Attachment_26-Baseline_Monitoring_Pilot_-_East_Region.pdf

BASELINE MONITORING

PILOT – EAST REGION

FINAL REPORT – OCTOBER 2013

October 2013

This publication was produced by IDS International Government

Services, LLC for the United States Agency for International

Development.

BASELINE MONITORING

PILOT – EAST REGION

OCTOBER 2013

DISCLAIMER

The author’s views expressed in this publication do not necessarily reflect the views of the United States Agency for

International Development or the United States Government.

CONTENTS

CONTENTS

ACRONYM LIST

LIST OF TABLES AND FIGURES

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

INTRODUCTION

Description of the Project Evaluated ……………………………………………………...……8

Purpose of the Baseline Study and Evaluation Questions Brief Statement on Methods

RESULTS

Demographic Characteristics of Farming Households Farm Characteristics Access to Irrigation Farming Household’s Agricultural and Livestock Production and Income

Cereal crops Vegetable crops Legume crops Fruit crops Forage crops Sapling nurseries Poppy

Livestock By-product Produce

Income Income from Licit Agricultural Activities …………………………………………………. .16

Income from Licit Non-agricultural Activities

Post-Harvest Practices and Agricultural Marketing Agricultural extension services are perceived as virtually non-existent Agribusiness Input Supplies Farmer’s Associations Implementing Partners

Role of Women

Farming Household Assets ……………………………………………………………………25

Views of the Government’s Agricultural Policies and Support………………………………..26

FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS

Baseline Value for Household Income in the Eastern Region Baseline Value for Production of Licit Crops in the Eastern Region in Metric Tons per

Hectare………………………………………………………………………………...………29

Baseline Value for Irrigated Hectares in the Eastern Region Baseline Value for Hectares Under Licit Crop Cultivation in Areas Targeted by USG

Programs in the Eastern Region

CONCLUSIONS

FEASIBILITY OF STUDY REPLICATION

APPENDICES:

A - Methodology Description

B - Statement of Work & Modifications

C - Approved Work Plan

D - List of Documents Consulted & Referenced

E - List of Individuals and Agencies Contacted

F - Survey Instruments and Questionnaires

G - Team CVs

H - Survey Questions and Associated Statistical Tables

ACRONYM LIST

ACE Agricultural Credit Enhancement program

ADF Agricultural Development Fund

BRAC Bangladesh Rural Advancement Committee

CSO Afghanistan Central Statistics Organization

DAIL Directorate of Agriculture, Irrigation and Livestock

FAO Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations

FGD Focus Group Discussion

GIRoA Government of the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan

IDEA-NEW Incentives Driving Economic Alternatives for the North, East, West

IDS IDS International Government Services, LLC

IP Implementing Partner

MAIL Afghanistan Ministry of Agriculture, Irrigation and Livestock

MRRD Afghanistan Ministry of Rural Rehabilitation and Development

NGO Non-Governmental Organization

OAG USAID/Afghanistan Office of Agriculture

UNODC United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime

USAID United States Agency for International Development

USG United States Government

LIST OF TABLES AND

FIGURES

TABLE 1: HOUSEHOLD SIZE BY PROVINCE

TABLE 2: TYPE OF AGRICULTURAL HOUSEHOLD

TABLE 3: HAVE YOU EVER GROWN POPPY?

TABLE 4:ANIMAL OWNERSHIP: MEAN PER HOUSEHOLD BY PROVINCE AND ANIMAL . 15

TABLE 5: AVAILABLE STORAGE STRUCTURES ON FARM

TABLE 6: HOW DO YOU ASSESS THE MARKET?

TABLE 7: IS THERE ANY ORGANIZATION OR INSTITUTION WHICH PROVIDES FARMERS

IN YOUR AREA WITH LOANS TO BE USED IN AGRICULTURE? (Total all provinces) 20

TABLE 8: HOUSEHOLD TASK DISTRIBUTION

TABLE 9: BASELINE VALUE FOR HOUSEHOLD INCOME

TABLE 10: BASELINE VALUE FOR PRODUCTION OF LICIT CROPS IN THE EASTERN

REGION

TABLE 11: BASELINE VALUE FOR IRRIGATED HECTARES IN THE EASTERN REGION

TABLE 12: BASELINE VALUE FOR HECTARES UNDER LICIT CROP CULTIVATION IN

TARGETED AREAS - EASTERN REGION

Figure 1 Age of heads of household among male respondents Figure 2 Percent irrigated land by system Figure 3: Was household income in 1391 (2012) higher, the same, or lower?

Figure 4 Sources of income (mean values) Figure 5: Did you get agricultural extension services in your village in the past 12 months?

Figure 6: Has the project improved agriculture and livestock rearing in your area?

Figure 7: Household monetary decisions

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

The mean annual income of a household in the Eastern Region is 112,472.82

AFN (US$2,013.48). Given the large households in the sample with a mean household size of 14.51 persons, the average income per household member is US$138.76.

Vegetables (5.75mt/ha) followed by cereals (4.17mt/ha) provide the highest yields in metric tons per hectare of the crops included in this survey. These two crops have substantially larger yields than other crop categories and should be seen as central to what is essentially a subsistence-based agricultural economy.

Income is largely dependent on non-agricultural salaried positions. These are often with international organizations, funding for which is set to be reduced drastically in the coming years due to the international withdrawal, further impacting the already low resilience of these households.

Out of a mean irrigated area of 1.4 hectares per household, 12% (0.4ha) consists of improved irrigation. Water shortages and lack of effective irrigation are considered the major challenges for farmers in Region East.

The mean hectare under cultivation with licit crops by households in the Eastern

Region USG project areas is 1.9ha. While some households have the same mean cultivated area, more intense use of the land means an aggregate area of 4.15ha counting all crop rotations. It would seem likely that this hard use also depletes the yield as the land becomes overused given the reported shortages of fertilizers.

A majority (84.1%) of farmers are landholders but plots are usually small. This is consistent with the common pattern in Afghanistan but also reinforces the subsistence nature of agricultural households. Land is a divisive and contentious issue in Afghanistan and land-grabs by local power-holders are fairly common in the Eastern Region.

Cereal crops are the staple crop while vegetables and fruit offer more options for marketing. Production is nevertheless dominated by household consumption and focus group discussion participants state they only sell when they have excess crops.

Women are largely confined to domestic production, including dairy products, poultry keeping, and similar tasks. While some exceptions do occur, this is a reflection of the prevailing social attitudes and concerns in much of rural Afghanistan.

Respondents perceive government support as largely absent and a vast majority claims to not have received extension services in the last 12 months. This may warrant further investigation to determine the cause, effects, and possible mitigation of this problem.

INTRODUCTION

Description of the Project Evaluated

In March 2011, the U.S. Government (USG) finalized an Agricultural Assistance to Afghanistan

Strategy that guides the overall USG strategy in Afghanistan to support a sustainable thriving licit economy. In response to this USG-wide approach, USAID developed its own strategy and program portfolio with three goals: (I) Increase Agricultural Productivity and Food Security,

(2) Regenerate Agribusinesses, and (3) Improve Irrigation Infrastructure and Rehabilitate

Watersheds.

Purpose of the Baseline Study and Evaluation Questions

The aim of the Baseline Monitoring- East Region pilot study is to obtain baseline data for several key performance indicators that can be used to calculate out-year targets for USAID/Afghanistan

Office of Agriculture (OAG) Agricultural Assistance programming initiatives and activities. To facilitate performance management the study provides baseline values on four primary evaluation questions; income, agricultural production, amount of land under irrigated cultivation and the amount of land producing licit crops. In addition to estimating the baseline values, this report considers the feasibility of replicating the study in other regions, whether as independent efforts or incorporated into a third-party monitoring program.

Brief Statement on Methods

This report combines primary qualitative and quantitative data collection with reviews of secondary data, supporting analysis to produce estimates of baseline indicators for the east region of Afghanistan. Primary data was collected in five provinces (Ghazni, Laghman, Nangarhar, Parwan, and Wardak), through household surveys, focus groups and in-depth interview discussions. This primary data was integrated with secondary data to produce estimates of baseline values for selected indicators for the region, along with discussion of some of the underlying data.

Survey respondents were from farming households in 136 villages in 52 districts in the five provinces. Before being administered to the respondents, the survey instrument (written in

English) was translated into Dari and Pashto, then back-translated into English to verify that meaning was preserved in translation. The survey was field tested for usability. Data are reported in each province, and in the aggregate,.

Male and female respondents were initially surveyed together in a strongly male-dominated context. Subsequently, a separate survey was conducted with a somewhat different range of questions to specifically engage female respondents. The total number of respondents in the original household survey was 1360. The total number of respondents in the second survey

(females) was 1361. Participants in the focus group discussions (FGDs) and in-depth interviews were stakeholders including farmers, implementing partners (IPs), agricultural credit providers, and agribusiness wholesale and retail entities.

RESULTS

Agriculture in Afghanistan as a whole occupies more than half of the population with even more owning some type of livestock.i A majority of farmers grow annual crops on irrigated small plots. The subsistence-oriented agriculture practices can be seen as a reflection of the many years of war and instability. While market conditions have improved, many have not switched from staple production for domestic consumption to crops that are better from a market perspective.ii

However, this may also be a reflection of the vulnerable nature of Afghan agriculture and the very large variations in crops resulting from a high dependence on often very fickle weather and exposure to both natural and human induced hazards. According to the respondents in this study, droughts and floods in recent years have negatively impacted yields. Water shortages, in particular, have a heavy impact on Afghan annual yields.iii

The estimates of the Afghan agricultural contribution to GDP vary widely. According to the

World Bank, the agriculture sector contributes around half of the country’s GDPiv and contributes around 25-30% of the annual GDP growth rate depending on outputs.v However, the Afghan Central Statistics Office states in their 2010-11 report that agriculture contributes only 26.74% of GDPvi and the CIA World Factbook in turn rates the contribution to GDP as low as 20%.vii However, recovering from the 2011 drought, agriculture drove much of the

Afghan GDP growth in 2012/13.viii The sector’s vulnerability, nevertheless, also means it cannot be relied on for economic stability or production under current conditions.

Aid flow feeding private consumption was still the main driver for GDP growth.ix With aid flows into the economy set to decrease as the international presence draws down, agriculture will become a substantially more important part of the GDP than it already is, and fluctuations in agriculture production will impact the economy more severely as the sector takes on an even more central role.

The overall most concerning result from the study was that the overwhelming majority of respondents, both in interviews and the survey material, claimed little to no public sector support or programming existed in their specific areas. This perception was wide-spread and expressed in various ways in the interviews. Research between 2006 and 2012 has shown that local dynamics often results in projects being coopted into local structures of dominance and power.x

Common examples include making a profit from selling diverted resources in other markets or allocating resources in return for political support from a narrow support group, rather than intended beneficiaries of assistance. There is no broad consensus that this results in any ‘trickle down’ or ‘ripple effect’ with the local community. Whether the perceptions of government support are substantiated or the result of a communications issue, needs further investigation.

The results presented in this report are the foundations for the baseline values that address the primary research questions detailed in the conclusion section. Where appropriate, the report provides supplementary content relevant to these baseline values in order to provide greater context. In addition to the core baseline values, several additional values are offered in the concluding section with a justification for their inclusion.

Demographic

Characteristics of

Farming

Households

Respondents reported relatively large household sizes, as shown in Table 1.

As the FAO noted in a 2003 report, “Households in rural

Afghanistan often consist of an extended family where several generations share the same dwelling.”xi This, combined with high fertility rates, results in large households. The high fertility rate also produces families that are young as well as large. The smallest household reported one member, while the largest household, by a significant margin, had 85 members. Approximately

40% of households across the provinces had between 8-12 members.

This can be compared to the 2007-8 National Risk and Vulnerability assessment that stated a national average household size of 8.0 in poor households and 6.9 in non-poor households.xii

However, the average household size varied significantly. The largest households were found in

Nangarhar with an average of 17.06 members. This was followed by Wardak at 15.7, Ghazni at

14.57, and Laghman at 13.25. Parwan on the other hand had an average household size of 10.4.

An overwhelming majority (98%) of respondent households were headed by men, a number that is consistent with the 2007/8 national risk and vulnerability assessment. This is unsurprising given the strong patriarchal and male-dominated nature of Afghan society.

Across the study area, almost half the household members were 15 years or younger. Most heads of households included in the survey were 45-54 years old (28%) followed by 55-64 (24%) and 35-44 (20%).

The reported literacy levels among the male respondents are in line with the national estimates.

According to the Afghan Ministry of Education the adult literacy rate among males is around 50% and

18% among women for an average of 34%.xiii Reported literacy rates among male respondents reflect this very closely with minimal deviation between provinces. Some

52.3% of male respondents reported being able to read a letter with the highest percentage in

Nanagarhar (56.2%) and the lowest in Parwan (46.3%). Another 49.8% reported being able to write a letter with Parwan again reporting

TABLE 1: HOUSEHOLD SIZE BY PROVINCE

Province Total HH

Members

Males Females

Aged 16+ Aged 16+

Laghman 13.25 3.80 3.48

Parwan 10.44 3.10 2.74

Wardak 15.70 5.07 4.12

Ghazni 14.57 4.89 3.76

Nangarhar 17.06 4.83 4.12

Mean of total 14.51 4.43 3.70

8%

20%

28%

24%

19%

1%

18-34

35-44

45-54

55-64

65+

Missing

Figure 1 Age of heads of household among male respondents the lowest percentage (45.5%) and Laghman this time reporting the highest (52.2%). Finally, while 53.6% overall claimed to be able to read a book, Nangarhar again was on top with 56.9% and Parwan at the bottom with 47.6%).

Farm Characteristics

An overall majority (82.7%) of respondent farmers in the five provinces were landowners. The highest percentage was found in Parwan where 90.9% owned the land they farm, closely followed by Wardak (88.8%), Ghazni (86.4%), and Nangarhar (80.3%). Laghman showed the lowest percentage with only 65.2% owning the land they farmed.

The average size of land cultivated varied slightly among the five provinces with the largest areas in Wardak and the smallest in Ghazni. In Wardak, farmers reported cultivating 11.8 jeribs

(2.4ha) per household and in Nangarhar they reported cultivating 11.1 jeribs (2.2ha) per household in 1391 (2012). In Parwan and Laghman the reported areas were smaller with 9.4 jeribs (1.9ha) and 9 jeribs (1.8ha) respectively. Farmers in Ghazni reported by far the smallest area cultivated during the previous year with only 6.4 jeribs (1.3ha) per household.

Female land owners, counting both joint and sole ownership, were most common in Laghman

(31.6%) and the least in

Wardak (2.1%) and Ghazni

(3.3%). A majority of the respondents owned between one beswa

(approximately 97.68 square meters) and half a jerib (one Afghan jerib is

0.2 hectare). The notable exception here was

Parwan where 46.9% of the women that owned land reported owning one half to one jerib of land, jointly or separately. Female sole ownership of cattle was most common in Laghman (73.3%) and Parwan (53%), followed by Nangarhar

(22.1%) (See also Table 37 in Appendix H).

For any grain type, the average area cultivated by a household was typically less than five hectares, and often less than one hectare.

Access to Irrigation

Lack of water was the most common reason given for leaving land uncultivated in the survey.

This was particularly true for Wardak and Ghazni. Also farmer FGD respondents in Ghazni, Nangarhar, and Wardak reported that they had left part of their land uncultivated because of water shortages. In addition, the Parwan respondents referred to poor irrigation as a major problem for agriculture in that province, reinforcing the impression that irrigation is a major issue across the region.

Improved irrigation was a rarity among the survey population. In the survey, “improved” referred to any structure in which concrete, masonry or metal was used. xiv Traditionally, Afghan irrigation structures are made of mud. Some 80% of the households reported no improved

TABLE 2: TYPE OF AGRICULTURAL HOUSEHOLD

Out of 1337 households (Value missing for 1.7%) %

Cultivating Own Land (Landowner) 84.1

Cultivating Someone Else’s Land (Sharecropper) 8.90

Leaseholder (Who Has Leased the Land) 5.90

Has Acquired the Land Through Mortgage (Gerawi) 1.10

Total 98.30 irrigation structures, another 10% reported no more than one-half hectare with improved irrigation and 95% of respondent households had less than one hectare with improved irrigation.

The area under improved irrigation totaled just under 239 hectares, less than 10% of total irrigated land. Of this, the 12 largest landholdings (1.6 Ha and larger) accounted for 52.6 Ha, 22% of the total with improved irrigation.

In both survey responses and FGDs, farmers expressed a general concern about water, with

Wardak and Ghazni standing out as especially water-deficient. As much as 70% of respondents in Wardak (170 of 240) reported insufficient water, as did 64% (210 of 329) in Ghazni. In these provinces particularly, water shortage was identified as a problem by input supplier and agricultural union FGDs as well as by farmer FGDs.

Particularly in Wardak, FGD participants brought up a perceived need for dams to extend the irrigation season. When asked to identify the three greatest challenges, the most common answers were ‘lack of sufficient irrigation water’; lack of proper irrigation system; and drought.

In Laghman (94%) and Parwan (89.65%), the river is overwhelmingly the primary source of irrigation. In Nangarhar, the river is also the number one source but only according to 60.44% of the respondents. Karezes (15.36%) and springs (8.26%) supplement the natural river flow in these areas. In Ghazni (60.61%) the karezes are the primary source of irrigation while respondents in Wardak (51.47%) rely mainly on springs.

By comparison, the Ministry of Energy and Water numbers indicate that, in 2007, rivers were by far the largest irrigation source (84.6%) ,followed by springs (7.9%), karezes’ (7%), and arhats

(dug wells) (0.5%).xv

Out of the five provinces sampled, improved irrigation is only common in Parwan.

Among respondents in this province, 17% used improved irrigation to irrigate two jeribs of land but the range of responses included up to 35 jeribs.

Only 14.3% of farmers in

Parwan did not use improved irrigation at all. The situation is considerably different in the other provinces. In

Laghman, 88.1% responded that they did not irrigate a single hectare via improved irrigation. While some individuals did report using improved irrigation (for up to 4 hectares of land), it did not appear to be widely available. The percentage of respondets reporting no hectares fed by improved irrigation was also extremely high in Ghazni (93.9%), Nangarhar (94.9%), and Wardak (95.8%).

Dirt canal 88.46%

Concrete or masonry canal 6.76%

Water pump 4.73% Arhat system 0.05%

Percent irrigated land by system

Figure 2 Percent irrigated land by system

Farming Household’s Agricultural and Livestock

Production and Income

Much of Afghan agriculture is subsistence in nature, but the types of crops grown vary between the provinces. The interviewed farmers noted that they only sell when there is a surplus in their harvest but for many crops that is never an option. Wheat is a common crop in Ghazni, Laghman, and Nangarhar, as are various vegetables. Vegetables are also considered the most profitable crop by interview respondents in Ghazni and Nangarhar.

Cereal crops

The importance of cereal grains in Afghanistan agriculture is widely recognized, accounting for

77% of agricultural GDP in 2010/11. The role of cereal grains is no less important in the Eastern

Region. Grain yields per hectare reported in this survey are shown in the mean yields cereals

Table 13 in Appendix H with detail for yields by province, and for areas identified as USAID project areas and those without USAID agriculture project.

The Afghan CSO reports that rain fed wheat yield dropped in the 2011-2012 production year as a result of the weather and climate conditions experienced in the country.xvi However, the conditions were favorable for irrigated wheat. The total yield for Afghanistan in 2011-2012 is estimated at 3.4 million metric tons. This was preceded in 2010-2011 by a total harvest of

5.1million metric tons.xvii This fluctuation from year to year underscores the importance of appropriate irrigation mechanisms to generate increased food security, resilience, and sustainability. There is variation in wheat yields between provinces (see also Table 13 in

Appendix H).

Vegetable crops

According to the Afghan Central Statistics Office (CSO), irrigated land is generally not used for large-scale cultivation of vegetables in the Eastern Region. The farmer FGDs described growing vegetables in part for domestic consumption and in part for the market with potatoes, onions, and tomatoes among the more frequently mentioned for the market sales. The dual role of vegetables in what is predominantly a subsistence agricultural economy is substantiated by the

CSO annual statistics report for 2012.xviii The variation in crops and yields is quite extensive.

Industrial and Oil Seed crops

With the exception of cotton, industrial and oil seed crops are generally not cultivated extensively on irrigated land in Afghanistan as a whole, and are grown much less frequently than cereal or vegetable crops. This partly reflects the low-priority of cotton as a crop in the Eastern

Region. The most prevalent oilseed crop is cotton which was reported as present in all provinces except Wardak, providing a yield of 1-3.7mt/ha. However, while some areas in southern Afghanistan do have cotton production, the farmer FGDs within the scope of this project did not indicate cotton to be a central crop but rather cultivated only for limited domestic needs. Sugar beet is most common in Wardak and is also, but to a much lesser extent, grown in Parwan and Ghazni. Sugar cane was only reported in two provinces.

Legume crops

Legume crops are also relatively uncommon in irrigated areas. The exceptions are all in project areas with for example peas being cultivated on irrigated land in Wardak (mean 3ha per household) and Ghazni (mean 3.1ha). In Laghman, both Mung beans (mean 2.2ha) and peanuts

(mean 2.6ha) are grown in irrigated areas. It would seem likely that the Mung bean cultivation could at least in part be connected with the IDEA-NEW Mung bean program launched in

2009.xix Legume crops yields are overall not very high as measured in mt/ha and there is very little variation between provinces in term of peas, which is the most common legume crop.

Fruit crops

Fruit is another crop with some variation between the different parts of the Eastern Region but the three most recurring crops are grapes, apples, and mulberries. Fruit orchards are important in the Eastern Region and farmer FGDs referred to several types of fruit as profitable crops.

This is also in line with the answers given by the farmer FGDs. The CSO annual statistics describe these crops and more as the core of traditional valley-oasis agricultural structures. The

CSO goes on to report that most households keep some form of fruit trees for domestic consumption.xx Fruit is cultivated on irrigated land with no rainfed cultivation reported at all.

Among the households that reported cultivating fruit, the mean area per household is smaller than 0.5ha for most crops (The means for fruit cultivation are calculated between the households that indicated they grew a specific crop. This does not compare to the total survey means for cultivated land and irrigated land totals). The one clear exception is persimmon, showing high means in Wardak (mean 26.7ha per household), Ghazni (mean 13.9ha), and to a smaller extent in Nangarhar (mean 4.8ha).

Forage crops

Forage crops, alfalfa and clover, are also generally grown in only small volumes on irrigated land.

The mean areas reported by the respondents are all 0.4ha or less, with the exception of clover cultivation in Ghazni (mean 0.8ha).

Sapling nurseries

Sapling nurseries are not present, according to respondents in all provinces except Parwan.

However, the farmers in the focus groups there report that while there are nurseries, they do not distribute or allow access to the local population.

Poppy

When asked whether they cultivate poppy, a large majority of the male survey respondents, said no (1031) while less than a quarter of that said yes (236). However, refusal to reply was also quite common, with 63 respondents refusing to give an answer, 34

TABLE 3: HAVE YOU EVER GROWN POPPY?

Yes No

Response

Undefined Refused

Laghman 8 197 4 0

Parwan 9 193 5 19

Wardak 5 218 5 10

Ghazni 11 281 2 34

Nangarhar 203 142 4 0

Total 236 1031 20 63 of which were in Ghazni province and 19 in Parwan. Poppy of course remains a large problem in

Afghanistan and the UNODC is forecasting an increase in production in most regions in 2013.xxi

In this context, it is significant that water issues were such a prevalent complaint among respondents. Poppy is a less water-intense crop and as ISAF draws down and the government becomes more focused on trying to keep the insurgency at bay, poppy may creep back in as a preferred crop among farmers. The stated main reasons for taking up poppy cultivation are, according to respondents in the UNODC survey, primarily high opium prices, followed by a lack of support from the government for alternative crops. Again, the responses in the present survey, which reflect disillusionment and a perceived lack of government support, raise concerns that these factors will also serve to increase poppy cultivation in the Eastern Region.

According to the UNODC, cash advances (credit) have already been extended by poppy traders while agricultural support to licit crops has failed to materialize. The current fear of eradication and respect for the government ban is unlikely to continue to stave off increased cultivation, especially in the east and south of the country.

For the Eastern Region, Laghman (previously declared poppy free) is one of the provinces likely to see resurgence in poppy cultivation. In a sad irony, the improved techniques of farming brought through development projects such as improved pesticides, solar power, and other technology, may aid poppy in its return as a major livelihood crop in Afghanistan.xxii Nangarhar has for example seen increasing poppy cultivation after a period of relatively low production.xxiii

Livestock

As can be seen in Table 4, Wardak and Ghazni tend to stand out in terms of mean values for animal ownership. While Parwan has the highest mean value for dairy cows, Ghazni and Wardak are very dominant in terms of especially buffalo, sheep, and goats. It should be noted that the Keekar is a bird similar to but considered separate from normal hens and roosters.

Fish cultivation is extremely under-developed in the targeted areas and income from fisheries is highly uncommon among respondents. In the wider survey, only one household, in a project area in Nangarhar, reported selling fish, giving an average of 400 fish per month and an income from fish of 28,000 AFN.

In most cases, farmer respondents reported no bee farms or fish farms. In Nangarhar, respondents reported that 5-6 fish farms have been started but that they have been closed down again as a result of the water shortage. Likewise, in Parwan, a respondent mentioned a fish farm that did not yet have any fish. In Nangarhar, respondents believed

TABLE 4:ANIMAL OWNERSHIP: MEAN PER

HOUSEHOLD BY PROVINCE AND ANIMAL

Dairy cow Buffalo Sheep

Laghman 2.12 1.17 4.37

Parwan 4.33 2.00 4.95

Wardak 1.35 6.57 7.35

Ghazni 1.66 12.18 14.06

Nangarhar 2.03 .47 1.63

Goat Turkey Duck

Laghman 4.38 2.54 3.37

Parwan 4.23 0 3.00

Wardak 7.00 4.00 0

Ghazni 9.76 4.00 0

Nangarhar 2.43 2.13 4.07

Keekar Mule Horse

Laghman .33 .17 .09

Parwan 0 0 0

Wardak 0 .50 .00

Ghazni 0 0 0

Nangarhar 1.60 .00 .11 there may be one bee farm at the district level while respondents in Parwan thought there might be 5-6 at the district level. Notably, the farmers in Wardak reported bee keeping as a common practice at household level with around 4-6 bee hives per household. The small size suggests production exclusively for domestic consumption which would explain why Wardak records no income from honey.

By-product Produce

In addition to the more central agricultural activities, the respondents report producing a range of byproducts (see Table 19 in Appendix H). A surprising result is the reported zero production of honey in Wardak, given that the farmer FGDs estimated that many households have 4-6 hives

(“boxes”), but this may mean it is strictly for domestic production.xxiv Another notable result is the low reported production levels of most byproducts in Parwan in this survey, a fact that has no clear explanation. According to the CSO annual report, livestock byproducts are a main source of income for farmers, but the FGDs did not substantiate that directly.

Income

Across the five provinces, 19.1% of households have three family members working on the farm, 32.6% of households have two family members working on the farm, and 22.6% of households have only one working on the farm. Among the respondent households, 45.1% stated that no family member worked off the farm, while 26.2% said one did, and 16.5% said two family members worked off the farm. Having a family member working outside Afghanistan was even more uncommon, with 90.4% responding that no family members did. This was the most prevalent in Nangarhar (96.9% say no) and Laghman (92.4% say no).

Income from licit agricultural activities

Income of fruit-producing households compares favorably to all crop-producing households. For all 899 households that reported crop income, the average income from cereal crops was

24,836 AFN. For the 128 households that reported income from grapes, the mean household income from grapes was more than double that, 52,678 AFN. The 24 households with income from apples (19 of the households were in Wardak) reported an even higher average, 59,120

AFN. The six households, all in Ghazni, reporting income from Aloo Plums averaged

165,593 AFN (see also Table 18 in Appendix

H).

Farm-derived income is low overall and typical respondent households produce agricultural products primarily for household use, with product sale being a small portion of the household production. Of the 1151 households with any reported income, slightly more than half derived all their income from farm activities. That is, 551 (47.9% of 1151) reported some non-farm income, while the other 600 households (52.1%) had no non-farm income.

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Higher

About the same

Lower

Don't Know

Figure 3: Was household income in 1391 (2012) higher, the same, or lower?

For the survey sample, the reported average income (in AFN), by source, per household and along with average household (HH) size, can be found in Table 21 of Appendix H. The mean shown in each cell of the table is the mean for respondents in that category. That is, HH size is the mean for all respondents in each geographic area, Crop Income is the mean for all respondent households reporting crop income, and Non-Farm Income is the mean for all (but only) households reporting non-farm income. Thus, for example, the mean for 'income all sources' is the mean for households reporting any income. It is not the sum of the means for each income source category.

The mean of non-farm income is, in every geographic sub-area as well as for the sample as a whole, higher than the mean household income for all households reporting income.

In the male survey, households reported an impressively high portion of production of each product that is retained for household use. Details, by agricultural product and province are shown in Table 21 of Appendix H. The few cases with no retention for household use stand out as anomalies, as do the slightly more numerous instances with retention rates below 50%.

The instances in which all the production is retained are far more numerous, and are scattered across all product classes: grains, vegetables, forage, fruit and by-products. This finding is consistent with FGDs. When asked about markets for their products, discussants often reported that they were not regular market participants, producing primarily for their household. The infrequent market sales emerged as part of a network of related features constraining livelihood improvement.

Income from Licit Non-agricultural Activities

Within the households with non-farm income, over one-third (229 of 648) included individuals with salaried positions, the most-frequently identified source of non-farm income.xxv Salaried positions will typically have relatively high incomes, contributing to the income disparity between households with non-farm income and those without.

According to the female respondents, other income-earning activities include a number of different options. In Laghman 61.8% (21 individuals) mentioned teaching as a means of supplemental income.

In Nangarhar, 12% mentioned selling eggs as a source of supplemental income but in Parwan

66.7% report not knowing of any other jobs for women. Dairy products (18%) and hens (52%) were only mentioned in Nangarhar, somewhat surprising given that the men responded very differently. There is no immediate explanation for this discrepancy. In Wardak (87.3%) and

Ghazni (63.9%) of women refused to answer.

As can be seen in figure 4, non-farm income is substantially higher than the farm activities put together. It is notable that, the dominant part of respondents’ income appears to be from

NGOs, the government, and other similar organizations. While this is a source of income now, the ongoing transition process and the expected heavy reductions in funding are likely to have a great impact on the food security of rural populations. This will especially be the case if farming activities also suffer from droughts, floods, and general shortages of necessary agricultural inputs.

Alternative vocational training programs have been implemented across the country, not the least in the Eastern

Region, and could be expected to mitigate these challenges.

However, a shift away from the current income structures would likely come on the heels of a major natural hazard impact.

This would drive a large number of households to explore and likely compete for alternative livelihoods for supplemental income.

During a major drought in Faryab province in northern Afghanistan, for instance, women turned to carpet weaving to supplement the household income. Because of the sheer number of new carpet producers, the price dropped dramatically.xxvi It could be expected that mass-training programs of for example seamstresses or other roles could potentially have the same outcome in a time of crisis for the households.

Post-Harvest Practices and Agricultural Marketing

Extremely few respondents report access to a modern electricity-powered cold storage facility.

Instead, a mud shed is by far the most common storage method as can be seen in Table 5 below. The lack of proper cold storage was an issue raised by farmers as well as association representatives, and agricultural input providers.

A very common complaint among interview respondents was a lack of markets. According to the female respondents, most products are sold to neighbors. This is most common in Parwan

(45.9%) followed by Wardak (42.6%). In Laghman most products are instead sold in the village market (55.1%), an also fairly common marketing route in Wardak (44.2%) and Nangarhar

TABLE 5: AVAILABLE STORAGE STRUCTURES ON FARM

Province Mud shed

Structure in baked brick/concrete

A makeshift structure for storage

Traditional cold storage structure

Modern electricity-powered cold storage facility

Refused

Laghman 193 2 8 3 3 5

Parwan 56 1 4 1 1 40

Wardak 56 1 5 26 3 26

Ghazni 33 3 39 1 0 21

Nangarhar 273 4 5 0 0 4

Total 601 11 61 31 7 96

20,000

40,000

60,000

80,000

100,000

120,000

140,000

160,000

Project Area

Non Project

Area

Total

Total

Crop Income

Livestock Income

Byproduct Revenue

Fish Income

Non-Farm Income

Figure 4 Sources of income (mean values)

(43.6%). District markets only have a relatively large role in Nangarhar where 25.1% reported marketing their produce there. The provincial market is the primary market in Ghazni (64.3%) and plays a relatively large role in Parwan (23.6%).

The female survey respondents’ view of the market demand (see Table 6 below) should perhaps be seen in the light of these relatively small outlets being dominant but also against the reported low yields in the concerned provinces.

Farmers in Region East do not produce much surplus for sale and predominantly sell it wholesale and retail to local markets or neighbors. A few respondents however reported transporting their produce at great cost to larger markets in the cities. In that context, demand can be seen as good when what little there is to sell can be sold, but it does not necessarily indicate a strong market with the purchasing power to absorb significantly increased production volumes. This is something that should be looked into more carefully. The question of what the biggest hurdle is to expanding the family business was seemingly sensitive. Only in Laghman did female respondents give detailed answers, with 30.4% citing security issues and 20.9% citing economic problems. In Parwan, 10.4% of women cited economic problems and 31.3% cited poverty, while 4.9% cited lack of money. It is notable that in Wardak (55.7%) refused to answer and in Ghazni 22.2% also declined to respond. Across the provinces, many women report that there are no obstacles to expansion but the numbers, Laghman (39.3%), Parwan (22.9%), Wardak (33.5%), Ghazni (44.4%), and Nangarhar (44.4%). are not in line with the reported low yields and require closer scrutiny.

Access to Credit and Agricultural Extension Services

Interviews were undertaken with individual credit providers in all provinces except Ghazni.

Traditional banks and lending institutions have been reluctant to engage in the agricultural sector according to USAID, prompting the implementation of the Agricultural Credit Enhancement

(ACE) program through the Agricultural Development Fund.xxvii ACE was launched in 2010xxviii and has been able to establish at least some support for locally based credit providers.xxix

However, despite the availability, a vast majority of survey respondents were not aware of credit-providing organizations in their area.

Loans from relatives and acquaintances are the most common sources of credit among respondents, with 88.4% obtaining loans from this source. The second most common source, NGOs and micro finance institutions, are a distant second (6.9%). Only 1.4% of all respondents reported being aware of organizations or institutions in the area that provide agricultural loans.

This appears to be inconsistant with the assertion of several interviewed credit providers that

TABLE 6: HOW DO YOU ASSESS THE MARKET?

Laghman Parwan Wardak Ghazni Nangarhar Total

Very good 36.3% 16.1% 3.0% 1.2% 15.9% 13.2%

Good 38.0% 32.9% 48.5% 34.7% 56.8% 42.7%

Medium 25.1% 45.0% 17.7% 40.5% 26.0% 30.7%

Poor 0.6% 6.0% 24.7% 13.9% 1.3% 9.7%

Don't know 0.0% 0.0% 1.0% 6.2% 0.0% 1.8%

Refused 0.0% 0.0% 5.1% 3.5% 0.0% 1.9% their customer base has increased dramatically from the previous year. However, as these credit providers are small vendors with a limited operational area, it may also be that they are too small or that people simply do not perceive them as linked to an institution or organisation. The most common type of loan for agricultural purposes was a small loan under 25,000 AFN (approximately 450

USD). Of 189 reported loans, only eight were signed for by a female in the household.

Despite primarily relying on family, respondents report relatively high levels of dissatisfaction, as 53.4% report being either ‘very dissatisfied’

(29.1%) or ‘somewhat dissatisfied’ (24.3%) with the terms and conditions of the loans they have taken. Given that the predominant loan form is from non-insitutional loan sources, it is unclear whether this applies to credit providers. However, a generally low awareness or access to this service would suggest it does not necessarily apply to official providers.

The interviewed credit providers appear to have a very clear structure for approval and in at least one case also lean towards the too generous side. The borrowed money was predominantly (73% of loan takers) spent on agricultural inputs such as seed, fertilizer, persticides, and so on. The second most commmon investment (14.3%) was buying agricultural tools.

As part of the research, credit providers were interviewed in four of the five provinces.

Unfortunately it was not possible to find a credit provider in Ghazni province despite contacting the provincial Department of Agriculture, Irrigation, and Livestock.

All the interviewed credit providers are registered with the authorities and provide direct cash loans or extended credit in the form of non-cash grants. The main clients are farmers and the respondents provide them with improved seeds, equipment, fertilizers, and vaccines. Only the

Laghman credit provider explicitly indicated a preference for large landowners as clients. The customer base for the credit providers in Laghman and Parwan has increased dramatically from last year (reportedly 30% and 50-60% respectively). The credit provider in Nangarhar also stressed that people in the very rural areas were unaware of the availability of credit; an assertion that is strongly supported by the survey responses. However, the Parwan respondent stated she no longer has to do marketing, suggesting a widespread knowledge of her services.

Outstanding loans were assessed to be in the range of 1m-2m AFN and the criteria for extending credit were very similar between the areas. There must be faith in the capacity to repay and guarantees are required. Borrowers must have a proper budget; and they must provide the required documentation. Men can get 100-200,000 AFN but women can only get

25,000-75,000 AFN.xxx In Parwan and Nangarhar, other credit sources were also present, for example BRAC in Nangarhar. The Wardak respondent states that he has not yet faced an issue with non-payment. He appears to be running his business on a ‘needs basis’, stating that he has not attempted to collect the outstanding debt because the loan takers still needed the money.

He did however state his confidence in being able to collect should the need arise.

TABLE 7: IS THERE ANY

ORGANIZATION OR INSTITUTION

WHICH PROVIDES FARMERS IN YOUR

AREA WITH LOANS TO BE USED IN

AGRICULTURE? (Total all provinces)

Women Men

Yes, there is. 16.9% 1.4%

No there is not. 80.0% 94.3%

Not sure 0.0% 2.4%

Don't

Know/Refused 3.1% 2.0%

Total 100.0% 100.0%

Agricultural extension services are perceived as virtually non-existent

Extension services are not very common and access is very limited. As can be seen in Figure 5, a massive majority of respondents in all provinces report that they have not received any extension services in the past 12 months. Of the total sample, more than 90% report that they did not receive any agriculture extension services in the preceding year.

The pattern was consistent across the study area, with similarly large majorities in every sub-area reporting no extension service.

Agricultural extension services generally receive a high rate of approval with only

3.8% of the intended beneficiaries finding it not useful. Very few households report having had a member participate in agricultural or livestock training over the past 12 months. This applies across provinces with an average of

89.1% reporting they had not received training.

The reported knowledge of agricultural and livestock training is also low. Among the five provinces, Laghman stands out with 45% of respondent households reporting knowledge of a project in the past 12 months. This is far more than in the other provinces, i.e., Nangarhar

(14.4%), Wardak (12.6%), Parwan (5.5%), and finally Ghazni (2.2%). Among those who reported that training has been provided, surprisingly large numbers either ‘don’t know’ (30.7% of total) or ‘refuse’ (34.3% of total) to say what the training focused on.

The primary credit for agricultural and livestock programs was by far given to the national solidarity program (NSP).

The Ministry of Rural Rehabilitation and

Development (MRRD) was credited as a more distant second option and the

PRT’s credited as an even more distant third.

In the cases where assistance has been received, it has been perceived as helpful with a majority saying it was ‘very’ or

‘somewhat effective’. However, more extension services were called for in the

FGDs with a particular focus on training

(See Figure 6).

40%

60%

80%

100%

La gh m an

P ar w an

W ar d ak

G h az n i

N an ga rh

Refused

No

Yes

Figure 5: Did you get agricultural extension services in your village in the past 12 months?

0.00%

10.00%

20.00%

30.00%

40.00%

In ef fe ct iv e

A li tt e e ff ec ti ve

So m ew h at e ff ec ti ve

V e ry e ff ec ti ve

D o n 't k n o w

R e fu se d

Project area

Non-project area

Total

Figure 6: Has the project improved agriculture and livestock rearing in your area?

Agribusiness Input Supplies

The interviewed agribusiness input suppliers are all local and small businesses. They provide predominantly fertilizers (urea and DAP), improved seeds, pesticides, veterinarian vaccines, and machines and pumps for agriculture. They sell both retail and wholesale, and the businesses are not restricted to a province but appear to take advantage of available access routes across district and provincial boundaries. In Laghman, respondents reported that around 70% of the market in the spring is focused on agriculture and 30% on livestock, but that this is reversed in winter, especially when nomadic livestock herders (Kuchi) start migrating through the area.

Sourcing is very international with stocks arriving from China, Pakistan, Iran, and to a lesser extent Tajikistan. A major concern for several of the respondents was low quality and fake vaccines coming in to undercut their business. They generally expressed the view that they were not receiving help from the government.

Farmer’s Associations

Several farmer associations are available in the surveyed areas. Most of them are relatively small with 6-60 members but with one association in Nangarhar counting 150 members in one area alone (Sharahi area of Rodat district). The general consensus was that the government provides little to no help, though in Parwan, the respondents reported the government is building a much needed cold storage facility. In several areas, help has however been provided by various NGOs.

Women reported low membership but a strong interest in being members of an association.

The province with the highest reported female membership in associations was Nangarhar with

5.4% of women reporting they were members of an association while in Parwan it is just 1.3% and less than 1% in the other provinces. However, a majority of women in each province stated that they would like to be members of a farmer’s association and mentioned women’s self-help groups as examples of such associations. The strongest support for this idea was in Ghazni

(74.5%) followed by Wardak (63%), Parwan (62.6%), Nangarhar (62.5%), and finally Laghman

(55.2%).

Implementing Partners

Implementing partners interviewed in Laghman reported that several USAID projects had been implemented but that insecurity forced them to cancel activities in Dawlat Shah. The implementing partners identified training as the greatest success and listed the projects’ objectives as short-term job creation, poppy replacement in the long term (Nangarhar) and agricultural development. They generally coordinated with the local DAIL but in several provinces they complained about inefficiency or inactivity from the government’s side. In Parwan however, the construction of a new cold storage facility was highlighted as a positive development.