Baseline Study of the ViMPlus Resilience Food Security Activity (RFSA) in Burkina Faso: Final Report October 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 ViMPlus Resilience Food Security Activity (RFSA) in Burkina Faso: 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 Victoria Brown, PhD Senior Research Methodologist/CAPI Specialist Monica Mueller Senior Qualitative Specialist/Quality Assurance PHOTO CREDITS Libre de Droi 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 IDEAL Activity c/o Save the Children 899 North Capitol Street NE, Suite #900 Washington, DC 20002 www.fsnnetwork.org IMPEL@savechildren.org PREPARED BY: Baseline Study of the ViMPlus RFSA in Burkina Faso: Final Report (Vol. III) Table of Contents i TABLE OF CONTENTS List of Tables and Figures...................................................................................iii Acronyms...........................................................................................................vi Annex 3: 2020 Burkina Faso BHA RFSA 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...................................................................................11 Data Analysis ........................................................................................................................................17 Sociodemographic Characteristics of the Study Population........................................................18 Descriptive Analyses.....................................................................................................................18 Bivariate Analyses ........................................................................................................................21 Econometric Modeling .................................................................................................................26 Data Used in the Analysis.............................................................................................................26 Definitions of Variables................................................................................................................26 Statistical Methods.......................................................................................................................28 Household Weights..............................................................................................................................29 Annex 5: BHA Burkina Faso Baseline Indicators – VimPlus................................31 Annex 6: Descriptive Statistical Tables..............................................................45 Annex 7: BHA Burkina Faso Bivariate and Multivariate Statistical Tables..........79 Annex 8: COVID-19 Knowledge, Practices, Impacts, and Coping Strategies .....115 Knowledge of COVID-19 and Adoption of Mitigation Practices.........................................................115 Impact of COVID-19 on Livelihoods and Food Security......................................................................115 Livelihoods..................................................................................................................................116 Food Security..............................................................................................................................117 Coping Strategies Adopted by Households to Address COVID-19 Impacts........................................117 IMPEL | Implementer-Led Evaluation and Learning ii Table of Contents VOLUME II ANNEXES Annex 1: FFP Burkina Faso and Niger Baseline Protocol Annex 1a: Revisions to Sampling and Selected Villages Annex 1b: Training Agendas Annex 1c: Informed Consent Statement Annex 2: Questionnaire Baseline Study of the ViMPlus RFSA in Burkina Faso: 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 Burkina Faso ........7 Table 2: Targeted Improved Crop Practices - Sorghum, Cowpeas, Rice and Onions..................................11 Table 3: Targeted Improved NRM Practices – All Farmers.........................................................................14 Table 4: Targeted Improved Post-Harvest Handling and Storage Practices - Sorghum, Cowpeas, Rice and Onions.........................................................................................................................................................15 Table 5: Targeted Improved Livestock Practices – Goats and Sheep .........................................................16 Table 6: Targeted Improved Livestock Practices - Poultry..........................................................................17 Table 7: Summary of descriptive analyses conducted for the 2020 baseline study of the BHA RFSA in Burkina Faso................................................................................................................................................19 Table 8: Summary of bivariate analyses conducted for the 2020 baseline study of the BHA RFSA in Burkina Faso................................................................................................................................................21 Table 9: Summary of multivariate analyses conducted for the 2020 baseline study of the BHA RFSA in Burkina Faso................................................................................................................................................26 Table 10: BHA Burkina Faso Baseline Indicators – VimPlus........................................................................31 Table 11: Estimated Population in the RFSA Area ......................................................................................45 Table 12: Household Characteristics...........................................................................................................46 Table 13: Activity Participation...................................................................................................................47 Table 14: Food Consumption Score (FCS) Components .............................................................................49 Table 15: Mean Food Consumption Score (FCS) by Gendered Household Type........................................50 Table 16: Percentage of Sorghum Farmers by Background Characteristics, in Total and by Farmers' Sex and Age .......................................................................................................................................................51 Table 17: Percentage of Cowpea Farmers by Background Characteristics, in Total and by Farmers' Sex and Age .......................................................................................................................................................51 Table 18: Percentage of Rice Farmers by Background Characteristics, in Total and by Farmers' Sex and Age ..............................................................................................................................................................52 Table 19: Percentage of Onion Farmers by Background Characteristics, in Total and by Farmers' Sex and Age ..............................................................................................................................................................52 Table 20: Percentage of Goat Farmers by Background Characteristics, in Total and by Farmers' Sex and Age ..............................................................................................................................................................53 Table 21: Percentage of Sheep Farmers by Background Characteristics, in Total and by Farmers' Sex and Age ..............................................................................................................................................................53 Table 22: Percentage of Poultry Farmers by Background Characteristics, in Total and by Farmers' Sex and Age ..............................................................................................................................................................54 Table 23: Percentage of Farmers by Land Ownership Status and Farm Size, in Total and by Farmers' Sex and Age .......................................................................................................................................................54 Table 24: Percentage of Sorghum Farmers by Area Cultivated, in Total and by Farmers' Sex and Age.....55 Table 25: Percentage of Cowpea Farmers by Area Cultivated, in Total and by Farmers' Sex and Age......55 Table 26: Percentage of Rice Farmers by Area Cultivated, in Total and by Farmers' Sex and Age ............56 Table 27: Percentage of Onion Farmers by Area Cultivated, in Total and by Farmers' Sex and Age .........56 Table 28: Percentage of Onion Farmers by Area Cultivated, in Total and by Farmers' Sex and Age .........57 IMPEL | Implementer-Led Evaluation and Learning iv List of Tables and Figures Table 29: Percentage of Farmers Using Financial Services by Type of Financial Services, in Total and by Farmers' Sex................................................................................................................................................57 Table 30: Percentage of Sorghum Farmers who Applied one or More Promoted Improved Storage Practices, in Total and by Farmers’ Sex and Age ........................................................................................58 Table 31: Percentage of Cowpea Farmers who Applied one or More Promoted Improved Storage Practices, in Total and by Farmers’ Sex and Age ........................................................................................58 Table 32: Percentage of Rice Farmers who Applied one or More Promoted Improved Storage Practices, in Total and by Farmers’ Sex and Age.........................................................................................................59 Table 33: Percentage of Onion Farmers who Applied one or More Promoted Improved Storage Practices, in Total and by Farmers’ Sex and Age.........................................................................................................60 Table 34: Percentage of Sorghum Farmers who Applied one or More Promoted Improved Management Practices and Technologies, in Total and by Farmers’ Sex and Age ...........................................................60 Table 35: Percentage of Cowpea Farmers who Applied one or More Promoted Improved Management Practices and Technologies by Category and Type, in Total and by Farmers’ Sex and Age .......................62 Table 36: Percentage of Rice Farmers who Applied one or More Promoted Improved Management Practices and Technologies by Category and Type, in Total and by Farmers’ Sex and Age .......................63 Table 37: Percentage of Onion Farmers who Applied one or More Promoted Improved Management Practices and Technologies by Category and Type, in Total and by Farmers’ Sex and Age .......................64 Table 38: Percentage of Goat Farmers who Applied one or More Promoted Improved Management Practices and Technologies by Category and Type, in Total and by Farmers’ Sex and Age .......................66 Table 39: Percentage of Sheep Farmers who Applied one or More Promoted Improved Management Practices and Technologies by Category and Type, in Total and by Farmers’ Sex and Age .......................66 Table 40: Percentage of Poultry Farmers who Applied one or More Promoted Improved Management Practices and Technologies by Category and Type, in Total and by Farmers’ Sex and Age .......................67 Table 41: Household Sanitation and Drinking Water .................................................................................67 Table 42: Percentage of Women 15-49 Years of Age by Food Groups Consumed.....................................69 Table 43: Use of Antenatal Care Services (ANC).........................................................................................69 Table 44: Percentage of Non-Pregnant Women 15-49 Years who are Married or in a Union and Using a Contraceptive Method by Type of Method ................................................................................................70 Table 45: Percentage of Children 6-23 Months by Food Groups Consumed .............................................71 Table 46: Household Social Capital.............................................................................................................71 Table 47: Percentage of Women and Men in a Union Participating in Community Groups, by Type of Group ..........................................................................................................................................................72 Table 48: COVID-19 awareness and adoption of COVID-19 mitigation protocols......................................73 Table 49: Percentage of Households who Experienced COVID-19 Impacts on Livelihoods by Type of Impact.........................................................................................................................................................74 Table 50: Percentage of Households who Experienced COVID-19 Impacts on Food Security by Type of Impact.........................................................................................................................................................75 Table 51: Coping strategies for COVID-19 impacts on livelihoods..............................................................75 Table 52: Coping Strategies for COVID-19 Impacts on Food Security.........................................................77 Table 53: Percentage of households by food consumption score (FCS) groups and household characteristics.............................................................................................................................................79 Table 54: Mean Household Food Consumption Score (FCS) by Household Characteristics and Practices 83 Baseline Study of the ViMPlus RFSA in Burkina Faso: Final Report (Vol. III) List of Tables and Figures v Table 55: Multivariate Logistic Regression of Women's Minimum Dietary Diversity (MDD-W)................87 Table 56: OLS Regression of Household Food Consumption Score, ViMPlus.............................................89 Table 57: Percentage of Sorghum Farmers Applying Targeted Improved Crop and Post-Harvest Practices by Use of Agricultural-Related Financial Services.......................................................................................91 Table 58: Percentage of Cowpea Farmers Applying Targeted Improved Crop and Post-Harvest Practices by Use of Agricultural-Related Financial Services.......................................................................................93 Table 59: Percentage of Rice Farmers Applying Targeted Improved Crop and Post-Harvest Practices by Use of Agricultural-Related Financial Services............................................................................................95 Table 60: Percentage of Onion Farmers Applying Targeted Improved Crop and Post-Harvest Practices by Use of Agricultural-Related Financial Services............................................................................................97 Table 61: Percentage of Goat Herders Applying Targeted Improved Livestock Practices by Use of Agricultural-Related Financial Services.......................................................................................................98 Table 62: Percentage of Sheep Herders Applying Targeted Improved Livestock Practices by Use of Agricultural-Related Financial Services.......................................................................................................99 Table 63: Percentage of poultry farmers applying targeted improved livestock practices by use of agricultural-related financial services.......................................................................................................100 Table 64: Percentage of Women 15-49 Years Achieving a Diet Of Minimum Diversity by Individual and Household Characteristics........................................................................................................................100 Table 65: Multivariate Logistic Regression of Women's Minimum Dietary Diversity (MDD-W)..............106 Table 66: Percentage of Children 6-23 Months Achieving a Diet Of Minimum Diversity by Individual and Household Characteristics........................................................................................................................108 Table 67: Prevalence of Diarrhea among Children under Five by Household WASH Status....................113 Figure 1: Adoption of COVID-19 mitigation protocols (% HHs) ................................................................115 Figure 2: Top five COVID-19 related impacts on households’ livelihoods (% HHs) ..................................116 Figure 3: Top five COVID-19 related impacts on households’ food security (% HHs) ..............................117 Figure 4: Coping strategies for addressing livelihood and food security impacts of COVID-19 (% HHs)..118 IMPEL | Implementer-Led Evaluation and Learning vi Acronyms 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 ViMPlus RFSA in Burkina Faso: Final Report (Vol. III) Annex 3: 2020 Burkina Faso BHA RFSA Baseline Study Personnel 1 ANNEX 3: 2020 BURKINA FASO BHA RFSA BASELINE STUDY PERSONNEL Bagna Solutions Staff Director Ibrahima Issa Bagna Survey Manager Zakou Issaka Moussa Technical Specialists Dr Moumouni DAGNA Agro-Economiste Dr Mahamadou ABOUBACAR ATTAHIROU Socio-Anthropologue Kalifa TRAORE Statisticien Economiste Data processing staff and IT Specialists Aboubacar SAYABOU Ingénieur en Informatique Etienne OUEDRAOGO Ingénieur Informatique, Analyste programmeur CAPI Specialists Mounkaila IDRISSA Communication et Gestion de Projet Quality Control/Field Supervisors and Coordinators Victorien OUEDRAOGO D. Quality Controler Mounkaila IDRISSA Coordinator Household Listing Supervisors Macair OUEDRAOGO IMPEL | Implementer-Led Evaluation and Learning 2 Annex 3: 2020 Burkina Faso BHA RFSA Baseline Study Personnel Household Listers and Mappers Pierre SAWADOGO Karim SAWADOGO Adama ILBOUDO Ousmane OUEDRAOGO Karim OUEDRAOGO Karim SAWADOGO. P Florent YAOLIREE Richard OUEDRAOGO Adama OUEDRAOGO Poussi DIANDA Household Survey Team Leads Alida GANDEMA Angèle COMPAORE Abdoul Karim OUEDRAOGO Richard OUEDRAOGO W. Adama OUEDRAOGO Household Survey Enumerators Zalissa OUEDRAOGO Rasmata KIEMA Marie Louise Fatimata SAMBA Balguissa ZABRE Pendo OUEDRAOGO Salamata KOURAOGO Fatimata DIALLO Sombassere Diane BADINI Edwige SAWADOGO Angèle Armand P KAFANDO Salamata SAWADOGO Awa SIMPORE Marie Sougrimalgdé SAWADOGO Bienvenue Ines BAMOUNI Hermine Sonia Vérane ZONGO Carine KINDA Kayabo SAWADOGO Karidjatou SAWADOGO Wendpouiré Marina ZANGO Haoua KINDA SISSOKO Safiata Habiba CISSE Fatimata SAWADOGO Christine Nabalemwendé SAWADOGO Augustine Nabonswende BAMOGO External Quality Control Monitors Hervé Jean-Louis Guene Christophe Zouré Baseline Study of the ViMPlus RFSA in Burkina Faso: Final Report (Vol. III) Annex 3: 2020 Burkina Faso BHA RFSA Baseline Study Personnel 3 TANGO International Staff Tim Frankenberger Management Oversight Jeanne Downen Chief of Party Mark Langworthy, PhD Management Oversight/Survey Methods Specialist Thomas Bower Survey Methods Specialist Victoria Brown, PhD Baseline Study Lead/CAPI Specialist Monica Mueller Qualitative Specialist/Quality Assurance 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 Assistance (BHA) Resilience Food Security Activity (RFSA) in Burkina Faso. 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 Bureau for Humanitarian Assistance (BHA) Resilience Food Security Activity (RFSA) in Burkina Faso 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 Baseline Study of the ViMPlus RFSA in Burkina Faso: Final Report (Vol. III) Annex 4: Summary Of Data Treatment and Analysis 5 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. 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: Data Capture (During field work/in the field) • 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. • 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. • 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. • Range checks for alphabetic responses: The ODK program is fitted so that only letters listed in the response options can be entered. • 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. • “Other” responses: For questions that allow “other” responses, the program is designed to ensure that responses requiring an "other" text entry are not skipped. • 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’). IMPEL | Implementer-Led Evaluation and Learning 6 Annex 4: Summary Of Data Treatment and Analysis • 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. • 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 not asked about current use of contraception. In such cases, the question or set of questions will be skipped over. 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. 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 the 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 1 The survey tool did not collect anthropometric measurements for children or women, or consumption expenditures data for households. Baseline Study of the ViMPlus RFSA in Burkina Faso: Final Report (Vol. III) Annex 4: Summary Of Data Treatment and Analysis 7 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 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. Table 1: Indicators Measured in the 2020 “Baseline Lite” Survey of the BHA RFSAs in Burkina Faso 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 IMPEL | Implementer-Led Evaluation and Learning 8 Annex 4: Summary Of Data Treatment and Analysis Indicator Disaggregation Level Reference Documents 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 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 Baseline Study of the ViMPlus RFSA in Burkina Faso: Final Report (Vol. III) Annex 4: Summary Of Data Treatment and Analysis 9 Indicator Disaggregation Level Reference Documents 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 IMPEL | Implementer-Led Evaluation and Learning 10 Annex 4: Summary Of Data Treatment and Analysis Indicator Disaggregation Level Reference Documents 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 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 Baseline Study of the ViMPlus RFSA in Burkina Faso: Final Report (Vol. III) Annex 4: Summary Of Data Treatment and Analysis 11 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 Burkina Faso, the crops of interest are sorghum, cowpeas, rice and onions. 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. Description of Promoted Agricultural Practices This section describes the improved agricultural practices and technologies promoted by the RFSA. Table 2: Targeted Improved Crop Practices - Sorghum, Cowpeas, Rice and Onions 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 Burkina Faso, 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 IMPEL | Implementer-Led Evaluation and Learning 12 Annex 4: Summary Of Data Treatment and Analysis Targeted Improved Management Practice/technology Description 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. 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. Baseline Study of the ViMPlus RFSA in Burkina Faso: Final Report (Vol. III) Annex 4: Summary Of Data Treatment and Analysis 13 Targeted Improved Management Practice/technology Description 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 Burkina Faso. 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. Improved climate adaptation/climate risk management practices/technologies IMPEL | Implementer-Led Evaluation and Learning 14 Annex 4: Summary Of Data Treatment and Analysis Targeted Improved Management Practice/technology Description 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. Baseline Study of the ViMPlus RFSA in Burkina Faso: Final Report (Vol. III) Annex 4: Summary Of Data Treatment and Analysis 15 Targeted Improved Natural Resource Management Practice/Technology Description 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. Table 4: Targeted Improved Post-Harvest Handling and Storage Practices - Sorghum, Cowpeas, Rice and Onions 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. IMPEL | Implementer-Led Evaluation and Learning 16 Annex 4: Summary Of Data Treatment and Analysis Post-Harvest Handling and Storage Practice/Technology Description 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. 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). Baseline Study of the ViMPlus RFSA in Burkina Faso: Final Report (Vol. III) Annex 4: Summary Of Data Treatment and Analysis 17 Improved Livestock Management Practice Description 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 Burkina Faso 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 IMPEL | Implementer-Led Evaluation and Learning 18 Annex 4: Summary Of Data Treatment and Analysis • 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 All analyses are conducted using Stata Version 15. Results are weighted to reflect the full target population and for the RFSA area. 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 area. 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) • Married or in a union • 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 RFSA area 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 RFSA area. The variance estimation considers the design effect associated with the complex sampling design. Descriptive Analyses The table below summarizes the descriptive analyses conducted for the 2020 baseline study of the BHA RFSA in Burkina Faso. Baseline Study of the ViMPlus RFSA in Burkina Faso: Final Report (Vol. III) Annex 4: Summary Of Data Treatment and Analysis 19 Table 7: Summary of descriptive analyses conducted for the 2020 baseline study of the BHA RFSA in Burkina Faso Socio-Demographic Characteristics of the Study Area Estimated population in the RFSA area Household characteristics in the RFSA area Percentage of households receiving social assistance among direct and indirect RFSA 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 IMPEL | Implementer-Led Evaluation and Learning 20 Annex 4: Summary Of Data Treatment and Analysis 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 RFSA area. Sampling weights included. Baseline Study of the ViMPlus RFSA in Burkina Faso: Final Report (Vol. III) Annex 4: Summary Of Data Treatment and Analysis 21 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 8 summarizes the bivariate analyses conducted for the 2020 baseline study of the BHA RFSA in Burkina Faso. Table 8: Summary of bivariate analyses conducted for the 2020 baseline study of the BHA RFSA in Burkina Faso 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 IMPEL | Implementer-Led Evaluation and Learning 22 Annex 4: Summary Of Data Treatment and Analysis Outcome indicators Intermediate indicators 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 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 Baseline Study of the ViMPlus RFSA in Burkina Faso: Final Report (Vol. III) Annex 4: Summary Of Data Treatment and Analysis 23 Outcome indicators Intermediate indicators 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 IMPEL | Implementer-Led Evaluation and Learning 24 Annex 4: Summary Of Data Treatment and Analysis Outcome indicators Intermediate indicators Compost X X X Microdoses of fertilizer X X X 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 Baseline Study of the ViMPlus RFSA in Burkina Faso: Final Report (Vol. III) Annex 4: Summary Of Data Treatment and Analysis 25 Outcome indicators Intermediate indicators 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 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 IMPEL | Implementer-Led Evaluation and Learning 26 Annex 4: Summary Of Data Treatment and Analysis Outcome indicators Intermediate indicators Notes: 1 Bivariate analysis of each type of improved management practice was performed for each commodity separately. Results are provided for the RFSA area. 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 and children achieving a diet of minimum diversity (see Table 9). 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 RFSA in Burkina Faso FOOD CONSUMPTION OLS regression of household food consumption score MATERNAL AND CHILD HEALTH AND NUTRITION (MCHN) Logistic regression of women's minimum dietary diversity (MDD-W) Data Used in the Analysis The data used in these analyses were collected in the 2020 baseline survey of the BHA RFSA in Burkina Faso. 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; children’s health and nutrition; 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), the percentage of women achieving a diet of minimum diversity (MDD-W), and the percentage of children achieving a diet of minimum diversity (MDD-C). The survey asked respondents “How many days did you or members of your household eat [FOOD] during the past seven days either inside or outside your home?”; enumerators repeated this question Baseline Study of the ViMPlus RFSA in Burkina Faso: Final Report (Vol. III) Annex 4: Summary Of Data Treatment and Analysis 27 for each 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. Similarly, MDD-C was calculated based on interviews with the child’s primary caregiver who was asked questions about different food groups consumed by the child in the day or night prior to the interview. A child is considered to achieve an MDD-C is they consumed 5 or more of the 8 food groups. Explanatory Variables The analyses controlled for individual, household and intervention-specific factors that can influence household food consumption and women and children’s 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 and children’s 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. Models of children’s dietary diversity control for child age and sex. 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 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 and children’s 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 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 28 Annex 4: Summary Of Data Treatment and Analysis 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. 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 4 For the analyses of children and women’s dietary diversity, this information was linked back to the household to which the woman or child 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 ViMPlus RFSA in Burkina Faso: Final Report (Vol. III) Annex 4: Summary Of Data Treatment and Analysis 29 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 and children 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. Next, intervention-specific factors are added, first those related to access to financial services followed by adoption of improved management practices. The final model includes village dummy variables to control for village-specific influences that are unrelated to the RFSA. 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 samples of women and children 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 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 (or children) 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). 𝑃𝑃1ℎ𝑖𝑖= first-stage sampling probability of the i-th cluster in stratum h 6 Multivariate analysis of the percentage of children achieving a diet of minimum diversity (MDD-C) was conducted on the full sample controlling for RFSA area. Many of the covariates, particularly intervention-specific factors such as adoption of improved management practices, take on the value ‘0’ (i.e., they are not adopted by the child’s households) or there are very few observations with the value ‘1.’ IMPEL | Implementer-Led Evaluation and Learning 30 Annex 4: Summary Of Data Treatment and Analysis 𝑃𝑃2ℎ𝑖𝑖= second-stage sampling probability within the i-th cluster (household selection). The probability of selecting cluster i in the sample is: 𝑃𝑃1ℎ𝑖𝑖= 𝑚𝑚ℎ × 𝑁𝑁ℎ𝑖𝑖 𝑁𝑁ℎ × 𝑏𝑏ℎ𝑖𝑖 The second-stage probability of selecting households in cluster i is: 𝑃𝑃2ℎ𝑖𝑖 = 𝑛𝑛ℎ𝑖𝑖/Lℎ𝑖𝑖 Where: 𝑚𝑚ℎ= number of sample clusters selected in stratum h. 𝑁𝑁ℎ𝑖𝑖= total households in the frame for the i-th sample cluster in stratum h. 𝑁𝑁ℎ= total households in the frame in stratum h. 𝑏𝑏ℎ𝑖𝑖= the number of selected segments7 divided by the total number of segments in the i-th sample cluster in stratum h 𝑛𝑛ℎ𝑖𝑖 = number of sample households selected for the i-th sample cluster in stratum h. 𝐿𝐿ℎ𝑖𝑖= 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: 𝑃𝑃ℎ𝑖𝑖 = 𝑃𝑃1ℎ𝑖𝑖 x 𝑃𝑃2ℎ𝑖𝑖 = 𝑚𝑚ℎ × 𝑁𝑁ℎ𝑖𝑖 𝑁𝑁ℎ × 𝑏𝑏ℎ𝑖𝑖 × 𝑛𝑛ℎ𝑖𝑖/Lℎ𝑖𝑖 The household design weight for each household in cluster i of stratum h is the inverse of its overall selection probability: 𝑊𝑊ℎ𝑖𝑖 = 1 𝑃𝑃ℎ𝑖𝑖 = 𝑁𝑁ℎ×𝐿𝐿ℎ𝑖𝑖 𝑚𝑚ℎ×𝑁𝑁ℎ𝑖𝑖×𝑛𝑛ℎ𝑖𝑖×𝑏𝑏ℎ𝑖𝑖 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 ViMPlus RFSA in Burkina Faso: Final Report (Vol. III) Annex 5: BHA Burkina Faso Baseline Indicators - VimPlus 31 ANNEX 5: BHA BURKINA FASO BASELINE INDICATORS – VIMPLUS Indicators, 95% Confidence Intervals and Base Population [Burkina Faso, 2020] Table 10: BHA Burkina Faso Baseline Indicators – VimPlus Indicator Value Confidence Interval Number of Records Weighted Population Standard Deviation Standard Lower Upper Error DEFT FOOD SECURITY INDICATORS Percentage of households with poor food consumption score (FCS) 2.4 0.7 4.2 749 116,146 15.4 0.84 1.5 Male and female adults 2.3 0.7 3.9 710 107,979 15.1 0.78 1.4 Adult female, no adult male 5.7 0.0 15.1 30 6,318 19.8 4.6 1.3 Adult male, no adult female ^ ^ ^ 9 1,849 ^ ^ ^ Child, no adults NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA Percentage of households with borderline FCS 14.2 9.5 19.0 749 116,146 35.0 2.31 1.8 Male and female adults 14.4 10.1 18.8 710 107,979 35.5 2.10 1.6 Adult female, no adult male 12.5 0.0 29.7 30 6,318 28.4 8.3 1.6 Adult male, no adult female ^ ^ ^ 9 1,849 ^ ^ ^ Child, no adults NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA Percentage of households with adequate FCS 83.3 77.2 89.5 749 116,146 37.3 2.98 2.2 Male and female adults 83.3 77.7 88.9 710 107,979 37.7 2.72 1.9 Adult female, no adult male 81.8 58.1 105.5 30 6,318 33.1 11.5 1.9 Adult male, no adult female ^ ^ ^ 9 1,849 ^ ^ ^ Child, no adults NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA WASH INDICATORS Percentage of households using a basic water service 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 IMPEL | Implementer-Led Evaluation and Learning 32 Annex 5: BHA Burkina Faso Baseline Indicators - VimPlus Indicator Value Confidence Interval Number of Records Weighted Population Standard Deviation Standard Lower Upper Error DEFT 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 access to a basic sanitation facility 27.4 21.6 33.3 748 116,061 44.7 2.85 1.7 Male and female adults 27.2 20.4 34.1 709 107,895 45.0 3.31 2.0 Adult female, no adult male 38.9 24.1 53.7 30 6,318 41.8 7.2 0.9 Adult male, no adult female ^ ^ ^ 9 1,849 ^ ^ ^ Child, no adults NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA Percentage of households with soap and water at a handwashing station on premises 58.7 48.8 68.6 353 56,735 49.3 4.78 1.8 Male and female adults 59.1 47.9 70.3 338 54,247 50.0 5.41 2.0 Adult female, no adult male ^ ^ ^ 12 2,040 ^ ^ ^ Adult male, no adult female ^ ^ ^ 3 448 ^ ^ ^ Child, no adults NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA AGRICULTURAL INDICATORS Percentage of farmers who used financial services in the past 12 months 49.4 28.1 70.8 1,077 191,131 50.0 10.34 6.8 Male 49.9 30.3 69.6 719 124,132 50.7 9.53 5.0 Female 48.5 22.8 74.2 358 66,999 48.7 12.46 4.8 Percentage of farmers who used improved storage practices in the past 12 months 31.6 23.8 39.4 954 164,958 46.5 3.80 2.5 Male 36.9 28.9 44.9 684 117,353 49.0 3.89 2.1 Female 18.5 11.8 25.3 270 47,605 38.6 3.28 1.4 Proportion of producers who have applied targeted improved management practices or technologies Sorghum Crop genetics practices/technologies Use of improved seeds 6.7 3.4 9.9 751 125,507 25.0 1.6 1.7 Cultural practices/technologies Control of sida cordifolia growth 0.2 0.0 0.5 751 125,507 3.9 0.2 1.1 Baseline Study of the ViMPlus RFSA in Burkina Faso: Final Report (Vol. III) Annex 5: BHA Burkina Faso Baseline Indicators - VimPlus 33 Indicator Value Confidence Interval Number of Records Weighted Population Standard Deviation Standard Lower Upper Error DEFT Crop association 20.0 13.1 27.0 751 125,507 40.0 3.4 2.3 Crop rotation 3.0 0.4 5.5 751 125,507 17.0 1.2 2.0 Sowing after useful rain 62.6 51.9 73.4 751 125,507 48.4 5.2 2.9 Improved natural resources or ecosystem management practices/technologies Farmer managed natural regeneration (fmnr) 27.9 17.3 38.4 751 125,507 44.9 5.1 3.1 Delimitation of animal corridors and pasture areas 33.4 27.0 39.8 751 125,507 47.2 3.1 1.8 Protection of ponds against silting up 35.0 24.8 45.2 751 125,507 47.7 4.9 2.8 Functional community-based conflict management mechanisms 4.0 1.2 6.9 751 125,507 19.7 1.4 1.9 Recovery of degraded lands 5.0 3.2 6.8 751 125,507 21.8 0.9 1.1 Develop low or market gardens 1.8 0.0 3.8 751 125,507 13.3 1.0 2.0 Improved pest and disease management practices/technologies Delay of seedlings at third or fourth rains to control pests 2.6 0.0 5.4 751 125,507 16.0 1.3 2.3 Seed treatment with fungicides 5.8 0.0 13.3 751 125,507 23.5 3.6 4.2 Improved soil-related fertility and conservation practices/technologies Zai pits 62.5 55.1 69.9 751 125,507 48.4 3.6 2.0 Organic manure 70.4 63.9 77.0 751 125,507 45.7 3.2 1.9 Phosphatic manure 17.3 7.4 27.3 751 125,507 37.9 4.8 3.5 Compost 12.3 8.2 16.4 751 125,507 32.9 2.0 1.7 Microdoses of fertilizer 0.6 0.0 1.4 751 125,507 7.4 0.4 1.5 Improved agriculture water management non-irrigation￾based practices/technologies Agricultural half-moons 8.3 3.3 13.4 751 125,507 27.7 2.5 2.4 Improved climate adaptation/climate risk management practices/technologies Use of climate information (rain forecast, disaster risks, etc.) 0.0 ^ ^ 751 125,507 ^ ^ ^ Improved post-harvest handling and storage practices/technologies IMPEL | Implementer-Led Evaluation and Learning 34 Annex 5: BHA Burkina Faso Baseline Indicators - VimPlus Indicator Value Confidence Interval Number of Records Weighted Population Standard Deviation Standard Lower Upper Error DEFT Locally made storage structures such as sheet metal silos 4.8 0.8 8.8 723 120,421 21.4 1.9 2.4 Sealed/airtight bags 17.9 14.1 21.7 723 120,421 38.3 1.8 1.3 Community storage facilities, including warehouse receipting 3.2 0.8 5.6 723 120,421 17.6 1.2 1.8 Use of solar or fuel-powered dryers to reduce post￾harvest moisture 0.0 ^ ^ 723 120,421 ^ ^ ^ Seed or grain treatment techniques including botanical pest control agents or phytosanitary irradiation 0.6 0.0 1.2 723 120,421 7.5 0.3 1.1 Grain treatment with agro-chemicals 0.4 0.0 0.9 723 120,421 6.4 0.2 0.9 Triple bags for cowpea grain preservation 5.3 2.5 8.1 723 120,421 22.4 1.3 1.6 Other post-harvest practices that reduce pre-storage losses 1.5 0.2 2.9 723 120,421 12.3 0.7 1.4 Other improved practices/technologies Performing at least three weedings 12.5 7.3 17.6 751 125,507 33.1 2.5 2.1 Use of modern agricultural equipment 5.8 0.0 13.3 751 125,507 23.5 3.6 4.2 Use of agricultural credit to increase production 6.7 3.4 9.9 751 125,507 25.0 1.6 1.7 Cowpeas Crop genetics practices/technologies Use of improved seeds 8.1 3.4 12.8 822 143,945 27.4 2.3 2.4 Cultural practices/technologies Control of sida cordifolia growth 0.1 0.0 0.3 822 143,945 3.7 0.1 0.8 Crop association 16.4 11.6 21.2 822 143,945 37.0 2.3 1.8 Crop rotation 1.6 0.0 3.3 822 143,945 12.5 0.8 1.9 Sowing after useful rain 67.9 58.4 77.4 822 143,945 46.7 4.6 2.8 Improved natural resources or ecosystem management practices/technologies Farmer managed natural regeneration (fmnr) 24.5 15.1 33.9 822 143,945 43.0 4.6 3.0 Delimitation of animal corridors and pasture areas 33.7 27.3 40.1 822 143,945 47.3 3.1 1.9 Protection of ponds against silting up 32.4 19.4 45.4 822 143,945 46.8 6.3 3.9 Functional community-based conflict management mechanisms 3.8 0.4 7.2 822 143,945 19.1 1.6 2.4 Baseline Study of the ViMPlus RFSA in Burkina Faso: Final Report (Vol. III) Annex 5: BHA Burkina Faso Baseline Indicators - VimPlus 35 Indicator Value Confidence Interval Number of Records Weighted Population Standard Deviation Standard Lower Upper Error DEFT Recovery of degraded lands 4.6 3.3 5.9 822 143,945 21.0 0.6 0.9 Develop low or market gardens 1.2 0.0 2.3 822 143,945 10.7 0.6 1.5 Improved pest and disease management practices/technologies Delay of seedlings at third or fourth rains to control pests 4.0 0.0 8.3 822 143,945 19.6 2.1 3.0 Seed treatment with fungicides 8.2 1.3 15.1 822 143,945 27.5 3.3 3.5 Improved soil-related fertility and conservation practices/technologies Zai pits 26.8 16.8 36.9 822 143,945 44.3 4.9 3.1 Organic manure 67.4 58.0 76.8 822 143,945 46.9 4.6 2.8 Phosphatic manure 18.1 9.7 26.4 822 143,945 38.5 4.0 3.0 Compost 9.7 3.8 15.6 822 143,945 29.6 2.9 2.8 Microdoses of fertilizer 0.7 0.0 1.5 822 143,945 8.5 0.4 1.3 Improved agriculture water management non-irrigation￾based practices/technologies Agricultural half-moons 5.5 0.1 10.9 822 143,945 22.8 2.6 3.3 Improved climate adaptation/climate risk management practices/technologies Use of climate information (rain forecast, disaster risks, etc.) 0.1 0.0 0.2 822 143,945 2.6 0.1 0.8 Improved post-harvest handling and storage practices/technologies Locally made storage structures such as sheet metal silos 1.4 0.1 2.7 806 141,401 11.7 0.6 1.6 Sealed/airtight bags 16.1 11.3 20.9 806 141,401 36.8 2.3 1.8 Community storage facilities, including warehouse receipting 2.3 0.1 4.5 806 141,401 14.9 1.1 2.0 Use of solar or fuel-powered dryers to reduce post￾harvest moisture 0.6 0.0 1.5 806 141,401 7.4 0.4 1.7 Seed or grain treatment techniques including botanical pest control agents or phytosanitary irradiation 0.9 0.0 2.0 806 141,401 9.6 0.5 1.5 Grain treatment with agro-chemicals 1.8 0.1 3.5 806 141,401 13.3 0.8 1.7 Triple bags for cowpea grain preservation 8.4 4.7 12.0 806 141,401 27.7 1.8 1.8 IMPEL | Implementer-Led Evaluation and Learning 36 Annex 5: BHA Burkina Faso Baseline Indicators - VimPlus Indicator Value Confidence Interval Number of Records Weighted Population Standard Deviation Standard Lower Upper Error DEFT Other post-harvest practices that reduce pre-storage losses 0.1 0.0 0.2 806 141,401 2.6 0.1 0.8 Other improved practices/technologies Performing at least three weedings 12.0 7.9 16.2 822 143,945 32.6 2.0 1.8 Use of modern agricultural equipment 8.2 1.3 15.1 822 143,945 27.5 3.3 3.5 Use of agricultural credit to increase production 8.1 3.4 12.8 822 143,945 27.4 2.3 2.4 Rice Crop genetics practices/technologies Use of improved seeds 3.3 0.0 6.5 114 17,936 17.8 1.5 0.9 Cultural practices/technologies Respect of cultural calendar 47.4 32.3 62.5 114 17,936 50.2 7.2 1.5 Nursery preparation 3.4 0.0 6.9 114 17,936 18.2 1.7 1.0 Improved natural resources or ecosystem management practices/technologies Farmer managed natural regeneration (fmnr) 20.4 3.0 37.9 114 17,936 40.5 8.3 2.2 Delimitation of animal corridors and pasture areas 46.2 25.5 66.8 114 17,936 50.1 9.9 2.1 Protection of ponds against silting up 54.2 35.1 73.4 114 17,936 50.0 9.1 2.0 Functional community-based conflict management mechanisms 8.3 0.0 16.7 114 17,936 27.6 4.0 1.6 Recovery of degraded lands 2.2 0.0 4.9 114 17,936 14.8 1.3 0.9 Develop low or market gardens 9.9 0.7 19.0 114 17,936 30.0 4.4 1.6 Improved pest and disease management practices/technologies Weed control 15.5 3.9 27.0 114 17,936 36.3 5.5 1.6 Pest control 17.4 8.3 26.5 114 17,936 38.1 4.4 1.2 Improved soil-related fertility and conservation practices/technologies Organic manure 78.6 62.5 94.8 114 17,936 41.2 7.7 2.0 Phosphatic manure 38.7 23.3 54.2 114 17,936 48.9 7.4 1.6 Compost 31.7 20.6 42.8 114 17,936 46.7 5.3 1.2 Baseline Study of the ViMPlus RFSA in Burkina Faso: Final Report (Vol. III) Annex 5: BHA Burkina Faso Baseline Indicators - VimPlus 37 Indicator Value Confidence Interval Number of Records Weighted Population Standard Deviation Standard Lower Upper Error DEFT Microdoses of fertilizer 13.5 0.0 29.0 114 17,936 34.3 7.4 2.3 Soil preparation 8.7 0.0 21.0 114 17,936 28.3 5.8 2.2 Improved agriculture water management non-irrigation￾based practices/technologies Water management 19.7 9.5 29.9 114 17,936 39.9 4.9 1.3 Improved climate adaptation/climate risk management practices/technologies Use of climate information (rain forecast, disaster risks, etc.) 0.6 0.0 2.0 114 17,936 8.0 0.7 0.9 Improved post-harvest handling and storage practices/technologies Locally made storage structures such as sheet metal silos 0.6 0.0 1.9 108 16,928 7.7 0.6 0.8 Sealed/airtight bags 20.8 11.4 30.2 108 16,928 40.8 4.5 1.1 Community storage facilities, including warehouse receipting 5.2 0.8 9.6 108 16,928 22.3 2.1 1.0 Use of solar or fuel-powered dryers to reduce post￾harvest moisture 7.4 0.0 18.3 108 16,928 26.4 5.2 2.0 Seed or grain treatment techniques including botanical pest control agents or phytosanitary irradiation 4.0 0.0 9.4 108 16,928 19.7 2.6 1.3 Grain treatment with agro-chemicals 2.9 0.0 6.2 108 16,928 16.8 1.6 1.0 Triple bags for cowpea grain preservation 15.0 3.7 26.3 108 16,928 35.9 5.4 1.6 Other post-harvest practices that reduce pre-storage losses 0.0 ^ ^ 108 16,928 ^ ^ ^ Other improved practices/technologies Use of modern agricultural equipment 2.2 0.0 4.9 114 17,936 14.7 1.3 0.9 Use of agricultural credit to increase production 1.1 0.0 3.4 114 17,936 10.4 1.1 1.1 Onions Crop genetics practices/technologies Use of improved seeds 0.0 ^ ^ 39 0.0 ^ ^ ^ Cultural practices/technologies Control of sida cordifolia growth 0.0 ^ ^ 39 5,750 ^ ^ 0.0 Crop association 3.5 0.0 11.6 39 5,750 18.6 3.5 1.2 IMPEL | Implementer-Led Evaluation and Learning 38 Annex 5: BHA Burkina Faso Baseline Indicators - VimPlus Indicator Value Confidence Interval Number of Records Weighted Population Standard Deviation Standard Lower Upper Error DEFT Crop rotation 3.5 0.0 11.6 39 5,750 18.6 3.5 1.2 Sowing after useful rain 18.8 0.0 39.9 39 5,750 39.6 9.1 1.4 Improved natural resources or ecosystem management practices/technologies Farmer managed natural regeneration (fmnr) 22.2 8.1 36.2 39 5,750 42.1 6.1 0.9 Delimitation of animal corridors and pasture areas 57.1 25.3 88.8 39 5,750 50.1 13.8 1.7 Protection of ponds against silting up 29.6 1.1 58.2 39 5,750 46.3 12.4 1.7 Functional community-based conflict management mechanisms 12.0 0.0 28.7 39 5,750 33.0 7.2 1.4 Recovery of degraded lands 13.6 0.0 33.4 39 5,750 34.7 8.6 1.5 Develop low or market gardens 8.9 0.0 20.4 39 5,750 28.8 5.0 1.1 Improved pest and disease management practices/technologies Delay of seedlings at third or fourth rains to control pests 8.5 0.0 24.3 39 5,750 28.2 6.9 1.5 Seed treatment with fungicides ^ ^ ^ 39 ^ ^ ^ ^ Improved soil-related fertility and conservation practices/technologies Zai pits 17.1 0.0 39.4 39 5,750 38.1 9.7 1.6 Organic manure 50.1 36.3 63.9 39 5,750 50.7 6.0 0.7 Phosphatic manure 54.1 8.3 99.8 39 5,750 50.5 19.8 2.5 Compost 8.6 0.0 19.9 39 5,750 28.4 4.9 1.1 Microdoses of fertilizer 6.8 0.0 17.5 39 5,750 25.5 4.6 1.1 Improved agriculture water management non-irrigation￾based practices/technologies Agricultural half-moons 6.7 0.0 16.4 39 5,750 25.4 4.2 1.0 Improved climate adaptation/climate risk management practices/technologies Use of climate information (rain forecast, disaster risks, etc.) 3.4 0.0 11.0 39 5,750 18.3 3.3 1.1 Improved post-harvest handling and storage practices/technologies Locally made storage structures such as sheet metal silos 0.0 37 5,446 0.0 0.0 Baseline Study of the ViMPlus RFSA in Burkina Faso: Final Report (Vol. III) Annex 5: BHA Burkina Faso Baseline Indicators - VimPlus 39 Indicator Value Confidence Interval Number of Records Weighted Population Standard Deviation Standard Lower Upper Error DEFT Sealed/airtight bags 3.6 0.0 11.5 37 5,446 18.8 3.4 1.1 Community storage facilities, including warehouse receipting 1.8 0.0 6.5 37 5,446 13.4 2.0 0.9 Use of solar or fuel-powered dryers to reduce post￾harvest moisture 0.0 ^ ^ 37 5,446 ^ ^ ^ Seed or grain treatment techniques including botanical pest control agents or phytosanitary irradiation 0.0 ^ ^ 37 5,446 ^ ^ ^ Grain treatment with agro-chemicals 0.0 ^ ^ 37 5,446 ^ ^ ^ Triple bags for cowpea grain preservation 0.0 ^ ^ 37 5,446 ^ ^ ^ Other post-harvest practices that reduce pre-storage losses 0.0 ^ ^ 37 5,446 ^ ^ ^ Other improved practices/technologies Performing at least three weedings 12.2 1.2 23.3 39 5,750 33.2 4.8 0.9 Use of modern agricultural equipment 3.4 0.0 11.0 39 5,750 18.3 3.3 1.1 Use of agricultural credit to increase production 8.7 0.0 19.2 39 5,750 28.6 4.5 1.0 Goats Improved fodder production 4.1 0.3 8.0 464 80,904 19.9 1.9 2.0 Use of licking and/or multi-nutritional block 8.9 2.6 15.2 464 80,904 28.5 3.0 2.3 Animal selection 12.5 6.5 18.4 464 80,904 33.1 2.9 1.9 Vaccinations 95.4 92.0 98.8 464 80,904 21.1 1.6 1.7 Antiparasitic treatments 29.4 24.8 34.0 464 80,904 45.6 2.2 1.1 Veterinary monitoring of food quality and quantity over time 1.2 0.0 2.4 464 80,904 10.9 0.6 1.1 Weight monitoring 3.1 0.0 6.4 464 80,904 17.2 1.6 2.0 Optimum weight-market price criteria for the sale decision 0.0 ^ ^ 464 80,904 ^ ^ ^ Use of para-veterinary services for goats and sheep 1.8 0.0 3.6 464 80,904 13.3 0.9 1.4 Sheep Improved fodder production 4.0 0.0 8.1 545 103,153 19.5 2.0 2.4 Use of licking and/or multi-nutritional block 11.3 6.9 15.6 545 103,153 31.6 2.1 1.6 Animal selection 11.7 6.3 17.2 545 103,153 32.2 2.6 1.9 IMPEL | Implementer-Led Evaluation and Learning 40 Annex 5: BHA Burkina Faso Baseline Indicators - VimPlus Indicator Value Confidence Interval Number of Records Weighted Population Standard Deviation Standard Lower Upper Error DEFT Vaccinations 96.1 92.8 99.5 545 103,153 19.3 1.6 1.9 Antiparasitic treatments 30.5 25.1 35.9 545 103,153 46.1 2.6 1.3 Veterinary monitoring of food quality and quantity over time 2.4 1.4 3.4 545 103,153 15.4 0.5 0.7 Weight monitoring 3.9 0.0 8.7 545 103,153 19.4 2.3 2.8 Optimum weight-market price criteria for the sale decision 0.2 0.0 0.6 545 103,153 4.3 0.2 1.1 Use of para-veterinary services for goats and sheep 2.2 0.0 4.7 545 103,153 14.6 1.2 1.9 Poultry Use of improved poultry variety/breed 6.6 2.5 10.7 430 76,933 24.8 2.0 1.7 Use of improved feed 7.6 2.7 12.4 430 76,933 26.5 2.3 1.8 Use of improved shelters 14.0 9.8 18.3 430 76,933 34.8 2.1 1.2 Vaccinations 94.9 90.3 99.5 430 76,933 22.1 2.2 2.1 Use of veterinary products and services (antibiotics, vitamins, etc.) 4.7 2.4 7.1 430 76,933 21.3 1.1 1.1 WOMEN'S HEALTH AND NUTRITION INDICATORS Percentage of women of reproductive age consuming a diet of minimum diversity (MDD-W) 61.7 54.5 68.8 1,525 270,029 48.6 3.46 2.8 15-19 years 57.3 46.4 68.3 374 69,717 48.2 5.30 2.1 20-49 years 63.2 56.3 70.1 1,151 200,312 48.7 3.34 2.3 Percent of births receiving at least 4 antenatal care (ANC) visits during pregnancy 61.3 52.2 70.3 898 152,491 48.7 4.37 2.7 Contraceptive prevalence rate (CPR) 24.8 17.7 31.9 1,057 176,777 43.2 3.45 2.6 Modern 24.6 17.4 31.7 1,057 176,777 43.1 3.48 2.6 Traditional 0.4 0.0 0.8 1,057 176,777 6.0 0.20 1.1 Percent of women in union who have knowledge of modern family planning methods that can be used to delay or avoid pregnancy 69.4 46.6 92.2 245 44,610 46.2 11.03 3.7 15-19 years 87.5 77.9 97.0 159 25,575 33.2 4.60 1.7 20-29 years 93.5 89.0 98.1 516 90,967 24.6 2.22 2.1 30-49 years 92.8 89.8 95.8 541 85,340 25.9 1.46 1.3 Percent of women in union who made decisions about modern family planning methods in the past 12 months 69.4 46.6 92.2 245 44,610 46.2 11.03 3.7 Baseline Study of the ViMPlus RFSA in Burkina Faso: Final Report (Vol. III) Annex 5: BHA Burkina Faso Baseline Indicators - VimPlus 41 Indicator Value Confidence Interval Number of Records Weighted Population Standard Deviation Standard Lower Upper Error DEFT Decision Actors Alone 53.2 28.0 78.5 245 44,610 50.0 12.24 3.8 Jointly 16.2 7.8 24.5 245 44,610 36.9 4.04 1.7 Age 15-19 years 14 2,483 20-29 years 68.2 42.1 94.2 110 21,498 46.8 12.63 2.8 30-49 years 69.4 48.6 90.3 121 20,629 46.3 10.1 2.4 CHILDREN'S HEALTH AND NUTRITION INDICATORS Percentage of children 6-23 months consuming a diet of minimum dietary diversity (MDD-C) 50.8 44.0 57.5 405 65,600 50.1 3.27 1.3 Male 56.2 39.3 73.0 195 30,678 49.3 8.17 2.3 Female 46.0 31.9 60.1 210 34,922 48.5 6.82 2.0 Percentage of children under age 5 with diarrhea in the last two weeks (Total) 20.4 14.2 26.6 1,406 217,404 40.3 3.00 2.8 Male 21.9 15.2 28.6 678 104,766 41.4 3.23 2.0 Female 19.0 12.7 25.3 728 112,638 39.2 3.06 2.1 Percentage of children under age 5 with diarrhea treated with ORT (Total) 80.3 73.3 87.3 338 44,297 39.8 3.41 1.6 Male 78.2 68.9 87.4 177 22,927 44.4 4.48 1.3 Female 82.6 76.3 88.9 161 21,370 40.4 3.05 1.0 GENDER - CASH Percent of women/men in union who earned cash in the past 12 months Male 45.9 35.2 56.6 964 169,031 49.9 5.19 3.2 15-19 years ^ ^ ^ 13 1,906 ^ ^ ^ 20-29 years 49.0 37.5 60.6 208 35,712 50.5 5.59 1.6 30-49 years 55.6 41.5 69.7 434 79,873 48.5 6.83 2.9 ≥50 years 29.3 23.2 35.4 309 51,540 46.7 2.94 1.1 Female 19.1 10.7 27.6 1,475 246,439 39.3 4.10 4.0 15-19 years 15.5 8.2 22.9 174 27,711 37.1 3.57 1.3 20-29 years 18.0 9.5 26.5 546 94,008 37.9 4.13 2.5 30-49 years 23.2 11.8 34.7 575 90,888 43.4 5.55 3.1 IMPEL | Implementer-Led Evaluation and Learning 42 Annex 5: BHA Burkina Faso Baseline Indicators - VimPlus Indicator Value Confidence Interval Number of Records Weighted Population Standard Deviation Standard Lower Upper Error DEFT ≥50 years 14.0 7.6 20.5 180 33,832 32.7 3.12 1.3 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's 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 men in union and earning cash who report spouse/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 77.1 71.1 83.2 638 113,605 42.0 2.92 1.8 15-19 years 7 1,085 20-29 years 77.7 69.1 86.2 150 27,003 41.5 4.14 1.2 30-49 years 76.0 69.9 82.1 317 57,955 42.2 2.97 1.3 ≥50 years 78.9 66.1 91.6 164 27,563 42.1 6.20 1.9 Female 73.5 66.2 80.8 711 114,540 44.2 3.54 2.1 15-19 years 71.3 55.8 86.8 136 20,945 46.3 7.51 1.9 20-29 years 74.5 68.2 80.9 336 55,829 42.9 3.08 1.3 Baseline Study of the ViMPlus RFSA in Burkina Faso: Final Report (Vol. III) Annex 5: BHA Burkina Faso Baseline Indicators - VimPlus 43 Indicator Value Confidence Interval Number of Records Weighted Population Standard Deviation Standard Lower Upper Error DEFT 30-49 years 72.0 64.0 80.1 218 34,347 45.4 3.90 1.3 ≥50 years ^ ^ ^ 21 3,420 ^ ^ ^ Percent of women/men in a union with access to credit Male 29.4 22.7 36.0 638 113,605 45.6 3.21 1.8 15-19 years 7 1,085 20-29 years 41.1 25.6 56.6 150 27,003 49.0 7.51 1.9 30-49 years 27.7 18.3 37.0 317 57,955 44.2 4.53 1.8 ≥50 years 22.2 11.7 32.8 164 27,563 42.8 5.10 1.5 Female 27.1 21.5 32.6 711 114,540 44.5 2.69 1.6 15-19 years 27.9 18.5 37.2 136 20,945 45.9 4.53 1.2 20-29 years 25.3 18.8 31.7 336 55,829 42.8 3.12 1.3 30-49 years 29.6 22.1 37.1 218 34,347 46.2 3.65 1.2 ≥50 years ^ ^ ^ 21 3,420 ^ ^ ^ Percent of men in a union who make decisions about credit 89.4 79.4 99.5 217 33,375 30.8 4.85 2.3 Decision Actors Alone 70.1 53.9 86.4 217 33,375 45.9 7.84 2.5 Jointly 19.3 10.9 27.6 217 33,375 39.5 4.03 1.5 Age 15-19 years ^ ^ ^ 1 101 ^ ^ ^ 20-29 years 75.4 53.5 97.2 57 11,108 43.5 10.44 1.8 30-49 years 99.4 98.0 100.7 112 16,036 8.0 0.65 0.9 ≥50 years 88.7 78.3 99.2 47 6,129 31.9 5.04 1.1 Percent of women in a union who make decisions about credit 73.1 65.0 81.2 200 31,006 44.4 3.91 1.2 Decision Actors Alone 37.5 21.3 53.7 200 31,006 48.5 7.86 2.3 Jointly 35.6 20.3 51.0 200 31,006 48.0 7.44 2.2 Age 15-19 years 69.6 53.4 85.8 37 5,841 46.6 7.71 1.0 20-29 years 69.9 57.8 81.9 84 14,097 46.2 5.83 1.2 30-49 years 79.8 67.4 92.1 72 10,164 40.5 5.99 1.3 IMPEL | Implementer-Led Evaluation and Learning 44 Annex 5: BHA Burkina Faso Baseline Indicators - VimPlus Indicator Value Confidence Interval Number of Records Weighted Population Standard Deviation Standard Lower Upper Error DEFT ≥50 years ^ ^ ^ 7 904 ^ ^ ^ RESILIENCE-RELATED Proportion of households that believe local government will respond effectively to future shocks and stresses 89.6 86.5 92.6 749 116,146 30.6 1.47 1.3 Male and female adults 89.8 86.8 92.9 711 108,069 30.5 1.50 1.3 Adult female, no adult male ^ ^ ^ 29 6,228 ^ ^ ^ Adult male, no adult female ^ ^ ^ 9 1,849 ^ ^ ^ Child, no adults NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA Index of social capital at the household level (overall index) 66.8 63.5 70.1 749 116,146 34.9 1.61 1.3 Male and female adults 68.0 64.7 71.2 711 108,069 35.0 1.58 1.2 Adult female, no adult male ^ ^ ^ 29 6,228 ^ ^ ^ Adult male, no adult female ^ ^ ^ 9 1,849 ^ ^ ^ Child, no adults NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA Component Bonding sub-index 71.2 67.8 74.6 749 116,146 35.8 1.64 1.3 Bridging sub-index 62.4 58.1 66.8 749 116,146 39.5 2.11 1.5 Proportion of households participating in group-based savings, micro-finance or lending programs 4.8 3.4 6.1 749 116,146 21.3 0.65 0.8 Male and female adults 5.1 3.5 6.7 711 108,069 22.3 0.78 0.9 Adult female, no adult male ^ ^ ^ 29 6,228 ^ ^ ^ Adult male, no adult female ^ ^ ^ 9 1,849 ^ ^ ^ Child, no adults NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA Financing type Savings 3.6 1.8 5.3 749 116,146 18.6 0.85 1.3 Credit 1.6 0.5 2.7 749 116,146 12.5 0.55 1.2 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 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 separately as part of the module on crop yield. The number of responding farmers differ across the two modules. Baseline Study of the ViMPlus RFSA in Burkina Faso: Final Report (Vol. III) Annex 6: Descriptive Statistical Tables 45 ANNEX 6: DESCRIPTIVE STATISTICAL TABLES Table 11: Estimated Population in the RFSA Area ViMPlus Total population 1,143,709 Male 544,188 Female 599,521 Adults age 15 or older 566,283 Male 253,946 Female 312,337 Cash earners (age 15 or older) 166,920 Male 103,180 Female 63,740 Farmers (age 15 or older) 191,131 Male 124,132 Female 66,999 Women of reproductive age (15-49 years) 270,895 Women 15-49 years who are married or in a union 205,885 Women 15-49 years with a live birth within the past five years 152,491 Children under 5 years of age 217,404 Male 104,766 Female 112,638 Children 6-23 months of age 65,600 Male 30,678 Female 34,922 Source: BHA 2020 Burkina Faso baseline survey weighted population estimates. NOTES: As stipulated by USAID’s Feed the Future (FTF) guideline, adults for gendered household type are defined as individuals 18 years of age or older. For the interviews and all other analyses, the age for adults is 15 or older. ^ Results not statistically reliable, n<30. IMPEL | Implementer-Led Evaluation and Learning 46 Annex 6: Descriptive Statistical Tables Table 12: Household Characteristics ViMPlus Gendered household type (Number of households)1 116,236 Male and female adults 108,069 Female adult(s) only 6,318 Male adult(s) only 1,849 Child(ren) only (no adults) ^ Gendered household type (Percentage of households) 100.0 Male and female adults 93.0 Female adult(s) only 5.4 Male adult(s) only 1.6 Child(ren) only (no adults) ^ Average household size (Number of persons) 9.8 Average number of adults 15 years of age or older per household 4.9 Percentage of households with children under 5 years of age 81.6 Percentage of households with a child 6-23 months of age 42.9 Household headship (Percentage female) 13.7 Number and percent of responding households 750 Male and female adults 711 (94.8%) Female adult(s) only 30 (4.6%) Male adult(s) only 9 (1.2%) Child(ren) only (no adults) 0 (0%) NOTES: As stipulated by USAID’s Feed the Future (FTF) guideline, adults for gendered household type are defined as individuals 18 years of age or older. For the interviews and all other analyses, the age for adults is 15 or older. ^ Results not statistically reliable, n<30. Baseline Study of the ViMPlus RFSA in Burkina Faso: Final Report (Vol. III) Annex 6: Descriptive Statistical Tables 47 Table 13: Activity Participation ViMPlus No. of HHs % Sig.a Household participation in BHA RFSA activities1 750 59.5 Male and female adults 711 61.0 * Adult female, no adult male 30 44.2 Adult male, no adult female 9 ^ Child, no adults 0 ^ Received food rations2 485 48.5 Male and female adults 468 48.5 ns Adult female, no adult male 13 ^ Adult male, no adult female 4 ^ Child, no adults 0 ^ Participated in nutrition trainings/meetings2 485 57.5 Male and female adults 468 57.5 ns Adult female, no adult male 13 ^ Adult male, no adult female 4 ^ Child, no adults 0 ^ Participated in agriculture-related trainings/meetings2 485 64.3 Male and female adults 468 63.4 ns Adult female, no adult male 13 ^ Adult male, no adult female 4 ^ Child, no adults 0 ^ Participated in trainings or events on open defecation, sanitation, hygiene, water quality or handwashing2 485 72.9 Male and female adults 468 71.7 ns Adult female, no adult male 13 ^ Adult male, no adult female 4 ^ Child, no adults 0 ^ Participated in other trainings or activities 485 13.5 Male and female adults 468 13.9 ns Adult female, no adult male 13 ^ Adult male, no adult female 4 ^ Child, no adults 0 ^ Household participation in any social assistance activities3 750 84.9 Male and female adults 711 85.5 ns Adult female, no adult male 30 84.6 Adult male, no adult female 9 ^ Child, no adults 0 ^ Received food rations 750 47.0 Male and female adults 711 46.6 ns IMPEL | Implementer-Led Evaluation and Learning 48 Annex 6: Descriptive Statistical Tables ViMPlus Adult female, no adult male 30 62.8 Adult male, no adult female 9 ^ Child, no adults 0 ^ Participated in nutrition trainings/meetings 750 42.3 Male and female adults 711 43.5 * Adult female, no adult male 30 28.1 Adult male, no adult female 9 ^ Child, no adults 0 ^ Participated in agriculture-related trainings/meetings 750 53.4 Male and female adults 711 54.7 * Adult female, no adult male 30 44.1 Adult male, no adult female 9 ^ Child, no adults 0 ^ Participated in trainings or events on open defecation, sanitation, hygiene, water quality or handwashing 750 65.4 Male and female adults 711 66.1 ns Adult female, no adult male 30 62.5 Adult male, no adult female 9 ^ Child, no adults 0 ^ Participated in other trainings or activities 750 9.0 Male and female adults 711 9.4 Adult female, no adult male 30 0.0 Adult male, no adult female 9 ^ Child, no adults 0 ^ NOTES: A household is considered to be participating in a social assistance activity if the respondent or any household member reported receiving or participating in the social assistance activity. ^ Results not statistically reliable, n<30. 1 Includes only households who reported participating in one of the BHA RFSAs. 2 Includes households who reported participating in one of the BHA RFSAs and who also reported receiving/participating in the specific type of intervention. Because households that participated in RFSA activities may also be participating in other donor activities, these estimates are only proxy measures of RFSA participation is specific activities. 3 Includes all households who reported participating in any social development assistance activity. Baseline Study of the ViMPlus RFSA in Burkina Faso: Final Report (Vol. III) Annex 6: Descriptive Statistical Tables 49 Table 14: Food Consumption Score (FCS) Components ViMPlus Poor FCS Borderline FCS Acceptable FCS Percentage of HHs by FCS group 2.4 14.2 83.3 Staples Percent of HHs consuming food item Bread, biscuits, couscous, rice, pasta, sorghum, millet, etc. 100.0 99.5 98.7 Potatoes, yam, cassava, sweet potato, miritchi, garin rogo, other roots or tubers 0.0 11.1 26.3 Frequency of consumption in days (mean) Bread, biscuits, couscous, rice, pasta, sorghum, millet, etc. 4.8 5.8 6.1 Potatoes, yam, cassava, sweet potatoes, miritchi, garin rogo, other roots or tubers 0.0 0.3 0.6 Pulses Percent of HHs consuming food item 56.3 96.8 99.1 Frequency of consumption in days (mean) 1.2 3.5 5.4 Vegetables Percent of HHs consuming food item 21.7 21.2 27.7 Frequency of consumption in days (mean) 0.4 0.6 0.8 Fruit Percent of HHs consuming food item 21.7 27.0 52.3 Frequency of consumption in days (mean) 0.3 0.5 1.4 Meat and Fish Percent of HHs consuming food item Beef, pork, lamb, goat, rabbit, chicken, organ meats, etc. 0.0 19.1 52.5 Eggs 0.0 4.3 17.4 Fresh or dried fish or shellfish 12.5 44.7 84.4 Frequency of consumption in days (mean) Beef, pork, lamb, goat, rabbit, chicken, organ meats, etc… 0.0 0.3 1.3 Eggs 0.0 0.1 0.5 Fresh or dried fish or shellfish 0.2 0.9 3.8 Milk and Dairy Percent of HHs consuming food item 3.3 10.6 36.2 Frequency of consumption in days (mean) 0.1 0.2 1.3 Sugar Percent of HHs consuming food item 49.9 62.6 83.9 IMPEL | Implementer-Led Evaluation and Learning 50 Annex 6: Descriptive Statistical Tables ViMPlus Frequency of consumption in days (mean) 1.5 2.0 4.2 Oil Percent of HHs consuming food item 47.3 49.3 80.7 Frequency of consumption in days (mean) 1.3 1.2 2.6 Condiments Percent of HHs consuming food item 56.3 56.2 70.3 Frequency of consumption in days (mean) 1.9 2.0 3.7 Number of responding households 26 121 602 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 detailed refer to Supplement to Part 1 - FFP Baseline/Endline Questionnaire and Indicator Tabulations for Development Food Security Activities. Table 15: Mean Food Consumption Score (FCS) by Gendered Household Type ViMPlus No. of HHs Mean Food Consumption Score All households 749 53.5 Male and female adults 710 53.5 Female adult(s) only 30 51.5 Male adult(s) only 9 57.6 Child(ren) only (no adults) 0 ^ 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. For more detailed refer to Supplement to Part 1 - FFP Baseline/Endline Questionnaire and Indicator Tabulations for Development Food Security Activities. Baseline Study of the ViMPlus RFSA in Burkina Faso: Final Report (Vol. III) Annex 6: Descriptive Statistical Tables 51 Table 16: Percentage of Sorghum Farmers by Background Characteristics, in Total and by Farmers' Sex and Age ViMPlus Total Male Female Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 Age1 15-19 0.7 1.4 0.8 20-24 5.6 7.6 6.0 25-29 7.6 8.5 7.8 30-34 14.7 5.8 12.6 35-39 13.2 8.5 12.1 40-44 13.5 10.6 12.8 45-49 9.6 14.7 10.8 50-54 10.1 14.5 11.2 55-59 5.8 14.1 7.8 60+ 19.3 14.3 18.1 Number of responding sorghum farmers 580 171 751 1Differences in the age distribution by sex are not statistically significant. Table 17: Percentage of Cowpea Farmers by Background Characteristics, in Total and by Farmers' Sex and Age ViMPlus Total Male Female Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 Age 15-19 1.5 0.8 3.0 20-24 7.9 6.4 11.6 25-29 7.8 6.6 11.0 30-34 13.6 14.7 11.0 35-39 12.8 14.9 7.6 40-44 11.9 12.5 10.5 45-49 9.9 9.7 10.1 50-54 10.4 9.4 12.7 55-59 7.0 5.8 9.9 60+ 17.3 19.1 12.5 Number of responding cowpea farmers 822 599 223 1Differences in the age distribution by sex are not statistically significant. IMPEL | Implementer-Led Evaluation and Learning 52 Annex 6: Descriptive Statistical Tables Table 18: Percentage of Rice Farmers by Background Characteristics, in Total and by Farmers' Sex and Age ViMPlus Total Male Female Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 Age 15-19 ^ ^ ^ 20-24 7.0 6.8 8.6 25-29 12.1 12.6 8.6 30-34 10.9 11.2 8.6 35-39 8.8 9.4 5.1 40-44 11.4 11.7 9.4 45-49 11.5 12.0 8.6 50-54 5.6 6.4 0.0 55-59 11.0 5.8 47.0 60+ 21.6 24.1 4.3 Number of responding rice farmers 114 100 14 ^ Results not statistically reliable, n<30. 1Differences in the age distribution by sex are not statistically significant. Table 19: Percentage of Onion Farmers by Background Characteristics, in Total and by Farmers' Sex and Age ViMPlus Total Male Female Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 Age1 15-19 ^ ^ ^ 20-24 10.1 0.0 39.5 25-29 3.5 4.7 0.0 30-34 29.1 32.2 20.2 35-39 11.9 11.5 13.2 40-44 3.5 2.4 6.6 45-49 17.5 18.8 13.6 50-54 5.3 7.1 0.0 55-59 5.2 4.5 7.0 60+ 13.9 18.7 0.0 Number of responding onion farmers 39 26 13 ^ Results not statistically reliable, n<30. 1Differences in the age distribution by sex are not statistically significant. Baseline Study of the ViMPlus RFSA in Burkina Faso: Final Report (Vol. III) Annex 6: Descriptive Statistical Tables 53 Table 20: Percentage of Goat Farmers by Background Characteristics, in Total and by Farmers' Sex and Age ViMPlus Total Male Female Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 Age 15-19 1.6 1.7 1.3 20-24 5.9 5.4 7.2 25-29 7.3 7.4 7.2 30-34 12.8 12.4 13.7 35-39 13.4 14.6 10.7 40-44 12.6 12.2 13.5 45-49 12.5 11.2 15.6 50-54 10.1 10.7 8.7 55-59 8.2 6.6 12.1 60+ 15.5 17.9 10.0 Number of responding goat farmers 464 340 124 1Differences in the age distribution by sex are not statistically significant. Table 21: Percentage of Sheep Farmers by Background Characteristics, in Total and by Farmers' Sex and Age ViMPlus Total Male Female Total Age 15-19 1.3 1.1 1.5 20-24 8.7 6.6 13.5 25-29 10.3 11.1 8.5 30-34 10.9 11.4 9.8 35-39 13.8 14.2 13.0 40-44 12.5 13.9 9.4 45-49 7.9 7.0 10.0 50-54 9.9 11.2 6.9 55-59 8.9 6.9 13.5 60+ 15.7 16.7 13.7 Number of responding sheep farmers 545 393 152 1Differences in the age distribution by sex are not statistically significant. IMPEL | Implementer-Led Evaluation and Learning 54 Annex 6: Descriptive Statistical Tables Table 22: Percentage of Poultry Farmers by Background Characteristics, in Total and by Farmers' Sex and Age ViMPlus Total Male Female Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 Age 15-19 0.9 0.9 0.8 20-24 7.7 7.2 10.5 25-29 7.4 7.8 5.3 30-34 9.5 11.4 0.8 35-39 12.7 12.9 11.9 40-44 14.3 13.9 16.5 45-49 10.2 9.4 13.9 50-54 11.5 10.2 17.8 55-59 8.1 7.4 11.5 60+ 17.6 19.0 11.0 Number of responding poultry farmers 430 357 73 1Differences in the age distribution by sex are not statistically significant. Table 23: Percentage of Farmers by Land Ownership Status and Farm Size, in Total and by Farmers' Sex and Age ViMPlus Total Male Female Sig.a 15-29 30+ Sig.a Land ownership Owned 95.5 94.4 98.4 * 92.7 96.2 ns Rented 4.2 5.5 1.2 * 7.3 3.6 ns Share-cropped 0.1 0.2 0.0 ns 0.0 0.1 ns None 0.1 0.0 0.4 ns 0.0 0.1 ns Farm size (Ha) <0.5 6.0 1.5 17.5 *** 18.9 3.2 *** ≥0.5-<1.0 12.5 7.6 25.0 * 13.4 12.4 ns ≥1.0-<2.5 55.9 57.3 52.4 ns 52.0 56.8 ns ≥2.5-<5.0 19.8 25.6 5.1 *** 14.1 21.0 * ≥5.0-<7.5 4.5 6.2 0.0 * 1.7 5.1 * ≥7.5-<10.0 0.4 0.5 0.0 ns 0.0 0.4 ns ≥10.0 0.9 1.3 0.0 ns 0.0 1.1 ns Number of responding farmers 943 682 261 190 753 Baseline Study of the ViMPlus RFSA in Burkina Faso: Final Report (Vol. III) Annex 6: Descriptive Statistical Tables 55 ViMPlus NOTES: a Significance tests were performed to determine whether an association exists between the outcome indicator (land ownership and land size) 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. Table 24: Percentage of Sorghum Farmers by Area Cultivated, in Total and by Farmers' Sex and Age ViMPlus Total Male Female Sig.a 15-29 30+ Sig.a Farm size (Ha) <0.5 10.6 7.2 21.5 ** 14.4 9.9 ns ≥0.5-<1.0 20.5 14.2 40.9 *** 23.5 20.0 ns ≥1.0-<2.5 55.2 61.0 36.1 *** 55.5 55.1 ns ≥2.5-<5.0 9.7 12.7 0.0 ** 4.5 10.6 * ≥5.0-<7.5 1.4 1.8 0.4 ns 1.1 1.5 ns ≥7.5-<10.0 0.4 0.4 0.4 ns 1.1 0.3 ns ≥10.0 2.2 2.7 0.8 ns 0.0 2.6 ns Number of responding sorghum farmers 713 552 161 116 597 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. Table 25: Percentage of Cowpea Farmers by Area Cultivated, in Total and by Farmers' Sex and Age ViMPlus Total Male Female Sig.a 15-29 30+ Sig.a Farm size (Ha) <0.5 27.7 20.0 47.1 *** 43.3 24.5 * ≥0.5-<1.0 30.3 28.1 35.9 ns 28.8 30.7 ns ≥1.0-<2.5 34.4 42.7 13.5 *** 26.6 35.9 * ≥2.5-<5.0 4.9 6.6 0.8 *** 1.3 5.6 * ≥5.0-<7.5 0.5 0.7 0.0 ns 0.0 0.6 ns ≥7.5-<10.0 0.1 0.0 0.3 ns 0.0 0.1 ns ≥10.0 2.1 1.9 2.5 ns 0.0 2.5 ns Number of responding cowpea farmers 767 559 208 145 622 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. IMPEL | Implementer-Led Evaluation and Learning 56 Annex 6: Descriptive Statistical Tables Table 26: Percentage of Rice Farmers by Area Cultivated, in Total and by Farmers' Sex and Age ViMPlus Total Male Female Sig.a 15-29 30+ Sig.a Farm size (Ha) <0.5 42.1 35.9 82.1 * 55.3 39.3 ns ≥0.5-<1.0 14.3 14.4 13.4 ns 0.0 17.4 * ≥1.0-<2.5 34.3 39.0 4.5 ** 37.8 33.6 ns ≥2.5-<5.0 7.3 8.5 0.0 ns 6.9 7.4 ns ≥5.0-<7.5 1.9 2.2 0.0 ns 0.0 2.3 ns ≥7.5-<10.0 … … … … … ≥10.0 … … … … … Number of responding rice farmers 101 88 13 20 81 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. Table 27: Percentage of Onion Farmers by Area Cultivated, in Total and by Farmers' Sex and Age ViMPlus Total Male Female Sig.a 15-29 30+ Sig.a Farm size (Ha) <0.5 50.1 ^ ^ ^ 41.6 ≥0.5-<1.0 9.1 ^ ^ ^ 10.6 ≥1.0-<2.5 29.9 ^ ^ ^ 35.0 ≥2.5-<5.0 5.4 ^ ^ ^ 6.4 ≥5.0-<7.5 5.4 ^ ^ ^ 6.4 ≥7.5-<10.0 … … … … … ≥10.0 … … … … … Number of responding onion farmers 36 23 13 6 30 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 by level: * p<0.05, ** p<0.01, *** p<0.001; ns=not significant. Baseline Study of the ViMPlus RFSA in Burkina Faso: Final Report (Vol. III) Annex 6: Descriptive Statistical Tables 57 Table 28: Percentage of Onion Farmers by Area Cultivated, in Total and by Farmers' Sex and Age ViMPlus Total Male Female Sig.a 15-29 30+ Sig.a Farm size (Ha) <0.5 50.1 31.2 100.0 100.0 41.6 ≥0.5-<1.0 9.1 12.5 0.0 0.0 10.6 ≥1.0-<2.5 29.9 41.3 0.0 0.0 35.0 ≥2.5-<5.0 5.4 7.5 0.0 0.0 6.4 ≥5.0-<7.5 5.4 7.5 0.0 0.0 6.4 ≥7.5-<10.0 … … … … … ≥10.0 … … … … … Number of responding onion farmers 36 23 13 6 30 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 by level: * p<0.05, ** p<0.01, *** p<0.001; ns=not significant. Table 29: Percentage of Farmers Using Financial Services by Type of Financial Services, in Total and by Farmers' Sex ViMPlus Total Male Female Sig.a Any financial services 49.4 49.9 48.5 ns Savings 45.4 45.6 45.1 ns Credit 14.3 14.1 14.8 ns Insurance 0.9 0.5 1.6 ns Percentage of farmers not using any financial services 49.4 49.9 48.5 ns Number of responding farmers 1077 719 358 NOTES: a Significance tests were performed to determine whether an association exists between the outcome indicator (use of financial services) and the disaggregate variable (sex). 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 58 Annex 6: Descriptive Statistical Tables Table 30: Percentage of Sorghum Farmers who Applied one or More Promoted Improved Storage Practices, in Total and by Farmers’ Sex and Age ViMPlus Total Sex Age 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 4.8 5.3 3.0 ns 5.3 4.7 ns Sealed/airtight bags 17.9 18.2 16.8 ns 25.1 16.6 ns Community storage facilities, including warehouse receipting 3.2 4.0 0.4 ** 3.5 3.2 ns Use of solar or fuel-powered dryers to reduce post-harvest moisture … … … … … Seed or grain treatment techniques including botanical pest control agents or phytosanitary irradiation 0.6 0.7 0.0 ns 0.0 0.7 ns Grain treatment with agro-chemicals 0.4 0.5 0.0 ns 0.6 0.4 ns Triple bags for sorghum grain preservation 5.3 5.5 4.5 ns 7.6 4.9 ns Other post-harvest practices that reduce pre-storage losses 1.5 2.0 0.0 ns 0.0 1.8 ns Number of responding sorghum farmers who stored their harvest1 751 580 171 115 608 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 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 separately as part of the module on crop yield. The numbers of responding farmers differ across the two modules. Table 31: Percentage of Cowpea Farmers who Applied one or More Promoted Improved Storage Practices, in Total and by Farmers’ Sex and Age ViMPlus Total Sex Age 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 1.4 1.8 0.3 * 0.4 1.6 ns Sealed/airtight bags 16.1 18.4 10.4 ** 18.2 15.7 ns Community storage facilities, including warehouse receipting 2.3 3.2 0.0 ns 0.0 2.7 ns Use of solar or fuel-powered dryers to reduce post-harvest moisture 0.6 0.4 1.0 ns 0.8 0.5 ns Seed or grain treatment techniques including botanical pest control agents or phytosanitary irradiation 0.9 1.0 0.7 ns 0.9 0.9 ns Grain treatment with agro-chemicals 1.8 2.1 1.0 ns 1.2 1.9 ns Baseline Study of the ViMPlus RFSA in Burkina Faso: Final Report (Vol. III) Annex 6: Descriptive Statistical Tables 59 ViMPlus Triple bags for cowpea grain preservation 8.4 9.9 4.4 ns 8.8 8.3 ns Other post-harvest practices that reduce pre￾storage losses 0.1 0.0 0.2 ns 0.0 0.1 ns Number of responding cowpea farmers who stored their harvest 822 599 223 154 652 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 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 separately as part of the module on crop yield. The numbers of responding farmers differ across the two modules. Table 32: Percentage of Rice Farmers who Applied one or More Promoted Improved Storage Practices, in Total and by Farmers’ Sex and Age ViMPlus Total Sex Age 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 0.6 0.7 0.0 ns 0.0 0.7 ns Sealed/airtight bags 20.8 22.0 12.8 ns 22.7 20.3 ns Community storage facilities, including warehouse receipting 5.2 6.0 0.0 ns 2.9 5.8 ns Use of solar or fuel-powered dryers to reduce post-harvest moisture 7.4 8.6 0.0 ns 0.0 9.3 ns Seed or grain treatment techniques including botanical pest control agents or phytosanitary irradiation 4.0 4.6 0.0 ns 2.8 4.3 ns Grain treatment with agro-chemicals 2.9 3.3 0.0 ns 0.0 3.6 ns Triple bags for rice grain preservation 15.0 17.3 0.0 ns 2.8 18.1 ns Other post-harvest practices that reduce pre-storage losses … … … ns … … ns Number of responding rice farmers who stored their harvest 108 94 14 24 84 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 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 separately as part of the module on crop yield. The numbers of responding farmers differ across the two modules. IMPEL | Implementer-Led Evaluation and Learning 60 Annex 6: Descriptive Statistical Tables Table 33: Percentage of Onion Farmers who Applied one or More Promoted Improved Storage Practices, in Total and by Farmers’ Sex and Age ViMPlus Total Sex Age 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 … … … … … … … Sealed/airtight bags 3.6 4.9 0.0 ns 0.0 4.2 ns Community storage facilities, including warehouse receipting 1.8 2.4 0.0 ns 0.0 2.1 ns Use of solar or fuel-powered dryers to reduce post-harvest moisture … … … … … … … Seed or grain treatment techniques including botanical pest control agents or phytosanitary irradiation … … … … … … … Grain treatment with agro-chemicals … … … … … … … Triple bags for cowpea grain preservation … … … … … … … Other post-harvest practices that reduce pre-storage losses … … … … … … … Number of responding onion farmers who stored their harvest 37 24 13 6 33 NOTES: ^ Results not statistically 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 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 separately as part of the module on crop yield. The numbers of responding farmers differ across the two modules. Table 34: Percentage of Sorghum Farmers who Applied one or More Promoted Improved Management Practices and Technologies, in Total and by Farmers’ Sex and Age ViMPlus Total Sex Age Male Female Sig.a 15-29 30+ Sig.a Crop genetics practices/technologies Use of improved seeds 6.7 8.0 2.4 ns 10.3 6.0 ns Cultural practices/technologies Control of sida cordifolia growth 0.2 0.2 0.0 ns 0.0 0.2 ns Crop association 20.0 18.1 26.2 ns 20.9 19.9 ns Crop rotation 3.0 2.9 3.3 ns 3.4 2.9 ns Sowing after useful rain 62.6 63.8 58.7 ns 66.1 62.0 ns Baseline Study of the ViMPlus RFSA in Burkina Faso: Final Report (Vol. III) Annex 6: Descriptive Statistical Tables 61 ViMPlus Improved natural resources or ecosystem management practices/technologies Farmer managed natural regeneration (fmnr) 27.9 31.2 17.0 ns 27.5 28.0 ns Delimitation of animal corridors and pasture areas 33.4 35.4 26.8 ns 44.1 31.6 * Protection of ponds against silting up 35.0 38.3 23.9 ns 39.5 34.2 ns Functional community-based conflict management mechanisms 4.0 5.1 0.7 * 2.1 4.4 ns Recovery of degraded lands 5.0 6.2 1.0 ** 4.0 5.1 ns Develop low or market gardens 1.8 2.2 0.3 ns 2.1 1.7 ns Improved pest and disease management practices/technologies Delay of seedlings at third or fourth rains to control pests 2.6 2.4 3.3 ns 3.2 2.5 ns Seed treatment with fungicides 5.8 6.1 4.9 * 7.4 5.6 ns Improved soil-related fertility and conservation practices/technologies Zai pits 62.5 67.8 44.8 *** 54.9 63.8 * Organic manure 70.4 68.7 76.0 ns 70.4 70.4 ns Phosphatic manure 17.3 18.6 13.1 ns 16.4 17.5 ns Compost 12.3 13.2 9.4 ns 10.2 12.7 ns Microdoses of fertilizer 0.6 0.7 0.0 ns 0.0 0.7 ns Improved agriculture water management non-irrigation-based practices/technologies Agricultural half-moons 8.3 10.4 1.4 *** 10.9 7.9 ns Improved climate adaptation/climate risk management practices/technologies Use of climate information (rain forecast, disaster risks, etc.) … … … … … … Other improved practices/technologies Performing at least three weedings 12.5 13.9 7.8 ns 17.3 11.6 * Use of modern agricultural equipment 15.0 16.6 9.7 ** 12.8 15.4 ns Use of agricultural credit 0.3 0.4 0.0 ns 1.6 0.1 * Number of responding sorghum farmers 751 580 159 NOTES: 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 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 62 Annex 6: Descriptive Statistical Tables Table 35: Percentage of Cowpea Farmers who Applied one or More Promoted Improved Management Practices and Technologies by Category and Type, in Total and by Farmers’ Sex and Age ViMPlus Total Sex Age Male Female Sig.a 15-29 30+ Sig.a Crop genetics practices/technologies Use of improved seeds 8.1 8.0 8.4 ns 12.7 7.2 ns Cultural practices/technologies Control of sida cordifolia growth 0.1 0.1 0.2 ns 0.0 0.2 ns Crop association 16.4 15.7 18.1 ns 15.8 16.5 ns Crop rotation 1.6 1.6 1.5 ns 1.3 1.7 ns Sowing after useful rain 67.9 66.8 70.7 ns 71.5 67.2 ns Improved natural resources or ecosystem management practices/technologies Farmer managed natural regeneration (fmnr) 24.5 29.7 11.3 * 20.2 25.4 ns Delimitation of animal corridors and pasture areas 33.7 35.2 30.0 ns 44.5 31.5 ns Protection of ponds against silting up 32.4 36.4 21.9 ns 33.5 32.1 ns Functional community-based conflict management mechanisms 3.8 5.0 0.7 ** 1.2 4.3 ns Recovery of degraded lands 4.6 6.1 0.7 ** 3.0 4.9 ns Develop low or market gardens 1.2 1.3 0.7 ns 2.0 1.0 ns Improved pest and disease management practices/technologies Delay of seedlings at third or fourth rains to control pests 4.0 4.1 3.8 ns 5.1 3.8 ns Seed treatment with fungicides 8.2 7.4 10.5 * 11.6 7.5 * Improved soil-related fertility and conservation practices/technologies Zai pits 26.8 32.2 13.2 *** 22.0 27.8 ns Organic manure 67.4 65.5 72.4 ns 66.9 67.5 ns Phosphatic manure 18.1 21.2 9.9 * 14.4 18.8 ns Compost 9.7 10.2 8.5 ns 11.3 9.4 ns Microdoses of fertilizer 0.7 0.9 0.4 ns 0.0 0.9 ns Improved agriculture water management non-irrigation-based practices/technologies Agricultural half-moons 5.5 7.0 1.5 * 5.1 5.5 ns Improved climate adaptation/climate risk management practices/technologies Use of climate information (rain forecast, disaster risks, etc.) 0.1 0.1 0.0 ns 0.0 0.1 ns Other improved practices/technologies Baseline Study of the ViMPlus RFSA in Burkina Faso: Final Report (Vol. III) Annex 6: Descriptive Statistical Tables 63 ViMPlus Performing at least three weedings 12.0 14.6 5.6 ns 12.8 11.9 ns Use of modern equipment 21.9 25.0 14.2 *** 14.4 23.5 ns Use of agricultural credit 0.3 0.4 0.0 ns 0.0 0.3 ns Number of responding cowpea farmers 822 599 223 159 663 822 NOTES: 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 and age). Associations found to be statistically significant are indicated by level: * p<0.05, ** p<0.01, *** p<0.001; ns=not significant. Table 36: Percentage of Rice Farmers who Applied one or More Promoted Improved Management Practices and Technologies by Category and Type, in Total and by Farmers’ Sex and Age ViMPlus Total Sex Age Male Female Sig.a 15-29 30+ Sig.a Crop genetics practices/technologies Use of improved seeds 3.3 3.7 0.0 ns 0.0 4.0 ns Cultural practices/technologies Cultural calendar 3.4 3.9 0.0 ns 0.0 4.2 ns Nursery preparation 47.4 46.3 55.6 ns 40.4 49.1 ns Improved natural resources or ecosystem management practices/technologies Farmer managed natural regeneration (fmnr) 20.4 22.2 8.6 ns 34.0 17.2 ns Delimitation of animal corridors and pasture areas 46.2 49.5 23.0 ns 54.7 44.1 ns Protection of ponds against silting up 54.2 58.8 23.0 ns 43.4 56.8 ns Functional community-based conflict management mechanisms 8.3 9.5 0.0 ns 0.0 10.2 ns Recovery of degraded lands 2.2 2.5 0.0 ns 2.9 2.1 ns Develop low-lying or market gardens 9.9 10.7 4.3 ns 11.3 9.5 ns Improved pest and disease management practices/technologies Weed control 15.5 17.1 4.3 ns 14.3 15.7 ns Pest control 17.4 20.0 0.0 ns 20.1 16.8 ns Improved soil-related fertility and conservation practices/technologies Soil preparation 78.6 83.0 48.7 ns 82.9 77.6 ns Organic manure 38.7 42.5 12.8 ns 28.7 41.1 ns Phosphatic manure 31.7 36.3 0.0 ns 28.3 32.5 ns Compost 13.5 15.5 0.0 ns 5.6 15.4 ns Mineral fertilizer 8.7 3.2 47.0 ** 2.8 10.1 ns IMPEL | Implementer-Led Evaluation and Learning 64 Annex 6: Descriptive Statistical Tables ViMPlus Improved agriculture water management non-irrigation-based practices/technologies Water management 19.7 21.3 8.6 ns 11.3 21.7 ns Improved climate adaptation/climate risk management practices/technologies Use of climate information (rain forecast, disaster risks, etc.) 0.6 0.7 0.0 ns 0.0 0.8 ns Other improved practices/technologies Use of modern agricultural equipment 2.2 1.9 4.3 ns 5.8 1.3 ns Use of agricultural credit 1.1 1.2 0.0 ns 0.0 1.3 ns Number of responding rice farmers 114 100 14 24 90 NOTES: 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 and age). Associations found to be statistically significant are indicated by level: * p<0.05, ** p<0.01, *** p<0.001; ns=not significant. Table 37: Percentage of Onion Farmers who Applied one or More Promoted Improved Management Practices and Technologies by Category and Type, in Total and by Farmers’ Sex and Age ViMPlus Total Sex Age Male Female Sig.a 15-29 30+ Sig.a Crop genetics practices/technologies Use of improved seeds ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ Cultural practices/technologies Control of sida cordifolia growth ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ Crop association 3.5 4.7 0.0 ns 0.0 4.0 ns Crop rotation 3.5 4.7 0.0 ns 0.0 4.0 ns Sowing after useful rain 18.8 23.0 6.6 ns 0.0 21.7 ns Improved natural resources or ecosystem management practices/technologies Farmer managed natural regeneration (fmnr) 22.2 18.5 32.9 ns 49.6 17.8 ns Delimitation of animal corridors and pasture areas 57.1 51.3 73.7 ns 49.6 58.3 ns Protection of ponds against silting up 29.6 39.8 0.0 ns 12.4 32.3 ns Functional community-based conflict management mechanisms 12.0 16.2 0.0 ns 0.0 13.9 ns Recovery of degraded lands 13.6 18.3 0.0 ns 0.0 15.8 ns Develop low-lying or market gardens 8.9 7.4 13.2 ns 12.4 8.3 ns Improved pest and disease management practices/technologies Baseline Study of the ViMPlus RFSA in Burkina Faso: Final Report (Vol. III) Annex 6: Descriptive Statistical Tables 65 ViMPlus Delay of seedlings at third or fourth rains to control pests 8.5 2.3 26.3 * 12.4 7.9 ns Seed treatment with fungicides ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ Improved soil-related fertility and conservation practices/technologies Zai pits 17.1 16.2 19.7 ns 37.2 13.9 ns Organic manure 50.1 46.8 59.6 ns 75.2 46.2 ns Phosphatic manure 54.1 54.1 54.0 ns 25.6 58.5 * Compost 8.6 7.0 13.2 ns 0.0 10.0 ns Microdoses of fertilizer 6.8 9.2 0.0 ns 0.0 7.9 ns Improved agriculture water management non-irrigation-based practices/technologies Agricultural half-moons 6.7 6.8 6.6 ns 0.0 7.8 ns Improved climate adaptation/climate risk management practices/technologies Use of climate information (rain forecast, disaster risks, etc.) 3.4 4.5 0.0 ns 0.0 3.9 ns Other improved practices/technologies Performing at least three weedings 12.2 16.5 0.0 ns 12.4 12.2 ns Use of modern agricultural equipment 12.2 14.1 6.6 ns 24.8 10.2 ns Use of agricultural credit 1.7 2.3 0.0 ns 0.0 2.0 ns Number of responding onion farmers 39 26 13 6 33 NOTES: Crop rotation is considered both an improved pest and disease management practice and a cultural practice. ^ Results not statistically 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. IMPEL | Implementer-Led Evaluation and Learning 66 Annex 6: Descriptive Statistical Tables Table 38: Percentage of Goat Farmers who Applied one or More Promoted Improved Management Practices and Technologies by Category and Type, in Total and by Farmers’ Sex and Age ViMPlus Total Sex Age Male Female Sig.a 15-29 30+ Sig.a Improved livestock management practices or technologies Improved fodder production 4.1 5.7 0.4 ** 1.6 4.5 ns Use of licking and/or multi-nutritional block 8.9 12.0 1.6 *** 10.5 8.6 ns Animal selection 12.5 13.8 9.3 ns 7.4 13.4 ns Vaccinations 95.4 94.7 96.9 ns 94.3 95.5 ns Antiparasitic treatments 29.4 31.7 23.9 ns 23.1 30.5 ns Veterinary monitoring of food quality and quantity over time 1.2 1.2 1.2 ns 2.4 1.0 ns Weight monitoring 3.1 2.4 4.5 ns 2.4 3.2 ns Optimum weight-market price criteria for the sale decision … … … … … Use of para-veterinary services for goats and sheep 1.8 0.9 4.0 ns 0.0 2.1 ns Number of responding goat farmers 464 340 124 74 390 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. Table 39: Percentage of Sheep Farmers who Applied one or More Promoted Improved Management Practices and Technologies by Category and Type, in Total and by Farmers’ Sex and Age ViMPlus Total Sex Age Male Female Sig.a 15-29 30+ Sig.a Improved livestock management practices or technologies Improved fodder production 4.0 5.7 0.0 ns 1.4 4.6 ns Use of licking and/or multi-nutritional block 11.3 14.2 4.6 ** 9.3 11.8 ns Animal selection 11.7 15.2 4.0 * 5.6 13.3 * Vaccinations 96.1 95.2 98.2 ns 97.8 95.7 ns Antiparasitic treatments 30.5 33.0 24.8 ns 31.3 30.3 ns Veterinary monitoring of food quality and quantity over time 2.4 3.5 0.0 * 1.4 2.7 ns Weight monitoring 3.9 3.2 5.6 ns 2.8 4.2 ns Optimum weight-market price criteria for the sale decision 0.2 0.3 0.0 ns 0.0 0.2 ns Use of para-veterinary services for goats and sheep 2.2 0.3 6.4 *** 0.5 2.6 ns Baseline Study of the ViMPlus RFSA in Burkina Faso: Final Report (Vol. III) Annex 6: Descriptive Statistical Tables 67 ViMPlus Number of responding sheep farmers 545 393 152 122 401 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. Table 40: Percentage of Poultry Farmers who Applied one or More Promoted Improved Management Practices and Technologies by Category and Type, in Total and by Farmers’ Sex and Age ViMPlus Total Sex Age Male Female Sig.a 15-29 30+ Sig.a Improved livestock management practices or technologies Use of improved poultry variety/breed 6.6 8.0 0.0 ns 3.2 7.2 ns Use of improved feed 7.6 9.1 0.0 ns 5.6 7.9 ns Use of improved shelters 14.0 16.5 2.0 ** 16.4 13.6 ns Vaccinations 94.9 94.8 95.3 ns 97.1 94.5 ns Use veterinary products and services 4.7 5.1 3.1 ns 0.8 5.5 * Number of responding poultry farmers 430 357 73 67 363 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. Table 41: Household Sanitation and Drinking Water ViMPlus Improved, not shared sanitation facility 27.4 Flush to piped sewer system … Flush to septic tank 0.1 Flush to pit latrine … Ventilated improved pit latrine 1.3 Pit latrine with slab 25.4 Composting toilet 0.8 Improved, shared sanitation facility 28.2 Flush to piped sewer system … Flush to septic tank … Flush to pit latrine … Ventilated improved pit latrine 1.6 Pit latrine with slab 26.6 Composting toilet 0.1 Non-improved sanitation facility 43.9 Flush to somewhere else … Flush to don't know where … IMPEL | Implementer-Led Evaluation and Learning 68 Annex 6: Descriptive Statistical Tables ViMPlus Latrine Without Slab/Open Pit 7.0 Bucket toilet 1.0 Hanging toilet/latrine 0.3 No Facility/Bush/Field 35.8 Improved source of drinking water 97.0 Piped water into dwelling … Piped water into yard/plot … Piped to neighbor … Public tap/Standpipe 36.4 Tube well or borehole 50.1 Protected well 6.2 Protected spring 0.7 Rainwater 1.0 Tanker truck 2.7 Cart with small tank … Bottled water … Non-improved source of drinking water 3.0 Unprotected well 0.9 Unprotected spring 1.4 Surface water (river/dam/ lake/ponds/stream/canal/irrigation channel) 0.7 Distance/time from source1 On premises 1.5 ≤ 30-minute roundtrip 24.3 31+ minute roundtrip 74.1 Water production Produces at least 20 liters per person per day 53.8 Water availability Water available from the source all year round NA Water unavailable for a day or longer in the past two weeks 31.8 Meets four of the five criteria for basic water source2 8.9 Water treatment Does something to make water safer to drink 9.7 Handwashing station with water and soap/ash3 58.7 Water observed at handwashing station 66.1 Cleaning agent Soap or ash observed at handwashing station 64.8 Mud or sand observed at handwashing station 2.2 Other cleaning agent No cleaning agent observed at handwashing station 34.1 Knowledge of critical moments for handwashing Risk of fecal contact Before eating 98.8 Before cooking/food prep 20.9 Before breastfeeding/feeding a child 4.8 Food handling After defecation 45.0 After cleaning the toilet 5.9 After diaper change/child defecation 2.6 When hands are dirty 51.2 Number of responding households 748 Baseline Study of the ViMPlus RFSA in Burkina Faso: Final Report (Vol. III) Annex 6: Descriptive Statistical Tables 69 ViMPlus NA = Not available 1 Number of responding households is 748. 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 the past two weeks; and water source produces at least 20 liters per day per person. Number of households with complete information for all four criteria is 745. 3 This indicator is based on observation. Of the 748 households interviewed, enumerators were able to observe the handwashing stations of 353 households. Table 42: Percentage of Women 15-49 Years of Age by Food Groups Consumed ViMPlus Nuts and seeds 1.5 Eggs 11.9 Dairy products 22.1 Other vitamin-A rich fruits and vegetables 38.4 Other fruits 38.7 Other vegetables 65.6 Meat, poultry, fish 72.8 Pulses 80.1 Dark green leafy vegetables 90.5 Grains, roots and tubers 99.7 Number of responding women 15-49 years 1,525 NOTE: 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. Table 43: Use of Antenatal Care Services (ANC) ViMPlus Percent of births receiving at least four ANC visits during pregnancy1 61.3 Improved, not shared sanitation facility 1,725 ANC provider2 Doctor 0.4 Nurse 11.5 Midwife 68.5 Health officer 33.7 Health extension worker … Traditional birth attendant … Other … Number of ANC visits3 4+ visits 61.5 IMPEL | Implementer-Led Evaluation and Learning 70 Annex 6: Descriptive Statistical Tables ViMPlus Timing of first ANC visit received3 During first 3 months of pregnancy 74.3 After 3 months 25.7 Number of women 15-49 who received any ANC care 897 NOTE: Use of antenatal care (ANC) refers to the last live birth that occurred in the five years prior to the survey. 1Refers to women who attended at least four ANC visits with a skilled health personnel 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 Multiple responses allowed. Total may add up to more than 100 percent. 3 Includes only women who received at least one ANC visit during their most recent live birth in the five years prior to the survey. Table 44: Percentage of Non-Pregnant Women 15-49 Years who are Married or in a Union and Using a Contraceptive Method by Type of Method ViMPlus Modern methods 24.6 Female sterilization … Male sterilization … Inter-uterine device 0.1 Injectables 11.6 Implants 10.9 Pill 1.8 Condom 0.9 Female condom 0.2 Emergency contraception … Standard days method 0.4 Lactational amen. method 0.4 Other modern methods 0.1 Traditional methods 0.4 Rhythm … Withdrawal 0.1 Other traditional methods 0.3 Does not use any form of contraception 75.2 Number of responding non-pregnant women 15-49 years married or in a union 1,057 NOTE: Multiple responses for type of contraceptive method used was allowed. Totals may add up to more than 100 percent. Baseline Study of the ViMPlus RFSA in Burkina Faso: Final Report (Vol. III) Annex 6: Descriptive Statistical Tables 71 Table 45: Percentage of Children 6-23 Months by Food Groups Consumed ViMPlus Eggs 37.2 Legumes and nuts 38.5 Flesh foods (meat, fish, poultry, and liver/organ meats) 40.2 Other fruits and vegetables 47.8 (milk, yogurt, cheese) 48.2 Vitamin-A rich fruits and vegetables 63.1 Grains, roots, and tubers 82.6 Breastmilk 93.5 Number of children 6-23 months 405 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. Table 46: Household Social Capital ViMPlus % of HHs Components of bonding social capital Ability to receive support from relatives living inside the community during times of need 79.6 Ability to provide support to relatives living inside the community during times of need1 75.6 Ability to receive support from non-relatives living inside the community during times of need 65.7 Ability to provide support to non-relatives living inside the community during times of need1 63.7 Components of bridging social capital Ability to receive support from relatives living outside of the community during times of need 75.0 Ability to provide support to relatives living outside of the community during times of need 70.4 Ability to receive support from non-relatives living outside of the community during times of need 52.7 Ability to provide support to non-relatives living outside of the community during times of need 51.6 Number of responding households 749 NOTE: Social capital refers to the ability to households to receive and provide financial or food support during difficult times. For both bonding and bridging social capital, an additive index ranging from 0 to 4 is calculated with a score of 0 for “no” , "don't know" and 1 for “yes” for each of the questions responses. The bonding social capital index considers the ability of households to give and receive support from relative and non-relative living inside of the community while the bridging social capital index consider the ability of households to provide and get support from relative and non-relatives living outside of the community. The values are normalized and scaled to a 0 to 100 scale by dividing by four then multiplying by 100. The Index of social capital indicator is the average of the two indices and ranges from 0 to 100. 1 Includes households who report they can receive support from relatives/non-relatives during difficult times. Households who reported they cannot receive support were not asked whether they can provide support in return. IMPEL | Implementer-Led Evaluation and Learning 72 Annex 6: Descriptive Statistical Tables Table 47: Percentage of Women and Men in a Union Participating in Community Groups, by Type of Group ViMPlus Males Females Agricultural/livestock/fisheries producer's group 38 22.9 N 496 504 Water users' group 24.5 16.7 N 406 408 Forest users' group 14.8 7.8 N 332 342 Credit or microfinance group 12.1 13.1 N 196 198 Savings group 6.4 10.5 N 113 129 Mutual help or insurance group 32.1 15.8 N 102 112 Trade and business association 17.6 10.7 N 189 180 Civic group 38.4 6.8 N 261 324 Local government 10.2 6.8 N 299 324 Religious group 65 55.8 N 555 607 Mother's group 3 42.4 N 443 510 Youth group 27/9 8.7 N 407 415 Sports group 23 4.1 N 302 298 Communal grazing land users' group 14.7 9.6 N 176 187 Communal natural resources group 11.8 9 N 192 200 Disaster planning group 15.4 11.1 N 141 137 Baseline Study of the ViMPlus RFSA in Burkina Faso: Final Report (Vol. III) Annex 6: Descriptive Statistical Tables 73 ViMPlus Safe spaces 22.8 20.4 N 255 267 Conflict resolution group 29.9 17.7 N 375 388 Other women's group N/A 12.5 N 13 NOTE: Based on the responses of the youngest female in a union and her spouse/partner. The number of respondents (N) includes women and men who indicated that the group exists in their community. Results are unreliable for cases n<30; they are included for illustrative purposes only. Table 48: COVID-19 awareness and adoption of COVID-19 mitigation protocols ViMPlus No. of HHs % Sig.a Awareness of COVID-19 All households 750 99.8 Male and female adults 711 99.8 ns Female adult(s) only 30 100.0 Male adult(s) only 9 100.0 Child(ren) only (no adults) 0 ^ Adoption of COVID-19 mitigation protocols1 Handwashing with water and soap All households 738 92.0 Male and female adults 699 91.5 ns Female adult(s) only 30 100.0 Male adult(s) only 9 95.1 Child(ren) only (no adults) 0 ^ Wearing a face cover/mask All households 738 86.2 Male and female adults 699 86.6 ns Female adult(s) only 30 77.9 Male adult(s) only 9 90.6 Child(ren) only (no adults) 0 ^ Maintaining one meter distance from others All households 738 56.1 Male and female adults 699 57.0 ns Female adult(s) only 30 41.0 Male adult(s) only 9 61.6 Child(ren) only (no adults) 0 ^ Limiting contact with non-HH members All households 738 47.0 Male and female adults 699 46.6 ns Female adult(s) only 30 48.6 Male adult(s) only 9 61.6 IMPEL | Implementer-Led Evaluation and Learning 74 Annex 6: Descriptive Statistical Tables ViMPlus Child(ren) only (no adults) 0 ^ Other practices All households 738 1.1 Male and female adults 699 1.1 ns Female adult(s) only 30 0.0 Male adult(s) only 9 0.0 Child(ren) only (no adults) 0 ^ Do nothing All households 738 1.0 Male and female adults 699 0.0 ns Female adult(s) only 30 0.0 Male adult(s) only 9 0.9 Child(ren) only (no adults) 0 ^ 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. Table 49: Percentage of Households who Experienced COVID-19 Impacts on Livelihoods by Type of Impact ViMPlus Inability to access market to buy inputs (restrictions or market closed) 41.7 Inability to access market to sell livestock and livestock products (movement restrictions or market closed) 33.7 Inability to farm and/or care for livestock due to sickness of household member 5.4 Constrained access to farmland 8.6 Constrained access to grazing pasture 3.4 Constrained access to water 18.4 Shortage of crop inputs (seeds, fertilizer, pesticides) 2.5 Shortage of livestock inputs (feed and veterinary services) 2.8 Increase in price of crop inputs 13.2 Increase in price of livestock inputs 10.7 Increase in transportation costs 13.4 Increase in storage costs 3.8 Decrease in price of products sold 9.2 Increase in price of products sold 24.3 Decrease in demand for products 6.3 Difficulty accessing financial services and credit 0.6 Labor shortages (lack of labor to help with farming, herding, and processing) 0.7 Inability to engage with other community members in asset-building activities 4.7 Lost employment 13.3 Looting/theft 0.1 No longer receiving remittances 1.3 Inability to access health care 0.8 Baseline Study of the ViMPlus RFSA in Burkina Faso: Final Report (Vol. III) Annex 6: Descriptive Statistical Tables 75 ViMPlus Illness 0.3 Death … Reduction in income 28.5 Inability to repay loans 0.7 Other impact on income 1.7 Not applicable/Livelihood not affected by COVID-19 11.2 Don’t know/refused 1.3 Number of responding households 747 NOTES: Includes only households that are aware of COVID-19. Multiple responses allowed. Totals may add up to more than 100 percent. Table 50: Percentage of Households who Experienced COVID-19 Impacts on Food Security by Type of Impact ViMPlus Movement restrictions or market closed 80.3 Transportation costs too expensive/no public transport 31.9 Traders are absent from the markets 37.6 Products not available in the market 44 Price of foods increased 64.4 Delay in food/cash transfer 2.3 Other impact on food security 0.3 Not applicable/Food security not affected by COVID-19 5.9 Don’t know/refused 1.2 Number of responding households 747 NOTES: Includes only households that are aware of COVID-19. Multiple responses allowed. Totals may add up to more than 100 percent. Table 51: Coping strategies for COVID-19 impacts on livelihoods ViMPlus Livestock and land holdings Sold livestock at lower price (no demand due to lockdowns or other restrictions) 24.0 Sold livestock 18.0 Sent livestock in search of pasture 5.8 Slaughtered livestock 2.8 Leased out land 0.2 Crops Consumed food that in normal times would sell 12.0 Sold food at a lower price (no demand due to lockdowns or other restrictions) 7.5 Stored unsold crops 5.8 Donated/gift unsold crops 1.6 Threw out unsold crops 1.2 Migration Migrate (only some family members) 1.2 Migrate (the whole family) 0.1 Sent children or an adult to stay with relatives/others … Reduce current expenditure IMPEL | Implementer-Led Evaluation and Learning 76 Annex 6: Descriptive Statistical Tables ViMPlus Took children out of school 43.4 Reduced non-essential household expenses 20.2 Reduced food consumption (quantity/meal; # meal/day) 17.6 Got food on credit from a local merchant 3.1 Moved to less expensive housing … Acquiring more food or money Used savings to feed the family 9.8 Received emergency food aid from the government or NGO 5.0 Used own savings to pay for other household necessities 4.6 Used savings to pay for health-care expenses 2.0 Relied on remittances from a relative that migrated 1.3 Received permanent direct support food from the government or NGO 1.1 Received emergency cash transfer from the government or NGO 0.9 Used savings to buy livestock 0.5 Took out a loan (with interest) from a (formal) bank 0.4 Took out a loan (no interest) from friends or relatives outside of the community 0.3 Unconditional gift of money (not remittances) or food from family, friends, church/mosque or other group outside of community 0.3 Sent children to work for money (e.g., domestic service) 0.3 Unconditional gift of money (not remittances) or food from family, friends, church/mosque, or other group within community 0.3 Used savings to pay for education costs 0.3 Received permanent direct support cash transfer from the government or NGO 0.3 Took up new/additional work (casual labor, wage labor) 0.2 Took out a loan (with interest) from an MFI/RUSACCO 0.1 Took out a loan (no interest) from friends or relatives within the community 0.7 Sold household items (e.g., radio, bed) … Took out a loan (with interest) from a money-lender … Sold productive assets (e.g., plough, water pump) … Used savings to buy productive inputs … Participated in government or NGO food-for-work or cash-for-work activities (conditional) … Used own savings to pay for repairs to dwelling or structures … Coronavirus-specific Washed hands with water and soap 18.3 Quarantine 16.6 Washed hands more frequently 10.3 Avoided contact with sick member 3.7 Sought help at a health clinic 1.7 Used physical separation to distance sick member from others 0.7 Other Engaged in spiritual efforts (e.g., prayed, sacrifices, etc.) 1.3 Did nothing 5.7 Other (specify) 0.3 Don't know/Refused … Number of responding households 635 NOTES: Includes only households that are aware of COVID-19 and experienced impacts to their livelihoods due to COVID￾19. Multiple responses allowed. Totals may add up to more than 100 percent. Baseline Study of the ViMPlus RFSA in Burkina Faso: Final Report (Vol. III) Annex 6: Descriptive Statistical Tables 77 Table 52: Coping Strategies for COVID-19 Impacts on Food Security ViMPlus Livestock and land holdings Sold livestock at lower price (no demand due to lockdowns or other restrictions) 26.0 Sold livestock 14.5 Sent livestock in search of pasture 5.3 Slaughtered livestock 2.5 Leased out land … Seeds Consumed saved seeds 21.5 Consumed saved crops from household's prior harvest 5.0 Migration Sent children or an adult to stay with relatives/others 1.6 Migrate (only some family members) 0.7 Migrate (the whole family) 0.2 Reduce current expenditure Took children out of school 39.6 Reduced food consumption (quantity/meal; # meal/day) 32.1 Reduced non-essential household expenses 27.3 Got food on credit from a local merchant 3.6 Moved to less expensive housing 0.5 Acquiring more food or money Used savings to feed the family 14.9 Used own savings to pay for other household necessities 6.2 Received emergency food aid from the government or NGO 6.2 Used savings to pay for health-care expenses 1.9 Relied on remittances from a relative that migrated 1.7 Used savings to pay for education costs 1.2 Took up new/additional work (casual labor, wage labor) 1.0 Used own savings to pay for repairs to dwelling or structures 0.8 Received permanent direct support food from the government or NGO 0.7 Sent children to work for money (e.g., domestic service) 0.5 Took out a loan (with interest) from a (formal) bank 0.4 Received emergency cash transfer from the government or NGO 0.4 Used savings to buy livestock 0.3 Unconditional gift of money (not remittances) or food from family, friends, church/mosque, or other group within community 0.2 Received permanent direct support cash transfer from the government or NGO 0.2 Took out a loan (with interest) from a money-lender 0.1 Sold productive assets (e.g., plough, water pump) 0.1 Unconditional gift of money (not remittances) or food from family, friends, church/mosque or other group outside of community 0.1 Participated in government or NGO food-for-work or cash-for-work activities (conditional) 0.1 Took out a loan (with interest) from an MFI/RUSACCO 0.1 Took out a loan (no interest) from friends or relatives within the community 1.2 Sold household items (e.g., radio, bed) … Took out a loan (no interest) from friends or relatives outside of the community … Used savings to buy productive inputs … Other Engaged in spiritual efforts (e.g., prayed, sacrifices, etc.) 0.3 IMPEL | Implementer-Led Evaluation and Learning 78 Annex 6: Descriptive Statistical Tables ViMPlus Did nothing 7.4 Other (specify) … Number of responding households 692 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 ViMPlus RFSA in Burkina Faso: Final Report (Vol. III) Annex 7: BHA Burkina Faso Bivariate and Multivariate Statistical Tables 79 ANNEX 7: BHA BURKINA FASO BIVARIATE AND MULTIVARIATE STATISTICAL TABLES Table 53: Percentage of households by food consumption score (FCS) groups and household characteristics ViMPlus Poor FCS Borderline FCS Acceptable FCS No. of HHs % % % Sig.a Percentage of households by FCS groups 720 2.5 13.7 83.8 Access to or use of financial services1 Accessed at least one ag-related financial service (credit, savings, insurance) No 405 3.3 17.5 79.2 ns Yes 315 1.7 10.2 88.1 Took out a loan (ag credit, in cash or in-kind) No 616 2.3 13.2 84.5 ns Yes 104 3.3 17.0 79.7 Saved cash No 443 3.7 18.6 77.7 ns Yes 277 1.0 8.1 90.9 Insured ag production against loss (insurance) No 712 2.5 13.8 83.7 ns Yes 8 0.0 7.7 92.3 HH participates in group-based savings, microfinance or lending programs No 700 2.6 13.9 83.7 ns Yes 20 0.0 8.4 91.6 HH participates in group-based saving programs No 686 2.6 14 83.5 ns Yes 34 0.0 9.4 90.6 HH participates in group-based credit programs No 702 2.5 13.8 83.7 ns Yes 18 0.0 9.4 90.6 Livestock holdings2 Raised at least one type of livestock No 169 4.2 23.7 72.1 * Yes 551 2.0 11.1 86.9 Raised goats No 336 3.8 17.1 79.1 * Yes 384 1.3 10.9 87.8 Raised sheep No 293 2.8 18.6 78.7 ns Yes 427 2.3 10.8 86.9 Raised poultry No 345 3.5 17.9 78.6 * Yes 375 1.5 10.0 88.5 IMPEL | Implementer-Led Evaluation and Learning 80 Annex 7: BHA Burkina Faso Bivariate and Multivariate Statistical Tables ViMPlus Adoption of targeted improved crop management practices3 Used at least one improved crop management practice - any crop No 25 3.7 20.9 75.4 ns Yes 695 2.4 13.6 84.0 Dug zai pits No 247 2.6 15.3 82.0 ns Yes 473 2.4 12.9 84.7 Dug agri half-moons No 619 2.5 14.8 82.6 ns Yes 101 2.1 5.0 92.9 Applied organic manure No 192 3.3 14.8 81.9 ns Yes 528 2.2 13.4 84.4 Applied phosphatic manure No 525 2.3 13.3 84.4 ns Yes 195 3.1 15.2 81.7 Applied compost No 632 2.6 13.2 84.2 ns Yes 88 1.8 17.0 81.1 Applied microdoses of fertilizer No 706 2.5 13.9 83.6 ns Yes 14 0.0 4.8 95.2 Controlled sida cordifolia growth No 717 2.4 13.8 83.8 ns Yes 3 25.0 0.0 75.0 Performed at least 3 weedings No 612 2.5 14 83.5 ns Yes 108 2.1 12.4 85.5 Delayed seedlings until 3rd/4th rains to control pests No 675 2.4 13.9 83.7 ns Yes 45 3.4 10.1 86.5 Sowed after useful rain No 227 1.5 13.3 85.2 ns Yes 493 3.0 13.9 83.1 Performed crop association No 578 2.9 13.7 83.5 ns Yes 142 1.1 14.0 84.9 Performed crop rotation No 689 2.5 13.7 83.7 ns Yes 31 0.0 14.2 85.8 Used Seed treatment w/fungicides No 684 2.7 14.4 82.9 ns Yes 36 0.0 5.0 95.0 Used improved seeds No 662 2.7 14 83.3 ns Yes 58 0.8 11.3 87.9 Used climate information No 718 2.5 13.8 83.8 ns Yes 2 0.0 0.0 100.0 Used modern agricultural equipment No 620 3.1 15.6 81.3 * Baseline Study of the ViMPlus RFSA in Burkina Faso: Final Report (Vol. III) Annex 7: BHA Burkina Faso Bivariate and Multivariate Statistical Tables 81 ViMPlus Yes 100 0.0 6.1 93.9 Used agricultural credit No 716 2.5 13.8 83.7 ns Yes 4 0.0 0.0 100.0 Adoption of targeted improved post-harvest handling and storage practice/technique4 Used at least one improved post-harvest handling/storage practice - any crop No 414 2.6 11.1 86.3 ns Yes 306 2.3 17.8 79.9 Used locally made storage structure- any crop No 663 2.2 13 84.9 * Yes 57 7.7 27.2 65.1 Used sealed/airtight bags - any crop No 491 3.2 11.5 85.3 ns Yes 229 0.8 19 80.2 Used community storage facility - any crop No 673 2.3 14.1 83.6 ns Yes 47 5.6 7.1 87.3 Used solar/fuel-powered dryers - any crop No 711 2.5 13.5 84.0 ns Yes 9 0.0 31.5 68.5 Used seed/grain treatment pest control tech. - any crop No 704 2.3 13.6 84.0 ns Yes 16 8.4 19.7 71.9 Used agrochemical grain treatment - any crop No 698 2.5 13.6 83.9 ns Yes 22 0.0 18.1 81.9 Used triple bags - any crop No 628 2.8 12.6 84.5 ns Yes 92 0.0 20.7 79.3 Used other post-harvest practices - any crop No 714 2.5 13.9 83.5 ns Yes 6 0.0 0 100.0 Used at least one improved livestock management practice - any livestock5 No 185 4.5 24.2 71.3 * Yes 535 1.9 10.6 87.5 Household harvest for the current season Household harvested crops in the current season Did not harvest any crops 580 1.9 13.4 84.7 ns Less than 25 percent 102 8.2 16.2 75.6 25 - 50 percent 33 0.0 13.2 86.8 More than 50 percent 5 0.0 20 80.0 Impact of COVID-19 on household livelihood/food security Household livelihood was impacted by COVID￾19 No 108 3.9 17 79.1 ns Yes 612 2.3 13.3 84.5 Household food security was impacted by COVID-19 IMPEL | Implementer-Led Evaluation and Learning 82 Annex 7: BHA Burkina Faso Bivariate and Multivariate Statistical Tables ViMPlus No 54 4.6 14 81.4 ns Yes 666 2.3 13.7 84.0 Participation in social assistance programs HH participated in the RFSA No 249 2.2 12.9 84.9 ns Yes 471 2.7 14.3 83.1 HH received food rations - any donor No 376 2.9 15.1 82.5 ns Yes 344 2.0 10.4 87.6 HH participated in nutrition trainings/meetings - any donor No 370 2.4 15.1 82.5 ns Yes 350 2.6 11.8 85.6 HH participated in agriculture-related trainings/meetings - any donor No 284 3.4 14.1 82.5 ns Yes 426 1.7 13.4 84.8 Food rations Did not receive any food rations 376 2.9 16.8 80.3 (ref.) Received food rations through BHA RFSA6 240 1.9 10.5 87.6 ns Received food rations through other social assistance programs7 104 2.1 10.2 87.7 ns Nutrition trainings/meetings Did not participate in any nutrition trainings/meetings 370 2.4 15.1 82.5 (ref.) Participated in nutrition trainings/meetings through BHA RFSA 291 3.2 13.1 83.7 ns Participated in nutrition trainings/meetings through other social assistance programs7 59 0.0 6.7 93.3 ns Agriculture trainings/meetings Did not participate in any ag trainings/meetings 294 3.4 14.1 82.5 (ref.) Participated in ag trainings/meetings through BHA RFSA 327 2.0 14.0 84.0 ns Participated in ag trainings/meetings through other social assistance programs7 99 1.0 12.0 87.0 ns Number of responding households 720 25 117 578 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 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 livestock of interest (goats, sheep, and poultry). Baseline Study of the ViMPlus RFSA in Burkina Faso: Final Report (Vol. III) Annex 7: BHA Burkina Faso Bivariate and Multivariate Statistical Tables 83 ViMPlus 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, cowpeas, and rice). 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, cowpeas, and rice). 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 54: Mean Household Food Consumption Score (FCS) by Household Characteristics and Practices ViMPlus N Mean FCS Sig.a All households 720 53.5 Access to or use of financial services1 Accessed at least one ag-related financial service (credit, savings, insurance) No 405 50.0 † Yes 315 56.7 Took out a loan (ag credit, in cash or in-kind) No 616 53.3 ns Yes 104 54.4 Participated in agri-related savings scheme No 443 49.8 * Yes 277 57.6 Insured ag production against loss (insurance) No 712 53.4 ns Yes 8 62.9 HH participated in group-based savings, microfinance or lending programs No 686 52.7 † Yes 34 68.0 HH participated in group-based saving programs No 700 52.7 * Yes 20 73.2 HH participated in group-based credit programs No 702 53.4 ns Yes 18 55.3 Livestock holdings2 Raised at least one type of livestock No 169 49.8 † Yes 551 54.4 Raised goats No 336 51.0 * Yes 384 55.6 Raised sheep No 293 51.4 † IMPEL | Implementer-Led Evaluation and Learning 84 Annex 7: BHA Burkina Faso Bivariate and Multivariate Statistical Tables ViMPlus Yes 427 54.7 Raised poultry No 345 52.1 † Yes 375 54.7 Adoption of targeted improved crop management practices3 Used at least one improved crop management practice - any crop No 25 54.1 ns Yes 695 53.5 Dug zai pits No 247 55.4 ns Yes 473 52.5 Dug agri half-moons No 619 53.6 ns Yes 101 52.6 Applied organic manure No 192 54.5 ns Yes 528 53.1 Applied phosphatic manure No 525 54.0 ns Yes 195 51.7 Applied compost No 632 53.8 ns Yes 88 51.3 Applied microdoses of fertilizer No 706 53.5 ns Yes 14 52.7 Controlled sida cordifolia growth No 717 53.5 † Yes 3 38.0 Performed at least 3 weedings No 612 52.7 ns Yes 108 57.6 Delayed seedlings at 3rd/4th rains to control pests No 675 53.2 ns Yes 45 58.1 Sowed after useful rain No 227 55.3 ns Yes 493 52.5 Performed crop association No 578 52.8 ns Yes 142 52.4 Performed crop rotation No 689 53.6 ns Yes 31 49.1 Used Seed treatment w/fungicides No 684 52.6 *** Yes 36 64.8 Used improved seeds No 662 53.0 ns Yes 58 57.2 Used climate information No 718 53.4 † Baseline Study of the ViMPlus RFSA in Burkina Faso: Final Report (Vol. III) Annex 7: BHA Burkina Faso Bivariate and Multivariate Statistical Tables 85 ViMPlus Yes 2 61.8 Used modern agricultural equipment No 620 52.2 ns Yes 100 58.5 Used agricultural credit No 716 53.5 ns Yes 4 52.0 Adoption of targeted improved post-harvest handling and storage practices4 Used at least one improved post-harvest handling/storage practice - any crop No 414 55.9 ** Yes 306 49.7 Used local made storage - any crop No 663 54.0 ** Yes 57 43.7 Used sealed/airtight bags - any crop No 491 55.5 * Yes 229 48.6 Used community storage facility - any crop No 673 54.0 *** Yes 47 44.6 Used solar/fuel-powered dryers - any crop No 711 53.5 ns Yes 9 49.3 Used seed/grain treatment pest control tech. - any crop No 704 53.7 † Yes 16 43.8 Used agrochemical grain treatment - any crop No 698 53.6 ns Yes 22 48.5 Used triple bags - any crop No 628 53.6 ns Yes 22 48.5 Used other post-harvest practices - any crop No 714 53.5 ns Yes 6 49.7 Adoption of targeted improved livestock practices5 Used at least one improved livestock management practice - any livestock No 185 49.3 * Yes 535 54.7 Completion of harvest for the 2020 season Percentage of harvest completed by the household in the current season Did not harvest any crops in the current season 580 54.1 ns Less than 25 percent 102 48.6 25 - 50 percent 33 53.2 More than 50 percent 5 54.5 Impact of COVID-19 on household livelihood/food security Household livelihood was impacted by COVID-19 No 108 51.2 ns Yes 612 53.8 IMPEL | Implementer-Led Evaluation and Learning 86 Annex 7: BHA Burkina Faso Bivariate and Multivariate Statistical Tables ViMPlus Household food security was impacted by COVID-19 No 54 52.8 ns Yes 666 53.5 Participation in social assistance programs HH participated in the RFSA No 249 54.6 ns Yes 471 52.7 HH received food rations - any donor No 376 53.0 ns Yes 344 54.0 HH participated in nutrition trainings/meetings - any donor No 370 52.8 ns Yes 350 54.3 HH participated in agriculture-related trainings/meetings - any donor No 294 52.6 ns Yes 426 54.2 Food rations by RFSA participation status Did not receive any food rations 376 53.0 (ref.) Received food rations through BHA RFSA6 240 53.6 ns Received food rations through other social assistance programs7 104 54.5 ns Nutrition trainings/meetings by RFSA participation status Did not participate in any nutrition trainings/meetings 370 52.8 (ref.) Participated in nutrition trainings/meetings through BHA RFSA6 291 53.1 ns Participated in nutrition trainings/meetings through other social assistance programs7 59 59.2 † Agriculture trainings/meetings by RFSA participation status Did not participate in any ag trainings/meetings 294 52.6 (ref.) Participated in ag trainings/meetings through BHA RFSA6 327 53.2 ns Participated in ag trainings/meetings through other social assistance programs7 99 56.9 ns 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, cowpeas, and rice). 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, cowpeas, and rice). Baseline Study of the ViMPlus RFSA in Burkina Faso: Final Report (Vol. III) Annex 7: BHA Burkina Faso Bivariate and Multivariate Statistical Tables 87 ViMPlus 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). Table 55: Multivariate Logistic Regression of Women's Minimum Dietary Diversity (MDD-W) 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 1.483 1.511 1.481 1.484 30-49 years 1.500+ 1.556* 1.592* 1.588* Women's education (ref.: none or less than primary) Primary 1.330 1.288 1.202 1.201 Secondary or higher 1.793* 1.707* 2.005* 1.970* Pregnancy status (ref.: currently pregnant) Ever pregnant but not currently 0.757 0.744 0.823 0.800 Never pregnant 0.879 0.932 0.991 0.970 Participation in income generating activities (ref.: does not participate in cash￾earning activities) 1.501* 1.449* 1.432* 1.447* Household socio-demographic characteristics Gendered household type (ref.: Female and Male Adults) Female Adult Only 3.515+ 4.122+ 4.458* 4.373* Male Adult Only - - - - Female-headed household (ref.: male-headed household) 0.528 0.505 0.497* 0.480* Age of household head (ref.: 18-24 years) 25-34 years 0.508 0.526 0.458 0.451 35-44 years 0.449+ 0.436+ 0.334+ 0.329+ 45+ years 0.408 0.414 0.306 0.297 Education of household head Primary or higher (ref.: primary or none) 2.790*** 2.701*** 3.052** 2.774* Household size (2-37) 1.014 1.010 1.001 1.002 COVID-19 impact on household (ref.: was not impacted) Not applicable/no impact 2.870* 2.803* 1.873* 1.800+ Not applicable/food security unaffected 0.208** 0.197** 0.315* 0.299* Household food consumption Household harvested crops in current season (ref.: did not harvest any crops) Harvested less than 25 percent 0.512 0.463 0.421 0.437 Harvest 25 - 50 percent 1.673 1.501 1.214 1.235 Harvest more than 50 percent 0.291 0.258 0.142* 0.151* Household livestock holdings (ref.: did not raise livestock) Raised goats 1.820** 1.744** 2.014** 2.020** Raised sheep 1.250 1.240 1.182 1.139 Raised poultry 2.197* 2.140+ 2.406*** 2.324*** Household use of or access to financial services Took out an agricultural loan (ref.: did not take out an ag-loan) 1.866** 2.122*** 2.109*** Participated in an agricultural savings scheme (ref.: did not participate in ag￾savings scheme) 1.180 1.495 1.532 IMPEL | Implementer-Led Evaluation and Learning 88 Annex 7: BHA Burkina Faso Bivariate and Multivariate Statistical Tables Model 1 Model 2 Model 3 Model 4 Participated in group-based saving programs (ref.: did not participate) 1.980 1.897 1.904 Participated in group-based credit programs (ref.: did not participate) 1.592 2.073 2.216 Household adoption of targeted improved crop practices1 Dug zai pits 1.316 1.284 Dug agri half-moons 0.975 0.957 Applied organic manure 0.327* 0.335* Applied phosphatic manure 1.373 1.333 Applied compost 0.770 0.788 Applied microdoses of fertilizer 1.240 1.319 Controlled sida cordifolia growth 5.603+ 4.645 Performed at least 3 weedings 0.537* 0.500* Delayed seedlings until 3rd/4th rains to control pests 4.552* 4.436* Sowed after useful rain 1.005 0.943 Performed crop association 0.567* 0.566* Performed crop rotation 0.812 0.756 Used Seed treatment w/fungicides 1.127 1.271 Used improved seeds 0.404+ 0.398+ Used modern ag equipment 3.617* 3.367+ Used ag credit 0.165* 0.163** Household adoption of targeted improved post-harvest handling and storage practices1 Used local made storage 0.322* 0.316* Used sealed/airtight bags 1.164 1.117 Used community storage facility 0.485 0.468 Used solar/fuel-powered dryers 5.600* 5.104* Used seed/grain treatment pest control technique 1.378 1.267 Used agrochemical grain treatment 0.612 0.641 Used triple bags 0.826 0.793 Household adoption of targeted improved post-harvest handling and storage practices1 Used at least one improved livestock management practice 1.105 1.161 Household participation in social assistance Participated in a BHA RFSA (ref.: HH did not participate in a RFSA) 0.946 Received food rations - any donor (ref.: did not receive food rations) 0.813 Participated in nutrition trainings/meetings - any donor (ref.: did not participate) 1.514 Participated in agriculture-related trainings/meetings - any donor (ref.: did not participate) 1.049 Constant 0.328 0.301+ 0.444 0.551 Number of women 15-49 years 1,462 1,462 1,459 1,459 * 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. A misspecification-link and Hosmer-Lemeshow tests were conducted and suggest adequate model specification and fit. 1 Reference category includes households that did not adopt the targeted improved practice. Baseline Study of the ViMPlus RFSA in Burkina Faso: Final Report (Vol. III) Annex 7: BHA Burkina Faso Bivariate and Multivariate Statistical Tables 89 Table 56: OLS Regression of Household Food Consumption Score, ViMPlus Model 1 Model 2 Model 3 Model 4 Model 5 Model 6 Coef. Coef. Coef. Coef. Coef. Coef. Household socio-demographic characteristics Female-headed household (ref.:male￾headed) 0.846 -0.708 0.278 1.140 1.480 1.822 Age of household head (18-98 years) -0.055 -0.039 -0.048 -0.053 -0.056 -0.058 Gendered household type (ref.: Male and Female Adults) Female adult only -7.028+ -4.147 -3.773 -5.793 -6.341 -7.236* Male adult only 2.988 3.734 5.763+ -2.462 -3.004 -1.062 Household size (1-37) -0.215 -0.306* -0.351* -0.221 -0.251 -0.188 Household use of or access to financial services Took out an agricultural loan (ref.: did not take out an ag-loan) 0.471 0.216 -0.557 -0.372 -0.841 Participated in an agricultural savings scheme (ref.: did not participate in ag￾savings scheme) 4.259 3.233 4.082* 3.973* 3.686* Participated in group-based saving programs (ref.: did not participate) 19.975* 19.882* 23.384* 23.497* 24.358** Participated in group-based credit programs (ref.: did not participate) 1.535 1.426 2.492 3.322 2.757 Household livestock holdings (ref.: did not raise livestock) Raised goats 4.021* 2.498+ 2.584+ 2.490 Raised sheep -0.278 -0.174 -0.535 -0.709 Raised poultry 2.551+ 1.431 0.891 0.757 Household adoption of targeted improved crop practices1 Dug zai pits -1.226 -1.187 -2.179 Dug agri half-moons -0.719 -0.098 -1.504 Applied organic manure -3.985* -3.770* -3.116* Applied phosphatic manure 1.311 1.725 1.351 Applied compost -3.204 -2.862 -2.280 Applied microdoses of fertilizer 5.550 5.668 7.097+ Controlled sida cordifolia growth -13.228+ -11.868+ -14.172** Performed at least 3 weedings 2.916 3.435 2.603 Delayed seedlings until 3rd/4th rains to control pests 8.508*** 9.079*** 8.520** Sowed after useful rain -4.231* -3.671* -4.505* Performed crop association -4.601** -4.466* -4.465* Performed crop rotation 0.090 0.776 0.213 Used Seed treatment w/fungicides 10.897*** 10.802*** 12.746*** Used improved seeds -2.146 -2.299 -4.253* Used climate information 20.802*** 20.684*** 20.751*** Used modern ag equipment 4.040 4.658+ 4.004* Used ag credit 0.525 0.968 1.630 IMPEL | Implementer-Led Evaluation and Learning 90 Annex 7: BHA Burkina Faso Bivariate and Multivariate Statistical Tables Model 1 Model 2 Model 3 Model 4 Model 5 Model 6 Household adoption of targeted improved post-harvest handling and storage practices1 Used local made storage -6.753+ -5.828 -6.163+ Used sealed/airtight bags -2.034 -2.413 -2.593 Used community storage facility -5.156* -4.675* -5.490** Used solar/fuel-powered dryers -3.668 -2.421 -4.336 Used seed/grain treatment pest control technique -9.840* -10.227** -11.650** Used agrochemical grain treatment 3.093 3.221 3.658+ Used triple bags 3.483 3.501 2.894 Household adoption of targeted improved livestock management practices1 Used at least one improved livestock management practice 1.756 2.519 2.870 Household impact due to shock exposure (COVID-19) Household livelihood impacted by COVID-19 (ref.: household livelihood not impacted by COVID-19) 2.487 1.183 Household food security impacted by COVID-19 (ref.: household food security not impacted by COVID-19) -1.238 -1.677 Household harvested crops in current season (ref.: did not harvest any crops) Harvested less than 25 percent -6.671* -6.606* Harvest 25 - 50 percent -1.374 -0.979 Harvest more than 50 percent 0.861 -0.389 Household participation in social assistance Participated in a BHA RFSA (ref.: HH did not participate in a RFSA) 0.162 Received food rations - any donor (ref.: did not receive food rations) -0.674 Participated in nutrition trainings/meetings - any donor (ref.: did not participate) 5.439** Participated in agriculture-related trainings/meetings - any donor (ref.: did not participate) 2.266+ Constant 60.398*** 57.971*** 55.899*** 62.121*** 60.348*** 59.219*** Number of households 720 720 720 720 720 720 R-squared 0.157 0.217 0.237 0.339 0.348 0.372 * p<0.05, ** p<0.01, *** p<0.001; † < 0.1 NOTES: Household FCS ranges from 0 to 112. Analytical sample was restricted to households with data available across all covariates. 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 ViMPlus RFSA in Burkina Faso: Final Report (Vol. III) Annex 7: BHA Burkina Faso Bivariate and Multivariate Statistical Tables 91 Table 57: Percentage of Sorghum Farmers Applying Targeted Improved Crop and Post-Harvest Practices by Use of Agricultural-Related Financial Services ViMPlus All farmers Used any agri-related 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 6.7 10.3 3.3 *** 13.7 5.6 ** 11.4 3.2 *** Control of sida cordifolia growth 0.2 0.0 0.3 ns 0.0 0.2 ns 0.0 0.3 ns Crop association 20.0 19.3 20.7 ns 11.7 21.3 * 19.2 20.6 ns Crop rotation 3.0 2.5 3.4 ns 1.3 3.2 ns 2.6 3.2 ns Sowing after useful rain 62.6 61.6 63.6 ns 74.0 60.9 ns 61.7 63.3 ns Farmer managed natural regeneration (fmnr) 27.9 34.9 21.5 * 49.4 24.6 * 35.3 22.5 * Delimitation of animal corridors and pasture areas 33.4 36.7 30.4 ns 21.1 35.3 ns 39.6 28.9 ns Protection of ponds against silting up 35.0 27.0 42.2 * 22.4 36.9 ns 27.4 40.5 ns Functional community-based conflict management mechanisms 4.0 2.6 5.3 ns 5.2 3.9 ns 2.2 5.4 ns Recovery of degraded lands 5.0 5.7 4.4 ns 6.5 4.7 ns 5.5 4.6 ns Develop low￾lying or market gardens 1.8 1.0 2.5 ns 3.6 1.5 * 1.0 2.4 ns Delay of seedlings until third or fourth rains to control pests 2.6 0.2 4.9 *** 0.6 2.9 * 0.0 4.5 ns Seed treatment with fungicides 5.8 8.4 3.5 * 0.0 6.7 ns 9.5 3.2 ** Zai pits 62.5 69.5 56.1 * 70.5 61.2 ns 70.7 56.5 * Organic manure 70.4 75.2 66.1 * 81.3 68.8 * 75.1 67.0 ns Phosphatic manure 17.3 13.5 20.9 ns 26.1 16.0 ns 12.2 21.1 ns Compost ` 12.2 12.4 ns 4.1 13.6 ns 12.9 11.9 ns Microdoses of fertilizer 0.6 0.3 0.8 ns 1.2 0.5 ns 0.4 0.7 ns Agricultural half-moons 8.3 8.8 7.9 ns 7.9 8.4 ns 8.4 8.3 ns Use of climate information (rain ^ ^ ^ ns ^ ^ ^ ^ IMPEL | Implementer-Led Evaluation and Learning 92 Annex 7: BHA Burkina Faso Bivariate and Multivariate Statistical Tables ViMPlus forecast, disaster risks, etc.) Performing at least three weedings 12.5 15.9 9.4 ns 40.9 8.1 *** 16.0 9.9 ** Use modern agricultural equipment 15.0 19.8 10.6 * 25.2 13.4 ns 22.3 9.6 ns Use agricultural credit 0.3 0.7 0.0 ns 0.7 0.3 ns 0.8 0.0 ns Number of responding sorghum farmers 751 303 448 102 649 262 489 Improved post￾harvest practices Locally made storage structures such as sheet metal silos 4.8 6.7 3.1 ns 4.3 4.9 ns 6.7 14.6 ** Sealed/airtight bags 17.9 15.7 19.9 ns 17.6 17.9 ns 7.0 4.2 ns Community storage facilities, including warehouse receipting 3.2 2.6 3.8 ns 4.8 3.0 ns 1.3 3.8 * Use of solar or fuel-powered dryers to reduce post￾harvest moisture ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ 0.1 0.2 Seed or grain treatment techniques including botanical pest control agents or phytosanitary irradiation 0.4 0.7 0.2 ns 1.2 0.5 ns 0.9 0.2 ns Grain treatment with agro-chemicals 0.6 0.8 0.3 ns 1.8 0.2 * 2.1 0.4 *** Triple bags for cowpea grain preservation 5.3 6.8 3.9 ns 7.8 4.9 ns 0.2 0.6 ns Other post￾harvest practices that reduce pre￾storage losses 1.5 1.7 1.4 ns 0.0 1.8 ns 2.0 2.7 ns Number of responding sorghum farmers 723 294 429 99 624 257 466 Baseline Study of the ViMPlus RFSA in Burkina Faso: Final Report (Vol. III) Annex 7: BHA Burkina Faso Bivariate and Multivariate Statistical Tables 93 ViMPlus 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. Table 58: Percentage of Cowpea Farmers Applying Targeted Improved Crop and Post-Harvest Practices by Use of Agricultural-Related Financial Services Vim Plus All farmers Used any agri-related 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 8.1 13.0 3.4 *** 24.5 5.7 *** 14.0 3.3 *** Control of sida cordifolia growth 0.1 0.3 0.0 ns 1.1 0.0 *** 0.3 0.0 ns Crop association 16.4 14.6 18.1 ns 8.9 17.5 * 14.2 18.2 ns Crop rotation 1.6 1.4 1.8 ns 1.2 1.7 ns 1.5 1.7 ns Sowing after useful rain 67.9 69.3 66.6 ns 71.9 67.3 ns 69.6 66.5 ns Farmer managed natural regeneration (fmnr) 24.5 30.8 18.3 * 56.3 19.8 * 30.9 19.2 * Delimitation of animal corridors and pasture areas 33.7 38.7 28.8 * 18.1 36.0 ns 41.2 27.5 ** Protection of ponds against silting up 32.4 25.1 39.4 * 20.3 34.1 ns 25.0 38.4 ns Functional community￾based conflict management mechanisms 3.8 2.6 4.9 ns 3.7 3.8 ns 2.5 4.8 ns Recovery of degraded lands 4.6 4.5 4.7 ns 4.8 4.6 ns 4.4 4.8 ns Develop low-lying or market gardens 1.2 0.8 1.5 ns 3.3 0.9 * 0.8 1.5 ns Delay of seedlings until third or fourth rains to control pests 4.0 0.1 7.8 ns 0.5 4.5 ** 0.0 7.3 * IMPEL | Implementer-Led Evaluation and Learning 94 Annex 7: BHA Burkina Faso Bivariate and Multivariate Statistical Tables Vim Plus Seed treatment with fungicides 8.2 11.0 5.6 ns 0.0 9.5 ns 12.0 5.1 * Zai pits 26.8 23.3 30.3 ns 27.7 26.7 ns 23.2 29.8 ns Organic manure 67.4 71.8 63.1 ns 62.9 68.1 ns 71.5 64.1 ns Phosphatic manure 18.1 15.1 20.9 ns 32.1 16.0 ns 14.7 20.8 ns Compost ` 10.7 8.7 ns 1.6 10.9 * 11.8 8.0 ns Microdoses of fertilizer 0.7 0.8 0.7 ns 0.0 0.8 ns 0.9 0.6 ns Agricultural half-moons 5.5 4.9 6.1 ns 5.1 5.5 ns 4.5 6.3 ns Use of climate information (rain forecast, disaster risks, etc.) 0.1 0.1 0.0 ns 0.0 0.1 ns 0.1 0.0 ns Performing at least three weedings 12.0 16.8 7.4 * 49.0 6.6 *** 16.8 8.1 ns Use modern agricultural equipment 21.9 30.2 13.8 *** 31.7 20.5 ns 33.1 12.8 *** Use agricultural credit 0.3 0.6 0.0 ns 0.6 0.2 ns 0.6 0.0 ns Number of responding cowpea farmers 822 331 491 105 717 294 528 Improved post￾harvest practices Locally made storage structures such as sheet metal silos 1.4 1.8 1.0 ns 1.1 1.4 ns 1.8 1.0 ns Sealed/airtig ht bags 16.1 14.2 18.0 ns 17.2 16.0 ns 14.3 17.7 ns Community storage facilities, including warehouse receipting 2.3 2.3 2.2 ns 2.1 2.3 ns 2.3 2.3 ns Use of solar or fuel-powered dryers to reduce post-harvest moisture 0.6 0.7 0.4 ns 1.6 0.4 ** 0.2 0.9 ns Seed or grain treatment techniques including botanical pest control agents or 0.9 1.3 0.6 ns 1.6 0.8 ns 1.4 0.5 ns Baseline Study of the ViMPlus RFSA in Burkina Faso: Final Report (Vol. III) Annex 7: BHA Burkina Faso Bivariate and Multivariate Statistical Tables 95 Vim Plus phytosanitary irradiation Grain treatment with agro-chemicals 1.8 1.1 2.5 ns 1.7 1.8 ns 1.0 2.5 ns Triple bags for cowpea grain preservation 8.4 8.1 8.6 ns 9.9 8.1 ns 8.6 8.1 ns Other post￾harvest practices that reduce pre￾storage losses 0.1 0.1 0.0 ns 0.0 0.1 ns 0.2 0.0 ns Number of responding cowpea farmers who stored their harvest 806 328 478 104 702 291 515 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. Table 59: Percentage of Rice Farmers Applying Targeted Improved Crop and Post-Harvest Practices by Use of Agricultural-Related Financial Services ViMPlus All farmers Used any agri-related 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 3.3 3.0 3.6 ns 7.9 2.0 ns 0.0 6.2 * Respect of cultural calendar 3.4 4.2 2.5 ns 3.1 3.5 ns 4.8 2.1 ns Nursery preparation 47.4 40.3 56.1 ns 33.3 51.2 ns 34.2 59.3 ns Farmer managed natural regeneration (fmnr) 20.4 31.4 7.3 * 56.3 11.0 ** 28.6 13.1 ns Delimitation of animal corridors and pasture areas 46.2 48.2 43.7 ns 42.3 47.2 ns 49.8 42.9 ns Protection of ponds against silting up 54.2 38.2 73.5 ns 37.2 58.7 ns 35.9 70.7 ns Functional community￾based conflict management mechanisms 8.3 3.0 14.5 *** 2.6 9.7 ns 3.5 12.5 * Recovery of degraded lands 2.2 0.0 4.9 ns 0.0 2.8 ns 0.0 4.2 ns Develop low-lying or market gardens 9.9 5.1 15.6 ** 13.5 8.9 ns 5.9 13.4 ns Weed control 15.5 12.2 19.4 ns 10.9 16.7 ns 11.8 18.8 ns Pest control 17.4 10.1 26.2 ns 10.4 19.3 ns 9.4 24.7 ns Soil preparation 78.6 76.0 81.8 ns 84.4 77.1 ns 75.8 81.2 ns Organic manure 38.7 28.0 51.5 ns 26.2 42.0 ns 27.7 48.7 ns IMPEL | Implementer-Led Evaluation and Learning 96 Annex 7: BHA Burkina Faso Bivariate and Multivariate Statistical Tables ViMPlus Phosphatic manure ` 28.1 36.1 ns 37.0 30.3 ns 27.7 35.3 ns Compost 13.5 5.9 22.6 ns 5.2 15.7 ns 6.8 19.5 ns Mineral fertilizer 8.7 15.0 1.2 * 8.0 8.9 ns 14.9 3.2 ns Water management 19.7 6.2 35.9 *** 10.9 22.0 ns 6.0 32.0 ** Use of climate information (rain forecast, disaster risks, etc.) 0.6 1.2 0.0 ns 3.1 0.0 ns 1.4 0.0 ns Use modern agricultural equipment 2.2 3.0 1.2 ns 0.0 2.8 ns 3.5 1.0 ns Use agricultural credit 1.1 2.0 0.0 ns 5.2 0.0 ns 2.3 0.0 ns Number of responding rice farmers 114 64 50 29 85 54 60 Improved post-harvest practices Locally made storage structures such as sheet metal silos 0.6 1.1 0.0 ns 3.1 0.0 ns 1.2 0.0 ns Sealed/airtight bags 20.8 19.0 22.9 ns 21.0 20.7 ns 19.6 22.0 ns Community storage facilities, including warehouse receipting 5.2 1.0 10.2 * 3.0 5.7 ns 1.1 9.3 * Use of solar or fuel￾powered dryers to reduce post￾harvest moisture 7.4 0.0 16.5 * 0.0 9.2 ns 0.0 15.0 * Seed or grain treatment techniques including botanical pest control agents or phytosanitary irradiation 4.0 1.0 7.6 ns 0.0 5.0 ns 1.1 6.9 ns Grain treatment with agro￾chemicals 2.9 2.1 3.8 ns 6.0 2.1 ns 2.3 3.5 ns Triple bags for cowpea grain preservation 15.0 8.6 22.8 ns 9.6 16.3 ns 9.4 20.7 ns Other post-harvest practices that reduce pre￾storage losses Number of responding rice farmers who stored their harvest 108 61 47 26 82 54 54 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 ViMPlus RFSA in Burkina Faso: Final Report (Vol. III) Annex 7: BHA Burkina Faso Bivariate and Multivariate Statistical Tables 97 Table 60: Percentage of Onion Farmers Applying Targeted Improved Crop and Post-Harvest Practices by Use of Agricultural-Related Financial Services ViMPlus All farmers Used any agri-related 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 na na na na na na na Control of sida cordifolia growth na na na na na na na Crop association 3.5 7.3 0.0 ns 0.0 4.1 ns 7.5 0.0 ns Crop rotation 3.5 0.0 6.7 ns 0.0 4.1 ns 0.0 6.5 ns Sowing after useful rain 18.8 28.3 10.0 ns 32.5 16.2 ns 29.4 9.6 ns Farmer managed natural regeneration (fmnr) 22.2 39.1 6.5 ns 10.8 24.2 ns 40.6 6.3 ns Delimitation of animal corridors and pasture areas 57.1 64.5 50.2 ns 67.1 55.2 ns 67.0 48.5 ns Protection of ponds against silting up 29.6 36.5 23.3 ns 12.9 32.7 ns 37.8 22.5 ns Functional community￾based conflict management mechanisms 12.0 17.8 6.7 ns 32.5 8.3 ns 18.4 6.5 ns Recovery of degraded lands 13.6 21.1 6.7 ns 32.5 10.1 ns 21.8 6.5 ns Develop low-lying or market gardens 8.9 11.2 6.7 ns 34.6 4.1 ns 11.6 6.5 ns Delay of seedlings until third or fourth rains to control pests 8.5 10.6 6.5 ns 11.2 8.0 ns 7.3 9.5 ns Seed treatment with fungicides na na na na na na na Zai pits 17.1 25.0 9.7 ns 0.0 20.2 ns 26.0 9.4 ns Organic manure 50.1 64.2 37.1 ns 32.9 53.3 ns 62.9 39.1 ns Phosphatic manure 54.1 39.9 67.2 ns 45.8 55.6 ns 37.6 68.3 ns Compost ` 3.5 13.3 ns 0.0 10.2 ns 3.6 12.9 ns Microdoses of fertilizer 6.8 0.0 13.1 ns 0.0 8.1 ns 0.0 12.7 ns Agricultural half-moons 6.7 0.0 13.0 ns 0.0 8.0 ns 0.0 12.6 ns Use of climate information (rain forecast, disaster risks, etc.) 3.4 7.0 0.0 ns 21.7 0.0 ns 7.3 0.0 ns Performing at least three weedings 12.2 18.2 6.7 ns 45.4 6.1 ns 18.9 6.5 ns Use modern agricultural equipment 12.2 21.8 3.2 ns 24.1 10.0 ns 18.9 6.4 ns Use agricultural credit 1.7 3.6 0.0 ns 11.2 0.0 ns 0.0 3.2 ns Number of responding onion farmers 39 18 21 6 33 17 22 Improved post-harvest practices Locally made storage structures such as sheet metal silos na na na na na na na IMPEL | Implementer-Led Evaluation and Learning 98 Annex 7: BHA Burkina Faso Bivariate and Multivariate Statistical Tables ViMPlus Sealed/airtight bags 3.6 0.0 7.2 ns 0.0 4.3 ns 0.0 7.0 ns Community storage facilities, including warehouse receipting 1.8 3.5 0.0 ns 0.0 2.1 ns 3.6 0.0 ns Use of solar or fuel￾powered dryers to reduce post-harvest moisture na na na na na na na Seed or grain treatment techniques including botanical pest control agents or phytosanitary irradiation na na na na na na na Grain treatment with agro-chemicals na na na na na na na Triple bags for peanut grain preservation na na na na na na na Other post-harvest practices that reduce pre￾storage losses na na na na na na na Number of responding onion farmers who stored their harvest 37 18 19 6 31 17 20 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. Table 61: Percentage of Goat Herders Applying Targeted Improved Livestock Practices by Use of Agricultural-Related Financial Services ViMPlus All farmers Used any agri-related financial services Obtained agri-credit Participated in agri-saving schemes % Yes No Sig.a Yes No Sig.a Yes No Sig.a Improved livestock management practices Improved fodder production 4.1 5.1 3.0 ns 5.0 3.9 ns 5.0 3.2 ns Use of licking and/or multi-nutritional block 8.9 8.3 9.5 ns 6.4 9.4 ns 8.3 9.5 ns Animal selection 12.3 12.6 12.5 ns 8.6 13.3 ns 11.9 13.0 ns Vaccinations 95.5 95.2 95.4 ns 90.8 96.3 ns 96.8 94.0 ns Antiparasitic treatments 24.8 34.4 29.4 ns 9.4 33.5 * 25.5 33.0 ns Veterinary monitoring of food quality and quantity over time 2.3 0.0 1.2 ns 1.4 1.2 ns 2.0 0.5 ns Weight monitoring 1.2 5.1 3.1 * 0.0 3.7 ns 1.3 4.6 * Optimum weight-market price criteria for the sale decision 3.0 0.5 1.8 ns 0.0 2.2 ns 3.3 0.5 * Use of para-veterinary services for goats and sheep 1.5 3.3 2.4 ns 2.1 2.4 ns 1.4 3.2 ns Baseline Study of the ViMPlus RFSA in Burkina Faso: Final Report (Vol. III) Annex 7: BHA Burkina Faso Bivariate and Multivariate Statistical Tables 99 ViMPlus Number of responding goat herders 464 191 273 59 405 169 295 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. Table 62: Percentage of Sheep Herders Applying Targeted Improved Livestock Practices by Use of Agricultural-Related Financial Services ViMPlus All farmers Used any agri-related financial services Obtained agri-credit Participated in agri￾saving schemes % Yes No Sig.a Yes No Sig.a Yes No Sig.a Improved livestock management practices Improved fodder production 4.0 3.3 4.8 ns 3.6 4.0 ns 3.1 5.0 ns Use of licking and/or multi-nutritional block 11.3 8.6 14.7 ns 6.7 12.3 ns 8.5 14.3 ns Animal selection 11.7 9.6 14.5 ns 6.7 12.9 ns 9.4 14.4 ns Vaccinations 96.1 97.9 93.9 ns 95.9 96.2 ns 98.3 93.8 ns Antiparasitic treatments 30.5 27.2 34.7 ns 10.0 35.1 ns 27.5 33.8 ns Veterinary monitoring of food quality and quantity over time 2.4 2.9 1.7 ns 6.2 1.6 * 3.2 1.6 ns Weight monitoring 3.9 2.4 5.9 ns 0.5 4.7 * 2.6 5.4 ns Optimum weight-market price criteria for the sale decision 0.2 0.3 0.0 ns 0.0 0.2 ns 0.4 0.0 ns Use of para-veterinary services for sheep 2.2 2.0 2.4 ns 0.5 2.5 ns 2.1 2.2 ns Number of responding sheep herders 545 235 310 77 468 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=not significant. IMPEL | Implementer-Led Evaluation and Learning 100 Annex 7: BHA Burkina Faso Bivariate and Multivariate Statistical Tables Table 63: Percentage of poultry farmers applying targeted improved livestock practices by use of agricultural-related financial services ViMPlus All farmers Used any agri-related financial services Obtained agri-credit Participated in agri￾saving schemes % Yes No Sig.a Yes No Sig.a Yes No Sig.a Improved livestock management practices Use of improved poultry variety/breed 6.6 7.6 5.0 ns 3.7 7.3 ns 7.5 5.4 ns Use of improved feed 7.6 9.9 4.1 * 1.2 9.2 * 10.6 3.7 * Use of improved shelters 14.0 14.7 13.0 ns 5.0 16.3 ns 15.4 12.3 ns Vaccinations 94.9 96.3 92.8 ns 92.5 95.5 ns 97.8 91.2 * Use of veterinary products and services (antibiotics, vitamins, etc.) 4.7 5.3 3.9 ns 3.8 5.0 ns 5.7 3.5 ns Number of responding poultry farmers 430 206 224 70 360 185 245 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=not significant. Table 64: Percentage of Women 15-49 Years Achieving a Diet Of Minimum Diversity by Individual and Household Characteristics ViMPlus No. of women % Sig.a All women 15-49 years 1,465 62.2 Women's characteristics Age 15-19 years 362 57.9 ns 20 - 29 years 543 64.5 30-49 years 560 62.9 Educational level Never attended school 1,241 60.9 ns Preschool 1 ^ Primary 122 60.5 Secondary 1st cycle 92 68.0 Secondary 2nd cycle 9 ^ Higher education 0 ^ Pregnancy status Currently pregnant 158 64.9 ns Ever pregnant but not currently 972 62.1 Never pregnant 335 61.4 Participation in income-generating activities Cash or combination of cash & in-kind 305 70.4 ns In-kind or unpaid 413 58.8 Does not work 747 60.5 Baseline Study of the ViMPlus RFSA in Burkina Faso: Final Report (Vol. III) Annex 7: BHA Burkina Faso Bivariate and Multivariate Statistical Tables 101 ViMPlus Participation in income generating activities Does not participate in cash earning activities 1,160 59.9 * Participates in cash earning activities 305 70.4 Household socio-demographic characteristics Gendered household type Both 1,422 62.2 ns Female Only 40 62.0 Male Only 3 ^ Child Only 0 ^ Household head sex Male 1,334 64.0 ** Female 131 49.2 Household head age 17-24 years 69 73.0 ns 25-34 years 259 61.7 35-44 years 345 63.7 45+ years 792 60.9 Household head educational level Never attended school 1,275 59.5 ** Preschool 5 ^ Primary 137 71.0 Secondary 1st cycle 45 91.4 Secondary 2nd cycle 1 ^ Higher education 2 ^ Number of adult females (18+) in household other than woman No other adult woman 214 65.1 ns One other adult female 396 64.7 Two other adult females 384 63.4 Three other adult females 226 51.6 Four or more other adult females 245 64.2 Number of adult males in household No adult males 40 62.0 ns One adult male 656 61.5 Two adult males 350 64.2 Three adult males 206 63.8 Four or more adult males 213 60.5 Number of children under five None 160 61.3 ns One 341 71.6 Two 357 56.8 Three 236 60.5 Four 168 53.7 Five or more 203 64.3 Number of children 5-17 years None 60 60.1 ns One 108 61.3 Two 143 53.8 Three 167 67.7 Four 246 62.3 IMPEL | Implementer-Led Evaluation and Learning 102 Annex 7: BHA Burkina Faso Bivariate and Multivariate Statistical Tables ViMPlus Five or more 741 63.0 Household food security Food consumption score groups Poor food consumption (0-21) 53 31.5 *** Borderline food consumption (21.5-35) 217 40.3 Acceptable food consumption (35.5-112) 1,195 66.4 Household harvested crops in the current season Did not harvest any crops in the current season 1,214 62.2 ns Less than 25 percent 182 61.3 25 - 50 percent 64 64.4 More than 50 percent 5 ^ Household agricultural status1 Accessed at least one ag-related financial service (credit, savings, insurance) No 814 60.7 ns Yes 651 63.5 Took out a loan (ag credit, in cash or in-kind) No 1,251 61.3 ns Yes 214 67.3 Saved cash No 897 58.5 ns Yes 568 66.3 Insured ag production against loss (insurance) No 1,449 62.4 ns Yes 16 46.6 Raised at least one type of livestock2 No 305 52.5 * Yes 1,160 64.4 Raised goats No 630 55.9 * Yes 835 67.2 Raised sheep No 540 61.5 ns Yes 925 62.6 Raised poultry No 639 53.2 ns Yes 826 69.4 Used at least one improved crop management practice3 No 37 60.1 ns Yes 1,428 62.2 Dug zai pits No 485 58.0 ns Yes 980 64.4 Dug agri half-moons No 1,250 61.1 ns Yes 215 71.0 Applied organic manure No 368 68.6 ns Yes 1,097 60.2 Applied phosphatic manure No 1,036 60.4 ns Baseline Study of the ViMPlus RFSA in Burkina Faso: Final Report (Vol. III) Annex 7: BHA Burkina Faso Bivariate and Multivariate Statistical Tables 103 ViMPlus Yes 429 67.5 Applied compost No 1,276 61.7 ns Yes 189 65.0 Applied microdoses of fertilizer No 1,430 61.9 ns Yes 35 78.7 Controlled sida cordifolia growth No 1,460 62.2 ns Yes 5 50.0 Performed at least three weedings No 1,239 62.8 ns Yes 226 58.9 Delayed seedlings at 3rd/4th rains to control pests No 1,384 61.5 ns Yes 81 77.2 Sowed after useful rain No 398 63.4 ns Yes 1,067 61.7 Performed crop association No 1,142 65.9 ** Yes 323 50.8 Performed crop rotation No 1,390 62.5 ns Yes 75 53.3 Used seed treatment w/fungicides No 1,411 61.4 ns Yes 54 75.6 Used improved seeds No 1,342 61.6 ns Yes 123 67.4 Used climate information No 1,462 62.1 ns Yes 3 100.0 Used modern agricultural equipment No 1,225 59.2 ns Yes 240 71.1 Used agricultural credit No 1,453 62.4 ns Yes 12 43.4 Used at least one type of improved post-harvest practice/technique4 No 822 61.0 ns Yes 643 64.0 Used local made storage No 1,333 62.9 ns Yes 132 52.2 Used sealed/airtight bags No 992 61.8 ns Yes 473 63.2 Used community storage facility No 1,334 62.0 ns IMPEL | Implementer-Led Evaluation and Learning 104 Annex 7: BHA Burkina Faso Bivariate and Multivariate Statistical Tables ViMPlus Yes 131 65.0 Used solar/fuel-powered dryers No 1,439 61.9 ns Yes 26 74.4 Used seed/grain treatment pest control tech. No 1,435 62.0 ns Yes 30 71.8 Used agrochemical grain treatment No 1,420 62.3 ns Yes 45 57.6 Used triple bags No 1,289 61.3 ns Yes 176 68.6 Used other post-harvest practices No 1,452 61.8 ns Yes 13 76.5 Used at least one improved livestock mgmt. practice5 No 334 50.9 * Yes 1,131 65.0 Impact of COVID-19 on household livelihood/food security Household livelihood was impacted by COVID-19 No 225 48.1 ns Yes 1,240 64.3 Household food security was impacted by COVID-19 No 90 74.1 ns Yes 1,375 61.4 Household resilience capacities Participation in group-based savings, microfinance or lending programs No 1,416 61.6 ns Yes 49 75.8 Participation in group-based saving programs No 1,417 61.8 ns Yes 48 82.2 Participation in group-based credit programs No 1,386 61.4 ns Yes 79 76.6 Participation in social assistance activities Participation in BHA RFSAs No 519 61.1 ns Yes 946 62.9 Receipt of food rations (any donor/program) No 770 63.2 ns Yes 695 61.1 Participation in nutrition trainings/meetings (any donor/program) No 760 57.7 * Yes 705 68.6 Baseline Study of the ViMPlus RFSA in Burkina Faso: Final Report (Vol. III) Annex 7: BHA Burkina Faso Bivariate and Multivariate Statistical Tables 105 ViMPlus Participation in agriculture-related trainings/meetings (any donor/program) No 628 56.8 ns Yes 837 67.0 Receipt of BHA RFSA food rations6 Did not receive any food rations 770 63.2 (ref.) Received food rations through BHA RFSA 480 61.8 ns Received food rations through other social assistance programs 215 59.8 ns Participation in BHA RFSA nutrition trainings/meetings7 Did not participate in any nutrition trainings/meetings 760 57.7 (ref.) Participated in nutrition trainings/meetings through BHA RFSA 592 69.2 ns Participated in nutrition trainings/meetings through other social assistance programs 113 65.5 ns Participation in BHA RFSA agriculture-related trainings/meetings8 Did not participate in any ag trainings/meetings 628 56.8 (ref.) Participated in ag trainings/meetings through BHA RFSA 644 68.9 ns Participated in ag trainings/meetings through other social assistance programs 193 62.1 ns 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 covariates. ^ Results not statistically reliable, n<30. a Significance tests were performed to determine whether an association exists between the outcome indicator (MDD-W) and the select women and household characteristics that are associated with women's dietary diversity. Associations found to be statistically significant are indicated by level: * p<0.05, ** p<0.01, *** p<0.001; ns=not significant. 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 practice if at least one farmer reported using any of the promoted practices for any one of the three crops of interest (sorghum, cowpeas, and onions). 3 A household is considered to be using at least one improved crop management practice if at least one farmer reported using any of the promoted practices for any one of the three crops of interest (sorghum, cowpeas, and onions). 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 four crops of interest (sorghum, cowpeas, rice and onions). 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 activities. IMPEL | Implementer-Led Evaluation and Learning 106 Annex 7: BHA Burkina Faso Bivariate and Multivariate Statistical Tables ViMPlus 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 activities. 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 activities. Table 65: Multivariate Logistic Regression of Women's Minimum Dietary Diversity (MDD-W) 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 1.483 1.511 1.481 1.484 30-49 years 1.500+ 1.556* 1.592* 1.588* Women's education (ref.: none or less than primary) Primary 1.330 1.288 1.202 1.201 Secondary or higher 1.793* 1.707* 2.005* 1.970* Pregnancy status (ref.: currently pregnant) Ever pregnant but not currently 0.757 0.744 0.823 0.800 Never pregnant 0.879 0.932 0.991 0.970 Participation in income generating activities (ref.: does not participate in cash￾earning activities) 1.501* 1.449* 1.432* 1.447* Household socio-demographic characteristics Gendered household type (ref.: Female and Male Adults) Female Adult Only 3.515+ 4.122+ 4.458* 4.373* Male Adult Only - - - - Female-headed household (ref.: male-headed household) 0.528 0.505 0.497* 0.480* Age of household head (ref.: 18-24 years) 25-34 years 0.508 0.526 0.458 0.451 35-44 years 0.449+ 0.436+ 0.334+ 0.329+ 45+ years 0.408 0.414 0.306 0.297 Education of household head Primary or higher (ref.: primary or none) 2.790*** 2.701*** 3.052** 2.774* Household size (2-37) 1.014 1.010 1.001 1.002 COVID-19 impact on household (ref.: was not impacted) Not applicable/no impact 2.870* 2.803* 1.873* 1.800+ Not applicable/food security unaffected 0.208** 0.197** 0.315* 0.299* Household food consumption Household harvested crops in current season (ref.: did not harvest any crops) Harvested less than 25 percent 0.512 0.463 0.421 0.437 Harvest 25 - 50 percent 1.673 1.501 1.214 1.235 Harvest more than 50 percent 0.291 0.258 0.142* 0.151* Household livestock holdings (ref.: did not raise livestock) Raised goats 1.820** 1.744** 2.014** 2.020** Raised sheep 1.250 1.240 1.182 1.139 Raised poultry 2.197* 2.140+ 2.406*** 2.324*** Household use of or access to financial services Took out an agricultural loan (ref.: did not take out an ag-loan) 1.866** 2.122*** 2.109*** Baseline Study of the ViMPlus RFSA in Burkina Faso: Final Report (Vol. III) Annex 7: BHA Burkina Faso Bivariate and Multivariate Statistical Tables 107 Model 1 Model 2 Model 3 Model 4 Participated in an agricultural savings scheme (ref.: did not participate in ag￾savings scheme) 1.180 1.495 1.532 Participated in group-based saving programs (ref.: did not participate) 1.980 1.897 1.904 Participated in group-based credit programs (ref.: did not participate) 1.592 2.073 2.216 Household adoption of targeted improved crop practices1 Dug zai pits 1.316 1.284 Dug agri half-moons 0.975 0.957 Applied organic manure 0.327* 0.335* Applied phosphatic manure 1.373 1.333 Applied compost 0.770 0.788 Applied microdoses of fertilizer 1.240 1.319 Controlled sida cordifolia growth 5.603+ 4.645 Performed at least 3 weedings 0.537* 0.500* Delayed seedlings until 3rd/4th rains to control pests 4.552* 4.436* Sowed after useful rain 1.005 0.943 Performed crop association 0.567* 0.566* Performed crop rotation 0.812 0.756 Used Seed treatment w/fungicides 1.127 1.271 Used improved seeds 0.404+ 0.398+ Used modern ag equipment 3.617* 3.367+ Used ag credit 0.165* 0.163** Household adoption of targeted improved post-harvest handling and storage practices1 Used local made storage 0.322* 0.316* Used sealed/airtight bags 1.164 1.117 Used community storage facility 0.485 0.468 Used solar/fuel-powered dryers 5.600* 5.104* Used seed/grain treatment pest control technique 1.378 1.267 Used agrochemical grain treatment 0.612 0.641 Used triple bags 0.826 0.793 Household adoption of targeted improved post-harvest handling and storage practices1 Used at least one improved livestock management practice 1.105 1.161 Household participation in social assistance Participated in a BHA RFSA (ref.: HH did not participate in a RFSA) 0.946 Received food rations - any donor (ref.: did not receive food rations) 0.813 Participated in nutrition trainings/meetings - any donor (ref.: did not participate) 1.514 Participated in agriculture-related trainings/meetings - any donor (ref.: did not participate) 1.049 Constant 0.328 0.301+ 0.444 0.551 Number of women 15-49 years 1,462 1,462 1,459 1,459 * 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. A misspecification-link and Hosmer-Lemeshow tests were conducted and suggest adequate model specification and fit. 1 Reference category includes households that did not adopt the targeted improved practice. IMPEL | Implementer-Led Evaluation and Learning 108 Annex 7: BHA Burkina Faso Bivariate and Multivariate Statistical Tables Table 66: Percentage of Children 6-23 Months Achieving a Diet Of Minimum Diversity by Individual and Household Characteristics ViMPlus No. of children % Sig.a All children 6-23 months 390 52.8 Child characteristics Sex Male 190 56.6 ns Female 200 49.3 Age 6-8 months 57 21.7 *** 9-11 months 53 39.1 12-17 months 149 63.9 18-23 months 131 59.4 Household socio-demographic characteristics Gendered household type Both 379 53.7 ns Female Only 10 21.4 Male Only 1 100.0 Child Only Household head sex Male 364 55.4 ns Female 26 26.5 Household head age 18-24 years 14 50.6 ns 25-34 years 103 50.6 35-44 years 93 46.0 45+ years 180 57.6 Household head educational level Never attended school 333 52.6 ns Primary 40 48.9 Secondary 1st cycle 15 58.5 Secondary 2nd cycle 1 0.0 Higher education 1 100.0 Number of adult females in household One adult female or none 84 43.6 ns Two adult females 107 54.4 Three adult females 85 53.3 Four or more adult females 114 56.6 Number of adult males in household One adult male or none 199 48.7 ns Two adult males 74 52.3 Three adult males 60 71.2 Four or more adult males 57 50.1 Number of children under five other than child None 69 59.6 ns One other child under five 109 42.8 Two other children under five 77 59.7 Baseline Study of the ViMPlus RFSA in Burkina Faso: Final Report (Vol. III) Annex 7: BHA Burkina Faso Bivariate and Multivariate Statistical Tables 109 ViMPlus Three other children under five 58 48.4 Four or more other children under five 77 56.5 Number of children 5-17 years None 30 48.8 ns One child 35 49.9 Two children 48 62.4 Three children 44 44.0 Four children 55 46.2 Five or more children 178 56.7 Household food security Food consumption score groups Poor food consumption (0-21) 18 34.0 ns Borderline food consumption (21.5-35) 68 34.9 Acceptable food consumption (35.5-112) 304 56.5 Household harvested crops in the current season Did not harvest any crops in the current season 318 51.2 ** Less than 25 percent 51 74.5 25 - 50 percent 20 23.4 More than 50 percent 1 0.0 Household agricultural status1 Accessed at least one ag-related financial service (credit, savings, insurance) No 214 51.2 ns Yes 176 54.2 Took out a loan (ag credit, in cash or in-kind) No 341 52.4 ns Yes 49 55.6 Saved cash No 227 49.5 ns Yes 163 56.1 Insured ag production against loss (insurance) No 387 53.0 ns Yes 3 25.0 Raised at least one type of livestock2 No 80 41.0 ns Yes 310 54.9 Raised goats No 164 48.3 ns Yes 226 55.7 Raised sheep No 149 55.9 ns Yes 241 51.3 Raised poultry No 170 49.9 ns Yes 220 55.0 Used at least one improved crop management practice3 No 12 55.1 ns Yes 378 52.8 Dug zai pits No 132 47.6 ns Yes 258 55.7 IMPEL | Implementer-Led Evaluation and Learning 110 Annex 7: BHA Burkina Faso Bivariate and Multivariate Statistical Tables ViMPlus Dug agri half-moons No 339 52.5 ns Yes 51 55.7 Applied organic manure No 109 48.6 ns Yes 281 54.2 Applied phosphatic manure No 277 49.5 ns Yes 113 62.5 Applied compost No 326 49.6 ns Yes 64 65.8 Applied microdoses of fertilizer No 379 52.8 ns Yes 11 56.5 Controlled sida cordifolia growth No 390 52.8 ns Yes 390 52.8 Performed at least three weedings No 318 55.5 ns Yes 72 41.3 Delayed seedlings at 3rd/4th rains to control pests No 366 53.8 * Yes 24 30.9 Sowed after useful rain No 107 51.8 ns Yes 283 53.2 Performed crop association No 307 53.7 ns Yes 83 50.2 Performed crop rotation No 374 53.2 ns Yes 16 39.1 Used seed treatment w/fungicides No 368 51.0 * Yes 22 71.3 Used improved seeds No 356 52.8 ns Yes 34 53.2 Used climate information No 390 52.8 ns Yes 390 52.8 Used modern agricultural equipment No 321 47.8 *** Yes 69 66.1 Used agricultural credit No 389 52.9 ns Yes 1 0.0 Used at least one type of improved post-harvest practice/technique4 No 218 54.2 ns Yes 172 50.7 Baseline Study of the ViMPlus RFSA in Burkina Faso: Final Report (Vol. III) Annex 7: BHA Burkina Faso Bivariate and Multivariate Statistical Tables 111 ViMPlus Used local made storage No 348 53.6 ns Yes 42 42.5 Used sealed/airtight bags No 272 51.2 ns Yes 118 58.0 Used community storage facility No 360 52.7 ns Yes 30 55.7 Used solar/fuel-powered dryers No 384 52.7 ns Yes 6 62.0 Used seed/grain treatment pest control tech. No 383 53.0 ns Yes 7 44.9 Used agrochemical grain treatment No 378 53.0 ns Yes 12 44.1 Used triple bags No 347 52.7 ns Yes 43 54.4 Used other post-harvest practices No 386 53.1 ns Yes 4 45.5 Used at least one improved livestock mgmt. practice5 No 92 39.1 * Yes 298 55.8 Impact of COVID-19 on household livelihood/food security Household livelihood was impacted by COVID-19 No 59 45.2 ns Yes 331 54.1 Household food security was impacted by COVID-19 No 33 75.8 * Yes 357 50.5 Household resilience capacities Participation in group-based savings, microfinance or lending programs No 378 53.4 ns Yes 12 38.2 Participation in group-based saving programs No 378 53.4 ns Yes 12 38.2 Participation in group-based credit programs No 380 53.3 ns Yes 10 30.5 Participation in social assistance activities Participation in BHA RFSAs No 139 48.9 ns Yes 251 55.7 Receipt of food rations (any donor/program) IMPEL | Implementer-Led Evaluation and Learning 112 Annex 7: BHA Burkina Faso Bivariate and Multivariate Statistical Tables ViMPlus No 204 51.0 ns Yes 186 54.7 Participation in nutrition trainings/meetings (any donor/program) No 218 49.7 ns Yes 172 58.3 Participation in agriculture-related trainings/meetings (any donor/program) No 160 48.9 ns Yes 230 56.4 Receipt of BHA RFSA food rations6 Did not receive any food rations 204 51.0 (ref.) Received food rations through BHA RFSA 126 55.3 ns Received food rations through other social assistance programs 60 53.8 ns Participation in BHA RFSA nutrition trainings/meetings7 Did not participate in any nutrition trainings/meetings 218 49.7 (ref.) Participated in nutrition trainings/meetings through BHA RFSA 144 56.2 ns Participated in nutrition trainings/meetings through other social assistance programs 28 67.9 ns Participation in BHA RFSA agriculture-related trainings/meetings8 Did not participate in any ag trainings/meetings 160 48.9 (ref.) Participated in ag trainings/meetings through BHA RFSA 176 57.7 ns Participated in ag trainings/meetings through other social assistance programs 54 53.5 ns 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. a Significance tests were performed to determine whether an association exists between the outcome indicator (MDD-C) and the select children and household characteristics that are associated with children's dietary diversity. Associations found to be statistically significant are indicated by level: * p<0.05, ** p<0.01, *** p<0.001; ns=not significant. 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 four crops of interest (sorghum, cowpeas, rice and onions). 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 four crops of interest (sorghum, cowpeas, rice and onions). 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). Baseline Study of the ViMPlus RFSA in Burkina Faso: Final Report (Vol. III) Annex 7: BHA Burkina Faso Bivariate and Multivariate Statistical Tables 113 ViMPlus 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 activities. 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 activities. 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 activities. Table 67: Prevalence of Diarrhea among Children under Five by Household WASH Status ViMPlus No. of children % Sig.a Improved, not shared sanitation facility Household does not use a basic sanitation facility 1,003 21.3 ns Household uses a basic sanitation facility 397 17.7 Total 1,400 Water source1 Household does not use an improved water source 55 33.3 * Household uses an improved water source 1,345 19.9 Total 1,400 Meets four of the five criteria for basic water source2 Household does not meet 4 of the 5 criteria for basic water source 1,293 20.0 ns Household meets 4 of the 5 criteria for basic water source 102 24.3 Total 1,395 Water treatment3 Household does not treat water prior to drinking 1,240 19.9 ns Household treats water prior to drinking 160 23.3 All children under five 1,400 Handwashing station with water and soap or another cleansing agent Household does not have a handwashing station with water and soap or another cleansing agent 317 26.9 ns Household has a handwashing station with water and soap or another cleansing agent 334 20.2 Total 651 Knowledge of 3 of the 6 critical moments for handwashing4 IMPEL | Implementer-Led Evaluation and Learning 114 Annex 7: BHA Burkina Faso Bivariate and Multivariate Statistical Tables ViMPlus Household does not know 3 of the 6 critical moments for handwashing 1,154 21.3 ns Household knows 3 of the 6 critical moments for handwashing 246 15.5 Total 1,400 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 the past 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 ViMPlus RFSA in Burkina Faso: Final Report (Vol. III) Annex 8: COVID-19 Knowledge, Practices, Impacts and Coping Strategies 115 ANNEX 8: COVID-19 KNOWLEDGE, PRACTICES, IMPACTS AND COPING STRATEGIES Given the assumption that COVID-19 would have a major impact on baseline results, the survey included a COVID module in order to provide context and inform the interpretation of baseline-endline comparisons later on. Knowledge of COVID-19 and Adoption of Mitigation Practices Awareness of the COVID-19 pandemic is widespread across the RFSA area (99.8 percent). Most households in the RFSA area take measures to mitigate the spread of COVID-19. Figure 1 illustrates the extent of adoption of COVID-19 mitigation protocols. Washing hands with water and soap was the most cited COVID-19 mitigation practice (92 percent). However, the percentage of households with a handwashing station with water and soap/ash, based on enumerator observation, is somewhat lower (58.7 percent; see Section 3.5.3), which calls into question the validity of respondents’ responses regarding their adoption of handwashing practices. These findings suggest the possibility of respondents reporting 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 fairly widespread (72.9 percent) (see Annex 6, Table A6.3); these meetings could be one forum in which households were sensitized on the importance of handwashing to mitigate the spread of COVID-19. Figure 1: Adoption of COVID-19 mitigation protocols (% HHs) Impact of COVID-19 on Livelihoods and Food Security Survey questions in the COVID-19 module were worded with reference to COVID-19, e.g., “How has COVID-19 affected your household’s livelihoods /income?” However, an important caveat for interpreting the results is that the baseline survey did not collect information on other shocks (e.g., conflict shocks, climate shocks). It is reasonable to assume that other shocks pre-dating or ongoing during the pandemic had similar impacts on livelihoods and food security, and/or that their impacts 92.0 86.2 56.1 47.0 1.1 0 20 40 60 80 100 Handwashing with water and soap Wearing a face cover/mask Maintaining one meter distance from others Limiting contact with non-HH members Other practices IMPEL | Implementer-Led Evaluation and Learning 116 Annex 8: COVID-19 Knowledge, Practices, Impacts and Coping Strategies were exacerbated by the pandemic. During the period in question, the RFSA area was characterized by conflict and insecurity, which likely had a substantial impact on livelihoods and food security. As a project stakeholder noted, attacks of armed groups on markets led to people’s avoidance of markets and a shift in commerce closer to people’s homes, and while the pandemic may have added to people’s fears, COVID-19 may not have been the primary factor limiting mobility and economic activity. However, while acknowledging the importance of the security context, given the data collected for the baseline, it is not possible to definitively attribute impacts across the range of possible shocks households were experiencing at that time. Most households reported that their livelihoods were impacted by COVID-19 (87.5 percent). Similarly, the majority of households stated that the pandemic had impacts on their food security (92.9 percent). Livelihoods Figure 2 illustrates the five most common COVID-19 impacts on livelihoods in the RFSA area (refer to Annex 6, Table A6.18 for additional information).8 About four in ten households (41.7 percent) were unable to access markets to buy inputs because of restrictions or market closures. Similarly, more than one-third of households (33.7 percent) were unable to access markets to sell livestock and livestock products because of COVID-related closures and restrictions. Roughly one-quarter of households lost income (28.5 percent) or were impacted by increasing food prices (24.3 percent). Just 18.4 percent of households experienced constrained access to water. The percentage of households not experiencing COVID-19 related livelihood impacts was 11.8 percent (see Annex 6, Table A6.18). Figure 2: Top five COVID-19 related impacts on households’ livelihoods (% HHs) Note: All indicators listed are understood to have negative (harmful) impacts on livelihoods except for the one marked with an asterisk, which has a positive impact. 8 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. COVID-19 can also constrain access to productive resources (e.g., land, water) and services (e.g., extension services, financial services, storage). 41.7 33.7 28.5 24.3 18.4 0 20 40 60 80 Inability to access market to buy inputs Inability to access market to sell livestock/livestock products Reduced income Increase in price of products sold* Constrained access to water Baseline Study of the ViMPlus RFSA in Burkina Faso: Final Report (Vol. III) Annex 8: COVID-19 Knowledge, Practices, Impacts and Coping Strategies 117 Food Security The five most common food security impacts of COVID-19 are illustrated in Figure 3 (see Annex 6, Table A6.19 for additional information).9 The majority of households were unable to acquire food items due to movement restrictions (80.3 percent). Two-thirds of households (64.4 percent) cited increases in food prices as having an impact on their food security. Lack of product availability, absence of traders from markets, and increase in transportation costs were also among the main factors that impacted household food security. Few households’ food security was unaffected by the COVID-19 pandemic (5.9 percent; see Annex 6, table A6.19). Figure 3: Top five COVID-19 related impacts on households’ food security (% HHs) Coping Strategies Adopted by Households to Address COVID-19 Impacts As noted above, all survey questions in the COVID-19 module include a reference to COVID-19. The coping strategies questions, for example, are “How has your household coped with the impacts of COVID-19 on your livelihoods/income?” (a similar question relates to coping and food security). Again, when interpreting the results, it is important to acknowledge that the coping strategies reported may have been adopted in response to insecurity/conflict or other shocks, in addition to COVID-19. While the questions about coping strategies to address impacts on food security and livelihoods were asked separately, the results were similar for both (see Figure 4). The most common strategy to cope with the adverse impacts of COVID-19 on food security and livelihoods was taking children out of school. One-third of households reduced food consumption to deal with the impacts on their food security (see Figure 5). To cope with the impacts of food security and 9 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. 80.3 64.4 44.0 37.6 31.9 0 20 40 60 80 100 Movement restrictions or market closed Price of food increased Products not available in the market Traders are absent from the markets Transportation costs too expensive/no public transport IMPEL | Implementer-Led Evaluation and Learning 118 Annex 8: COVID-19 Knowledge, Practices, Impacts and Coping Strategies livelihoods, around one-quarter of households sold livestock at a lower price and 20-30 percent cut down on non-essential household expenses. Other coping strategies included selling livestock, consuming saved seeds, and washing hands (see Annex 6, Table A6.20 and Table A6.21). Figure 4: Coping strategies for addressing livelihood and food security impacts of COVID-19 (% HHs) 39.6 32.1 27.3 26.0 21.5 43.4 24.0 20.2 18.3 18.0 0 20 40 60 80 100 Took children out of school Reduced food consumption Reduced non-essential household expenses Sold livestock at lower price Consumed saved seeds Took children out of school Sold livestock at lower price Reduced non-essential household expenses Washed hands Sold livestock Food Security Livelihoods