpea grain preservation 2.9 2.3 4.3 ns 2.4 3.1 ns Other post-harvest practicesthatreduce pre-storage losses 0.3 0.2 0.7 ns 0.0 0.4 ns Number of responding sorghum farmers who stored their harvest1 590 395 195 138 452 NOTES: a Significance tests were performed to determine whether an association exists between the outcome indicator (agricultural practice) and the disaggregate variable (sex and age). Associations found to be statistically significant are indicated by level: * p<0.05, ** p<0.01, *** p<0.001; ns=not significant. 1 Number ofrecordsfor improved storage practices may differ from that of other improved agricultural practices because questions on the use of improved practices were generally asked as part of the main agriculture module while questions on the use of improved storage practices were asked seperately as part of the module on crop yield. The numbers of responding farmers differ across the two modules. Table 34: A6.8c. Percentage of cowpea farmers who applied targeted improved post-harvest handling and storage practices, in total and by farmers’ sex and age [Baseline Study, Niger 2020] Sex Age Total Male Female Sig.a 15-29 30+ Sig.a Combined RFSA areas Improved post-harvest handling and storage practices/technologies Locally made storage structures such as sheet metal silos 4.7 5.3 3.6 ns 3.5 5.1 ns Sealed/airtight bags 8.4 10.6 5.0 *** 5.1 9.6 ** Community storage facilities, including warehouse receipting 1.8 2.4 1.0 * 0.7 2.2 ** Use ofsolar orfuel-powered dryersto reduce post-harvest moisture 0.3 0.5 0.0 ** 0.2 0.4 ns Seed or grain treatment techniques (e.g., botanical pest control agents or phytosanitary irradiation) 1.0 1.6 0.1 *** 1.2 1.0 ns Grain treatment with agro-chemicals 2.0 2.5 1.3 ns 0.1 2.7 *** Triple bags for cowpea grain preservation 3.3 4.2 1.9 * 2.3 3.7 ns Other post-harvest practicesthatreduce pre-storage losses 7.2 8.7 4.9 ns 4.6 8.1 * Number of responding sorghum farmers who stored their harvest1 2,367 1,489 878 580 1,787 Girma Improved post-harvest handling and storage practices/technologies Locally made storage structures such as sheet metal silos 1.7 2.1 1.2 ns 1.2 1.9 ns Sealed/airtight bags 4.0 5.0 2.4 ns 2.3 4.6 ns IMPEL | Implementer-Led Evaluation and Learning 74 Annex 6: Descriptive Tables Sex Age Total Male Female Sig.a 15-29 30+ Sig.a Community storage facilities, including warehouse receipting 0.7 0.8 0.5 ns 0.0 0.9 ns Use ofsolar orfuel-powered dryersto reduce post-harvest moisture 0.3 0.5 0.0 ns 0.3 0.3 ns Seed or grain treatment techniques (e.g., botanical pest control agents or phytosanitary irradiation) 1.3 2.1 0.2 *** 1.7 1.2 ns Grain treatment with agro-chemicals 1.4 2.1 0.5 ns 0.0 1.9 ns Triple bags for cowpea grain preservation 1.1 1.9 0.0 ns 0.0 1.6 ns Other post-harvest practicesthatreduce pre-storage losses 9.7 12.1 6.2 * 5.7 11.2 ** Number of responding sorghum farmers who stored their harvest1 951 584 367 254 697 Hamzari Sex Age Total Male Female Sig.a 15-29 30+ Sig.a Improved post-harvest handling and storage practices/technologies Locally made storage structures such as sheet metal silos 7.1 8.6 4.1 ns 8.2 6.9 ns Sealed/airtight bags 28.9 34.0 18.1 *** 16.4 31.5 ** Community storage facilities, including warehouse receipting 5.2 6.7 1.8 ns 1.7 5.9 ns Use ofsolar orfuel-powered dryersto reduce post-harvest moisture 0.5 0.7 0.1 ** 0.4 0.5 ns Seed or grain treatment techniques (e.g., botanical pest control agents or phytosanitary irradiation) 1.0 1.4 0.0 ns 0.0 1.2 ns Grain treatment with agro-chemicals 5.1 4.9 5.6 ns 0.0 6.2 ns Triple bags for cowpea grain preservation 11.8 11.7 12.1 ns 13.3 11.5 ns Other post-harvest practicesthatreduce pre-storage losses 2.5 2.4 2.6 ns 1.5 2.7 ns Number of responding sorghum farmers who stored their harvest1 779 509 270 153 626 Wadata Sex Age Total Male Female Sig.a 15-29 30+ Sig.a Improved post-harvest handling and storage practices/technologies Locally made storage structures such as sheet metal silos 13.1 13.3 12.6 ns 8.8 14.7 * Sealed/airtight bags 8.7 10.0 6.5 ns 9.4 8.4 ns Community storage facilities, including warehouse receipting 3.4 4.1 2.2 ns 2.5 3.8 ns Use ofsolar orfuel-powered dryersto reduce post-harvest moisture 0.4 0.5 0.2 ns 0.0 0.5 ns Seed or grain treatment techniques (e.g., botanical pest control agents or phytosanitary irradiation) 0.0 … … … … Grain treatment with agro-chemicals 1.9 1.9 1.8 ns 0.6 2.3 ns Triple bags for cowpea grain preservation 4.4 5.6 2.4 ns 4.8 4.3 ns Other post-harvest practicesthatreduce pre-storage losses 2.2 2.7 1.3 ns 2.4 2.1 ns Number of responding sorghum farmers who stored their harvest1 637 396 241 173 464 NOTES: a Significance tests were performed to determine whether an association exists between the outcome indicator (agricultural practice) and the disaggregate variable (sex and age). Associations found to be statistically significant are indicated by level: * p<0.05, ** p<0.01, *** p<0.001; ns=not significant. 1 Number ofrecordsfor improved storage practices may differ from that of other improved agricultural practices because questions on the use of improved practices were generally asked as part of the main agriculture module while questions on the use of improved storage practices were asked seperately as part of the module on crop yield. The numbers of responding farmers differ across the two modules. Table 35: A6.8d. Percentage of peanut farmers who applied targeted improved post-harvest handling and storage practices, in total and by farmers’ sex and age [Baseline Study, Niger 2020] Sex Age Total Male Female Sig.a 15-29 30+ Sig.a Combined RFSA areas Improved post-harvest handling and storage practices/technologies Locally made storage structures such as sheet metal silos 3.5 4.2 2.1 ns 1.5 4.0 ns Baseline Study of the RFSAs in Niger: Final Report (Vol. III) Annex 6: Descriptive Tables 75 Sex Age Total Male Female Sig.a 15-29 30+ Sig.a Sealed/airtight bags 17.0 17.8 15.2 ns 7.2 19.3 *** Community storage facilities, including warehouse receipting 2.1 2.8 0.8 * 1.3 2.3 ns Use ofsolar orfuel-powered dryersto reduce post-harvest moisture 0.7 0.8 0.3 ns 0.5 0.7 ns Seed or grain treatment techniques (e.g., botanical pest control agents or phytosanitary irradiation) 0.5 0.6 0.1 ns 0.0 0.6 ns Grain treatment with agro-chemicals 0.5 0.2 1.1 ns 0.0 0.6 ns Triple bags for cowpea grain preservation 2.4 2.2 3.0 ns 0.7 2.8 * Other post-harvest practicesthatreduce pre-storage losses 5.0 5.6 3.7 ns 0.7 6.0 ** Number of responding sorghum farmers who stored their harvest1 998 725 273 153 845 Girma Sex Age Total Male Female Sig.a 15-29 30+ Sig.a Improved post-harvest handling and storage practices/technologies Locally made storage structures such as sheet metal silos 2.2 3.0 0.9 * 0.0 2.9 ns Sealed/airtight bags 12.8 13.1 12.4 ns 4.7 15.2 ** Community storage facilities, including warehouse receipting 0.9 1.4 0.0 ns 0.0 1.1 ns Use ofsolar orfuel-powered dryersto reduce post-harvest moisture 0.7 0.9 0.4 ns 0.6 0.7 ns Seed or grain treatment techniques (e.g., botanical pest control agents or phytosanitary irradiation) 0.3 0.5 0.0 ns 0.0 0.4 ns Grain treatment with agro-chemicals 0.5 0.0 1.3 ns 0.0 0.6 ns Triple bags for cowpea grain preservation 1.1 1.0 1.3 ns 0.0 1.5 ns Other post-harvest practicesthatreduce pre-storage losses 6.1 7.2 4.1 ns 0.9 7.5 ** Number of responding sorghum farmers who stored their harvest1 422 276 146 87 335 Hamzari Sex Age Total Male Female Sig.a 15-29 30+ Sig.a Improved post-harvest handling and storage practices/technologies Locally made storage structures such as sheet metal silos 8.0 8.0 8.1 ns 8.2 8.0 ns Sealed/airtight bags 35.4 36.9 30.4 ns 19.8 37.6 * Community storage facilities, including warehouse receipting 4.0 3.9 4.1 ns 7.6 3.5 ns Use ofsolar orfuel-powered dryersto reduce post-harvest moisture 0.3 0.4 0.0 ns 0.0 0.3 ns Seed or grain treatment techniques (e.g., botanical pest control agents or phytosanitary irradiation) 0.8 0.8 0.7 ns 0.0 0.9 ns Grain treatment with agro-chemicals 0.7 0.9 0.0 ns 0.0 0.8 ns Triple bags for cowpea grain preservation 7.8 6.3 12.3 ns 5.2 8.1 ns Other post-harvest practicesthatreduce pre-storage losses 2.7 2.8 2.2 ns 0.0 3.0 ns Number of responding sorghum farmers who stored their harvest1 479 360 119 58 421 Wadata Sex Age Total Male Female Sig.a 15-29 30+ Sig.a Improved post-harvest handling and storage practices/technologies Locally made storage structures such as sheet metal silos 4.1 3.7 ^ ^ 3.1 Sealed/airtight bags 5.9 4.9 ^ ^ 4.3 Community storage facilities, including warehouse receipting 10.5 10.2 ^ ^ 10.5 Use ofsolar orfuel-powered dryersto reduce post-harvest moisture 1.2 1.2 ^ ^ 1.3 Seed or grain treatment techniques (e.g., botanical pest control agents or phytosanitary irradiation) 1.3 1.4 ^ ^ 1.4 Grain treatment with agro-chemicals 0.0 … … … … Triple bags for cowpea grain preservation 0.0 … … … … IMPEL | Implementer-Led Evaluation and Learning 76 Annex 6: Descriptive Tables Sex Age Total Male Female Sig.a 15-29 30+ Sig.a Other post-harvest practicesthatreduce pre-storage losses 0.0 … … … … Number of responding sorghum farmers who stored their harvest1 97 89 8 8 89 NOTES: ^ Results notstatistically reliable, n<30. a Significance tests were performed to determine whether an association exists between the outcome indicator (agricultural practice) and the disaggregate variable (sex and age). Associations found to be statistically significant are indicated by level: * p<0.05, ** p<0.01, *** p<0.001; ns=not significant. 1 Number ofrecordsfor improved storage practices may differ from that of other improved agricultural practices because questions on the use of improved practices were generally asked as part of the main agriculture module while questions on the use of improved storage practices were asked seperately as part of the module on crop yield. The numbers of responding farmers differ across the two modules. Table 36: A6.9a. Percentage of sorghum farmers who applied targeted improved crop and NRM practices and technologies by type, in total and by farmers’ sex and age [Baseline Study, Niger 2020] Sex Age Total Male Female Sig.a 15-29 30+ Sig.a Combined RFSA areas Crop genetics practices/technologies Use of improved seeds 7.7 8.9 5.5 ns 1.6 9.4 *** Cultural practices/technologies Control of sida cordifolia growth 12.2 12.6 11.5 ns 12.6 12.1 ns Crop association 49.0 49.7 47.5 ns 42.4 50.7 ns Crop rotation 1.6 1.9 1.0 ns 0.6 1.9 * Sowing after useful rain 33.8 35.2 31.2 ns 29.2 35.1 ns Improved natural resources or ecosystem management practices/technologies Farmer managed natural regeneration (fmnr) 37.4 39.2 34.0 ns 35.1 38.0 ns Delimitation of animal corridors and pasture areas 35.2 38.1 29.5 ** 28.6 36.9 * Protection of ponds againstsilting up 6.9 8.5 3.8 ** 4.2 7.6 ns FMNR 3.7 4.3 2.6 ns 3.0 3.9 ns Improved pest and disease management practices/technologies Delay ofseedlings until third or fourth rains 5.9 6.3 5.2 ns 5.3 6.1 ns Seed treatment with fungicides 5.1 6.1 3.1 * 3.5 5.5 ns Improved soil-related fertility and conservation practices/technologies Zai pits 6.1 5.5 7.3 ns 3.8 6.7 * Organic manure 64.4 67.4 58.6 ** 57.8 66.2 * Phosphatic manure 8.4 8.7 7.7 ns 7.0 8.7 ns Compost 23.7 26.7 18.1 ** 22.1 24.2 ns Microdoses of fertilizer 2.9 3.7 1.4 ** 0.7 3.5 *** Improved agriculture water management non-irrigation-based practices/technologies Agricultural half-moons 1.4 1.5 1.1 ns 1.5 1.3 ns Improved climate adaptation/climate risk management practices/technologies Use of climate information 0.9 1.2 0.2 * 0.2 1.0 * Other improved practices/technologies Performing at least three weedings 30.4 31.8 27.6 ns 23.6 32.2 * Number of responding sorghum farmers 2,203 1,468 735 456 1,747 Girma Crop genetics practices/technologies Use of improved seeds 8.7 9.3 7.5 ns 1.2 10.7 *** Cultural practices/technologies Control of sida cordifolia growth 14.2 14.1 14.2 ns 16.2 13.6 ns Crop association 48.6 50.1 45.9 ns 39.7 51.0 ns Crop rotation 1.4 1.6 1.2 ns 0.2 1.8 ** Sowing after useful rain 37.1 38.1 35.3 ns 30.6 38.8 ns Improved natural resources or ecosystem management practices/technologies Farmer managed natural regeneration (fmnr) 42.4 43.9 39.9 ns 40.2 43.0 ns Baseline Study of the RFSAs in Niger: Final Report (Vol. III) Annex 6: Descriptive Tables 77 Sex Age Total Male Female Sig.a 15-29 30+ Sig.a Delimitation of animal corridors and pasture areas 38.8 41.5 33.8 * 31.0 40.9 * Protection of ponds againstsilting up 5.8 7.1 3.6 ns 3.3 6.5 ns FMNR 4.6 5.3 3.4 ns 3.7 4.9 ns Improved pest and disease management practices/technologies Delay ofseedlings until third or fourth rains 7.0 7.8 5.6 ns 5.8 7.4 ns Seed treatment with fungicides 1.8 2.1 1.2 ns 1.5 1.8 ns Improved soil-related fertility and conservation practices/technologies Zai pits 6.0 4.8 8.1 ns 3.0 6.8 ns Organic manure 65.4 67.9 60.9 ns 60.9 66.7 ns Phosphatic manure 8.4 8.5 8.2 ns 6.8 8.9 ns Compost 27.6 31.5 20.8 ** 26.4 28.0 ns Microdoses of fertilizer 2.8 3.7 1.2 * 0.3 3.5 ** Improved agriculture water management non-irrigation-based practices/technologies Agricultural half-moons 1.5 1.9 0.8 ns 2.4 1.2 ns Improved climate adaptation/climate risk management practices/technologies Use of climate information 0.8 1.1 0.2 ns 0.0 1.0 ns Other improved practices/technologies Performing at least three weedings 35.8 36.4 34.8 ns 27.3 38.2 ns Number of responding sorghum farmers 785 524 261 163 622 Hamzari Crop genetics practices/technologies Use of improved seeds 12.6 16.7 3.8 ** 6.3 13.9 *** Cultural practices/technologies Control of sida cordifolia growth 18.9 20.9 14.5 ** 17.9 19.1 ns Crop association 74.1 74.5 73.4 ns 71.1 74.8 ns Crop rotation 3.6 4.5 1.5 * 2.6 3.8 ns Sowing after useful rain 39.4 41.4 35.0 ns 40.9 39.1 ns Improved natural resources or ecosystem management practices/technologies Farmer managed natural regeneration (fmnr) 19.3 20.5 16.7 ns 22.1 18.8 ns Delimitation of animal corridors and pasture areas 33.3 34.4 30.9 ns 37.2 32.6 ns Protection of ponds againstsilting up 9.5 12.1 3.8 *** 8.7 9.6 ns FMNR 2.7 3.3 1.3 ns 2.2 2.7 ns Improved pest and disease management practices/technologies Delay ofseedlings until third or fourth rains 8.9 8.4 10.0 ns 12.3 8.2 ns Seed treatment with fungicides 13.5 16.8 6.5 *** 8.6 14.5 ns Improved soil-related fertility and conservation practices/technologies Zai pits 12.2 12.1 12.4 ns 10.0 12.6 ns Organic manure 66.0 68.8 60.0 ns 59.6 67.3 ns Phosphatic manure 9.9 11.6 6.1 ns 8.9 10.1 ns Compost 29.1 33.3 19.7 * 24.3 30.0 ns Microdoses of fertilizer 5.4 6.6 2.8 ns 2.8 5.9 ns Improved agriculture water management non-irrigation-based practices/technologies Agricultural half-moons 2.0 1.3 3.7 ns 0.0 2.4 ns Improved climate adaptation/climate risk management practices/technologies Use of climate information 2.0 3.0 0.0 ns 1.7 2.1 ns Other improved practices/technologies Performing at least three weedings 34.2 39.2 23.2 *** 33.6 34.3 ns Number of responding sorghum farmers 822 546 276 145 677 Wadata Crop genetics practices/technologies Use of improved seeds 0.6 0.9 0.0 ns 0.0 0.8 ns Cultural practices/technologies Control of sida cordifolia growth 0.5 0.8 0.0 ns 0.0 0.7 ns IMPEL | Implementer-Led Evaluation and Learning 78 Annex 6: Descriptive Tables Sex Age Total Male Female Sig.a 15-29 30+ Sig.a Crop association 28.9 27.3 32.4 ns 33.8 27.3 ns Crop rotation 0.5 0.8 0.0 ns 0.7 0.4 ns Sowing after useful rain 19.0 21.4 14.1 ns 18.8 19.0 ns Improved natural resources or ecosystem management practices/technologies Farmer managed natural regeneration (fmnr) 36.8 41.2 27.7 * 28.8 39.5 ns Delimitation of animal corridors and pasture areas 25.5 31.3 13.7 *** 17.5 28.2 ns Protection of ponds againstsilting up 7.9 9.7 4.3 ns 4.2 9.2 ns FMNR 1.7 2.0 1.0 ns 1.4 1.8 ns Improved pest and disease management practices/technologies Delay ofseedlings until third or fourth rains 0.2 0.3 0.0 ns 0.0 0.2 ns Seed treatment with fungicides 8.2 8.9 6.7 ns 5.9 9.0 ns Improved soil-related fertility and conservation practices/technologies Zai pits 1.5 2.0 0.4 ns 2.3 1.2 ns Organic manure 59.9 64.8 49.8 * 48.6 63.7 * Phosphatic manure 7.0 6.8 7.5 ns 6.7 7.2 ns Compost 7.2 6.9 7.7 ns 9.4 6.5 ns Microdoses of fertilizer 1.2 1.5 0.7 ns 0.7 1.4 ns Improved agriculture water management non-irrigation-based practices/technologies Agricultural half-moons 0.5 0.8 0.0 ns 0.0 0.7 ns Improved climate adaptation/climate risk management practices/technologies Use of climate information 0.0 … … … … Other improved practices/technologies Performing at least three weedings 10.3 12.1 6.7 ns 8.3 11.0 ns Number of responding sorghum farmers 596 398 198 148 448 NOTES: FMNR = farmer managed natural regeneration. Crop rotation is considered both an improved pest and disease management practice and a cultural practice. a Significance tests were performed to determine whether an association exists between the outcome indicator (agricultural practice) and the disaggregate variable (sex andage). Associations found to be statistically significant are indicated by level: * p<0.05, ** p<0.01, *** p<0.001; ns=not significant. Table 37: A6.9b. Percentage of millet farmers who applied targeted improved crop and NRM practices and technologies by type, in total and by farmers’ sex and age [Baseline Study, Niger 2020] Sex Age Total Male Female Sig.a 15-29 30+ Sig.a Combined RFSA areas Crop genetics practices/technologies Use of improved seeds 7.6 8.8 5.7 * 2.0 9.4 *** Cultural practices/technologies Control of sida cordifolia growth 12.7 13.4 11.7 ns 13.5 12.5 ns Crop association 49.0 50.6 46.6 ns 42.6 51.1 * Crop rotation 2.4 2.9 1.6 ns 2.1 2.5 ns Sowing after useful rain 34.4 36.7 30.7 ** 27.7 36.5 * Improved natural resources or ecosystem management practices/technologies Farmer managed natural regeneration (fmnr) 37.2 38.8 34.7 * 36.5 37.4 ns Delimitation of animal corridors and pasture areas 33.1 37.3 26.5 *** 27.0 35.1 ** Protection of ponds againstsilting up 6.4 8.2 3.6 *** 4.0 7.2 * FMNR 3.4 4.3 1.9 * 2.8 3.6 ns Improved pest and disease management practices/technologies Delay ofseedlings until third or fourth rains 5.1 5.3 4.8 ns 5.6 4.9 ns Seed treatment with fungicides 5.0 6.3 2.9 ** 3.3 5.5 ns Improved soil-related fertility and conservation practices/technologies Zai pits 5.8 5.4 6.5 ns 3.7 6.5 * Organic manure 60.5 64.4 54.2 ** 54.3 62.5 * Phosphatic manure 9.5 10.3 8.3 ns 8.7 9.7 ns Compost 24.9 27.0 21.6 * 24.0 25.2 ns Microdoses of fertilizer 2.9 3.6 1.8 * 1.2 3.4 * Baseline Study of the RFSAs in Niger: Final Report (Vol. III) Annex 6: Descriptive Tables 79 Sex Age Total Male Female Sig.a 15-29 30+ Sig.a Improved agriculture water management non-irrigation-based practices/technologies Agricultural half-moons 1.2 1.3 1.1 ns 1.0 1.3 ns Improved climate adaptation/climate risk management practices/technologies Use of climate information 0.7 1.1 0.0 ns 0.2 0.8 * Other improved practices/technologies Performing at least three weedings 30.9 31.2 30.5 ns 27.0 32.2 ns Number of responding sorghum farmers 2,663 1,676 987 615 2,048 Girma Sex Age Total Male Female Sig.a 15-29 30+ Sig.a Crop genetics practices/technologies Use of improved seeds 8.6 9.4 7.5 ns 1.9 10.9 ** Cultural practices/technologies Control of sida cordifolia growth 14.5 15.0 13.7 ns 17.0 13.6 ns Crop association 48.2 50.8 44.5 ns 40.2 51.0 * Crop rotation 1.4 2.2 0.3 ** 1.2 1.5 ns Sowing after useful rain 36.6 39.0 33.1 ns 28.2 39.4 * Improved natural resources or ecosystem management practices/technologies Farmer managed natural regeneration (fmnr) 42.9 43.8 41.5 ns 41.7 43.3 ns Delimitation of animal corridors and pasture areas 36.5 41.2 29.7 ** 29.9 38.7 * Protection of ponds againstsilting up 5.4 6.9 3.2 * 2.8 6.3 ns FMNR 4.3 5.4 2.8 ns 3.7 4.6 ns Improved pest and disease management practices/technologies Delay ofseedlings until third or fourth rains 5.9 6.4 5.3 ns 7.2 5.5 ns Seed treatment with fungicides 2.1 2.8 1.1 ns 1.6 2.3 ns Improved soil-related fertility and conservation practices/technologies Zai pits 5.1 4.4 6.0 ns 2.4 6.0 * Organic manure 61.1 64.3 56.3 ns 56.4 62.7 ns Phosphatic manure 8.8 9.7 7.4 ns 8.0 9.0 ns Compost 27.3 30.7 22.4 * 26.6 27.6 ns Microdoses of fertilizer 2.3 3.1 1.2 * 0.5 2.9 ** Improved agriculture water management non-irrigation-based practices/technologies Agricultural half-moons 1.3 1.5 0.9 ns 1.5 1.2 ns Improved climate adaptation/climate risk management practices/technologies Use of climate information 0.7 1.2 0.0 ns 0.0 0.9 ns Other improved practices/technologies Performing at least three weedings 35.1 34.6 35.8 ns 30.1 36.8 ns Number of responding sorghum farmers 968 592 376 246 722 Hamzari Sex Age Total Male Female Sig.a 15-29 30+ Sig.a Crop genetics practices/technologies Use of improved seeds 11.7 15.6 4.5 *** 5.4 13.1 *** Cultural practices/technologies Control of sida cordifolia growth 18.9 20.7 15.6 ** 16.9 19.4 ns Crop association 68.7 70.4 65.6 ns 63.4 69.9 ns Crop rotation 7.1 6.7 7.8 ns 8.2 6.8 ns Sowing after useful rain 41.6 44.0 37.4 * 38.0 42.5 ns Improved natural resources or ecosystem management practices/technologies Farmer managed natural regeneration (fmnr) 18.7 20.4 15.6 ns 21.9 18.0 ns Delimitation of animal corridors and pasture areas 30.4 31.7 28.0 ns 29.9 30.5 ns Protection of ponds againstsilting up 8.4 10.8 4.0 ** 9.5 8.1 ns FMNR 2.2 3.3 0.2 *** 0.9 2.5 ns IMPEL | Implementer-Led Evaluation and Learning 80 Annex 6: Descriptive Tables Sex Age Total Male Female Sig.a 15-29 30+ Sig.a Improved pest and disease management practices/technologies Delay ofseedlings until third or fourth rains 7.5 7.3 7.8 ns 6.2 7.8 ns Seed treatment with fungicides 11.3 13.6 7.1 ** 7.7 12.1 ns Improved soil-related fertility and conservation practices/technologies Zai pits 12.8 12.1 14.0 ns 12.9 12.7 ns Organic manure 61.5 65.3 54.7 * 56.6 62.6 ns Phosphatic manure 14.5 16.2 11.4 * 14.1 14.6 ns Compost 34.3 36.7 30.0 ns 31.7 34.9 ns Microdoses of fertilizer 6.9 7.7 5.5 ns 6.4 7.0 ns Improved agriculture water management non-irrigation-based practices/technologies Agricultural half-moons 1.9 1.6 2.7 ns 0.0 2.4 ns Improved climate adaptation/climate risk management practices/technologies Use of climate information 1.3 2.1 0.0 ns 1.4 1.3 ns Other improved practices/technologies Performing at least three weedings 36.2 38.6 31.9 ns 36.1 36.3 ns Number of responding sorghum farmers 1,018 648 370 198 820 Wadata Sex Age Total Male Female Sig.a 15-29 30+ Sig.a Crop genetics practices/technologies Use of improved seeds 0.3 0.4 0.0 ns 0.0 0.4 ns Cultural practices/technologies Control of sida cordifolia growth 1.1 1.6 0.1 ** 0.0 1.4 ns Crop association 33.0 31.3 36.2 ns 36.6 31.8 ns Crop rotation 1.2 1.4 0.7 ns 1.2 1.1 ns Sowing after useful rain 20.3 23.1 15.2 ns 19.1 20.8 ns Improved natural resources or ecosystem management practices/technologies Farmer managed natural regeneration (fmnr) 36.0 40.9 26.9 ** 29.2 38.4 ns Delimitation of animal corridors and pasture areas 24.5 30.7 13.0 *** 15.3 27.8 * Protection of ponds againstsilting up 8.0 9.8 4.6 ns 4.5 9.2 * FMNR 1.4 2.1 0.1 *** 1.2 1.5 ns Improved pest and disease management practices/technologies Delay ofseedlings until third or fourth rains 0.0 … … … … Seed treatment with fungicides 8.3 9.8 5.4 ns 6.0 9.0 ns Improved soil-related fertility and conservation practices/technologies Zai pits 1.7 2.1 0.9 ns 2.0 1.6 ns Organic manure 57.5 63.8 45.6 ** 45.7 61.6 ** Phosphatic manure 7.1 6.4 8.4 ns 7.3 7.0 ns Compost 8.0 6.8 10.3 ns 10.3 7.2 ns Microdoses of fertilizer 0.8 1.2 0.1 ** 0.0 1.1 ns Improved agriculture water management non-irrigation-based practices/technologies Agricultural half-moons 0.3 0.4 0.0 ns 0.0 0.4 ns Improved climate adaptation/climate risk management practices/technologies Use of climate information 0.0 … … … … Other improved practices/technologies Performing at least three weedings 12.2 14.1 8.6 ns 10.6 12.7 ns Number of responding sorghum farmers 677 436 241 171 506 NOTES: FMNR = farmer managed natural regeneration. Crop rotation is considered both an improved pest and disease management practice and a cultural practice. a Significance tests were performed to determine whether an association exists between the outcome indicator (agricultural practice) and the disaggregate variable (sex andage). Associations found to be statistically significant are indicated by level: * p<0.05, ** p<0.01, *** p<0.001; ns=not significant. Baseline Study of the RFSAs in Niger: Final Report (Vol. III) Annex 6: Descriptive Tables 81 Table 38: A6.9c. Percentage of cowpea farmers who applied targeted improved crop and NRM practices and technologies by type, in total and by farmers’ sex and age[Baseline Study, Niger 2020] Sex Age Total Male Female Sig.a 15-29 30+ Sig.a Combined RFSA areas Crop genetics practices/technologies Use of improved seeds 8.4 10.0 5.9 * 1.7 10.6 *** Cultural practices/technologies Control of sida cordifolia growth 12.4 13.2 11.1 ns 12.5 12.3 ns Crop association 49.0 49.8 47.6 ns 42.3 51.2 * Crop rotation 1.9 2.0 1.6 ns 1.6 1.9 ns Sowing after useful rain 33.4 35.6 29.9 * 28.1 35.2 * Improved natural resources or ecosystem management practices/technologies Farmer managed natural regeneration (fmnr) 37.6 39.2 35.2 ns 35.5 38.3 ns Delimitation of animal corridors and pasture areas 33.1 37.4 26.2 *** 26.6 35.3 ** Protection of ponds againstsilting up 6.3 8.1 3.5 *** 3.7 7.2 * FMNR 3.6 4.4 2.2 * 3.1 3.7 ns Improved pest and disease management practices/technologies Delay ofseedlings until third or fourth rains 6.8 7.3 6.1 ns 6.1 7.0 ns Seed treatment with fungicides 5.1 6.5 2.9 *** 3.5 5.6 ns Improved soil-related fertility and conservation practices/technologies Zai pits 5.2 4.9 5.7 ns 3.5 5.8 * Organic manure 59.8 64.8 51.9 *** 51.6 62.6 ** Phosphatic manure 9.6 10.2 8.6 ns 8.5 9.9 ns Compost 23.4 25.6 19.9 * 21.9 23.9 ns Microdoses of fertilizer 2.6 3.3 1.5 * 1.0 3.1 ** Improved agriculture water management non-irrigation-based practices/technologies Agricultural half-moons 1.6 1.7 1.5 ns 1.3 1.7 ns Improved climate adaptation/climate risk management practices/technologies Use of climate information 0.5 0.9 0.0 ns 0.2 0.7 ns Other improved practices/technologies Performing at least three weedings 29.9 30.7 28.6 ns 25.9 31.2 ns Number of responding sorghum farmers 2,582 1,624 958 623 1,959 Girma Sex Age Total Male Female Sig.a 15-29 30+ Sig.a Crop genetics practices/technologies Use of improved seeds 9.9 11.4 7.8 ns 2.0 12.8 *** Cultural practices/technologies Control of sida cordifolia growth 14.1 14.9 13.1 ns 15.7 13.6 ns Crop association 48.9 50.0 47.3 ns 41.4 51.6 * Crop rotation 1.2 1.2 1.1 ns 1.2 1.2 ns Sowing after useful rain 35.4 37.8 32.0 * 29.9 37.4 ns Improved natural resources or ecosystem management practices/technologies Farmer managed natural regeneration (fmnr) 42.5 43.6 41.0 ns 40.2 43.4 ns Delimitation of animal corridors and pasture areas 36.5 41.2 29.6 ** 30.1 38.8 * Protection of ponds againstsilting up 5.2 6.7 3.1 ns 2.5 6.2 ns FMNR 4.4 5.5 2.8 ns 3.9 4.6 ns Improved pest and disease management practices/technologies Delay ofseedlings until third or fourth rains 7.5 8.0 6.7 ns 6.8 7.8 ns Seed treatment with fungicides 2.1 2.8 1.1 ns 2.1 2.1 ns Improved soil-related fertility and conservation practices/technologies Zai pits 4.0 3.4 4.9 ns 2.3 4.6 ns Organic manure 60.0 64.4 53.5 * 53.9 62.2 ns Phosphatic manure 8.7 9.4 7.7 ns 7.8 9.0 ns Compost 25.8 28.9 21.2 * 25.0 26.1 ns Microdoses of fertilizer 2.2 3.0 1.0 ** 0.4 2.8 ** IMPEL | Implementer-Led Evaluation and Learning 82 Annex 6: Descriptive Tables Sex Age Total Male Female Sig.a 15-29 30+ Sig.a Improved agriculture water management non-irrigation-based practices/technologies Agricultural half-moons 2.0 2.1 1.8 ns 1.6 2.1 ns Improved climate adaptation/climate risk management practices/technologies Use of climate information 0.5 0.8 0.0 ns 0.0 0.7 ns Other improved practices/technologies Performing at least three weedings 33.3 33.6 33.0 ns 29.2 34.8 ns Number of responding sorghum farmers 961 590 371 254 707 Hamzari Sex Age Total Male Female Sig.a 15-29 30+ Sig.a Crop genetics practices/technologies Use of improved seeds 12.4 16.0 5.0 ** 3.8 14.2 *** Cultural practices/technologies Control of sida cordifolia growth 20.1 21.8 16.6 ns 17.7 20.6 ns Crop association 71.1 71.7 70.0 ns 64.2 72.6 * Crop rotation 5.7 5.7 5.8 ns 6.2 5.6 ns Sowing after useful rain 41.1 42.6 38.2 ns 35.1 42.4 ns Improved natural resources or ecosystem management practices/technologies Farmer managed natural regeneration (fmnr) 18.8 19.9 16.5 ns 18.5 18.8 ns Delimitation of animal corridors and pasture areas 30.8 31.4 29.5 ns 27.6 31.4 ns Protection of ponds againstsilting up 8.9 11.1 4.5 ** 10.5 8.6 ns FMNR 2.6 3.4 1.1 ns 1.8 2.8 ns Improved pest and disease management practices/technologies Delay ofseedlings until third or fourth rains 11.9 12.3 11.0 ns 13.2 11.6 ns Seed treatment with fungicides 13.5 15.6 9.2 ** 11.1 14.0 ns Improved soil-related fertility and conservation practices/technologies Zai pits 15.2 14.4 16.8 ns 15.7 15.1 ns Organic manure 61.5 65.2 54.1 * 52.0 63.5 * Phosphatic manure 15.7 16.7 13.7 ns 14.0 16.1 ns Compost 34.5 35.9 31.6 ns 30.7 35.3 ns Microdoses of fertilizer 5.9 6.4 4.9 ns 5.0 6.1 ns Improved agriculture water management non-irrigation-based practices/technologies Agricultural half-moons 1.7 1.6 1.9 ns 1.4 1.8 ns Improved climate adaptation/climate risk management practices/technologies Use of climate information 1.5 2.2 0.0 ns 1.7 1.4 ns Other improved practices/technologies Performing at least three weedings 37.4 39.4 33.3 ns 34.1 38.1 ns Number of responding sorghum farmers 909 596 313 172 737 Wadata Sex Age Total Male Female Sig.a 15-29 30+ Sig.a Crop genetics practices/technologies Use of improved seeds 0.4 0.6 0.0 ns 0.0 0.5 ns Cultural practices/technologies Control of sida cordifolia growth 0.5 0.7 0.1 * 0.0 0.7 ns Crop association 31.3 30.5 32.7 ns 34.2 30.2 ns Crop rotation 0.9 1.2 0.2 ns 0.6 1.0 ns Sowing after useful rain 20.7 22.9 17.2 ns 19.2 21.3 ns Improved natural resources or ecosystem management practices/technologies Farmer managed natural regeneration (fmnr) 37.0 42.4 28.1 ** 29.9 39.8 ns Delimitation of animal corridors and pasture areas 24.2 31.4 12.1 *** 15.5 27.5 * Protection of ponds againstsilting up 7.8 10.1 4.0 * 4.0 9.2 * FMNR 1.6 2.1 0.8 ns 1.1 1.8 ns Baseline Study of the RFSAs in Niger: Final Report (Vol. III) Annex 6: Descriptive Tables 83 Sex Age Total Male Female Sig.a 15-29 30+ Sig.a Improved pest and disease management practices/technologies Delay ofseedlings until third or fourth rains 0.5 0.5 0.4 ns 0.5 0.5 ns Seed treatment with fungicides 7.8 9.6 4.8 * 4.0 9.3 ns Improved soil-related fertility and conservation practices/technologies Zai pits 1.0 1.5 0.3 ns 1.0 1.1 ns Organic manure 57.8 65.5 45.0 ** 44.2 63.1 ** Phosphatic manure 7.4 7.1 8.0 ns 8.1 7.2 ns Compost 7.0 6.7 7.5 ns 8.4 6.5 ns Microdoses of fertilizer 1.3 1.5 0.9 ns 1.1 1.4 ns Improved agriculture water management non-irrigation-based practices/technologies Agricultural half-moons 0.3 0.6 0.0 ns 0.0 0.5 ns Improved climate adaptation/climate risk management practices/technologies Use of climate information 0.0 … … … … … Other improved practices/technologies Performing at least three weedings 12.8 14.4 10.3 ns 11.7 13.2 ns Number of responding sorghum farmers 712 438 274 197 515 NOTES: FMNR = farmer managed natural regeneration. Crop rotation is considered both an improved pest and disease management practice and a cultural practice. a Significance tests were performed to determine whether an association exists between the outcome indicator (agricultural practice) and the disaggregate variable (sex andage). Associations found to be statistically significant are indicated by level: * p<0.05, ** p<0.01, *** p<0.001; ns=not significant. Table 39: A6.9d. Percentage of peanut farmers who applied targeted improved crop and NRM practices and technologies by type, in total and by farmers’ sex and age [Baseline Study, Niger 2020] Sex Age Total Male Female Sig.a 15-29 30+ Sig.a Combined RFSA areas Crop genetics practices/technologies Use of improved seeds 10.4 11.9 7.2 * 1.0 12.6 *** Cultural practices/technologies Control of sida cordifolia growth 13.6 14.5 11.7 ns 11.8 14.0 ns Crop association 48.4 48.3 48.6 ns 33.0 52.0 ** Crop rotation 2.4 2.5 2.1 ns 0.9 2.7 ns Sowing after useful rain 33.2 34.3 30.9 ns 26.9 34.7 ns Improved natural resources or ecosystem management practices/technologies Farmer managed natural regeneration (fmnr) 40.0 41.3 37.2 ns 39.7 40.0 ns Delimitation of animal corridors and pasture areas 37.8 41.2 30.7 *** 26.2 40.5 *** Protection of ponds againstsilting up 8.2 9.7 5.1 ns 6.4 8.6 ns FMNR 5.2 6.0 3.6 ns 4.3 5.5 ns Improved pest and disease management practices/technologies Delay ofseedlings until third or fourth rains 10.6 10.5 10.7 ns 11.5 10.4 ns Seed treatment with fungicides 5.1 5.8 3.7 ns 1.9 5.9 * Improved soil-related fertility and conservation practices/technologies Zai pits 6.2 5.2 8.3 ns 5.8 6.3 ns Organic manure 67.5 68.4 65.7 ns 62.4 68.7 ns Phosphatic manure 11.0 10.8 11.4 ns 12.8 10.6 ns Compost 27.3 29.6 22.4 * 30.5 26.5 ns Microdoses of fertilizer 3.2 4.4 0.7 *** 1.6 3.6 ns Improved agriculture water management non-irrigation-based practices/technologies Agricultural half-moons 1.7 1.2 2.8 ns 3.8 1.2 ns Improved climate adaptation/climate risk management practices/technologies Use of climate information 0.4 0.6 0.0 ns 0.4 0.4 ns Other improved practices/technologies Performing at least three weedings 25.7 25.5 26.3 ns 22.9 26.4 ns Number of responding sorghum farmers 1,132 813 319 172 960 IMPEL | Implementer-Led Evaluation and Learning 84 Annex 6: Descriptive Tables Sex Age Total Male Female Sig.a 15-29 30+ Sig.a Girma Sex Age Total Male Female Sig.a 15-29 30+ Sig.a Crop genetics practices/technologies Use of improved seeds 9.9 11.4 7.2 ns 0.0 12.7 * Cultural practices/technologies Control of sida cordifolia growth 12.3 13.1 10.9 ns 10.8 12.7 ns Crop association 44.8 45.0 44.4 ns 28.0 49.6 ** Crop rotation 1.0 1.1 0.8 ns 0.0 1.2 ns Sowing after useful rain 31.3 32.6 29.2 ns 25.6 33.0 ns Improved natural resources or ecosystem management practices/technologies Farmer managed natural regeneration (fmnr) 46.0 48.2 42.1 ns 42.4 47.0 ns Delimitation of animal corridors and pasture areas 38.6 43.9 29.7 *** 24.8 42.6 *** Protection of ponds againstsilting up 6.3 6.9 5.3 ns 4.3 6.9 ns FMNR 6.2 7.4 4.0 ns 4.7 6.6 ns Improved pest and disease management practices/technologies Delay ofseedlings until third or fourth rains 12.0 12.1 11.8 ns 12.2 11.9 ns Seed treatment with fungicides 2.2 1.8 2.9 ns 0.0 2.8 ns Improved soil-related fertility and conservation practices/technologies Zai pits 4.3 2.6 7.3 ns 4.4 4.3 ns Organic manure 65.5 64.9 66.4 ns 60.8 66.8 ns Phosphatic manure 9.3 8.7 10.3 ns 12.0 8.5 ns Compost 27.2 30.7 21.2 * 30.3 26.3 ns Microdoses of fertilizer 2.5 3.8 0.1 *** 1.4 2.8 ns Improved agriculture water management non-irrigation-based practices/technologies Agricultural half-moons 1.8 1.2 2.8 ns 4.7 0.9 ns Improved climate adaptation/climate risk management practices/technologies Use of climate information 0.0 … … … … Other improved practices/technologies Performing at least three weedings 24.4 24.3 24.5 ns 20.6 25.4 ns Number of responding sorghum farmers 444 290 154 91 353 Hamzari Sex Age Total Male Female Sig.a 15-29 30+ Sig.a Crop genetics practices/technologies Use of improved seeds 14.6 16.9 7.8 ** 7.2 15.6 * Cultural practices/technologies Control of sida cordifolia growth 21.5 23.2 16.4 ns 20.4 21.6 ns Crop association 69.9 69.6 70.9 ns 65.2 70.6 ns Crop rotation 7.2 7.4 6.9 ns 6.2 7.4 ns Sowing after useful rain 43.2 44.1 40.7 ns 37.8 44.0 ns Improved natural resources or ecosystem management practices/technologies Farmer managed natural regeneration (fmnr) 18.5 19.4 16.1 ns 18.5 18.5 ns Delimitation of animal corridors and pasture areas 32.6 33.0 31.4 ns 30.9 32.9 ns Protection of ponds againstsilting up 9.3 11.4 3.3 ** 10.1 9.2 ns FMNR 3.4 3.9 2.2 ns 2.9 3.5 ns Improved pest and disease management practices/technologies Delay ofseedlings until third or fourth rains 9.6 10.5 7.1 ns 10.2 9.5 ns Seed treatment with fungicides 15.6 18.2 8.0 * 11.1 16.2 ns Improved soil-related fertility and conservation practices/technologies Zai pits 13.3 13.2 13.8 ns 15.5 13.0 ns Organic manure 68.5 70.5 62.9 ns 64.5 69.1 ns Phosphatic manure 17.2 17.7 15.7 ns 17.9 17.1 ns Compost 35.4 37.1 30.4 ns 39.4 34.8 ns Microdoses of fertilizer 6.1 7.0 3.5 ns 3.2 6.5 ns Baseline Study of the RFSAs in Niger: Final Report (Vol. III) Annex 6: Descriptive Tables 85 Sex Age Total Male Female Sig.a 15-29 30+ Sig.a Improved agriculture water management non-irrigation-based practices/technologies Agricultural half-moons 1.8 1.3 3.0 ns 0.0 2.0 ns Improved climate adaptation/climate risk management practices/technologies Use of climate information 1.9 2.6 0.0 ns 2.8 1.8 ns Other improved practices/technologies Performing at least three weedings 37.7 37.9 37.3 ns 41.8 37.1 ns Number of responding sorghum farmers 571 417 154 71 500 Wadata Sex Age Total Male Female Sig.a 15-29 30+ Sig.a Crop genetics practices/technologies Use of improved seeds 2.1 2.3 ^ … ^ 2.3 … Cultural practices/technologies Control of sida cordifolia growth 2.2 2.4 ^ … ^ 2.4 … Crop association 17.8 17.9 ^ … ^ 17.8 … Crop rotation 1.1 0.0 ^ … ^ 1.2 … Sowing after useful rain 20.2 20.9 ^ … ^ 21.0 … Improved natural resources or ecosystem management practices/technologies Farmer managed natural regeneration (fmnr) 46.6 48.8 ^ … ^ 44.8 … Delimitation of animal corridors and pasture areas 45.1 42.8 ^ … ^ 45.7 … Protection of ponds againstsilting up 23.6 24.3 ^ … ^ 22.0 … FMNR 1.7 1.9 ^ … ^ 1.9 … Improved pest and disease management practices/technologies Delay ofseedlings until third or fourth rains 0.0 … ^ … ^ … … Seed treatment with fungicides 2.2 2.4 ^ … ^ 1.4 … Improved soil-related fertility and conservation practices/technologies Zai pits 2.6 2.8 ^ … ^ 2.8 … Organic manure 84.5 86.5 ^ … ^ 83.7 … Phosphatic manure 8.7 7.9 ^ … ^ 8.6 … Compost 3.1 3.3 ^ … ^ 3.4 … Microdoses of fertilizer 1.8 1.9 ^ … ^ 2.0 … Improved agriculture water management non-irrigation-based practices/technologies Agricultural half-moons 1.3 1.4 ^ … ^ 1.4 … Improved climate adaptation/climate risk management practices/technologies Use of climate information 2.4 2.6 ^ … ^ 2.6 … Other improved practices/technologies Performing at least three weedings 12.8 14.4 10.3 ns 11.7 13.2 ns Number of responding sorghum farmers 117 106 11 10 107 NOTES: FMNR = farmer managed natural regeneration. Crop rotation is considered both an improved pest and disease management practice and a cultural practice. a Significance tests were performed to determine whether an association exists between the outcome indicator (agricultural practice) and the disaggregate variable (sex andage). Associations found to be statistically significant are indicated by level: * p<0.05, ** p<0.01, *** p<0.001; ns=not significant. Table 40: Table A6.10a. Percentage of goat farmers who applied targeted improved management practices and technologies by type, in total and by farmers’ sex and age [Baseline Study, Niger 2020] Total Sex Age Male Female Sig.a 15-29 30+ Sig.a Combined RFSA areas Improved fodder production 9.3 9.5 9.1 ns 3.4 11.6 *** Use of licking and/or multi-nutritional block 7.5 12.9 4.4 *** 7.7 7.5 ns Animal selection 10.8 12.8 9.6 * 9.9 11.1 ns Vaccinations 36.6 40.3 34.4 ns 29.0 39.6 * Antiparasitic treatments 35.7 39.1 33.8 ns 30.9 37.7 * Veterinary monitoring of food quality and quantity over time 1.5 2.4 0.9 ns 1.3 1.5 ns IMPEL | Implementer-Led Evaluation and Learning 86 Annex 6: Descriptive Tables Total Sex Age Male Female Sig.a 15-29 30+ Sig.a Weight monitoring 3.4 6.7 1.4 ** 1.4 4.2 ns Optimum weight-market price criteria for the sale decision 0.5 0.8 0.3 ns 0.2 0.6 ns Use of para-veterinary services for goats and sheep 4.9 6.5 4.0 ns 7.3 3.9 * Number of responding goat farmers 1,316 448 868 400 916 Girma Total Sex Age Male Female Sig.a 15-29 30+ Sig.a Improved fodder production 11.0 10.1 11.6 ns 3.4 14.2 ** Use of licking and/or multi-nutritional block 7.4 12.7 4.3 ** 9.5 6.5 ns Animal selection 12.2 14.9 10.7 * 10.6 12.9 ns Vaccinations 37.5 44.7 33.3 ns 27.1 41.7 * Antiparasitic treatments 38.2 40.2 37.0 ns 32.3 40.6 ns Veterinary monitoring of food quality and quantity over time 1.2 2.1 0.7 ns 1.3 1.1 ns Weight monitoring 4.0 9.3 1.0 *** 0.8 5.4 * Optimum weight-market price criteria for the sale decision 0.3 0.8 0.0 ns 0.0 0.4 ns Use of para-veterinary services for goats and sheep 6.5 8.2 5.4 ns 9.9 5.0 * Number of responding goat farmers 526 199 327 160 366 Hamzari Total Sex Age Male Female Sig.a 15-29 30+ Sig.a Improved fodder production 4.6 5.9 4.3 ns 3.8 5.0 ns Use of licking and/or multi-nutritional block 3.9 7.5 2.9 ns 2.5 4.6 ns Animal selection 7.0 7.3 6.9 ns 7.1 6.9 ns Vaccinations 48.2 54.0 46.7 ns 43.5 50.8 ns Antiparasitic treatments 33.8 44.5 31.0 * 30.8 35.5 ns Veterinary monitoring of food quality and quantity over time 2.2 2.8 2.1 ns 1.9 2.4 ns Weight monitoring 3.3 2.8 3.4 ns 3.9 2.9 ns Optimum weight-market price criteria for the sale decision 1.5 2.5 1.2 ** 0.9 1.8 ns Use of para-veterinary services for goats and sheep 2.1 6.7 0.9 *** 2.1 2.1 ns Number of responding goat farmers 530 107 423 191 339 Wadata Total Sex Age Male Female Sig.a 15-29 30+ Sig.a Improved fodder production 6.8 9.3 3.7 ns 1.9 7.9 ns Use of licking and/or multi-nutritional block 13.1 16.6 8.9 ns 5.9 14.7 ns Animal selection 8.7 9.0 8.3 ns 11.5 8.1 ns Vaccinations 17.3 19.7 14.4 ns 8.6 19.2 * Antiparasitic treatments 26.6 33.1 18.7 * 20.5 28.0 ns Veterinary monitoring of food quality and quantity over time 1.8 3.3 0.0 * 0.0 2.2 ns Weight monitoring 0.3 0.5 0.0 ns 0.0 0.3 ns Optimum weight-market price criteria for the sale decision 0.0 … … … … Use of para-veterinary services for goats and sheep 0.8 0.7 1.0 ns 0.0 1.0 ns Number of responding goat farmers 260 142 118 49 211 Table 41: A6.10b. Percentage of sheep farmers who applied targeted improved management practices and technologies by type, in total and by farmers’ sex and age [Baseline Study, Niger 2020] Total Sex Age Male Female Sig.a 15-29 30+ Sig.a Combined RFSA areas Improved fodder production 9.6 10.1 9.1 ns 4.7 11.2 ns Use of licking and/or multi-nutritional block 7.6 10.4 4.3 ns 7.9 7.5 ns Animal selection 13.6 14.3 12.7 ns 9.2 14.9 ns Vaccinations 38.0 39.9 35.7 ns 28.0 41.0 ns Antiparasitic treatments 39.2 43.4 34.1 ns 28.6 42.4 ns Veterinary monitoring of food quality and quantity over time 2.4 2.5 2.4 ns 3.5 2.1 ns Weight monitoring 3.0 4.9 0.7 ** 1.0 3.6 ns Optimum weight-market price criteria for the sale decision 0.1 0.0 0.1 ns 0.0 0.1 ns Use of para-veterinary services for goats and sheep 8.3 9.9 6.3 ns 11.7 7.2 * Number of responding sheep farmers 523 274 249 122 401 Baseline Study of the RFSAs in Niger: Final Report (Vol. III) Annex 6: Descriptive Tables 87 Total Sex Age Male Female Sig.a 15-29 30+ Sig.a Girma Improved fodder production 11.5 12.1 10.8 ns 5.6 13.4 ns Use of licking and/or multi-nutritional block 7.4 10.2 3.7 ns 9.2 6.8 ns Animal selection 16.7 17.6 15.6 ns 9.6 19.0 ns Vaccinations 37.8 40.8 34.1 ns 27.6 41.2 ns Antiparasitic treatments 43.2 44.6 41.3 ns 31.6 46.9 ns Veterinary monitoring of food quality and quantity over time 2.3 2.2 2.4 ns 3.2 2.0 ns Weight monitoring 3.5 6.3 0.0 ns 0.6 4.5 ns Optimum weight-market price criteria for the sale decision 0.0 … … … … Use of para-veterinary services for goats and sheep 11.7 13.9 9.0 ns 15.5 10.5 ns Number of responding sheep farmers 197 113 84 50 147 Hamzari Total Sex Age Male Female Sig.a 15-29 30+ Sig.a Improved fodder production 5.4 4.3 6.1 ns 1.8 6.4 ns Use of licking and/or multi-nutritional block 4.8 5.2 4.5 ns 9.3 3.6 ns Animal selection 5.9 4.8 6.6 ns 1.7 7.1 ns Vaccinations 51.9 60.0 47.0 ns 38.4 55.5 ** Antiparasitic treatments 33.8 49.8 24.0 *** 18.2 37.9 * Veterinary monitoring of food quality and quantity over time 4.1 5.3 3.3 ns 7.4 3.2 ns Weight monitoring 3.6 5.2 2.6 ns 3.3 3.6 ns Optimum weight-market price criteria for the sale decision 0.3 0.0 0.4 ns 0.3 0.3 ns Use of para-veterinary services for goats and sheep 2.9 3.4 2.6 ns 6.5 1.9 ns Number of responding sheep farmers 215 84 131 49 166 Wadata Total Sex Age Male Female Sig.a 15-29 30+ Sig.a Improved fodder production 7.4 7.5 7.3 ns 3.9 8.3 ns Use of licking and/or multi-nutritional block 12.5 15.0 7.3 ns 0.0 15.9 * Animal selection 10.5 10.1 11.5 ns 17.0 8.8 ns Vaccinations 20.1 22.0 16.0 ns 16.4 21.1 ns Antiparasitic treatments 29.6 34.7 18.6 ns 27.7 30.1 ns Veterinary monitoring of food quality and quantity over time 0.8 1.2 0.0 ns 0.0 1.1 ns Weight monitoring 0.0 … … … … Optimum weight-market price criteria for the sale decision 0.0 … … … … Use of para-veterinary services for goats and sheep 0.8 1.2 0.0 ns 0.0 1.1 ns Number of responding sheep farmers 111 77 34 23 88 Table 42: A6.10c. Percentage of poultry farmers who applied targeted improved management practices and technologies by type, in total and by farmers’ sex and age [Baseline Study, Niger 2020] Total Sex Age Male Female Sig.a 15-29 30+ Sig.a Combined RFSA areas Vaccinations 17.4 20.7 12.5 ns 14.3 18.3 ns Use of improved poultry variety/breed 10.3 13.6 5.5 ** 8.1 11.0 ns Use of veterinary products and services (antibiotics, vitamins, etc.) 9.8 11.0 8.0 ns 9.0 10.0 ns Use of improved feed 9.7 14.0 3.4 *** 8.5 10.0 ns Use of improved shelters 9.6 10.9 7.8 ns 5.5 10.9 ns Number of responding poultry farmers 547 343 204 125 4 Girma Vaccinations 18.8 23.5 13.2 ns 17.4 19.3 ns Use of improved poultry variety/breed 11.2 16.7 4.6 ** 6.3 12.9 ns Use of veterinary products and services (antibiotics, vitamins, etc.) 9.8 10.3 9.1 ns 10.4 9.5 ns Use of improved feed 10.7 16.3 4.0 ** 10.3 10.9 ns Use of improved shelters 10.7 13.2 7.6 ns 7.8 11.7 ns Number of responding poultry farmers 223 130 93 61 162 IMPEL | Implementer-Led Evaluation and Learning 88 Annex 6: Descriptive Tables Total Sex Age Male Female Sig.a 15-29 30+ Sig.a Hamzari Vaccinations 30.7 36.4 20.0 * 18.5 33.3 ns Use of improved poultry variety/breed 8.8 11.3 4.1 ns 10.5 8.4 ns Use of veterinary products and services (antibiotics, vitamins, etc.) 15.5 17.2 12.3 ns 9.6 16.8 ns Use of improved feed 8.6 10.8 4.6 ns 11.3 8.0 ns Use of improved shelters 11.1 10.6 12.0 ns 0.0 13.4 ns Number of responding poultry farmers 178 112 66 35 143 Wadata Total Sex Age Male Female Sig.a 15-29 30+ Sig.a Vaccinations 3.5 3.4 3.7 ns ^ 4.4 ns Use of improved poultry variety/breed 8.6 7.6 10.7 ns ^ 7.3 ns Use of veterinary products and services (antibiotics, vitamins, etc.) 5.9 8.6 0.0 ns ^ 6.5 ns Use of improved feed 7.2 10.5 0.0 ns ^ 9.1 ns Use of improved shelters 5.5 5.4 5.7 ns ^ 7.0 ns Number of responding poultry farmers 146 101 45 29 117 Table 43: A6.11. Household sanitation, water and knowledge of critical moments for handwashing [Baseline Study, Niger 2020] Combined RFSA areas Girma Hamzari Wadata Improved, notshared sanitation facility 5.9 4.5 13.0 4.4 Flush to piped sewersystem 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 Flush to septic tank 0.2 0.3 0.2 0.0 Flush to pit latrine 0.2 0.1 0.4 0.1 Ventilated improved pit latrine 0.2 0.0 0.8 0.2 Pit latrine with slab 4.8 3.2 11.5 4.0 Composting toilet 0.5 0.9 0.0 0.0 Improved,shared sanitation facility 4.4 3.4 8.9 3.6 Flush to piped sewersystem … … … … Flush to septic tank 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.3 Flush to pit latrine 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.2 Ventilated improved pit latrine 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.4 Pit latrine with slab 3.8 2.8 8.6 2.7 Composting toilet 0.2 0.3 0.0 0.0 Non-improved sanitation facility 89.7 92.0 77.7 92.1 Flush to somewhere else 0.1 0.0 0.4 0.3 Flush to don't know where 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 Latrine Without Slab/Open Pit 1.6 1.0 2.9 2.3 Bucket toilet 0.5 0.0 0.7 1.6 Hanging toilet/latrine 0.5 0.7 0.6 0.1 No Facility/Bush/Field 86.9 90.3 73.4 87.7 Improved source of drinking water 73.7 79.2 83.2 54.1 Piped water into dwelling 0.1 0.0 0.5 0.1 Piped water into yard/plot 0.2 0.2 0.4 0.1 Piped to neighbor 0.1 0.0 0.1 0.2 Public tap/Standpipe 31.3 28.7 34.3 35.3 Tube well or borehole 31.2 45.7 7.9 12.6 Protected well 10.1 4.1 38.6 5.1 Protected spring 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.4 Rainwater 0.6 0.5 1.4 0.4 Tanker truck … … … … Cart with small tank … … … … Bottled water … … … … Non-improved source of drinking water 26.3 20.8 16.8 45.9 Unprotected well 23.9 19.2 16.7 39.9 Unprotected spring 1.3 1.6 0.1 1.3 Surface water(river/dam/lake/ponds/stream/canal/irrigation channel) 1.1 0.0 0.0 4.6 Distance/time from source1 Baseline Study of the RFSAs in Niger: Final Report (Vol. III) Annex 6: Descriptive Tables 89 Combined RFSA areas Girma Hamzari Wadata On premises 2.3 2.2 4.2 1.3 ≤ 30-minute roundtrip 71.7 78.6 59.2 63.8 31+ minute roundtrip 26.0 19.2 36.7 34.9 Water production Produces at least 20 liters per person per day 57.5 59.6 60.5 50.4 Water availability Water available from the source all year round NA NA NA NA Water unavailable for a day or longer in the past two weeks 30.1 33.5 16.4 31.5 Meets all four criteria for basic watersource available from the survey2 21.2 22.7 30.8 11.1 Water treatment Does something to make watersafer to drink 24.8 28.0 20.9 20.0 Handwashing station with water and soap/ash3 12.1 8.9 40.6 18.2 Water observed at handwashing station 61.8 63.6 66.4 56.2 Cleaning agent Soap or ash observed at handwashing station 13.7 10.2 42.7 20.7 Mud orsand observed at handwashing station 15.5 14.5 1.7 19.7 Other cleaning agent 3.9 4.2 0.8 3.3 No cleaning agent observed at handwashing station 67.6 71.5 54.8 57.8 Knowledge of critical momentsfor handwashing Food handling Before eating 94.8 93.5 97.1 96.2 Before cooking/food prep 20.5 19.6 29.5 16.6 Before breastfeeding/feeding a child 7.0 7.2 12.0 3.2 Risk of fecal contact After defecation 39.0 42.2 41.1 29.9 After cleaning the toilet 8.1 7.2 16.6 4.3 After diaper change/child defecation 4.0 2.6 10.6 2.7 When hands are dirty 59.5 58.3 70.9 54.6 Number ofresponding households 2,250 765 751 734 NA = Not available 1 Number of responding households is 2,242. 2 Refers to households that meet the following criteria: uses an improved water source; water source is on the premises or obtainable in 30 minutes or less roundtrip; watersource was not unavailable for a day or longer in the past two weeks; and watersource produces at least 20 liters per day per person. Numberof households with complete information for all four criteria is 2,239. 3 This indicator is based on observation. Of the 2,250 householdsinterviewed, enumerators were able to observe the handwashing stations of 1,297 households (Girma, 674; Hamzari, 90; Wadata, 533). IMPEL | Implementer-Led Evaluation and Learning 90 Annex 6: Descriptive Tables Table 44: A6.12. Percentage of women 15-49 years of age by food groups consumed [Baseline Study, Niger 2020] Combined RFSA areas Girma Hamzari Wadata Grains, roots and tubers 98.5 98.0 99.7 98.4 Pulses 87.3 87.6 87.8 86.1 Dark green leafy vegetables 87.3 87.9 88.8 84.3 Dairy products 53.1 54.7 49.1 53.4 Other vegetables 37.2 26.8 57.4 40.6 Meat, poultry, fish 34.6 36.7 36.3 27.7 Other vitamin-A rich fruits and vegetables 24.0 31.6 11.2 19.3 Other fruits 8.2 8.8 8.3 6.4 Eggs 7.3 5.9 8.6 9.1 Nuts and seeds 2.7 3.6 0.4 3.1 Number of responding women 15-49 years 2,760 783 1,230 747 NOTE: A woman of reproductive age is considered to consume a minimum dietary diversity if she consumed at least five of 10specific food groups during the previous day and night. Baseline Study of the RFSAs in Niger: Final Report (Vol. III) Annex 6: Descriptive Tables 91 Table 45: A6.13. Use of antenatal care services (ANC) [Baseline Study, Niger 2020] Combined RFSA areas Girma Hamzari Wadata Percent of births receiving at least four ANC visits during pregnancy1 47.8 48.4 56.9 36.3 Percent of births receiving at least one ANC visits during pregnancy2 91.4 90.7 94.2 90.5 Number of live births in the five years prior to the survey 1,725 565 712 448 ANC provider3,4 Doctor 2.1 0.0 5.8 4.4 Nurse 30.9 29.6 31.3 34.4 Midwife 39.6 43.5 23.8 45.7 Health officer 32.8 32.7 41.5 23.1 Health extension worker 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 Traditional birth attendant 0.1 0.0 0.1 0.2 Other 1.9 2.0 3.6 0.0 Timing of first ANC visit During first 3 months of pregnancy 29.1 30.5 28.6 25.3 After 3 months 70.9 69.5 71.4 74.7 Number of live births in the five years prior to the survey that received ANC care4 1,602 499 701 402 NOTE: Use of antenatal care (ANC) refers to the last (most recent) live birth that occurred in the five years prior to the survey. 1 Refers to women who attended at least four ANC visits with a skilled health professional during the most recent pregnancy that resulted in a live birth in the five years preceding the survey. Skilled health personnels include doctors, nurses, midwives, health officers and health extension workers. 2 Refers to women who attended at least one ANC visit with a skilled health professional during the most recent pregnancy that resulted in a live birth in the five years preceding the survey. 3 Multiple responses allowed. Total may add up to more than 100 percent. 4 Includes all live births that received any ANC care regardless of the provider. IMPEL | Implementer-Led Evaluation and Learning 92 Annex 6: Descriptive Tables Table 46: A6.14. Percentage of non-pregnant women 15-49 years who are married or in a union and using a contraceptive method by type of method [Baseline Study, Niger 2020] Combined RFSA areas Girma Hamzari Wadata Modern methods 14.2 12.7 18.4 13.8 Female sterilization … … … … Male sterilization … … … … Inter-uterine device 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.0 Injectables 7.2 8.3 6.8 4.5 Implants 2.1 1.8 3.4 1.6 Pill 6.3 5.3 7.3 7.8 Condom 0.2 0.3 0.2 0.0 Female condom … … … … Emergency contraception … … … … Standard days method 0.2 0.3 0.1 0.0 Lactational amen. method 0.6 0.3 1.0 0.9 Other modern methods … … … … Traditional methods 2.3 2.5 3.6 0.3 Rhythm … … … … Withdrawal 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.0 Other traditional methods 2.2 2.5 3.4 0.3 Does not use any form of contraception 83.8 85.2 78.2 85.9 Number of responding non-pregnant women 15-49 years married or in a union 1,864 560 816 488 NOTE: Multiple responses for type of contraceptive method used was allowed. Totals may add up to more than 100 percent. Baseline Study of the RFSAs in Niger: Final Report (Vol. III) Annex 6: Descriptive Tables 93 Table 47: A6.15. Percentage of children 6-23 months by food groups consumed [Baseline Study, Niger 2020] Combined RFSA areas Girma Hamzari Wadata Grains, roots and tubers 92.2 92.4 93.4 90.5 Breastmilk 84.4 84.8 85.6 82.0 Vitamin-A rich fruits and vegetables 73.4 72.4 76.8 72.7 Legumes and nuts 65.0 60.1 73.3 71.1 Dairy products (milk, yogurt, cheese) 50.7 52.5 43.2 52.6 Other fruits and vegetables 26.9 16.0 47.4 38.5 Flesh foods (meat, fish, poultry, and liver/organ meats) 17.7 14.6 23.5 21.0 Eggs 7.0 5.6 8.9 9.3 Number of children 6-23 months 834 294 324 216 NOTE: A child 6-23 months is considered to consume a minimum dietary diversity if s/he consumed at least five of the eight food groups during the previous day and night. IMPEL | Implementer-Led Evaluation and Learning 94 Annex 6: Descriptive Tables Table 48: A6.16. Percentage of women and men in a union participating in community groups, by type of group [Baseline Study, Niger 2020] Combined RFSAs Girma Hamzari Wadata Males Females Males Females Males Females Males Females Agricultural/livestock/fisheries producer's group 40.2 19.9 43.5 21.4 29.5 11.7 39.8 22.5 N 668 663 204 205 281 272 183 186 Water users' group 31.5 14.6 39.1 14.6 19.5 11.8 23.2 16.8 N 719 756 210 230 301 307 208 219 Forest users' group 15.8 10.2 17.5 11.1 13.9 7.9 12.7 9.4 N 427 467 136 144 157 175 134 148 Credit or microfinance group 18.3 26.9 17.9 23.7 20.5 31.8 18.9 37.5 N 341 428 164 190 88 117 89 121 Savings group 15.3 33.5 17.6 32 3.6 45.5 13.9 27.8 N 270 330 125 138 100 132 45 60 Mutual help or insurance group 43.3 32.5 46.9 43.5 32 21.3 40.3 10.9 N 105 90 34 28 39 28 32 34 Trade and business association 20.6 14.8 19.6 14.5 15.3 8.4 29.9 22.9 N 172 178 36 40 92 87 44 51 Civic group 54.4 29.8 56.1 36.6 50.3 18.7 54.5 24.2 N 434 460 112 114 211 208 111 138 Local government 20.9 8 20.5 7.8 24 13.8 20.4 4.3 N 954 1,068 398 433 298 332 258 303 Religious group 43.9 22 39.3 14.9 55.2 42.9 46.4 20.9 N 1,056 1,150 364 382 441 473 251 295 Mother's group 3.8 41.1 2.6 36.3 6.3 50.5 3.9 44.1 N 726 903 226 283 359 441 141 179 Youth group 34 14.7 35.4 12.8 33.3 19.6 30.9 14.4 N 793 826 233 234 376 388 184 204 Sports group 22.1 3.3 27.9 1.4 17.7 7.3 18.8 0 N 234 229 35 34 152 146 47 49 Communal grazing land users' group 26 15.3 28.2 16.6 15.4 8 28.6 17.2 N 307 310 94 90 136 130 77 90 Communal natural resources group 22.4 4.3 27.1 3.7 20 9.5 15.2 2.9 N 222 237 55 48 92 89 75 100 Disaster planning group 20.9 12.6 13.4 15.4 25.1 11.3 30.3 7.9 N 179 175 53 57 65 57 61 61 Safe spaces 23.9 7.8 10.4 5 29.2 8 32.9 11.8 N 144 165 25 32 70 75 49 58 Conflict resolution group 32.7 13.4 35.1 13.5 36.3 11.9 25.1 14.1 N 817 910 297 312 238 261 282 337 Other women's group N/A 45.4 N/A 46.6 N/A 75.9 N/A 28.2 N 37 6 16 15 NOTE: Based on the responses of the youngest female in a union and her spouse/partner. The number of respondents (N) includes men/women who indicated that the group exists in their community. Results are unreliable for cases n<30; they are included for illustrative purposes only. Baseline Study of the RFSAs in Niger: Final Report (Vol. III) Annex 6: Descriptive Tables 95 Table 49: A6.17. Component of household social capital index [Baseline Study, Niger 2020] Combined RFSA areas Girma Hamzari Wadata % of HHs % of HHs % of HHs % of HHs Components of bonding social capital Ability to receive support from relatives living inside the community during times of need 65.0 61.0 64.7 74.8 Ability to provide support to relatives living inside the community during times of need1 61.7 58.2 61.0 70.5 Ability to receive support from non-relatives living inside the community during times of need 53.1 51.2 51.9 58.7 Ability to provide support to non-relatives living inside the community during times of need1 50.5 48.3 49.7 56.1 Components of bridging social capital Ability to receive support from relatives living outside of the community during times of need 61.7 59.6 62.0 66.5 Ability to provide support to relatives living outside of the community during times of need1 55.7 53.0 58.5 60.3 Ability to receive support from non-relatives living outside of the community during times of need 40.1 39.8 45.9 36.9 Ability to provide support to non-relatives living outside of the community during times of need1 37.8 36.6 44.6 36.0 Number of responding households 2,254 766 753 735 IMPEL | Implementer-Led Evaluation and Learning 96 Annex 6: Descriptive Tables Table 50: A6.18 COVID-19 awareness and adoption of COVID-19 mitigation protocols [Baseline Study, Niger 2020] Combined RFSA areas Girma Hamzari Wadata No. of HHs % Sig.a No. of HHs % Sig.a No. of HHs % Sig.a No. of HHs % Sig.a Awareness of COVID-19 All households 2,253 98.5 765 98.6 75299.3 736 97.6 Male and female adults 1,931 99.2 *** 650 99.1 * 70499.3 577 99.2 *** Female adult(s) only 203 92.2 76 93.9 29^ 98 87.2 Male adult(s) only 112 99.5 37 100 17^ 58 98.6 Child(ren) only (no adults) 7 ^ 2 ^ 2^ 3 ^ Adoption of COVID-19 mitigation protocols1 Handwashing with water and soap All households 1,718 71.9 561 62.1 629 92.4 528 79.7 Male and female adults 1,511 72.3 ns 493 62.4 ns 593 92.4 425 80 ns Female adult(s) only 125 69.1 45 61.3 21 ^ 59 77.5 Male adult(s) only 79 68.8 23 ^ 14 ^ 42 79.2 Child(ren) only (no adults) 3 ^ 1 ^ 2 ^ Wearing a face cover/mask All households 1,718 41.6 561 41.6 629 53 528 32.4 Male and female adults 1,511 42.1 ns 493 41.6 ns 593 51.9 425 34.4 ns Female adult(s) only 125 38.2 45 43.1 21 ^ 59 20.4 Male adult(s) only 79 36.9 23 ^ 14 ^ 42 26.5 Child(ren) only (no adults) 3 ^ 1 ^ 2 ^ Maintaining one meter distance from others All households 1,718 35.6 561 30.2 629 55.3 528 32.9 Male and female adults 1,511 37.2 *** 493 32 * 593 55.6 425 33.8 ns Female adult(s) only 125 29.1 45 25.5 21 ^ 59 31.6 Male adult(s) only 79 15.6 23 ^ 14 ^ 42 25.2 Child(ren) only (no adults) 3 ^ 1 ^ 2 ^ Limiting contact with non-HH members All households 1,718 53.9 561 59.3 629 47.5 528 45.5 Male and female adults 1,511 54.3 ns 493 59.3 ns 593 47.5 425 47.6 ns Female adult(s) only 125 49.9 45 55.8 21 ^ 59 40.1 Male adult(s) only 79 51.8 23 ^ 14 ^ 42 31.4 Child(ren) only (no adults) 3 ^ 1 ^ 2 ^ Other practices All households 1,718 15.1 561 19.6 629 3.7 528 13.2 Male and female adults 1,511 14.4 ns 493 18.3 ns 593 3.9 425 13.8 ns Female adult(s) only 125 19.1 45 28 21 ^ 59 6.3 Male adult(s) only 79 22.5 23 ^ 14 ^ 42 17.5 Child(ren) only (no adults) 3 ^ 1 ^ 2 ^ Do nothing All households 2,220 25.24 754 26.57 746 16.82 720 27.85 Male and female adults 1,915 23.09 *** 644 24.01 * 699 15.96 572 26.49 ns Female adult(s) only 187 36.67 71 38.74 28 ^ 88 34.19 Male adult(s) only 111 36.43 37 41.9 17 ^ 57 30.34 Child(ren) only (no adults) 7 ^ 2 ^ 2 ^ 3 ^ NOTES:^ Results not statistically reliable, n<30. a Significance tests were performed to determine whether an association exists between the outcome indicator (COVID-19 awareness and adoption of COVID-19 mitigation protocols) and the disaggregate variable (gendered household type). Associations found to be statistically significant are indicated by level: * p<0.05, ** p<0.01, *** p<0.001; ns=not significant. 1 Includes households that are aware of the COVID-19 virus and reported doing something to protect themselves. Multiple responses allowed. Totals may add up to more than 100 percent. Baseline Study of the RFSAs in Niger: Final Report (Vol. III) Annex 6: Descriptive Tables 97 Table 51: A6.19. Percentage of households who experienced COVID-19 impacts on livelihoods, by type of impact [Baseline Study, Niger 2020] Combined RFSA areas Girma Hamzari Wadata Inability to access market to buy inputs(restrictions or market closed) 18.1 19.0 22.6 12.7 Inability to access market to sell livestock and livestock products (movement restrictions or market closed) 9.7 7.9 19.5 7.3 Inability to farm and/or care for livestock due to sickness of household member 1.2 1.0 2.3 0.9 Constrained access to farmland 2.4 2.2 5.5 0.9 Constrained accessto grazing pasture 1.7 1.8 3.4 0.5 Constrained accessto water 0.7 0.2 1.5 1.2 Shortage of crop inputs(seeds, fertilizer, pesticides) 2.4 1.2 7.0 2.0 Shortage of livestock inputs(feed and veterinary services) 1.6 1.5 2.7 1.3 Increase in price of crop inputs 12.9 12.1 22.8 8.0 Increase in price of livestock inputs 5.4 4.6 8.6 5.1 Increase in transportation costs 28.4 27.6 40.5 22.2 Increase in storage costs 6.1 4.9 12.7 4.3 Decrease in price of products sold 7.3 6.6 9.8 7.1 Increase in price of productssold 24.3 24.9 28.9 19.5 Decrease in demand for products 5.1 3.9 10.3 4.4 Difficulty accessing financial services and credit 1.6 1.4 2.2 1.5 Laborshortages(lack of labor to help with farming, herding, and processing) 5.1 5.7 10.0 0.3 Inability to engage with other community members in asset-building activities 6.4 7.4 4.4 5.5 Lost employment 16.1 17.6 16.5 12.2 Looting/theft 0.3 0.2 0.2 0.4 No longerreceiving remittances 2.6 3.4 1.0 1.7 Inability to access health care 0.5 0.1 2.2 0.3 Illness 0.5 0.2 1.5 0.3 Death 0.2 0.2 0.5 0.2 Reduction in income 26.8 29.2 21.3 24.9 Inability to repay loans 6.9 6.0 5.6 9.9 Other impact on income 5.0 7.3 0.8 2.2 Not applicable/Livelihood not affected by COVID-19 22.0 21.0 12.8 30.5 Don’t know/refused 1.9 2.2 2.3 1.1 IMPEL | Implementer-Led Evaluation and Learning 98 Annex 6: Descriptive Tables Combined RFSA areas Girma Hamzari Wadata Number of responding households 2,220 754 746 720 NOTES: Includes only households that are aware of COVID-19. Multiple responses allowed. Totals may add up to more than 100 percent Table 52: A6.20. Percentage of households who experienced COVID-19 impacts on food security, by type of impact [Baseline Study, Niger 2020] Combined RFSA areas Girma Hamzari Wadata Movement restrictions or market closed 46.1 50.0 51.1 33.5 Transportation costs too expensive/no public transport 39.0 37.8 59.9 27.3 Traders are absent from the markets 28.0 30.1 41.8 13.4 Products not available in the market 36.7 40.6 53.8 15.9 Price of foods increased 61.5 64.9 70.4 47.4 Delay in food/cash transfer 4.7 3.7 5.4 6.5 Other impact on food security 0.8 1.3 0.5 0.0 Not applicable/Food security not affected by COVID-19 18.3 18.2 6.8 26.4 Don’t know/refused 1.1 1.3 1.4 0.6 Number of responding households 2,220 754 746 720 NOTES: Includes only households that are aware of COVID-19. Multiple responses allowed. Totals may add up to more than 100 percent. Table 53: A6.21. Coping strategies for COVID-19 impacts on livelihoods [Baseline Study, Niger 2020] Combined RFSA areas Girma Hamzari Wadata Livestock and land holdings Sold livestock 20.6 22.6 18.9 16.7 Sold livestock at lower price (no demand due to lockdowns or other restrictions) 12.1 14.0 10.8 7.9 Slaughtered livestock 2.5 2.6 2.4 2.1 Leased out land 0.4 0.5 0.3 0.4 Sent livestock in search of pasture 0.3 0.1 0.4 0.8 Crops Consumed food that in normal times would sell 10.0 8.6 21.4 4.0 Sold food at a lower price (no demand due to lockdowns or other restrictions) 8.5 9.1 11.2 4.6 Stored unsold crops 4.3 2.5 9.1 5.1 Donated/gift unsold crops 2.8 3.4 4.2 0.1 Threw out unsold crops 1.9 1.9 4.0 0.3 Migration Baseline Study of the RFSAs in Niger: Final Report (Vol. III) Annex 6: Descriptive Tables 99 Combined RFSA areas Girma Hamzari Wadata Migrate (only some familymembers) 0.9 0.9 1.6 0.3 Migrate (the whole family) 0.8 1.2 0.1 0.2 Sent children or an adult to stay with relatives/others 0.8 0.9 0.6 0.7 Reduce current expenditure Reduced food consumption (quantity/meal; #meal/day) 38.4 41.9 43.8 24.4 Reduced non-essential household expenses 17.9 15.4 25.7 17.8 Took children out ofschool 11.6 11.8 17.2 6.4 Got food on credit from a local merchant 8.3 8.1 10.2 7.1 Moved to less expensive housing 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.0 Acquiring more food or money Took out a loan (no interest) from friends or relatives within the community 97.5 96.2 98.6 99.7 Used savingsto feed the family 4.9 3.0 3.6 11.1 Took up new/additional work (casual labor, wage labor) 3.6 3.3 8.0 1.0 Sold household items(e.g., radio, bed) 3.0 3.6 2.3 2.0 Took out a loan (no interest) from friends orrelatives outside of the community 3.0 3.4 2.2 2.4 Relied on remittancesfrom a relative that migrated 1.8 2.0 0.7 2.4 Took out a loan (with interest) from a money-lender 1.6 1.7 1.0 1.9 Used own savingsto pay for other household necessities 0.8 0.3 1.6 1.6 Sold productive assets(e.g., plough, water pump) 0.6 0.9 0.5 0.0 Used savingsto buy productive inputs 0.5 0.4 1.1 0.2 Unconditional gift of money (not remittances) or food from family, friends, church/mosque or other group outside of community 0.4 0.2 1.4 0.0 Sent children to work for money (e.g., domestic service) 0.4 0.3 0.9 0.0 Used savingsto pay for health-care expenses 0.4 0.0 1.6 0.4 Took out a loan (with interest) from a (formal) bank 0.3 0.4 0.1 0.0 Unconditional gift of money (notremittances) or food from family, friends, church/mosque, or other group within community 0.3 0.1 1.3 0.0 Received emergency cash transfer from the government or NGO 0.3 0.4 0.1 0.0 Received permanent directsupport food from the government or NGO 0.2 0.0 1.3 0.0 Used savingsto buy livestock 0.2 0.1 0.2 0.2 Took out a loan (with interest) from an MFI/RUSACCO 0.1 0.0 0.1 0.2 Received emergency food aid from the government or NGO 0.1 0.0 0.7 0.0 Participated in government or NGO food-for-work or cash-for-work activities (conditional) 0.1 0.0 0.5 0.0 IMPEL | Implementer-Led Evaluation and Learning 100 Annex 6: Descriptive Tables Combined RFSA areas Girma Hamzari Wadata Used savingsto pay for education costs 0.1 0.1 0.5 0.0 Used own savingsto pay for repairsto dwelling orstructures 0.1 0.0 0.6 0.1 Received permanent directsupport cash transferfrom the government or NGO … … … … Coronavirus-specific Washed hands with water and soap 18.6 17.0 28.6 14.1 Washed hands more frequently 14.1 11.8 24.6 11.3 Avoided contact with sick member 5.8 5.1 12.3 2.1 Quarantine 4.2 2.7 2.2 10.0 Used physicalseparation to distance sick member from others 2.8 2.9 5.5 0.2 Sought help at a health clinic 0.6 0.2 2.3 0.0 Other Engaged in spiritual efforts(e.g., prayed,sacrifices, etc.) 19.0 22.4 1.8 24.6 Did nothing 7.3 8.5 3.1 7.7 Other(specify) 1.7 2.7 0.7 0.2 Don't know/Refused 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.0 Number ofresponding households 1,723 585 658 480 NOTES: Includes only householdsthat are aware of COVID-19 and experienced impactsto theirlivelihoods due to COVID-19. Multiple responses allowed. Totals may add up to more than 100 percent. Table 54: A6.22. Coping strategies for COVID-19 impacts on food security, by RFSA area [Baseline Study, Niger 2020] Combined RFSA areas Girma Hamzari Wadata Livestock and land holdings Sold livestock 22.2 27.0 16.8 14.2 Sold livestock at lower price (no demand due to lockdowns or other restrictions) 12.7 14.7 14.0 6.4 Slaughtered livestock 1.8 1.8 3.0 0.8 Leased outland 0.5 0.8 0.3 0.0 Sent livestock in search of pasture 0.4 0.4 0.5 0.5 Seeds Consumed saved seeds 24.5 21.7 41.5 16.9 Consumed saved crops from household's prior harvest 4.2 4.1 6.2 2.8 Migration Migrate (only some family members) 1.1 1.5 1.0 0.3 Sent children or an adult to stay with relatives/others 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.1 Migrate (the whole family) 0.8 1.3 0.0 0.0 Baseline Study of the RFSAs in Niger: Final Report (Vol. III) Annex 6: Descriptive Tables 101 Combined RFSA areas Girma Hamzari Wadata Reduce current expenditure Reduced food consumption (quantity/meal; # meal/day) 37.8 40.1 47.5 23.3 Reduced non-essential household expenses 16.2 13.5 23.1 17.6 Took children out ofschool 9.9 10.0 15.3 5.2 Got food on credit from a local merchant 7.8 8.1 8.9 6.1 Moved to less expensive housing 0.9 1.1 1.4 0.0 Acquiring more food or money Took out a loan (no interest) from friends or relatives within the community 12.5 13.4 6.7 15.0 Used savingsto feed the family 5.7 3.9 4.6 11.4 Took up new/additional work (casual labor, wage labor) 3.4 3.7 5.9 0.4 Sold household items(e.g.,radio, bed) 3.3 4.0 1.9 2.4 Relied on remittancesfrom a relative that migrated 3.2 4.1 1.4 2.2 Took out a loan (no interest) from friends orrelatives outside of the community 3.0 3.5 1.5 3.0 Took out a loan (with interest) from a money-lender 1.6 2.3 0.0 0.9 Used own savingsto pay for other household necessities 1.6 1.4 1.9 1.9 Sold productive assets(e.g., plough, water pump) 1.0 1.6 0.3 0.0 group outside of community 0.9 1.1 0.8 0.3 Used savingsto buy productive inputs 0.7 0.6 1.6 0.3 Used savingsto pay for health-care expenses 0.5 0.0 2.0 0.7 group within community 0.4 0.3 1.3 0.0 Sent children to work for money (e.g., domestic service) 0.4 0.0 2.0 0.1 Received emergency food aid from the government or NGO 0.4 0.2 1.2 0.0 Used own savingsto pay for repairsto dwelling or structures 0.4 0.3 0.8 0.3 Received permanent direct support food from the government or NGO 0.3 0.0 1.5 0.0 Participated in government or NGO food-for-work or cash-for-work activities(conditional) 0.3 0.3 0.5 0.0 Used savingsto buy livestock 0.3 0.3 0.4 0.2 Took out a loan (with interest) from a (formal) bank 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.3 Used savingsto pay for education costs 0.2 0.0 0.9 0.0 Took out a loan (with interest) from an MFI/RUSACCO 0.1 0.0 0.1 0.2 Received emergency cash transfer from the government or NGO 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.0 Received permanent direct support cash transfer from the government or NGO … … … … Other Engaged in spiritual efforts(e.g., prayed, sacrifices, etc.) 20.3 22.7 3.9 28.2 Did nothing 7.8 7.4 8.9 8.1 Other (specify) 1.1 1.8 0.5 0.0 IMPEL | Implementer-Led Evaluation and Learning 102 Annex 6: Descriptive Tables Combined RFSA areas Girma Hamzari Wadata Number of responding households 1,818 608 698 512 NOTES: Includes only households that are aware of COVID-19 and experienced impacts to their food security due to COVID-19. Multiple responses allowed. Totals may add up to more than 100 percent Baseline Study of the RFSAs in Niger: Final Report (Vol. III) Annex 7: Bivariate and Multivariate Tables 103 ANNEX 7: BIVARIATE AND MULTIVARIATE TABLES FOOD CONSUMPTION Table A7.1a. Percentage of households by food consumption score (FCS) groups and household characteristics Table A7.1b. Mean household food consumption score (FCS) by household characteristics and practices Table A7.1c. OLS regression of household food consumption score, combined RFSA areas Table A7.1d. OLS regression of household food consumption score, Girma RFSA area Table A7.1e. OLS regression of household food consumption score, Hamzari RFSA area Table A7.1f. OLS regression of household food consumption score, Wadata RFSA area AGRICULTURE Table A7.2. Percentage of sorghum farmers applying targeted improved management practices and technologies by use of agricultural-related financial services Table A7.3. Percentage of millet farmers applying targeted improved management practices and technologies by use of agricultural-related financial services Table A7.4. Percentage of cowpea farmers applying targeted improved management practices and technologies by use of agricultural-related financial services Table A7.5. Percentage of peanut farmers applying targeted improved management practices and technologies by use of agricultural-related financial services Table A7.6. Percentage of goat farmers applying targeted improved management practices and technologies by use of agricultural-related financial services Table A7.7. Percentage of goat farmers applying targeted improved management practices and technologies by use of agricultural-related financial services Table A7.8. Percentage of poultry farmers applying targeted improved management practices and technologies by use of agricultural-related financial services MATERNAL AND CHILD HEALTH AND NUTRITION (MCHN) Table A7.9. Percentage of women 15-49 years achieving a diet of minimum diversity by individual and household characteristics Table A7.10a. Multivariate logistic regression of women's minimum dietary diversity (MDD-W), combined RFSA areas Table A7.10b. Multivariate logistic regression of women's minimum dietary diversity (MDD-W), Girma RFSA area Table A7.10c. Multivariate logistic regression of women's minimum dietary diversity (MDD-W), Hamzari RFSA area Table A7.10d. Multivariate logistic regression of women's minimum dietary diversity (MDD-W), Wadata RFSA area Table A7.11. Percentage of children 6-23 months achieving a diet of minimum diversity by individual and household characteristics Table A7.12. Prevalence of diarrhea among children under five by household WASH status IMPEL | Implementer-Led Evaluation and Learning 104 Annex 7: Bivariate and Multivariate Tables Table 55: A7.1a. Percentage of households by food consumption score (FCS) groups, by household characteristics and intervention-specific practices [Baseline Study, Niger 2020] Combined RFSA Areas Girma Hamzari Wadatqa Poor FCS Borderline FCS Acceptable FCS Total Poor FCS Borderlin e FCS Acceptable FCS Total Poor FCS Borderline FCS Acceptable FCS Total Poor FCS Borderline FCSAcceptable FCS Total N % % % % Sig.a N % % % % Sig.a N % % % % Sig.a N % % % % Sig.a Percentage of households by FCS groups 1,890 4.9 15.2 80.0 100.0 672 5.1 16.9 78.0 100.0 684 7.4 15.1 77.5 100.0 534 1.9 10.4 87.7 100.0 Access to or use of financial services1 Accessed at least one ag-related financialservice (credit, savings, insurance) No 1,174 5.2 16.3 78.5 100.0 ns 372 5.3 19.1 75.6 100.0 ns 450 8.6 16.8 74.5 100.0 ns 352 2.1 9.5 88.5 100.0 ns Yes 716 4.3 13.6 82.1 100.0 300 4.9 14.2 80.9 100.0 234 4.9 11.8 83.3 100.0 182 1.5 12.3 86.2 100.0 Took out a loan (ag credit, in cash or in-kind) No 1,412 5.4 15.4 79.2 100.0 ns 481 5.8 17.1 77.1 100.0 ns 500 8.0 16.7 75.3 100.0 ns 431 2.1 10.3 87.6 100.0 ns Yes 478 3.3 14.3 82.4 100.0 191 3.1 16.3 80.6 100.0 184 5.8 11.0 83.2 100.0 103 0.9 10.7 88.4 100.0 Participated in agri-related savings scheme No 1,550 4.9 16.2 78.9 100.0 ns 530 4.9 18.8 76.3 100.0 ns 591 8.3 16.0 75.7 100.0 ** 429 1.9 9.3 88.7 100.0 ns Yes 340 4.6 11.5 83.9 100.0 142 5.8 11.1 83.1 100.0 93 0.5 8.3 91.2 100.0 105 1.8 15.0 83.2 100.0 Insured ag production against loss (insurance) No 1,863 4.9 15.0 80.1 100.0 ns 660 5.2 16.6 78.2 100.0 ns 678 7.4 15.2 77.4 100.0 ns 525 1.9 10.2 87.9 100.0 ns Yes 27 3.1 24.6 72.3 100.0 12 4.5 28.7 66.8 100.0 6 0.0 5.0 95.0 100.0 9 0.0 19.3 80.7 100.0 HH participated in group-based savings, microfinance or lending programs No 1,771 4.8 15.5 79.7 100.0 ns 601 5.1 17.5 77.4 100.0 ns 651 7.6 15.2 77.2 100.0 ns 519 1.8 10.6 87.6 100.0 ns Yes 119 5.1 12.3 82.6 100.0 71 5.3 13.1 81.7 100.0 33 1.9 13.3 84.8 100.0 15 5.9 0.0 94.1 100.0 HH participated in group-based saving programs No 1,795 4.8 15.3 79.9 100.0 ns 612 5.0 17.0 78.0 100.0 ns 661 7.5 15.3 77.2 100.0 ns 522 1.9 10.6 87.5 100.0 ns Yes 95 5.7 14.1 80.2 100.0 60 6.3 15.5 78.3 100.0 23 2.8 6.8 90.4 100.0 12 0.0 0.0 100.0 100.0 HH participated in group-based credit programs No 1,841 5.0 15.6 79.4 100.0 * 646 5.4 17.6 77.0 100.0 ns 668 7.4 14.8 77.7 100.0 ns 527 1.8 10.5 87.7 100.0 ns Yes 49 1.2 6.1 92.8 100.0 26 0.0 4.4 95.6 100.0 16 4.5 31.1 64.5 100.0 7 11.5 0.0 88.5 100.0 Livestock holdings2 Raised at least one type of livestock No 808 4.0 16.5 79.5 100.0 ns 245 3.6 18.8 77.6 100.0 ns 274 8.8 17.5 73.7 100.0 ns 289 1.7 11.9 86.4 100.0 ns Yes 1,082 5.4 14.3 80.3 100.0 427 5.9 15.9 78.2 100.0 410 6.5 13.6 79.9 100.0 245 2.1 8.6 89.3 100.0 Raised goats No 949 4.1 16.9 79.0 100.0 ns 284 4.0 19.0 76.9 100.0 ns 328 8.3 18.4 73.3 100.0 ns 337 1.5 12.2 86.3 100.0 ns Yes 941 5.5 13.7 80.8 100.0 388 5.9 15.5 78.7 100.0 356 6.6 12.1 81.3 100.0 197 2.7 7.1 90.2 100.0 Raised sheep No 1,464 5.0 16.7 78.3 100.0 * 508 5.1 19.0 75.9 100.0 ns 509 8.5 17.1 74.4 100.0 ** 447 2.3 10.5 87.2 100.0 ns Yes 426 4.4 10.5 85.2 100.0 164 5.3 10.7 84.0 100.0 175 4.4 10.2 85.4 100.0 87 0.0 9.7 90.3 100.0 Raised poultry No 1,434 5.0 14.5 80.5 100.0 ns 485 5.1 15.4 79.5 100.0 ns 541 8.1 15.7 76.1 100.0 ns 408 2.0 11.0 87.0 100.0 ns Yes 456 4.4 17.1 78.5 100.0 187 5.3 20.9 73.8 100.0 143 4.4 12.8 82.9 100.0 126 1.6 8.5 89.9 100.0 Adoption of targeted improved crop management practices3 Used at least one improved crop management practice - any crop No 129 8.3 20.4 71.3 100.0 ns 44 8.9 25.4 65.7 100.0 ns 19 39.6 23.5 36.9 100.0 *** 66 0.0 10.3 89.7 100.0 ns Yes 1,761 4.5 14.7 80.7 100.0 628 4.8 16.1 79.1 100.0 665 6.3 14.8 78.9 100.0 468 2.2 10.4 87.4 100.0 Dug zai pits No 1,756 4.6 15.0 80.5 100.0 ns 636 4.5 16.4 79.1 100.0 ns 593 8.5 15.4 76.1 100.0 ns 527 1.9 10.6 87.5 100.0 ns Yes 134 8.6 18.0 73.4 100.0 36 14.5 22.9 62.6 100.0 91 1.7 13.5 84.8 100.0 7 0.0 0.0 100.0 100.0 Dug agri half-moons No 1,839 5.0 14.9 80.1 100.0 ns 649 5.3 16.6 78.1 100.0 ns 660 7.4 14.9 77.6 100.0 ns 530 1.9 10.4 87.6 100.0 ns Yes 51 1.3 23.3 75.4 100.0 23 0.0 26.3 73.7 100.0 24 5.2 19.8 75.0 100.0 4 0.0 0.0 100.0 100.0 Applied organic manure No 690 8.4 17.1 74.5 100.0 ** 257 9.9 20.1 70.1 100.0 * 227 14.7 16.1 69.1 100.0 *** 206 0.0 9.9 90.1 100.0 ns Yes 1,200 3.0 14.2 82.8 100.0 415 2.7 15.2 82.1 100.0 457 4.0 14.6 81.3 100.0 328 3.0 10.6 86.4 100.0 Applied phosphatic manure No 1,637 5.2 15.4 79.4 100.0 ns 586 5.3 16.9 77.8 100.0 ns 565 8.9 16.8 74.4 100.0 ** 486 2.1 10.2 87.7 100.0 ns Yes 253 2.8 13.7 83.5 100.0 86 4.1 16.5 79.4 100.0 119 1.2 8.2 90.5 100.0 48 0.0 12.2 87.8 100.0 Applied compost No 1,387 5.4 15.6 79.0 100.0 ns 451 5.8 18.0 76.2 100.0 ns 453 10.3 16.2 73.5 100.0 * 483 1.9 10.0 88.1 100.0 ns Yes 503 3.2 14.0 82.8 100.0 221 3.5 14.1 82.3 100.0 231 2.6 13.4 83.9 100.0 51 2.0 15.6 82.4 100.0 Applied microdoses of fertilizer No 1,771 4.8 15.5 79.7 100.0 ns 643 5.0 17.2 77.8 100.0 ns 606 7.6 16.0 76.4 100.0 ns 522 1.9 10.2 87.9 100.0 ns Yes 119 6.3 9.5 84.3 100.0 29 7.4 9.6 83.0 100.0 78 5.8 7.4 86.8 100.0 12 0.0 20.5 79.5 100.0 Controlled sida cordifolia growth No 1,608 5.1 16.0 78.9 100.0 ns 548 5.5 18.0 76.5 100.0 ns 536 8.3 17.0 74.6 100.0 ns 524 1.9 10.3 87.8 100.0 ns Yes 282 3.4 10.4 86.3 100.0 124 3.2 10.9 85.9 100.0 148 4.0 8.5 87.4 100.0 10 0.0 16.7 83.3 100.0 Performed at least 3 weedings No 1,255 5.2 16.1 78.7 100.0 ns 371 5.4 18.3 76.3 100.0 ns 433 10.6 16.4 72.9 100.0 ns 451 1.7 11.5 86.8 100.0 ns Baseline Study of the RFSAs in Niger: Final Report (Vol. III) Annex 7: Bivariate and Multivariate Tables 105 Combined RFSA Areas Girma Hamzari Wadatqa Poor FCS Borderline FCS Acceptable FCS Total Poor FCS Borderlin e FCS Acceptable FCS Total Poor FCS Borderline FCS Acceptable FCS Total Poor FCS Borderline FCSAcceptable FCS Total N % % % % Sig.a N % % % % Sig.a N % % % % Sig.a N % % % % Sig.a Yes 635 4.1 13.4 82.5 100.0 301 4.7 14.7 80.6 100.0 251 2.7 13.2 84.1 100.0 83 2.9 3.5 93.6 100.0 Delayed seedlings until 3rd/4th rains to control pests No 1,695 5.1 15.3 79.6 100.0 ns 594 5.6 17.4 77.0 100.0 ns 571 7.8 14.7 77.5 100.0 ns 530 1.9 10.4 87.6 100.0 ns Yes 195 2.5 14.3 83.2 100.0 78 2.1 13.5 84.4 100.0 113 4.3 18.2 77.5 100.0 4 0.0 0.0 100.0 100.0 Sowed after useful rain No 1,124 6.1 15.3 78.6 100.0 ns 339 7.0 17.2 75.7 100.0 ns 380 9.3 17.0 73.6 100.0 ns 405 2.1 9.9 88.0 100.0 Ns Percentage of households by FCS groups 1,890 4.9 15.2 80.0 100.0 672 5.1 16.9 78.0 100.0 684 7.4 15.1 77.5 100.0 534 1.9 10.4 87.7 100.0 Yes 766 2.9 15.0 82.1 100.0 333 2.5 16.4 81.1 100.0 304 5.0 12.8 82.2 100.0 129 1.4 11.8 86.9 100.0 Performed crop association No 839 5.4 15.2 79.5 100.0 ns 276 7.0 17.2 75.8 100.0 ns 181 7.5 18.0 74.5 100.0 ns 382 1.4 10.1 88.6 100.0 ns Yes 1,051 4.4 15.2 80.4 100.0 396 3.5 16.6 79.9 100.0 503 7.3 14.1 78.6 100.0 152 3.0 11.0 86.0 100.0 Performed crop rotation No 1,784 4.8 15.2 80.0 100.0 ns 644 4.9 16.8 78.2 100.0 ns 617 8.0 15.2 76.8 100.0 ns 523 1.8 10.6 87.6 100.0 ns Yes 106 6.8 14.5 78.7 100.0 28 11.7 18.0 70.2 100.0 67 1.8 14.0 84.2 100.0 11 6.8 0.0 93.2 100.0 Used Seed treatment w/fungicides No 1,685 5.2 15.2 79.6 100.0 ns 637 5.4 16.8 77.7 100.0 ns 556 8.6 15.4 76.0 100.0 ns 492 2.1 10.0 87.9 100.0 ns Yes 205 0.5 15.2 84.3 100.0 35 0.0 17.5 82.5 100.0 128 1.5 13.9 84.7 100.0 42 0.0 13.6 86.4 100.0 Used improved seeds No 1,701 5.3 14.4 80.3 100.0 ns 587 5.8 15.7 78.6 100.0 ns 585 8.7 15.3 76.0 100.0 ns 529 1.9 10.5 87.6 100.0 ns Yes 189 1.3 21.1 77.6 100.0 85 1.4 24.0 74.6 100.0 99 1.1 14.0 84.9 100.0 5 0.0 0.0 100.0 100.0 Used climate information No 1,862 4.9 15.1 80.0 100.0 ns 667 5.2 16.7 78.1 100.0 ns 661 7.5 15.4 77.1 100.0 ns 534 1.9 10.4 87.7 100.0 Yes 28 0.0 18.8 81.2 100.0 5 0.0 26.8 73.2 100.0 23 0.0 2.8 97.2 100.0 0.0 … … … … Adoption of targeted improved post-harvest handling and storage practice/technique4 Used at least one improved post-harvest handling/storage practice - any crop No 963 6.2 16.1 77.8 100.0 ns 427 6.2 17.1 76.6 100.0 ns 227 14.5 20.1 65.5 100.0 * 309 1.4 10.2 88.4 100.0 ns Yes 927 3.1 14.0 82.9 100.0 245 3.0 16.3 80.6 100.0 457 3.7 12.6 83.7 100.0 225 2.5 10.5 87.0 100.0 Used locally made storage structure- any crop No 1,419 5.3 16.4 78.3 100.0 * 609 5.5 17.5 77.0 100.0 ns 408 10.6 19.2 70.2 100.0 ns 402 1.1 10.0 89.0 100.0 ns Yes 471 2.7 10.0 87.3 100.0 63 0.0 7.8 92.2 100.0 276 3.3 10.0 86.7 100.0 132 3.8 11.3 84.9 100.0 Used sealed/airtight bags - any crop No 1,398 5.0 15.6 79.4 100.0 ns 572 4.8 16.8 78.4 100.0 ns 375 10.8 18.0 71.2 100.0 * 451 2.0 11.0 87.0 100.0 ns Yes 492 4.4 13.2 82.4 100.0 100 7.2 17.6 75.1 100.0 309 2.8 11.2 86.0 100.0 83 1.2 7.0 91.8 100.0 Used community storage facility - any crop No 1,743 5.0 15.5 79.5 100.0 ns 618 5.1 17.3 77.5 100.0 ns 626 8.3 15.5 76.2 100.0 ns 499 2.0 10.3 87.7 100.0 ns Yes 147 3.4 12.3 84.3 100.0 54 5.3 12.4 82.2 100.0 58 0.0 12.0 88.0 100.0 35 0.0 11.9 88.1 100.0 Used solar/fuel-powered dryers - any crop No 1,864 4.9 15.1 80.0 100.0 ns 663 5.2 16.7 78.1 100.0 ns 673 7.2 15.2 77.6 100.0 ns 528 1.9 10.5 87.6 100.0 ns Yes 26 3.2 22.8 74.1 100.0 9 0.0 31.1 68.9 100.0 11 25.9 7.4 66.7 100.0 6 0.0 0.0 100.0 100.0 Used seed/grain treatment pest control tech. - any crop No 1,865 4.9 15.0 80.1 100.0 ns 658 5.2 16.6 78.2 100.0 ns 674 7.5 15.2 77.2 100.0 ns 533 1.9 10.4 87.7 100.0 ns Yes 25 0.0 26.2 73.8 100.0 14 0.0 32.9 67.1 100.0 10 0.0 8.9 91.1 100.0 1 0.0 0.0 100.0 100.0 Used agrochemical grain treatment - any crop No 1,842 4.9 14.8 80.3 100.0 ns 661 5.3 16.4 78.3 100.0 ns 654 7.8 15.4 76.8 100.0 ns 527 1.5 9.6 88.9 100.0 *** Yes 48 2.6 26.8 70.6 100.0 11 0.0 31.3 68.7 100.0 30 0.0 10.5 89.5 100.0 7 19.6 46.7 33.6 100.0 Used triple bags - any crop No 1,769 5.1 15.7 79.2 100.0 * 662 5.3 17.0 77.7 100.0 ns 604 8.4 16.6 75.0 100.0 ns 503 1.8 11.1 87.2 100.0 ns Yes 121 1.0 5.5 93.5 100.0 10 0.0 10.3 89.7 100.0 80 0.0 5.0 95.0 100.0 31 3.3 2.0 94.7 100.0 Used other post harvest practices - any crop No 1,737 5.2 15.2 79.6 100.0 ns 575 5.9 17.2 76.9 100.0 ns 645 7.0 15.3 77.7 100.0 ns 517 2.0 10.2 87.9 100.0 ns Yes 153 2.0 15.0 83.0 100.0 97 1.0 15.0 84.0 100.0 39 12.3 12.8 74.8 100.0 17 0.0 18.0 82.0 100.0 Used at least one improved livestock mgmt practice - any livestock5 No 1,181 4.6 15.5 79.8 100.0 ns 371 4.8 17.8 77.4 100.0 ns 404 8.5 17.3 74.2 100.0 ns 406 1.8 9.8 88.5 100.0 ns Yes 709 5.2 14.7 80.1 100.0 301 5.5 15.8 78.7 100.0 280 5.8 12.1 82.1 100.0 128 2.4 12.2 85.4 100.0 Percentage of harvest completed by the household in the current season Did not harvest any crops 233 7.7 19.2 73.2 100.0 ns 41 13.3 33.4 53.3 100.0 ns 74 6.8 14.3 78.8 100.0 ns 118 3.1 9.0 87.9 100.0 ns Less than 25 percent 975 2.6 16.2 81.3 100.0 334 2.6 18.8 78.6 100.0 321 5.0 15.2 79.8 100.0 320 0.7 11.3 88.0 100.0 25 - 50 percent 468 7.5 13.3 79.3 100.0 193 7.8 13.9 78.3 100.0 187 7.7 14.0 78.3 100.0 88 5.3 8.9 85.7 100.0 More than 50 percent 214 6.6 12.5 81.0 100.0 104 4.4 11.5 84.1 100.0 102 15.8 17.2 67.0 100.0 8 0.0 0.0 100.0 100.0 Impact of COVID-19 on household livelihood/food security Household livelihood was impacted by COVID-19 No 406 4.6 13.3 82.1 100.0 ns 148 4.0 14.0 82.0 100.0 ns 85 11.3 20.0 68.8 100.0 ns 173 3.0 8.7 88.3 100.0 ns Yes 1,508 4.9 15.7 79.4 100.0 532 5.4 17.6 77.0 100.0 604 6.9 14.3 78.7 100.0 372 1.4 11.1 87.5 100.0 Household food security was impacted by COVID-19 No 326 5.4 16.2 78.4 100.0 ns 128 6.0 18.9 75.1 100.0 ns 47 7.5 20.7 71.8 100.0 ns 151 3.4 9.2 87.4 100.0 ns Yes 1,588 4.7 14.9 80.4 100.0 552 4.9 16.3 78.8 100.0 642 7.6 14.7 77.7 100.0 394 1.3 10.8 87.9 100.0 IMPEL | Implementer-Led Evaluation and Learning 106 Annex 7: Bivariate and Multivariate Tables Combined RFSA Areas Girma Hamzari Wadatqa Poor FCS Borderline FCS Acceptable FCS Total Poor FCS Borderlin e FCS Acceptable FCS Total Poor FCS Borderline FCS Acceptable FCS Total Poor FCS Borderline FCSAcceptable FCS Total N % % % % Sig.a N % % % % Sig.a N % % % % Sig.a N % % % % Sig.a Percentage of households by FCS groups 1,890 4.9 15.2 80.0 100.0 672 5.1 16.9 78.0 100.0 684 7.4 15.1 77.5 100.0 534 1.9 10.4 87.7 100.0 Participation in social assistance programs HH participated in the RFSA No (indirect participant) 930 5.9 16.9 77.3 100.0 * 395 6.2 18.3 75.5 100.0 ns 316 6.7 15.0 78.3 100.0 ns 219 3.7 12.9 83.3 100.0 ns Yes (direct participant) 960 3.5 13.0 83.5 100.0 277 3.4 14.6 82.0 100.0 368 8.1 15.3 76.6 100.0 315 0.5 8.4 91.1 100.0 HH received food rations - any donor No 1,418 5.1 16.1 78.8 100.0 ns 568 5.2 17.5 77.3 100.0 ns 524 7.3 15.2 77.6 100.0 ns 326 2.5 12.0 85.5 100.0 ns Yes 472 3.9 12.2 83.9 100.0 104 4.7 14.5 80.8 100.0 160 7.8 14.8 77.4 100.0 208 0.8 7.5 91.7 100.0 HH participated in nutrition trainings/meetings - any donor No 1,359 4.9 15.6 79.5 100.0 ns 459 4.7 17.1 78.2 100.0 ns 529 8.4 15.0 76.6 100.0 ns 371 2.3 11.9 85.8 100.0 ns Yes 531 4.7 14.2 81.2 100.0 213 6.0 16.3 77.6 100.0 155 3.8 15.3 80.9 100.0 163 1.0 6.6 92.4 100.0 HH participated in agriculture-related trainings/meetings - any donor No 1,277 5.1 15.7 79.2 100.0 ns 424 5.0 17.2 77.8 100.0 ns 480 8.8 15.8 75.4 100.0 ns 373 2.1 12.0 85.8 100.0 ns Yes 613 4.5 14.2 81.4 100.0 248 5.4 16.3 78.3 100.0 204 3.8 13.4 82.8 100.0 161 1.3 6.2 92.5 100.0 Food rations by RFSA participation status Did not receive any food rations 1,418 5.1 16.1 78.8 100.0 ns 568 5.2 17.5 77.3 100.0 ns 524 7.3 15.2 77.6 100.0 ns 326 2.5 12.0 85.5 100.0 ns Received food rations - direct RFSA participant6 345 2.9 10.6 86.5 100.0 46 3.8 13.6 82.5 100.0 118 8.9 14.1 77.0 100.0 181 0.4 7.5 92.1 100.0 Received food rations - indirect RFSA participant7 127 5.3 14.5 80.3 100.0 58 5.3 15.0 79.7 100.0 42 6.2 15.9 78.0 100.0 27 3.9 7.7 88.4 100.0 Nutrition trainings/meetings by RFSA participation status Did not participate in any nutrition trainings/meetings 1,359 4.9 15.6 79.5 100.0 ns 459 4.7 17.1 78.2 100.0 ns 529 8.4 15.0 76.6 100.0 ns 371 2.3 11.9 85.8 100.0 ns Participated in nutrition trainings/meetings - direct RFSA participant6 433 3.1 15.1 81.8 100.0 145 3.8 18.5 77.6 100.0 135 4.7 16.6 78.7 100.0 153 0.5 7.0 92.5 100.0 Participated in nutrition trainings/meetings -indirect RFSA participant7 98 9.0 11.6 79.4 100.0 68 10.0 12.4 77.7 100.0 20 0.0 10.2 89.8 100.0 10 9.2 0.0 90.8 100.0 Agriculture trainings/meetings by RFSA participation status Did not participate in any ag trainings/meetings 1,277 5.1 15.7 79.2 100.0 ns 424 5.0 17.2 77.8 100.0 ns 480 8.8 15.8 75.4 100.0 ns 373 2.1 12.0 85.8 100.0 * Participated in agri. trainings and meetings - direct RFSA participant6 470 3.9 13.8 82.3 100.0 168 4.7 16.9 78.4 100.0 160 5.2 13.9 80.9 100.0 142 0.5 4.8 94.7 100.0 Participated in agri. trainings/meetings -indirect RFSA participant7 143 5.8 14.8 79.3 100.0 80 6.7 15.2 78.1 100.0 44 0.0 12.1 87.9 100.0 19 6.8 15.6 77.6 100.0 Number of responding households 1,890 84 272 1,534 672 30 115 527 684 45 105 534 534 9 52 473 NOTES: Sample restricted to households with data available across all covariates. a Significance tests were performed to determine whether an association exists between the outcome indicator (FCS groups) and the disaggregate variables. Associations found to be statistically significant are indicated by level: * p<0.05, ** p<0.01, *** p<0.001; ns=not significant. 1 A household is considered to access or use a financial service if at least one member accessed or used the services. For ag-related measures of use of financialservices, a household is considered to have used a financial service if any farmer reported taking out an agriculture loan, participating in an agriculture saving scheme, or taking out agricultural insurance. 2 A household is considered to raise at least one livestock if at least one farmer reported raising any of the three livestock of interest (goats, sheep, and poultry). 3 A household is considered to be using at least one improved crop management practices if at least one farmer reported using any of the promoted practices for any one of the three crops of interest (sorghum, millet, cowpeas and peanuts). 4 A household is considered to be using at least one improved post-harvest practice if at least one farmer reported using any of the promoted practices for any one of the crops of interest (sorghum, millet, cowpeas and peanuts). 5 A household is considered to be using at least one improved livestock management practices if at least one farmer reported using any of the promoted practices for any one of the livestock of interest (goats, sheep, or poultry). 6 Defined as households who reported participating in the RFSA and receiving/participating in the specific intervention (e.g., food rations, nutrition trainings/meetings, ag trainings/meetings). 7 Defined as households who reported not participating in the RFSA but reported receiving/participating in the specific intervention (e.g., food rations, nutrition trainings/meetings, ag trainings/meetings). Table 56: A7.1b. Mean household food consumption score (FCS), by household characteristics and intervention-specific practices [Baseline Study, Niger 2020] Combined RFSA Areas Girma Hamzari Wadata N Mean FCS Sig.a N Mean FCS Sig.a N Mean FCS Sig.a N Mean FCS Sig.a All households 1,890 51.3 672 48.9 684 52.3 534 57.1 Accessto or use of financialservices1 Accessed atleast one ag-related financialservice (credit,savings, insurance) No 1,174 50.7 ns 372 48.3 ns 450 50.7 * 352 56.0 ns Yes 716 52.1 300 49.6 234 55.5 182 59.5 Took out a loan (ag credit, in cash or in-kind) Baseline Study of the RFSAs in Niger: Final Report (Vol. III) Annex 7: Bivariate and Multivariate Tables 107 Combined RFSA Areas Girma Hamzari Wadata N Mean FCS Sig.a N Mean FCS Sig.a N Mean FCS Sig.a N Mean FCS Sig.a No 1,412 51.2 ns 481 49.2 ns 500 51.1 † 431 56.4 ns Yes 478 51.5 191 48.0 184 55.5 103 60.8 Participated in agri-related savingsscheme No 1,550 50.4 * 530 47.6 * 591 51.3 ** 429 56.8 ns Yes 340 54.6 142 52.8 93 60.2 105 58.6 Insured ag production against loss(insurance) No 1,863 51.3 ns 660 49.0 ns 678 52.3 ns 525 57.1 ns Yes 27 47.6 12 42.3 6 52.6 9 62.9 HH participated in group-based savings, microfinance or lending programs No 1,771 50.8 † 601 47.9 * 651 51.9 * 519 57.0 ns Yes 119 56.0 71 55.0 33 61.8 15 64.1 HH participated in group-based saving programs No 1,795 50.8 † 612 48.1 † 661 51.9 * 522 56.9 ** Yes 95 56.6 60 55.2 23 66.8 12 67.7 HH participated in group-based credit programs No 1,841 50.9 * 646 48.2 ** 668 52.4 ns 527 57.1 ns Yes 49 60.4 26 61.3 16 48.6 7 62.0 Livestock holdings2 Raised at least one type of livestock No 808 50.5 ns 245 47.5 ns 274 51.5 ns 289 55.5 ns Yes 1,082 51.7 427 49.6 410 52.8 245 59.1 Raised goats No 949 50.6 ns 284 47.4 ns 328 52.0 ns 337 55.4 * Yes 941 51.8 388 49.8 356 52.6 197 60.3 Raised sheep No 1,464 49.7 *** 508 47.1 *** 509 50.1 *** 447 56.0 *** Yes 426 56.2 164 54.0 175 58.0 87 62.9 Raised poultry No 1,434 50.5 † 485 48.1 ns 541 51.3 * 408 56.6 ns Yes 456 53.6 187 51.2 143 56.4 126 58.9 Adoption oftargeted improved crop management practices3 Used at least one improved crop management practice - any crop No 129 43.4 *** 44 37.4 *** 19 31.8 *** 66 57.4 ns Yes 1,761 52.0 628 49.9 665 53.0 468 57.1 Dug zai pits No 1,756 51.6 ns 636 49.7 *** 593 51.2 † 527 57.1 ns Yes 134 47.2 36 37.8 91 58.4 7 59.8 Dug agri half-moons No 1,839 51.3 ns 649 49.0 ns 660 52.2 ns 530 57.0 * Yes 51 50.1 23 46.8 24 54.5 4 73.9 Applied organic manure No 690 46.8 *** 257 43.3 ** 227 47.7 * 206 55.4 ns Yes 1,200 53.5 415 51.7 457 54.4 328 58.2 Applied phosphatic manure IMPEL | Implementer-Led Evaluation and Learning 108 Annex 7: Bivariate and Multivariate Tables Combined RFSA Areas Girma Hamzari Wadata N Mean FCS Sig.a N Mean FCS Sig.a N Mean FCS Sig.a N Mean FCS Sig.a No 1,637 50.6 * 586 48.5 ns 565 49.7 ** 486 57.1 ns Yes 253 55.5 86 51.5 119 63.1 48 57.8 Applied compost No 1,387 50.3 * 451 47.3 * 453 49.0 * 483 57.4 ns Yes 503 54.1 221 52.7 231 57.6 51 53.9 Applied microdoses of fertilizer No 1,771 50.8 ** 643 48.5 † 606 51.2 ** 522 57.1 ns Yes 119 60.0 29 58.8 78 61.5 12 61.3 Controlled sida cordifolia growth No 1,608 50.5 * 548 47.9 * 536 50.3 * 524 57.2 ns Yes 282 55.9 124 54.4 148 59.1 10 57.9 Performed at least 3 weedings No 1,255 50.9 ns 371 48.6 ns 433 49.5 ns 451 56.5 ns Yes 635 51.9 301 49.3 251 56.4 83 61.3 Delayed seedlings at 3rd/4th rains to control pests No 1,695 51.4 ns 594 48.8 ns 571 52.3 ns 530 57.2 ns Yes 195 50.2 78 49.5 113 52.5 4 50.0 Sowed after useful rain No 1,124 50.8 ns 339 47.8 ns 380 49.6 ns 405 58.1 † Yes 766 52.0 333 50.4 304 55.6 129 54.3 Performed crop association No 839 50.7 ns 276 46.7 ns 181 51.4 ns 382 58.5 ns Yes 1,051 51.8 396 50.8 503 52.7 152 54.5 Performed crop rotation No 1,784 51.2 ns 644 49.1 * 617 51.3 * 523 57.3 ns Yes 106 51.9 28 42.4 67 61.6 11 52.7 Used Seed treatment w/fungicides No 1,685 50.9 * 637 48.6 ns 556 51.7 ns 492 57.2 ns Yes 205 55.6 35 54.8 128 55.3 42 57.2 Used improved seeds No 1,701 51.3 ns 587 48.9 ns 585 51.4 ns 529 57.1 * Yes 189 51.1 85 48.8 99 56.9 5 69.4 Used climate information No 1,862 51.3 ns 667 49.0 ns 661 52.2 ns 534 57.2 Yes 28 48.9 5 44.9 23 56.8 0 … Adoption oftargeted improved post-harvest handling and storagepractices4 Used at least one improved post-harvest handling/storage practice - any crop No 963 49.2 ** 427 47.1 * 227 47.5 ns 309 57.3 ns Yes 927 54.1 245 52.3 457 54.8 225 57.0 Used local made storage - any crop No 1,419 50.2 * 609 48.3 * 408 49.8 ns 402 57.6 ns Yes 471 55.9 63 56.4 276 55.4 132 56.1 Used sealed/airtight bags- any crop Baseline Study of the RFSAs in Niger: Final Report (Vol. III) Annex 7: Bivariate and Multivariate Tables 109 Combined RFSA Areas Girma Hamzari Wadata N Mean FCS Sig.a N Mean FCS Sig.a N Mean FCS Sig.a N Mean FCS Sig.a No 1,398 50.2 * 572 48.2 ns 375 48.4 * 451 57.3 ns Yes 492 55.6 100 53.3 309 57.5 83 56.7 Used community storage facility - any crop No 1,743 50.8 ns 618 48.6 ns 626 51.0 * 499 56.8 † Yes 147 55.7 54 51.9 58 62.5 35 62.8 Used solar/fuel-powered dryers- any crop No 1,864 51.3 ns 663 48.9 ns 673 52.3 ns 528 57.1 ** * Yes 26 51.3 9 47.3 11 54.8 6 65.2 Used seed/grain treatment pest control tech. - any crop No 1,865 51.3 ns 658 48.9 ns 674 52.3 ns 533 57.1 ** * Yes 25 49.9 14 48.3 10 52.7 1 64.0 Used agrochemical grain treatment - any crop No 1,842 51.2 ns 661 48.9 ns 654 51.7 * 527 57.5 ns Yes 48 51.9 11 48.2 30 62.7 7 41.8 Used triple bags - any crop No 1,769 50.7 ** 662 48.4 * 604 51.1 *** 503 57.3 ns Yes 121 61.6 10 69.0 80 61.0 31 55.6 Used other post harvest practices - any crop No 1,737 51.3 ns 575 48.4 ns 645 52.5 ns 517 57.3 ns Yes 153 51.2 97 51.4 39 49.2 17 51.3 Adoption oftargeted improved livestock practices5 Used at least one improved livestock mgmt practice - any livestock No 1,181 50.2 † 371 47.1 † 404 50.9 ns 406 56.2 ns Yes 709 52.7 301 51.0 280 54.2 128 60.4 Completion of harvest for the 2020 season Percentage of harvest completed by the household in the currentseason Did not harvest any crops in the currentseason 233 50.1 (r ef. ) 41 38.8 (ref.) 74 53.2 (ref.) 118 58.5 (re f.) Lessthan 25 percent 975 52.0 ns 334 49.2 * 321 53.0 ns 320 57.3 ns 25 - 50 percent 468 49.5 ns 193 47.6 † 187 53.3 ns 88 55.3 ns More than 50 percent 214 52.7 ns 104 54.0 ** 102 47.6 ns 8 56.2 Ns Impact of COVID-19 on household livelihood/food security Household livelihood was impacted by COVID-19 No 406 51.2 ns 148 49.5 ns 85 50.2 ns 173 55.2 ns Yes 1,508 51.4 532 48.9 604 52.5 372 58.0 Household food security was impacted by COVID-19 No 326 50.6 ns 128 48.5 ns 47 51.3 ns 151 54.9 ns Yes 1,588 51.5 552 49.2 642 52.2 394 57.9 Participation in social assistance programs HH participated in the RFSA No 930 49.7 * 395 47.7 † 316 51.9 ns 219 55.5 ns IMPEL | Implementer-Led Evaluation and Learning 110 Annex 7: Bivariate and Multivariate Tables Combined RFSA Areas Girma Hamzari Wadata N Mean FCS Sig.a N Mean FCS Sig.a N Mean FCS Sig.a N Mean FCS Sig.a Yes 960 53.3 277 50.9 368 52.8 315 58.4 HH received food rations - any donor No 1,418 50.7 ns 568 48.7 ns 524 52.1 ns 326 56.2 ns Yes 472 53.2 104 49.6 160 53.5 208 58.9 HH participated in nutrition trainings/meetings- any donor No 1,359 50.5 ns 459 48.2 ns 529 51.8 ns 371 55.6 * Yes 531 53.1 213 50.4 155 54.3 163 61.1 HH participated in agriculture-related trainings/meetings - any donor No 1,277 50.6 ns 424 48.5 ns 480 50.4 ns 373 55.9 * Yes 613 52.5 248 49.5 204 57.2 161 60.4 Food rations by RFSA participation status Did not receive any food rations 1,418 50.7 (ref.) 568 48.7 (ref.) 524 52.1 (ref.) 326 56.2 (ref.) Received food rations - direct RFSA participant6 345 55.6 ** 46 51.9 ns 118 52.6 ns 181 59.0 ns Received food rations- indirect RFSA participant7 127 50.0 ns 58 48.3 ns 42 55.0 ns 27 58.0 ns Nutrition trainings/meetings by RFSA participation status Did not participate in any nutrition trainings/meetings 1,359 50.5 (ref.) 459 48.2 (ref.) 529 51.8 (ref.) 371 55.6 (ref.) Participated in nutrition trainings/meetings - direct RFSA participant6 433 54.1 † 145 50.7 ns 135 53.9 ns 153 61.6 * Participated in nutrition trainings/meetings -indirect RFSA participant7 98 50.6 ns 68 49.8 ns 20 56.3 ns 10 52.9 ns Agriculture trainings/meetings by RFSA participation status Did not participate in any ag trainings/meetings 1,277 50.6 (ref.) 424 48.5 (ref.) 480 50.4 (ref.) 373 55.9 (ref.) Participated in agri. trainings and meetings - direct RFSA participant6 470 53.7 † 168 50.4 ns 160 56.9 † 142 61.2 * Participated in agri. trainings/meetings-indirect RFSA participant7 143 49.7 ns 80 48.0 ns 44 58.1 ns 19 54.4 ns NOTES: Sample restricted to households with data available across all covariates. a Significance tests were performed to determine whether an association exists between the outcome indicator (FCS groups) and the disaggregate variables. Associations found to be statistically significant are indicated by level: * p<0.05, ** p<0.01, *** p<0.001; † < 0.1; ns=not significant. 1 A household is considered to access or use a financial service if at least one member accessed or used the services. For ag-related measures of use of financial services, a household is considered to have used a financial service if any farmer reported taking out an agriculture loan, participating in an agriculture saving scheme, or taking out agricultural insurance. Similarly, a household is considered to have accessed group-based savings, loans or microfinance if any member in the household participated in a community-based savings group or community based-lending or microfinance group. 2 A household is considered to raise at least one livestock if at least one farmer reported raising any of the three livestock of interest (goats, sheep, and poultry). 3 A household is considered to be using at least one improved crop management practices if at least one farmer reported using any of the promoted practices for any one of the crops of interest (sorghum, millet, cowpeas and peanuts). 4 A household is considered to be using at least one improved post-harvest practice if at least one farmer reported using any of the promoted practices for any one of the crops of interest (sorghum, millet, cowpeas and peanuts). 5 A household is considered to be using at least one improved livestock management practices if at least one farmer reported using any of the promoted practices for any one of the livestock of interest (goats, sheep, or poultry). 6 Defined as households who reported participating in the RFSA and receiving/participating in the specific intervention (e.g., food rations, nutrition trainings/meetings, ag trainings/meetings). 7 Defined as households who did not report participating in the RFSA but reported receiving/participating in the specific intervention (e.g., food rations, nutrition trainings/meetings, ag trainings/meetings). Baseline Study of the RFSAs in Niger: Final Report (Vol. III) Annex 7: Bivariate and Multivariate Tables 111 Table 57: A7.1c. OLS regression of household food consumption score, combined RFSA areas [Baseline Study, Niger 2020] Module 1 Module 2 Module 3 Module 4 Module 5 Module 6 Variables Coef. Coef. Coef. Coef. Coef. Coef. Household socio-demographic characteristics Female-headed household (ref.:male-headed) 0.43 -0.863 -0.667 -1.641 -1.05 -0.957 Age of household head (18-98 years) 0.052 0.058 0.064 0.059 0.059 0.06 Gendered household type (ref.: Male and Female Adults) Female adult only -1.067 -0.251 -0.158 1.669 0.81 0.862 Male adult only 2.849 3.662 3.652 3.7 3.829 4.038 Household size (1-32) 0.07 0.056 -0.004 0.028 0.052 0.037 Household use of or access to financial services Took out an agricultural loan (ref.: did not take out an ag-loan) 1.076 1.301 0.795 0.992 0.739 1.076 Participated in an agricultural savings scheme (ref.: did not participate) 4.056* 3.213+ 2.917 2.818 2.781 4.056* Participated in group-based saving programs (ref.: did not participate) 5.141+ 4.867 4.18 4.152 4.069 5.141+ Participated in group-based credit programs (ref.: did not participate) 5.892* 4.765* 5.430* 4.662* 4.352* 5.892* Household livestock holdings (ref.: did not raise livestock) Raised goats -0.348 -0.046 -0.148 -0.063 Raised sheep 3.501** 3.018* 2.681* 2.692* Raised poultry 2.668* 2.699** 2.558** 2.623** Household adoption of targeted improved crop practices1 Dug zai pits -5.376 -5.341 -5.349 Dug agri half-moons -0.747 -0.265 -0.276 Applied organic manure 4.480** 4.491** 4.369** Applied phosphatic manue 1.48 1.731 1.524 Applied compost 0.189 -0.201 -0.371 Applied microdoses of fertilizer 3.066 2.986 2.889 Controlled sida cordifolia growth 2.984 3.364 3.287 Performed at least 3 weedings -1.407 -1.183 -0.997 Delayed seedlings until 3rd/4th rains to control pests 0.556 0.288 0.589 Sowed after useful rain -0.255 -0.68 -0.98 Performed corp association -2.639 -2.716 -2.676 Performed crop rotation -0.716 -0.564 -0.56 Used Seed treatment w/ fungicides 1.611 1.918 2.135 Used improved seeds -1.302 -1.467 -1.34 Used climate information -0.832 -1.328 -1.474 Household adoption of targeted improved post-harvest handling and storage practices1 Used local made storage -0.476 -0.385 -0.428 Used sealed/airtight bags -0.067 -0.014 0.062 Used community storage facility 4.881 4.848 4.534 Used solar/fuel-powered dryers -4.064 -4.002 -3.853 Used seed/grain treatment pest control technique -6.222 -6.049 -6.009 Used agrochemical grain treatment -1.975 -2.32 -2.273 Used triple bags 6.143+ 6.322+ 6.225+ Household adoption of targeted improved livestock managementpractices1 Used at least one improved livestock mgmt practice -0.576 -0.295 -0.261 Household impact due to shock exposure (COVID-19) Household livelihood impacted by COVID-19 (ref.: household livelihood not impacted by COVID-19) 0.327 0.274 Household food security impacted by COVID-19 (ref.: household food security not impacted by COVID-19) 0.049 -0.111 Household harvested crops in current season (ref.: did not harvest any crops) Harvested less than 25 percent 0.839 0.515 Harvest 25 - 50 percent -3.367 -3.621 Harvest more than 50 percent -1.249 -1.523 Household participation in social assistance programs Participated in a BHA RFSA (ref.: HH did not participate in a RFSA) 1.635 Received food rations - any donor (ref.: did not receive food rations) -0.531 Participated in nutrition trainings/meetings - any donor (ref.: did not participate) 1.805 Participated in agriculture-related trainings/meetings - any donor (ref.: did not participate) -0.331 Constant 38.514*** 34.576*** 33.237*** 32.803*** 32.495*** 32.270*** Number of households 1,909 1,909 1,909 1,909 1,909 1,909 R-squared 0.211 0.228 0.237 0.267 0.273 0.276 * p<0.05, ** p<0.01, *** p<0.001; † < 0.1NOTES: Household FCS ranges from 0 to 112. Analytical sample was restricted to households with data available across all covariates. Child only households (i.e., where there are no members 18 years or older; n=5) are excluded. All models include village dummies to control for village-level differences. Coefficients not shown. 1 Reference category includes households that did not adopt the targeted improved practice. IMPEL | Implementer-Led Evaluation and Learning 112 Annex 7: Bivariate and Multivariate Tables Table 58: A7.1d. OLS regression of household food consumption score, Girma RFSA area [Baseline Study, Niger 2020] Module 1 Module 2 Module 3 Module 4 Module 5 Module 6 Variables Coef. Coef. Coef. Coef. Coef. Coef. Household socio-demographic characteristics Female-headed household (ref.:male-headed) 1.570 -0.613 -0.386 -1.879 -0.920 -0.858 Age of household head (18-98 years) 0.032 0.039 0.051 0.035 0.021 0.012 Gendered household type (ref.: Male and Female Adults) Female adult only -1.649 -0.178 -0.297 1.821 0.262 0.438 Male adult only 6.291 7.330 7.122 7.365+ 7.610+ 7.896+ Household size (1-28) 0.047 0.029 -0.003 0.143 0.181 0.176 Household use of or access to financial services Took out an agricultural loan (ref.: did not take out an ag-loan) 0.069 0.362 -0.128 0.018 -0.147 Participated in an agricultural savings scheme (ref.: did not participate in ag-savings scheme) 4.777+ 3.930 3.887 3.173 3.000 Participated in group-based saving programs (ref.: did not participate) 4.132 3.859 3.436 3.758 3.682 Participated in group-based credit programs (ref.: did not participate) 8.311** 7.492** 7.468*** 7.052*** 6.804** Household livestock holdings (ref.: did not raise livestock) Raised goats -0.982 -0.987 -1.664 -1.618 Raised sheep 3.149+ 2.174 1.750 1.805 Raised poultry 2.034 2.360 2.095 1.872 Household adoption of targeted improved crop practices1 Dug zai pits -10.900+ -10.628* -10.726* Dug agri half-moons -4.022 -3.748 -3.484 Applied organic manure 7.143** 7.533*** 7.534** Applied phosphatic manure -1.118 -0.474 -0.598 Applied compost -0.296 -0.785 -1.120 Applied microdoses of fertilizer 3.252 3.126 2.789 Controlled sida cordifolia growth 3.054 3.293+ 3.368+ Performed at least 3 weedings -1.507 -1.379 -1.006 Delayed seedlings until 3rd/4th rains to control pests -0.088 -0.776 -0.628 Sowed after useful rain 0.064 -0.715 -1.368 Performed crop association -2.517 -2.587 -2.425 Performed crop rotation -7.910+ -6.888+ -6.948+ Used Seed treatment w/fungicides 2.946 3.141 3.595 Used improved seeds -0.869 -1.248 -1.133 Used climate information -2.180 -2.623 -3.164 Household adoption of targeted improved post-harvest handling and storage practices1 Used local made storage 1.465 1.592 1.039 Used sealed/airtight bags 0.934 1.291 1.639 Used community storage facility 4.432 3.788 3.348 Used solar/fuel-powered dryers -10.083 -10.916 -10.299 Used seed/grain treatment pest control technique -12.014* -12.182* -12.197* Used agrochemical grain treatment -2.199 -2.063 -1.861 Used triple bags 14.168+ 14.139+ 13.588+ Household adoption of targeted improved livestock managementpractices1 Used at least one improved livestock mgmt practice -0.283 0.470 0.708 Household impact due to shock exposure (COVID-19) Household livelihood impacted by COVID-19 (ref.: household livelihood not impacted by COVID-19) -1.278 -1.479 Household food security impacted by COVID-19 (ref.: household food security not impacted by COVID-19) -1.697 -1.944 Household harvested crops in current season (ref.: did not harvest any crops) Harvested less than 25 percent 3.863 3.459 Harvest 25 - 50 percent -0.829 -1.210 Harvest more than 50 percent 0.696 0.214 Household participation in social assistance programs Participated in a BHA RFSA (ref.: HH did not participate in a RFSA) 3.508* Received food rations - any donor (ref.: did not receive food rations) -0.147 Participated in nutrition trainings/meetings - any donor (ref.: did not participate) 1.636 Participated in agriculture-related trainings/meetings - any donor (ref.: did not participate) -1.666 Constant 39.085*** 34.737*** 33.736*** 33.762*** 33.809*** 33.930*** Number of households 679.000 679.000 679.000 679.000 679.000 679.000 R-squared 0.196 0.225 0.232 0.308 0.318 0.325 * p<0.05, ** p<0.01, *** p<0.001; † < 0.1NOTES: Household FCS ranges from 0 to 112. Analytical sample was restricted to households with data available across all covariates. Child only households (i.e., where there are no members 18 years or older; n=5) are excluded. All models include village dummies. Coefficients not shown. 1 Reference category refers to households that did not adopt the targeted improved practice. Baseline Study of the RFSAs in Niger: Final Report (Vol. III) Annex 7: Bivariate and Multivariate Tables 113 Table 59: A7.1e. OLS regression of household food consumption score, Hamzari RFSA area [Baseline Study, Niger 2020] Module 1 Module 2 Module 3 Module 4 Module 5 Module 6 Variables Coef. Coef. Coef. Coef. Coef. Coef. Household socio-demographic characteristics Female-headed household (ref.: male-headed) 2.273 3.173 3.764 2.012 1.775 2.098 Age of household head (18-98 years) -0.017 -0.022 -0.017 -0.04 -0.04 -0.046 Gendered household type (ref.: Male and Female Adults) Female adult only -0.845 -1.385 -0.936 -1.705 -1.211 -1.446 Male adult only -1.433 -1.378 -1.461 -4.161 -4 -3.629 Household size (1-32) 0.017 0.034 -0.08 -0.15 -0.138 -0.175 Household use of or access to financial services Took out an agricultural loan (ref.: did not take out an ag-loan) 2.053 1.509 -0.298 -0.39 -0.687 Participated in an agricultural savings scheme (ref.: did not participate) 7.730* 8.058** 9.466** 9.752** 9.445** Participated in group-based saving programs (ref.: did not participate) 13.602* 13.560+ 9.576+ 9.590+ 10.221+ Participated in group-based credit programs (ref.: did not participate) -9.782 -10.888 -5.496 -5.824 -7.384 Household livestock holdings (ref.: did not raise livestock) Raised goats -1.621 -1.435 -1.589 -1.653 Raised sheep 5.443* 5.333* 5.332* 5.428* Raised poultry 1.7 0.185 0.289 -0.008 Household adoption of targeted improved crop practices1 Dug zai pits 2.869 2.57 2.932 Dug agri half-moons 2.722 2.945 2.481 Applied organic manure 2.121 2.267 2.331 Applied phosphatic manure 6.719** 6.649** 6.797** Applied compost 2.457 3.101 2.58 Applied microdoses of fertilizer 2.617 2.75 2.899 Controlled sida cordifolia growth 2.054 1.789 1.807 Performed at least 3 weedings -4.317 -3.914 -4.269 Delayed seedlings until 3rd/4th rains to control pests 1.259 1.406 2.045 Sowed after useful rain -0.517 -0.861 -0.435 Performed crop association -3.696 -3.332 -3.456 Performed crop rotation 7.410** 6.895** 6.297* Used Seed treatment w/fungicides -1.166 -1.111 -0.735 Used improved seeds -1.19 -1.462 -1.149 Used climate information 1.341 1.094 1.131 Household adoption of targeted improved post-harvest handling and storage practices1 Used local made storage -6.612** -6.225** -6.734** Used sealed/airtight bags -0.148 0.151 0.123 Used community storage facility 2.272 2.663 1.922 Used solar/fuel-powered dryers 0.499 -0.095 -0.133 Used seed/grain treatment pest control technique 0.608 0.262 -0.585 Used agrochemical grain treatment 3.661 3.798 2.939 Used triple bags 1.445 1.193 1.172 Household adoption of targeted improved livestock managementpractices1 Used at least one improved livestock mgmt practice 2.203 2.117 1.797 Household impact due to shock exposure (COVID-19) Household livelihood impacted by COVID-19 (ref.: household livelihood not impacted by COVID-19) 0.226 0.794 Household food security impacted by COVID-19 (ref.: household food security not impacted by COVID-19) 3.297 2.667 Household harvested crops in current season (ref.: did not harvest any crops) Harvested less than 25 percent -1.726 -1.553 Harvest 25 - 50 percent -2.912 -2.538 Harvest more than 50 percent -3.454 -3.043 Household participation in social assistance programs Participated in a BHA RFSA (ref.: HH did not participate in a RFSA) -0.009 Received food rations - any donor (ref.: did not receive food rations) 3.363 Participated in nutrition trainings/meetings - any donor (ref.: did not participate) -0.227 Participated in agriculture-related trainings/meetings - any donor (ref.: did not participate) 2.949 Constant 55.854*** 53.024*** 52.038*** 52.888*** 51.319*** 49.735*** Number of households 688 688 688 688 688 688 R-squared 0.216 0.242 0.254 0.328 0.331 0.337 * p<0.05, ** p<0.01, *** p<0.001; † < 0.1NOTES: Household FCS ranges from 0 to 112. Analytical sample was restricted to households with data available across all covariates. Child only households (i.e., where there are no members 18 years or older; n=5) are excluded. All models Includes village dummies. Coefficients not shown. 1 Reference category refers to households that did not adopt the targeted improved practice. IMPEL | Implementer-Led Evaluation and Learning 114 Annex 7: Bivariate and Multivariate Tables Table 60: A7.1f. OLS regression of household food consumption score, Wadata RFSA area [Baseline Study, Niger 2020] Module 1 Module 2 Module 3 Module 4 Module 5 Module 6 Variables Coef. Coef. Coef. Coef. Coef. Coef. Household socio-demographic characteristics Female-headed household (ref.:male-headed) -3.538 -3.877 -4.175 -4.216 -2.703 -3.381 Age of household head (18-98 years) 0.151* 0.162* 0.144* 0.153* 0.155* 0.155* Gendered household type (ref.: Male and Female Adults) Female adult only 1.196 0.916 1.843 0.799 -1.013 -0.345 Male adult only -0.807 -0.153 0.855 0.51 0.373 0.352 Household size (1-22) 0.49 0.532 0.464 0.384 0.349 0.342 Household use of or access to financial services Took out an agricultural loan (ref.: did not take out an ag-loan) 4.176 4.388+ 5.792* 4.862+ 4.888* Participated in an agricultural savings scheme (ref.: did not participate in ag-savings scheme) 0.346 0.126 1.433 1.983 1.995 Participated in group-based saving programs (ref.: did not participate) 11.223* 10.315* 12.474* 13.329** 12.750* Participated in group-based credit programs (ref.: did not participate) -4.394 -6.574 -10.849+ -11.739+ -11.067 Household livestock holdings (ref.: did not raise livestock) Raised goats 2.34 4.164+ 4.671+ 4.523+ Raised sheep 3.297+ 4.454+ 4.888* 4.931* Raised poultry 4.133+ 4.422* 4.170+ 4.365+ Household adoption of targeted improved crop practices1 Dug zai pits -3.358 -3.367 -3.248 Dug agri half-moons 13.48 14.16 14.785 Applied organic manure 0.831 0.64 0.564 Applied phosphatic manure 0.257 1.265 1.1 Applied compost -1.573 -2.798 -3.187 Applied microdoses of fertilizer -5.004 -5.81 -5.552 Controlled sida cordifolia growth -6.235 -7.08 -7.061 Performed at least 3 weedings 9.029** 8.902** 8.286* Delayed seedlings until 3rd/4th rains to control pests -10.815 -11.716+ -11.418+ Sowed after useful rain -3.546 -4.817* -4.879* Performed crop association -3.357 -2.355 -1.979 Performed crop rotation -11.007 -11.842+ -11.766 Used Seed treatment w/fungicides -1.221 -1.201 -1.293 Used improved seeds 1.115 0.594 0.333 Used climate information - - - Household adoption of targeted improved post-harvest handling and storage practices1 Used local made storage 2.112 1.498 1.453 Used sealed/airtight bags -3.998+ -3.949* -3.844+ Used community storage facility 0.434 2.438 2.505 Used solar/fuel-powered dryers 5.381 4.937 4.981 Used seed/grain treatment pest control technique 0.909 2.055 2.19 Used agrochemical grain treatment -14.561 -14.901 -15.109 Used triple bags 3.727 4.515 4.787+ Household adoption of targeted improved livestock managementpractices1 Used at least one improved livestock mgmt practice -1.624 -2.124 -1.932 Household impact due to shock exposure (COVID-19) Household livelihood impacted by COVID-19 (ref.: household livelihood not impacted by COVID-19) -0.066 0.084 Household food security impacted by COVID-19 (ref.: household food security not impacted by COVID-19) 4.782 4.564 Household harvested crops in current season (ref.: did not harvest any crops) Harvested less than 25 percent -1.115 -1.334 Harvest 25 - 50 percent -4.809 -4.949 Harvest more than 50 percent -3.803 -3.775 Household participation in social assistance programs Participated in a BHA RFSA (ref.: HH did not participate in a RFSA) -0.153 Received food rations - any donor (ref.: did not receive food rations) -2.214 Participated in nutrition trainings/meetings - any donor (ref.: did not participate) 1.442 Participated in agriculture-related trainings/meetings - any donor (ref.: did not participate) 0.189 Constant 54.412*** 52.825*** 52.034*** 53.463*** 50.878*** 51.513*** Number of households 542 542 542 542 542 542 R-squared 0.174 0.184 0.205 0.257 0.27 0.271 * p<0.05, ** p<0.01, *** p<0.001; † < 0.1NOTES: Household FCS ranges from 0 to 112. Analytical sample was restricted to households with data available across all covariates. Child only households (i.e., where there are no members 18 years or older; n=5) are excluded. All models include village dummies to control. Coefficients not shown. 1 Reference category includes households that did not adopt the targeted improved practice. Baseline Study of the RFSAs in Niger: Final Report (Vol. III) Annex 7: Bivariate and Multivariate Tables 115 Table 61: A7.2. Percentage of sorghum farmers applying targeted improved crop and post-harvest practices by use of agricultural-related financial services [Baseline Study, Niger 2020] All farmers Used any agri. financial services Obtained agri-credit Participated in agri-saving schemes % Yes No Sig.a Yes No Sig.a Yes No Sig.a Improved crop management practices Use of improved seeds 7.7 6.8 8.2 ns 7.9 7.6 ns 6.2 8.0 ns Control of sida cordifolia growth 12.2 14.2 11.1 ns 9.7 12.9 ns 17.5 11.1 ns Crop association 49.0 41.4 53.2 ** 43.5 50.5 ns 37.2 51.5 * Crop rotation 1.6 1.2 1.9 ns 1.7 1.6 ns 0.3 1.9 * Sowing after useful rain 33.8 36.1 32.5 ns 42.1 31.4 ns 29.7 34.7 ns Farmer managed natural regeneration (fmnr) 37.4 32.2 40.3 ns 20.3 42.2 *** 43.0 36.2 ns Delimitation of animal corridors and pasture areas 35.2 35.6 34.9 ns 42.4 33.1 ns 27.4 36.8 ns Protection of ponds against silting up 6.9 6.2 7.2 ns 7.8 6.6 ns 5.9 7.1 ns Functional community-based conflict management mechanisms 3.7 2.4 4.4 ns 2.9 3.9 ns 1.7 4.1 ns Delay of seedlings until third or fourth rains to control pests 5.9 4.7 6.7 ns 4.1 6.5 ns 4.4 6.3 ns Seed treatment with fungicides 5.1 3.9 5.7 ns 3.2 5.6 * 4.9 5.1 ns Zai pits 6.1 7.3 5.4 ns 7.9 5.6 ns 7.9 5.7 ns Organic manure 64.4 69.8 61.4 ns 67.7 63.5 ns 74.5 62.2 * Phosphatic manure 8.4 12.0 6.4 * 8.9 8.2 ns 15.5 6.8 ** Compost 23.7 20.2 25.7 ns 16.3 25.9 ns 26.8 23.1 ns Microdoses of fertilizer 2.9 3.6 2.5 ns 4.4 2.5 ns 2.4 3.0 ns Agricultural half-moons 1.4 1.6 1.3 ns 2.3 1.1 ns 1.8 1.3 ns Use of climate information (rain forecast, disaster risks, etc.) 0.9 0.6 1.0 ns 0.7 0.9 ns 0.3 1.0 ns Performing at least three weedings 30.4 29.1 31.1 ns 27.1 31.3 ns 31.1 30.2 ns Number of responding sorghum farmers 2,203 1,492 711 1,727 476 1,880 323 Improved post-harvest practices Locally made storage structures such as sheet metal silos 13.2 9.0 15.6 *** 10.0 14.1 ns 6.7 14.6 ** Sealed/airtight bags 4.7 5.4 4.3 ns 5.1 4.6 ns 7.0 4.2 ns Community storage facilities, including warehouse receipting 3.3 2.4 3.9 ns 2.6 3.5 ns 1.3 3.8 * Use of solar or fuel-powered dryers to reduce post-harvest moisture 0.2 0.2 0.1 ns 0.3 0.1 ns 0.1 0.2 ns Seed or grain treatment techniques (e.g., botanical pest control agents or phytosanitary irradiation) 0.3 0.4 0.3 ns 0.1 0.4 ns 0.9 0.2 ns Grain treatment with agro-chemicals 0.7 1.0 0.5 ns 0.7 0.7 ns 2.1 0.4 *** Triple bags for cowpea grain preservation 0.5 0.2 0.7 ns 0.2 0.6 ns 0.2 0.6 ns Other post-harvest practices that reduce pre-storage losses 2.6 2.1 2.9 ns 3.0 2.5 ns 2.0 2.7 ns Number of responding sorghum farmers 1,905 632 1,273 434 1,471 283 1,622 Improved crop management practices Use of improved seeds 8.7 5.5 10.9 * 5.6 9.7 ns 6.0 9.4 ns Control of sida cordifolia growth 14.2 16.4 12.6 ns 9.3 15.8 ns 22.1 12.0 ** Crop association 48.6 39.7 54.9 * 40.2 51.4 ns 36.5 51.8 ns Crop rotation 1.4 0.7 2.0 ns 1.2 1.5 ns 0.0 1.8 ns Sowing after useful rain 37.1 34.3 39.0 ns 40.0 36.1 ns 27.1 39.7 ns Farmer managed natural regeneration (fmnr) 42.4 32.4 49.6 ** 18.8 50.3 *** 43.5 42.2 ns Delimitation of animal corridors and pasture areas 38.8 35.8 40.9 ns 43.3 37.3 ns 25.1 42.4 * Protection of ponds against silting up 5.8 3.3 7.6 * 5.5 5.9 ns 2.7 6.6 ns Functional community-based conflict management mechanisms 4.6 2.3 6.3 ns 2.7 5.3 ns 1.5 5.5 ns Delay of seedlings until third or fourth rains to control pests 7.0 5.3 8.3 ns 4.3 7.9 ns 5.6 7.4 ns Seed treatment with fungicides 1.8 1.4 2.0 ns 1.1 2.0 ns 2.2 1.7 ns Zai pits 6.0 7.6 4.8 * 7.9 5.3 ns 9.0 5.2 ns Organic manure 65.4 72.3 60.5 ns 68.8 64.3 ns 79.1 61.8 * Phosphatic manure 8.4 12.8 5.2 * 8.6 8.3 ns 17.2 6.1 ** Compost 27.6 21.8 31.8 ns 16.3 31.4 ns 31.3 26.7 ns Microdoses of fertilizer 2.8 3.2 2.5 ns 4.1 2.4 ns 1.7 3.1 ns Agricultural half-moons 1.5 1.5 1.4 ns 2.6 1.1 ns 1.9 1.4 ns IMPEL | Implementer-Led Evaluation and Learning 116 Annex 7: Bivariate and Multivariate Tables All farmers Used any agri. financial services Obtained agri-credit Participated in agri-saving schemes % Yes No Sig.a Yes No Sig.a Yes No Sig.a Use of climate information (rain forecast, disaster risks, etc.) 0.8 0.6 1.0 ns 0.9 0.8 ns 0.0 1.0 ns Performing at least three weedings 35.8 30.7 39.5 * 27.0 38.8 ns 34.3 36.2 ns Number of responding sorghum farmers 785 327 458 224 561 138 647 Improved post-harvest practices Locally made storage structures such as sheet metal silos 2.4 1.4 3.1 ns 1.5 2.7 ns 1.3 2.7 ns Sealed/airtight bags 3.0 4.0 2.3 ns 4.3 2.6 ns 5.0 2.5 ns Community storage facilities, including warehouse receipting 3.1 1.4 4.4 ns 1.0 3.9 ns 0.4 3.8 * Use of solar or fuel-powered dryers to reduce post-harvest moisture 0.1 0.2 0.0 ns 0.3 0.0 ns 0.0 0.1 ns Seed or grain treatment techniques (e.g., botanical pest control agents or phytosanitary irradiation) 0.5 0.6 0.4 ns 0.2 0.6 ns 1.2 0.3 ns Grain treatment with agro-chemicals 0.9 1.3 0.5 ns 1.0 0.8 ns 2.7 0.4 *** Triple bags for cowpea grain preservation 0.0 … … … … … … Other post-harvest practices that reduce pre-storage losses 3.0 1.7 3.9 ns 2.8 3.0 ns 1.2 3.4 ns Number of responding sorghum farmers who stored their harvest 753 316 437 221 532 131 622 Improved crop management practices Use of improved seeds 12.6 23.5 9.2 *** 25.8 9.4 *** 20.7 12.0 ns Control of sida cordifolia growth 18.9 19.9 18.6 ns 20.8 18.5 ns 13.8 19.3 ns Crop association 74.1 73.9 74.2 ns 79.6 72.8 ns 70.4 74.5 ns Crop rotation 3.6 3.9 3.5 ns 4.5 3.4 ns 1.9 3.7 ns Sowing after useful rain 39.4 52.7 35.3 * 52.5 36.3 ns 57.3 38.0 ns Farmer managed natural regeneration (fmnr) 19.3 23.5 18.0 ns 22.3 18.6 ns 26.6 18.7 ns Delimitation of animal corridors and pasture areas 33.3 41.0 30.9 ns 39.9 31.8 ns 62.5 31.0 *** Protection of ponds against silting up 9.5 6.5 10.4 ns 5.6 10.4 ns 7.1 9.7 ns Functional community-based conflict management mechanisms 2.7 4.8 2.0 ns 4.8 2.1 ns 3.0 2.6 ns Delay of seedlings until third or fourth rains to control pests 8.9 6.3 9.7 ns 6.2 9.5 ns 4.1 9.3 ns Seed treatment with fungicides 13.5 12.6 13.8 ns 12.9 13.7 ns 11.0 13.7 ns Zai pits 12.2 12.1 12.2 ns 13.2 11.9 ns 10.5 12.3 ns Organic manure 66.0 59.2 68.2 ns 56.3 68.4 ns 61.3 66.4 ns Phosphatic manure 9.9 11.8 9.2 ns 12.7 9.2 ns 11.8 9.7 ns Compost 29.1 26.4 29.9 ns 28.2 29.3 ns 17.9 30.0 ns Microdoses of fertilizer 5.4 6.8 5.0 ns 6.4 5.2 ns 11.1 5.0 * Agricultural half-moons 2.0 1.7 2.1 ns 2.1 2.0 ns 1.3 2.1 ns Use of climate information (rain forecast, disaster risks, etc.) 2.0 1.5 2.2 ns 0.4 2.4 * 4.0 1.9 ns Performing at least three weedings 34.2 44.6 31.0 * 45.5 31.5 ns 44.8 33.4 ns Number of responding sorghum farmers 822 203 619 155 667 75 747 Improved post-harvest practices Locally made storage structures such as sheet metal silos 37.1 40.3 36.1 ns 45.6 35.0 ns 18.0 38.8 ** Sealed/airtight bags 10.0 11.5 9.5 ns 9.2 10.2 ns 18.6 9.3 * Community storage facilities, including warehouse receipting 3.6 7.5 2.3 ns 8.5 2.3 ns 11.6 2.9 * Use of solar or fuel-powered dryers to reduce post-harvest moisture 0.3 0.7 0.2 *** 0.4 0.3 ns 1.2 0.2 * Seed or grain treatment techniques (e.g., botanical pest control agents or phytosanitary irradiation) 0.0 … … … … … … Grain treatment with agro-chemicals 0.7 0.0 1.0 ns 0.0 0.9 ns 0.0 0.8 ns Triple bags for cowpea grain preservation 0.4 0.1 0.5 ns 0.1 0.5 ns 0.0 0.5 ns Other post-harvest practices that reduce pre-storage losses 3.6 6.2 2.7 ns 6.4 2.9 ns 11.8 2.9 ns Number of responding sorghum farmers who stored their harvest 683 173 510 134 549 66 617 Improved crop management practices Use of improved seeds 0.6 1.1 0.4 ns 0.3 0.6 ns 1.6 0.4 ns Baseline Study of the RFSAs in Niger: Final Report (Vol. III) Annex 7: Bivariate and Multivariate Tables 117 All farmers Used any agri. financial services Obtained agri-credit Participated in agri-saving schemes % Yes No Sig.a Yes No Sig.a Yes No Sig.a Control of sida cordifolia growth 0.5 0.3 0.6 ns 0.0 0.6 ns 0.6 0.5 ns Crop association 28.9 25.8 30.2 ns 21.3 30.3 ns 27.9 29.2 ns Crop rotation 0.5 1.3 0.2 ns 1.1 0.4 ns 1.1 0.4 ns Sowing after useful rain 19.0 32.1 13.9 *** 42.0 14.9 *** 29.7 16.9 ns Farmer managed natural regeneration (fmnr) 36.8 37.5 36.5 ns 26.4 38.6 ns 47.3 34.7 ns Delimitation of animal corridors and pasture areas 25.5 31.0 23.4 ns 40.4 22.9 * 22.9 26.0 ns Protection of ponds against silting up 7.9 19.5 3.5 *** 22.3 5.4 *** 17.8 6.0 ** Functional community-based conflict management mechanisms 1.7 1.3 1.8 ns 2.0 1.6 ns 1.8 1.7 ns Delay of seedlings until third or fourth rains to control pests 0.2 0.6 0.0 ns 1.1 0.0 * 0.0 0.2 ns Seed treatment with fungicides 8.2 9.2 7.8 ns 3.8 9.0 ns 13.2 7.2 ns Zai pits 1.5 2.5 1.1 ns 1.7 1.5 ns 2.7 1.3 ns Organic manure 59.9 65.5 57.7 ns 74.5 57.3 ns 61.1 59.6 ns Phosphatic manure 7.0 8.2 6.6 ns 5.9 7.2 ns 9.9 6.5 ns Compost 7.2 8.3 6.8 ns 3.2 7.9 ns 12.5 6.2 ns Microdoses of fertilizer 1.2 3.0 0.5 * 3.5 0.8 ns 1.9 1.1 ns Agricultural half-moons 0.5 1.7 0.1 *** 1.5 0.4 ns 1.6 0.3 ns Use of climate information (rain forecast, disaster risks, etc.) 10.3 10.9 10.1 ns 7.6 10.8 ns 13.5 9.7 ns Performing at least three weedings Number of responding sorghum farmers 596 181 415 97 499 110 486 Improved post-harvest practices Locally made storage structures such as sheet metal silos 32.3 27.5 34.1 ns 22.9 34.0 ns 27.6 33.2 ns Sealed/airtight bags 6.4 8.9 5.5 ns 5.9 6.5 ns 11.4 5.5 ns Community storage facilities, including warehouse receipting 3.8 4.1 3.7 ns 6.4 3.3 ns 0.9 4.3 ns Use of solar or fuel-powered dryers to reduce post-harvest moisture 0.4 0.0 0.5 ns 0.0 0.4 ns 0.0 0.5 ns Seed or grain treatment techniques (e.g., botanical pest control agents or phytosanitary irradiation) 0.0 … … … … … … Grain treatment with agro-chemicals 0.0 … … … … … … Triple bags for cowpea grain preservation 2.6 1.8 3.0 ns 1.8 2.8 ns 1.3 2.9 ns Other post-harvest practices that reduce pre-storage losses 0.3 1.0 0.0 * 0.0 0.3 ns 1.8 0.0 ** Number of responding sorghum farmers who stored their harvest 469 143 326 79 390 86 383 NOTES: a Significance tests were performed to determine whether an association exists between the outcome indicator (use of targeted improved practice) and the disaggregate variables. Associations found to be statistically significant are indicated by level: * p<0.05, ** p<0.01, *** p<0.001; ns=not significant. IMPEL | Implementer-Led Evaluation and Learning 118 Annex 7: Bivariate and Multivariate Tables Table 62: A7.3. Percentage of millet farmers applying targeted improved crop management and post-harvest handling and storage practices by use of agricultural-related financial services [Baseline Study, Niger 2020] All farmers Used any agri. financial services Obtained agri-credit Participated in agri-saving schemes % Yes No Sig.a Yes No Sig.a Yes No Sig.aq Improved crop management practices Use of improved seeds 7.6 6.4 8.2 ns 6.9 7.8 ns 6.6 7.8 ns Control ofsida cordifolia growth 12.7 14.6 11.7 ns 11.3 13.1 ns 16.3 12.0 ns Crop association 49.0 42.0 52.9 ** 44.4 50.3 ns 38.6 51.3 ns Crop rotation 2.4 2.1 2.5 ns 3.1 2.2 ns 0.7 2.7 ** Sowing after useful rain 34.4 37.4 32.8 ns 44.7 31.7 * 30.3 35.3 ns Farmer managed naturalregeneration (fmnr) 37.2 33.2 39.4 ns 21.3 41.4 *** 44.1 35.7 ns Delimitation of animal corridors and pasture areas 33.1 34.0 32.6 ns 40.4 31.2 ns 26.1 34.6 ns Protection of ponds againstsilting up 6.4 5.7 6.8 ns 7.8 6.1 ns 4.7 6.8 ns Functional community-based conflict management mechanisms 3.4 2.1 4.1 ns 2.7 3.6 ns 1.4 3.8 ns Delay ofseedlings until third orfourth rainsto control pests 5.1 3.8 5.8 ns 2.0 5.9 ** 5.2 5.1 ns Seed treatment with fungicides 5.0 4.6 5.2 ns 3.1 5.5 ns 6.2 4.7 ns Zai pits 5.8 7.5 4.9 * 9.0 5.0 * 6.5 5.7 ns Organic manure 60.5 67.0 56.9 * 66.5 58.9 ns 70.7 58.3 * Phosphatic manure 9.5 14.2 6.9 *** 12.1 8.8 ns 16.1 8.1 ** Compost 24.9 22.1 26.4 ns 19.4 26.4 ns 25.7 24.7 ns Microdoses of fertilizer 2.9 4.0 2.2 * 5.8 2.1 ** 2.1 3.0 ns Agricultural half-moons 1.2 1.6 1.0 ns 1.7 1.1 ns 2.5 0.9 ns Use of climate information (rain forecast, disaster risks, etc.) 0.7 0.9 0.5 ns 0.6 0.7 ns 1.1 0.6 ns Performing at leastthree weedings 30.9 31.4 30.7 ns 30.1 31.1 ns 33.0 30.5 ns Number ofresponding millet farmers 2,663 845 1,818 560 2,103 379 2,284 Improved post-harvest practices Locally made storage structuressuch assheet metal silos 15.1 12.2 16.7 ns 14.8 15.2 ns 8.2 16.5 ** Sealed/airtight bags 3.8 4.4 3.5 ns 5.5 3.4 ns 4.0 3.8 ns Community storage facilities, including warehouse receipting 6.0 4.4 6.8 ns 5.6 6.1 ns 2.1 6.8 * Use ofsolar orfuel-powered dryersto reduce post-harvest moisture 0.4 0.6 0.4 ns 0.9 0.3 ns 0.1 0.5 * Seed or grain treatmenttechniques(e.g., botanical pest control agents or phytosanitary irradiation) 0.2 0.1 0.2 ns 0.2 0.2 ns 0.3 0.2 ns Grain treatment with agro-chemicals 0.7 0.5 0.8 ns 0.9 0.7 ns 0.9 0.7 ns Triple bagsfor cowpea grain preservation 0.8 0.8 0.8 ns 1.1 0.7 ns 0.6 0.9 ns Other post-harvest practicesthatreduce pre-storage losses 3.1 2.1 3.7 ns 3.0 3.2 ns 2.0 3.4 ns Number of responding millet farmers who stored their harvest 2,517 808 1,709 542 1,975 357 2,160 Improved crop management practices Use of improved seeds 8.6 5.3 10.9 ** 4.0 10.0 * 6.9 9.1 ns Control ofsida cordifolia growth 14.5 15.6 13.8 ns 9.4 16.0 ns 19.9 13.0 ns Crop association 48.2 39.8 53.9 * 40.9 50.4 ns 37.2 51.2 ns Crop rotation 1.4 0.4 2.1 ns 0.7 1.6 ns 0.0 1.8 ns Sowing after useful rain 36.6 35.2 37.5 ns 41.1 35.2 ns 29.0 38.6 ns Farmer managed naturalregeneration (fmnr) 42.9 34.6 48.4 * 20.7 49.4 *** 45.1 42.3 ns Delimitation of animal corridors and pasture areas 36.5 34.9 37.6 ns 43.1 34.6 ns 24.3 39.8 ns Protection of ponds againstsilting up 5.4 3.4 6.7 * 6.0 5.2 ns 2.2 6.2 ns Functional community-based conflict management mechanisms 4.3 2.0 5.9 ns 2.6 4.9 ns 1.3 5.2 ns Delay ofseedlings until third orfourth rainsto control pests 5.9 4.4 7.0 ns 1.5 7.2 ** 6.5 5.8 ns Seed treatment with fungicides 2.1 2.3 2.0 ns 1.1 2.4 ns 3.6 1.7 ns Zai pits 5.1 6.8 3.9 * 7.7 4.3 ns 7.1 4.6 ns Organic manure 61.1 69.9 55.2 * 68.9 58.8 ns 74.4 57.5 * Phosphatic manure 8.8 13.5 5.6 * 10.0 8.4 ns 17.1 6.6 ** Compost 27.3 21.8 31.0 ns 16.0 30.6 * 29.5 26.7 ns Baseline Study of the RFSAs in Niger: Final Report (Vol. III) Annex 7: Bivariate and Multivariate Tables 119 All farmers Used any agri. financial services Obtained agri-credit Participated in agri-saving schemes % Yes No Sig.a Yes No Sig.a Yes No Sig.aq Microdoses of fertilizer 2.3 3.1 1.8 ns 4.7 1.6 ns 1.7 2.5 ns Agricultural half-moons 1.3 1.6 1.1 ns 1.8 1.2 ns 2.8 0.9 ns Use of climate information (rain forecast, disaster risks, etc.) 0.7 1.1 0.4 ns 0.8 0.6 ns 1.2 0.6 ns Performing at leastthree weedings 35.1 31.8 37.3 ns 28.5 37.0 ns 35.7 34.9 ns Number ofresponding millet farmers 968 378 590 245 723 168 800 Improved post-harvest practices Locally made storage structuressuch assheet metal silos 3.7 3.8 3.7 ns 4.1 3.6 ns 2.9 4.0 ns Sealed/airtight bags 2.0 2.3 1.8 ns 3.3 1.6 ns 2.2 1.9 ns Community storage facilities, including warehouse receipting 6.6 2.8 9.0 ** 3.2 7.6 ns 0.9 8.0 * Use ofsolar orfuel-powered dryersto reduce post-harvest moisture 0.5 0.6 0.5 ns 1.1 0.4 ns 0.0 0.7 ns Seed or grain treatmenttechniques(e.g., botanical pest control agents or phytosanitary irradiation) 0.2 0.1 0.3 ns 0.1 0.3 ns 0.2 0.3 ns Grain treatment with agro-chemicals 0.9 0.5 1.2 ns 0.9 0.9 ns 1.0 0.9 ns Triple bagsfor cowpea grain preservation 0.1 0.1 0.1 ** 0.0 0.1 ns 0.3 0.1 *** Other post-harvest practicesthatreduce pre-storage losses 3.9 1.8 5.3 * 2.3 4.4 ns 2.1 4.4 ns Number of responding millet farmers who stored their harvest 954 374 580 245 709 164 790 Improved crop management practices Use of improved seeds 11.7 18.9 9.1 ** 21.5 8.9 *** 15.9 11.3 ns Control ofsida cordifolia growth 18.9 23.9 17.1 ns 25.8 17.0 ns 14.8 19.2 ns Crop association 68.7 66.9 69.3 ns 70.6 68.2 ns 68.9 68.7 ns Crop rotation 7.1 11.2 5.6 * 12.3 5.6 * 3.5 7.4 ns Sowing after useful rain 41.6 56.0 36.5 ** 58.1 37.0 ** 53.3 40.7 ns Farmer managed naturalregeneration (fmnr) 18.7 18.8 18.6 ns 17.6 19.0 ns 24.9 18.2 ns Delimitation of animal corridors and pasture areas 30.4 32.3 29.7 ns 29.9 30.5 ns 55.4 28.4 *** Protection of ponds againstsilting up 8.4 4.6 9.7 * 3.9 9.7 * 5.9 8.6 ns Functional community-based conflict management mechanisms 2.2 2.9 2.0 ns 2.7 2.1 ns 2.4 2.2 ns Delay ofseedlings until third orfourth rainsto control pests 7.5 4.5 8.5 ns 4.9 8.2 ns 3.4 7.8 ns Seed treatment with fungicides 11.3 10.0 11.8 ns 9.8 11.8 ns 12.1 11.3 ns Zai pits 12.8 15.9 11.6 ns 17.5 11.4 ns 9.6 13.0 ns Organic manure 61.5 52.7 64.7 ns 51.0 64.5 * 59.1 61.7 ns Phosphatic manure 14.5 23.5 11.3 *** 25.4 11.4 *** 14.7 14.5 ns Compost 34.3 38.9 32.7 ns 42.5 32.0 ns 18.6 35.6 ** Microdoses of fertilizer 6.9 11.7 5.2 ** 12.0 5.5 ** 10.1 6.7 ns Agricultural half-moons 1.9 2.5 1.8 ns 2.6 1.8 ns 2.1 1.9 ns Use of climate information (rain forecast, disaster risks, etc.) 1.3 1.0 1.4 ns 0.2 1.6 * 3.1 1.2 ns Performing at leastthree weedings 36.2 47.8 32.1 ** 49.5 32.5 * 42.8 35.7 ns Number ofresponding millet farmers 1,018 269 749 210 808 90 928 Improved post-harvest practices Locally made storage structuressuch assheet metal silos 40.5 45.9 38.6 ns 51.4 37.4 ns 24.9 41.8 * Sealed/airtight bags 7.7 12.2 6.0 * 10.3 6.9 ns 19.7 6.7 ** Community storage facilities, including warehouse receipting 5.5 10.3 3.8 ns 11.5 3.8 * 8.6 5.3 ns Use ofsolar orfuel-powered dryersto reduce post-harvest moisture 0.5 0.9 0.4 ns 0.8 0.5 ns 1.1 0.5 ns Seed or grain treatmenttechniques(e.g., botanical pest control agents or phytosanitary irradiation) 0.3 0.6 0.2 ns 0.7 0.2 ns 2.1 0.2 * Grain treatment with agro-chemicals 0.7 1.1 0.5 ns 1.3 0.5 ns 2.6 0.5 ns Triple bagsfor cowpea grain preservation 1.2 3.9 0.3 *** 4.7 0.2 *** 4.5 1.0 ns Other post-harvest practicesthatreduce pre-storage losses 3.2 5.8 2.3 ns 6.9 2.2 * 4.4 3.1 ns Number of responding millet farmers who stored their harvest 973 257 716 201 772 85 888 IMPEL | Implementer-Led Evaluation and Learning 120 Annex 7: Bivariate and Multivariate Tables All farmers Used any agri. financial services Obtained agri-credit Participated in agri-saving schemes % Yes No Sig.a Yes No Sig.a Yes No Sig.aq Improved crop management practices Use of improved seeds 0.3 0.5 0.2 *** 1.0 0.2 *** 0.9 0.2 *** Control ofsida cordifolia growth 1.1 1.0 1.1 ns 0.0 1.2 ns 1.6 1.0 ns Crop association 33.0 29.5 34.3 ns 24.0 34.5 ns 31.4 33.3 ns Crop rotation 1.2 2.1 0.8 ns 2.1 1.0 ns 2.5 0.9 ns Sowing after useful rain 20.3 31.0 16.4 ** 43.9 16.4 *** 25.6 19.3 ns Farmer managed naturalregeneration (fmnr) 36.0 39.7 34.6 ns 29.5 37.1 ns 48.3 33.6 ns Delimitation of animal corridors and pasture areas 24.5 31.0 22.2 ns 42.2 21.6 * 21.2 25.2 ns Protection of ponds againstsilting up 8.0 18.3 4.2 *** 23.2 5.5 *** 14.9 6.6 * Functional community-based conflict management mechanisms 1.4 1.9 1.3 ns 3.3 1.1 ns 1.7 1.4 ns Delay ofseedlings until third orfourth rainsto control pests 0.0 … … … … … … Seed treatment with fungicides 8.3 10.7 7.4 ns 3.3 9.1 ns 15.0 7.0 * Zai pits 1.7 3.0 1.2 ** 3.0 1.5 ns 2.4 1.6 ns Organic manure 57.5 66.3 54.2 ns 76.5 54.3 * 59.9 57.0 ns Phosphatic manure 7.1 8.9 6.4 ns 3.3 7.7 ns 12.5 6.0 ns Compost 8.0 7.9 8.0 ns 3.3 8.7 ns 11.9 7.2 ns Microdoses of fertilizer 0.8 1.3 0.6 ns 1.9 0.6 ns 0.5 0.9 ns Agricultural half-moons 0.3 0.8 0.1 * 0.0 0.3 ns 1.4 0.0 *** Use of climate information (rain forecast, disaster risks, etc.) 0.0 … … … … … … Performing at leastthree weedings 12.2 14.2 11.4 ns 10.1 12.5 ns 17.2 11.2 ns Number of responding millet farmers 677 198 479 105 572 121 556 Improved post-harvest practices Locally made storage structuressuch assheet metal silos 30.4 23.7 32.9 * 18.7 32.4 * 25.6 31.3 ns Sealed/airtight bags 6.6 8.3 6.0 ns 10.9 5.9 ns 5.5 6.9 ns Community storage facilities, including warehouse receipting 4.4 7.1 3.4 * 10.2 3.4 * 4.5 4.4 ns Use ofsolar orfuel-powered dryersto reduce post-harvest moisture 0.0 … … … … … … Seed or grain treatmenttechniques(e.g., botanical pest control agents or phytosanitary irradiation) 0.0 … … … … … … Grain treatment with agro-chemicals 0.2 0.0 0.3 ns 0.0 0.3 ns 0.0 0.3 ns Triple bags 2.9 1.0 3.7 ns 1.5 3.2 ns 0.3 3.4 ** Other post-harvest practicesthatreduce pre-storage losses 0.3 0.4 0.3 ns 0.7 0.3 ns 0.7 0.3 ns Number of responding millet farmers who stored their harvest 590 177 413 96 494 108 482 NOTES: a Significance tests were performed to determine whether an association exists between the outcome indicator (use of targeted improved practice) and the disaggregate variables. Associations found to be statistically significant are indicated by level: * p<0.05, ** p<0.01, *** p<0.001; ns=not significant. Baseline Study of the RFSAs in Niger: Final Report (Vol. III) Annex 7: Bivariate and Multivariate Tables 121 Table 63: A7.4. Percentage of cowpea farmers applying targeted improved crop management and post-harvest handling and storage practices by use of agricultural-related financial services [Baseline Study, Niger 2020] All farmers Used any agri. financial services Obtained agri-credit Participated in agri-saving schemes % Yes No Sig.a Yes No Sig.a Yes No Sig.aq Improved crop management practices Use of improved seeds 8.4 7.0 9.1 ns 7.6 8.6 ns 6.7 8.8 ns Control ofsida cordifolia growth 12.4 14.4 11.2 ns 10.7 12.8 ns 16.6 11.4 ns Crop association 49.0 42.5 52.6 * 45.8 49.8 ns 38.5 51.3 * Crop rotation 1.9 2.0 1.8 ns 2.9 1.6 ns 0.5 2.2 * Sowing after useful rain 33.4 36.5 31.6 ns 44.4 30.4 * 29.1 34.3 ns Farmer managed naturalregeneration (fmnr) 37.6 33.7 39.8 ns 21.4 42.0 *** 44.6 36.1 ns Delimitation of animal corridors and pasture areas 33.1 34.6 32.2 ns 41.4 30.8 ns 26.6 34.5 ns Protection of ponds againstsilting up 6.3 5.7 6.7 ns 7.6 6.0 ns 4.7 6.7 ns Functional community-based conflict management mechanisms 3.6 2.2 4.3 ns 2.8 3.8 ns 1.4 4.1 ns Delay ofseedlings until third orfourth rainsto control pests 6.8 5.6 7.4 ns 3.7 7.6 * 7.7 6.6 ns Seed treatment with fungicides 5.1 4.7 5.3 ns 3.4 5.5 ns 6.0 4.9 ns Zai pits 5.2 7.0 4.2 * 8.1 4.4 * 5.9 5.1 ns Organic manure 59.8 66.4 56.1 * 65.7 58.2 ns 69.7 57.6 * Phosphatic manure 9.6 13.9 7.2 *** 11.9 9.0 ns 15.7 8.2 ** Compost 23.4 22.0 24.2 ns 18.4 24.8 ns 26.7 22.7 ns Microdoses of fertilizer 2.6 3.6 2.0 ns 5.2 1.9 ** 2.9 2.5 ns Agricultural half-moons 1.6 1.9 1.5 ns 1.9 1.5 ns 2.3 1.4 ns Use of climate information (rain forecast, disaster risks, etc.) 0.5 0.6 0.5 ns 0.1 0.7 ** 1.1 0.4 ns Performing at leastthree weedings 29.9 29.9 29.8 ns 28.0 30.4 ns 31.6 29.5 ns Number of responding cowpea farmers 2,582 846 1,736 552 2,030 387 2,195 Improved post-harvest practices Locally made storage structuressuch assheet metal silos 4.7 3.8 5.2 ns 5.8 4.4 ns 1.6 5.4 ** Sealed/airtight bags 8.4 8.7 8.3 ns 11.2 7.7 ns 5.2 9.2 ns Community storage facilities, including warehouse receipting 1.8 1.9 1.8 ns 2.1 1.8 ns 2.0 1.8 ns Use ofsolar orfuel-powered dryersto reduce post-harvest moisture 0.3 0.0 0.5 *** 0.0 0.4 *** 0.1 0.4 * Seed or grain treatmenttechniques(e.g., botanical pest control agents or phytosanitary irradiation) 1.0 0.8 1.2 ns 0.3 1.2 * 1.3 1.0 ns Grain treatment with agro-chemicals 2.0 1.9 2.1 ns 1.6 2.2 ns 1.9 2.1 ns Triple bagsfor cowpea grain preservation 3.3 2.6 3.7 ns 4.1 3.1 ns 1.2 3.8 ** Other post-harvest practicesthatreduce pre-storage losses 7.2 7.1 7.3 ns 7.6 7.1 ns 6.5 7.4 ns Number of responding cowpea farmers who stored their harvest 2,367 795 1,572 524 1,843 365 2,002 Improved crop management practices Use of improved seeds 9.9 6.2 12.4 * 5.3 11.3 ns 7.2 10.6 ns Control ofsida cordifolia growth 14.1 15.5 13.2 ns 8.6 15.8 ns 20.5 12.4 * Crop association 48.9 41.2 54.2 * 43.0 50.7 ns 38.5 51.7 ns Crop rotation 1.2 0.5 1.7 ns 0.9 1.3 ns 0.0 1.5 ns Sowing after useful rain 35.4 35.1 35.7 ns 41.7 33.5 ns 27.9 37.4 ns Farmer managed naturalregeneration (fmnr) 42.5 34.3 48.2 * 20.4 49.2 *** 45.0 41.9 ns Delimitation of animal corridors and pasture areas 36.5 35.7 37.0 ns 44.1 34.2 ns 24.7 39.7 ns Protection of ponds againstsilting up 5.2 3.3 6.5 ns 5.9 5.0 ns 2.2 6.0 ns Functional community-based conflict management mechanisms 4.4 2.0 6.1 * 2.5 5.0 ns 1.2 5.3 * Delay ofseedlings until third orfourth rainsto control pests 7.5 6.0 8.5 ns 2.9 8.9 * 8.8 7.1 ns Seed treatment with fungicides 2.1 2.7 1.7 ns 1.6 2.2 ns 3.9 1.6 ns Zai pits 4.0 6.1 2.6 *** 6.5 3.3 ns 6.4 3.4 ns Organic manure 60.0 68.8 53.9 * 67.5 57.7 ns 72.9 56.5 * Phosphatic manure 8.7 12.8 5.9 * 9.1 8.6 ns 16.6 6.6 ** Compost 25.8 21.9 28.5 ns 14.9 29.0 ns 30.8 24.4 ns IMPEL | Implementer-Led Evaluation and Learning 122 Annex 7: Bivariate and Multivariate Tables All farmers Used any agri. financial services Obtained agri-credit Participated in agri-saving schemes % Yes No Sig.a Yes No Sig.a Yes No Sig.aq Microdoses of fertilizer 2.2 2.7 1.8 ns 4.0 1.6 ns 2.7 2.0 ns Agricultural half-moons 2.0 2.1 1.9 ns 2.3 1.9 ns 2.5 1.8 ns Use of climate information (rain forecast, disaster risks, etc.) 0.5 0.6 0.4 * 0.0 0.6 ns 1.1 0.3 *** Performing at leastthree weedings 33.3 29.6 35.9 ns 24.9 35.9 ns 34.0 33.2 ns Number of responding cowpea farmers 961 387 574 250 711 172 789 Improved post-harvest practices Locally made storage structuressuch assheet metal silos 1.7 2.4 1.2 ns 4.0 1.0 ns 0.9 1.9 ns Sealed/airtight bags 4.0 2.9 4.7 ns 3.2 4.2 ns 2.0 4.5 ns Community storage facilities, including warehouse receipting 0.7 0.6 0.7 ns 0.0 0.9 ns 1.2 0.5 ns Use ofsolar orfuel-powered dryersto reduce post-harvest moisture 0.3 0.0 0.5 ns 0.0 0.4 ns 0.0 0.4 ns Seed or grain treatmenttechniques(e.g., botanical pest control agents or phytosanitary irradiation) 1.3 1.0 1.6 ns 0.3 1.7 * 1.7 1.2 ns Grain treatment with agro-chemicals 1.4 0.8 1.9 ns 0.0 1.8 ns 1.4 1.4 ns Triple bagsfor cowpea grain preservation 1.1 0.6 1.5 ns 1.1 1.2 ns 0.0 1.5 ns Other post-harvest practicesthatreduce pre-storage losses 9.7 8.2 10.8 ns 9.4 9.8 ns 6.6 10.5 ns Number of responding cowpea farmers who stored their harvest 951 384 567 248 703 171 780 Improved crop management practices Use of improved seeds 12.4 19.1 9.8 * 21.8 9.5 ** 14.3 12.2 ns Control ofsida cordifolia growth 20.1 24.8 18.2 ns 26.8 18.0 ns 15.3 20.5 ns Crop association 71.1 68.5 72.2 ns 73.6 70.4 ns 66.3 71.6 ns Crop rotation 5.7 10.7 3.8 * 11.7 3.9 ** 3.6 5.9 ns Sowing after useful rain 41.1 52.3 36.8 * 56.4 36.5 * 45.8 40.7 ns Farmer managed naturalregeneration (fmnr) 18.8 20.2 18.2 ns 19.1 18.7 ns 25.6 18.1 ns Delimitation of animal corridors and pasture areas 30.8 32.7 30.0 ns 30.0 31.0 ns 56.4 28.5 *** Protection of ponds againstsilting up 8.9 4.4 10.7 ** 3.6 10.5 * 6.0 9.2 ns Functional community-based conflict management mechanisms 2.6 3.6 2.2 ns 3.5 2.3 ns 2.5 2.6 ns Delay ofseedlings until third orfourth rainsto control pests 11.9 9.8 12.7 ns 8.8 12.8 ns 14.5 11.7 ns Seed treatment with fungicides 13.5 10.1 14.9 ns 9.6 14.7 ns 10.9 13.8 ns Zai pits 15.2 18.3 14.0 ns 19.6 13.8 ns 9.9 15.6 ns Organic manure 61.5 54.3 64.3 * 53.0 64.1 ns 60.1 61.6 ns Phosphatic manure 15.7 25.2 12.0 ** 27.6 12.2 *** 15.9 15.7 ns Compost 34.5 40.1 32.3 ns 43.4 31.8 ns 21.1 35.7 ns Microdoses of fertilizer 5.9 10.5 4.1 ** 11.5 4.2 ** 9.3 5.6 ns Agricultural half-moons 1.7 1.3 1.9 ns 1.6 1.7 ns 1.0 1.8 ns Use of climate information (rain forecast, disaster risks, etc.) 1.5 1.2 1.6 ns 0.5 1.8 ns 3.0 1.3 ns Performing at leastthree weedings 37.4 49.0 32.9 ** 51.9 33.0 ** 41.3 37.1 ns Number of responding cowpea farmers 909 251 658 194 715 88 821 Improved post-harvest practices Locally made storage structuressuch assheet metal silos 7.1 6.5 7.4 ns 7.3 7.1 ns 1.3 7.7 * Sealed/airtight bags 28.9 39.2 24.6 ** 41.8 24.7 ** 28.7 28.9 ns Community storage facilities, including warehouse receipting 5.2 6.9 4.4 ns 7.3 4.5 ns 11.1 4.6 * Use ofsolar orfuel-powered dryersto reduce post-harvest moisture 0.5 0.3 0.6 ns 0.1 0.7 * 1.2 0.5 ns Seed or grain treatmenttechniques(e.g., botanical pest control agents or phytosanitary irradiation) 1.0 0.6 1.1 ns 0.7 1.0 ns 0.0 1.0 ns Grain treatment with agro-chemicals 5.1 8.5 3.7 ns 10.0 3.5 * 2.2 5.4 ns Triple bagsfor cowpea grain preservation 11.8 17.5 9.4 ns 20.7 8.9 ** 14.6 11.5 ns Other post-harvest practicesthatreduce pre-storage losses 2.5 4.4 1.6 ns 5.3 1.5 * 4.6 2.3 ns Number of responding cowpea farmers who stored their harvest 779 220 559 171 608 79 700 Baseline Study of the RFSAs in Niger: Final Report (Vol. III) Annex 7: Bivariate and Multivariate Tables 123 All farmers Used any agri. financial services Obtained agri-credit Participated in agri-saving schemes % Yes No Sig.a Yes No Sig.a Yes No Sig.aq Improved crop management practices Use of improved seeds 0.4 1.0 0.2 ns 0.3 0.4 ns 1.4 0.2 ns Control ofsida cordifolia growth 0.5 0.3 0.5 ns 0.0 0.5 ns 0.5 0.5 ns Crop association 31.3 26.9 32.9 ns 23.7 32.5 ns 27.5 32.0 ns Crop rotation 0.9 1.8 0.5 ns 1.7 0.7 ns 1.5 0.7 ns Sowing after useful rain 20.7 30.4 17.3 ** 42.2 17.3 *** 27.1 19.5 ns Farmer managed naturalregeneration (fmnr) 37.0 41.7 35.3 ns 30.0 38.2 ns 50.7 34.4 ns Delimitation of animal corridors and pasture areas 24.2 31.3 21.5 ns 42.8 21.1 * 22.4 24.5 ns Protection of ponds againstsilting up 7.8 18.2 4.0 *** 22.3 5.4 *** 14.6 6.5 * Functional community-based conflict management mechanisms 1.6 1.8 1.5 ns 3.2 1.4 ns 1.6 1.6 ns Delay ofseedlings until third orfourth rainsto control pests 0.5 0.5 0.5 ns 0.9 0.4 ns 0.0 0.6 ns Seed treatment with fungicides 7.8 9.5 7.2 ns 4.3 8.4 ns 13.1 6.8 ns Zai pits 1.0 2.2 0.6 * 1.6 1.0 ns 2.3 0.8 ns Organic manure 57.8 64.5 55.4 ns 73.6 55.3 ns 59.9 57.4 ns Phosphatic manure 7.4 9.4 6.7 ns 5.6 7.7 ns 11.6 6.7 ns Compost 7.0 7.6 6.8 ns 3.3 7.6 ns 11.5 6.1 ns Microdoses of fertilizer 1.3 2.3 0.9 ns 3.2 1.0 ns 1.1 1.3 ns Agricultural half-moons 0.3 1.2 0.1 ** 0.0 0.4 ns 1.9 0.0 *** Use of climate information (rain forecast, disaster risks, etc.) 0.0 … ... … ... … ... Performing at leastthree weedings 12.8 15.6 11.8 ns 12.4 12.9 ns 17.7 11.9 ns Number of responding cowpea farmers 712 208 504 108 604 127 585 Improved post-harvest practices Locally made storage structuressuch assheet metal silos 13.1 9.1 14.5 ns 13.4 13.0 ns 5.1 14.6 * Sealed/airtight bags 8.7 14.3 6.6 * 16.9 7.3 * 10.1 8.4 ns Community storage facilities, including warehouse receipting 3.4 4.3 3.1 ns 6.9 2.8 ns 2.0 3.7 ns Use ofsolar orfuel-powered dryersto reduce post-harvest moisture 0.4 0.0 0.5 ns 0.0 0.4 ns 0.0 0.4 ns Seed or grain treatmenttechniques(e.g., botanical pest control agents or phytosanitary irradiation) 0.0 … ... … ... … ... Grain treatment with agro-chemicals 1.9 2.5 1.6 ns 0.0 2.2 ns 4.2 1.4 * Triple bags 4.4 0.6 5.8 * 0.0 5.2 ns 1.1 5.1 ns Other post-harvest practicesthatreduce pre-storage losses 2.2 3.9 1.6 ns 1.3 2.3 ns 6.6 1.3 * Number of responding cowpea farmers who stored their harvest 637 191 446 105 532 115 522 NOTES: a Significance tests were performed to determine whether an association exists between the outcome indicator (use of targeted improved practice) and the disaggregate variables. Associations found to be statistically significant are indicated by level: * p<0.05, ** p<0.01, *** p<0.001; ns=not significant. IMPEL | Implementer-Led Evaluation and Learning 124 Annex 7: Bivariate and Multivariate Tables Table 64: A7.5. Percentage of peanut farmers applying targeted improved crop management and post-harvest handling and storage practices by use of agricultural-related financial services [Baseline Study, Niger 2020] All farmers Used any agri. financial services Obtained agri-credit Participated in agri-saving schemes % Yes No Sig.a Yes No Sig.a Yes No Sig.aq Combined RFSA Areas Improved crop management practices Use of improved seeds 10.4 7.0 12.5 * 7.9 11.1 ns 8.0 10.9 ns Control ofsida cordifolia growth 13.6 14.6 13.0 ns 11.2 14.3 ns 18.2 12.5 ns Crop association 48.4 38.2 54.8 ** 42.2 50.2 ns 37.7 51.0 ns Crop rotation 2.4 2.6 2.2 ns 4.2 1.8 ns 0.5 2.8 * Sowing after useful rain 33.2 30.0 35.1 ns 33.6 33.0 ns 29.1 34.2 ns Farmer managed naturalregeneration (fmnr) 40.0 36.3 42.2 ns 23.8 44.5 ** 47.1 38.2 ns Delimitation of animal corridors and pasture areas 37.8 30.8 42.1 ns 31.2 39.6 ns 31.9 39.2 ns Protection of ponds againstsilting up 8.2 6.6 9.2 ns 9.0 8.0 ns 7.6 8.4 ns Functional community-based conflict management mechanisms 5.2 3.2 6.5 ns 4.2 5.5 ns 2.0 6.0 ns Delay ofseedlings until third orfourth rainsto control pests 10.6 9.0 11.6 ns 8.5 11.2 ns 10.5 10.6 ns Seed treatment with fungicides 5.1 2.9 6.5 ** 2.8 5.8 * 2.9 5.7 ns Zai pits 6.2 9.9 3.9 ** 10.2 5.1 ns 9.1 5.5 ns Organic manure 67.5 75.4 62.6 *** 75.0 65.4 ns 74.7 65.7 ** Phosphatic manure 11.0 14.6 8.8 * 12.1 10.7 ns 16.9 9.5 * Compost 27.3 25.6 28.3 ns 21.8 28.8 ns 28.6 26.9 ns Microdoses of fertilizer 3.2 3.3 3.1 ns 5.5 2.6 ns 0.8 3.8 * Agricultural half-moons 1.7 2.2 1.4 ns 1.8 1.7 ns 2.8 1.5 ns Use of climate information (rain forecast, disaster risks, etc.) 0.4 0.2 0.5 ns 0.1 0.5 ns 0.4 0.4 ns Performing at leastthree weedings 25.7 20.9 28.8 * 19.9 27.4 ns 21.6 26.7 ns Number of responding peanut farmers 1,132 384 748 253 879 174 958 Improved post-harvest practices Locally made storage structuressuch assheet metal silos 3.5 3.0 3.9 ns 4.8 3.2 ns 1.7 4.0 ns Sealed/airtight bags 17.0 13.5 19.2 ns 17.3 16.9 ns 9.2 18.9 * Community storage facilities, including warehouse receipting 2.1 2.3 2.0 ns 3.4 1.8 ns 2.2 2.1 ns Use ofsolar orfuel-powered dryersto reduce post-harvest moisture 0.7 0.0 1.1 ns 0.0 0.9 ns 0.0 0.8 ns Seed or grain treatmenttechniques(e.g., botanical pest control agents or phytosanitary irradiation) 0.5 0.7 0.3 ns 0.2 0.5 ns 1.4 0.2 ns Grain treatment with agro-chemicals 0.5 1.0 0.2 ns 0.2 0.6 ns 1.8 0.2 * Triple bagsfor peanut grain preservation 2.4 3.1 2.0 ns 3.4 2.1 ns 2.8 2.3 ns Other post-harvest practicesthatreduce pre-storage losses 5.0 4.0 5.6 ns 6.8 4.4 ns 0.4 6.1 *** Number of responding peanut farmers who stored their harvest 998 342 656 231 767 153 845 Girma Improved crop management practices Use of improved seeds 9.9 4.3 13.9 ** 3.5 11.7 ns 6.3 11.0 ns Control ofsida cordifolia growth 12.3 13.6 11.4 ns 6.8 13.8 ns 20.5 9.9 * Crop association 44.8 33.3 53.1 * 33.1 48.0 ns 36.7 47.2 ns Crop rotation 1.0 0.7 1.2 ns 1.3 0.9 ns 0.0 1.3 ns Sowing after useful rain 31.3 25.4 35.6 * 27.0 32.6 ns 25.6 33.0 ns Farmer managed naturalregeneration (fmnr) 46.0 39.5 50.6 ns 24.8 51.8 ** 50.5 44.6 ns Delimitation of animal corridors and pasture areas 38.6 30.1 44.8 ns 32.4 40.3 ns 28.5 41.6 ns Protection of ponds againstsilting up 6.3 4.1 7.9 ns 8.0 5.8 ns 3.9 7.0 ns Functional community-based conflict management mechanisms 6.2 2.8 8.6 ns 3.7 6.8 ns 1.6 7.5 ns Delay ofseedlings until third orfourth rainsto control pests 12.0 10.5 13.1 ns 10.3 12.5 ns 12.2 11.9 ns Seed treatment with fungicides 2.2 1.5 2.6 ns 0.6 2.6 ns 2.3 2.2 ns Zai pits 4.3 9.0 1.0 *** 8.8 3.1 ns 9.6 2.8 * Organic manure 65.5 78.5 56.0 *** 79.8 61.5 * 75.5 62.5 *** Phosphatic manure 9.3 12.6 6.9 ns 6.8 10.0 ns 18.1 6.7 ** Baseline Study of the RFSAs in Niger: Final Report (Vol. III) Annex 7: Bivariate and Multivariate Tables 125 All farmers Used any agri. financial services Obtained agri-credit Participated in agri-saving schemes % Yes No Sig.a Yes No Sig.a Yes No Sig.aq Compost 27.2 24.1 29.4 ns 15.8 30.4 ns 31.2 26.0 ns Microdoses of fertilizer 2.5 2.1 2.8 ns 4.0 2.1 ns 0.0 3.2 ns Agricultural half-moons 1.8 2.1 1.6 ns 2.0 1.7 ns 2.4 1.6 ns Use of climate information (rain forecast, disaster risks, etc.) Performing at leastthree weedings 24.4 17.7 29.2 ** 12.8 27.6 * 22.2 25.0 ns Number of responding peanut farmers 444 177 267 103 341 86 358 Improved post-harvest practices Locally made storage structuressuch assheet metal silos 2.2 1.3 2.9 ns 2.4 2.2 ns 0.0 2.9 ns Sealed/airtight bags 12.8 7.8 16.4 ** 7.6 14.3 ns 7.6 14.4 ns Community storage facilities, including warehouse receipting 0.9 0.9 0.8 ns 1.7 0.6 ** 0.0 1.1 ns Use ofsolar orfuel-powered dryersto reduce post-harvest moisture 0.7 0.0 1.2 ns 0.0 0.9 ns 0.0 0.9 ns Seed or grain treatmenttechniques(e.g., botanical pest control agents or phytosanitary irradiation) 0.3 0.8 0.0 ns 0.0 0.4 ns 1.4 0.0 ns Grain treatment with agro-chemicals 0.5 1.2 0.0 ns 0.0 0.6 ns 2.1 0.0 ns Triple bagsfor peanut grain preservation 1.1 1.2 1.1 ns 0.0 1.5 ns 2.1 0.8 ns Other post-harvest practicesthatreduce pre-storage losses 6.1 4.5 7.2 ns 8.5 5.4 ns 0.5 7.7 ** Number of responding peanut farmers who stored their harvest 422 166 256 99 323 81 341 Hamzari Improved crop management practices Use of improved seeds 14.6 21.1 12.0 * 23.7 11.9 ** 23.6 13.7 ns Control ofsida cordifolia growth 21.5 25.5 19.9 ns 28.1 19.5 * 12.1 22.4 ns Crop association 69.9 69.7 70.0 ns 75.2 68.3 ns 65.5 70.4 ns Crop rotation 7.2 13.0 4.9 ns 14.2 5.1 * 4.7 7.5 ns Sowing after useful rain 43.2 52.4 39.6 ns 55.6 39.6 ns 44.8 43.1 ns Farmer managed naturalregeneration (fmnr) 18.5 19.9 18.0 ns 17.4 18.9 ns 24.0 18.0 ns Delimitation of animal corridors and pasture areas 32.6 31.3 33.1 ns 26.0 34.6 ns 58.3 30.1 ** Protection of ponds againstsilting up 9.3 5.7 10.8 ns 4.3 10.8 ns 8.4 9.4 ns Functional community-based conflict management mechanisms 3.4 4.5 3.0 ns 4.8 3.0 ns 1.9 3.6 ns Delay ofseedlings until third orfourth rainsto control pests 9.6 6.0 11.1 ns 5.9 10.7 ns 4.9 10.1 ns Seed treatment with fungicides 15.6 10.5 17.6 ns 10.4 17.1 ns 10.1 16.1 ns Zai pits 13.3 16.6 12.0 ns 17.6 12.0 ns 7.1 13.9 ns Organic manure 68.5 58.6 72.5 ** 58.8 71.5 * 60.0 69.4 ns Phosphatic manure 17.2 26.1 13.7 ** 30.8 13.2 *** 10.1 17.9 ns Compost 35.4 40.0 33.6 ns 45.2 32.5 * 19.3 37.0 * Microdoses of fertilizer 6.1 10.3 4.4 * 11.4 4.5 * 6.8 6.0 ns Agricultural half-moons 1.8 2.4 1.5 ns 1.9 1.7 ns 2.9 1.6 ns Use of climate information (rain forecast, disaster risks, etc.) 1.9 1.4 2.1 ns 0.5 2.3 ns 3.5 1.7 ns Performing at leastthree weedings 37.7 44.8 34.9 ns 48.0 34.6 ns 34.4 38.0 ns Number of responding peanut farmers 571 163 408 122 449 64 507 Improved post-harvest practices Locally made storage structuressuch assheet metal silos 8.0 12.1 6.3 ns 12.6 6.5 ns 17.9 7.0 * Sealed/airtight bags 35.4 45.2 31.1 ns 51.4 29.9 * 26.2 36.3 ns Community storage facilities, including warehouse receipting 4.0 6.7 2.8 ns 6.8 3.0 ns 16.6 2.7 ** Use ofsolar orfuel-powered dryersto reduce post-harvest moisture 0.3 0.0 0.4 ns 0.0 0.4 ns 0.0 0.3 ns Seed or grain treatmenttechniques(e.g., botanical pest control agents or phytosanitary irradiation) 0.8 0.8 0.7 ns 1.0 0.7 ns 2.7 0.6 ns Grain treatment with agro-chemicals 0.7 0.7 0.7 ns 0.8 0.7 ns 0.0 0.8 ns Triple bagsfor peanut grain preservation 7.8 13.7 5.2 *** 14.9 5.3 ** 10.6 7.5 ns Other post-harvest practicesthatreduce pre-storage losses 2.7 3.0 2.5 ns 3.6 2.3 ns 0.0 2.9 ns Number of responding peanut farmers who stored their harvest 479 142 337 110 369 53 426 IMPEL | Implementer-Led Evaluation and Learning 126 Annex 7: Bivariate and Multivariate Tables All farmers Used any agri. financial services Obtained agri-credit Participated in agri-saving schemes % Yes No Sig.a Yes No Sig.a Yes No Sig.aq Wadata Improved crop management practices Use of improved seeds 2.1 3.5 1.3 ns 0.0 2.7 ns 5.9 1.0 ns Control ofsida cordifolia growth 2.2 0.6 3.1 ns 0.0 2.8 ns 1.1 2.5 ns Crop association 17.8 18.9 17.2 ns 24.7 15.7 ns 11.6 19.5 ns Crop rotation 1.1 0.0 1.7 ns 0.0 1.4 ns 0.0 1.4 ns Sowing after useful rain 20.2 29.3 14.9 ns 27.6 18.0 ns 44.6 13.5 * Farmer managed naturalregeneration (fmnr) 46.6 39.0 50.9 ns 34.6 50.2 ns 40.9 48.1 ns Delimitation of animal corridors and pasture areas 45.1 37.1 49.7 ns 35.9 47.9 ns 34.4 48.1 ns Protection of ponds againstsilting up 23.6 37.0 15.8 ns 31.9 21.1 ns 44.8 17.7 ** Functional community-based conflict management mechanisms 1.7 4.1 0.4 * 6.5 0.3 ** 5.9 0.6 * Delay ofseedlings until third orfourth rainsto control pests 0.0 … … … … … … Seed treatment with fungicides 2.2 0.0 3.4 ns 0.0 2.8 ns 0.0 2.8 ns Zai pits 2.6 3.5 2.0 ns 0.0 3.3 ns 5.9 1.6 *** Organic manure 84.5 79.7 87.3 ns 80.6 85.6 ns 84.9 84.4 ns Phosphatic manure 8.7 9.2 8.4 ns 3.6 10.2 ns 13.0 7.5 ns Compost 3.1 8.3 0.0 * 5.5 2.3 ns 14.1 0.0 *** Microdoses of fertilizer 1.8 1.2 2.1 ns 1.0 2.0 ns 1.1 2.0 ns Agricultural half-moons 1.3 3.5 0.0 ns 0.0 1.7 ns 5.9 0.0 * Use of climate information (rain forecast, disaster risks, etc.) 0.0 … … … … … … Performing at leastthree weedings 2.4 0.0 3.8 ns 0.0 3.1 ns 0.0 3.0 ns Number of responding peanut farmers 117 44 73 28 89 24 93 Improved post-harvest practices Locally made storage structuressuch assheet metal silos 4.1 1.8 5.3 ns 2.9 4.4 ns 0.0 5.2 ns Sealed/airtight bags 5.9 3.5 7.1 ns 1.3 7.1 ns 4.5 6.2 ns Community storage facilities, including warehouse receipting 10.5 8.5 11.5 ns 9.0 10.9 ns 9.4 10.8 ns Use ofsolar orfuel-powered dryersto reduce post-harvest moisture 1.2 0.0 1.8 ns 0.0 1.5 ns 0.0 1.5 ns Seed or grain treatmenttechniques(e.g., botanical pest control agents or phytosanitary irradiation) 1.3 0.0 2.0 ns 0.0 1.7 ns 0.0 1.7 ns Grain treatment with agro-chemicals 0.0 … … … … … … Triple bags 0.0 … … … … … … Other post-harvest practicesthatreduce pre-storage losses 0.0 … … … … … … Number of responding peanut farmers who stored their harvest 97 34 63 22 75 19 78 NOTES: a Significance tests were performed to determine whether an association exists between the outcome indicator (use of targeted improved practice) and the disaggregate variables. Associations found to be statistically significant are indicated by level: * p<0.05, ** p<0.01, *** p<0.001; ns=notsignificant. Baseline Study of the RFSAs in Niger: Final Report (Vol. III) Annex 7: Bivariate and Multivariate Tables 127 Table 65: Table A7.6. Percentage of goat farmers applying targeted improved livestock management practices by use of agricultural-related financial services [Baseline Study, Niger 2020] All Farmers Used any agri-related financialservices Obtained agri-credit Participated in agri-savingschemes % Yes No Sig.a Yes No Sig.a Yes No Sig.a Combined RFSA Areas Improved livestock management practices Improved fodder production 9.3 16.0 6.1 ** 10.4 9.1 ns 21.6 6.1 *** Use of licking and/ormulti-nutritional block 7.5 11.9 5.5 * 12.9 6.6 ns 11.3 6.6 ns Animalselection 10.8 13.1 9.7 * 7.4 11.4 ns 16.9 9.2 ** Vaccinations 36.6 40.7 34.6 ns 42.5 35.5 ns 40.4 35.6 ns Antiparasitic treatments 35.7 37.0 35.2 ns 36.5 35.6 ns 35.3 35.9 ns Veterinary monitoring of food quality and quantity over time 1.5 1.8 1.3 ns 2.9 1.2 ns 1.7 1.4 ns Weight monitoring 3.4 3.0 3.5 ns 6.0 2.9 ns 1.9 3.7 ns Optimum weight-market price criteria for the sale decision 0.5 1.2 0.1 *** 0.7 0.4 ns 1.4 0.2 * Use of para-veterinary services for goats and sheep 4.9 5.9 4.4 ns 2.4 5.3 ns 7.5 4.2 ns Number of responding goat herders 1,316 341 975 177 1,139 206 1,110 Girma Improved livestock management practices Improved fodder production 11.0 16.4 7.9 ns 8.6 11.5 ns 22.4 7.5 * Use of licking and/ormulti-nutritional block 7.4 12.7 4.3 * 14.3 6.0 ns 11.6 6.0 ns Animalselection 12.2 13.6 11.4 ns 7.1 13.2 ns 17.9 10.4 * Vaccinations 37.5 44.8 33.2 ns 48.8 35.3 ns 42.5 35.9 ns Antiparasitic treatments 38.2 38.2 38.1 ns 38.8 38.1 ns 35.7 39.0 ns Veterinary monitoring of food quality and quantity over time 1.2 1.5 1.0 ns 3.3 0.8 ns 1.3 1.2 ns Weight monitoring 4.0 2.9 4.7 ns 6.6 3.5 ns 1.8 4.7 ns Optimum weight-market price criteria for the sale decision 0.3 0.8 0.0 ns 0.0 0.4 ns 1.3 0.0 ns Use of para-veterinary services for goats and sheep 6.5 6.7 6.3 ns 2.1 7.3 ns 8.7 5.7 ns Number of responding goat herders 526 169 357 82 444 103 423 Hamzari Improved livestock management practices Improved fodder production 4.6 17.6 1.8 *** 19.9 2.5 *** 26.8 2.6 *** Use of licking and/ormulti-nutritional block 3.9 10.3 2.5 *** 11.4 2.8 ** 10.4 3.3 * Animalselection 7.0 16.1 5.0 ** 11.3 6.4 ns 22.9 5.5 ** Vaccinations 48.2 41.9 49.6 ns 37.3 49.7 ns 51.7 47.9 ns Antiparasitic treatments 33.8 27.7 35.2 ns 27.0 34.8 ns 21.9 34.9 ns Veterinary monitoring of food quality and quantity over time 2.2 6.3 1.3 *** 3.6 2.0 ns 8.9 1.6 *** Weight monitoring 3.3 6.6 2.5 * 8.2 2.6 * 2.8 3.3 ns Optimum weight-market price criteria for the sale decision 1.5 5.3 0.7 *** 4.5 1.1 *** 4.7 1.2 ** Use of para-veterinary services for goats and sheep 2.1 7.1 1.0 *** 6.2 1.6 *** 6.8 1.7 * Number of responding goat herders 530 97 433 57 473 55 475 Wadata Improved livestock management practices Improved fodder production 6.8 12.0 4.8 * 9.6 6.3 ns 13.3 5.4 ns Use of licking and/ormulti-nutritional block 13.1 8.1 15.0 ns 6.4 14.2 ns 9.8 13.8 ns Animalselection 8.7 7.5 9.1 ns 4.2 9.4 ns 6.9 9.1 ns Vaccinations 17.3 13.4 18.7 ns 13.1 17.9 ns 19.6 16.8 ns Antiparasitic treatments 26.6 36.8 22.7 ns 34.8 25.2 ns 40.9 23.5 ns Veterinary monitoring of food quality and quantity over time 1.8 0.0 2.5 ns 0.0 2.1 ns 0.0 2.2 ns Weight monitoring 0.3 1.0 0.0 ns 0.0 0.3 ns 1.5 0.0 * Optimum weight-market price criteria for the sale decision 0.0 … … … … … … Use of para-veterinary services for goats and sheep 0.8 0.0 1.1 ns 0.0 0.9 ns 0.0 1.0 ns Number of responding goat herders 260 75 185 38 222 48 212 NOTES: a Significance tests were performed to determine whether an association exists between the outcome indicator (use of targeted improved practice) and the disaggregate variables. Associations found to be statistically significant are indicated by level: * p<0.05, ** p<0.01, *** p<0.001; ns=notsignificant. IMPEL | Implementer-Led Evaluation and Learning 128 Annex 7: Bivariate and Multivariate Tables Table 66: A7.7. Percentage of sheep farmers applying targeted improved livestock management practices by use of agricultural-related financial services [Baseline Study, Niger 2020] All Farmers Used any agri-related financialservices Obtained agri-credit Participated in agri-savingschemes % Yes No Sig.a Yes No Sig.a Yes No Sig.a Combined RFSA Areas Improved livestock management practices Improved fodder production 9.6 17.8 4.7 * 16.3 8.5 ns 19.2 5.6 * Use of licking and/ormulti-nutritional block 7.6 9.4 6.6 ns 7.7 7.6 ns 8.7 7.1 ns Animalselection 13.6 18.5 10.6 * 13.6 13.6 ns 21.1 10.4 ** Vaccinations 38.0 43.0 35.0 ns 34.0 38.6 ns 40.9 36.7 ns Antiparasitic treatments 39.2 44.7 35.9 ns 38.0 39.4 ns 44.4 37.0 ns Veterinary monitoring of food quality and quantity over time 2.4 3.3 1.9 ns 4.6 2.1 ns 3.8 1.9 ns Weight monitoring 3.0 2.6 3.2 ns 4.3 2.8 ns 2.5 3.2 ns Optimum weight-market price criteria for the sale decision 0.1 0.1 0.0 ns 0.0 0.1 ns 0.1 0.0 ns Use of para-veterinary services for sheeps and sheep 8.3 12.2 5.9 ns 4.5 8.9 ns 13.3 6.1 ns Number of responding sheep herders 523 160 363 81 442 111 412 Girma Improved livestock management practices Improved fodder production 11.5 18.1 6.0 ns 17.1 10.6 ns 17.2 7.8 ns Use of licking and/ormulti-nutritional block 7.4 9.3 5.8 ns 9.2 7.1 ns 7.5 7.3 ns Animalselection 16.7 20.5 13.5 ns 16.4 16.8 ns 22.3 13.2 ns Vaccinations 37.8 43.3 33.2 ns 25.7 39.8 ns 42.4 34.9 ns Antiparasitic treatments 43.2 50.3 37.2 ns 48.6 42.3 ns 47.0 40.7 ns Veterinary monitoring of food quality and quantity over time 2.3 3.1 1.7 ns 5.6 1.8 ns 3.6 1.5 ns Weight monitoring 3.5 1.4 5.3 ns 3.5 3.5 ns 1.7 4.7 ns Optimum weight-market price criteria for the sale decision 0.0 … … … … … … Use of para-veterinary services for sheeps and sheep 11.7 15.3 8.8 ns 6.2 12.7 ns 15.6 9.3 ns Number of responding sheep herders 197 80 117 29 168 63 134 Hamzari Improved livestock management practices Improved fodder production 5.4 21.7 1.0 *** 21.5 1.8 *** 55.5 1.1 ** * Use of licking and/ormulti-nutritional block 4.8 9.5 3.5 * 7.4 4.2 ns 20.0 3.5 ** Animalselection 5.9 13.8 3.8 ns 12.5 4.5 ns 19.8 4.7 ns Vaccinations 51.9 60.8 49.6 ns 62.9 49.5 ns 39.3 53.0 ns Antiparasitic treatments 33.8 23.3 36.6 * 19.9 36.9 * 22.3 34.8 ns Veterinary monitoring of food quality and quantity over time 4.1 8.2 3.0 ns 4.1 4.1 ns 13.7 3.2 * Weight monitoring 3.6 13.2 1.0 *** 8.3 2.5 *** 20.7 2.1 ** * Optimum weight-market price criteria for the sale decision 0.3 1.0 0.1 * 0.0 0.3 ns 2.6 0.1 ** * Use of para-veterinary services for sheeps and sheep 2.9 1.8 3.2 ns 2.1 3.1 ns 1.6 3.0 ns Number of responding sheep herders 215 50 165 40 175 26 189 Wadata Improved livestock management practices Improved fodder production 7.4 11.4 6.0 ns 0.0 8.3 ns 15.9 5.5 ns Use of licking and/ormulti-nutritional block 12.5 10.0 13.4 ns 0.0 14.0 ns 13.9 12.2 ns Animalselection 10.5 8.3 11.3 ns 0.0 11.7 ns 11.5 10.3 ns Vaccinations 20.1 20.6 19.9 ns 14.2 20.8 ns 28.6 18.2 ns Antiparasitic treatments 29.6 26.3 30.7 ns 19.6 30.7 ns 33.9 28.6 ns Veterinary monitoring of food quality and quantity over time 0.8 0.0 1.1 ns 0.0 0.9 ns 0.0 1.0 ns Weight monitoring 0.0 … … … … … … Optimum weight-market price criteria for the sale decision 0.0 … … … … … … Use of para-veterinary services for sheeps and sheep 0.8 0.0 1.1 ns 0.0 0.9 ns 0.0 1.0 ns Number of responding sheep herders 111 30 81 12 99 22 89 NOTES: a Significance tests were performed to determine whether an association exists between the outcome indicator (use of targeted improved practice) and the disaggregate variables. Associations found to be statistically significant are indicated by level: * p<0.05, ** p<0.01, *** p<0.001; ns=notsignificant. Baseline Study of the RFSAs in Niger: Final Report (Vol. III) Annex 7: Bivariate and Multivariate Tables 129 Table 67: A7.8. Percentage of poultry farmers applying targeted improved livestock management practices by use of agricultural-related financial services [Baseline Study, Niger 2020] All Farmers Used any agri-related financialservices Obtained agri-credit Participated in agri-savingschemes % Yes No Sig.a Yes No Sig.a Yes No Sig.a Combined RFSA Areas Improved livestock management practices Use of improved poultry variety/breed 10.3 11.8 9.6 ns 18.1 8.9 * 11.5 10.0 ns Use of improved feed 9.7 14.1 7.4 * 13.0 9.1 ns 13.9 8.5 ns Use of improved shelters 9.6 12.8 8.0 ns 8.8 9.8 ns 14.3 8.3 * Vaccinations 17.4 18.8 16.6 ns 25.1 15.9 ns 17.1 17.4 ns Use of veterinary products and services (antibiotics, vitamins, etc.) 9.8 13.0 8.2 ns 22.8 7.4 ** 8.9 10.0 ns Number ofresponding poultry farmers 547 172 375 93 454 107 440 Girma Improved livestock management practices Use of improved poultry variety/breed improv 12.2 10.7 ns 22.1 9.4 * 10.4 11.5 ns Use of improved feed 10.7 16.6 7.4 * 14.5 10.1 ns 15.7 9.0 ns Use of improved shelters 10.7 13.8 8.9 ns 7.8 11.1 ns 15.1 9.1 ns Vaccinations 18.8 18.0 19.3 ns 25.0 17.8 ns 18.2 19.1 ns Use of veterinary products and services (antibiotics, vitamins, etc.) 9.8 14.8 6.9 ns 29.3 6.4 *** 9.7 9.8 ns Number ofresponding poultry farmers 223 70 153 33 190 47 176 Hamzari Improved livestock management practices Use of improved poultry variety/breed 8.8 10.9 7.8 ns 9.3 8.6 ns 26.4 6.1 ** Use of improved feed 8.6 9.5 8.2 ns 10.7 8.0 ns 10.7 8.3 ns Use of improved shelters 11.1 15.0 9.2 ns 14.1 10.1 ns 19.1 9.8 ns Vaccinations 30.7 34.4 28.9 ns 41.1 27.4 ns 16.4 33.0 * Use of veterinary products and services (antibiotics, vitamins, etc.) veterin 14.2 16.1 ns 16.2 15.3 ns 12.8 16.0 ns Number ofresponding poultry farmers 178 59 119 39 139 30 148 Wadata Improved livestock management practices Vaccinations 8.6 10.8 7.8 ns 15.6 7.5 ns 8.6 8.6 ns Use of improved poultry variety/breed 7.2 8.1 6.9 ns 10.8 6.7 ns 7.6 7.1 ns Use of veterinary products and services (antibiotics, vitamins, etc.) 5.5 7.2 4.9 ns 5.0 5.6 ns 8.1 4.9 ns Use of improved feed 3.5 8.7 1.6 * 4.7 3.3 ns 12.7 1.4 ** Use of improved shelters 5.9 4.3 6.4 ns 8.8 5.4 ns 3.6 6.4 ns Number ofresponding poultry farmers 146 43 103 21 125 30 116 NOTES: ^ Results not statistically reliable, n<30. a Significance tests were performed to determine whether an association exists between the outcome indicator (use of targeted improved practice) and the disaggregate variables. Associations found to be statistically significant are indicated by level: * p<0.05, ** p<0.01, *** p<0.001; ns=notsignificant. IMPEL | Implementer-Led Evaluation and Learning 130 Annex 7: Bivariate and Multivariate Tables Table 68: A7.9. Percentage of women 15-49 years achieving a diet of minimum diversity by individual and household characteristics [Baseline Study, Niger 2020] Combined RFSA Areas Girma Hamzari Wadata No. of women % Sig.a No. of women % Sig.a No. of women % Sig.a No. of women % Sig.a All women 15-49 years 2,452 45 715 46 1,155 50 582 38 Women's characteristics Age 15-19 years 565 50.0 * 131 55.4 * 279 47.5 ns 155 42.2 ns 20 - 29 years 859 47.7 268 49.1 382 54.3 209 35.7 30-49 years 1,028 41.1 316 39.8 494 47.4 218 36.4 Educational level Never attended school 1,863 44.2 ns 589 45.3 ns 817 50.0 ns 457 34.7 ns Preschool 6 72.9 5 96.7 1 0.0 Primary 339 47.4 91 48.6 177 43.8 71 48.8 Secondary 1st cycle 226 51.8 35 52.6 142 50.4 49 53.2 Secondary 2nd cycle 14 66.5 12 70.1 2 50.0 Higher education 4 16.6 2 33.6 2 0.0 Pregnancy status Currently pregnant 365 41.9 ns 121 39.6 ns 163 48.3 ns 81 41.3 ns Ever pregnant but not currently 1,622 44.9 503 46.0 735 50.0 384 35.8 Never pregnant 465 50.7 91 56.5 257 49.7 117 41.4 Participation in income-generating activities Cash or combination of cash & in-kind 881 46.5 ns 308 44.6 ns 406 54.9 ns 167 39.9 ns In-kind or unpaid 201 36.3 58 41.7 64 42.0 79 25.7 Does not work 1,370 46.2 349 48.2 685 47.3 336 40.0 Participation in income generating activities Does not participate in cash earning activities 1,571 44.8 ns 407 47.2 ns 749 47.0 * 415 36.9 ns Participates in cash earning activities 881 46.5 308 44.6 406 54.9 167 39.9 Household socio-demographic characteristics Gendered household type Both 2,293 45.0 ns 664 45.5 ns 1114 49.3 ns 515 37.6 ns Female Only 96 47.0 33 46.7 25 60.9 38 39.2 Male Only 60 57.9 17 74.1 15 48.9 28 37.5 Child Only 3 9.2 1 0.0 1 100.0 1 0.0 Household head sex Male 2,300 45.8 ns 671 46.2 ns 1108 50.1 ns 521 38.7 ns Female 152 40.2 44 46.2 47 42.3 61 29.2 Household head age 17-24 years 102 45.9 ns 36 47.9 * 36 47.6 ns 30 37.6 ns 25-34 years 428 52.4 171 56.7 141 52.9 116 36.5 35-44 years 743 43.1 206 42.8 339 51.5 198 34.5 45+ years 1,179 43.6 302 41.8 639 48.1 238 40.9 Household head educational level Never attended school 1,879 43.6 ns 570 45.2 ns 831 47.6 ns 478 34.8 ns Preschool 28 45.8 2 100.0 25 33.5 1 0.0 Primary 334 51.0 84 45.6 186 61.3 64 51.1 Secondary 1st cycle 190 52.0 58 53.1 97 46.6 35 56.4 Secondary 2nd cycle 16 81.9 13 89.2 3 66.5 Higher education 5 62.6 1 100.0 3 20.2 1 0.0 Number of adult females (18+) in household other than woman No other adult woman 941 44.6 ns 363 46.5 ns 265 51.1 ns 313 35.9 ns One other adult female 882 46.4 242 47.6 464 48.7 176 38.5 Two other adult females 416 44.4 84 39.6 265 48.8 67 47.0 Three other adult females 133 49.3 23 56.9 89 47.8 21 36.4 Baseline Study of the RFSAs in Niger: Final Report (Vol. III) Annex 7: Bivariate and Multivariate Tables 131 Combined RFSA Areas Girma Hamzari Wadata No. of women % Sig.a No. of women % Sig.a No. of women % Sig.a No. of women % Sig.a Four or more other adult females 80 44.5 3 0.0 72 56.0 5 0.0 Number of adult males in household No adult males 99 46.2 ns 34 45.5 ns 26 61.4 ns 39 38.5 ns One adult male 1,609 46.0 521 47.0 661 50.9 427 38.5 Two adult males 462 40.9 107 40.6 274 45.0 81 31.8 Three adult males 178 49.3 38 46.5 113 50.6 27 53.9 Four or more adult males 104 48.6 15 55.3 81 52.4 8 0.0 Number of children under five None 368 51.7 ns 92 60.1 ns 155 51.3 ns 121 34.5 ns One 701 46.6 213 45.4 271 56.9 217 40.8 Two 732 43.7 243 42.3 318 52.9 171 37.0 Three 333 45.3 92 49.5 197 43.9 44 29.0 Four 189 38.1 46 36.5 123 41.2 20 34.1 Five or more 129 38.3 29 37.0 91 36.8 9 63.3 Number of children 5-17 years None 198 44.1 ns 79 45.6 ns 62 52.3 ns 57 33.9 ns One 261 42.0 86 46.4 83 42.0 92 32.5 Two 295 47.7 121 48.4 93 56.7 81 38.7 Three 322 47.2 116 48.8 121 59.6 85 33.0 Four 387 50.6 103 46.2 185 60.6 99 47.7 Five or more 989 43.2 210 44.0 611 44.4 168 37.5 Household food security Food consumption score groups Poor food consumption (0-21) 93 23.7 *** 23 37.0 * 57 11.4 *** 13 0.0 ** Borderline food consumption (21.5-35) 354 18.9 111 22.8 187 16.0 56 8.3 Acceptable food consumption (35.5-112) 2,005 51.2 581 51.1 911 58.9 513 42.5 Percent of harvest completed in the current season Did not harvest any crops in the current season 262 33.2 ns 27 24.8 ns 119 42.0 ns 116 31.3 ns Less than 25 percent 1,221 46.2 333 47.3 537 47.9 351 42.4 25 - 50 percent 630 47.0 211 46.9 313 58.9 106 29.4 More than 50 percent 339 45.9 144 46.4 186 46.8 9 15.2 Household agriculturalstatus1 Accessed at least one ag-related financial service (credit, savings, insurance) No 1,494 42.8 ns 369 43.9 ns 739 44.7 *** 386 38.1 ns Yes 958 49.1 346 48.7 416 58.5 196 36.8 Took out a loan (ag credit, in cash or in-kind) No 1,782 44.9 ns 481 47.5 ns 826 45.7 ** 475 37.5 ns Yes 670 46.9 234 42.8 329 59.0 107 38.3 Participated in ag-related savings scheme No 2,019 43.0 ** 561 42.6 * 987 47.5 * 471 37.8 ns Yes 433 54.6 154 56.7 168 65.5 111 36.9 Insured ag production against loss (insurance) No 2,416 45.4 ns 703 46.3 ns 1140 49.8 ns 573 37.2 ns Yes 36 44.7 12 39.0 15 36.8 9 66.2 Raised at least one type of livestock2 No 1,008 41.6 ns 256 42.8 ns 428 47.0 ns 324 35.2 ns Yes 1,444 47.7 459 47.9 727 51.1 258 40.6 Raised goats No 1,198 43.0 ns 293 45.1 ns 535 44.8 ns 370 37.8 ns Yes 1,254 47.3 422 46.8 620 54.0 212 37.3 Raised sheep No 1,816 40.4 *** 538 39.6 *** 798 46.8 ns 480 35.7 ns Yes 636 58.9 177 64.2 357 55.0 102 46.3 Raised poultry No 1,859 43.2 * 525 43.4 ns 875 47.0 * 459 37.6 ns IMPEL | Implementer-Led Evaluation and Learning 132 Annex 7: Bivariate and Multivariate Tables Combined RFSA Areas Girma Hamzari Wadata No. of women % Sig.a No. of women % Sig.a No. of women % Sig.a No. of women % Sig.a Yes 593 52.2 190 54.2 280 57.7 123 38.0 Used at least one improved crop management practice3 No 140 35.9 ns 40 34.4 ns 27 14.5 * 73 43.7 ns Yes 2,312 46.1 675 47.1 1128 50.5 509 36.8 Dug zai pits No 2,250 44.1 * 676 46.0 ns 1004 45.4 ** 570 37.5 ns Yes 202 60.0 39 49.2 151 71.3 12 43.2 Dug agri half-moons No 2,380 45.7 ns 694 46.9 * 1112 49.2 ns 574 37.7 ns Yes 72 35.8 21 19.4 43 61.3 8 33.3 Applied organic manure No 861 35.4 ** 273 32.9 * 363 40.1 ** 225 37.3 ns Yes 1,591 50.6 442 53.5 792 53.6 357 37.8 Applied phosphatic manure No 2,089 42.3 ** * 620 43.8 ** 939 43.8 ** 530 36.8 ns Yes 363 63.9 95 62.8 216 69.7 52 47.5 Applied compost No 1,757 43.7 ns 467 46.8 ns 770 43.9 * 520 37.3 ns Yes 695 49.4 248 45.1 385 58.6 62 41.4 Applied microdoses of fertilizer No 2,268 44.8 ns 682 45.4 ns 1018 49.5 ns 568 37.7 ns Yes 184 55.6 33 64.4 137 50.8 14 33.7 Controlled sida cordifolia growth No 2,045 43.9 ns 562 47.8 ns 913 41.2 *** 570 37.3 ns Yes 407 53.4 153 39.3 242 79.4 12 56.2 Performed at least three weedings No 1,641 47.2 ns 406 54.8 *** 746 41.0 ** 489 37.3 ns Yes 811 42.1 309 33.1 409 62.6 93 39.4 Delayed seedlings until 3rd/4th rains to control pests No 2,174 46.1 ns 632 48.2 ns 964 49.0 ns 578 37.8 ns Yes 278 39.5 83 33.2 191 54.1 4 23.5 Sowed after useful rain No 1,448 43.5 ns 352 49.1 ns 655 36.4 *** 441 38.2 ns Yes 1,004 48.3 363 42.3 500 66.4 141 35.8 Performed crop association No 1,016 44.4 ns 309 47.7 ns 300 40.6 ns 407 39.5 ns Yes 1,436 46.2 406 44.8 855 52.8 175 34.0 Performed crop rotation No 2,289 45.1 ns 687 46.6 ns 1035 47.3 * 567 38.2 ns Yes 163 51.5 28 34.2 120 66.1 15 16.0 Used seed treatment w/fungicides No 2,148 43.4 ** * 674 44.7 ** 937 43.8 *** 537 39.2 ns Yes 304 63.2 41 69.9 218 74.1 45 23.7 Used improved seeds No 2,190 44.8 ns 630 47.0 ns 987 45.8 *** 573 38.1 ns Yes 262 49.8 85 41.6 168 67.7 9 9.8 Used climate information No 2,406 45.3 ns 709 46.5 * 1115 48.9 * 582 37.6 ns Yes 46 49.6 6 27.2 40 80.9 Used at least one type of improved post harvest practice/technique4 No 1,171 40.3 * 461 44.2 ns 372 31.1 *** 338 34.6 ns Yes 1,281 51.7 254 50.1 783 59.0 244 41.2 Used local made storage No 1,763 43.7 ns 640 46.2 ns 685 41.7 * 438 36.7 ns Baseline Study of the RFSAs in Niger: Final Report (Vol. III) Annex 7: Bivariate and Multivariate Tables 133 Combined RFSA Areas Girma Hamzari Wadata No. of women % Sig.a No. of women % Sig.a No. of women % Sig.a No. of women % Sig.a Yes 689 51.6 75 46.2 470 59.4 144 40.0 Used sealed/airtight bags No 1,724 42.2 ** 627 44.0 * 611 40.1 ** 486 38.5 ns Yes 728 57.0 88 60.8 544 61.3 96 33.6 Used community storage facility No 2,271 44.2 ns 674 45.7 ns 1050 47.0 * 547 36.4 n s Yes 181 59.1 41 52.1 105 69.5 35 58.6 Used solar/fuel-powered dryers No 2,410 45.0 *** 704 45.8 ** 1131 49.4 ns 575 37.1 * * Yes 42 73.1 11 67.6 24 78.5 7 91.4 Used seed/grain treatment pest control tech. No 2,417 45.4 ns 700 46.5 ns 1136 49.5 ns 581 37.5 n s Yes 35 43.2 15 32.9 19 58.9 1 100.0 Used agrochemical grain treatment No 2,366 45.4 ns 701 46.2 ns 1095 49.2 ns 570 38.7 n s Yes 86 45.0 14 47.1 60 56.4 12 6.9 Used triple bags No 2,272 44.7 ns 706 45.3 * 1012 48.2 ns 554 38.5 n s Yes 180 57.1 9 86.5 143 59.0 28 25.6 Used other post-harvest handling/storage practices No 2,244 44.9 ns 597 45.3 ns 1090 49.5 ns 557 38.3 n s Yes 208 48.9 118 50.6 65 52.3 25 19.8 Used at least one improved livestock mgmt. practice 5 No 1,483 41.9 ** 395 43.1 ns 649 44.4 * 439 36.9 n s Yes 969 50.2 320 49.6 506 56.3 143 39.7 Impact of COVID-19 on household livelihood/food security Household livelihood was impacted by COVID-19 No 443 32.8 *** 137 38.5 ns 139 26.9 *** 167 24.2 * * * Yes 2,009 48.8 578 48.3 1016 53.9 415 42.7 Household food security was impacted by COVID-19 No 320 33.4 *** 108 40.6 ns 67 28.7 ** 145 21.6 * * * Yes 2,132 47.5 607 47.2 1088 51.3 437 42.5 Household resilience capacities Participation in group-based savings, microfinance or lending programs No 2,290 44.0 ** 629 44.0 * 1094 49.1 ns 567 37.3 n s Yes 162 57.7 86 57.4 61 63.0 15 51.3 Participation in group-based savings programs No 2,329 44.1 ns 643 44.4 ns 1116 48.9 * 570 37.3 n s Yes 123 59.2 72 57.9 39 78.4 12 53.9 Participation in group-based credit programs No 2,382 44.7 ns 684 45.1 ns 1122 49.6 ns 576 37.5 n s Yes 70 60.0 31 61.9 33 51.6 6 51.6 Participation in social assistance programs Participation in BHA RFSAs No (indirect participant) 1,145 41.5 ns 394 43.4 ns 526 47.1 ns 225 24.9 * * * Yes (direct participant) 1,307 49.8 321 50.0 629 52.5 357 46.5 IMPEL | Implementer-Led Evaluation and Learning 134 Annex 7: Bivariate and Multivariate Tables Combined RFSA Areas Girma Hamzari Wadata No. of women % Sig.a No. of women % Sig.a No. of women % Sig.a No. of women % Sig.a Receipt of food rations (any donor/program) No 1,823 43.2 * 615 43.5 * 862 48.8 ns 346 32.7 ** Yes 629 52.7 100 57.2 293 53.1 236 45.8 Participation in nutrition trainings/meetings (any donor/program) No 1,740 42.6 * 473 45.4 ns 888 47.2 ns 379 27.9 *** Yes 712 51.7 242 47.7 267 58.3 203 57.2 Participation in agriculture-related trainings/meetings (any donor/program) No 1,621 41.7 * 441 42.4 ns 793 46.5 ns 387 33.4 * Yes 831 51.8 274 51.5 362 57.3 195 46.3 Food rations by RFSA participation status Did not receive any food rations 1,823 43.2 * 615 43.5 ns 862 48.8 ns 346 32.7 ns Received food rations - direct RFSA participant6 467 51.6 49 59.4 211 50.6 207 46.6 Received food rations - indirect RFSA participant7 162 54.4 51 55.5 82 56.8 29 39.3 Nutrition trainings/meetings by RFSA participation status Did not participate in any nutrition trainings/meetings 1,740 42.6 ns 473 45.4 ns 888 47.2 ns 379 27.9 *** Participated in nutrition trainings/meetings - direct RFSA participant6 589 51.4 168 45.0 231 59.3 190 58.5 Participated in nutrition trainings/meetings -indirect RFSA participant7 123 52.5 74 53.2 36 54.4 13 36.2 Agriculture trainings/meetings by RFSA participation status Did not participate in any ag trainings/meetings 1,621 41.7 ns 441 42.4 ns 793 46.5 ns 387 33.4 * Participated in agri. trainings and meetings - direct RFSA participant6 653 51.2 193 49.8 288 56.4 172 49.5 Participated in agri. trainings/meetings -indirect RFSA participant7 178 53.3 81 54.9 74 60.3 23 23.4 NOTES: A woman of reproductive age is considered to consume a minimum dietary diversity if she consumed at least five of 10 specific food groups during the previous day and night. Sample restricted to women with data available across all Results not statistically reliable where n<30. Provided for illustrative purposes. 1 Household agriculture status measures were calculated by aggregating the results of farmers to the household level. A household is considered to adopt a practice if at least one farmer in the household reported the practice. 2 A household is considered to raise at least one livestock if at least one farmer reported raising any of the three livestock of interest (goats, sheep, and poultry). 3 A household is considered to be using at least one improved crop management practices if at least one farmer reported using any of the promoted practices for any one of the three crops of interest (sorghum, millet, cowpeas and peanuts). 4 A household is considered to be using at least one improved post-harvest practice if at least one farmer reported using any of the promoted practices for any one of the three crops of interest (sorghum, millet, cowpeas and peanuts). 5 A household is considered to be using at least one improved livestock management practices if at least one farmer reported using any of the promoted practices for any one of the three livestock of interest (goats, sheep, or poultry). 6 Includes households that reported participating in BHA RFSA activities and also reported receiving food rations. Because households that participated in RFSA activities may also be participating in other donor activities, these estimates are only proxy measures of participation in sector-specific RFSA interventions. 7 Includes households that reported participating in BHA RFSA activities and also reported participating in nutrition trainings/meetings. Because households that participated in RFSA activities may also be participating in other donor activities, these estimates are only proxy measures of participation in sector-specific RFSA interventions. 8 Includes households that reported participating in BHA RFSA activities and also reported participating in agriculture trainings or meetings. Because households that participated in RFSA activities may also be participating in other donor activities, these estimates are only proxy measures of participation in sector-specific RFSA interventions. Baseline Study of the RFSAs in Niger: Final Report (Vol. III) Annex 7: Bivariate and Multivariate Tables 135 Table 69: A7.10a. Multivariate logistic regression of women's minimum dietary diversity (MDD-W), combined RFSA areas [Baseline Study, Niger 2020] Model 1 Model 2 Model 3 Model 4 Variables OR OR OR OR Women's characteristics Women's age (ref.: 15-19 years) 20 - 29 years 1.053 1.056 1.087 1.097 30-49 years 0.792 0.806 0.784 0.775 Women's education (ref.: none orlessthan primary) Primary 0.884 0.877 0.954 0.940 Secondary or higher 0.842 0.848 0.884 0.864 Pregnancy status (ref.: currently pregnant) Ever pregnant but not currently 1.519* 1.516* 1.454+ 1.410 Never pregnant 1.749* 1.755* 1.619+ 1.560+ Participation in income generating activities (ref.: does not participate in cash-earning activities) 1.049 1.038 1.132 1.143 Household socio-demographic characteristics Gendered household type (ref.: Female and Male Adults) Female Adult Only 2.627* 2.719* 4.037** 3.675** Male Adult Only 2.000 2.031 2.265 2.335 Female-headed household (ref.: male-headed household) 0.493 0.486+ 0.378* 0.417* Age of household head (ref.: 18-24 years) 25-34 years 1.340 1.313 1.370 1.373 35-44 years 1.173 1.145 1.382 1.385 45+ years 1.297 1.256 1.472 1.438 Education of household head Primary or higher(ref.: primary or none) 1.218 1.202 1.375 1.354 Household size (1-32) 0.973 0.975 0.976 0.976 COVID-19 impact on household (ref.: was not impacted) HH livelihood impacted by COVID-19 2.788*** 2.809*** 2.430** 2.507** HH food security impacted by COVID-19 0.834 0.846 0.775 0.696 Household food consumption Food consumption score group (ref.: poor FCS) Borderline food consumption (21.5-35) 0.640 0.653 0.506 0.531 Acceptable food consumption (35.5-112) 2.839 2.860+ 2.423+ 2.465+ Household harvested crops in currentseason (ref.: did not harvest any crops) Harvested less than 25 percent 1.537 1.500 1.554 1.502 Harvest 25 - 50 percent 1.408 1.374 1.362 1.325 Harvest more than 50 percent 1.057 1.055 1.103 1.093 Household livestock holdings(ref.: did not raise livestock) Raised goats 0.888 0.865 0.778 0.798 Raised sheep 1.760* 1.720* 1.690* 1.676* Raised poultry 1.395+ 1.367 1.285 1.317 Household use of or accessto financialservices Took out an agricultural loan (ref.: did nottake out an ag-loan) 1.027 1.001 0.956 Participated in an agricultural savings scheme (ref.: did not participate in ag-savings scheme) 1.291 1.404 1.359 Participated in group-based saving programs(ref.: did not participate) 1.166 0.844 0.817 Participated in group-based credit programs(ref.: did not participate) 0.919 1.284 1.249 Household adoption oftargetedimproved crop practices1 Dug zai pits 1.369 1.364 Dug agri half-moons 0.435* 0.457+ Applied organic manure 1.677** 1.675** Applied phosphatic manure 1.233 1.180 Applied compost 0.944 0.917 Applied microdoses of fertilizer 0.898 0.920 Controlled sida cordifolia growth 1.281 1.253 Performed atleast 3 weedings 0.437** 0.440** Delayed seedlings until 3rd/4th rainsto control pests 0.712 0.769 Sowed after useful rain 1.301 1.277 Performed crop association 0.840 0.824 Performed crop rotation 0.965 0.986 Used Seed treatment w/fungicides 2.151+ 2.246* Used improved seeds 0.764 0.789 Used climate information 1.332 1.348 Household adoption oftargeted improved post-harvest handling and storage practices1 Used local made storage 0.683 0.680 Used sealed/airtight bags 1.479 1.451 Used community storage facility 1.443 1.406 Used solar/fuel-powered dryers 2.745+ 2.831* Used seed/grain treatment pest controltechnique 0.795 0.797 Used agrochemical grain treatment 0.521+ 0.536 Used triple bags 1.086 1.089 Household adoption oftargeted improved post-harvest handling and storage practices1 Used at least one improved livestock mgmt practice 1.159 1.136 Household participation in social assistance programs Participated in a BHA RFSA (ref.: HH did not participate in a RFSA) 1.175 Received food rations- any donor (ref.: did not receive food rations) 1.116 Participated in nutrition trainings/meetings- any donor (ref.: did not participate) 1.324 Participated in agriculture-related trainings/meetings- any donor(ref.: did not participate) 1.028 Constant 0.156** 0.135** 0.187** 0.170** Number of women 15-49 years 2,449 2,449 2,449 2,449 * p<0.05, ** p<0.01, *** p<0.001; † < 0.1 NOTES:Analyticalsample wasrestricted to women 15-49 with data available across all covariates. Child-only households(i.e., where there are no members 18years or older; n=3) are excluded. All models include village dummies. Coefficients notshown. The model for the combined RFSA areas does not pass the misspecification and goodness of fittests. 1 Reference category includes households that did not adopt the targeted improved practice. IMPEL | Implementer-Led Evaluation and Learning 136 Annex 7: Bivariate and Multivariate Tables Table 70: A7.10b. Multivariate logistic regression of women's minimum dietary diversity (MDD-W), Girma RFSA areas [Baseline Study, Niger 2020] Model 1 Model 2 Model 3 Model 4 Variables OR OR OR OR Women's characteristics Women's age (ref.: 15-19 years) 20 - 29 years 1.049 1.055 1.301 1.269 30-49 years 0.808 0.819 0.837 0.796 Women's education (ref.: none or less than primary) Primary 0.829 0.835 0.868 0.872 Secondary or higher 0.942 0.942 1.019 1.020 Pregnancy status(ref.: currently pregnant) Ever pregnant but not currently 2.057* 2.041* 2.083+ 2.067+ Never pregnant 3.060* 3.103* 2.931* 2.781* Participation in income generating activities(ref.: does not participate in cash-earning activities) 1.091 1.096 1.251 1.239 Household socio-demographic characteristics Gendered household type (ref.: Female and MaleAdults) Female Adult Only 2.812 2.963 3.175 3.386 Male Adult Only 6.414 6.535 6.559 6.091 Female-headed household (ref.: male-headed household) 0.604 0.601 0.463 0.432 Age of household head (ref.: 18-24 years) 25-34 years 2.113 2.029 1.656 1.735 35-44 years 1.290 1.260 1.283 1.365 45+ years 1.488 1.407 1.486 1.548 Education of household head Primary or higher (ref.: primary or none) 1.011 0.986 1.243 1.240 Household size (1-28) 1.003 1.005 0.988 0.984 COVID-19 impact on household (ref.: was not impacted) HH livelihood impacted by COVID-19 3.482** 3.615* 2.763* 2.619* HH food security impacted by COVID-19 0.670 0.661 0.523* 0.521+ Household food consumption Food consumption score group (ref.: poor FCS) Borderline food consumption (21.5-35) 0.417 0.429 0.390 0.395 Acceptable food consumption (35.5-112) 1.444 1.468 1.658 1.610 Household harvested crops in currentseason (ref.: did not harvest any crops) Harvested less than 25 percent 1.736 1.581 1.590 1.554 Harvest 25 - 50 percent 1.222 1.086 1.217 1.181 Harvest more than 50 percent 0.874 0.837 0.949 0.906 Household livestock holdings(ref.: did not raise livestock) Raised goats 0.752 0.729 0.574 0.602 Raised sheep 2.417* 2.352* 2.322** 2.334** Raised poultry 1.526 1.503 1.337 1.276 Household use of or accessto financialservices Took out an agricultural loan (ref.: did not take out an ag-loan) 1.152 1.051 1.007 Participated in an agricultural savings scheme (ref.: did not participate in ag-savings scheme) 1.261 1.387 1.369 Participated in group-based saving programs (ref.: did not participate) 1.129 1.055 1.039 Participated in group-based credit programs (ref.: did not participate) 0.795 1.562 1.488 Household adoption of targeted improved crop practices1 Dug zai pits 1.576 1.524 Dug agri half-moons 0.121** 0.133** Applied organic manure 2.038* 1.997* Applied phosphatic manure 0.859 0.818 Applied compost 0.776 0.738 Applied microdoses of fertilizer 2.768 2.851 Controlled sida cordifolia growth 0.937 0.959 Performed at least 3 weedings 0.327** 0.341** Delayed seedlings until 3rd/4th rainsto control pests 0.593 0.593 Sowed after useful rain 1.037 1.039 Performed crop association 0.946 0.918 Performed crop rotation 1.198 1.182 Used Seed treatment w/fungicides 5.972* 6.174* Used improved seeds 0.595 0.587 Used climate information 2.250 2.220 Household adoption of targeted improved post-harvest handling and storage practices1 Used local made storage 0.245** 0.239** Used sealed/airtight bags 3.712*** 3.806*** Used community storage facility 0.400 0.373 Used solar/fuel-powered dryers 1.170 1.136 Used seed/grain treatment pest control technique 0.211 0.202+ Used agrochemical grain treatment 0.345 0.390 Used triple bags 31.884*** 40.214*** Household adoption of targeted improved post-harvest handling and storage practices1 Used at least one improved livestock mgmt practice 1.473 1.477 Household participation in social assistance Participated in a BHA RFSA (ref.: HH did not participate in a RFSA) 1.276 Received food rations- any donor (ref.: did not receive food rations) 0.932 Participated in nutrition trainings/meetings- any donor (ref.: did not participate) 0.861 Participated in agriculture-related trainings/meetings- any donor(ref.: did not participate) 1.295 Constant 0.122* 0.115* 0.237 0.230 Number of women 15-49 years 714 714 714 714 Baseline Study of the RFSAs in Niger: Final Report (Vol. III) Annex 7: Bivariate and Multivariate Tables 137 Table 71: A7.10c. Multivariate logistic regression of women's minimum dietary diversity (MDD-W), Hamzari RFSA areas [Baseline Study, Niger 2020] Model 1 Model 2 Model 3 Model 4 Variables OR OR OR OR Women's characteristics Women's age (ref.: 15-19 years) 20 - 29 years 1.142 1.146 0.958 0.930 30-49 years 0.652+ 0.663+ 0.586* 0.563* Women's education (ref.: none or less than primary) Primary 0.686 0.686 0.612+ 0.600+ Secondary or higher 0.570 0.579 0.515 0.495 Pregnancy status (ref.: currently pregnant) Ever pregnant but not currently 1.238 1.194 1.259 1.224 Never pregnant 1.159 1.146 1.125 1.043 Participation in income generating activities (ref.: does not participate in cash-earning activities) 1.081 1.074 1.290 1.270 Household socio-demographic characteristics Gendered household type (ref.: Female and Male Adults) Female Adult Only 2.651 2.790 1.901 1.799 Male Adult Only 1.060 1.098 1.823 1.987 Female-headed household (ref.: male-headed household) 0.427 0.429 0.453 0.471 Age of household head (ref.: 18-24 years) 25-34 years 0.857 0.889 1.435 1.449 35-44 years 1.355 1.348 2.086 2.028 45+ years 1.399 1.336 1.931 1.941 Education of household head Primary or higher (ref.: primary or none) 1.660 1.567 1.655 1.636 Household size (1-32) 0.956* 0.961+ 0.934* 0.930** COVID-19 impact on household (ref.: was not impacted) HH livelihood impacted by COVID-19 2.655* 2.721* 1.735 1.817 HH food security impacted by COVID-19 1.162 1.135 1.127 1.066 Household food consumption Food consumption score group (ref.: poor FCS) Borderline food consumption (21.5-35) 1.569 1.438 1.134 1.198 Acceptable food consumption (35.5-112) 8.894*** 8.302** 8.089*** 8.090*** Household harvested crops in current season (ref.: did not harvest any crops) Harvested less than 25 percent 0.884 0.876 1.111 1.147 Harvest 25 - 50 percent 1.605 1.576 1.494 1.529 Harvest more than 50 percent 1.330 1.287 1.117 1.175 Household livestock holdings(ref.: did notraise livestock) Raised goats 1.333 1.291 1.165 1.193 Raised sheep 0.976 0.969 0.963 0.983 Raised poultry 1.141 1.146 1.006 0.985 Household use of or accessto financialservices Took out an agricultural loan (ref.: did not take out an ag-loan) 0.765 1.104 1.067 Participated in an agricultural savings scheme (ref.: did not participate in ag-savings scheme) 1.543 1.194 1.162 Participated in group-based saving programs (ref.: did not participate) 1.966 2.631 2.649 Participated in group-based credit programs (ref.: did not participate) 1.437 1.882 1.321 Household adoption of targeted improved crop practices1 Dug zai pits 1.281 1.311 Dug agri half-moons 1.486 1.456 Applied organic manure 2.072** 2.069** Applied phosphatic manure 1.358 1.357 Applied compost 1.365 1.278 Applied microdoses of fertilizer 0.360+ 0.380+ Controlled sida cordifolia growth 3.580*** 3.637*** Performed at least 3 weedings 0.395+ 0.364* Delayed seedlings until 3rd/4th rains to control pests 0.941 1.072 Sowed after useful rain 1.959+ 1.995+ Performed crop association 1.188 1.136 Performed crop rotation 0.917 0.835 Used Seed treatment w/fungicides 2.903** 3.050** Used improved seeds 0.498+ 0.521 Used climate information 1.614 1.606 Household adoption of targeted improved post-harvest handling and storage practices1 Used local made storage 0.683 0.657 Used sealed/airtight bags 0.843 0.836 Used community storage facility 3.334** 3.008* Used solar/fuel-powered dryers 6.658** 6.893** Used seed/grain treatment pest control technique 0.809 0.736 Used agrochemical grain treatment 0.938 0.904 Used triple bags 0.937 0.990 Household adoption of targeted improved post-harvest handling and storage practices1 Used at least one improved livestock mgmt practice 1.333 1.284 Household participation in social assistance Participated in a BHA RFSA (ref.: HH did not participate in a RFSA) 1.119 Received food rations - any donor (ref.: did not receive food rations) 1.534 Participated in nutrition trainings/meetings - any donor (ref.: did not participate) 1.089 Participated in agriculture-related trainings/meetings - any donor (ref.: did not participate) 1.188 Constant 0.066* 0.073+ 0.018** 0.015** Number of women 15-49 years 1,154 1,154 1,154 1,154 * p<0.05, ** p<0.01, *** p<0.001; † < 0.1 NOTES: Analytical sample was restricted to women 15-49 with data available across all covariates. Child-only households (i.e., where there are no members 18 years or older; n=3) are excluded. All models include village dummies. Coefficients not shown. 1 Reference category includes households that did not adopt the targeted improved practice. IMPEL | Implementer-Led Evaluation and Learning 138 Annex 7: Bivariate and Multivariate Tables Table 72: Table A7.10d. Multivariate logistic regression of women's minimum dietary diversity (MDD￾W), Wadata RFSA areas [Baseline Study, Niger 2020] Model 1 Model 2 Model 3 Model 4 Variables OR OR OR OR Women's characteristics Women's age (ref.: 15-19 years) 20 - 29 years 0.749 0.74 0.645 0.646 30-49 years 0.743 0.745 0.698 0.636 Women's education (ref.: none or less than primary) Primary 1.356 1.357 1.187 1.247 Secondary or higher 1.341 1.34 1.528 1.531 Pregnancy status (ref.: currently pregnant) Ever pregnant but not currently 0.933 0.926 1.046 1.006 Never pregnant 0.709 0.708 0.602 0.512 Participation in income generating activities (ref.: does not participate in cash-earning activities) 1.131 1.151 0.939 1.002 Household socio-demographic characteristics Gendered household type (ref.: Female and Male Adults) Female Adult Only 3.546 3.849 5.001+ 5.760+ Male Adult Only 0.765 0.768 0.692 0.843 Female-headed household (ref.: male-headed household) 0.316+ 0.306+ 0.259+ 0.231+ Age of household head (ref.: 18-24 years) 25-34 years 0.75 0.769 0.459 0.45 35-44 years 1.014 1.029 0.635 0.689 45+ years 1.125 1.142 0.704 0.88 Education of household head Primary or higher (ref.: primary or none) 1.408 1.434 1.666 1.566 Household size (2-22) 0.974 0.975 1.007 1.001 COVID-19 impact on household (ref.: was not impacted) HH livelihood impacted by COVID-19 1.422 1.347 1.249 1.34 HH food security impacted by COVID-19 1.549 1.628 1.556 1.434 Household food consumption Food consumption score group (ref.: poor FCS) Borderline food consumption (21.5-35) 0.103*** 0.101*** 0.078*** 0.074*** Acceptable food consumption (35.5-112) - - - - Household harvested crops in current season (ref.: did not harvest any crops) Harvested less than 25 percent 1.883 1.889 2.012 1.836 Harvest 25 - 50 percent 1.288 1.292 0.998 1.091 Harvest more than 50 percent 0.524 0.516 0.601 0.484 Household livestock holdings(ref.: did notraise livestock) Raised goats 0.711 0.709 0.588 0.602 Raised sheep 1.578 1.6 2.164+ 2.030+ Raised poultry 1.201 1.202 1.092 1.054 Household use of or accessto financialservices Took out an agricultural loan (ref.: did not take out an ag-loan) 1.031 1.039 1.17 Participated in an agricultural savings scheme (ref.: did not participate in ag-savings scheme) 1.091 1.396 1.453 Participated in group-based saving programs (ref.: did not participate) 0.812 1.177 0.992 Participated in group-based credit programs (ref.: did not participate) 0.689 0.228 0.223 Household adoption of targeted improved crop practices2 Dug zai pits 3.245+ 2.991+ Dug agri half-moons 0.844 0.949 Applied organic manure 1.669 1.807 Applied phosphatic manure 1.495 1.29 Applied compost 1.399 1.295 Applied microdoses of fertilizer 0.459 0.441 Controlled sida cordifolia growth 1.55 1.23 Performed at least 3 weedings 3.233* 3.348* Delayed seedlings until 3rd/4th rains to control pests 0.17 0.244 Sowed after useful rain 2.267+ 1.85 Performed crop association 0.723 0.73 Performed crop rotation 0.32 0.337 Used Seed treatment w/fungicides 0.132*** 0.161*** Used improved seeds 0.068+ 0.054+ Used climate information - - Household adoption of targeted improved post-harvest handling and storage practices2 Used local made storage 1.466 1.701 Used sealed/airtight bags 0.390* 0.342* Used community storage facility 1.883 1.526 Used solar/fuel-powered dryers 141.804* 169.686* Used seed/grain treatment pest control technique - - Used agrochemical grain treatment 0.293 0.321 Used triple bags 0.402 0.433 Household adoption of targeted improved post-harvest handling and storage practices2 Used at least one improved livestock mgmt practice 1.559 1.677 Household participation in social assistance Participated in a BHA RFSA (ref.: HH did not participate in a RFSA) 1.897 Received food rations - any donor (ref.: did not receive food rations) 0.9 Participated in nutrition trainings/meetings - any donor (ref.: did not participate) 2.044 Participated in agriculture-related trainings/meetings - any donor (ref.: did not participate) 0.494+ Constant 0.929 0.887 1.712 1.106 Number of women 15-49 years 568 568 567 567 * p<0.05, ** p<0.01, *** p<0.001; † < 0.1 NOTES: Analytical sample was restricted to women 15-49 with data available across all covariates. Child-only households (i.e., where there are no members 18 years or older; n=3) are excluded. All models include village dummies. Coefficients not shown. 1 Reference category includes households that did not adopt the targeted improved practice. Baseline Study of the RFSAs in Niger: Final Report (Vol. III) Annex 7: Bivariate and Multivariate Tables 139 Table 73: A7.11. Percentage of children 6-23 months achieving a diet of minimum diversity by individual and household characteristics[Baseline Study, Niger 2020] Combined RFSA Areas Girma Hamzari Wadata No. of Children % Sig.a No. of Children % Sig.a No. of Children % Sig.a No. of Children % Sig.a All children 6-23 months 729 42.8 260 37.4 305 54.5 164 47.0 Child characteristics Sex Male 372 41.9 ns 128 36.2 ns 151 54.8 ns 93 46.4 ns Female 357 43.8 132 38.6 154 54.1 71 47.8 Age 6-8 months 139 27.1 ** 55 21.9 ns 53 39.0 ns 31 36.9 ns 9-11 months 83 48.3 31 43.6 31 59.7 21 49.9 12-17 months 301 51.7 101 47.4 138 60.8 62 52.5 18-23 months 206 38.6 73 32.8 83 49.2 50 44.7 Household socio-demographic characteristics Gendered household type Both 680 41.9 ns 243 36.2 ns 290 54.3 ns 147 45.7 ns Female Only 29 59.9 12 59.9 10 54.5 7 66.4 Male Only 20 43.6 5 25.4 5 61.1 10 52.3 Child Only Household head sex Male 694 41.9 ns 247 35.8 ns 293 54.5 ns 154 46.7 ns Female 35 58.3 13 62.4 12 52.6 10 51.1 Household head age 18-24 years 45 41.5 ns 21 39.8 ns 13 49.7 ns 11 40.5 ns 25-34 years 161 38.0 61 33.0 55 58.5 45 38.0 35-44 years 292 48.6 107 44.5 120 56.7 65 52.1 45+ years 231 39.0 71 30.4 117 51.1 43 49.7 Household head educational level Never attended school 541 40.7 ns 203 36.8 ns 202 48.0 * 136 45.8 ns Preschool 4 74.3 … … 4 74.3 Primary 123 48.3 33 31.5 70 74.6 20 56.3 Secondary 1st cycle 58 54.4 24 52.7 27 58.6 7 56.4 Secondary 2nd cycle 3 41.1 …. …. 2 100.0 1 0.0 Higher education …. …. …. …. …. …. …. …. Number of adult females in household One adult female or none 373 47.5 ns 162 43.9 * 97 62.5 ns 114 49.5 ns Two adult females 240 38.9 70 33.2 129 49.9 41 37.8 Three adult females 80 31.9 22 16.8 49 50.6 9 63.5 Four or more adult females 36 34.1 6 9.3 30 54.0 Number of adult males in household One adult male or none 573 43.5 ns 224 39.3 ns 210 54.5 ns 139 46.5 ns Two adult males 95 44.0 27 33.8 50 55.4 18 57.8 Three adult males 37 42.2 5 26.1 27 47.6 5 47.1 Four or more adult males 24 17.6 4 0.0 18 68.6 2 0.0 Number of children under five other than child None 163 50.0 ns 54 44.1 ns 51 75.1 * 58 47.9 ns One other child under five 289 48.1 120 43.7 99 61.4 70 49.5 Two other children under five 133 39.8 37 35.2 72 44.1 24 46.5 Three other children under five 85 29.1 27 22.5 51 42.8 7 22.1 Four or more other children under five 59 21.7 22 15.1 32 37.3 5 46.7 Number of children 5-17 years None 97 51.7 ns 45 52.0 ns 27 67.2 ns 25 39.9 ns IMPEL | Implementer-Led Evaluation and Learning 140 Annex 7: Bivariate and Multivariate Tables Combined RFSA Areas Girma Hamzari Wadata No. of Children % Sig.a No. of Children % Sig.a No. of Children % Sig.a No. of Children % Sig.a One child 96 52.7 38 51.2 25 57.9 33 54.4 Two children 115 44.3 50 36.7 32 65.8 33 52.3 Three children 92 34.9 40 31.7 29 42.1 23 42.0 Four children 103 41.7 25 24.0 55 60.8 23 38.7 Five or more children 226 37.0 62 28.9 137 47.5 27 51.2 Household food security Food consumption score groups Poor food consumption (0-21) 39 33.3 ns 14 39.2 ns 23 23.2 *** 2 0.0 ** Borderline food consumption (21.5-35) 125 31.1 43 33.4 67 34.5 15 5.8 Acceptable food consumption (35.5-112) 565 45.8 203 37.9 215 64.7 147 51.2 Household harvested crops in the current season Did not harvest any crops in the current season 76 33.1 ns 12 32.7 ns 27 38.6 ns 37 30.5 ns Less than 25 percent 364 44.8 116 36.0 151 54.7 97 52.6 25 - 50 percent 195 45.3 84 41.7 83 63.1 28 44.9 More than 50 percent 94 36.9 48 33.2 44 50.8 2 50.0 Household agricultural status1 Accessed at least one ag-related financial service (credit, savings, insurance) No 452 38.3 ns 139 29.5 * 209 52.5 ns 104 45.0 ns Yes 277 49.2 121 46.5 96 58.6 60 50.6 Took out a loan (ag credit, in cash or in-kind) No 547 41.5 ns 185 36.3 ns 230 52.3 ns 132 46.0 ns Yes 182 46.9 75 40.6 75 60.4 32 51.7 Participated in agri.-related savings scheme No 596 39.9 * 201 32.6 * 265 53.0 ns 130 45.0 ns Yes 133 53.4 59 51.2 40 65.7 34 54.5 Insured ag production against loss (insurance) No 717 42.4 ns 255 36.6 ns 300 54.5 ns 162 47.0 ns Yes 12 67.3 5 73.1 5 50.9 2 50.0 Raised at least one type of livestock2 No 290 37.0 ns 93 24.4 * 107 56.2 ns 90 44.3 ns Yes 439 46.1 167 42.9 198 53.4 74 50.7 Raised goats No 342 38.7 ns 111 29.1 ns 129 53.4 ns 102 43.5 ns Yes 387 45.9 149 41.8 176 55.3 62 53.5 Raised sheep No 559 39.0 ** 204 31.1 *** 220 57.2 ns 135 45.2 ns Yes 170 55.9 56 60.1 85 47.5 29 55.0 Raised poultry No 555 40.7 ns 193 33.7 ns 239 53.8 ns 123 46.8 ns Yes 174 49.3 67 47.6 66 57.0 41 47.7 Used at least one improved crop management practice3 No 38 33.8 ns 11 25.1 ns 6 28.9 ns 21 44.5 ns Yes 691 43.3 249 37.9 299 55.1 143 47.3 Dug zai pits No 671 41.7 ns 250 36.7 ns 261 51.6 * 160 47.5 ns Yes 58 56.5 10 48.1 44 68.4 4 30.8 Dug agri half-moons No 709 42.5 ns 248 37.2 ns 298 53.6 ns 163 46.5 ns Yes 20 50.2 12 40.4 7 84.3 1 100.0 Applied organic manure No 275 27.3 *** 98 17.2 *** 112 45.5 * 65 38.3 ns Yes 454 51.7 162 48.8 193 59.5 99 52.3 Applied phosphatic manure Baseline Study of the RFSAs in Niger: Final Report (Vol. III) Annex 7: Bivariate and Multivariate Tables 141 Combined RFSA Areas Girma Hamzari Wadata No. of Children % Sig.a No. of Children % Sig.a No. of Children % Sig.a No. of Children % Sig.a No 631 40.2 * 214 32.3 * 272 54.8 ns 145 46.6 ns Yes 98 56.9 46 58.9 33 51.8 19 50.9 Applied compost No 533 47.4 * 159 44.7 * 224 54.5 ns 150 47.3 ns Yes 196 31.9 101 24.5 81 54.3 14 42.3 Applied microdoses of fertilizer No 679 42.3 ns 248 36.7 ns 269 54.6 ns 162 47.0 ns Yes 50 52.8 12 52.3 36 53.3 2 50.0 Controlled sida cordifolia growth No 616 44.3 ns 205 41.1 *** 252 49.9 ** 159 47.1 ns Yes 113 34.9 55 21.4 53 76.8 5 40.9 Performed at least three weedings No 495 44.2 ns 151 41.0 ns 208 51.6 ns 136 45.3 ns Yes 234 40.1 109 31.3 97 59.3 28 56.2 Delayed seedlings at 3rd/4th rains to control pests No 645 42.8 ns 227 37.9 ns 256 52.5 ns 162 47.0 ns Yes 84 42.9 33 33.8 49 65.6 2 49.5 Sowed after useful rain No 420 42.3 ns 130 37.8 ns 172 49.3 * 118 48.2 ns Yes 309 43.6 130 36.7 133 61.5 46 44.0 Performed crop association No 298 45.9 ns 102 41.8 ns 80 46.1 ns 116 55.8 * Yes 431 40.0 158 33.2 225 57.6 48 29.4 Performed crop rotation No 677 43.1 ns 245 37.3 ns 272 56.3 ns 160 46.9 ns Yes 52 38.9 15 38.8 33 37.2 4 48.7 Used seed treatment w/fungicides No 630 40.4 *** 244 35.2 ** 244 51.6 ns 142 46.6 ns Yes 99 64.7 16 75.1 61 67.8 22 49.1 Used improved seeds No 665 42.2 ns 234 36.9 ns 269 53.3 ns 162 46.2 ns Yes 64 48.6 26 40.8 36 61.6 2 100.0 Used climate information No 718 42.7 ns 260 37.4 294 54.1 ns 164 47.0 Yes 11 67.1 … … 11 67.1 … … Used at least one type of improved post harvest practice/technique4 No 383 39.1 * 179 36.8 ns 112 43.1 ns 92 45.9 ns Yes 346 49.2 81 38.9 193 62.0 72 48.4 Used local made storage No 546 41.4 ns 235 37.9 ns 187 49.1 ns 124 48.3 ns Yes 183 49.7 25 29.2 118 62.7 40 43.5 Used sealed/airtight bags No 545 40.7 ns 225 35.8 ns 178 52.1 ns 142 46.8 ns Yes 184 52.8 35 48.1 127 58.7 22 48.4 Used community storage facility No 691 42.4 ns 249 37.0 ns 288 55.7 ns 154 45.1 * Yes 38 49.2 11 44.0 17 40.5 10 84.1 Used solar/fuel-powered dryers No 715 42.8 ns 255 37.3 ns 298 54.5 ns 162 46.8 ns Yes 14 43.7 5 38.1 7 51.7 2 68.5 Used seed/grain treatment pest control tech. No 720 43.1 ns 254 38.1 ns 302 53.8 ns 164 47.0 Yes 9 21.6 6 0.0 3 100.0 … … Used agrochemical grain treatment No 713 42.5 ns 257 37.1 ns 294 53.6 ns 162 47.5 ns IMPEL | Implementer-Led Evaluation and Learning 142 Annex 7: Bivariate and Multivariate Tables Combined RFSA Areas Girma Hamzari Wadata No. of Children % Sig.a No. of Children % Sig.a No. of Children % Sig.a No. of Children % Sig.a Yes 16 55.2 3 51.3 11 68.8 2 0.0 Used triple bags No 679 42.5 ns 255 36.9 ns 269 53.9 ns 155 49.3 ns Yes 50 47.4 5 52.0 36 58.0 9 19.4 Used other post harvest practices No 687 42.1 ns 233 36.4 ns 297 53.6 * 157 46.5 ns Yes 42 53.0 27 48.3 8 79.1 7 61.7 Used at least one improved livestock mgmt. practice 5 No 451 40.1 ns 155 32.7 ns 178 56.5 ns 118 42.5 ns Yes 278 46.7 105 43.0 127 51.4 46 58.7 Household exposure to COVID-19 impacts Livelihoods/income impacted by COVID-19 No 131 30.5 *** 52 28.1 ns 36 31.7 * 43 36.1 ns Yes 598 46.1 208 39.9 269 58.7 121 50.7 Food security impacted by COVID-19 No 98 30.4 * 44 27.0 ns 13 44.4 ns 41 34.3 ns Yes 631 45.2 216 39.5 292 55.0 123 51.2 Household resilience capacities Participation in group-based savings, microfinance or lending programs No 675 42.9 ns 226 37.2 ns 288 53.6 ns 161 46.8 ns Yes 54 42.0 34 38.3 17 71.0 3 55.0 Participation in group-based saving programs No 682 42.1 ns 229 36.2 ns 292 52.9 * 161 46.8 ns Yes 47 49.7 31 44.9 13 100.0 3 55.0 Participation in group-based credit programs No 708 43.3 ns 249 37.9 ns 296 54.8 ns 163 46.6 ns Yes 21 33.0 11 29.8 9 37.1 1 100.0 Participation in social assistance activities Participation in BHA RFSAs No 358 41.5 ns 146 34.4 ns 136 56.1 ns 76 52.9 ns Yes 371 44.4 114 41.7 169 53.0 88 41.2 Receipt of food rations (any donor/program) No 549 40.8 ns 224 34.3 * 225 55.1 ns 100 47.2 ns Yes 180 49.6 36 50.4 80 51.9 64 46.6 Participation in nutrition trainings/meetings (any donor/program) No 539 43.9 ns 177 39.7 ns 245 53.4 ns 117 45.0 ns Yes 190 39.9 83 32.0 60 58.3 47 53.1 Participation in agriculture-related trainings/meetings (any donor/program) No 504 44.5 ns 169 38.3 ns 227 55.1 ns 108 49.6 ns Yes 225 39.7 91 35.9 78 52.7 56 42.0 Food rations by RFSA participation status Did not receive any food rations 549 40.8 ns 224 34.3 ns 225 55.1 ns 100 47.2 ns Received food rations - direct RFSA participant6 132 50.8 16 59.9 61 52.9 55 42.7 Received food rations - indirect RFSA participant7 48 47.9 20 44.5 19 49.9 9 70.0 Nutrition trainings/meetings by RFSA participation status Did not participate in any nutrition trainings/meetings 539 43.9 ns 177 39.7 ns 245 53.4 ns 117 45.0 ns Participated in nutrition trainings/meetings - direct RFSA participant6 152 40.2 57 32.0 53 59.6 42 48.9 Participated in nutrition trainings/meetings -indirect RFSA participant7 38 39.0 26 32.0 7 53.7 5 86.0 Agriculture trainings/meetings by RFSA participation status Did not participate in any ag trainings/meetings 504 44.5 ns 169 38.3 ns 227 55.1 ns 108 49.6 ns Participated in agri. trainings and meetings - direct RFSA participant6 173 42.7 60 41.0 66 53.0 47 38.6 Participated in agri. trainings/meetings -indirect RFSA participant7 52 32.6 31 26.4 12 51.6 9 57.8 Baseline Study of the RFSAs in Niger: Final Report (Vol. III) Annex 7: Bivariate and Multivariate Tables 143 Combined RFSA Areas Girma Hamzari Wadata No. of Children % Sig.a No. of Children % Sig.a No. of Children % Sig.a No. of Children % Sig.a Notes A child 6-23 months is considered to consume a minimum dietary diversity if s/he consumed at least five of the eight food groups during the previous day and night. Sample restricted to children with data available across all covariates. Results not statistically reliable, n<30. 1 Household agriculture status measures were calculated by aggregating the results of farmers to the household level. A household is considered to adopt a practice if at least one farmer in the household reported the practice. 2 A household is considered to raise at least one livestock if at least one farmer reported raising any of the three livestock of interest (goats, sheep, and poultry). 3 A household is considered to be using at least one improved crop management practices if at least one farmer reported using any of the promoted practices for any one of the three crops of interest (sorghum, millet, cowpeas and peanuts). 4 A household is considered to be using at least one improved post-harvest practice if at least one farmer reported using any of the promoted practices for any one of the three crops of interest (sorghum, millet, cowpeas and peanuts). 5 A household is considered to be using at least one improved livestock management practices if at least one farmer reported using any of the promoted practices for any one of the three livestock of interest (goats, sheep, or poultry). 6 Includes households that reported participating in BHA RFSA activities and also reported receiving food rations. 7 Includes households that reported participating in BHA RFSA activities and also reported participating in nutrition trainings/meetings. Table 74: A7.12. Prevalence of diarrhea among children under five by household WASH status [Baseline Study, Niger 2020] Combined RFSA Areas Girma Hamzari Wadata No. of Children % Sig.a No. of Children % Sig.a No. of Children % Sig.a No. of Children % Sig.a Improved, not shared sanitation facility Household does not use a basic sanitation facility 2,832 33.1 ** 998 33.9 * 1,066 24.4 ns 768 38.4 * Household uses a basic sanitation facility 268 22.0 55 18.4 163 24.9 50 25.0 Total 3,100 32.3 1,053 33.1 1,229 24.5 818 37.7 Water source1 Household does not use an improved water source 724 34.8 ns 181 35.2 ns 203 30.1 ns 340 35.9 ns Household uses an improved water source 2,376 31.6 872 32.7 1,026 23.4 478 39.2 Total 3,100 32.3 1,053 33.1 1,229 24.5 818 37.7 Meets four of the five criteria for basic water source2 Household does not meet 4 of the 5 criteria for basic water source 2,510 33.5 ns 813 35.0 ns 975 23.7 ns 722 37.6 ns Household meets 4 of the 5 criteria for basic water source 585 27.6 240 26.2 252 26.6 93 39.9 Total 3,084 32.3 1,053 33.1 1,222 24.5 809 37.7 Water treatment3 Household does not treat water prior to drinking 2,514 32.2 ns 845 32.7 ns 990 25.4 ns 679 37.5 ns IMPEL | Implementer-Led Evaluation and Learning 144 Annex 7: Bivariate and Multivariate Tables Combined RFSA Areas Girma Hamzari Wadata No. of Children % Sig.a No. of Children % Sig.a No. of Children % Sig.a No. of Children % Sig.a Household treats water prior to drinking 586 32.5 208 34.3 239 21.3 139 38.9 All children under five 3,100 32.3 1,053 33.1 1,229 24.5 818 37.7 Handwashing station with water and soap or another cleansingagent Household does not have a handwashing station with water and soap or another cleansing agent 1,411 34.7 ns 838 34.0 ns 91 15.8 ns 482 39.2 ns Household has a handwashing station with water and soap or another cleansing agent 270 31.5 101 30.2 64 26.2 105 35.5 Total 1,681 34.2 939 33.6 155 19.7 587 38.5 Knowledge of 3 of the 6 critical moments for handwashing4 Household does not know 3 of the 6 critical moments for handwashing 2,516 32.9 ns 904 33.7 ns 900 25.7 ns 712 36.9 ns Household knows 3 of the 6 critical moments for handwashing 584 29.7 149 30.7 329 21.6 106 42.9 Total 3,100 32.3 1,053 33.1 1,229 24.5 818 37.7 NOTES: a Significance tests were performed to determine whether an association exists between the outcome indicator (diarrhea) and the disaggregate variable (WASH). Associations found to be statistically significant are indicated by level: * p<0.05, ** p<0.01, *** p<0.001; ns=not significant. 1 Does not include other criteria for basic water source - namely, water source is on the premises or obtainable in 30 minutes or less roundtrip; water source was not unavailable for a day or longer in the past two weeks; and water source produces at least 20 liters per day per person. 2 Refers to households that meet the following criteria: uses an improved water source; water source is on the premises or obtainable in 30 minutes or less roundtrip; water source was not unavailable for a day or longer in thepast two weeks; and water source produces at least 20 liters per day per person. 3 Households were not asked to report method of treating water prior to drinking therefore this estimate does not distinguish between correct and incorrect water treatment practices. 4 Critical moments for handwashing include (1) before eating; (2) before breastfeeding or feeding the child; (3) before cooking or preparing food; (4) after using the toilet/latrine; (5) after cleaning or changing the diaper of a child who defecated; and (6) after cleaning the toilet or pot. Baseline Study of the RFSAs in Niger: Final Report (Vol. III) Annex 8: COVID-19 Awareness, Impacts, and Coping Strategies 145 ANNEX 8: COVID-19 KNOWLEDGE, PRACTICES, IMPACTS, AND COPING STRATEGIES Knowledge of COVID-19 and adoption of mitigation practices Awareness of the COVID-19 pandemic is widespread across the RFSA areas (Girma, 98.6%; Hamzari, 99.3%; Wadata, 97.6%). Female-adult-only households in Girma (p < 0.05) and Wadata (p < 0.001) are less likely to be aware of the virus compared to other household types (see Annex 6, Table A6.17). Most households in the RFSA areas take measures to mitigate the spread of COVID-19. Figure 1 illustrates the extent of adoption of COVID-19 mitigation protocols by RFSA. Figure 1: Adoption of COVID-19 mitigation protocols, by RFSA (A8.1) Washing hands with water and soap was the most cited COVID-19 mitigation practice (Girma, 62.1%; Hamzari, 92.4%; 79.7%). However, the percentages of households with a handwashing station with water and soap/ash, based on enumerator observation, are considerably lower (Girma, 8.9%; Hamzari, 40.6%; Wadata; 18.2%; see Section 3.5.3). These findings suggest the possibility of respondents reporting based IMPEL | Implementer-Led Evaluation and Learning 146 Annex 8: COVID-19 Awareness, Impacts, and Coping Strategy on what they think enumerators hope to hear or consider acceptable rather than the actual behavior of their household members. Household participation in WASH-related meetings/trainings was moderately widespread (Girma, 69%; Hamzari, 58.9%; Wadata, 44.7%); these meetings could be one forum in which households were sensitized on the importance of handwashing to mitigate the spread of COVID-19. Impact of COVID-19 on livelihoods and food security Most households’ livelihoods were impacted by the COVID-19 pandemic (Girma, 76.8%; Hamzari, 84.9%; Wadata, 68.4%).8 Similarly, the majority of households experienced impacts to their food security due to COVID-19 (Girma, 80.5%; Hamzari, 91.8%; Wadata, 73%). 9 The impacts are due to restrictions to curb the spread of the virus. Livelihoods Figure A8.2 illustrates the five most common COVID-19 impacts on livelihoods by RFSA. 10 About one￾quarter of households (Girma, 29.2%; Hamzari, 21.3%; Wadata, 24.9%) experienced a reduction in income. Some livelihood effects were experienced more directly due to a loss of employment (Girma, 17.6%; Hamzari, 16.5%; Wadata 12.2%). Other livelihood impacts resulted indirectly from a constellation of factors such as the inability to access markets to buy inputs because of restrictions or market closures (Girma, 19.0%; Hamzari, 22.6%; Wadata, 12.7%). High transportation costs, which make it difficult to reach markets, were experienced by close to one-quarter of households in Girma (27.6%) and Wadata (22.2%) and more than one-third in Hamzari (40.5%). About 20% of households in Hamzari were unable to get to markets to sell livestock and livestock products because of closures and restrictions, and a similar percentage experienced increases in crop input prices.11 8 See Annex 6, Table A6.18. Includes households that reported at least one impact to their livelihood due to COVID-19. Calculated by subtracting the percentages of households who reported their livelihood was not impacted and those who responded “don’t know” from 100. 9 See Annex 6, Table A6.19. Includes households that reported at least one impact to their food security due to COVID-19. Calculated by subtracting the percentages of households who reported their food security was not impacted and those who responded “don’t know” from 100. 10 Household respondents who reported being aware of the COVID-19 pandemic were asked “How has COVID-19 affected your household’s livelihoods?” Multiple responses were allowed. Enumerators were trained to probe for the various ways in which COVID-19 may impact households’ livelihoods, for example by influencing market access (due to movement restrictions or market closures), price of inputs or products sold, demand for products, and ability to hire labor. It can also constrain access to productive resources (e.g., land and water) and services (e.g., extension services, financial services, storage, et). Refer to Annex 6, Table A6.18 for additional information. 11 See Annex 6, Table A6.18 for additional details. Baseline Study of the RFSAs in Niger: Final Report (Vol. III) Annex 8: COVID-19 Awareness, Impacts, and Coping Strategies 147 Figure 2: Top five COVID-19 related impacts on households’ livelihoods, by RFSA area (A8.2) Food security The five most common food security impacts of COVID-19 are illustrated in Figure A8.3.12 Many households experienced increases in food prices ranging from 47.4% in Wadata to 64.9% in Girma and 70.4% in Hamzari. Inability to acquire food items due to movement restrictions and market closures were experienced by one-third of households in Wadata (33.5%) and one-half in Girma (50%) and Hamzari (51.1%). Increase in transportation costs, absence of traders from markets, and lack of product availability in markets were among the main factors that impacted household food security. 12 Household respondents who reported being aware of the COVID-19 pandemic were asked “How has COVID-19 affected your household’s food security?” Multiple responses were allowed. Enumerators were trained to probe for the various direct and indirect ways in which COVID-19 may impact households’ food security. For example, household food security can be affected if households are unable to access markets due to market closures or movement restrictions. It can also result from traders being absent from the market, and changes in the availability of food and/or essential items, changes in food prices, increase in the cost of transportation to travel to markets, or delays in receiving cash or food assistance. See Annex 6, Table A6.19 for additional information. IMPEL | Implementer-Led Evaluation and Learning 148 Annex 8: COVID-19 Awareness, Impacts, and Coping Strategy Figure 3: Top five COVID-19 related impacts on households’ food security, by RFSA area (A8.3) Coping strategies adopted by households to address COVID-19 impacts Almost all households borrowed (interest-free) from friends or family living in their community to cope with the adverse impacts of COVID-19 on their livelihoods (see Figure 33) This is consistent with the findings related to household social capital, which underscored the strength of obligation and support networks during times of distress. At least 40% of households (except for Wadata) coped with the impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic by reducing the size and frequency of meals. About 20% or more of households cut down on non-essential household expenses (see Figure 33 and Figure 34). Other coping strategies included selling livestock or selling livestock at lower prices, consuming saved seeds, taking children out of school, and engaging in spiritual efforts (see Figure 33 and Figure 34). Annex 6, Table A6.20 and Table A6.21 provide additional details on COVID-19 related coping strategies. Baseline Study of the RFSAs in Niger: Final Report (Vol. III) Annex 8: COVID-19 Awareness, Impacts, and Coping Strategies 149 Figure 4: Coping strategies for addressing livelihood impacts of COVID-19, by RFSA (A8.4) IMPEL | Implementer-Led Evaluation and Learning 150 Annex 8: COVID-19 Awareness, Impacts, and Coping Strategy Figure 5: Coping Strategies for addressing food security impacts of COVID-19, by RFSA (A8.5)