Cost-Benefit Analysis of the Rwanda Red Cross Livestock ... · 3 International Federation of Red...

Cost-Benefit Analysis of the Rwanda Red Cross Livestock rotation programme

© International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies, Geneva, 2016

Any part of this publication may be cited, copied, translated into other languages or adapted to meet local needs without prior permission from the International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies, provided that the source is clearly stated.

Requests for commercial reproduction should be directed to the IFRC Secretariat at [email protected]

All photos used in this study are copyright of the IFRC unless otherwise indicated.

Cover photo: Victor Lacken / IFRC

P.O. Box 303CH-1211 Geneva 19SwitzerlandTelephone: +41 22 730 4222Telefax: +41 22 733 0395E-mail: [email protected] site: www.ifrc.org

1301802 Cost-Benefit Analysis of the Rwanda Red Cross Livestock Rotation Programme - 02/2016 E

The International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies (IFRC) is the world’s largest volunteer-based humanitarian network. With our 190 member National Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies worldwide, we are in every community reaching 160.7 million people annually through long-term services and development programmes, as well as 110 million people through disaster response and early recovery programmes. We act before, during and after disasters and health emergencies to meet the needs and improve the lives of vulnerable people. We do so with impartiality as to nationality, race, gender, religious beliefs, class and political opinions.

Guided by Strategy 2020 – our collective plan of action to tackle the major humanitarian and development challenges of this decade – we are committed to saving lives and changing minds.

Our strength lies in our volunteer network, our community-based expertise and our independence and neutrality. We work to improve humanitarian standards, as partners in development, and in response to disasters. We persuade decision-makers to act at all times in the interests of vulnerable people. The result: we enable healthy and safe communities, reduce vulnerabilities, strengthen resilience and foster a culture of peace around the world.

Follow us:

3

International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies


Table of contents

List of tables 4

List of figures 4

Abbreviations and acronyms 5

Exchange rate adopted: One United States dollar = 725.48 Rwanda francs 5

Acknowledgements 6

Executive summary 7

1. Background 8

2. Methodology 14

2.1 Study area 14

2.2 Data collection techniques and tools 15

2.3 Data analysis 17

3. Findings 19

3.1. Summary statistics 19

3.2 CBA results 20

4. Conclusions and recommendations 26

5. References 28

APPENDIX 1: CBA tables for cows, goats and pigs 29

APPENDIX 2: Household survey questionnaire 34

APPENDIX 3: Focus group discussion interview guide 41

APPENDIX 4: Key informants interview guide 42

4

List of tables

Table 1: Cows distributed through Girinka Programme from January 2006 to April 2013 12

Table 2: IFRC livestock rotation investment 2008 and 2009 13

Table 3: Sample size per district 15

Table 4: Respondents per livestock type 16

Table 5: CBA model template 17

Table 6: Summary statistics for respondents per district 19

Table 7: BCR for cows and goats 20

Table 8: BCR for pigs 21

Table 9: Trend in livestock over time 21

Table 10: Livestock/agricultural technology adoption 24

Table 11: Job creation 25

List of figures

Figure 1: Map of Rwanda 8

Figure 2: Poverty reduction and food security 9

Figure 3: Evolution of number of livestock in Rwanda (2006 - 2013) 10

Figure 4: Study target areas 4



AEE African Evangelic Enterprise

BCR Benefit-cost ratio

CFSVA Comprehensive Food Security and Vulnerability Analysis

EICV Integrated Household Living Conditions Survey (Enquete Integral des Conditions de Vie de Ménages)

FRW Rwandan franc

GDP Gross domestic product

IFRC International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies

IPAR Institute for Policy Analysis Research

MINAGRI Ministry of Agriculture and Animal Resources

MINECOFIN Ministry of Finance and Economic Planning

NISR National Institute for Statistics in Rwanda

NPV Net present value

RAB Rwanda Agricultural Board

RGB Rwanda Governance Board

SNV SNV Netherlands Development Organisation

SPREAD Sustaining Partnership to enhance Rural Enterprises and Agribusiness

USAID United Stated Agency for International Development

USD United States dollar

5

Abbreviations and acronyms

Exchange rate adopted: One United States dollar = 725.48 Rwanda francs



The cost-benefit analysis study for the Rwanda Red Cross Livestock Rotation Pro-gramme benefited from the technical support from the Department of Economics at Rwanda University, which guided the study, validated and tested the robustness of the data collection tools (cost-benefit analysis model and questionnaires) and as-sisted in the training of the Rwanda Red Cross fieldwork team, volunteers and ben-eficiary communities.

6

Acknowledgements



The Rwanda Red Cross has been providing shelter, food security and livelihoods ac-tivities, especially for orphans, vulnerable families and returnees, as part of the na-tional programme to address some of the challenges Rwanda is facing. The livestock initiative is one component of the food security and livelihoods programme. The pro-gramme provides herds of cattle, pigs, goats, rabbits and other livestock to targeted communities. To ensure that each household in the community receives livestock, a rotation programme was launched through which the firstborn heifer, pig, goat or rabbit is passed on to another household; each animal then reproduces a newborn for another household. The International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies (IFRC) has invested 78,597,970 Rwandan francs (FRW) (108,338.77 United States dollars [USD])1 towards the costs of the livestock rotation programme between 2008 and 2014. This investment is linked to agricultural activities, and it is aimed at a more holistic recovery approach to address food and nutrition insecurity and livelihoods problems. It has been eight years since the programme started and it is considered to have contributed significantly to beneficiaries’ livelihoods.

The IFRC commissioned a cost-benefit analysis (CBA) study to assess the costs and benefits of the Rwanda Red Cross Livestock Rotation Programme. The study was car-ried out in three selected districts involved in the livestock rotation project: Huye and Gisagara in the southern province, and Kayonza in the eastern province. A mixture of approaches was used and primarily included a desk review and fieldwork for primary data collection to ensure that an effective CBA was performed. Effort was also made to identify both direct benefits to the livestock beneficiaries and indirect benefits to the communities in general.

Four techniques were used for the selection of primary data: a questionnaire was administered to 70 respondents who were selected randomly in the three districts; key informant interviews with sector agronomists and other local leaders; one fo-cus group discussion was organized in each district; and an observation technique helped in assessing the livestock infrastructure at household level, land use and hu-man settlement.

The study findings revealed impressive performance for pigs and cows compared to goats. The projections based on 2014 and 2015 results showed that 1 FRW invested in pigs would bring back 6 FRW in 2020, a sign of a very profitable project. The CBA results for cows suggest that one Rwandan franc (FRW) invested by the Rwanda Red Cross had returned 4 FRW today (i.e., after an eight-year period) and would return about 5 FRW in 2020. The goats registered a much smaller benefit-cost ratio (BCR) of 1.8 over the same period. Other spin-off benefits noted from the programme were employment creation, improved animal husbandry practices and techniques, as well as improved food security and dietary patterns. Better institutional relations have been established also, through collaboration and information sharing.

7

Executive summary

1 Average annual exchange rate of 1 USD: 725.48 FRW for 2008 and 2009 (National Bank of Rwanda)



8



Rwanda is a small, landlocked country located between east and central Africa. The country has a total area of 26,338 square kilometres, of which 24,950 square kilometres (94.7 per cent) is land and 1,388 square kilometres (5.3 per cent) is water. Only 8,600 square kilometres (32.7 per cent) is arable land (Ministry of Agriculture and Animal Resources [MINAGRI], 2011).

Figure 1: Map of Rwanda

Source: UN Cartographic Section

Like other developing countries, Rwanda is mainly an agrarian (land-related) econo-my. Agriculture’s contribution to rural employment and incomes, foreign exchange, national food security and economic growth in general is substantial. It is widely considered that the attainment of food security and increased rural incomes are heavily dependent on higher productivity in this sector. According to the Rwanda Ag-ricultural Board (2013), approximately 10.5 million people of the population depend on agriculture, and the sector contributes about 34 per cent of the national gross domestic product (GDP). Government has introduced policies towards private-sector-led agricultural growth where, among other things, the focus has been on livestock modernization and genetic improvement. Through the same policy, government also seeks to transition the country from guaranteeing food availability to food security through economic growth.

1. Background

DEMO. REP. OF THE CONGO

OUGANDA

B U R U N D I

TA

NZ

AN

IE

BUTARE

CYANGUGU

KIBUNGO

BYUMBA

RUHENGERI

KIGALIGITARAMA

GISENYI

KIBUYE

GIKONGORO

9



Figure 2 below presents the context within which agriculture is a national priority that is being used to transform the economy and improve national food security.

Figure 2: Poverty reduction and food security

Source: Rwanda Agricultural Board, 2013

Livestock farming in Rwanda forms an integral part of agricultural production, and it plays an important role in the socio-economic development of thousands of farmers. It has been undergoing major reforms in recent years with the aim of making it a vi-brant sector in terms of income generation, employment creation, poverty reduction, export diversification and a key means of ensuring food security.

Livestock is a vital source of animal protein for farming families through consumption of meat and meat products, and provides a stable source of income and employment, especially in rural areas. Generally livestock plays a significant role in the economic and cultural life of Rwanda’s rural areas and it has remained as the foundation of the Rwandan farming system for many decades where it is contributing to the prosperity of the rural area and the economy as a whole. The National Institute of Statistics in Rwanda (NISR, 2010) shows that 70 per cent of agricultural households in Rwanda were breeders of livestock, of which 22.9 per cent kept small animals, 31 per cent kept big animals with or without a combination of small animals and poultry, while 16.9 per cent kept mainly poultry with or without small or big livestock. In addition, the Institute for Policy Analysis Research (IPAR, 2009) reports that the total stock of animals has been growing at around seven per cent annually, with particularly large increases in the number of goats.

• Institutional strengthening• Policy ans regulatory framework• Agricultural statisctics and ICT• M&E systems• Decentralisation

• Creating an enabling environment

• Development of traditional and non traditional exports

• Value addition• Infrastructure• Rural finance

• Natural resources, water and soil conservation

• Crops and livestock development

• Marshland development• Irrigation development• Supply & use of ag. inputs• Food security management

• Promotion of farmer’s organisations and capacity building for producers

• Proximity services for producers (extension)

• Research

1. Intensification

and development of sustainable

production systems

3. Promotion of

commodity chains and agribusiness

development

4. Institutional

development

2. Support to the

professionalisation of the producers

PSTA IIPoverty

Reduction and Food Security

10



Today, more than half of the population in the study area rears at least one cow. This situation has been enabled and enhanced by the recent Girinka Programme, the Rwandan President’s initiative to provide one cow per poor family in order to elimi-nate food insecurity and poverty in the rural areas. This programme intends to target more than 700,000 poor households by 2035.

Figure 3 below indicates the trends of the livestock population in Rwanda over the past seven years.

Figure 3: Evolution of number of livestock in Rwanda (2006 - 2013)

Source: Food and Agriculture Organization country statistics, 2015

The number of poultry increased the most, followed by goats and cattle, during this period. The growth in the population of pigs, rabbits and sheep was relatively lower. Among the big livestock category, the sheep population increased the least. This can be attributed to the fact that Rwandans have no tradition of keeping sheep for com-mercial purposes or for meat production.

Government, in collaboration with other support organizations, has embarked on a substantial programme for the revitalization and expansion of livestock numbers. For instance, the support to small stock development (APEL) is a joint Rwanda–Bel-gium government partnership programme for the purpose of developing the breed-ing of small stock (small ruminants, pigs, rabbits and poultry) by poor farmers, using proved, effective and sustainable production methods, and to train them in appro-priate breeding techniques. The project has acquired and distributed approximately 12,000 animals in Gisagara, Nyamagabe, Nyaruguru and Ngaruroro districts.

According to the Ministry of Finance and Economic Development (MINECOFIN, 2002; Rutamu, 2008), there are numerous factors affecting livestock farming in Rwanda, and these include: • deficiency in animal feed both in quality and quantity• animal diseases, especially epidemic diseases which regularly affect animals• poorly performing local breeds resulting in low productivity• poor veterinary and extension services with few qualified personnel, and poor

means of responding to farmers’ needs

Poultry

Goats

CattlePigsSheepRabbits & Hares

11



• poor infrastructure development due to low levels of investment within the sector, which often results in the lack of necessary infrastructure, especially for the pro-cessing of animal by-products

• lack of access to finance by small livestock farmers which limits their opportunities and possibilities of adapting to modern technology in animal production

• weak institutional support for farmers’ organizations.

Girinka Programme

Girinka, or one cow per poor family, is being promoted as one of the strategies for poverty reduction in Rwanda. According to Mugabe (2014), the Girinka programme was introduced in 2006 due to the country’s alarmingly high levels of poverty and childhood malnutrition. The results of the Integrated Household Living Conditions Survey 2 (EICV 2) conducted in 2005 registered 62.5 per cent rural poverty. The Com-prehensive Food Security and Vulnerability Analysis (CFSVA) and Nutrition Survey showed that 28 per cent of Rwanda’s rural population was food insecure and that 24 per cent of the rural population was highly vulnerable to future food insecurity. The survey showed that in some parts of the country, such as Bugesera, up to 40 per cent of households were food insecure. The Demographic Health Survey of 2005 indicated that 45 per cent of Rwandan children under the age of five had moderate chronic malnutrition while 19 per cent had severe chronic malnutrition. According to the EICV 2, at that time, 90 per cent of Rwandans lived in households that owned some farming land, and more than 60 per cent of households cultivated less than 0.7 hectares of the land. It was these factors that triggered the need to introduce the Girinka Programme. The programme is also based on the Rwandan culture of giving a cow to a person either as a sign of respect and gratitude or as a marriage dowry (Mugabe, 2014). There are several other development support organizations in the livestock sector which, among others, include Heifer International, Send a Cow, the SNV Netherlands Development Organisation (SNV), Belgium Development Coopera-tion, and the United States Agency for International Development (USAID) - all of which have been in support of the programme.

The programme aims to give 350,000 cows to poor families by 2017, and studies show that since its introduction in January 2006 until April 2013, 186,641 cows were distributed nationally, representing 53.3 per cent of the target levels. These include cows provided through the programme itself, as well as those distributed under Kwitura and other Rwanda Governance Board initiatives (RGB, 2014). The selection of beneficiaries is conducted at the local level based on the principles of the Ubudehe Programme. This basically means the local community meets to decide which mem-bers should benefit from Girinka and the meeting is facilitated by a small collective village administrative grouping (umudugudu). The list of the selected beneficiaries is then submitted to the community members and sector leaders, who then share it with programme leaders.

Table 1 below shows the number of cows provided to poor families through the Gir-inka Programme in five provinces. The western province had the highest number of beneficiaries, while Kigali City had the least. The number of cows given to other beneficiaries through Kwitura was also high.

12



Table 1: Cows distributed through Girinka Programme from January 2006 to April 2013

Province Cows distributed Total

Girinka Kwitura & Initiatives

North 27,095 5,939 33,034

East 39,588 7,148 46,736

West 41,912 15,968 57,880

South 38,363 7,145 45,508

Kigali City 2,967 709 3,676

Grand total 149,925 36,716 186,641

Source: The assessment of the impact of home-grown initiatives; Rwanda Governance Board, 2014

Rwanda Red Cross Livestock Rotation Programme

As part of the national programme to address some of the challenges Rwanda is facing, the Rwanda Red Cross has been providing shelter, food security and liveli-hoods support activities, especially for orphans, vulnerable families and returnees. The livestock initiative is one component of the food security and livelihoods pro-gramme. As part of the livestock programme, a cow rotation recovery programme was launched in a number of different communities across the country to make households and communities resilient to sudden disasters. The cow rotation, which is linked to agricultural activities, aims for a more holistic recovery approach to ad-dress food and nutrition insecurity and livelihoods challenges.

This programme is in line with the Rwanda Red Cross’s strategic plan that aims at strengthening community resilience in developing effective disaster risk reduction (DRR) and management strategies to address potential emergency situations, and at sustaining the health and social care needs of vulnerable people (Rwanda Red Cross, 2012). It is also in line with the IFRC’s strategic aims one and two: to save lives and protect livelihoods, and to enable healthy and safe living, and through strengthened community resilience, people enjoy better and safe living. Community resilience is important for the rich and poor alike, in the face of global threats such as climate change, economic crises and pandemics (IFRC, 2010).

The cow rotation initiative seeks to provide herds of cattle, pigs, goats, rabbits and other livestock to affected targeted communities after disasters. Since 2008 the Rwanda Red Cross National Society, through the IFRC, has invested a total of FRW 78,597,970 (USD 108,338.77) towards the procurement and distribution of livestock, as well as infrastructure development, livestock management training and commu-nication. However, it is estimated that USD 5.1 million would have been invested in the programme by 2020 (Rwanda Red Cross, 2014).

The selected beneficiaries receive livestock directly from the Rwanda Red Cross and take care and manage it. To ensure that each household in the community receives livestock, while making sure the programme remains sustainable, the firstborn heif-

13



er, pig, goat or rabbit is passed on to another household, then reproduces offspring for donation to the another household.

The breakdown of investment by the IFRC for 2008 and 2009 is presented in the fol-lowing table:

Table 2: IFRC livestock rotation investment 2008 and 2009

Year Amount (FRW)

2008 5,270,000

2009 10,806,000

2009 13,661,970

2009 48,860,000

Total 78,597,970

CBA study

Since the launch of the Rwanda Red Cross Livestock Rotation Programme in 2009, no quantitative assessment of this project has been undertaken. The purpose of the participatory CBA, therefore, was to assess the key qualitative and quantitative as-pects of the investment and its impact on the food security situation and livelihoods in Huye, Gisagara and Kayonza districts. The study also assessed the economic value and return on investment made by the IFRC in the livestock rotation programme, taking into account the opportunity cost of the investment.

The qualitative and quantitative focus of the study was to provide the economic rationale for prioritization of future investment decision-making to ensure optimal food security and related developmental objective.. Such a study, when undertaken, also ensures an accountability and transparency in the manner in which resources are directed to areas where development effectiveness is highest.

CBA is an evidence-based quantitative tool useful for informing future resource al-location and deployment by existing and potential donors and other relevant stake-holders to assess the extent of the impact of interventions. In this instance, the study was specifically intended to demonstrate the financial and economic value of incor-porating the livestock rotation component into the food security initiatives.

CBA measures the costs and benefits associated with undertaking projects and pro-grammes. It also complements financial analysis to manage and account for non-market benefits and costs in more detail and takes into consideration such variables as environ-mental costs, biodiversity preservation, disaster preparedness, informal activities (with economic value), social opportunity cost of labour, and opportunity cost of investment.

The study is useful to enable the IFRC and potential donors, government, and pro-gramme developers/officers, among other stakeholders, to assess whether or not the livestock rotation programme has produced positive food security impacts, and if it can be supported further to boost and consolidate impacts while also ensuring opti-mal returns for the money invested.

Source: Rwanda Red Cross, 2014

14



2.1. Study area The study was undertaken in three selected districts implementing the livestock rotation programme: Huye and Gisagara in the southern province and Kayonza in the east. These districts are shown in the map in Figure 4 below.

Figure 4: Study target areas

Source: Rwanda Agricultural Board, 2013

A combination of different approaches was adopted to ensure the CBA was effective. These included a desktop review as a source of secondary data and information, household surveys, key informant interviews with relevant stakeholders, commu-nity participatory focus group discussions, as well as observation-provided primary data. Focus was on capturing both direct and indirect benefits to the livestock ben-eficiaries and each community as a whole.

Two lecturers from the University of Rwanda’s Economics Department worked with the Rwanda Red Cross to conduct the study. They developed the tools and provided on-site training to the IFRC, National Society staff, and university student volunteers. Most of the training was to develop an appreciation and understanding on the use of the CBA model and data collection.

Community participatory processes were employed to complement the measur-ing of economic benefits and impacts (changes to people’s lives) of the Rwanda Red Cross livestock initiative. The study assessed aspects of community preparedness, safety and resilience investments before, and after the recovery programme had been implemented.

2. Methodology

15



2.2. Data collection techniques and toolsa) Desk Review

A review of existing relevant documentation on the livestock rotation project of the Rwanda Red Cross was carried out in the context of national programmes and the food security objectives. Literature reviewed included project reports, the Rwanda Red Cross annual reports and strategic plan, and other government-related strategic policies and planning reports.

b) Household Survey

According to budget and time constraints, a survey questionnaire was designed and addressed to 70 randomly selected respondents from livestock beneficiaries across the three identified districts. The questionnaire (see Appendix 2) was designed so as to collect farmers’ demographic information, livestock ownership status, and opera-tional costs linked to livestock rearing, as well as the direct and indirect monetary and other benefits.

Table 3 below shows the number of respondents by district and by gender.

Table 3: Sample size per district

District Gisagara Huye Kayonza

Number of respondents 20 30 20

Female 65% 34% 71%

Male 35% 66% 29%

Source: Primary data

Under the livestock rotation programme, cows were given to selected vulnerable families in all the districts. Goats were given only to families in Huye, while, in 2014, pigs were distributed to Gisagara and Huye districts. The target respondents for the study were the initial cattle and goats beneficiaries in 2008 and the first pig benefi-ciaries in 2014. The sample responses are indicated in Table 4 below.

Box 1: Objectives of participatory community cost benefit analysis (CBA)• To quantify the economic value and benefits of the IFRC Rwanda Red

Cross Livestock Rotation Programme • To inform future programming interventions and deployment of resources• To quantitatively demonstrate the economic viability and multiplier

effect of financial investment made in a way that can inform further

16



Table 4: Respondents per livestock type

Gisagara Huye Kayonza Total

Cows 10 10 20 40

Goats 0 7 0 7

Pigs 10 13 23

Total 20 30 20 70


c) Focus Group Discussion

Three focus group discussions (see Appendix 3) were conducted with 12 participants in each district with the aim of capturing other important information and percep-tions not included in the survey questionnaire. The focus group participants includ-ed beneficiaries from other projects, Rwanda Red Cross committee members, and members of the local administration. The focus group discussions enabled a better understanding of the role played by the Rwanda Red Cross Livestock Rotation Pro-gramme in changing people’s lives and identified any potential challenges the com-munities might face during implementation of the programme.

d) Key Informants Interviews

The interviews with the key informants at sector levels (see Appendix 4) were con-ducted to gather additional relevant information about livestock development in each of the study areas. During the field visits, interviews were conducted with sec-tor and/or community veterinaries, and community members agents in charge of social affairs, as well as other key people who were knowledgeable about livestock development.

e) Observation

While visiting beneficiary households, individual observations were also made to provide a better analysis of the existing infrastructure, degree of poverty, land use and human settlement, and the extent of agriculture and livestock activities.

f) CBA model

An Excel-based CBA model, consisting of eight interactive and illustrative worksheets, was developed. Cost data and benefit entry templates (worksheets) were created to assist the National Society with data entry and decoding of the programme invest-ment (disbursement to communities) and associated institutional and programme operational costs.

17



Table 5: CBA model template

Cost-benefit analysis template: an example for cows

Costs of delivery and maintenance of cows

2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015

Initial cost per cow

Feeding

Other costs

Institutional cost

Total cost for year FRW 0.00

FRW 0.00

FRW 0.00

FRW 0.00

FRW 0.00

FRW 0.00

FRW 0.00

FRW 0.00

Household benefits 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015

Income - sale of milk

Income - sale of cattle

Income - sale of other products (1)

Total household benefit for year

FRW 0.00

FRW 0.00

FRW 0.00

FRW 0.00

FRW 0.00

FRW 0.00

FRW 0.00

FRW 0.00

Aggregated cows benefits/costs

2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015

Aggregated cows benefits

Aggregated cows cost

Net benefit

Discount factor

Net cash flow

Net present value (NPV)

Benefit-cost ratio 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015

Present value benefits

Present value costs

Benefit-cost ratio (BCR)benefit for year

FRW 0.00

FRW 0.00

FRW 0.00

FRW 0.00

FRW 0.00

FRW 0.00

FRW 0.00

FRW 0.00

(1) Other products include sales of manure, bull rent, sales of fodder seeds, rent of fodder plots, biogas and others.

Source: Designed by authors

2.3. Data analysisUpon completion of data collection, all data was entered into the Excel spreadsheets and thereafter analysed using STATA, a data analysis and statistical software pro-gram. The Excel-based CBA model, as presented in Table 6 below, was developed to calculate the benefit-cost ratio (BCR) for all three categories of livestock considered under the study.

18



The BCR is the ratio of the discounted net benefits of a project or proposal, expressed in monetary terms, relative to its discounted costs, also expressed in monetary values. Normally, any proposal with a BCR of less than one must be judged unprofitable and rejected in favour of other more viable options.

A stream of benefits was derived from the gross benefit over the respective years from which the associated costs were offset to obtain the net present value (NPV) of benefits. The CBA was assessed over a period of eight years using a discount factor of 12 per cent, which is based on the prevailing interest rate at the National Bank of Rwanda and the aggregated risk associated with livestock production. The purpose of using the discount factor was to adjust costs and benefits for the respective years of livestock rotation to the present value of money.

Assumptions on costs and benefits

• For the purpose of this study, the amounts used in the CBA model are the average investment, costs and benefits per household.

• The initial costs per livestock type were calculated based on the information pro-vided by the finance department of the Rwanda Red Cross. These included the purchase price for each livestock type and other related costs.

• The costs and benefits projections were based on the current status of costs in-curred by the household and the benefits accrued, and then these were used to estimate the future costs and benefits.

19



3.1. Summary statisticsThe summary statistics for respondents who participated in the household survey, focus group discussions and key informant interviews results are presented in Ta-ble 6 below. The average participating ages for beneficiaries ranged between 42 and 50 years, while the average annual expenditure ranged on average between FRW 198,545 (USD 274) and FRW 234,929 (USD 324).

Table 6: Summary statistics for respondents per district

Gisagara

Variable Obs. Mean Std. Dev. Min Max

Age 20 42 11 27 65

Education 20 4.40 3.15 0 10

Farm size 20 0.86 1.03 0.04 4.00

Average annual expenditure_2015

20 198,545 128,767 20,000 450,000

Huye


Age 30 50 16 29 65

Education 30 5 4 0 12

Farm size 30 0.57 0.75 0.00 3.00


30 229,348 179,412 12,500 800,000

Kayonza


Age 20 47 12 23 65

Education 20 4 4 0 12

Farm size 20 0.56 0.24 0.12 1.00


20 234,929 187,919 10,000 720,000


The survey respondents were still regarded as “non-poor”, considering their respec-tive levels of household expenditure, which was slightly above the accepted poverty line of FRW 159,375 (approximately USD 220) per year (NISR, 2015). However, only 17 per cent of respondent claimed to be in the third wealth category defined as the second-best category of wealth in Rwanda. This showed that there was still huge potential and scope for growth as most of the people in Huye and Gisagara did not yet have access to land. The average farm size is 0.86 hectares, 0.57 hectares and 0.56 hectares in Gisagara, Huye and Kayonza respectively. Their level of education was on average very low. None of the respondents had more than 12 years of basic educa-tion, and illiterate cases were prevalent in all three districts.

3. Findings

20



About 90 per cent of the beneficiaries contacted had received training in livestock feed-ing, cattle milking, and milk handling by the Rwanda Red Cross 2010. All of them were applying the acquired skills for livestock production. In some ways this helped them to bridge the education gap and move forward. Few received trainings from other part-ners such as the Rwanda Agricultural Board (RAB), CARITAS, SPREAD, AEE and others.

3.2. CBA resultsAs mentioned earlier, the study focuses on three types of livestock provided by the Rwanda Red Cross in three districts of Rwanda. The CBA results for livestock received in 2008 (cows and goats) and those received in 2014 (pigs) are presented separately. Cattle and pigs presented the highest returns to the communities in the study area. The NPV of the cows was FRW 3,383,290 (USD 4,663) for the period 2008 to 2015 and FRW 7,462,243 (USD 10,286) for the period 2008 to 2020. The results (see Appendix 1) showed that there had been an increase of 10 per cent on average in the costs of maintaining cows per family over the past eight years, and an increase of 20 per cent on average in the total benefits derived from selling cow milk, meat, manure and other benefits. This allowed a proper projection of the benefits and cost over the 2020 horizon. The NPV for goats for the period 2008 to 2015 was FRW 999,275 (USD 1,377). The goats provided a lower BCR of 1.8 over the same period, and this was unlikely to change in 2020 since the study showed a 1.0 to 1.8 per cent increase in costs and benefits from goat keeping during the study period.

Table 7: BCR for cows and goats

Year Benefit-cost ratio

Cows Goats

2008 0.88 0.76

2009 3.82 2.10

2010 4.16 2.22

2011 4.56 1.86

2012 8.26 3.28

2013 4.59 2.60

2014 5.11 1.80

2015 5.99 3.50

Average BCR for the period 2008-2015 3.81 1.80

Average BCR for the period 2008-2020 4.82 1.80

Source: Authors’ calculations based on survey data

The CBA results for cows suggest that one Rwandan franc invested by the Rwanda Red Cross had brought back almost 4 FRW today (i.e., after eight years) and would re-turn about 5 FRW in 2020. In other words, it could realistically be concluded that one cow given to a family had reproduced almost four cows on average. This confirms that the cattle rotation is a very profitable and high-return venture that is worth investing in as the future net positive returns to the community were guaranteed.

21



One goat received had so far reproduced two offspring after eight years, and the projections showed that there would be no change in the BCR in 2020. Although the goats’ net return was also positive, it was relatively lower compared with other live-stock categories, and the sustainability of goat rearing was uncertain. However, this result should be treated with caution due to the small sample (only seven beneficia-ries rearing goats have been contacted), which may be a source of bias.

The CBA for pigs is presented in Table 8 below. It is important to note that the pigs ro-tation programme started recently, in 2014, and only in the southern province (Huye and Gisagara districts); however, the results obtained from this two-year period are very encouraging.

Table 8: BCR for pigs

Year BCR Pigs

2014 0.37

2015 1.22

2016 1.97

2017 3.33

2018 5.82

2019 10.37

2020 18.70

Average BCR for the period 2014-2015 0.64

Average BCR for the period 2014-2020 6.00

Source: Calculation based on survey data

Pigs are naturally more productive (they reproduce two or three times a year, and there are almost 10 pigs per birth on average). As more than 75 per cent of pigs were sold during the two years, this animal category was principally for commercial pur-poses and was the quickest channel of income generation for the beneficiaries. Since the pigs programme was only introduced two years ago, a longer-term horizon was considered, and the CBA results are principally based on projections for 2020, which is also in line with the Rwanda Red Cross strategic plan.

Table 9: Trend in livestock over time

TypeNumber received

OffspringPeriod (Years)

Percentage of change per year

Cow 40 182 8 44%

Goats 7 47 8 71%

Pigs 23 206 2 398%


22



The offspring numbers listed include all livestock reproduced since the start of the project (2008 for cows and goats and 2014 for pigs). The number shown is the sum of available livestock at the time of the study visit, livestock given away during the rotation programme and those sold by the beneficiaries. The average growth rate of pigs is 398 per cent per year, which is extremely high.

Based on the increase in livestock numbers in the sample households, the average annual growth rate for pigs was much higher than that for cows and goats.

The projections based on 2014 and 2015 results show that 1 FRW invested in pigs will return 6 FRW in 2020, a sign of a very profitable project. The survey results also indicate a sufficiently high NPV of FRW 5,717,501 (USD 7,881) for the same period.

Case study 1: Testimony from a beneficiary from Mbeho village (Kansi sector, Gisagara district), Mrs Prucherie MukankusiI received a pig from the Rwanda Red Cross in 2014. It has given birth three times: eight pigs for the first time, 11 for the second time, and 10 piglets during the third time. I have given away two pigs to the rotation programme, sold the remaining pigs and started saving some money at the bank. Since then I have started buying regular health insurance, and established a small business at the commercial center.

After a few months, I renovated my house and bought a small televison from the income I earned. I have also managed to support my child’s university education.

Case study 2: Mr Fulgence from Agatoki village, Nyamirama sector (Kayonza district)I received a cow from the Rwanda Red Cross in 2008. Unfortunately, it was late to reproduce. After two years, my cow produced its first calf which I gave to another family in line with the requirements of the livestock rotation programme. After another year I got a second calf, which I sold for FRW 200,000. I built a two-door bar for rent at the commercial centre from the profits. Recently, I sold the third calf and I am using this money to solve my family problems. I thank the Rwanda Red Cross.

I started using fertilizers on my land, and after one year for the first time my harvest from maize rose from 50 kilograms to 1.5 tonnes . I sold my harvest for 276,000 FRW and built modern house. In the following season I made a good harvest agani and sold it for FRW 180,000 and I bought new land, where I planted a forest.

23



The underlying assumptions for this projection were based on the fact that the costs of breeding pigs increased by 20 per cent between 2014 and 2015, income from pig sales increased by 120 per cent, while that of pig by-products (manure) increased by 25 per cent. Assuming that these respective growth rates remain constant, they were used to forecast both costs and benefits into the future.

However, to keep the momentum of livestock growth in the study area, people will have to tackle the problem of land scarcity and invest more in livestock disease con-trol and elimination. The Rwanda Red Cross must continue to advocate for access to extension services at the local level and for market access in the study area. Market access would help farmers to sell the livestock and related products (milk and ma-nure) at good prices, and thus increase returns from livestock keeping.

The overall image of the Rwanda Red Cross Livestock Rotation Programme was positive. Other findings suggest a tremendous change in people’s livelihoods across surveyed districts. The increased agricultural productivity resulting from organic manure application was noticeable across the study area. Several cases of reduced malnutrition due to milk consumption were reported by the beneficiaries of cattle who were contacted during the study. The cow rotation programme has enhanced unity among the community members, along with increased value of social capital. In addition, people participating in the programme were likely to provide free milk to their neighbours when they were ill. The involvement in the government programme had been strengthened by the fact that the payment of health insurance increased from 50 per cent to 98 per cent among the livestock beneficiaries.

In addition, 50 per cent could pay for school fees for their children in secondary school, 70 per cent renovated or built comfortable shelters and shifted from tradi-tional houses, while about 30 per cent managed to extend their agricultural land using income from livestock sales. Also, livestock beneficiaries received knowledge about the use of new agricultural and livestock-related techniques aimed to increase agricultural and livestock productivity. Table 10 below shows the level of technology adoption by livestock beneficiaries.

Case study 3: Testimony from Mr Zebulon Karangwa from Nyamirama sector, Kayonza districtI received a cow from the Rwanda Red Cross in 2008 which give birth after just three months. Almost all my seven children were malnourished. This time my entire family started a new eating habit of including milk in their diet, and all my children are healthy today. I sold the second calf to upgrade my house (adding a new metal door) and my maize production increased three times.

I have since given the third calf to a friend of mine. As I am praising the Rwanda Red Cross for changing my life, I am also being praised (as Mr Karangwa) in my community for changing one family’s life through the cow donation.

24



Table 10: Livestock/agricultural technology adoption

Type of technologyNumber of adopters

(users)Percentage

Silage 18 26%

Hay 19 27%

Crop residues 53 76%

Legumes - hay 4 6%

Farm-made/purchased concentrates 20 29%

Molasses 7 10%

Spraying against ticks 49 70%

Deworming 58 83%

Vaccination 29 41%

Mastitis control 19 27%

Artificial insemination (AI) services (gutera intanga)

14 20%

Milk hygiene and quality improvement 34 46%

The most adopted techniques and agricultural practices include deworming (83 per cent of respondents), the use of crop residues (76 per cent), spraying against ticks (70 per cent), milk hygiene and milk quality improvement (46 per cent) and vaccination (41 per cent). Though some other important techniques that can reduce the cost of livestock production (such as silage and hay) had a low level of uptake, the adoption of different techniques had resulted in a total saving of FRW 10 million (USD 13,784) over the past eight years. Beyond technological adaptation, six beneficiary families among the surveyed 70 families used the livestock received as collateral and secured a loan of FRW 3 million (USD 4,135) from local microfinance institutions. This is con-sidered to be an indirect benefit from livestock rotation.

25



Job creation

Over the past eight years, the livestock beneficiaries have provided different live-stock/agriculture-related jobs to 75 people for at least 24 months on average. The re-sults show that the average monthly wage among the surveyed households was FRW 11,500 (USD 15.85). Therefore, the livestock rotation programme had injected about FRW 20,700,000 (USD 25,833) to the community outside the beneficiaries’ families during this period.

Table 11: Job creation

Job type Number of jobs Per cent

Agriculture 10 13%

Livestock feeding 6 8%

Milking 22 29%

Cowboy 33 44%

Home servant 4 5%

Total 75 100%

Source: Calculations based on survey data

26



The purpose of this study was to conduct a CBA of the Rwanda Red Cross Livestock Rotation Programme initiated in 2008 in three districts of Rwanda. The programme targeted the most vulnerable families from rural areas. Three types of livestock were distributed: cows in all three districts; goats and pigs in Huye and Gisagara districts. About 70 beneficiaries were randomly selected and surveyed, to capture the opera-tional costs related to raising various livestock and the benefits derived from the activity over the past eight years. A retrospective approach was used. Both focus group discussions and household survey results suggest this to be an economically and financially viable programme for both Rwanda Red Cross and beneficiaries.

The CBA results show, although recently introduced, the pigs’ BCR for the period 2014 to 2020 is higher than those for cows and goats. The BCR for pigs was 6.0, fol-lowed by the BCR for cows (3.81 for the period 2008 to 2015 and 4.82 for the period 2008 to 2020). The BCR for goats was very low (1.8). Generally, the CBA results sug-gest net positive returns from the Rwanda Red Cross Livestock Rotation Programme as any FRW invested had yielded a higher return. However, to maintain the level of growth in livestock keeping, a number of key structural, institutional and market access challenges need to be addressed, such as:

• Land scarcity problems prevent farmers maximizing the returns from livestock.

• A shortage of extension services at community level (especially in the districts of Huye and Gisagara) and a lack of livestock veterinary support are barriers to reduce livestock diseases.

• Farmers are reluctant to construct modern livestock sheds due to high costs. This has a negative effect on cattle productivity.

• Lack of livestock market information: farmers are selling their livestock and other related products at low costs, and they do not maximize the benefits.

• The rotation programme takes a long period to implement fully, and the livelihoods were transforming only slowly.

• The beneficiaries of the traditional cattle variety were not gaining from the pro-gramme due to low milk production and high production costs.

The following is recommended in order to maximize the output from the Rwanda Red Cross Livestock Rotation Programme:

• The number of livestock distributed to communities should be increased to ensure economies of scale and to broaden the reach to more beneficiaries.

• The Rwanda Red Cross should only focus on improved breeds (or just cross-breed, as it was previously done) for future intervention and increase the number of pigs where possible (i.e., where there are no cultural restrictions) as they show high and quick returns to investment. Only a few cases of rearing the traditional breed of cows were reported in Huye district.

• If goats are to become a project focus, it would be more viable to provide more than one goat per household or just combine it with another livestock type.

4. Conclusions and recommendations

27



• Provide additional training related to livestock technologies so that the beneficiaries learn cost management while minimizing production costs and optimizing returns.

• The Rwanda Red Cross should advocate for access to extension services at the community level, where the livestock rotation programmes are introduced.

• It is advisable to give more than one goat to the household or just combine it with any other type of small livestock in order to increase returns.

• Depending on the resources available, implementing another CBA study for goats is suggested, this time using a larger sample size.

Finally, it is important to note that other factors may have contributed to the well-being of livestock beneficiaries. Though the study provides useful insights into the profitability of the livestock rotation programme, it is not fully possible to separate the benefits from the Rwanda Red Cross and other programmes run by different partners in the same community. Therefore, a programme evaluation is suggested to enable all stakeholders to better appreciate the potential contribution of the Rwanda Red Cross Livestock Rotation Programme in comparison with other initiatives being implemented within the study area.

28



IFRC (2010). Strategy 2020: Saving Lives, Changing Minds, Geneva, Switzerland.

IFRC (untold). Case Study: Experience in Cow Rotation Programming, Rwanda.

Innocent Rutamu (2008). Investment Opportunities in the Dairy Sub-sector of Rwanda.

MINECOFIN (2002). National Census Survey. Kigali, Rwanda.

Mugabe Jean Baptiste (2014). Girinka Programme: Transforming lives in the Republic of Rwanda.

National Bank of Rwanda (2015). Exchange Rate Archive.

NISR (2012). Final report on integrated household living conditions survey, 2011. Republic of Rwanda, NISR, Kigali, Rwanda.

NISR (2015). Rwanda Poverty Report Results of Integrated Household Living Conditions Survey [EICV] 2013/2014.

RRC (2012). Rwanda Red Cross Strategic Plan 2012 - 2016, Kigali, Rwanda.

RRC (2013). Annual Report: 50 years of humanitarian action and resilience. Kigali, Rwanda.

RRC (2014). Rwanda Red Cross Community Resilience and Disaster Risk Reduction in Model Village, Kigali, Rwanda.

Rwanda Governance Board (2014). The assessment of the impact of home-grown initiatives Rwanda-Indian Streams Research Journal - ISSN: 2230-7850.

5. References

29

Inte

rnat

ion

al F

eder

atio

n o

f R

ed C

ross

an

d R

ed C

resc

ent

Soc

ieti

es

Co

st-B

enef

it A

naly

sis

of

the

Rw

and

a R

ed C

ross

Liv

esto

ck ro

tatio

n pr

ogra

mm

e

App

endi

x 1:

CB

A ta

bles

for c

ows,

goa

ts a

nd p

igs

Cost

s of

deiv

erl

y &

M

ain

tan

ce o

f cow

s2

00

82

00

92010

2011

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

Initi

al c

ost p

er c

ow

145

000

,00

Feed

ing

290

681

,50

148

988

,50

148

334

,00

166

660

,50

83

330,

50

171

314

,50

182

912

,00

178

023

,50

195

825

,85

215

408

,44

236

949

,28

260

644

,21

286

708

,63

Oth

er c

osts

1

59 7

14,0

0 7

9 13

6,00

8

4 71

2,00

9

2 31

2,00

4

2 15

6,00

1

16 7

90,0

0 1

24 8

05,0

0 6

3 97

0,00

7

0 36

7,00

7

7 40

3,70

8

5 14

4,07

9

3 65

8,48

1

03 0

24,3

2

Inst

itutio

nal c

ost

3 0

27,0

0

Tota

l co

st f

or

year

598

422,

5022

8 12

4,50

233

046,

0025

8 97

2,50

125

486,

5028

8 10

4,50

307

717,

0024

1 99

3,50

266

192,

8529

2 81

2,14

322

093,

3535

4 30

2,68

389

732,

95

Co

st b

enefi

t an

alys

is t

emp

late

Co

st D

ata

Ent

ry P

age/

Co

ws

- R

WF

Inst

itut

iona

l cos

ts=

inte

rven

tion

cos

ts

Hou

seh

old

s B

en

efi

ts2

00

82

00

92010

2011

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

Inco

me-

sale

of m

ilk 1

85 6

86,0

0 5

36 5

78,0

0 4

56 7

22,0

0 6

30 5

00,0

0 4

35 1

50,0

0 5

85 2

10,0

0 4

90 2

22,0

0 5

36 6

66,0

0 6

43 9

99,2

0 7

72 7

99,0

4 9

27 3

58,8

5 1

112

830,

62 1

335

396

,74

Inco

me-

sale

of c

attle

1

11 0

00,0

0 2

03 5

00,0

0 1

75 4

54,0

0 1

89 8

00,0

0 2

56 4

28,0

0 1

82 0

00,0

0 2

18 4

00,0

0 2

62 0

80,0

0 3

14 4

96,0

0 3

77 3

95,2

0 4

52 8

74,2

4

Incom

e-sa

le of

oth

er p

rodu

cts

340

901

,00

333

840

,00

400

596

,00

347

800

,00

425

366

,00

547

428

,00

826

794

,00

730

198

,00

876

237

,60

1 05

1 48

5,12

1 2

61 7

82,1

4 1

514

138,

57 1

816

966

,29

Tota

l Ho

useh

old

b

enefi

t fo

r ye

ar52

6 58

7,00

870

418,

0096

8 31

8,00

1 18

1 80

0,00

1 03

5 97

0,00

1 32

2 43

8,00

1 57

3 44

4,00

1 44

8 86

4,00

1 73

8 63

6,80

2 08

6 36

4,16

2 50

3 63

6,99

3 00

4 36

4,39

3 60

5 23

7,27

Co

st b

enefi

t an

alys

is t

emp

late

Ben

efit

Dat

a E

ntry

Pag

e/C

ow

s -

RW

F

Vari

ab

le

20

08

2009

2010

2011

2012

2013

2014

2015

Agr

egat

ed c

ows

Ben

efits

526

587,

0087

0 41

8,00

968

318,

001

181

800,

001

035

970,

001

322

438,

001

573

444,

001

448

864,

00

Agr

egat

ed c

ows

cost

598

422,

5022

8 12

4,50

233

046,

0025

8 97

2,50

125

486,

5028

8 10

4,50

307

717,

0024

1 99

3,50

Net

ben

efit

-71

835,

5064

2 29

3,50

735

272,

0092

2 82

7,50

910

483,

501

034

333,

501

265

727,

001

206

870,

50

Dis

coun

t fac

tor

0,89

0,80

0,71

0,64

0,57

0,51

0,45

0,40

Ret

urn

(Dis

coun

ted)

-6

4 13

8,84

512

032,

4552

3 35

2,09

586

473,

5651

6 63

2,79

524

025,

5457

2 55

0,62

487

434,

75

Co

st b

enefi

t an

alys

is t

emp

late

Res

ults

Pag

e/C

ow

s -

RW

F

30

Year

20

08

20

09

2010

2011

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

Inve

stm

ent

1450

00

Rev

enue

s 5

26 5

87

870

418

9

68 3

18

1 1

81 8

00

1 0

35 9

70

1 3

22 4

38

1 5

73 4

44

1 4

48 8

64

1738

636,

820

8636

4,16

2503

636,

992

3004

364,

3936

0523

7,26

8

Tota

l cos

ts

744

104

2

28 1

25

233

046

2

58 9

73

125

487

2

88 1

05

307

717

2

41 9

94

2661

92,8

529

2812

,135

3220

93,3

485

3543

02,6

834

3897

32,9

517

Net

Cas

h flo

w

(217

517

) 6

42 2

94

735

272

9

22 8

28

910

484

1

034

334

1

265

727

1

206

871

2

004

830

2

379

176

2

825

730

3

358

667

3

994

970

PV

(194

212

) 5

12 0

32

523

352

5

86 4

74

516

633

5

24 0

26

572

551

4

87 4

35

722

962

7

66 0

31

812

330

8

62 0

86

915

544

NP

V 3

383

290

NP

V20

08-

2020

7 4

62 2

43

Co

st b

enefi

t an

alys

is t

emp

late

Res

ults

Pag

e/N

PV

Co

ws

- R

WF

Year

20

08

20

09

20

10

2011

2012

2013

2014

2015

Tota

l2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

To

tal

PV

Ben

efit

470

166

,96

693

891

,90

689

229

,63

751

055

,27

587

837

,20

669

988

,25

711

746

,16

5 15

9 08

7,23

62

6 96

9,86

67

1 75

3,42

71

9 73

5,81

77

1 14

5,51

82

6 22

7,33

8

774

919,

16

PV

cost

s-1

4500

0 5

34 3

05,8

0 1

81 8

59,4

5 1

65 8

77,5

4 1

64 5

81,7

1 7

1 20

4,41

1

45 9

62,7

1 1

39 1

95,5

4 1

355

724,

28

95

991,

81

94

277,

67

92

594,

14

90

940,

67

89

316,

73

1 81

8 84

5,31

Ben

efit

Co

st

Rat

io (B

CR

)0,

000,

883,

824,

164,

568,

264,

595,

113,

816,

537,

137,

778,

489,

254,

82

Co

st b

enefi

t an

alys

is t

emp

late

Res

ults

Pag

e/B

CR

Co

ws

- R

WF

One

RW

F In

vest

ed in

Cat

tle

by R

RC

pro

duce

d a

bout

RW

F 4

on a

vera

ge.

Cost

s of

deiv

erl

y &

Main

tan

ce o

f goats

2008

2009

2010

2011

2012

2013

2014

2015

Initi

al c

ost p

er g

oat

10

667,

00

Feed

ing

273

519

,00

136

760

,00

146

779

,00

130

935

,00

63

593,

00

151

342

,00

236

407

,00

104

703

,00

Oth

er c

osts

168

083

,00

84

042,

00

73

342,

00

87

442,

00

43

721,

00

84

447,

00

97

657,

00

45

828,

00

Tota

l co

st f

or

year

452

269,

0022

0 80

2,00

220

121,

0021

8 37

7,00

107

314,

0023

5 78

9,00

334

064,

0015

0 53

1,00

Co

st b

enefi

t an

alys

is t

emp

late

/Go

ats

Co

st D

ata

Ent

ry P

age/

Go

ats

- R

WF

Inte

rnat

ion

al F

eder

atio

n o

f R

ed C

ross

an

d R

ed C

resc

ent

Soc

ieti

es

Co

st-B

enef

it A

naly

sis

of

the

Rw

and

a R

ed C

ross

Liv

esto

ck ro

tatio

n pr

ogra

mm

e

31

Year

2008

2009

2010

2011

2012

2013

2014

2015

Inve

stm

ent

1066

7

Rev

enue

s34

4400

4637

5048

7875

4057

0035

1695

6125

7160

2042

5273

00

Tota

l cos

ts

4522

6922

0802

2201

2121

8377

1073

1423

5789

3340

6415

0531

Net

Cas

h flo

w

-107

869

2429

4826

7754

1873

2324

4381

3767

8226

7978

3767

69

PV

-963

1219

3677

1905

8211

9047

1386

6819

0889

1212

2015

2171

NP

V 9

99 2

75

Vari

ab

le

2008

2009

2010

2011

2012

2013

2014

2015

Agr

egat

ed g

oats

ben

efit

344

400

,00

463

750

,00

487

875

,00

405

700

,00

351

695

,00

612

571

,00

602

042

,00

527

300

,00

Agr

egat

ed g

oats

cos

t 4

52 2

69,0

0 2

20 8

02,0

0 2

20 1

21,0

0 2

18 3

77,0

0 1

07 3

14,0

0 2

35 7

89,0

0 3

34 0

64,0

0 1

50 5

31,0

0

Net

ben

efit

-10

7 86

9,00

2

42 9

48,0

0 2

67 7

54,0

0 1

87 3

23,0

0 2

44 3

81,0

0 3

76 7

82,0

0 2

67 9

78,0

0 3

76 7

69,0

0

Dis

coun

t fac

tor

0,89

0,80

0,71

0,64

0,57

0,51

0,45

0,40

Ret

urn

(dis

coun

ted)

-

96 3

11,6

1 1

93 6

76,6

6 1

90 5

82,0

1 1

19 0

47,1

5 1

38 6

68,3

4 1

90 8

89,4

9 1

21 2

19,6

4 1

52 1

70,6

8

Co

st b

enefi

t an

alys

is t

emp

late

Res

ults

Pag

e/G

oat

s -

RW

F

Co

st b

enefi

t an

alys

is t

emp

late

Res

ults

Pag

e/N

PV

Go

ats

- R

WF

Hou

seh

old

s B

en

efi

ts2008

2009

2010

2011

2012

2013

2014

2015

Inco

me-

sale

of g

oat

20

600,

00

259

000

,00

222

250

,00

203

700

,00

110

362

,00

350

000

,00

350

000

,00

287

700

,00

Inco

me-

sale

of o

ther

pro

duct

s 3

23 8

00,0

0 2

04 7

50,0

0 2

65 6

25,0

0 2

02 0

00,0

0 2

41 3

33,0

0 2

62 5

71,0

0 2

52 0

42,0

0 2

39 6

00,0

0

Tota

l ho

useh

old

ben

efit

for

year

344

400,

0046

3 75

0,00

487

875,

0040

5 70

0,00

351

695,

0061

2 57

1,00

602

042,

0052

7 30

0,00

Co

st b

enefi

t an

alys

is t

emp

late

Ben

efit

Dat

a E

ntry

Pag

e/G

oat

s -

RW

F

Inte

rnat

ion

al F

eder

atio

n o

f R

ed C

ross

an

d R

ed C

resc

ent

Soc

ieti

es

Co

st-B

enef

it A

naly

sis

of

the

Rw

and

a R

ed C

ross

Liv

esto

ck ro

tatio

n pr

ogra

mm

e

32

Inte

rnat

ion

al F

eder

atio

n o

f R

ed C

ross

an

d R

ed C

resc

ent

Soc

ieti

es

Co

st-B

enef

it A

naly

sis

of

the

Rw

and

a R

ed C

ross

Liv

esto

ck ro

tatio

n pr

ogra

mm

e

32

Item

s 2

008

2009

2010

2011

2012

2013

2014

2015

Tota

l

PV

inco

me

307

500

369

699

347

260

257

830

199

561

310

348

272

333

212

968

2 27

7 49

8

PV

cost

s40

3 81

217

6 02

215

6 67

813

8 78

360

893

119

458

151

114

60 7

971

267

555

Ben

efit

Co

st R

atio

(BC

R)

0,76

2,10

2,22

1,86

3,28

2,60

1,80

3,50

1,8

Co

st b

enefi

t an

alys

is t

emp

late

Res

ults

Pag

e/B

CR

Go

ats

- R

WF

Cost

s of

deiv

erl

y &

Main

tan

ce o

f p

igs

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

Initi

al c

ost p

er p

ig

96

000,

00

Feed

ing

cost

s 9

2 29

4,00

1

08 3

11,0

0 1

29 9

73,2

0 1

55 9

67,8

4 1

87 1

61,4

1 2

24 5

93,6

9 2

69 5

12,4

3

Oth

er c

osts

42

712,

00

50

471,

00

60

565,

20

72

678,

24

87

213,

89

104

656

,67

125

588

,00

Inst

itutio

nal c

ost

54

000,

00

Tota

l co

st f

or

year

285

006

,00

158

782

,00

190

538

,40

228

646

,08

274

375

,30

329

250

,36

395

100

,43

Hou

seh

old

s B

en

efi

ts2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

Inco

me-

sale

of p

igs

63

601

140

222

3

08 4

88,4

0 6

78 6

74,4

8 1

493

083

,86

3 2

84 7

84,4

8 7

226

525

,86

Inco

me-

sale

of o

ther

pro

duct

s 4

2 30

0 5

2 95

0 6

6 18

7,5

82

734,

4 1

03 4

18,0

1

29 2

72,5

1

61 5

90,6

Tota

l Ho

useh

old

ben

efit

for

year

105

901

,00

193

172

,00

374

675

,90

761

408

,86

1 5

96 5

01,8

2 3

414

056

,94

7 3

88 1

16,4

4

Co

st b

enefi

t an

alys

is t

emp

late

/Pig

s C

ost

Dat

a E

ntry

Pag

e/P

igs

- R

WF

Co

st b

enefi

t an

alys

is t

emp

late

Ben

efit

Dat

a E

ntry

Pag

e/P

igs

- R

WF

33

Inte

rnat

ion

al F

eder

atio

n o

f R

ed C

ross

an

d R

ed C

resc

ent

Soc

ieti

es

Co

st-B

enef

it A

naly

sis

of

the

Rw

and

a R

ed C

ross

Liv

esto

ck ro

tatio

n pr

ogra

mm

e

33

Item

s 2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

Tota

l

PV

inco

me

9455

415

3996

2666

8748

3889

9058

9817

2966

733

4200

969

7670

0

PV

cost

s25

4470

1265

8013

5621

1453

0915

5688

1668

0817

8723

1163

200

Ben

efit

Co

st R

atio

(BC

R)

0,37

1,22

1,97

3,33

5,82

10,3

718

,70

6,00

Co

st b

enefi

t an

alys

is t

emp

late

Res

ults

Pag

e/B

CR

Pig

s -

RW

F

Vari

ab

le

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

Agr

egat

ed p

igs

bene

fit

105

901

193

172

374

676

761

409

1 59

6 50

23

414

057

7 38

8 11

6

Agr

egat

ed p

igs

cost

285

006

158

782

190

538

228

646

274

375

329

250

395

100

Net

ben

efit

-179

105

34 3

9018

4 13

853

2 76

31

322

127

3 08

4 80

76

993

016

Dis

coun

t fac

tor

0,89

0,80

0,71

0,64

0,57

0,51

0,45

Ret

urn

(dis

coun

ted

)-1

59 9

1527

415

131

065

338

580

750

210

1 56

2 85

93

163

285

Co

st b

enefi

t an

alys

is t

emp

late

Res

ults

Pag

e/P

igs

- R

WF

Year

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

Inve

stm

ent

9600

0

Rev

enue

s 1

05 9

01

193

172

3

74 6

76

761

409

1

596

502

3

414

057

7

388

116

Tota

l cos

ts

285

006

1

58 7

82

190

538

2

28 6

46

274

375

3

29 2

50

395

100

Net

Cas

h flo

w

(179

105

) 3

4 39

0 1

84 1

38

532

763

1

322

127

3

084

807

6

993

016

PV

(159

915

) 2

7 41

5 1

31 0

65

338

580

7

50 2

10

1 5

62 8

59

3 1

63 2

85

NP

V 5

717

501

Co

st b

enefi

t an

alys

is t

emp

late

Res

ults

Pag

e/N

PV

Pig

s -

RW

F



34



Appendix 2: Household survey questionnaire

Cost-benefit analysis of the Rwanda Red Cross Livestock rotation programme

Household survey questionnaire(Suggested greeting) We are representing the Rwanda Red Cross and we are doing the cost-benefit analysis of the Rwanda Red Cross Livestock Rotation Programme. You have been selected to participate in this survey as one of the first beneficiaries of the livestock. The information from this survey will provide the programme leadership with feedback on the benefits made and challenges encountered in the livestock rotation programme. This will allow the Red Cross to amend its intervention strategies if necessary.

Please answer the questions as accurately and honestly as possible so that our future activities address the real livestock development situation and problems faced by livestock beneficiaries like yourself. The information collected will be used by the Red Cross (food security service) and will remain strictly confidential.

Are you willing to be interviewed?

Yes / No

Respondent No.: ……………

Name of Enumerator Signature Date Interview Completed

Supervisor’s Name Signature Date Checked



Section 1: household identification

1. District ..........................................................................................................................................................................................................

2. Sector .............................................................................................................................................................................................................

3. Community ................................................................................................................................................................................................

4. Full name of respondent ......................................................................................................................................................................

5. Respondent’s contact phone no.: ......................................................................................................................................................

6. Gender: Male Female

7. Age of the respondent: ............. years

8. Education level (number of school years successfully completed): ...................................................................................

9. Marital status:

Married Single Divorced

Separated Widowed (uwapfakaye)

10. Number of people in the household: Adults: ..................Children (<18 years): ................... Total: ...............................

11. How are decisions reached in the household?

Husband only ............................................................................................................................................................................................

Wife only .....................................................................................................................................................................................................

Husband and Wife...................................................................................................................................................................................

12. Wealth category of the household as assigned by Ubudehe wealth categorization .................................................

13. Are you a member of an association? Yes / No

14. If Yes, since when? ............... month ......................................... year

15. Type of livestock received/possessed and number:

No.Type of

livestock

Number received from Rwanda Red Cross

(2008)

Number in possession (originated from the original) today (2015)

Number of livestock given away in rotation

programme

Number of livestock

sold

1 Cows

2 Goats

3 Pigs

4Others

(specify)

35



36



16. (a) Were you trained by the Rwanda Red Cross in this programme? Yes / No (b) If Yes, complete the table below:

No.Type of training

VenueWhen?(year)

How long was it?(number of days)

How many times?

Was it valuable?1 = Yes; 0 = No

Are you using it now?

1 = Yes; 0 = No

1Livestock feeding

2 Milking

3Milk

handling

4Others

(specify)

17. Were you trained by partners other than the Rwanda Red Cross? Yes / No If Yes, complete the table below:

No.Type of training

Source of training (organization)

How long was it?(number of days)

Are you using it now?1 = Yes; 0 = No

1

2

3

4

18. Size of land in hectares (including crop land, pastures and others): ...................................................hectares

19. Number of meals per day: ......................................................................................................................................

20. Document your monthly household expenditure (food and non-food items):

Year 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015

Monthly expenditure

in FRW

37



21. Do you own the following assets:

No. Item nameDo you own this item?

1 = Yes0 = No

Value in FRW

1 House

2 Home furniture

3 TV

4 Radio

5 Bicycle

6 Hand hoe

7 Other agricultural equipment

8 Livestock shed

9 Other assets (specify)

38



Section 2: costs of livestock production

1. Feeding

What type of feeds do you give to your cows/goats/pigs and what was/is the cost per livestock?

Type of feedUsed?

If yes write “1” If no “0”

Unit price/cost

(FRW)

Total (FRW) 2008

Total (FRW) 2009

Total (FRW) 2010

Total (FRW) 2011

Total (FRW) 2012

Total (FRW) 2013

Total (FRW) 2014

Total (FRW) 2015

1. Forage (ubwatsi)

2. Legumes/leguminous (inyamisogwe)

3. Grain (ibinyampeke)

4. Farm-made concentrates (imvange y’ibinyampeke)

5. Water

6. Molasses (umushongi)

7. Minerals (umyunyu)

8. Vitamins

9. Brewers’ waste (ibisigazwa byo mu ruganda)

10. Others (specify)

2. Other costs

Please indicate, where appropriate, the costs incurred on the following items:

Cost itemUsed?


Unit price/cost

(FRW)

Total (FRW) 2008

Total (FRW) 2009

Total (FRW) 2010

Total (FRW) 2011

Total (FRW) 2012

Total (FRW) 2013

Total (FRW) 2014

Total (FRW) 2015

1. Veterinary services

2. Spraying against ticks (koza, kuhagira, gufuhirira)

3. Deworming (kugabura umuti w’inzoka)

4. Vaccination (gukingira inka)

5. Drugs and vet products (imiti)

6. Artification insemination services (gutera intanga)

7. Transport

8. Labour (consider all labour costs incurred)

9. Other services (specify)

39



Section 3: livestock income (benefits)

1. Product Sales

Source of incomeUsed?


Unit price/cost

(FRW)

Total (FRW) 2008

Total (FRW) 2009

Total (FRW) 2010

Total (FRW) 2011

Total (FRW) 2012

Total (FRW) 2013

Total (FRW) 2014

Total (FRW) 2015

1. Milk production (sales and consumed at home)

2. Sale of cow manure (ifumbire)

3. Sale of cattle/pigs/goats

4. Bull rent for natural breeding (gukodesha imfizi)

5. Sale of fodder seeds (imbuto z’ubwatsi)

6. Sale/rent of fodder plots (gukodesha umurima w’ubwatsi)

7. Biogas (estimate costs saved in lighting, cooking and medical costs)

8. Others (specify)

2. Adoption of improved technologies and management practicesWhich technologies were you able to implement due to the Rwanda Red Cross intervention (after training, technical support, in-kind support, staff advice, etc):

Introduced technologies(Ikoranabuhanga, ubumenyi bwo mu mahugurwa, cg inama yahawe, ubumenyi bushya, etc., ibyo yungutse akabishyira mu bikorwa)

Use “ 1 ” for yesUse “0” for No

Estimate returns (benefits) in Frw

over the past 8 years

1. Silage (guhunika ubwatsi bubisi)

2. Hay (kubika ubwatsi bwumye)

3. Crop residues

4. Legumes hay

5. Farm-made concentrates (kuvanga ibyo kurya by’amatungo)

6. Purchased concentrates

7. Molasses (umushongi)

8. Spraying against ticks

9. Deworming (umuti w’inzoka)

10.Vaccination

11. Mastitis control (ifumbi…)

12. Artificial insemination services

13. Milking hygiene (isuku y’amata)

14. Milk quality improvement (Kongera ubuziranenge bw’amata). (SoQ_Seal of Quality)

15. Financial services (loans)

40



3. Job creation

Job creation (record employee’s name as many times as he/she was hired at different times, if applicable)

No.Name of employee (optional)

Sex(M, F)

Year of employment

Type of job (short

description)

Estimate of job duration in months (job lasting at least

1 month)

Payment per month (in FRW)

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

41



Appendix 3: Focus group discussion interview guide

Cost-benefit analysis of the Rwanda Red Cross livestock rotation programme

Focus group discussion interview guide(Suggested greeting) We are representing the Rwanda Red Cross and we are doing the cost-benefit analysis of the Rwanda Red Cross Livestock Rotation Programme. You have been selected to participate in this survey some of the livestock beneficiaries, other community members, and local leaders, who might have full infor-mation on the project. The information from this survey will provide the programme leadership with feedback on the benefits made and challenges encountered in livestock rotation programme. This will allow the Red Cross to amend its intervention strategies, if necessary.

Please answer the questions as accurately and honestly as possible so that our future activities address the real livestock development situation and problems faced by livestock beneficiaries like yourself. The informa-tion collected will be used by the Red Cross (food security service) and will remain strictly confidential.

Are you willing to participate?

Yes / No

1. What is the role of livestock keeping in your area/community? ..........................................................................................

2. (a) What are the advantages of the Rwanda Red Cross Livestock Rotation Programme on people’s lives and the community in general:

a. Impacts on agriculture? .............................................................................................................................................

b. Social/health/nutritional/ educational benefits? ....................................................................................................

c. Job creation? .................................................................................................................................................................

d. Gender roles in livestock keeping, household decisions and resources control? ................................................

(b) Do you see any disadvantages of livestock rotation in your community? ..........................................................

3. (a) What were your expectations after you were selected to participate in the Rwanda Red Cross Livestock Rotation Programme? ..................................................................................................................................................... ...........................................................................................................................................................................................

(b) Were all your expectations met? If so, how and to what extent? .......................................................................................

...............................................................................................................................................................................................................................

4. What challenges are you facing in the cow rotation programme (when a cow is not productive for example, or if it dies, etc.)? ...........................................................................................................................................................................................

5. How did you face the challenges and what recommendations can you give to the Rwanda Red Cross to improve its intervention in livestock recovery and other food-security programmes?: ................................................. ...............................................................................................................................................................................................................................



42



Appendix 4: Key informants interview guide

Cost-benefit analysis of the Rwanda Red Cross Livestock rotation programmeKey informants interview guide

(Intended to sector/district veterinary/agronomist/extension agent)

1. What are your main concerns related to livestock keeping in your area/sector? ...........................................................................................................................................................................................

2. Are trained veterinary staff available in your community? ...........................................................................................................................................................................................

3. What extension services do you provide to the communities? ...........................................................................................................................................................................................

4. Are there any extension services that are unique to the livestock recovery programme? ...........................................................................................................................................................................................

5. What has been the level of uptake/adoption of the services and methods provided? ...........................................................................................................................................................................................

6. What is the level of compliance to the requirements of the programme? ...........................................................................................................................................................................................

7. Have you experienced any form of resistance; if so, in what form? ...........................................................................................................................................................................................

8. How have you addressed this resistance? ...........................................................................................................................................................................................

9. What is the cost of the extension services provided? ...........................................................................................................................................................................................

10. Do households have difficulties caring for livestock? If so, what could be the reason and what are the mechanisms to deal with these challenges? ...............................................................................................................

11. Do people have access to enough information about the services that may be available regarding livestock? ..................................................................................................................................................................................................

12. Has your village/sector benefited from the livestock rotation programme?......................................................

13. Have you noticed any significant differences/trends in livestock development since the start of the livestock rotation programme? ......................................................................................................................................................

Humanity The International Red Cross and Red Cres-cent Movement, born of a desire to bring assistance without discrimination to the wounded on the battle-field, endeavours, in its international and national capacity, to prevent and alleviate human suffering wherever it may be found. Its purpose is to protect life and health and to ensure respect for the human being. It promotes mutual understanding, friendship, cooperation and lasting peace amongst all peoples.

Impartiality It makes no discrimination as to nation-ality, race, religious beliefs, class or political opinions. It endeavours to relieve the suffering of individuals, being guided solely by their needs, and to give prior-ity to the most urgent cases of distress.

Neutrality In order to enjoy the confidence of all, the Movement may not take sides in hostilities or engage at any time in controversies of a political, racial, reli-gious or ideological nature.

Independence The Movement is independent. The National Societies, while auxiliaries in the humani-tarian services of their governments and subject to the laws of their respective countries, must always maintain their autonomy so that they may be able at all times to act in accordance with the principles of the Movement.

Voluntary service It is a voluntary relief movement not prompted in any manner by desire for gain.

Unity There can be only one Red Cross or Red Cres-cent Society in any one country. It must be open to all. It must carry on its humanitarian work through-out its territory.

Universality The International Red Cross and Red Crescent Movement, in which all societies have equal status and share equal responsibilities and duties in helping each other, is worldwide.

The Fundamental Principles of the International Red Cross and Red Crescent Movement

For further information or advice, please contact:

Rwanda Red CrossB.P. 425 Kacyiru KigaliRwanda Tel: (250)25 25 85 449E-mail: [email protected]

International Federation ofRed Cross and Red Crescent SocietiesP.O. Box 303CH-1211 Geneva 19SwitzerlandTelephone: +41 22 730 42 22Email: [email protected]

Date post:	18-Mar-2019
Category:	Documents
Upload:	haduong
View:	219 times
Download:	0 times

Cost-Benefit Analysis of the Rwanda Red Cross Livestock ... · 3 International Federation of Red...

Documents