Results and Impacts of the Integrated Land and Water Management for Adaptation to Climate Variability and Change (ILWAC) Project: Evaluation Report 1
  
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Results and Impacts of the Integrated Land 
and Water Management for Adaptation to 
Climate Variability and Change (ILWAC) 
Project: Evaluation Report 
JUNE 2019 
 
Cover picture: Women farmers’ group enterprise on off- season Okra production through climate smart irrigation options in 
Daga Biram village (Senegal). Photo Credit: Fred Kizito (CIAT) 
2 Results and Impacts of the Integrated Land and Water Management for Adaptation to Climate Variability and Change (ILWAC) Project: Evaluation Report  
Contents 
List of Figures ............................................................................................................................................. 5 
List of Tables .............................................................................................................................................. 7 
List of Acronyms ........................................................................................................................................ 7 
Acknowledgements ..................................................................................................................................... 8 
Chapter 1: Executive Summary ................................................................................................................ 9 
Chapter 2: Background and Context .................................................................................................... 14 
2.1 Introduction ..................................................................................................................................... 14 
2.2 Climate Signals ............................................................................................................................... 15 
2.3 Country-specific Trends ........................................................................................................................ 16 
2.4 Objectives ........................................................................................................................................ 18 
2.4.1 . Structure of the Report .......................................................................................................... 19 
2.5 Expected Outcomes for the Evaluation Process .............................................................................. 20 
Chapter 3: Conceptual Framework and Assessment Approach ......................................................... 21 
3.1 Field Work Procedures .................................................................................................................... 22 
3.2 Data Collection Procedures ............................................................................................................. 24 
3.2.1 Power Calculation for Sample Size Determination ................................................................ 24 
3.3 Qualitative Approaches ................................................................................................................... 24 
3.4 Quantitative Approaches ................................................................................................................. 25 
3.4.1 Socio-economic and Nutritional Indicators ............................................................................ 25 
3.4.2 Models for Estimating Impact ................................................................................................ 26 
3.4.3 Spatial Variability in Relation to Environmental Variables ................................................... 27 
Chapter 4: Impact Assessment of ISFM – Benin ................................................................................. 29 
4.1 Project Implementation ................................................................................................................... 29 
4.2 Project Evaluation ........................................................................................................................... 29 
4.2.1 Gender Dynamics ................................................................................................................... 30 
4.2.2 Technology Adoption .............................................................................................................. 30 
4.2.3 Project Impact Against Performance Indicators .................................................................... 31 
4.2.4 Climate Change and the Promising/Potential of Scaling-Up Climate-Resilient Technologies.
 31 
4.2.5 Innovation Platforms .............................................................................................................. 31 
4.2.6 Key Success Stories ................................................................................................................ 32 
4.2.7 Challenges Encountered ......................................................................................................... 33 
4.2.8 Key Lessons Learnt. ................................................................................................................ 33 
Chapter 5: Impact Assessment of AmREACCAF – Burkina Faso ..................................................... 34 
5.1 Project Implementation ................................................................................................................... 34 
5.2 Project Evaluation ........................................................................................................................... 34 
5.2.1 Impact Evaluation with Hydrological Modeling .................................................................... 34 
5.2.2 Gender Dynamics ................................................................................................................... 39 
5.2.3 Technology Adoption .............................................................................................................. 39 
5.2.4 Project Impact against Performance Indicators .................................................................... 39 
5.2.5 Promising/Potential Climate-Resilient Technologies for Scaling-Up .................................... 39 
5.2.6 Innovation Platforms .............................................................................................................. 39 
3 Results and Impacts of the Integrated Land and Water Management for Adaptation to Climate Variability and Change (ILWAC) Project: Evaluation Report  
5.2.7 Key Success Stories ................................................................................................................. 40 
5.2.8 Challenges Encountered ......................................................................................................... 40 
5.2.9 Lessons Learnt and Opportunities for Future Action .............................................................. 40 
Chapter 6: Impact Assessment of APESS – Burkina Faso .................................................................... 41 
6.1 Project Implementation .................................................................................................................... 41 
6.2 Project Evaluation ............................................................................................................................ 41 
6.2.1 Gender Dynamics .................................................................................................................... 41 
6.2.2 Technology Adoption............................................................................................................... 42 
6.2.3 Project Impact against Performance Indicators ..................................................................... 42 
6.2.4 Promising/Potential Climate-Resilient Technologies for Scaling-Up ..................................... 42 
6.2.5 Innovation Platforms ............................................................................................................... 42 
6.2.6 Key Success Stories ................................................................................................................. 43 
6.2.7 Challenges Encountered ......................................................................................................... 43 
6.2.8 Key Lessons Learnt ................................................................................................................. 43 
Chapter 7: Impact Assessment of Improvement of Water Resources for 
Women Vegetable Growers – Gambia .................................................................................................... 44 
7.1 Project Implementation .................................................................................................................... 44 
7.2 Project Evaluation ............................................................................................................................ 44 
7.2.1 Gender Dynamics .................................................................................................................... 45 
7.2.2 Technology Adoption............................................................................................................... 46 
7.2.3 Project Impact against Performance Indicators ..................................................................... 46 
7.2.4 Promising/Potential Climate-Resilient Technologies for Scaling-Up ..................................... 46 
7.2.5 Innovation Platforms ............................................................................................................... 47 
7.2.6 Key Success Stories ................................................................................................................. 47 
7.2.7 Challenges Encountered ......................................................................................................... 47 
7.2.8 Key Lessons Learnt ................................................................................................................. 48 
Chapter 8: Impact Assessment of Sustainable Soil-Water-Nutrient Management – Nigeria ............... 49 
8.1 Project Implementation .................................................................................................................... 49 
8.2 Project Evaluation ............................................................................................................................ 49 
8.2.1 Gender Dynamics .................................................................................................................... 50 
8.2.2 Technology Adoption............................................................................................................... 50 
8.2.3 Project Impact against Performance Indicators ..................................................................... 51 
8.2.4 Promising/Potential Climate-Resilient Technologies for Scaling-Up ..................................... 51 
8.2.5 Innovation Platforms ............................................................................................................... 51 
8.2.6 Key Success Stories ................................................................................................................. 51 
8.2.7 Challenges Encountered ......................................................................................................... 52 
8.2.8 Key Lessons Learnt ................................................................................................................. 52 
Chapter 9: Impact Assessment of ENRACCA-WA – Senegal ............................................................... 53 
9.1 Project Implementation .................................................................................................................... 53 
9.2 Project Evaluation ............................................................................................................................ 53 
9.2.1 Gender Dynamics .................................................................................................................... 54 
9.2.2 Technology Adoption............................................................................................................... 54 
9.2.3 Project Impact against Performance Indicators ..................................................................... 54 
9.2.4 Promising/Potential Climate-Resilient Technologies for Scaling-Up ..................................... 54 
4 Results and Impacts of the Integrated Land and Water Management for Adaptation to Climate Variability and Change (ILWAC) Project: Evaluation Report  
9.2.5 Innovation Platforms ............................................................................................................... 54 
9.2.6 Key Success Stories (Daga Biram: Climate Smart Village) .................................................... 55 
9.2.7 Challenges Encountered ......................................................................................................... 56 
9.2.8 Key Lessons Learnt ................................................................................................................. 56 
Chapter 10:  Impact  Assessment  of  Building  the  Resilience  of  Women  in   Bo   District   in Post 
Ebola – Sierra Leone ............................................................................................................................................... 57 
10.1 Project Implementation .................................................................................................................. 57 
10.2 Project Evaluation .......................................................................................................................... 57 
10.2.1 Gender Dynamics.................................................................................................................. 59 
10.2.2 Technology Adoption ............................................................................................................ 60 
10.2.3 Project Impact against Performance Indicators ................................................................... 60 
10.2.4 Promising/Potential Climate-Resilient Technologies for Scaling-Up ................................... 60 
10.2.5 Innovation Platforms ............................................................................................................ 60 
10.2.6 Key Success Stories ............................................................................................................... 61 
10.2.7 Challenges Encountered. ....................................................................................................... 61 
10.2.8 Key Lessons Learnt. .............................................................................................................. 62 
Chapter 11: Regional Impact Assessment of ILWAC Projects. ............................................................. 63 
11.1 Measuring the Effectiveness of ILWAC Interventions. ................................................................. 63 
11.2 Household Survey Results. ............................................................................................................ 64 
11.2.1 Descriptive Statistics. ........................................................................................................... 64 
11.3 Econometric Results. .................................................................................................................... 69 
11.3.1 Impact of Participation in ILWAC Project on Household Income. ....................................... 69 
11.3.2 Impact of Participation in ILWAC on Asset Value of the Household. .................................... 71 
11.3.3 Impact of Participation in ILWAC on Household Food Insecurity 
Access Scale (HFIAS)of the Household. .................................................................................. 71 
11.3.4 Impact of Participation in ILWAC on Number of CSA Practices Adopted. ........................... 72 
11.4 Evaluation of Performance of Innovation Platforms (IPs). ........................................................... 73 
11.4.1 IP Formation and Functioning. ............................................................................................ 74 
11.4.2 Challenges in the Innovation Platforms. .............................................................................. 74 
Chapter 12: ILWAC Gender Synthesis with a “Capitals” Lens. ......................................................... 76 
Chapter 13: Adapting to Climate Risks in the ILWAC Project Sites. .................................................. 78 
13.1 Collective Action for Climate Preparedness.................................................................................... 82 
Chapter 14: Regional Context of ILWAC Assessments with Policy Interfaces. ................................... 84 
14.1. Regional Approach. ....................................................................................................................... 84 
14.2. Key Success Stories. ...................................................................................................................... 84 
14.3. Challenges. .................................................................................................................................... 84 
14.4. Lessons Learnt. ............................................................................................................................. 84 
Chapter 15: Summary Findings and Recommendations. ...................................................................... 87 
15.1 Summary findings. ........................................................................................................................ 87 
15.2 Recommendations. ........................................................................................................................ 88 
Chapter16: References. ............................................................................................................................ 92 
Appendices. ............................................................................................................................................... 96 
Appendix 1. ............................................................................................................................................ 96 
Appendix 2: Evaluating ILWAC Impact against Key Performance Indicators ........................................ 96 
5 Results and Impacts of the Integrated Land and Water Management for Adaptation to Climate Variability and Change (ILWAC) Project: Evaluation Report  
List of Figures 
Plate 1: ILWAC roadmap at a glance highlighting key selected constraints, consequences, interventions 
and results. .................................................................................................................................................. 12 
Plate 2: ILWAC spider radar chart highlighting sustainable intensification domains where interventions 
made a difference within the target communities (Results expressed as percentages: The evaluation study 
collected a large number of variables, the dispersion matrix was too large to study and interpret in a robust 
manner. Data was normalized and standardized to get a reasonable covariance analysis among all variables 
before performing Principal Components Analysis (PCA) which helped compute interpretable projection of 
the data set). ................................................................................................................................................ 13 
FIGURE 1: Observed and simulated variations in past and projected future temperature and precipitation. 
Adapted from Niang et al., 2014, p. 1208. ................................................................................................... 16 
FIGURE 2: Countries selected for evaluation of ILWAC projects in West Africa with their respective agro-
ecological zones .......................................................................................................................................... 19 
FIGURE 3:  Stepwise procedure for the evaluation process. .................................................................... 21 
FIGURE 4: Overall structure for the evaluation process. ......................................................................... 22 
FIGURE 5: Field data collection structure and supervision for the household surveys, key informant 
interviews and focus group discussions. ..................................................................................................... 22 
FIGURE 6a: Pictorial grid for ILWAC projects highlighting focus group discussions. .............................. 23 
FIGURE 6b: Pictorial grid for ILWAC projects highlighting focus group discussions. .............................. 23 
FIGURE 7: Location of surveyed households: Dangabo and Couffo sites in Benin showing beneficiary 
households in blue and control households in red. .................................................................................... 30 
FIGURE 8: In the left of the photo is a plot with healthy green maize belonging to ILWAC beneficiary. The 
right of the photo shows a plot with stunted maize crops belonging to a non-beneficiary.  32 
FIGURE9: Proper maize spacing implemented by ILWAC at recommended maize density.      32 
FIGURE 10: Location of surveyed households in - treatment sites (blue) and control sites (red). Boura 
dam can be seen in Boura town right where treatment data were recorded. ............................................ 34 
FIGURE 11: Map of Boura District Watershed in Burkina Faso. The dam is used to irrigate 
approximately 140 hectares of agricultural land in the downstream........................................................ 35 
FIGURE 12: Satellite image of Boura Dam and Irrigated zones. Source: Google Earth. ........................... 36 
FIGURE 13: Pre-ILWAC Sediment yield in tonnes per hectare per annum. After considering use of best 
management practices like agroforestry and filter strips due to ILWAC project initiatives, the soil erosion 
in 2016 is an average of 2.18 tonnes per hectare per year. .......................................................................... 37 
FIGURE 14: Post-ILWAC Sediment yield in tonnes per hectare per annum. The sediment difference yield 
map was derived by subtracting Post-ILWAC sediment yield raster data from Pre-ILWAC sediment yield. 
Its main purpose was to determine by how many tonnes per hectare per year soil 
erosionreducedinthevarioussub-basinsduetothebestmanagementpracticesusedperyear.    37 
FIGURE 15: Difference map of Post-ILWAC and Pre-ILWAC Sediment yield. Surface Runoff Outputs. 37 
FIGURE 16: Pre-ILWAC Surface Runoff in millimetres. After taking into consideration best management 
practices that farmers adopted in ILWAC interventions i.e. Agroforestry and filter strips,  the  surface  
runoff  average  value  reduced  to  41.65  mm. ....................................................................................... 38 
FIGURE 17: Post-ILWAC Surface Runoff in millimetres. ....................................................................... 38 
FIGURE  18:  Difference map of Post-ILWAC  and Pre-ILWAC Surface runoff...................................... 38 
FIGURE 19: Location of surveyed households in blue are treatment households and matching control 
households in red. ....................................................................................................................................... 41 
6 Results and Impacts of the Integrated Land and Water Management for Adaptation to Climate Variability and Change (ILWAC) Project: Evaluation Report  
FIGURE 20: Location of surveyed households (treatment and control) sites mapped in the shaded circles
 ................................................................................................................................................................... 45 
FIGURE 21: Top (Irrigation-traditional method), bottom (drip irrigation).............................................. 47 
FIGURE 22: Location of surveyed households: North, East and South of Oyo in Nigeria showing control 
and treatment sites. ..................................................................................................................................... 49 
FIGURE 23: A water pan constructed in Kisi village, Nigeria by the ILWAC project ............................ 50 
FIGURE 24: ILWAC Senegal sites sampled during the evaluation study depicting both control and 
treatment areas with inset maps blown up to represent Mbakei and Mbollop. Sites to the West are near 
Fattick while sites to the East are in close proximity to Kaffrine. .............................................................. 53 
FIGURE 25: Seeds of gold, seeds of hope: Farmer demonstrates community seed multiplication hub in 
Daga Biram in Kaffrine (Senegal) with improved variety of drought tolerant and quick maturing millet. 55 
FIGURE 26: Display of an assemblage of 17 solar panels that provides power to a submersible pump for 
out of season vegetable cultivation. .......................................................................................................... 55 
FIGURE 27: Agro-forestry stand with various multi-purpose species for fuel wood, soil structure and 
fertility, feed/fodder for livestock and human food. .................................................................................... 55 
FIGURE 28: Location of treatment and control sites in Sierra Leone. In red are the control households 
and while the blue dots represent treatment households. ............................................................................ 58 
FIGURE 29: Interventions promoted by the ILWAC project in Sierra Leone. Top  left and right  are two 
different types of wells, bottom left is a latrine block and bottom right are some of the agricultural tools.
 ................................................................................................................................................................... 59 
FIGURE 30: Illustrative schematic for ILWAC Theory of Change .......................................................... 63 
FIGURE 31: Impact pathway for the seven projects. ............................................................................... 64 
FIGURE 32: Proportion of households using different categories of coping strategies to deal with food 
insecurity in the control and treatment villages. ....................................................................................... 79 
FIGURE 33: Adaptation mechanisms identified from FGDs and Key Informant interviews on coping 
with diverse drivers in communities including climate change. .............................................................. 79 
Plate 3: Aborisade village, Nigeria with ILWAC beneficiary vegetable farm, water harvesting pond and 
Focus group discussions (Photo Credit: Vincent Aduramigba-Modupe, Institute of Agricultural Research 
& Training Obafemi Awolowo University) ............................................................................................... 91 
7 Results and Impacts of the Integrated Land and Water Management for Adaptation to Climate Variability and Change (ILWAC) Project: Evaluation Report  
List of Tables 
Table 1: Projects and countries where the evaluation surveys were conducted ........................................ 20 
Table 2: Sample size of the treatment & control groups across countries & sex of household head* ............ 24 
Table 3: Summary of evaluation objectives against evaluation methods used .......................................... 25 
Table 4: Description and measurement of variables ................................................................................. 28 
Table 5: Couffo site sampled household size shown by village/area ........................................................ 29 
Table 6: Dangabo site sampled household size shown by village/area ..................................................... 29 
Table 7: Tabular representation of pre and post ILWAC water yield, sediment and runoff ...................... 39 
Table 8: Control and treatment villages and households surveyed in Gambia .......................................... 44 
Table 9: List of project beneficiaries and surveyed households in Sierra Leone ...................................... 58 
Table 10: Characteristics of the surveyed households and participants by country and gender. .............. 65 
Table 11: Climatic shocks and action taken .............................................................................................. 65 
Table 12: Adoption rate (percent) of key land management practices ...................................................... 66 
Table 13: Climatic shocks and action taken .............................................................................................. 67 
Table 14: Crop yield with and without treatment ...................................................................................... 67 
Table 15: Livestock productivity with and without treatment ................................................................... 67 
Table 16: Household asset endowment, with and without ILWAC .................................................................... 68 
Table 17: Effect of ILWAC program on Household Food Insecurity Access Scale (HFIAS) ................... 68 
Table 18: Impact of ILWAC project on income, food security and assets ................................................ 69 
Table 19: Effect of ILWAC program on adoption of climate smart agriculture (CSA) practices. ............. 73 
Table 20: Percentage of climatic shock events in which farmers reported they did not adopt any coping 
strategies among the treatment and control villages .................................................................................. 79 
Table 21: Resilience capacities, concepts and examples of ILWAC project activities .............................. 81 
Table 22: Guidelines towards upscaling with roles of stakeholders towards enhancing community resilience 
and adaptation to climate change ............................................................................................................... 83 
Table 23: Summary of well-being trajectories. Arrows indicate an (  ), decrease (  ), or no change ( ... ) 
in the human well-being component under each potential scenario. .......................................................... 85 
Appendix Table I: Covariance matrix for the endogenous and instrumental variables............................ 96 
Appendix Table II: Evaluation matrix for the ILWAC Projects ............................................................... 96 
 
 
List of Acronyms 
CGIAR Consultative Group on International Agricultural Research 
CIAT International Centre for Tropical Agriculture 
IFPRI International Food Policy Research Institute 
IWMI International Water Management Institute 
ILWAC Integrated Land and Water Management for Adaptation to Climate 
Variability and Change 
IP Innovation Platform 
PCA Principal Component analysis 
WLE Water Land and Ecosystems Program 
8 Results and Impacts of the Integrated Land and Water Management for Adaptation to Climate Variability and Change (ILWAC) Project: Evaluation Report  
Acknowledgements 
The evaluation of impacts for the Integrated Land and Water Management for Adaptation to Climate Variability and 
Change (ILWAC) was conducted by the Consultative Group of International Agricultural Research (CGIAR) in 
collaboration with CORAF and was funded by the World Bank Group-facilitated through The Danish Trust Fund 
(TF071380). The impact evaluation assignment was implemented under the CGIAR Research Program Water Land 
and Ecosystems (WLE). The implementing Centers are – International Water Management Institute (IWMI), 
International Center for Tropical Agriculture (CIAT) and International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI). 
 
This report was developed by a core team under the leadership, coordination and supervision of Dr. Fred Kizito 
(CIAT) and task leadership from Dr. Caroline Mwongera (CIAT) and Dr. Ephraim Nkonya (IFPRI). Additional 
contributors are Brian Pondi, Chris M. Mwungu, Collins Odhiambo, Nicholas Koech, Kelvin M.  Shikuku (CIAT), 
Likie Nigussie and Richard Appoh (IWMI). The task team at the World Bank was led by Mr. Abdoulaye Toure, with 
support from Dr. Naomi Sakana and Mr. Benjamin Billard. 
 
We acknowledge the invaluable collaboration of the following national partners for providing information, support 
and contribution in this study: Dr. Abdulai Jalloh, Dr. Cheikh Ahmadou Bamba, Dr. Julienne Kuiseu, Kouadio 
Kouame, Dr. David Akana (CORAF), Dr. Vincent Aduramigba, Sikiru Ajijola (IAR&T, Nigeria), Paul Makavore 
(IRD Sierra Leone), Dr. Adolphe Adjanohoun, Dr. Marcellin Allagbe (INRAB, Benin), Dr. Modibo  Oumarou, Aliou 
Ibrahima and Zahara Diallo (APESS, Burkina Faso), Dr. Babou Bationo, Dr. Salif Traore, Cisse Mohamed (INERA, 
Burkina Faso), Saho Mariam (NARI, Gambia), Dr. Sanogo Diami and Mouhamadou Diop (ISRA-Senegal). 
 
The report further draws on discussions with national research institutes, farmers, project beneficiaries, and key 
informants in the seven ILWAC project countries, whose contribution are gratefully acknowledged. We further wish 
to thank the dedicated enumerators who participated in the data collection in the countries  selected for the evaluation. 
9 Results and Impacts of the Integrated Land and Water Management for Adaptation to Climate Variability and Change (ILWAC) Project: Evaluation Report  
CHAPTER 1: 
Executive Summary 
The objective of the evaluation was to assess the results and impacts of the activities of all ILWAC Trust Fund-
financed projects in West Africa using a selected subset, to identify key lessons learned, and to document best climate-
smart practices for scaling up. The study entailed participatory evaluation of the results and impacts of various 
interventions geared towards integrated water resources management for climate change and variability preparedness 
in West Africa. In this respect, the study identified key lessons learned and documented best climate-resilient practices 
for scaling up and dissemination to multiple stakeholders in the West African region. 
 
1. Agriculture remains the backbone for sustaining livelihoods in West Africa but faces numerous challenges. 
Agriculture is an important source of income, food and raw materials in West Africa, employing more than half of 
the region’s population, which culminated in the adoption of the Comprehensive Africa Agriculture Development 
Programme (CAADP) in 2003. Few countries, however, have managed to mobilize their agriculture sector to 
deliver on development outcomes such as food and nutrition security, poverty reduction, economic growth, job 
creation, youth employment and industrialization. Agriculture is vulnerable to climate change, resulting from 
sensitivity and exposure to climate shocks and lack of capacity to cope with and adapt to such changes. ILWAC 
evaluation study results from household surveys, focus group discussions and key informant interviews indicate 
that agricultural productivity in the region remains low, lagging far behind other regions of the world. Contributors 
to such low productivity include incidence of climate risks (drought, floods and high temperatures), pests and 
diseases, low technology adoption, limited access to financial services, limited access to markets and market 
information and limited access to good road networks (Plate 1). All the aforementioned contributors are valid 
denominators for all the seven ILWAC project areas that were evaluated. 
 
2. Farmers in West Africa are particularly vulnerable to climatic shocks because of their high dependence on 
rainfed agriculture for their livelihoods. There is an evident lack of access to formal safety nets as indicated by 
farmers in Senegal (ENRACCA-WA) and Burkina Faso (AmREACCAF and APESS) projects. Climate change has 
already exerted significant impacts in the region. Since the 1970s, the region has experienced the occurrence of 
many droughts. Temperatures have increased in the second half of the 20th Century, especially in the latter 20 
years of the same period. Farmers reported drought (about 40% of treatment and control groups), as the most 
prevalent climatic shock experienced over the last five years, followed by erratic rainfall, floods and invasion of 
crop pests and locusts. We identified eleven coping strategies, out of which three strategies were categorized based 
on a gradient of severity of food insecurity into low, moderate, and high food insecurity. During low food 
insecurity, households employ food-maximizing strategies such as purchasing food and eating less food and 
involving a low commitment of domestic resources that all enable quick recovery of households once the crisis 
eases. In times of moderate food insecurity, a greater commitment of household resources is increasingly required 
to meet subsistence needs. Coping strategies developed by households include sale of food reserves, use of savings, 
sale of livestock, borrowing food, and borrowing money (from friends, relatives, private lenders and banks). 
During high food insecurity, strategies are a sign of failure to cope with the food crisis and may involve drastic 
options that may undermine their future ability to prevent, mitigate, cope, and recover from shocks. Households 
adopt sale of assets such as land and homes, keeping children home from school, food aid and migration. The use 
of irrigation and rainfall water harvesting for agriculture remain low, despite prevalent droughts and widespread 
rainfed agricultural practices. One of the reasons is that most farming communities are far from rivers: hence 
considerable investment is required to develop irrigation in many project areas. 
 
3. Although farmers use various strategies highlighted above, they will need support to double their efforts with 
innovative climate- smart agricultural practices and technologies to remain food secure. Areas where ILWAC 
interventions were targeted showed positive results, but broader efforts to scale out the successes are needed to achieve 
a greater impact. Overall, the ILWAC project beneficiaries reported higher adoption rates of climate-smart practices, 
demonstrating a favourable impact of the project. However, low awareness of the most appropriate technologies to cope 
with climate shocks was reported across all study areas yet, the region is expected to experience increasing climatic 
shocks with total precipitation predicted to increase for the most part more notably between July and October by 2050. 
Increases in precipitation are predicted to cause crop damages and floods. Overall, temperatures will rise by about 2°C 
to 3°C over the same time period. Higher temperatures of 3°C to 6°C are projected for the end of the 21st century 
(Niang et al., 2014). Despite these impending changes, few farmers have adjusted their farming strategies in response to 
climate risks, owing to limited knowledge on appropriate adaptation options and low endowment with production 
resources. As a result, ILWAC interventions were targeted to reverse these challenges. Their successful implementation 
showed positive results, which are largely limited to specific areas of implementation. Therefore, broader scaling out 
10 Results and Impacts of the Integrated Land and Water Management for Adaptation to Climate Variability and Change (ILWAC) Project: Evaluation Report  
these successes would require broader concerted efforts (Plate 1).  
 
4. ILWAC interventions provided success stories tailored to specific contexts (biophysical and socio- economic); hence 
offered lessons and opportunities for replicating the bright spots with a regional approach. Across the seven projects, 
evaluation results indicated a couple of selected successes in the region (Plate 1). Selected successes make up 
potential candidates for scaling up climate-smart agricultural technologies and practices, and innovative approaches 
notably, including: 
i. Innovation platforms as a pillar for change: The successful establishment of innovation platforms across all 
project countries was evident but have remained largely underdeveloped and not utilized to their full potential. 
Platforms provided a framework for sharing knowledge on adaptation innovations to climate change, providing 
a good entry point for technology dissemination in target areas across all project countries. The study showed 
that the innovation platform model can offer the potential to organize stakeholders to address the objective of 
improving the livelihood of their members. IPs, however, need a strong voice to demand the needed services 
from service providers, negotiate and advocate for collective interests with the private sector and government. 
The use of a participatory development communication (PDC) within IPs would greatly increase their 
sustainability; 
ii. Increased human and institutional capacity for stakeholders: The enhancement of capacity for diverse 
stakeholder groups, including farmers, players in all segments of priority value chains, extension agents, 
policymakers and researchers (All project countries) resulted in significant positive results such as increased 
capacity towards awareness of CSA technologies and application of appropriate adaptation measures in their 
communities. This highlights the need to prioritize linkages amongst farmer organizations, extension and 
agricultural research; 
iii. Integrated landscape approaches for natural resources management provided exponential benefits: The 
pioneering of integrated land and water management for adaptation to climate variability and change improved 
management of natural resources in specific target countries, for example, in Burkina Faso, the relative 
reduction in sedimentation by up to 70%; and that in reduced runoff by up to 30% which helped improve the 
farmers’ agricultural practices and livelihoods (AmREACCAF-Burkina Faso). This also increased storage of 
water in the Boura reservoir through avoided sedimentation. Beyond water provision for household use, these 
reservoirs serve as key food baskets for fisheries and irrigation for households; 
iv. Integrated and diversified options offered  opportunities  to  increase  resilience  and  unlock the potential 
for rural smallholder livelihoods: The ILWAC project improved implementation of innovative agronomic 
interventions that substantially reduced the yield gap for millet for example the use of improved crop varieties 
(drought tolerant and early maturing) resulted in a 10 fold yield increase in grain biomass (ENRACCA- 
Senegal). Additional strategies include soil amendments in the form of organic and inorganic fertilizer sources, 
weed control practices as well as improved storage techniques (ISFM-Benin); Household enterprise 
diversification with agroforestry tree species enhanced the resilience of smallholder communities with climate-
smart benefits such as windbreaks, these modified the micro-climate of the area that enhanced food security and 
revenue generation within target communities, increased farmer adaptive capacity and overall soil health 
attributes (ENRACCA- Senegal).
11 Results and Impacts of the Integrated Land and Water Management for Adaptation to Climate Variability and Change (ILWAC) Project: Evaluation Report  
5. Women empowerment resulted in improved rural livelihoods: Improved gender dynamics regarding the roles, 
activities and representativeness within the selected projects had a positive impact on women empowerment for all 
project countries. There are numerous ways by which women were empowered e.g. conducting off-season 
vegetable cultivation allowed women to fetch increased returns (3 times than the normal price) in the off-season 
months. There were efforts to promote increased participation of women in the projects, offering opportunities to 
freely express themselves, highlight their needs and specific experiences. However, participation of women in 
leadership positions was generally low (less than 10%). In addition, women were able to benefit from the capacity 
building provided by the project, and access technologies and inputs resulting in higher production and subsequent 
incomes than before. Male-headed households were more likely to practice more CSA technologies by a factor of 
about 1 compared to female headed households. There was evidence of better access to financial services and 
training through village savings and loan associations, and gender empowerment. A key attribute of the assessed 
projects was that for the most part, women farmers were not well organized into interest groups with the capacity to 
promote their interests and engage in advocacy activities geared at influencing policy for their ultimate benefit. 
This was a missed opportunity especially in the context of existing innovation platforms that needs concerted 
efforts and strengthening. 
 
6. More economic and social safety nets for smallholder livelihoods beyond ILWAC beneficiaries are needed: 
ILWAC enhanced farmers’ access to climate-resilient and low-emission practices and technologies, including crop, 
livestock, soil and water management options and energy saving technologies. ILWAC increased the number of CSA 
practices implemented by three practices more compared to non-participation. Results further showed that education level is 
associated with higher income. Higher value assets such as livestock did also significantly influenced income. ILWAC 
increased significantly the value of assets to almost 90%; a factor attributable to additional assets that were distributed to 
farmer groups such as the case of Gambia, Senegal and Sierra Leone. This study therefore confirms that more assets in 
ILWAC supported households offered better livelihood options than those in the control group. Results further show that 
male-headed households have a higher value of assets than female-headed households. On the overall, although participation 
in ILWAC increased income by 19%, there remains room for further improvement amongst the ILWAC beneficiaries given 
the lower differences in the economic domain for sustainable intensification exemplified before and after the ILWAC project 
on Plate 2. Likewise, Plate 2 highlights that better options are needed in the social domain to ensure that ILWAC 
beneficiaries can significantly gain from social dividends (e.g. strengthened farmer groups, collective action, and shared 
labor). Given the highlighted successes among the ILWAC beneficiaries, efforts will be needed to scale these bright spots 
beyond the ILWAC beneficiaries to wider geographical coverages. 
 
7. There is need for concerted efforts towards supporting technical, financial, institutional and governance 
needs within the target countries in order to make community livelihoods more resilient to climate change. 
Despite the recorded successes there remains room for improvement in several institutional and governance realms. 
Farmers in the project sites are faced by poor extension, with the ratio of government paid extension officers to that 
of farmers being low, only 33% of the households have access to extension service. This has a negative impact on 
the quality of extension services being offered and building adaptive capacity to deal with climate change.  
 
A significant challenge remains in all project countries to get the technologies widely used due to the lack of a 
suitable enabling environment among others — extension services, financial resources, infrastructure, risk 
management and cross-sectoral linkages. Farmers are further constrained by having limited access to climatic 
information. Effective research and innovation are also needed to continuously improve practices and technologies. 
This calls for a policy recommendation where concerted efforts are needed to mobilize financial resources and 
build the capacity of West African researchers, policy-makers and institutions to understand, carry out and use 
good quality data towards informed decision making and scenario analyses (Also see evidence revealed by Plate 
2).Enabling policy and institutional environment can provide the conditions and incentives for scaling 
out.
12 Results and Impacts of the Integrated Land and Water Management for Adaptation to Climate Variability and Change (ILWAC) Project: Evaluation Report  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Plate 1: ILWAC roadmap at a glance highlighting key selected constraints, consequences, interventions and results 
 
Climate-informed advisories integrating ICT can build resilience and early warning. This should be complemented 
with drought and heat tolerant varieties, pest tolerant varieties and breeds, irrigation systems, water harvesting 
techniques, crop and livestock insurance, agriculture financing services, climate services, social protection programs, 
and integrated strategies to reduce livelihood risk and increase adaptation mechanisms. 
 
Low human and 
institutional 
capacity 
Knowledge gaps for 
informed 
management of 
resources which 
increases climate 
risks and 
Capacity building 
for diverse 
stakeholders to use 
climate smart 
advisories 
Increased capacity towards 
awareness of CSA technologies by 
14-22% 
Drought 
Food Improved varieties tolerant to 
drought, pests, 
and disease 
Increase in food security by 6-
Crop and animal 
Pests and 
Poor access to 
financial 
services 
Very limited 
Poverty 
Linking farmers to 
markets 
Providing improved 
crop varieties and 
animal breeds 
Increased crop Income by 0.85 to 
36% Increased Livestock Income by 
26-75% Increased Asset Value by 
57-102% 
Constraint
s 
Consequence
s 
ILWAC Strategies Result of 
Impact 
Insufficient 
access to water 
resources 
Soil 
degradation 
Depletion of water 
resources for 
household use and 
agriculture 
Improved access 
to portable water 
 
Preservation of 
the production 
environment 
Better management of natural resources 
• Reduced Runoff by 13%-31% 
• Increased water yield by 52%-63% 
• Reduced sedimentation by 42%-70% 
• Reduced soil degradation by 60% 
• Increased cover of agroforest 36%-50% 
• Increased Irrigation water 15%-45% 
• Increased use of better crop varieties 1% to 
56% 
Limited 
gender 
consideration
Innovation platforms
Gender imbalances 
 
Poor social 
inclusion 
Increased access 
to resources 
Lack of 
social 
inclusion 
Better 
representation 
Gender inclusion and social cohesion 
• Access to resources by 5-29% 
• Participation in IP’s increased by 1-5% 
• Asset access increased from 7 – 71.4% 
• Decision making – income increased by 33% to 
50% 
13 Results and Impacts of the Integrated Land and Water Management for Adaptation to Climate Variability and Change (ILWAC) Project: Evaluation Report  
 
 
Plate 2: ILWAC spider radar chart highlighting sustainable intensification domains where interventions made a difference within 
the target communities  (Results  expressed  as  percentages:  The  evaluation  study  collected  a  large  number  of variables, the 
dispersion matrix was too large to study and interpret in a robust manner. Data was normalized and standardized to get a 
reasonable covariance analysis among all variables before performing Principal Components Analysis (PCA) which helped 
compute interpretable projection of the data set) 
 
 
8. There are no silver bullets: what is “appropriate for impact” can be up-scaled but depends on the local 
context of target beneficiaries: The Guide to Sustainable Intensification Assessment Framework was used to 
broadly evaluate ILWAC interventions (Plate 2) using a range of indicators highlighted in Plate 1. The ILWAC 
project resulted in substantial gains in the Sustainable Intensification domains related to productivity (animal and 
crop yields), environment (reduced erosion, siltation, water quality) and human (nutrition, food diversification) 
(Plate 2). The social and economic domains depicted differences, but these did not show substantial differences 
before and after ILWAC as the other aforementioned domains. There were noticeable “triple wins” (production, 
resilience and sustainability) which existed in some situations or local contexts but often there were numerous 
associated trade-offs. Some of the trade-offs were temporal trade-offs between meeting shorter-term food 
production objectives and income needs for the household as opposed to the longer-term resilience objectives. 
ILWAC Projects such as ISFM Benin, ENRACCA-WA in Senegal as well as AmREACCAF-Burkina Faso helped 
with household enterprise diversification e.g. agroforestry tree species which enhanced the resilience of 
smallholder communities with climate smart options, but these also enhanced food security and revenue generation 
within target communities and increased farmer adaptive capacity and overall system resilience. Evidence revealed 
from both focus group discussions (FGDs) and key informant interviews (KIIs) emphasized that broader and 
scalable achievements are possible provided one considers the specific local context applicable for the target 
beneficiaries. Given the ILWAC project interventions, there was no ‘one-size-fits-all solution’— the appropriate 
suite of interventions should always be made after careful consideration of the socio- economic context of the 
target beneficiaries and beyond. 
ECONOMIC HUMAN 
SOCIAL 
ENVIRONMENT 
PRODUCTIVITY 
After ILWAC  Before ILWAC  
14 Results and Impacts of the Integrated Land and Water Management for Adaptation to Climate Variability and Change (ILWAC) Project: Evaluation Report  
CHAPTER 2: 
Background and Context 
In 2012, the Danish Government facilitated the Dialogue on Land and Water Management for Adaptation to Climate 
Change to identify a framework and guiding principles for the ILWAC Trust Fund (TF). Within this framework, the 
Danish Government granted funding of US$ 10.92 million to finance climate change mitigation activities in sub-
Saharan Africa. Through the regional Competitive Agricultural Research Grant Scheme (CARGS) of the World Bank, 
the Danish Government allocated US$ 4,873,500 to CORAF to finance climate change related projects in West Africa. 
 
The development objective of the ILWAC TF was ‘to improve the ability of African users of agricultural land and 
water resources to plan and manage climate change adaptation measures’. This grant provided the opportunity for 
CORAF to coordinate the implementation of seven projects on climate change between 2012 and 2015 in fifteen 
countries: Benin, Burkina Faso, Cameroon, Chad, Côte d’Ivoire, The Gambia, Ghana, Guinea, Liberia, Mali, Niger, 
Nigeria, Senegal, Sierra Leone, and Togo. The implementation phase of these projects ended in 2016. The World Bank 
Group competitively commissioned the CGIAR Consortium, through the Water Land and Ecosystems Program, led by 
the International Water Management Institute (IWMI) in partnership with the International Center for Tropical 
Agriculture (CIAT) and the International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI), to evaluate the results and impacts of 
these projects. The evaluation focused on seven projects, but was conducted in only six (6) out of the 15 beneficiary 
countries, namely, Benin, Burkina Faso, The Gambia, Nigeria, Senegal, and Sierra Leone (Figure 1; Table 1). The 
proposed timeframe for the study was 90 days (from 01 April to 30 June 2018). 
 
2.1 Introduction 
The agricultural sector in West Africa (specifically for Senegal, Burkina Faso, Benin, Nigeria, Sierra Leone, and 
Gambia) contributes to an average of 17.5% — 35.5% of these countries GDP share (FAOSTAT, 2018). However, this 
is affected by declining water resources, excess rainfall amounts in short periods of time and 
increasedpestanddiseaseprevalenceallofwhicharepartiallyasaresultofclimatechange. The development challenges 
that many African countries face are already considerable, and climate change will only add to these through losses in 
farm profits (Kurukulasuriya et al., 2006). A range of climate models suggest median temperature increases between 
3°C and 4°C in Africa by the mid- century period, 2050 (Turco et al., 2015). This will likely result in significant yield 
losses of key staple crops, such as maize, sorghum, millet, groundnut, and cassava, of between 8 and 22 percent by 
2050 unless key investments are made to improve agricultural productivity under climate risk (Schlenker and Lobell, 
2010). The rainfed nature of agriculture in the region results in overall low agricultural productivity and poses food 
security challenges. A potential viable option would be to upgrade rainfed agriculture through better water 
management practices by investing in small scale irrigation through rainwater harvesting. However, only 2% to 15% of 
the land areas in the aforementioned 6 countries is actually currently irrigated (FAOSTAT, 2018). 
 
Agriculture in the Region is further crippled with drudgery that mainly affects women who predominantly provide 
farm labor, particularly during land preparation, weeding and harvest, while using rudimentary methods with poor 
farm implements. This is further exacerbated by costly transport and energy demands with a poorly developed market 
for agribusiness (World Bank, 2015). Although efficient agricultural markets and trade can drive agriculture-led 
economic growth, efforts in the Region are hampered by weak institutions, inadequate infrastructure and limited social 
inclusion. Smallholder farmers, specifically women in the aforementioned countries face several socio-economic 
challenges including limited access to productive land, land tenure insecurity, weak agriculture information and 
extension services, inefficient irrigation technologies, poor market linkages, and limited access to inputs and credit as 
well as climate- resilient technologies. 
 
Because agricultural production remains the main source of income for most rural communities in the West Africa 
region, climate change adds further complexity to this situation hence adaptation is imperative to enhance the 
resilience of the agriculture sector, protect the livelihoods of the poor, and ensure food security. This is critical 
considering that the human population in West Africa is projected to be at 0.6 Billion by 2050 (UN 2017) and given 
the rapid growth of urban centers with the young population migrating to the urban 
15 Results and Impacts of the Integrated Land and Water Management for Adaptation to Climate Variability and Change (ILWAC) Project: Evaluation Report  
areas, this reduces the agricultural workforce hence drives food demands higher especially vegetables (Jalloh et al 
2013). At the national level, this will require greater investments in drought and heat tolerant varieties, irrigation 
systems, disaster relief, insurance and social protection programs, and integrated strategies to reduce livelihood risks 
(Howden et al., 2007; Schlenker and Lobell, 2010). Another viable option in the Region would entail around farming 
enterprise diversification. According to ECOWAS-SWAC/OECD 2008, livestock rearing at times contributes to 44% 
of the Agricultural GDP in West African countries, with a growing demand of animal products by 4% annually in the 
Sahel and West Africa region the demand is not satisfied as growth rate of animal products is at 2%. 
 
While the magnitude of future climate change impacts on some parts of West Africa may remain uncertain, the 
benefits of early adaptation responses are potentially large. Development planners need to move away from a “predict-
then-act” approach towards a “prepare-then-adapt no-regret” approach, whereby climate risks are managed by looking 
at multiple possibilities. The “prepare-then-adapt no-regret” approach calls for an understanding of drivers of 
vulnerability and adaptation investments that would be justifiable under a wide range of climate scenarios or even in 
the absence of climate change. Future climate scenarios should be factored into development plans in order to ensure 
they are robust, include no-regret options and provide sufficient “escape-loops” for vulnerable populations. It was with 
this backdrop that the ILWAC project sought to intervene and ‘improve the ability of African users of agricultural land 
and water resources to plan and manage climate change adaptation measures’. Among the various interventions used 
by ILWAC, the use innovation platforms as a participatory bottom-up approach for co-creation of interventions stands 
out. The Evaluation team conducted a total of 51 Focus Group Discussions and 115 Key Informant interviews across 
the seven projects in six countries with a diverse set of stakeholders at the national, regional and local levels. 
Participants highlighted the challenges and opportunities in terms of climate change, livelihood options, and future 
expectations. The interactions allowed the Evaluation Team to co-design key lessons and best practices, including 
those related to environmental sustainability, climate change adaptation, gender representativeness and governance that 
would anchor regionally relevant interventions for ensuring sustainability and potential scaling to wider contexts in the 
West African Region. 
 
2.2 Climate Signals 
Climate change is projected to have serious impacts on agriculture in West Africa characterized by high natural 
variability in seasonal rainfall, which historically has produced large inter-annual variations in rainfall and prolonged 
droughts and the recent increase in rainfall intensity and extreme heavy-rainfall events (Sultan and Gaetani et al., 
2016). 
 
We use the conceptual framework of climate-related risk from the Fifth Assessment report (AR5) of the 
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) Working group II (WG II) to examine the impacts of climate 
change on agriculture and food security. These results can help to evaluate current coping strategies as well as reveal 
appropriate long-term adaptation options. 
 
Rainfall over the Sahel has experienced an overall reduction over the course of the 20th century, with a recovery 
toward the last 20 years of the century. The occurrence of a large number of droughts in the Sahel is documented 
during the 1970s and 1980s. The recovery of the rains may be due to natural variability or a forced response to 
increased greenhouse gases or reduced aerosols. Regional models suggest an increase in the number of extreme 
rainfall days over West Africa and the Sahel during May and July (Niang et al., 2014). The Sahelian is characterized 
by high variability in amount and distribution of annual precipitation. 
 
Over West Africa and the Sahel, near surface temperatures have increased in the second half of the 20th Century and 
especially in the latter 20 years of the period. Temperature projections for the end of the 21st century range between 3°C 
and 6°C above the late 20th century baseline Niang et al., 2014). Figure 1 illustrates projections in temperature and 
precipitation for an optimistic (RCP 2.6) and pessimistic (RCP 8.5) scenario of GHG emissions. The temperature 
changes vary greatly under the two different emissions scenarios, particularly from 2060. There is no clear trend in 
changes in precipitation. 
16 Results and Impacts of the Integrated Land and Water Management for Adaptation to Climate Variability and Change (ILWAC) Project: Evaluation Report  
 
FIGURE 1: Observed and simulated variations in past and projected future temperature and precipitation. Adapted from Niang 
et al., 2014, p. 1208. 
 
2.3 Country-specific Trends 
Benin 
According to historical analysis of annual precipitation it is expected that there will be 
increasing rainfall variability in the rainy seasons with the interior of Benin 
experiencing shortened rainy seasons while the coastal zones recording an increase in 
annual precipitation, which increases the risk of severe, flooding. For example in 2010, 
Benin suffered major economic losses (agriculture, livelihoods, and infrastructure) 
due to flooding. 
 
Climatic projections for Benin shows that both rainfall and temperature 
may increase especially in the northern parts of the country. Within 20 years, (2030 to 2050) the average  temperature 
is set to increase by 0.5°C while average precipitation by 0.6%. These may affect production systems and possibly 
even result to shifts in AEZ zones in the country (Nacoulma & Guigma, 2015; Climate Change Knowledge Portal, 
2018; Honfoga, 2018). 
 
By 2050 it is projected that maize yields in the extreme north will increase by 5—25% and decrease significantly with 
the same percentage in the middle and southern parts of the country. Additionally it is expected with these projected 
temperature changes the livestock sub sector will be affected negatively leading to serious physiological disruptions in 
animals affecting the milk and meat production, moreover the inland and fisheries sector are expected to register a 
decline in fish populations 
 
Burkina Faso 
Burkina Faso is a low income; land locked country and limited natural resources. Its 
economy driven by agricultural activities engages 80% active population in this 
sector. With limited natural resources, the country is vulnerable to effects of climate 
change, its location between the Sahara Desert to the north, and coastal rainforests to 
the south makes it easily prone to chronic droughts and dust storms. These 
consequences lead to disease outbreak and sometimes- even death. 
 
Historical analysis of Burkina Faso climate suggests that frequent droughts have been the norm since the 1970s and 
the wet season has often been characterized by torrential rain that often causing flash flooding. Future Climatic 
projections indicate that temperatures will increase 3—4°C by 2080 across the country. Although there is a high level 
of uncertainty with annual precipitations projections, most models predict a significant increase in wet years (Climate 
Change Knowledge Portal, 2018). 
 
Gambia 
The Gambia’s Climate is Sahelian characterized by high variability in amount and distribution of annual precipitation. 
Analysis of historical climate trends suggest that while annual rainfall has been decreasing significantly with an 
average decrease rate of 8.8mm per month/decade since the 1960s, the mean annual temperature has been increasing 
by 1.0°C. There has also been increased length and frequencies of droughts and dust storms, which have resulted to 
serious public health concerns, food security, agriculture 
 
 
 
17 Results and Impacts of the Integrated Land and Water Management for Adaptation to Climate Variability and Change (ILWAC) Project: Evaluation Report  
and environmental degradation. For example, increasing sea levels affect the fisheries 
sector and tourism industry especially along the Gambian Coast, worse still it leads to 
degradation and erosion of beaches. 
 
Important measures need to be considered for the improvement Gambia’s capacity to 
deal with future climatic risks and challenges since future climatic projections suggest 
that there will be increased variability of annual temperatures and precipitation, with 
Gambia projected to increase between 1.1°C—3.1°C by 2060s with the rate of 
warming being fastest in the middle  region of the country. 
 
Mean annual precipitation projections in The Gambia show a wide range of increases and decreases with ensemble 
means projected between 0 and –3%. July—September rainfall projections tend toward decreases with ensemble mean 
projections between –7 and –20%. Sea levels are also projected to increase throughout the 21st century by 0.4m (under 
the low emissions scenario) to 0.7m (under the high emissions scenario) by 2100. This consequently increases the 
vulnerabilities of communities living along and near the Gambian Coasts (Climate Change Portal, 2018; Jaiteh et al., 
2011). 
Nigeria 
Nigeria’s economy is dependent on climate-sensitive and climate-impactful industries 
such as agriculture, climate change threatens to exacerbate its vulnerability to extreme 
weather events and limit economic growth.  Over the 1960 to 2006 period, mean 
annual temperatures have increased by 0.8°C. Average maximum temperatures have 
been increasing in Nigeria with maximum temperatures ranging between 31—33°C. 
The southern part of Nigeria has seen a larger increase in mean temperature than the 
north during the period of 1961— 1990. Mean annual temperature is projected to 
increase between 1.1°C and 2.5°C by the 2060s. Projections indicate that warming 
will be greater in the northern part of Nigeria. 
 
Average precipitation per year has decreased significantly in Nigeria by 3.5mm per month per decade between 1960 to 
2006. Floods are becoming more frequent throughout Nigeria and desertification has been intensifying in the northern 
and central areas of the country, with deserts migrating southward. Most projections indicate small increases in mean 
annual precipitation over Nigeria, but indicate wide variations across the country, and an increase in the amount of 
days with extreme rainfall. Sea level is projected to rise throughout the 21st century and increase by 0.4m to 0.7m by 
2100. (Climate Change Portal, 2018) 
 
Senegal 
Senegal being among the least developed countries with high rates of food Senegal 
being among the least developed countries with high rates of food insecurity 
inflicting 16% of the population (2% severe, 14% moderate) requires innovative 
agricultural practices to improve food production (CIAT; BFS/USAID. 2016). 
 
Flooding and drought are major impacts of climate change in Senegal.  These hazards 
adversely affect the economic growth especially in sectors like agriculture, livestock, 
tourism and fisheries. Climate in Dakar is generally 
characterized with one rainy season (May-November) and dry season (December-April). Along the coast temperatures 
are generally cool from 17—27°C while the northern Sahelian is characterized by cool nights of up to 14°C and hot days 
of 40°C. 
 
Historical analysis of climate trends since 1960s indicate that there has been decline in rainfall over the years and remain 
15% below the long-term averages with most significance decline in Southern region. Average temperatures have 
increased by 0.9°C with most significance increase in the Northern region especially in the months of October-December. 
 
 
 
 
18 Results and Impacts of the Integrated Land and Water Management for Adaptation to Climate Variability and Change (ILWAC) Project: Evaluation Report  
Projected climate changes indicate that temperatures will continue to increase by 1.1°C to 1.8°C by 2035 and up to 
30°C by the 2060s. It is also expected that annual precipitation will increase (50—100mm) in   the Casamence region 
and severe decrease in the Eastern Senegal. By 2100 sea level rise is projected to increase by 1 meter leading to 
environmental degradation and soil erosion. This rise is expected to affect over 100,000 inhabitants- health risks, 
displacement, death - especially in the southern Senegal in the Cape Verde region. Specifically, for both the Kaffrine 
and Fattick areas where the ILWAC evaluation studies took place. (CCAFS, 2018). 
 
Sierra Leone 
Agriculture sector is the largest driver of Sierra Leone economy contributing 35— 
47% of GDP and employing more than half (65%) of the total population. Apart from 
this, Sierra Leone has mineral deposits, deep natural harbors and substantial natural 
resources, which contribute to rural livelihoods. 
 
Over the 1960 to 2016 period mean annual temperatures in Sierra Leone have 
increased by 0.8°C and projected to increase between 1.0°C and 2.6°C by the 2060s. 
Mean annual precipitation has increased and is projected to continue increasing in the 
number of days with extreme rainfall in the months of May— 
July. Sea level is projected to rise throughout the 21st century and increase by 0.4m (low emissions scenario) to 0.7m 
(high emissions scenario) by 2100. 
 
With these projected changes, changes in frequency and severity of droughts and floods are expected, which affect 
agricultural production and people’s livelihoods. Apart from this, increased coastal flood events will lead to coastal 
erosion, population displacement, biodiversity loss and reduction of fresh water quality. 
 
2.4 Objectives 
The development objective of the ILWAC TF was ‘to improve the ability of African users of agricultural land and 
water resources to plan and manage climate change adaptation measures’. 
 
The objective of the evaluation was to assess the results and impacts of the activities of all ILWAC Trust Fund projects 
in West Africa using a selected subset, to identify key lessons learnt, and to document best climate- smart practices for 
scaling up. More specifically, this evaluation sought to ascertain: (i) the impacts of climate related technologies and 
activities on key performance indicators, such as farm productivity, socio-economic conditions and livelihoods of 
various beneficiaries, their production environment, and on gender within the framework  of climate change 
adaptation; (ii) the effect of the projects on enhancing stakeholders’ ability  to plan, manage, implement climate-
related activities, as well use innovations as adaptation strategies, and access appropriate climate information in the 
land, water, and household energy sectors; and (iii) identify and document key lessons learnt, as well as best climate-
resilient technologies and innovations, including improved soil-water-nutrient management practices for scaling up in 
future operations. 
 
The results from the evaluation will be endorsed by the national partners and regional collaborators for large 
dissemination at both national and regional levels. Most importantly, the lessons learnt and recommendations will inform 
the design of the Bank-financed West Africa Agriculture Transformation Program (WAATP). This Report will be used 
to produce an E-book for publication. 
 
 
19 Results and Impacts of the Integrated Land and Water Management for Adaptation to Climate Variability and Change (ILWAC) Project: Evaluation Report  
 
 
FIGURE 2: Countries selected for evaluation of ILWAC projects in West Africa with their respective agro-ecological zones 
 
2.4.1 Structure of the Report 
The Evaluation Report highlights the major impacts of ILWAC on climate adaptation and resilience building and offers key 
recommendations to decision makers on potential climate smart agriculture upscaling. The Report presents an Executive 
summary that highlights the objectives and science-policy linkages that are needed to ensure ILWAC results reach 
broader audiences in a summarized development oriented approach. The Report then elaborates on the background 
context and methodology that was used with mixed methods (qualitative and quantitative) in the study including a 
Conceptual Framework and Assessment Approach strategy. This is then followed by project-specific evaluation 
findings including key lessons learnt, challenges encountered and associated success stories. The Report then provides 
insights on regional integration for cross-project and country learning as well as gender dynamics. The Report then 
offers perspectives towards adapting to climate risks in the ILWAC Project sites and finally provides conclusions and 
recommendations for ILWAC target sites that are also regionally relevant to the broader West Africa context. 
20 Results and Impacts of the Integrated Land and Water Management for Adaptation to Climate Variability and Change (ILWAC) Project: Evaluation Report  
2.5 Expected Outcomes for the Evaluation Process 
i. An Evaluation report; and 
ii. An E-book with narrative on key sectoral issues, challenges, opportunities and description and impact of best 
climate-resilient practices. 
 
Table 1: Projects and countries where the evaluation surveys were conducted 
 
ILWAC – TF PROJECT COUNTRIES COVERED COUNTRY 
SELECTED FOR 
THE 
EVALUATION 
Development and promotion of integrated management of 
soil fertility through improved suitable production of major 
food crops 
Benin, Burkina Faso, and 
Togo 
Benin 
Improving resilience to climate change in agricultural 
ecosystems along the watershed by the participatory 
development of anti- erosion and fertilizer agroforestry 
systems in six West African countries (AmREACCAF) 
Burkina Faso, Benin, Cote 
d’Ivoire, Guinea, Mali, and 
Niger 
Burkina Faso 
Provision of water and renewable energy for pastoralists in 
West Africa (APESS) 
Burkina Faso, Cameroon, 
Chad, Mali, Niger, and 
Senegal 
Burkina Faso 
Improvement of water sources for women vegetable growers 
in The Gambia 
Gambia Gambia 
Sustainable soil-water-nutrient management under 
increasing climatic change and variability: Deployment of 
improved soil and water management 
Burkina Faso, Côte 
d’Ivoire, and Nigeria 
Nigeria 
Enhancing the resilience and adaptive capacity to 
climate change through integrated land, water, 
and nutrient management in semi- arid West Africa 
(ENRACCA-WA) 
Ghana, Mali, and Senegal Senegal 
Building the resilience of women in Bo District in Post- 
Ebola Sierra Leone 
Sierra Leone Sierra Leone 
 
* A total of 15 countries were covered in West and Central Africa. These were Mali, Senegal, Ghana, Niger, Burkina 
Faso, Guinea Conakry, Cote d’Ivoire, Benin, Nigeria, Togo, Cameroon, Chad, Guinea Bissau, Sierra Leone and The 
Gambia. Key project activities included raising and distribution of seedlings of tree species, establishing check dams, 
establishing and rehabilitating wells, providing climate information, providing farm tools, equipment and inputs 
together with capacity strengthening in various aspects. 
 
** The criteria for country selection was a consultative and participatory approach that informed the selection of the six 
countries. CORAF was strongly involved in the selection process. The team developed four criteria that formed the 
basis for the country selection. These were: 1) Project coverage; 2) Coordinating country; 
3) Climate smartness of project technologies (Increased productivity, Reduced emissions, and Enhanced resilience); 
and 4) Agroecology. The selected countries strongly represented each of the seven projects:     5 regional, and 2 
national. For the former, the evaluation benefited from regional datasets and reports, wherever these were available. In 
addition, the team interviewed the IP leaders of such projects during an inception meeting held in Dakar (ILWAC 
INCEPTION REPORT). Therefore, these results are representative enough for the projects. 
21 Results and Impacts of the Integrated Land and Water Management for Adaptation to Climate Variability and Change (ILWAC) Project: Evaluation Report  
CHAPTER 3: 
Conceptual Framework and Assessment Approach 
The impact evaluation process used a stepwise and participatory/collaborative approach, whose main steps are 
presented in Figure 3. It first involved the review of the existing ILWAC project materials, including reports and data to 
gain sufficient depth and scope of the work that had been conducted. This was followed up with a 3-day stakeholder 
inception workshop, which was held from May 2nd to May 4th, 2018 in Dakar, Senegal. The inception workshop 
brought together national partners and regional coordinators, laid a foundation and created an enabling condition for 
launching the evaluation study. The main results of the workshop were: (i) a working relationship (consensus building) 
fostered and established among relevant stakeholders; and (ii) an evaluation process was presented to and adopted by 
all stakeholders. The inception report to the workshop can be accessed here: ILWAC INCEPTION REPORT. The 
methodology adopted included presentations, sharing of relevant story lines, group work, trainings and hands-on 
exercises. The inception meeting was then followed by extensive data collection and stakeholder consultations 
(Figures 4 and 5) for a duration of 3 weeks in 6 countries namely, Benin, Burkina Faso, The Gambia, Nigeria, Senegal, 
and Sierra Leone. 
 
SCOPE OF EVALUATION REPORT 
 
 
FIGURE 3: Stepwise procedure for the evaluation process 
 
Data cleaning, analysis, synthesis and outcome mapping followed after the field work in order to identify success 
stories, and key lessons at the country level and the regional scale for potential scaling up opportunities. 
 
The evaluation methodology used reflected the requirements to balance the challenging timelines of the assignment 
with the need for a participatory approach. Given the nature of the intervention and type of outcome of interest, the 
team used mixed methods to capture the project impacts applying both qualitative and quantitative methods. (Figures 
6a and 6b). 
Situational analysis1: Access to ILWAC project 
1 
Participatory workshop on evaluation process 
 
Inception workshop 
and consensus 
building 
 
Evaluation team training of ILWAC project team on ODK 2 
 
Househol
d 
surveys 
Data collection & stakeholder 
sonsultations 
Focus 
group 
discussion
Data analysis, synthesis, IP evaluation & 
mapping 
3 
Expert 
interviews 
Resilience, risk and vulnerability 
assessments 4 
Country case studies 
 
Regional perspectives & 
insights 5 
Evaluation report E- Validation workshop 
22 Results and Impacts of the Integrated Land and Water Management for Adaptation to Climate Variability and Change (ILWAC) Project: Evaluation Report  
3.1 Field Work Procedures 
 
 
 
 
FIGURE 4: Overall structure for the evaluation process 
 
 
 
 
 
FIGURE 5: Field data collection structure and supervision for the household surveys, key informant interviews and focus group 
discussions. 
 
 
23 Results and Impacts of the Integrated Land and Water Management for Adaptation to Climate Variability and Change (ILWAC) Project: Evaluation Report  
 
24 Results and Impacts of the Integrated Land and Water Management for Adaptation to Climate Variability and Change (ILWAC) Project: Evaluation Report  
3.2 Data Collection Procedures 
3.2.1 Power Calculation for Sample Size Determination 
The Guide Framework for Sustainable Intensification was used to evaluate both biophysical and socio- economic 
impacts. This conceptual framework provides guidance on how to achieve balanced outcomes from changes in 
agriculture and provides practical means to consider multiple dimensions of sustainability and adaptation in the face of 
climate change. The evaluation methodology combined both qualitative and quantitative approaches to collect field 
and household data, as well as environmental modeling in a participatory manner through collective discussions at 
various fora. The evaluation study collected a large number of variables with a large dispersion matrix that was quite 
complex to study and interpret in a robust manner. Data was normalized and standardized to get a reasonable 
covariance analysis among all variables before performing Principal Components Analysis (PCA) which helped 
compute interpretable projection   of the data set. Power calculation was done and the minimum sample size required 
to identify impact at probability of 0.05 was 99 observations each for the control and treatment groups. Apart from 
APESS, each country had a minimum of 200 respondents (Table 2). The total for all six countries (7 projects) was 
1411 households. 
Table 2: Sample size of the treatment & control groups across countries & sex of household head* 
 
COUNTRY CONTROL % 
FHH 
TREATMEN
T 
% FHH TOTAL 
SAMPLE 
Gambia 100 81.3 100 100 200 
Senegal 51 0.0 160 4.60 211 
Nigeria 110 3.6 100 6.00 210 
Benin 100 20.2 100 13.40 200 
Sierra Leone 105 42.6 105 100.0 210 
Burkina Faso-AmREACCA 106 3.6 100 5.6 206 
Burkina Faso-APESS 80 8.0 94 3.50 174 
Average  15  17.0 1411 
 
*The evaluation was collaboratively conducted with national coordinating partners in collaboration with ILWAC 
Project M&E Officers. For each evaluation, initial discussions sought representativeness of both beneficiary groups 
and non-beneficiary groups (control), these were provided by the national teams and were separately randomized for 
both the Treatment and Control groups. Work was conducted within existing structures and frameworks such as 
Innovation Platforms, Water Resources Users Groups as well as community farmer groups. 
 
3.3 Qualitative Approaches 
Qualitative methods were used to better understand the knowledge, attitudes, priorities, preferences, and perceptions 
of target beneficiaries and other stakeholders. Qualitative methods enabled the acquisition of a more in-depth 
understanding of the factors that influence program operations or impacts; and level of acceptability of the approaches 
by beneficiaries and non-beneficiaries — community leaders, government officials, and other key stakeholders. The 
qualitative methods used included focus group discussions (FGD) and key informant interviews (KII). A total of 51 
Focus Group Discussions and 115 Key informants interviews were conducted across the seven projects in six 
countries. For the FGDs, this study separated men and women groups, and also identified other clusters within the 
FGDs such as crop producers, livestock keepers and other value chain players. Each of these clusters was considered 
in the collated responses. Both FGD and KII respondents were selected randomly from a list of all beneficiaries and 
non-beneficiaries in the targeted evaluation sites. Input from national partners and local leaders who understand the 
context of local dynamics was included to allow a balanced approach. 
Other outcome indicators which needed qualitative and key informant approaches to identity their impacts included: 
empowerment; enhancing stakeholders’ ability to plan, manage, implement climate-related activities, and use 
innovations, as well as access appropriate climate information in the land, water, and energy sectors. The 
aforementioned approaches were conducted within existing structures and frameworks such as Innovation Platforms, 
Water Resources Users Groups — Les commissions locales de l’eau (CLE) as well as community farmer groups. 
 
25 Results and Impacts of the Integrated Land and Water Management for Adaptation to Climate Variability and Change (ILWAC) Project: Evaluation Report  
 
3.4 Quantitative Approaches 
Quantitative methods were used to assess the impacts of specific achievements against some of the key performance 
indicators. For example the EnRACCA-WA Project in Burkina Faso on reservoir management, the study used an 
extensive hydrological modeling approach to tease out changes in runoff, sediment retention and water yields as a 
result of ILWAC interventions. Since placement of the ILWAC-TF intervention was not random, this study used a 
quasi-experimental design to identify impacts of the project. Table 4 lists the impact of ILWAC on outcome indicators 
discussed below. 
 
Table 3: Summary of evaluation objectives against evaluation methods used 
 
EVALUATION OBJECTIVE METHODOLOGY 
i. Evaluation of the specific achievements of the seven ILWAC-TF 
funded climate change related projects, against key performance 
indicators, such as farm productivity, socio-economic conditions 
and livelihood of beneficiaries, biophysical characteristics of 
production, environment, and gender within the framework of 
climate change adaptation; 
• Focus group discussions 
• Key Informant interviews 
• Household surveys 
• Regional climate change modeling for 
water balance, land use change and 
policy inclusion 
ii. Evaluation of the specific achievements of the seven ILWAC-TF 
funded projects’ effects on enhancing stakeholder’s ability to 
plan, manage, implement climate-related activities, and use 
innovations as well as access appropriate climate information in 
the land, water and energy sectors; 
• As above; 
• Added in-depth analysis of 
functionality, process and dynamics 
around innovation platforms 
iii. Identify and document key lessons learnt, as well as best 
climate-resilient practices, including, improved soil-water- 
nutrient management practices for scaling up; 
• Review of project M&E documents & 
interview beneficiaries 
• Regional climate change modeling for 
water balance, land use change and 
policy inclusion 
iv. Validation and dissemination of findings to key stakeholders 
through organizing a regional workshop. 
• Joint collaboration between the 
World Bank Group, CORAF and 
CGIAR 
 
All the projects evaluated used the innovation platforms (IP) approach. Homann-Kee Tui et al (2013) defines an IP as a 
forum for learning and action involving a group of actors with different backgrounds and interests. For example, 
farmers, agricultural input suppliers, traders, food processors, researchers, government officials, etc. These individuals 
come together to develop a common vision and find ways to achieve their goals. In the field of agriculture research and 
development, innovation platforms are also synonymously referred to as multi-stakeholder innovation platforms, multi-
stakeholder alliances and multi-stakeholder platforms. Under the ILWAC projects, IPs were used with the aim of 
facilitating stakeholder engagement, knowledge sharing, learning, coordination, local project ownership and 
sustainability. 
3.4.1 Socio-economic and Nutritional Indicators 
Specific socio economic and nutritional indicators were computed to evaluate the impact of ILWAC projects. The 
choice of these indicators against the performance outcomes on productivity, livelihoods, climate change was 
objectively determined after ascertaining the lack of sufficient baselines in the original work and from the trends of the 
preliminary analysis of the data collected from the field. Household Food insecurity access scale (HFIAS) was 
calculated following the methodology developed by Food and Nutrition Technical Assistance (FANTA). It is an index 
that measures severity of food insecurity for agricultural households. It uses 
26 Results and Impacts of the Integrated Land and Water Management for Adaptation to Climate Variability and Change (ILWAC) Project: Evaluation Report  
a standard set of nine questions that generally represent increasing level of severity of food insecurity and nine follow 
up frequency of occurrence questions that determine how often a situation occurred (Salvador et al., 2015). The 
questions normally refer to a period of 7 days or 4 weeks. In this study we considered a recall of the last 4 weeks. 
HFIAS has a minimum score of 0 and a maximum score of 27. The higher the score the more food insecurity the 
household experienced. 
 
Household income was obtained by summing income from many possible sources as reported by the farmers. Farmers 
were asked amount of income received from several sources such as forestry/agroforestry products, 
fisheries/aquaculture, salaries/wages, remittances, livestock/livestock products and crop/crop products. Incomes were 
collected in local currencies and later converted to USD. 
 
The asset index was computed using data on household assets ownership. In the questionnaire, farmers were asked if 
they owned assets such as televisions, radio, mobile phones, agricultural tools and equipment among others. For those 
who responded with a yes, a follow up question on the number of assets owned was asked. Principal component 
analysis (PCA) was used to generate weights for asset ownership which were then multiplied with the number of assets 
owned. PCA is a statistical procedure that adapts orthogonal transformation to convert a set of observations of possibly 
correlated variables into a set of values of linearly correlated variables called principal components. Asset index can be 
used to determine relative poverty of a given household relative to other households that were used in the computation 
of the weights (Booysen et al., 2008). 
3.4.2 Models for Estimating Impact 
Evaluation of the impacts of the ILWAC project follows the instrumental variable (IV) approach. The IV approach has 
previously been implemented across various studies and projects such as Food for Education program in Bangladesh 
by Ravallion and Wodon (2000); Private Schooling in Pakistan implemented by Andrabi, Das and Khwaja (2006); and 
Returns to College Education in Taiwan by Tsai and Xie (2011).  The appropriateness of the approach hinges on 
finding a strong variable (or instrument, Z) that is highly correlated with participation in the ILWAC program (T) but 
that is not correlated with unobserved variables which may affect other outcomes such as asset value, asset index, 
adopted technologies, income from crops and livestock (including natural logarithms of the variables) and Household 
Food Insecurity and Access Scale (HFIAS). 
 
The instrument should satisfy the following: 
i. Correlated with T: cov(Z,T) ≠ 0 
ii. Uncorrelated with ε: cov(Z,ε) = 0 
 
The evaluation considers the treatment variable (in this case, participation in ILWAC project) as endogenous. It is 
believed that participation in the program is not the only cause of variation in the observed outcomes but there exist 
underlying variables not measured or included in the study and also selection bias. 
 
First, endogeneity results from the program design or rollout, ILWAC in this case, was placed deliberately in areas that 
satisfied certain conditions and targeted subjects with specific characteristics that may or    may not be measured or 
observable but are correlated with outcomes. Second, individual subjects have unobserved heterogeneity resulting 
from issues such as self-selection. This selection bias means that the fitted OLS regression assumption of cov (T,ε) ≠ 0 
is violated and the resulting model has biased estimates. As mentioned previously, Instrumental Variables (IV) 
regression approach using two stage least square (2SLS) specification is fitted in order to address endogeneity 
concerns and to identify the causal impacts of participating in ILWAC. Three instrumental variables are used, namely 
(1) distance (km) to the nearest town with a population of more than 50,000 people and (2) an indicator variable 
measuring membership to an Innovation Platform (IP).The choice of the instruments was informed by literature (e.g., 
Attanasio and Vera- Hernandez, 2004) and correlation matrix. The authors above, for example, used distance from the 
household to the community center as an instrumental variable in evaluating a similar program. They assumed that 
living near the community center facilitated usage of the center facilities; and this was not a direct channel through 
which health outcomes would be influenced. Similarly, Miluka, Carletto, Davis and Zezza (2007) used distance 
between border crossing and household in Greece (Kakavije and Kapshtice). 
27 Results and Impacts of the Integrated Land and Water Management for Adaptation to Climate Variability and Change (ILWAC) Project: Evaluation Report  
They assumed that distance negatively influence migration as it raised transaction costs. In the current case of ILWAC, 
it can be expected that distance to an urban area with more than 50,000 would induce farmers to take up the program 
owing to: (1) the direct/indirect benefits such as sales of crops to urban population and (2) because it would facilitate 
ease of access to inputs such as fertilizer, seeds, irrigation equipment etc. 
 
 
 
The study considered isolating parts of the treatment variable that cannot be separated from unobserved characteristics 
that potentially affect the outcome. This involves two stages. First, the treatment variable T is regressed on the on the 
vector of instruments Z, and other selected covariates (X) and a disturbance, ui. This process constitutes the first stage 
regression of the 2SLS approach: 
 
By instrumentation, we clean the treatment variable (T) of its correlation with the error term. Therefore, if the two 
assumptions cov (T , Z) ≠ 0 and cov (Z , ε) = 0 hold, then our IV method consistently indicate the mean impact of 
participation in the ILWAC program. 
 
Several tests were performed to check the suitability of the instruments. First, The Hansen J test was used to test that 
our instruments are uncorrelated with the error terms for all the outcomes considered. Second, in order to evaluate the 
strength of the instruments, the Kleinbergen–Paap test of under-identification and the Cragg–Donald F-statistic of the 
first stage regressions were used. We check whether the Cragg–Donald F-statistic exceeds the critical 10% value for 
weak instruments as proposed by Stock and Yogo (2001). Third, the Sargan test was used to check for over identifying 
restrictions. In the section on the econometric results, test statistics show that the instruments are reliable. 
3.4.3 Spatial Variability in Relation to Environmental Variables 
From the econometric perspective, observations have been made that spatial confounding bias are often associated 
with endogeneity bias (Paciorek, 2010). As such finding a proxy to address such endogeneity would be important. 
Thus, using recall, while fully aware of some of its fallacies and combining it with a mixed datasets provided indirect 
measurement of the un-confounded items that lagged due to space and time. The use of instruments and endogeneity 
techniques were used to significantly reduce the effects such variability would cause in the model. Besides, using a 
retrospective approach and limiting knowledge of which group (control or treatment) a respondent belonged to was a 
strategy that in most cases addressed recall bias. The methodology used in this evaluation also captured the major 
agro-ecologies in the countries selected for the study (i.e., Forest, Guinea Savana and Sudan Savana, as well as the 
Sahelian). At a project level, the group’s selection encompassed the similarities between control and treatment, except 
that the latter must not have benefitted from the project. In addition some of the interventions focused on entry points 
that are more driven by community dynamics to access resources which were independent of the environmental 
variables e.g. APESS in Burkina Faso with cooking stoves that have biogas provision, boreholes, or tricycles for easier 
access to milk supply outlets. 
28 Results and Impacts of the Integrated Land and Water Management for Adaptation to Climate Variability and Change (ILWAC) Project: Evaluation Report  
Table 4: Description and measurement of variables 
 
VARIABLE NAME DESCRIPTION 
Outcome Indicator Self-reported household income 
Household income Self-reported household income. 
Household Food Insecurity 
Access Scale (HFIAS) 
HFIAS categories: 1 = Food Secure, 2=Mildly Food Insecure Access, 3=Moderately 
Food Insecure Access, 4=Severely Food Insecure Access 
Adoption intensity Number of CSA practices adopted by a household 
Asset Value Economic value of household’s assets in dollars. 
Endogenous Regressors 
Treatment (0/1) Dummy for participating in ILWAC 
Agroforestry (0/1) Dummy for adoption of Agroforestry 
Exogenous Regressors 
Age Age of the principal decision maker in the household in completed years 
Age squared Squared age of the principal decision maker in the household. 
Male (0/1) Dummy for male principal decision maker in the household 
Spouse (0/1) Dummy for principal decision maker in the household being a spouse 
Child (0/1) Dummy male principal decision maker in the household being a child 
Other member/relative (0/1) Dummy for principal decision maker in the household being other relative 
Household Worker (0/1) Dummy for male principal decision maker in the household 
Other member non-relative 
(0/1) 
Dummy for male principal decision maker in the household 
Secondary (0/1) Dummy for secondary educational level 
Tertiary (0/1) Dummy for tertiary educational level 
Adult Education (0/1) Dummy for adult education 
None/Illiterate (0/1) Dummy for illiterate 
Religious/Koranic (0/1) Dummy for Koranic religion 
Senegal (0/1) Dummy for Senegal 
Nigeria (0/1) Dummy for Nigeria 
Benin (0/1) Dummy for Benin 
Sierra Leone (0/1) Dummy for Sierra Leona 
Burkina Faso-AmREACCAF 
(0/1) 
Dummy for Burkina Faso-AmREACCAF 
Burkina Faso-APESS (0/1) Dummy for Burkina Faso-APESS 
Household Size Number of household members in the last 12 months (count) 
Energy Access How far in travelling time is the nearest source of cooking energy during dry season 
(minutes) 
Extension Access How far in travelling time is the nearest agricultural extension office (minutes) 
Health Access How far in travelling time, is the nearest health center? (minutes) 
Experience Shocks Number of shocks experienced (count) 
Livestock Owned Number of Livestock owned by the household (count) 
Source of income (b=salary/ 
wages) (0/1) 
Dummy for Salary/Wage as a source of income 
Agriculture(farming/ livestock 
keeping) (0/1) 
Dummy for agriculture as a source of income for the household 
Business (0/1) Dummy for business as the main source of income for the household 
Other income sources (0/1) Dummy for other sources of income as the main source of income for the household 
Main Crop Area Total crop area of 3 main crops (Ha) 
Own Mobile Phone Number of mobile phones owned (count) 
29 Results and Impacts of the Integrated Land and Water Management for Adaptation to Climate Variability and Change (ILWAC) Project: Evaluation Report  
CHAPTER 4: 
Impact Assessment of ISFM – Benin 
4.1 Project Implementation 
In Benin, ILWAC project primarily focused on increasing the output of maize through development and adoption of 
well adapted seed varieties and management practices. These practices included: cereal and legume intercropping 
(mucuna+maize; pigeon pea+maize), and compost and mineral fertilizers such as NPK and urea. The project bottom-
up approach integrated farmers in the implementation stages through innovation platforms that allowed interactive 
training sessions and feedback mechanism. It was implemented in four sites; Matere in the north, Couffou (Aplahoue) 
and Dangabo in the south, and Bante in the central region of Benin. 
 
4.2 Project Evaluation 
Two main regions that received ILWAC interventions were considered in this study. As described above, these two 
distinct sites are located in Dangabo (Oumé Department, southeast Benin) and Couffo (Couffo Department, southwest 
Benin) (Figure 7). The selection of these two sites was done through a participatory process that involved innovation 
platform representatives and INRAB staff. The guidelines for selection of the sites were: varied agro-ecological zones 
(east versus west), ease of accessibility for logistical reasons and availability of funds to exhaustively conduct the 
study. 
 
The predominant land uses in Benin were cultivated land (agriculture), forest and urban/peri-urban areas (Figure 7). 
Selection of the control sites in both study locations was carefully done to minimize spillover effects as much as possible. 
It is in light of this fact that areas that were located 7km or more from the treatment sites were chosen as control (Figure 
7). 
 
In this study, data was collected in three ways; household surveys, focused group discussions (FGD) and key 
informant interviews. In Couffo 140 households were randomly sampled, 70 were beneficiaries while the remaining 
70 were in the control sites (Table 5). In Dangabo region we had a total of 30 households for beneficiaries and 30 
representing the control group (Table 6). A total of 5 FGDs were conducted in both sites; 2 in Couffo and 3 in 
Dangbo. Additionally 29 key informants that included main innovation platform members were interviewed. 
 
Table 5: Couffo site sampled household size shown by village/area 
 
SITE VILLAGE/AREA TREATMENT CONTROL 
Couffo Aplahoué 28 40 
 Djakotomey 19 27 
 Dogbo 9 - 
 Lalo 14 3 
Total 70 70 
 
Table 6: Dangabo site sampled household size shown by village/area 
 
SITE VILLAGE/AREA TREATMENT CONTROL 
Dangabo Dangabo 30 - 
 Djigbe - 8 
 Tokpa Koundjota - 7 
 Honme - 15 
Total 30 30 
30 Results and Impacts of the Integrated Land and Water Management for Adaptation to Climate Variability and Change (ILWAC) Project: Evaluation Report  
 
 
FIGURE 7: Location of surveyed households: Dangabo and Couffo sites in Benin showing beneficiary households in blue and 
control households in red. 
 
4.2.1 Gender Dynamics 
The ILWAC project had a good footprint in reaching and benefitting men and women in Benin as it provided access to 
technologies and/or innovations (such as improved seeds and fertilizers) for a total of 432 men and 368 women. 
Additionally, intra-country and inter-country exchange visits were undertaken by the project team, where 40 percent of 
the participants were women. The better access to technologies coupled with exchange visits enabled men and women 
beneficiaries to gain valuable insights, knowledge and decision making skills which resulted in higher yields and 
income. 
 
With encouragement and support from project coordinators, women had good participation, where they were able to 
express themselves and highlight their needs and specific experiences. However, participation of women in leadership 
positions was limited. For example, in one of the platforms, out of 13 members of the executive offices, only two of 
them were women indicating the need for more capacity building initiatives to enhance their voices at household and 
community levels. On the overall, both men and women had fair participation in innovation platforms as members but 
needed more balanced representation. 
 
4.2.2 Technology Adoption 
The project targeted areas of need for major food crops in Benin. The associated practices for food production included 
better management of water and land resources, intercropping specifically with Mucuna and pigeon peas with maize 
and this is complemented with the application of farm residues and compost. The aforementioned practices have been 
proven to protect soil from erosion (Kizito et al; 2007; Cordingley et al, 2015). Farmers testified that these practices 
were not being done before the inception of the ILWAC project. Other notable practices that were highlighted are crop 
rotation, fallowing of crop fields, and judicious application of fertilizers with the right types and doses to crops. 
Producers also practice optimal spacing of crops by sowing in lines, using with appropriate number of grains per hole 
which they did not do before. For livestock management, the FGDs noted that there have been no technological changes 
at this level because the IL WAC project did not intervene on livestock neither is this part of the innovation platform 
discussions. 
31 Results and Impacts of the Integrated Land and Water Management for Adaptation to Climate Variability and Change (ILWAC) Project: Evaluation Report  
4.2.3 Project Impact against Performance Indicators 
Farm productivity 
As noted in Section 4.2.2, adopting the right technological innovations comes rewards such as increased farm 
productivity/ The Benin respondents from 3 independent FGDs noted that the improved agronomic practices boosted 
crop productivity and food security in the Region. This is notably supported by the higher food security among 
treatment groups in Benin compared to the control group (See Table 17). Additionally, land degradation of soils for 
60% of farms was reduced which in turn boosts other areas of production. 
 
Livelihoods 
On both the economic and social levels, the ILWAC project enabled producers to increase their production and 
consequently increase their turnover by selling harvested products and working together through community collective 
action. This is important for developing social safety nets and provides higher bargaining power for market 
opportunities. The main activities of the men in the Dangbo platform are oil palm production, aquaculture, and field 
work in general where they also offer their labor for remuneration. For women, it’s corn trade and for young people, 
it’s the motorcycle taxi. 
 
Women on Dangbo platform also work on the transformation of the palm nut with oil coupled with the sale of smoked 
fish. 
4.2.4 Climate Change and the Promising/Potential of Scaling Up Climate-Resilient Technologies There are 
various climate-resilient technologies that boost soil fertility such as the use of cover crops and intercropping for soil 
erosion reduction, soil moisture management, nitrogen fixation, drought tolerance related to pigeon pea and 
cowpeas as well as diversification of production at the farm enterprise. The use of legumes also improves 
on diversification of human diets. Increased capacity towards awareness of CSA technologies especially on 
the environmental front, the ILWAC project has allowed producers to apply appropriate adaptation measures 
in their communities. 
 
For potential scalability, apart from scaling through innovation platforms, climate resilience best practices by 
producers take the form of better use of local weather for decision making and some efforts towards preventing early 
drought losses with improved crop varieties complemented with prevention of early flooding by protecting fields with 
reinforced vegetative buffers. 
4.2.5 Innovation Platforms 
The Innovation Platform in Benin was created in 2014 with the inception of the ILWAC project. Users on the platform 
rate its performance at 7/10. To participate in the project, the participants were chosen based on a shared vision of 
maize growing. The public is aware of the existence of innovation platforms in their community. The innovation 
platform is managed through alternating leadership positions on an annual basis. The type of information shared on the 
platform is transparent, it is no surprise that platform members rated information-sharing at 9/10. 
 
The three main objectives/targets of the Innovation Platform are: 
 
• Ensuring increased production of maize to satisfy household needs and the community at large 
• Applying new agricultural technologies (mainly targeted towards ISFM: improving soil fertility) and share this 
knowledge with peers, an aspect that helps with technology dissemination 
• Share information and work together to improve livelihoods of platform members. 
 
As a result of previous efforts from the IL WAC project, the innovation platform are now being managed well and 
provide an opportunity for producers to form working groups and share information between them for enhancing the 
operational activities of the platform. The project influenced women’s participation because, before the project, 
women were reluctant to work together with men, a situation that changed after the ILWAC project. 
32 Results and Impacts of the Integrated Land and Water Management for Adaptation to Climate Variability and Change (ILWAC) Project: Evaluation Report  
4.2.6 Key Success Stories 
1. Improved maize yields 
Traditionally farmers in Dangabo and Couffo in Benin used to 
practice agroforestry as a way of maintaining soil fertility. 
According to INRAB field officer, the practice initially helped 
to produce better yields at reduced operational cost and create 
more drought resistant systems. However as tree crowns grew 
big, healthy growth of annual crops such as maize was 
inhibited due to shading, seriously affecting yields. This 
resulted in  farmers  clearing  trees or pruning their branches. 
As a result, soil fertility was reversed due to depletion of 
nutrients through soil erosion and incessant farming. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
FIGURE 8: In the left of the photo is a plot 
with healthy green maize belonging to ILWAC 
beneficiary. The right of the photo shows a 
plot with stunted maize crops belonging to a 
non-beneficiary. 
 
Since the start of ILWAC with the support of INRAB, farmers in Dangabo and Couffo have witnessed 
increased maize yield because of use of certified maize seed varieties, organic and inorganic fertilizers for 
planting and topdressing. Most farmers in this part of Benin traditionally were not applying fertilizers to maize 
during planting and the few that did were not doing it properly. Through innovation platforms established by 
ILWAC, farmers have been trained on the correct application of organic and inorganic fertilizer and the 
benefits of using improved maize seed varieties. Interviewed farmers reported that they were using 200 kg 
NPK per plot together with organic fertilizers in the first season. In the second season both NPK and organic 
fertilizer is scaled down by half of what was applied in the first season. This practice has been a success in 
improving maize yield while protecting the soil (Figure 8). To demonstrate the success of these interventions, 
one beneficiary in Lalo Village, Couffo region has been named twice by the government of Benin as the most 
productive maize farmer in the whole of Couffo region. 
 
2. Transfer of expert knowledge 
Transfer of knowledge on ISFM is a key success in the implementation of ILWAC project in Benin. This was 
made possible thanks to three innovation platforms that were intentionally created by INRAB for sharing 
knowledge through expert training and farm demonstrations. According to Dangabo and Couffo platforms 
presidents, more than 400 farmers both male and female have been practically trained on benefits of; cereal-
legume intercropping (maize, beans, mucuna and pigeon peas), use of organic and synthetic fertilizer, use of 
certified seeds, plant residue management, and maize row spacing and density (Figure 9). 
 
The benefits of the training were evident in the study sites where beneficiaries and close neighbors had 
implemented what they were taught. Additionally, farmers have other food products such as beans and pigeon 
peas to supplement maize produce. Some well performing platform members    in Dangabo region have since 
been employed by those working in nearby towns and markets to manage their maize farms in Oumé Valley. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
FIGURE 9: In the left is proper maize spacing implemented by a ILWAC beneficiary and in the zoomed photo on the right one 
can see how the farmer implemented recommended maize density. 
33 Results and Impacts of the Integrated Land and Water Management for Adaptation to Climate Variability and Change (ILWAC) Project: Evaluation Report  
4.2.7 Challenges Encountered 
1. Access to land 
Youth have little or no access to land making it difficult for them to actively participate in maize production. In Benin, 
farming is generally carried out on family land where decisions are mostly made by the household head. This limits 
youth engagement in making decisions relating to how land should be utilized. To participate in maize production for 
financial gain, some youth could only rent land. However this exposes them to other risks such as poor soil quality, 
poor crop management due to long distances to farmlands and times natural calamities related to drought and flooding. 
In Oumé valley for example, a group of farmers who had rented land for maize production lost approximately 25 
hectares of land to flooding. To mitigate this, programs should be put in place to assist the youth to access productive 
land. Working in a group would help the youth negotiate for better rates of renting land and access more acreage. In 
situation where access to land is limited, young farmers should be encouraged to invest in intensive farming options 
such as horticulture. 
 
2. Lack of technical capacity 
Not all farmers in the study area have the technical capacity to properly implement ISFM or are aware of  alternatives 
where an intervention fails. The ratio of government paid extension officers to that of farmers   is low. For example in 
Couffo there are only three extension officers serving several villages. This has a negative impact on the quality of 
extension services being offered and continuous education of farmers on the importance of ISFM, alternative practices 
and provision of information on access to markets. 
 
Farmers in Dangabo and Couffo are finding it difficult to adopt intercropping of maize with mucuna because of its 
residual roots and invasive nature that takes over the land even after harvesting maize and also because it is non- edible. 
Information on alternative crops that have similar benefits to those of mucuna should be availed to farmers for 
adoption. This can be facilitated through providing adequate extension services or through the use of modern 
technology options such as mobile phones, internet, radio and television. 
 
3. Climate shocks 
The extensive corn production did not work well because there were floods in the area that caused a loss of 25 ha of 
maize. At this level, it should be noted that the community is lacking land which introduces other complications 
related to the performance of the innovation platform. 
4.2.8 Key Lessons Learnt 
Farmers will not invest in yield promoting technologies if markets for the surplus produce is not availed      to them. 
ISFM and accompanying technologies in the study areas introduced new crops and ways of improving land 
productivity. However without market for the surplus some technologies are disadopted. A good example is in Couffo 
where farmers are intercropping mucuna and maize given the benefits it has to the soil. Unfortunately they do not 
largely consume mucuna. Therefore to continuously boost crop yield with ISFM, it is important to provide information 
on markets for mucuna, alternative technologies or practices, promotion of value addition and reduction of market 
barriers. 
34 Results and Impacts of the Integrated Land and Water Management for Adaptation to Climate Variability and Change (ILWAC) Project: Evaluation Report  
CHAPTER 5: 
Impact Assessment of AmREACCAF – Burkina Faso 
5.1 Project Implementation 
The AmREACCAF project was conducted in 6 countries Burkina Faso, Benin, Cote d’Ivoire, Guinea, Mali,  and 
Niger. For purposes of the ILWAC  evaluation study, the study was conducted in Burkina Faso within    3 treatment 
communities that had ILWAC-related interventions and 2 control communities without ILWAC interventions(Figure 
10). Thefocusoftheprojectwasonimprovingresiliencetoclimatechangeinagricultural ecosystems along the watershed 
by the participatory development of anti-erosion and fertilizer agroforestry systems to control pervasive erosion on 
farmers’ fields. The project objective was to enhance the capacity of farmers to manage crops and control erosion both 
on their farms and on surrounding watersheds. The delivery mechanism of the project was through innovation 
platforms. 
 
5.2 Project Evaluation 
5.2.1 Impact Evaluation with Hydrological Modeling 
In order to ascertain impact, we embarked on an in-depth evaluation at a watershed scale to respond to specific 
elements such as what were the erosion levels before project intervention? How many hectares were improved as a 
result of ILWAC interventions? What type of agroforestry trees were planted and what was their impact on 
consumptive water use, would they compete with annual crops for water resources? In order to accomplish this, we 
used mixed methods approaches that entailed detailed household interviews, key informant interviews and 
hydrological modeling complemented by regional forecast climate change assessments. 
 
For the hydrological modeling we used Soil and Water Assessment Tool (SWAT) in Boura watershed located in the 
Southern Burkina Faso. Its elevation ranges from 234 metres to 418 metres above sea level. The main economic 
activity is agriculture. It lies between Latitudes 1103’53’’N - 10059’7’’N and Longitudes 2033’7’’W- 2025’57’’W. For 
the study area, most of the land is covered by grass coupled with farms. 
 
 
FIGURE 10: Location of surveyed households in - treatment sites (blue) and control sites (red). Boura dam can be seen in Boura 
town right where treatment data were recorded. 
35 Results and Impacts of the Integrated Land and Water Management for Adaptation to Climate Variability and Change (ILWAC) Project: Evaluation Report  
SWAT Hydrological model was used in this study. The model is a physically based distributed model designed to predict 
the impact of land management practices on water, sediment, and agricultural chemical yields in large complex 
watersheds with varying soil, land use, and management conditions over long periods of time (Neitsch, et al. 
2011).SWAT subdivides a basin into sub-basins connected by a stream network and further delineates each sub-basin 
into HRUs consisting of unique combinations of land use and soils. SWAT allows a number of different physical 
processes to be simulated in a basin. The hydrological routines within SWAT. The SWAT model is a physically based 
distributed model designed to predict the impact of land management practices on water, sediment, and agricultural 
chemical yields in large complex watersheds with varying soil, land use, and management conditions over long periods 
of time (Neitsch, et al. 2011). 
 
SWAT subdivides a basin into sub-basins connected by a stream network and further delineates each sub- basin into 
HRUs consisting of unique combinations of land use and soils. The subdivision of the watershed enables the model to 
reflect differences in evapotranspiration for various crops and soils. Runoff is predicted separately for each HRU and 
routed to obtain the total runoff for the watershed. This increases accuracy and gives a much better physical description 
of the water balance. 
 
The SWAT model simulates the hydrology into land and routing phases. In the land phase, the amount of water, 
sediment and other non-point loads are calculated from each HRU and summed up to the level of sub- basins. Each sub-
basin controls and guides the loads towards the basin outlet. The routing phase defines the flow of water, sediment and 
other non-point sources of pollution through the channel network to an outlet of the basin. SWAT computes soil 
erosion at a HRU level using the modified Universal Soil Loss Equation  (MUSLE). This process constitutes 
computing sediment yields from each sub-basin and routing the sediment yields to the basin outlet. The hydrological 
cycle simulated by SWAT is based on the water balance equation: 
 
 
 
 
where SWt is the final soil water content, SW0 is the initial soil water content on day i, t is the time(days), Rday is the 
amount of precipitation on day i, Qsurf is the amount of surface runoff on day i (mm H2O), Ea is the amount of 
evapotranspiration on day i, wseep is the amount of water entering the vadose zone from the soil profile on day i, Qlat is 
the water percolation past bottom of soil profile in the watershed for day i, and Qgw is the amount of return flow on day 
i. All water units are in mm H2O. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
FIGURE 11: Map of Boura District 
Watershed in  Burkina  Faso.  The  dam  is 
used to irrigate approximately 140 hectares 
of agricultural land in the downstream. 
 
36 Results and Impacts of the Integrated Land and Water Management for Adaptation to Climate Variability and Change (ILWAC) Project: Evaluation Report  
 
 
FIGURE 12: Satellite image of Boura Dam and Irrigated zones. Source: Google Earth. 
 
The key data used as input in SWAT are elevation, soil, land use, weather, and streamflow. The Soil Data was 
obtained from ISRIC 250 metres spatial resolution (Hengel et al., 2015), the SWAT soil database was developed using 
a computation soil macro function. All relevant datasets were acquired, processed and modified to suit applicability in 
the SWAT model. The necessary initial step for SWAT modelling are basin delineation, and watershed partitioning 
into sub-basin and HRUs. The data are then simulated for definition of the land use, soil types and slope. After 
incorporation of the weather data the SWAT,  model was run       for the time period 1990 through 2010 using a daily 
time step(Pre-ILWAC).  The model was run again for  the time period 1990 through 2016 using a daily time step (Post-
ILWAC) taking into consideration of best management practices from 2012 i.e. agroforestry and filter strips. 
 
The average sediment yield in 2010 before ILWAC Project was 5.90 tonnes per hectare per year on Boura watershed 
as shown in Figure 13 below. The post-ILWAC results were simulated but the model was calibrated and validated with 
actual field observations. The data used for calibration and validation was elevation, soil texture, land use and local 
weather observations from the field. We also used local observed data to calibrate the model e.g. width of vegetative 
filter strips, hedges density in landscape and length of filter strips. When the model was run again while putting into 
consideration the best management practices, incorporation   of the actual data on the management details at the sub-
basin parameterization level allowed for scenarios generation to tease out observable differences. 
 
An underlying issue though is that presence of certain interventions in the landscape can dramatically lead to 
exponential environmental benefits. This also implies that the co-benefits associated with the intervention are under-
reported or underestimated e.g. filter strip reduce sediment transport, increases retention of rich soil deposits along the 
ridge, increases infiltration and soil moisture storage but also allows for increased storage of water in the reservoir 
through avoided sedimentation. Beyond water provision for household use, these reservoirs serve as key food baskets 
for fisheries and irrigation in surrounding communities. Hence, there are several un-assessed benefits that accrue from 
one variable (e.g. sedimentation); even if the reduction was 30% the co-benefits associated with the intervention 
would still be quite significant. 
37 Results and Impacts of the Integrated Land and Water Management for Adaptation to Climate Variability and Change (ILWAC) Project: Evaluation Report  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
FIGURE 13: Pre-ILWAC Sedi- 
ment yield in tonnes per hectare 
per annum. After considering use 
of best management prac- tices 
like agroforestry and filter strips 
due to ILWAC project ini- tiatives, 
the soil erosion in 2016 is an 
average of 2.18 tonnes per hectare 
per year. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
FIGURE 14: Post-ILWAC 
Sediment   yield    in    tonnes per 
hectare per annum. The sediment 
difference yield map was derived 
by subtracting Post-ILWAC 
sediment yield raster data from 
Pre-ILWAC sediment yield.  Its  
main purpose was to determine by 
how many tonnes per hectare per 
year soil erosion reduced  in the 
various sub-basins due to the best 
management practices used per 
year. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
FIGURE  15:   Difference   map 
of Post-ILWAC and Pre-ILWAC 
Sediment yield. Surface Runoff 
Outputs 
38 Results and Impacts of the Integrated Land and Water Management for Adaptation to Climate Variability and Change (ILWAC) Project: Evaluation Report  
The average surface runoff in Boura watershed was 55.84 mm in 2010 before ILWAC projects. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
FIGURE 16: Pre-ILWAC Surface Runoff in mil- 
limetres. After taking into consideration best 
management practices that farmers adopted in 
ILWAC interventions i.e. Agroforestry and filter 
strips, the surface runoff average value reduced 
to 41.65 mm. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
FIGURE 17: Post-ILWAC Surface Runoff in 
millimetres. 
 
The surface runoff difference map was derived by subtracting Post-ILWAC surface runoff raster data from Pre- 
ILWAC surface runoff. Its main purpose was to determine by how many mm has surface runoff reduced in the various 
sub-basins due to the best management practices used which leads to increase in percolation. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
FIGURE 18: Difference map of Post-ILWAC and 
Pre-ILWAC Surface runoff. 
 
39 Results and Impacts of the Integrated Land and Water Management for Adaptation to Climate Variability and Change (ILWAC) Project: Evaluation Report  
Table 7: Tabular representation of pre and post ILWAC water yield, sediment and runoff 
 
SUB-BASIN PRE-
ILWAC 
WATER 
YIELD 
(MM) 
POST- 
ILWAC 
WATER 
YIELD 
(MM) 
PRE-
ILWAC 
SEDIMENT 
(THA) 
POST- 
ILWAC 
SEDIMEN
T (THA) 
PRE-
ILWAC 
RUNOFF 
(MM) 
POST- 
ILWAC 
RUNOF
F (MM) 
1 6.44 9.83 5.14 2.23 52.65 40.75 
2 6.43 9.77 3.48 2.03 51.76 40.45 
3 6.44 9.99 5.54 2.05 56.27 41.40 
4 6.43 10.52 4.15 1.85 50.37 43.72 
5 6.44 10.10 8.03 2.57 60.29 42.01 
6 6.43 10.06 7.48 2.40 59.70 41.89 
7 6.43 9.80 6.51 1.97 58.61 40.46 
8 6.43 10.26 6.93 2.38 57.73 42.56 
 
5.2.2 Gender Dynamics 
Project beneficiaries were able to join hands and form a women farming and marketing group that helped enhance 
their farming ability, access to resources, produce and more savings. The group was composed of 80 members. 
According to focus group discussions within the beneficiary communities, women group members benefitted from 
better access to income (especially from selling Non Timber Forest Products for processing), with better living 
standards. 
 
5.2.3 Technology Adoption 
Results from the AmREACCAF project indicated that community involvement towards natural resources management 
with collective action is critical. The Project was focused on improving resilience to climate change in agricultural 
ecosystems along the watershed by the participatory development of anti-erosion and fertilizer agroforestry systems to 
control pervasive erosion on farmers’ fields. It thus promoted soil fertility management, conservation of soil moisture 
within farming systems, helped to establish a departmental nursery for producing trees for agroforestry that were in turn 
used for watershed and catchment management to prevent erosion. 
 
5.2.4 Project Impact against Performance Indicators 
Project efforts reduced soil degradation for 60% of the farms in the area, it reduced erosion within the watersheds by 
42-70%. It increased water yields by 52-63% and reduced overall surface runoff by 13-36%. These attributes helped 
increase farm productivity for crop and livestock enterprises. Beneficiaries rated this project as satisfactory and felt that 
the interventions are making a difference and are also helping towards community cohesiveness. 
 
5.2.5 Promising/Potential Climate-Resilient Technologies for Scaling-Up 
The project used vegetative buffer strips as an erosion control mechanism. These buffer strips are known to reduce on 
soil erosion, increase water infiltration capacity which increases the water yield that plant roots can use for their 
uptake. The use of agroforestry tree species helped improve livelihoods because farmers obtain livestock feed from 
them, they also help serve as windbreaks and reduce damages from wind gusts that would otherwise have caused 
extensive wind damages. The above attributes contribute to the resilience of communities in these watersheds and 
improves livelihoods. For example, one farmer testified that “since the buffer strips were created, we now have more 
water in our reservoir and the fish have now come back and we can fish normally”. 
 
5.2.6 Innovation Platforms 
These initiatives were  successful  and  on-ground  observations  and  results  indicate  a  very  dynamic  and 
functional innovative platform. The IP was existent before the ILWAC project which creates better 
40 Results and Impacts of the Integrated Land and Water Management for Adaptation to Climate Variability and Change (ILWAC) Project: Evaluation Report  
sustainability and longevity beyond the project cycle. Despite the foretold successes, the IP is solely leaning on one 
community leader who steers collective action. This creates doubts for future sustainability in case the innovation 
platform leader was not present in the picture. It was also noted that women participation was not prominent, it was a 
male dominated platform nonetheless, and women contributed to the community collective action and had a central 
role to play in planting of the non-erosive bands. 
 
 
5.2.7 Key Success Stories 
1. Tree seedlings 
The project has constructed a dam which has helped farmers to 
diverse their farming due to availability of irrigation water. One of the 
farmers in the irrigation zones has started a big tree nursery which he 
waters the seedlings with water from the dam. This would not have 
been possible in the villages due to insufficient water. The seedlings 
which are mainly mangoes and baobab 
trees due to the semi-arid setting of the area have enhanced fruit production, income levels and food security 
for the farmer and the community at large. The sale of the seedlings has promoted Agroforestry for other 
small scale farmers near the watershed reducing soil erosion. In addition      to this great achievement, the 
project enabled establishment of a departmental nursery which produced 23,280 plants distributed among 12 
species in 2014.The project also trained farmers    on environmental conservation and management. Last but 
not least, three Masters’ students were successfully sponsored by the project challenges encountered. 
2. Anti-erosive hedgerow (5 km) along reservoir banks and watershed for soil and water conservation 
An  anti-erosive  hedgerow   comprising   trees   and   shrubs was 
constructed along the dam to protect it from reduce sedimentation, soil 
erosion and siltation. The hedgerow provides shelter for grazing 
livestock and also act as a habitat for Small mammals, insects, 
butterflies, plants and birds increasing the biodiversity score along the 
watershed. The hedgerow led to an increase of water yield in the dam 
by an average of 56%. Additionally, sedimentation and surface runoff 
were reduced by 61% and 25% respectively. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
5.2.8 Challenges Encountered 
1. Inability of some community members to follow the bylaws set up on the Boura platform. The Boura platform 
clearly designated the reservoir banks and surrounding areas as riparian zones that need to be protected. However, 
since the community has a mixed farming system with livestock, there are existing rules, regulations and bylaws 
that are not respected. The implications of such actions implies that some efforts done towards reservoir restoration 
for improved water management will be compromised and will not provide future sustainability of the resource. 
2. Community conflicts between the Fulani livestock communities and crop growers over crop destruction during the 
rainfed season. 
 
5.2.9 Lessons Learnt and Opportunities for Future Action 
1. For sustainable maintenance of the water basin, there should be good collaboration between the stakeholders of the 
platform and future project implementers. 
2. Sharing of experiences and good adaptation practices to climate change was a key pathway towards scaling CSA 
technologies. 
3. Use of bottom up approach to understand the needs and priorities of local people was one of the key success for the 
project. 
41 Results and Impacts of the Integrated Land and Water Management for Adaptation to Climate Variability and Change (ILWAC) Project: Evaluation Report  
CHAPTER 6: 
Impact Assessment of APESS – Burkina Faso 
6.1 Project Implementation 
The APESS project aimed at improving the livelihoods of pastoralist communities through access to pota- ble water 
and energy, and preservation of their production environment. The project was in Burkina Faso, Cameroon, Chad, 
Mali, Niger, and Senegal. This evaluation assessment concentrated on Burkina Faso. The projects delivered 90 biogas 
units, 54 boreholes, 40 tricycles, and 26 units of solar powered refrigerators to 36,400 beneficiaries, 52 percent 
(19,248) of women. 
 
6.2 Project Evaluation 
The project evaluation was focused on Burkina Faso in the Southern portion in Banfora and another location in the 
northern portion as depicted in Figure 19. The total number of households surveyed during the eval- uation was 174 
(80 Control and 94 treatment). The land is characterized by grassland cover and cultivation (Figure 19). 
 
 
FIGURE 19: Location of surveyed households in blue are treatment households and matching control households in red. 
 
6.2.1 Gender Dynamics 
Women and girls in the study villages benefitted from the ILWAC’s project interventions through numerous avenues. 
Particularly, they benefitted from the construction of 80 biogas digesters and drilling of 50 wells in the study villages. 
With the construction of biogas digesters, women and girls were able to save time and labour they used to spend for 
collecting firewood. Discussions with key informants indicated, with the time they save, women were able to spend 
more time on productive activities (such as agriculture). Also, freed time enhances school attendance of girls. 
Construction of bio digesters also enabled communities to keep their environment clean and reduce deforestation. 
 
42 Results and Impacts of the Integrated Land and Water Management for Adaptation to Climate Variability and Change (ILWAC) Project: Evaluation Report  
Drilling of 50 wells in the study villages increased access to water for multiple services (irrigation, livestock watering 
and domestic uses). Increased access to water helped women to save time and labour they need to collect water. This 
allowed them to have more time for capacity development and for other productive activities such as literacy classes, 
and village saving and credit associations. With increased access to water, men and women beneficiaries were also able 
to grow fodder and water their livestock easily that improved their livestock and dairy productions. However, 
ILWAC’s intervention to benefit women in this regard was challenged by poor post-milking handling (hygiene 
practices), limited access to road networks, price volatility, limited capacity to supply milk in dry season, limited 
access to tools and equipment for optimal  production, and limited availability of training opportunities. 
 
6.2.2 Technology Adoption 
Results from the APESS project revealed interesting insights with mixed results. For the most part, the technologies 
that were being promoted were verifiable within the field. However, there was lack of a clear record to track the 
beneficiaries of the project in some areas. The technologies that were being promoted and showed good adoption used 
a unique approach that emphasized on empowerment as opposed to handouts. Communities were taught how to drill 
wells for water access, how to construct bio-digesters, and showed how to form a milk platform for the Banfora region. 
In addition, communities were taught mechanisms for soil erosion control and water conservation with stone bunds, 
half-moon, zai, and re-afforestation. FGD results rated technology adoption at an average of 65% which is quite 
impressive. 
 
6.2.3 Project Impact against Performance Indicators 
Farmers noted an improved livelihood base as a result of the Banfora milk platform. The provision of 3 tricycles, 2 glass 
refrigerators, 3 solar freezers for the storage of milk, small milk collection equipment as well as 6 carts for hay 
transport and milk collection to the Banfora milk platform, the milk value chain has been improved substantially. This 
helped women to stay in their camp and have collectors pick up their milk on site. In the past, women used to travel 
long distances (from 7am to 4pm) to sell curdled milk door to door. The linkage of women farmers to markets allowed 
for improved finances through provision of tricycles that reduced time to access markets. These improvements in the 
milk value chain contribute to women empowerment, as women are now able to better manage the milk and have full 
control over income from the milk sales. With income from selling milk, women are able to cover costs such as school 
fees for children, health and clothing. The provision of wells provided water sources closer to the animals and this 
reduced animal thefts while allowing them to gain weight since they were walking less distances. 
 
6.2.4 Promising/Potential Climate-Resilient Technologies for Scaling-Up 
The capacity to innovate has also been increased because community members are working towards having solar 
pumps on the wells. Natural resources management among community members has allowed for mechanisms which 
help control soil erosion and increase water conservation with stone bunds, half- moon, zai, and re-afforestation. Use 
of improved crop varieties that are drought resistant, short maturation, and nutritive serve to climate proof 
communities in Banfora that are working in the crop enterprise. 
 
6.2.5 Innovation Platforms 
The project aimed to empower women and youth representation in the project through various technologies. These 
innovations were being mainstreamed through the community platform. For example the provision of tricycles, bio-
digesters and wells. The community is aspiring to multiply the number of wells and bio- digesters. This is only 
possible because of the existence of community champions that were trained as local artisans to support the 
communities in self-sustaining mechanisms for the technologies that ILWAC was promoting. The Banfora platform is 
working towards sensitizing the communities on the rights of pastoralists and bye-laws for co-existence with crop 
farmers towards managing common pool resources. To this effect, pastoral zones have been created to reduce conflicts 
and enhance community cohesiveness. 
43 Results and Impacts of the Integrated Land and Water Management for Adaptation to Climate Variability and Change (ILWAC) Project: Evaluation Report  
 
6.2.6 Key Success Stories 
1. Water points were put in place by the 
project which improved access for both 
humans and livestock. 
2. Bio-digesters reduced pressure over natural 
resources and provided organic manure. 
3. The innovation platforms supported better 
access to markets for the farmers. There 
was also information sharing and cross 
learning between the two projects in 
Burkina Faso which was facilitated by the 
IPs. 
4. The project established milk collection 
points allowing women to  sell  closer to 
their homes which also reduced disputes in 
the households among spouses. 
 
 
6.2.7 Challenges Encountered 
1. The poor road network, poor milk hygiene practices, poor milk collection equipment are some of the key 
challenges affecting the milk value chain. 
2. Pastoralism is limiting the amount of milk available for collection especially during the dry season when animals 
migrate. 
3. The IPs facilitated the increase of milk prices from approximately 0.2 to 0.5 USD per kilogram, however 
harmonization of price remains a challenge. 
4. Lack of adequate training opportunities for cattle keepers. 
 
6.2.8 Key Lessons Learnt 
1. Although the project promoted labor-saving technologies that reduced the domestic workload of women in project 
sites, the aspect of community dependence on aid projects is very strong because community members are still 
waiting for another project to come and address their problems. This is not sustainable and keeps people dependent 
on external help all the time. 
2. The APESS model for reduced human footprint on the environment needs to be replicated to a wider geographical 
area in the Sahel considering that these are very vulnerable environments. 
3. Benefits within ILWAC households were variable by gender regarding the use of various technologies (borehole, 
tricycle, irrigation equipment, biogas units and solar powered generators). On the overall, there was about 1% to 
22% differences in numbers of individuals who make decision on the use of technologies between men and 
women respectively. 
44 Results and Impacts of the Integrated Land and Water Management for Adaptation to Climate Variability and Change (ILWAC) Project: Evaluation Report  
CHAPTER 7: 
Impact Assessment of Improvement of Water Resources for 
Women Vegetable Growers – Gambia 
7.1 Project Implementation 
The National Agricultural Research Institute (NARI) in collaboration with the international Centre for Bio-saline 
Agriculture (ICBA) implemented a 4 year project on “Integrated Crop and Seed Production Systems Under 
Water/Irrigation Management in Sub-Saharan Africa” supported by Islamic Development Bank (IDB). This project 
supported 3 villages in West Coast Region (WCR) of The Gambia. Gambia ILWAC project; therefore, built on the 
gains of the bio-saline Project which ended but communities were in need of boreholes, solar panels, fencing of the 
gardens, watering cans, and submersible pumps. Thus with this opportunity, the ILWAC project aimed at reaching out to 
women vegetable growers in three villages. These were Pirang, Sanyang and Ndemban. It aimed at providing 
irrigation equipment such as solar power pumps and panels, watering cans; vegetable seeds, fencing materials and a 
modern steel gate. Farmers grew rice in rainy season. For the study sites, most of the eastern and western areas are 
covered by grass and shrubs dotted by farmlands (Figure 20). 
 
7.2 Project Evaluation 
For impact evaluation, the following villages in Table 8 were selected. 
 
Table 8: Control and treatment villages and households surveyed in Gambia 
 
VILLAGE CONTROL/TREATMENT SELECTED SAMPLE 
Sanyang Treatment 30 
Ndemban Treatment 30 
Pirang Treatment 41 
Sohm Control 49 
Lamin Control 50 
45 Results and Impacts of the Integrated Land and Water Management for Adaptation to Climate Variability and Change (ILWAC) Project: Evaluation Report  
The areas of project intervention are shown in the following map: 
 
 
 
FIGURE 20: Location of surveyed households (treatment and control) sites mapped in the shaded circles.. 
 
7.2.1 Gender Dynamics 
In order to address the issue of water scarcity across the three sites in Gambia, the project maintained 15 wells, drilled 
1 borehole, constructed 9 reservoirs, maintained 8 reservoirs and established 20 stand pipes. With these interventions: 
1. More than 85 percent of women from the 3 sites were able to get better access to water for irrigation,  livestock 
watering and domestic use. Before the ILWAC project, women used to travel long distances and spend about 10 
hours or more with their buckets to scoop water from reservoirs and water their plots. This required a lot of time and 
energy that some women quit the garden work. However, with improvement in access to water, they were able to 
reduce the number of hours for accessing water to 4-5 hours. 
2. There were also areas that were not cultivated, due to scarcity of water. However, the construction of  reservoirs 
led to increase in access to water for irrigation and hence reduced drudgery, increases in yield, increased area under 
vegetable cultivation and ultimately an increase in income was realized. Regarding increase in area of cultivation, 
for example in Sanyang, only 7ha of land was in use but now the full land for cultivation 11 ha is put to use. In 
Pirang, prior to the intervention only 4ha was used for cultivation and after the intervention 7ha was put to use. In 
the case of increase in yield, though it varies from location to location, in the location where a borehole was 
drilled, pre-borehole construction they used to harvest 1 bag and after the intervention, it has increased to 3 bags. 
With increased access to water, women were also able to save time and energy needed for collecting water for 
domestic uses. 
3. Women project beneficiaries indicated participating in the project has helped them to have increased access to 
resources and services (such as: water supply and distribution system, seeds, fertilizers, garden equipment, fencing 
materials, and trainings on production and business) that helped them to: 
 
46 Results and Impacts of the Integrated Land and Water Management for Adaptation to Climate Variability and Change (ILWAC) Project: Evaluation Report  
• Invest in farming through adoption of improved technologies; 
• Attain increased yields; and 
• Engage in decision-making at home and community level thus advancing their voice in society. For example, 
women have control over income from selling vegetables, and 95 percent of the income goes back to cover 
household expenses. Control over income provides women with the opportunity to contribute to family 
economic status and to exercise power regarding the use of income. 
 
4. Women beneficiaries, who are members and/or leaders of innovation platforms benefitted from the opportunities 
for networking, learning, sharing, social support and opportunities to exercise leadership. 
 
The critical gender-related constraints that were pointed out during this study: 
1. There is huge unmet demand for resources such as water supply and distribution systems, inputs such as fertilizer 
and improved seed varieties. 
2. In relation to access to resources and services, women reported they have limited access to storage and 
preservation facilities to keep their produce until prices were good for them. 
3. Regarding social support, women beneficiaries make monthly contributions to pay for a night watchman. However, 
theft of the solar panels installed by the project was still eminent and it was reported that this led the women to use 
buckets for watering their plots. 
 
7.2.2 Technology Adoption 
The Project in Gambia revealed numerous deliverables from the women vegetable project although some project 
promotions that did not really auger well with the farmers. For example, farmers had their traditional crops that were 
preferred over improved varieties such as sorrel. In addition, water use efficiency was only partially achieved in some 
gardens were ILWAC was but was dis-adopted by some farmers. This could have a cultural inclination were farmers felt 
that the drip lines were not wetting the soil enough for the plants to get sufficient water. This would thus require more 
piloting efforts for demonstrating the value of the technology coupled with capacity building and sensitization. The 
technologies that were successfully adopted included use of improved vegetable varieties although some vegetables 
were already in use by some farmers. The project promoted drip irrigation and this was adopted by some farmers for 
its water saving advantages. 
 
7.2.3 Project Impact against Performance Indicators 
Overall farm productivity increased especially during the off-season duration, this was coupled with efficiency 
improvements (30% increase) from the drip irrigation technology. This in turn led to livelihood improvements for 
women farmers. Acreage cultivated under irrigation varied with season and crop in interest but showed a 32% increase 
in acreage, water use efficiency partially achieved in some gardens but generally dis-adopted by some farmers. The 
Number of improved water points rehabilitated was exceeded by 30% while the number of technologies and/or 
innovations demonstrated was surpassed by 43% ad currently there are 1,700 beneficiaries who are applying water 
management strategies. However, farmers have their traditional crops that are preferred over improved varieties such 
as sorrel. 
 
7.2.4 Promising/Potential Climate-Resilient Technologies for Scaling-Up 
As water scarcity in the Sahel increases, inevitably the efficiency of water use will have to increase double fold to 
compensate for water losses and ensure that associated sots of water delivery to plants remains economically viable. 
Therefore, the climate-resilient practice of drip irrigation will need to be scaled in the region but a note of caution is 
needed in order to: 
• Ensure that farmer sensitization on the benefits of drip irrigation are clearly demonstrated 
• Backup mechanisms for irrigation parts such as nozzles, drip lines and affordable water pumps 
• Ensuring that local artisans in the target area are built with the capacity to troubleshoot unforeseen problems e.g. 
nozzle blockages and low pressure delivery. 
47 Results and Impacts of the Integrated Land and Water Management for Adaptation to Climate Variability and Change (ILWAC) Project: Evaluation Report  
7.2.5 Innovation Platforms 
The farmers were already in IPs when this project was launched and were already actively involved in growing 
vegetables such as onions, tomatoes, cabbages, carrots, okra, sorrel and nuts such as groundnuts. The IP is still existent 
but it clearly needs capacity building to demonstrate the benefits of water use efficiency otherwise dis- adoption of the 
technology will be rampant. More importantly, there is need to conduct further discussions with the farmers on reasons 
for their dis-adoption of some of the technologies. 
 
 
 
7.2.6 Key Success Stories 
Gambia is one of the Sahel regions that has experienced climate 
change and extreme weather variations that affect smallholder 
agriculture. Despite having one of the largest freshwater rivers (the 
river Gambia), water is still scarce and irrigation is low. However, 
through ILWAC support for women vegetable growers in Pirang, 
Ndemban and Sanyang villages, water use efficiency was targeted. 
 
Previously, women used to draw water from very deep wells due to 
low water tables but ILWAC intervened by rehabilitating the wells 
that could be connected to the pipes (drip irrigation) through solar 
power. Solar power was built by ILWAC  funds and farmers reported 
tremendous success in terms of water use efficiency and reduced 
drudgery. 
 
Therefore, ILWAC fenced part of the gardens in these three 
intervention areas to control the livestock. This has been a success as 
reported by the respondents. Further, the women used local methods 
to dispel animals especially goats from the fields by spraying animal 
dung on the crops and the use of ash to control pests and diseases. 
Women reported higher yields for the vegetables thus earned better 
incomes. Investments like efficient irrigation systems present the 
opportunity of improving vegetables productivity particularly by 
increasing the area under production, which is less than one percent of 
the total agriculture area. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
FIGURE 21: Top (Irrigation- 
traditional method), bottom (drip 
irrigation). 
 
 
 
7.2.7 Challenges Encountered 
The mixed results of dis-adoption, sustainability and scaling up 
Even though ILWAC provided these tools and equipment for the smallholder women farmers in the gardens, there were 
observable gaps in terms of technology adoption and technical malfunctions in the system i.e. water use efficiency. 
Solar system and storage tanks put in place were inadequate to supply water to the  gardens and these forced women to 
fall back to carrying water in buckets and pour on plants as indicated in the picture below. Besides, farmers viewed the 
technology as wasting their time (drip method) as they consider them slow compared to carrying water with buckets. 
The women perceive fields that are not flooded not to be well watered. There was also the challenge of theft of some 
of the solar panels provided by the project. 
 
Some other challenges include: 
1. Limited access to resources — though ILWAC provided access to technologies, there are still unmet demands. 
Specifically, there is limited availability of the water supply and distribution system, inadequate inputs- seeds and 
fertilizer- to meet demand; 
48 Results and Impacts of the Integrated Land and Water Management for Adaptation to Climate Variability and Change (ILWAC) Project: Evaluation Report  
2. Market glut and lack of storage facilities — Women sell their produce: i) at farm gate, ii) some in the community 
market, and iii) some to middlemen/middle women who are either from the community      or elsewhere and 
transport to larger markets. Issues women have in relation to marketing are price fluctuation and limited access to 
storage facilities to keep their produce until prices improve; 
3. Theft of the solar panels installed by the project has led the women to use buckets for watering their plots, and 
4. Poor quality fences — The chain link fence expands when the sun is very hot and has led to intrusion of farms by 
animals. 
 
Women farmers deal with another challenge: destruction of crops by livestock. In Gambia, livestock are   left roaming 
in community lands and this is supported by community beliefs and traditions that date back centuries ago. However, 
this has been injurious to women as the plants are destroyed and there is no compensation. 
 
After ILWAC project ended, some of the project beneficiaries dis-adopted the technologies. The main reasons for dis-
adoption included the wear and tear of the pipes and limited awareness of water use efficiency. The gardens were 
flooded with water despite being scarce and it took women an average of 3—8 hours a day to irrigate their small farms. 
Since the benefits outweighed the cost, drip irrigation needs to be re-established and the pipes refurbished. In Pirang, 
there were reports of stolen solar cells that stagnated pumping of water. In addition, trainings in the innovation 
platforms resulted in better use of climate smart agricultural practices such as minimum tillage and use of polythenes 
to cover soils and reduce growth of weeds. These practices need scaling up to reduce the workload for women who 
spend most of their days weeding the crops. Besides, new practices of weed control are still needed since there are some 
type of grass weeds in the gardens that are extremely difficult to control. 
 
7.2.8 Key Lessons Learnt 
Generally, sustainability needs to be taken into consideration during project rollout. This means participatory 
approaches and engagement of local leadership is paramount. Besides, training on water use efficiency needs to be 
conducted and should involve an inter-agency committee. Main challenges in adoption of drip irrigation in Gambia 
were related to water storage problems and limited awareness of the benefits of the technology. There were issues, to a 
lesser extent, in the availability of adequate water during drought. Further sensitization of the farmers on benefits of 
the technology for saving labor and time, improved water use efficiency, and responses to water storage problems 
could be beneficial. 
49 Results and Impacts of the Integrated Land and Water Management for Adaptation to Climate Variability and Change (ILWAC) Project: Evaluation Report  
CHAPTER 8: 
Impact Assessment of Sustainable Soil-Water-Nutrient 
Management – Nigeria 
8.1 Project Implementation 
The Institute of Agricultural Research and Training (IAR&T) implemented the project with an objective to promote 
sustainable management of soil fertility and water resources in the context of climate change. Vul- nerability from 
climate change, poor soils, poverty levels and water constraints was the basis for selection of project sites. The project 
used innovation platforms for engagement of stakeholders and in decision-making. A diagnosis study was implemented 
which informed the selection of technologies followed by validation by the IPs. Technologies promoted are tube wells, 
check dams, water pans, improved maize seed, fertilizer, and small agricultural tools (machetes).Village chiefs 
identified the beneficiaries who included women and youth, and distributed the small agricultural tools and inputs. 
 
8.2 Project Evaluation 
This study surveyed four villages across three local government authority (LGA) for the treatment sites, which were the 
beneficiaries of the ILWAC project in 2013: Apete/Onidoko and Bakatari /Araromi Idowu villages in Iddo LGA, 
Aborisade in Ibarapa East LGA, and Kisi in Irepo LGA. Selected control villages were Elere and Oloya villages in 
Iddo LGA, Oniyo in Oriire LGA and Igbeti in Olorunsogo LGA. In each of the locations (both the treatment and 
control villages) depicted in Figure 22, we carried out two focus group discussions, two key informants’ interviews 
and two Innovation Platform interviews. The study area is amid cultivated land, forest, grassland and shrubland land 
use/cover types. 
 
 
FIGURE 22: Location of surveyed households: North, East and South of Oyo in Nigeria showing control and treatment sites. 
50 Results and Impacts of the Integrated Land and Water Management for Adaptation to Climate Variability and Change (ILWAC) Project: Evaluation Report  
 
FIGURE 23: A water pan constructed in Kisi village, Nigeria by the ILWAC project 
 
8.2.1. Gender Dynamics 
One of the benefits of participating in the ILWAC  project in Nigeria was that men and women beneficiaries   were able to 
save on labor and time. FGD and KIIs indicated that during the heavy rain season, farmers in the study villages experienced 
high infestation of pests on crops, and mitigating this risk required huge amounts of money and labor resources. Since most 
farmers had inadequate finance, men and women farmers were forced to engage in hand picking of pests to avoid extensive 
damage. This added workload on women, as they were already overburdened with domestic chores and farm work. 
According to a key informant that was interviewed, women carry out 70—80 percent of the farm work. Specifically, women 
participate in all other activities including planting, weeding, harvesting, marketing and others, except in bush clearing. Thus, 
the provision of technologies (such as pesticides, herbicides, and fertilizers); and trainings on agronomic practices (including 
the proper use of pesticides) to control pest attacks helped men and women farmers to save time and labor they used to 
spend on hand picking of pests. 
 
With the construction of check dams that can store up to 5000 m3 water, women were able to save labor and time which was 
previously spent on collecting water. According to key informants, women used to travel 5—10kms to collect water, and 
with the construction of check dams in their areas, they now travel from 0.5—1 kms only. Further, they were able to grow 
vegetables such as tomato, okra, onion and others in dry season. Increased access to water also strengthened the social 
cohesion in the study villages. Water was found to be the major resources causing conflicts within communities (farmers) 
due to inadequate water supply which has been solved to some extent by digging more wells for the farmers so as to ease 
their work especially those involved in oil palm production and also to be able to get water during the dry season. 
 
By participating in innovation platforms, men and women beneficiaries were able to have better access to farm inputs and 
trainings that were provided by the ILWAC project. In addition, women beneficiaries indicated through active participation in 
the project, they developed a sense of belonging in the development agenda of the community. 
 
Efforts were conducted to purposefully enhance participation of women 
farmers in the project, especially in Northern Nigeria because  in the study 
villages men and women do not mix due to cultural and religious reasons, 
women have limited awareness about the benefits of participating in innovation 
platforms and some women were reluctant to participate due to failed past 
promises by some development agents. There are also women farmers who are 
currently actively engaged in leadership positions on the innovation platforms. 
In most cases, women have roles of treasurer, because they are perceived as 
trustworthy. 
 
8.2.2 Technology Adoption 
The project on sustainable soil-water-nutrient management under increasing climatic change and variability deployed 
improved soil and water management technologies that helped mitigate the impact of climatic variability in Nigeria. 
The promised deliverables were met among which included 5 soil-water-nutrient management techniques which were 
promoted. Technologies being promoted were check dams and tube well construction for improved water 
management. In total 5 soil-water-nutrient management techniques identified and promoted. 
 
“We now channel our 
observations and challenges 
seen in the farm through the 
existing innovation platform 
because we also benefited 
from the inputs distributed 
from the platform… 
51 Results and Impacts of the Integrated Land and Water Management for Adaptation to Climate Variability and Change (ILWAC) Project: Evaluation Report  
8.2.3 Project Impact against Performance Indicators 
There was increased farm productivity as a result of improved water use management practices. The performance 
indicator of number of technologies and/or innovations demonstrated was met because 5 soil- water-nutrient 
management techniques were promoted and adopted. In addition, the number of beneficiaries who have applied/used 
improved technologies promoted by/made available under the project was achieved in that there was improved 
knowledge and skills of key actors in soil-water-nutrient management. 
 
8.2.4 Promising/Potential Climate-Resilient Technologies for Scaling-Up 
There were soil-water-nutrient management techniques that were being promoted. 6 Check dams (1000 
—5000m3); 2 water pans and 48 tube wells were constructed for dry season farming leading to increase in water 
utilization for crop production by 20% and access of livestock for nomads to water by 5%. 
8.2.5 Innovation Platforms 
There was a sustainable partnership for innovations in soil and water management that was established.  This led to 
improved knowledge and skill of key actors in soil-water-nutrient management. The use of innovation platforms in 
conducting high impact research is important especially towards upscaling of agricultural technologies and technology 
dissemination. There was an identified need to empower women in the agricultural value chain and a need for effective 
networking and building of vibrant research networks by Africa institutions, to address common challenges in 
agricultural and national development. 
 
 
 
8.2.6 Key Success Stories 
1. Stakeholder engagement and ownership 
The project adopted innovative and extensive efforts of engaging various stakeholders from the national to 
local level. These included research organizations, federal ministry of agriculture, Agricultural Development 
Project (ADP) officials, NGOs, local government authority (LGA), regional and local leaders (e.g. kings, 
chiefs), farmer groups, and community members. The project for example involved the ADP offices in the 
process of implementation of the structured questionnaires in the communities, and meetings with local 
authorities and actors in the value chains to identify appropriate interventions. The project established new 
platforms but also utilized previously existing IPs present in some of the locations. Local stakeholders were 
engaged in facilitating the IPs. Farmers participated through the invitation by the agricultural development 
council via farmers’ associations. The project enhanced social cohesion in the community and local ownership 
that also benefited farmers who were not direct beneficiaries. For instance, there were reports from participating 
farmers that they have multiplied and shared maize seed with other farmers in the villages. 
 
2. A systematic approach to technology identification 
The project involved a multi-criteria, combining systematic and participatory approaches for the 
situational analysis, before selecting and implementing interventions. 
 
Quantitative and qualitative data through soil sampling, structured questionnaires and focus groups was 
adopted in the project. The project capitalized on synergies with the Africa Soil Information Service (AFSIS) 
project, implemented by IAR&T, to conduct soil evaluation studies in the project sites, which also promoted 
capacity building of researchers and technicians involved in this activity. A collaboration with the Nigerian 
meteorology agency supported analysis of historic climate data over 15 years. The processes influenced the 
selection of project interventions. Focus group discussions with farmers established that the maize seed had 
desirable traits, specifically, good yield, pest resistance, with desirable cultural attributes (sweet taste) and 
market traits. The water technologies promoted also helped to mitigate conflict between livestock and crop 
farmers and support dry season farming, in addition to improving access to water and being less labor intensive 
as compared to the traditional wells. The IPs facilitated information sharing and understanding within the 
group. 
52 Results and Impacts of the Integrated Land and Water Management for Adaptation to Climate Variability and Change (ILWAC) Project: Evaluation Report  
8.2.7 Challenges Encountered 
1. Stakeholders interviewed reported that there was low representation of women in IP meetings and activities, which 
may in certain locations, been due to the wider cultural context, such as men and women not freely interacting. 
Efforts to promote women participation and representation are therefore necessary for consideration in the IP. The 
use of a gender lens to critically look at the design, implementation, key constraints and resulting outcomes of the 
IP can help to address some of these challenges. Nevertheless, gender and cultural norms are usually deeply 
entrenched so transforming them can be slow and not easily achieved using the platforms alone and within the 
short time frame of a project. Participation of women is higher in women dominated IPs. For example, from the 
IPs in the study villages participation of women was higher in IP that work on progress of Islamic religion. Factors 
that contributed to limited participation of women in most of the IPs include i) social and cultural norms – women 
are not welcomed to attend meetings, ii) women have limited access to information about IPs and the benefits of 
actively participating in IPs. Thus they are reluctant to attend, iii) poor perceptions about values of participation 
– due to failed past promises by some development agents that discouraged some women from participating. 
Limited participation of women in IPs could be translated to limited access to resources (such as loan, farm 
technologies such as improved seeds, markets and others) and services such as trainings that could reinforce the 
existing gender inequality. 
 
2. The project implementers applied some resource intensive approaches for the soil sampling and analysis. 
Communities need to be made aware of the information products resulting from these processes and involved in 
the co-creation of soil and landscape interventions based on the soil analyses. It was not clear how results from the 
soil analyses influenced the revision of interventions promoted. The project supported water availability after the 
rains for an additional period of up to three months. Limited irrigation facilities have constrained the use of the 
harvested water for dry season farming and the number of farmers who can benefit. We observed the use of check 
dams in the dry season, mainly as a source of water for domestic purposes, for example washing of household 
utensils, laundry and in some cases as drinking points by animals. It was reported that one of the check dams failed 
because the terrain was not appropriate. We did not establish the scaling out of the technologies by the state, local 
governments as well as farmer groups and individuals, envisioned to happen after the lapse of the project. 
 
8.2.8 Key Lessons Learnt 
1. Designing context – appropriate interventions is required as part of an integrated climate adaptation and resilience 
program. A mixed method approach employing qualitative and quantitative tools can effectively support this 
process. The project benefited from having an interdisciplinary research team (soil scientists, social scientists, 
hydrologists and water resources engineers) to evaluate the complex issues affecting climate resilience in the 
agricultural system. 
 
2. There is value in investing in building and maintaining effective networks and partnerships to achieve success in 
projects. It is important to build linkages, and support for projects with both national, subnational and local level 
governance structures. 
 
3. Social and cultural factors are key but complex elements to consider in the process of empowerment   in the 
agricultural value chain especially because they play a critical role at the community level. It is important to 
develop cultural awareness, for example, understanding the place of religion, traditions and political structures. The 
steps and efforts invested by the project implementers to effectively facilitate and manage this process is often 
underestimated. 
 
4. An integrated approach involving the provision of inputs and water management resources enabled  farmers to 
make maximum use of the productive lands. 
53 Results and Impacts of the Integrated Land and Water Management for Adaptation to Climate Variability and Change (ILWAC) Project: Evaluation Report  
CHAPTER 9: 
Impact Assessment of ENRACCA-WA – Senegal 
9.1 Project Implementation 
The ENRACCA project was conducted in 3 countries, Ghana, Mali and Senegal. The focus of the study was to 
enhance the resilience and adaptive capacity to climate change through integrated land, water, and nutrient 
management in semi-arid West Africa. The project aimed to promote and enhance the capacity of farmers to better 
envision their site-specific agricultural future outlook through the CCAFS “Farms of the Future” project. The project 
objectives were to: i) facilitate access of key stakeholders to appropriate climate information; ii) enhance the capacity 
of key stakeholders, including farmers, actors in priority value chains, and researchers; and improve their access to 
diverse innovations in improved management of soil and water in target countries. 
 
9.2 Project Evaluation 
The project used innovation platforms as an entry point and these platforms provided a framework for sharing knowledge 
on adaptation innovations to climate change among their members. The project disseminated a wide range of 
technologies to farmers and these technologies included improved maize and rice varieties, micro- dose fertilizer, 
weed control practices, improved storage techniques, assisted natural regeneration (ANR), secured farm enclosure and 
improved fruits trees, and training on the use of weather information. For purposes of the ILWAC evaluation study, the 
work was conducted in Senegal in both treatment and control villages as depicted in Figure 24. Predominantly, the 
western portion of the study area in Senegal is covered by grassland with some cultivated patches. The east is highly 
cultivated with patches of shrubland (east of Daga Bani and south of Mbollop). 
 
 
 
FIGURE 24: ILWAC Senegal sites sampled during the evaluation study depicting both control and treatment areas with inset 
maps blown up to represent Mbakei and Mbollop. Sites to the West are near Fattick while sites to the East are in close proximity to 
Kaffrine. 
 
54 Results and Impacts of the Integrated Land and Water Management for Adaptation to Climate Variability and Change (ILWAC) Project: Evaluation Report  
9.2.1 Gender Dynamics 
With the provision of 17 solar panels by the ILWAC project, communities in Daga Biram village were able to have 
better access to water through a submersible pump. As a result, participation of women in off season vegetable 
irrigation (especially in production of Okra) increased. With increased participation in dry season farming, women 
were able to improve their livelihoods and income. According to key informants, prices of vegetable such as Okra are 
three times higher during the dry season than the prices in the rainy season. Although women can benefit from these 
opportunities, their success is challenged by limited access to markets. For example, women in Kaffrine travel up to 20 
kms or 2—3 hours to access markets or urban areas. Limited access to markets coupled with the perishable nature of 
vegetables leads to post harvest losses and exposes some farmers to middlemen who may take advantage of their plight 
by offering unfavorable prices at the farm gate. 
 
9.2.2 Technology Adoption 
The technologies that were being promoted included farmers use of improved maize, millet and rice varieties, 
agroforestry tree species and farmers use climate information in agronomic decision making. Additionally dry season 
vegetable farming by women groups was promoted. 
 
9.2.3 Project Impact against Performance Indicators 
Results from ENRACCA-WA indicated that for Senegal, the beneficiaries were able to access climate information and 
improve their soil and water management skills. In addition, responses form FGDs revealed that the climate 
information services were available throughout the crop production cycle in the rainfed season. The access to climate-
related information was important towards improved decision making in smallholder agricultural activities especially 
in relation to the timing of planting, application of fertilizers, supplemental irrigation needs and for optimal timing of 
harvest. Of the 308 beneficiaries in the project, 145 were male and 163 were female. There was no direct or deliberate 
effort to engage the youth in the promoted activities. 
 
9.2.4 Promising/Potential Climate-Resilient Technologies for Scaling-Up 
Farmers were able to use improved millet varieties and obtained 10 fold increase in yield. The use of the variety is climate 
smart as it is able to avert drought stress due to its shorter growth duration without compromising biomass and its 
drought tolerance characteristics. Farmers were also able to obtain 3 fold increase in market price for the dry season 
vegetable cultivation compared to when vegetables were grown in the normal rain season. Farmers indicated a rise in 
adoption of agroforestry tree species as a climate buffer mechanism. 
 
9.2.5 Innovation Platforms 
Farmers belong to an innovation platform that allows them to access inputs, and the formation of women groups 
improves their purchasing power, shared labor opportunities and acts as a social safety net. The women group has 
gained momentum and serves as a successful pilot for dissemination where other women learn from. 
55 Results and Impacts of the Integrated Land and Water Management for Adaptation to Climate Variability and Change (ILWAC) Project: Evaluation Report  
 
9.2.6 Key Success Stories (Daga Biram: Climate Smart Village) 
The work in Senegal involved numerous success stories but encountered some challenges. The three success 
stories identified during the evaluation include but are not limited to: 
 
1. Community seed multiplication enterprise (seeds of gold, seeds of hope): 
The ILWAC Project served as a 
complementarylinktoinitiativesconducted 
through CCAFS in the climate smart village of 
Daga Biram. The staple crop grown in Daga 
Biram is millet, considering that the area is 
located in a drought-prone zone. The ILWAC 
project provided an improved millet variety that 
is tolerant to drought and is early maturing 
Pennisetum glaucum  (L.) 
R. Br.). The millet variety yielded 10 times 
more grain and four times more biomass than 
the conventional maize variety hence providing 
more dry matter residue. Hence 
these seeds serve as a gold mine for farmers and 
have rejuvenated hope for increased 
productivity and income in an otherwise 
vulnerable environment. (Figure 25). 
FIGURE 25: Seeds of gold, seeds of hope: Farmer 
demonstrates community seed multiplication hub in Daga 
Biram in Kaffrine (Senegal) with improved variety of drought 
tolerant and quick maturing millet. 
 
2. Women empowerment with off-season vegetable irrigation mechanisms: 
Women in  the  Daga  Biram  community are 
accessing water for  irrigation  through a 
submersible pump that  provides  water  at a 
time when the market demand for vegetables is 
appreciably high. The 17 panel set provides 
water resources for a woman group which 
fetches a price 3 times 
higher than the price of vegetables during in the 
rain season. (Figure 26). 
FIGURE 26: Display of an assemblage of 17 solar panels 
that provides power to a submersible pump for out of season 
vegetable cultivation. 
 
3. System resilience and community enterprise diversification with agroforestry tree species: 
Agroforestry tree species were further promoted 
by ILWAC and these are helping to act as 
windbreaks, they modify the micro-climate of 
the area that enhances crop production, the trees 
reduce raindrop impact and erosion, and foster 
food security and revenue generation within the 
community. (Figure 27) 
 
FIGURE 27: Agro-forestry stand with various multi- 
purpose species for fuel wood, soil structure and fertility, 
feed/fodder for livestock and human food. 
56 Results and Impacts of the Integrated Land and Water Management for Adaptation to Climate Variability and Change (ILWAC) Project: Evaluation Report  
9.2.7 Challenges Encountered 
1. Lack of ownership, system servicing for sustainability and maintenance: 
Although there has been substantial effort in providing water resources through an irrigation initiative backed up with a 
solar system for water pumping, there is lack of community empowerment towards operation and maintenance of the 
solar system. Field visits indicated that the solar system was non-operational for about 8 weeks as a result of a 
dysfunctional component on the solar panel circuitry. This has been vandalized but required a simple and cheap 
replacement for it to regain functionality. This would require training of local community representatives to act as a 
backup for the irrigation system. This would create a sense of ownership and promote sustainability of the innovation. 
 
2. Limited diversification of the farming enterprise: 
The reliance on Okra as a dry season vegetable may increase exposure to risk or lock people into a livelihood pattern 
within which adaptation is difficult. Therefore the type of farming enterprise in relation to local context may be the 
critical factor to ensure resilience within these vulnerable zones. Nonetheless, this serves as a way of diversification 
because it occupies women during the dry season. 
 
3. Lack of reliable market for agricultural outputs: 
The distance to the market base in Kaffrine is about 20 kms and the dominant form of transport is oxcart. This takes 
about 2-3 hours for the produce to get to the urban area and this constrains vegetable production.  Vegetables are easily 
perishable and will likely involve post-harvest losses due to the long distance to markets. This may expose farmers to 
middlemen who may take advantage of their plight by providing unfavourable prices at the farm gate. 
9.2.8 Key Lessons Learnt 
1. There is an opportunity to train local artisans in order to strengthen the capacity of communities to monitor, maintain 
and operate efficiently the existent irrigation infrastructure. This will offer better avenues for continuity, 
production stability and sustained technology delivery. 
 
2. Strong sense of community leadership and collective action if emulated in surrounding communities could be a 
game-changer to empower other communities and improve their capacity and preparedness for climate change 
through peer to peer learning especially because this is a climate smart village. There is need for exchange visits to 
allow for scaling of viable innovations in the vicinity of Daga Biram. 
 
3. Diversification of the farming enterprise. 
 
4. The reliance on Okra as a dry season vegetable may increase exposure to risk or lock people into a livelihood 
pattern within which adaptation is difficult. Therefore the type of farming enterprise in relation to local context 
may be the critical factor to ensure resilience within these vulnerable zones. 
 
5. Strengthening the role of farmer groups: Farmer groups once strengthened have the potential to bulk produce and 
get better bargaining power on the market, access to credit and improved transportation system. 
57 Results and Impacts of the Integrated Land and Water Management for Adaptation to Climate Variability and Change (ILWAC) Project: Evaluation Report  
CHAPTER 10: 
Impact Assessment of Building the Resilience of Women in Bo 
District in Post Ebola – Sierra Leone 
 
10.1 Project Implementation 
The project was initiated after the Ebola pandemic with the aim to help 1500 women resume normal agricultural 
activities, by adopting best agricultural practices. The project was entitled: Building the resilience of women in Bo 
District in Post-Ebola Sierra Leone. It was selected to focus on women because they were perceived to be the most 
vulnerable in the community. 
 
1. Participation in the project was on voluntary basis. The implementers first organized community hall meetings to 
raise awareness on the project. In some of the sampled villages, community elders also participated in proposing 
beneficiaries to be included in the project. In each project site (village, see Table 10), an executive committee was 
elected for governance and included a chairlady, secretary, and treasurer. Even though women were the main target 
of the project, men also joined making up about 10% of the total beneficiaries. 
 
2. The project focused on generating income activities for women economic empowerment that would also influence 
their decision making power in the households. The main goal was to support the communities resume their 
livelihood activities after Ebola. During Ebola, households discontinued participation in livelihood activities, 
which also resulted in seed losses because of the quarantine measures undertaken. For the reason of short maturity 
period, local market demand, and contribution to household diets, vegetable farming was selected as an appropriate 
intervention. The interventions were similar across all the sites and identified through a community needs 
assessment. They included cooking stoves, latrines, farm tools, wells, vegetable seeds (pepper, okra, cucumber, 
eggplant, tomato and leafy vegetables), and improved fruit trees (coconut, oranges, mango, lime, guava, pear, 
plum). The fruit tree seedlings were sourced from Njala University. A tree was given for each member of the 
group. Farm tools supplied were shovels, hoes, watering cans, pick axles, wheelbarrows, planting lines and 
measuring tapes. Each site received five wheelbarrows, totalling to 25 across the five sites. 
 
3. The communities faced acute water problems and therefore the project constructed seven wells and  helped to 
rehabilitate one additional well to provide water for domestic use and vegetable farming. Before the project, 
women would travel 2 to 3 kilometres to fetch water. The wells provided were: two new wells each in Kalia, 
Mongere and Kaniya; and one well rehabilitated and an additional one constructed in Kpetema. Bunibu is by the 
Sewa River and has good access to water, and was therefore not considered for this intervention. 
 
4. The community provided the land used for the vegetable farming. Staff from the Ministry of Agriculture provided 
training on good agronomic practices such as transplanting, proper ridges, weeding, and pest and disease 
management. Labor was supplied by the farmers based on a food for work model. 
 
5. Psychosocial and hygiene training was also supported by the project to address the stigma associated with Ebola. 
The project also constructed latrines for the community to improve sanitation and health. 
 
10.2 Project Evaluation 
The villages selected were some of the worst hit by the 2014 Ebola pandemic. The list of the five beneficiary villages is 
provided in Figure 28 and Table 9. Much the study area in Sierra Leone lies in a forested area. 
58 Results and Impacts of the Integrated Land and Water Management for Adaptation to Climate Variability and Change (ILWAC) Project: Evaluation Report  
 
 
 
FIGURE 28: Location of treatment and control sites in Sierra Leone. In red are the control households and while the blue dots 
represent treatment households. 
 
Table 9: List of project beneficiaries and surveyed households in Sierra Leone 
 
VILLAGE NAME NUMBER OF BENEFICIARIES NUMBER OF HOUSEHOLDS SURVEYED 
Kalia 100 28 
Mongere 85 16 
Kpetema 120 28 
Kaniya 125 20 
Bunibu 85 13 
Mongere 85 16 
Total 500 105 
 
A hundred and five (105) households were interviewed in six control villages: Behevun, Sembehun, Ngieyehun, 
Belebu, Moyoru and Mowoto. An additional 105 households were interviewed in the treatment making a total of 210 
household surveys. Six focus group discussions and 36 key informant interviews were also conducted. Surveyed 
farmers were selected using a random sampling procedure from a list all farmers who were beneficiaries in the project 
and list of households in the control villages. Key informants interviews and focus group discussions in both the 
treatment and control villages’ were conducted with household representatives, local leaders, agricultural extension 
officers, farmers’ associations, women’s groups, and innovation platform members and religious leaders. We collected 
two levels of data: village-level data and household-level data. The former was collected by focus group discussions 
and interviews with village key informants, while the latter was collected by a structured household survey. 
59 Results and Impacts of the Integrated Land and Water Management for Adaptation to Climate Variability and Change (ILWAC) Project: Evaluation Report  
 
 
FIGURE 29: Interventions promoted by the ILWAC project in Sierra Leone. Top left and right are two different types of wells, 
bottom left is a latrine block and bottom right are some of the agricultural tools. 
 
10.2.1 Gender Dynamics 
According to results from the FGDs and KIIs, women in the ILWAC project in Sierra Leone benefitted from the project in 
the following ways. 
 
1. Women were able to have better access to water for domestic purposes and vegetable farming. FGD  results 
showed that women used to travel 2—3 kms in search of water for domestic purposes and livestock watering but are 
now able to save time and labour. Better access to water also reduced the occurrence of water-related conflicts that 
used to happen on average twice a month during dry season. 
2. With support from the ILWAC project as well as other projects, women beneficiaries were able to have better 
opportunity to participate in vegetable gardening. The ILWAC project helped women to have better access to 
technologies (such as improved fruit trees, vegetable seeds), farm tools, and trainings (focusing on better 
agronomic practices and application of technologies, crop management, and environmental sanitation). In addition 
to the support by ILWAC, with land from the community; extension services from government offered good 
agronomic practices advisories (such as transplanting, proper ridges, weeding, and pest and disease management). 
3. Communities share labor from women within the vegetable growers and are now able to have better chances of 
participating in and benefitting from vegetable cultivation. Women beneficiaries also indicated that in the absence 
of water distribution technologies and irrigation facilities pore-ILWAC, cultivating vegetables during the dry 
season was a very labor intensive activity. 
4. Women beneficiaries also noted that by participating in the ILWAC project, they feel they are empowered socially 
and economically. For example, at the household level, vegetable gardening is predominantly for women and they 
have full control over income from selling vegetable harvests. 
60 Results and Impacts of the Integrated Land and Water Management for Adaptation to Climate Variability and Change (ILWAC) Project: Evaluation Report  
5. At the community level, with increased participation in IPs, women beneficiaries are able to speak in public and 
express their views. Further, they have developed their communication skills (the capacity to better interact with 
each other and articulate your needs in before others). For women beneficiaries in leadership positions, they are 
able to improve their leadership skills which helps them to gain trust and respect from the community. They also 
have got better opportunities to self-development such as exercising leadership and acquiring skill and knowledge 
through trainings such as computer literacy and financial management. All in all, women beneficiaries were able 
to develop self-efficacy and self- confidence; where they are proud of themselves and are increasingly able to 
participate in decision making. 
10.2.2 Technology Adoption 
Project results reveal that the number of beneficiaries who were applying/using improved technologies that were 
promoted by ILWAC particularly regarding the percentage increase in their productivity and food security considering 
the limited vegetable and fruit tree production after the project end. The number of Technologies and/or innovations 
demonstrated was also being tested in the project. Although vegetable seed, fruit tree seedlings and boreholes were 
disseminated, there were challenges cited regarding the limited access to seed. 
 
10.2.3 Project Impact against Performance Indicators 
The influence of the women in the decision-making process in their communities was a key indicator. It was revealed 
that women’s participation in decision making improved within the IP. The other indicator was  the percentage 
increase in their productivity and food security. There was limited vegetable and fruit tree production after the project. 
Challenges cited were limited access to seed. 
10.2.4 Promising/Potential Climate-Resilient Technologies for Scaling-Up 
Theuseoffruittreeseedlingisworthnotingasabuffermechanismmainlybecauseofenterprisediversification. 
 
10.2.5 Innovation Platforms 
The innovation platforms membership would need to be strengthened in their approach and appreciation of group 
dynamics and to have the membership required to provide skills and abilities required to meet the desired objectives. 
An observation worth noting was the equipping of local community members such as youth on how to make repairs of 
equipment promoted by the projects was lacking and can greatly affect sustainability of any given innovation. 
61 Results and Impacts of the Integrated Land and Water Management for Adaptation to Climate Variability and Change (ILWAC) Project: Evaluation Report  
 
10.2.6 Key Success Stories 
1. Participatory stakeholder engagement in the project implementation 
A major success of the project was the process of stakeholder engagement. The process facilitated by Rural 
Development Associates (RDA), a NGO that was the implementing organization, involved bringing multiple 
stakeholders who included Ministries of Health and Sanitation, Agriculture and Social Welfare, Catholic 
Relief Services who provided psychosocial training, community leaders and community members. The 
process started with local level consultation of community leaders on some of the beneficiaries to be 
included in the project, followed by consultations with the communities on context- appropriate interventions. 
The project also used existing village saving and loan associations (VSLA) most of which were established by 
World Vision between 2006 and 2007. These groups formed the Innovation platforms used to engage the 
beneficiaries and in project implementation. There were synergies between the prior established VSLA and the 
project, whereby returns obtained through the vegetable production funded savings for lending to the 
members. This is an innovative design attempting to engage with structures at the local level. The groups also 
engaged local leaders in facilitating debt collection among defaulters. 
 
2. Socio-economic empowerment 
The focus group interviews and key informant interviews established that these communities do not have 
access to formal financial services and VSLA were important in providing saving and loan facilities to 
beneficiaries. Loans are for a maximum period of three months with an average lending amount of USD 15 
per individual member, at an interest rate of 25 to thirty percent. Members borrowed money to facilitate 
agricultural activities and as a safety net such as emergency assistance and funeral expenses. 
Each group was composed of 15 to 25 members (approximately 90% female) with a group leadership structure. 
The group has promoted social cohesion and pooled labor among members for agricultural activities. It also 
provides an opportunity for social capital such as contributing finances towards funerals, sickness and 
emergencies. Some of the VSLA also pay out dividends to members, totalling approximately USD 30 in one 
year. 
Members with leadership roles reported that they had gained trust and respect from the community as well as 
improved leadership skills because of their roles. They also benefited on knowledge in bookkeeping and how 
to run a VSLA. Some of the groups supported individuals for computer literacy courses to be able to keep 
records. 
Generally, women earned respect in the community because they can participate in economic activities. The 
project beneficiaries also received small agricultural tools and training to increase their production. The 
community also benefited from the construction of wells, which were located in the village, saving time. This 
reduced drudgery and saved time for community members, especially for women. The improved sanitation 
through the provision of latrines and access to clean water for household use, indirectly contributes to better 
livelihood for the communities. Sinking of wells has reduced water related conflict which occurs frequently, on 
average two times each month, especially during the dry season and women are more affected. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
10.2.7 Challenges Encountered 
1. Project schedule: 
A challenge to the overall implementation of the Sierra Leone project was the short rollout period, lasting less than 
one year. This did not allow to provide appropriate action to be taken to correct any problems. Beneficiaries reported 
that tree seedlings were supplied after the start of the season leading to delayed planting, as most farmers were busy 
with other farm activities. As a result, the seedlings trees did not benefit maximally from the rainfall received in the 
season and majority dried up. Farmers also reported low viability of the vegetable seeds that were supplied with 
average germination rates of 60—70%. There was also pest 
62 Results and Impacts of the Integrated Land and Water Management for Adaptation to Climate Variability and Change (ILWAC) Project: Evaluation Report  
invasion during the season the project was implemented, which affected most of the crops. The lack of a second 
season to implement the project limited the long-term impact of the interventions. 
 
2. Issues of long term sustainability of the interventions 
Seven wells were constructed and one rehabilitated which were mainly located within the villages. Most  respondents 
reported using the water for domestic purposes. A few of the pumps installed had broken down and the wells were non-
functional. The community did not have any irrigation facilities and had to carry water to the vegetable gardens using 
watering cans, which is less efficient in terms of labor and water use. Respondents recommended the use of a more 
participatory process in the selection of location of the wells and the provision of irrigation facilities. The agricultural 
tools provided such as watering cans and pick axles are less economical in terms of labor and time saving. 
 
Metallic stoves which were provided had low durability and poor in relation to energy saving. During the evaluation, 
we noted that the stoves had worn out and were no longer in use. The partnership established with the Ministry of 
Agriculture to provide training to the communities is no longer ongoing due to lack of funds. Stakeholders also 
stressed on the importance of enforcing bylaws to protect the forests in addressing the causes of climate change. 
Deforestation is rampant due to dependence on forest resources which was attributed to poverty. 
 
10.2.8 Key Lessons Learnt 
1. This study revealed the need to empower women for the economic development of their households and 
communities. When women are empowered and able to make economic contributions, it can promote social 
cohesion and they are in turn well regarded and respected. 
2. Women empowerment does not preclude the involvement of men. The women involved in the project highlighted 
instances where they would have achieved greater benefits if there were more men in the groups. For example to 
support in influencing decision makers, and provide certain skills and labor. 
3. Wells provide low volume of water often drying up early in the dry season. A better choice would be to sink 
boreholes because it is possible to penetrate the aquifer to a greater depth ensuring a reliable supply in the dry season 
and can better serve the purpose of irrigated production. 
4. The innovative platforms membership would need to be strengthened in their approach and appreciation of group 
dynamics and to have the membership required to provide skills and abilities required to meet the desired 
objectives. 
5. Equipping local community members such as youth on how to make repairs of equipment promoted  by the 
projects, for example irrigation pumps, with limited, but feasible, external support can promote sustainability as 
well as create employment opportunities. 
63 Results and Impacts of the Integrated Land and Water Management for Adaptation to Climate Variability and Change (ILWAC) Project: Evaluation Report  
CHAPTER 11: 
Regional Impact Assessment of ILWAC Projects 
11.1 Measuring the Effectiveness of ILWAC Interventions 
The ultimate measure of ILWAC’s impact on community and system resilience are the extent to which it can be 
associated with reductions in the adverse effects of shocks and stresses in relation to the interventions that ILWAC was 
promoting. This was assessed by the various proxies reported above using cross-sectional data. In essence this is 
compared to a counterfactual scenario in which the same shock or stress may have occurred without ILWAC 
interventions. Hence the ILWAC Theory of Change for this assessment is that: Without the ILWAC program, the 
beneficiaries in the target sites would have been less resilient to climate related shocks and stresses and therefore 
performance of human well-being indicators (household income, food security, asset values and livelihood 
diversification) would have been worse than with ILWAC interventions (Fig. 29) 
 
 
ILWAC Theory of Change (ToC) for assessment: Without the ILWAC program, the beneficiaries in the target sites would have been less 
resilient to climate related shocks and stresses and therefore performance of well-being indicators (household income, food security, 
livelihood diversification) would have been worse than with ILWAC interventions 
*Drivers in red were specifically targeted by ILWAC 
 
 
FIGURE 30: Illustrative schematic for ILWAC Theory of Change 
 
In many cases we need to understand the resilience being built in advance of a shock or stress occurring (Brooks et al, 
2014). For the case of ILWAC, this study identified the underlying resilience aspects that the project aimed to promote 
specifically the planting of trees (agroforestry) to mitigate climate change (for climate change preparedness) and 
improving access to water for crop and domestic use as an adaptation mechanism. 
 
All data used in this section was from household survey data using the Open Data Kit tool. In addition, some 
components were based on focused group discussions and expert interviews, this study identified other drivers that 
made the ILWAC communities less resilient to specific shocks and stresses, identified the adaptation mechanisms that 
people were using to develop resilience then developed metrics associated with human wellbeing indicators that are 
predictive of impact. These resilience indicators, defined at the  outcome level, can be measured even if shocks and 
stresses do not occur. They thus provide us with an  interim or bridging mechanism for monitoring and evaluating 
ILWAC project results, that goes beyond the measurement of outputs but does not require us to wait until a shock or 
stress has occurred. While measuring changes in the resilience of individuals or communities that can be attributed to 
ILWAC project activities was a challenge, the extent to which the project integrated participatory approaches in this 
evaluation helped to identify context-specific indicators of resilience. These indicators were used to map onto the 
ILWAC project logical frameworks and fit within a coherent theory of change for resilience. 
 
This study had a specific set of performance indicators that served as a measure towards specific outcomes. Details of 
these are presented in Appendix II but have been summarized with the caption as immediate, intermediate and ultimate 
outcomes and these could be at various stages of achievement: achieved, partially achieved or not achieved (Figure 31). 
ILWAC 
INPUTS 
ILWAC 
OUTPUTS 
OUTCOME 
Improved 
resilience 
DRIVERS OF CHANGE IN WEST AFRICA: 
*Climate shocks and stresses, limited water access and 
availability, population pressure, conflicts, institutional 
and governance issues 
IMPACT 
Improved 
beneficiary well-
being despite 
experiencing 
shocks and stresses 
64 Results and Impacts of the Integrated Land and Water Management for Adaptation to Climate Variability and Change (ILWAC) Project: Evaluation Report  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
ENRACCA-WA 
AmREACCAF 
ISFM-Benin 
SWNM-Nigeria 
APESS 
 
Women Veg - 
Gambia Post Ebola - 
Sierra Leone 
 
 
 
FIGURE 31: Impact pathway for the seven projects 
 
As clearly exemplified by trends shown in Figure 31, the stage of accomplishment is predominantly in      the 
immediate to intermediate phases with achieved outcomes. This confirms the need for continued commitment to 
achieve the ultimate outcome within most of the ILWAC communities. The commitment will need to take the form of a 
self-sustaining model so that the initiatives stand the test of time. This may take the form of building on ongoing 
initiatives or institutions which in turn offers buy-in, legitimacy and ownership to communities such that beneficiaries 
accrue the gains from the project even when the project has closed. 
 
11.2 Household Survey Results 
11.2.1 Descriptive Statistics 
Across the study countries livelihoods of most of surveyed households (both male (95%) and female (95%) is 
dependent on agriculture. A total of 1411 households participated in the survey, out of which 85% are male headed 
households and 11 percent are female headed households. 59% of the respondents were male and 40% female. Female 
participation is higher in Gambia (99%) and Sierra Leone (84%). The reason for   this is interventions in these 
countries target women. The age of respondents ranges from 18 to 92, with an average age of 47 for male and 44 for 
female. Majority of the respondents (81%) were married and are living with their spouses: 8% were widows. Majority 
of the widows are in Gambia (18%) and Sierra Leone (17%). 
 
Highest percentage of male (44%) and female (63%) the household heads are illiterate: male (25%) and female (16%) 
attended primary schools, male (15%) and female (9%) attended secondary schools and male (11%) and female (8%) 
attended religious education (Table 10). 
Immediate 
outcome 
 
 
 
 
Intermediate 
outcome 
Ultimate 
outcome 
Achieved Partially 
achieved 
Not 
achieved 
65 Results and Impacts of the Integrated Land and Water Management for Adaptation to Climate Variability and Change (ILWAC) Project: Evaluation Report  
Table 10: Characteristics of the surveyed households and participants by country and gender 
 
SITES SEX BENIN BURKIN
A FASO 
AMREAC
- CAF 
BURKI
- NA 
FASO- 
APESS 
GAM
- 
BIA 
NIGE
- 
RIA 
SENE- 
GAL 
SIERR
A 
LEONE 
TOTA
L 
No. surveyed  200 206 174 200 210 211 210 1411 
Sex [No (%)] Male 145 (72) 175 (85) 155 (91) 3 (1) 165(79) 162 (77) 33 (16) 838(59) 
Fe- 
male 
55 (28) 31 (15) 19 (9) 197 (99) 45 (21) 49 (23) 177 (84) 569(40) 
Mean Age (Range) Male 48 
(19-83) 
44 
(18 - 92) 
47 
(20 - 76) 
47 
(42 - 55) 
51 
(20-81) 
49 
(18-76) 
42 
(18-76) 
47 
(18-92) 
Fe- 
male 
46 
(19-78) 
46 
(28 - 79) 
42 
(61 - 25) 
46 
(20 - 88) 
48 
(20-80) 
46 
(23-64) 
37 
(18–75) 
44 
(18-88) 
Household size (mean) 9 8 10 11 7 14 8 10 
Sex of Household 
head 
Male 163(82) 185(90) 161(93) 159(80) 198(94) 190(90) 144(28) 1200(85) 
Fe- 
male 
28(14) 10(5) 9(5) 33(17) 7(3) 7(3) 58(69) 152(11) 
NA[1] 9(5) 11(5) 4(2) 8(4) 5(2) 14 7(3) 58(4) 
Agriculture 
(farming/livestock 
keeping) [No (%)] 
Male 133(92) 171(98) 143(92) 3(100) 163(99) 156(96) 32(97) 801(95) 
Fe- 
male 
46(84) 28(90) 15(80) 188(95) 45(84) 48(98) 170(96) 540(95) 
Non-agriculture 
[No (%)] 
Male 12(8) 4(2) 12(8) 0(0) 2(1) 6(4) 4(12) 40(5) 
Fe- 
male 
9(16) 3(10) 3(20) 4(2) 7(16) 1(2) 1(1) 28(5) 
[1] Data is missing 
 
To  set stage for the impact assessment of the ILWAC  project on key outcomes, we start by exploring the types  of shocks, 
which the respondents reported, and the descriptive statistics of key outcomes. Throughout the discussion, treatment and 
control groups are compared. Such comparison allows us to build the impression of the differences between the two groups. 
The descriptive statistics cannot be used to show impact of ILWAC since they are not panel data, which could allow us to do 
double difference analysis. 
 
Table 11 reports the shocks, which respondents experienced, and how they responded or didn’t respond. The major shock 
reported is drought, which about 40% of treatment and control groups reported. About 2% of the ILWAC beneficiaries who 
reported drought responded to it compared to none for the control group. The difference of response to drought shock is 
significant at 1%, yet the small percent of those who reported drought shock reflect a weak impact of ILWAC. 
 
Table 11: Climatic shocks and action taken 
 
Shock Reported shock, Yes (%) Action Taken, Yes (%) 
Treat- Control T-value Treat- Control T-value ment   (T=C)  ment   (T=C) 
Drought 44.33 41.26 -1.1590 1.45 0 -1.960*** 
Flood 15.34 8.03 -4.1928*** 3.36 1.97 -0.045 
Erratic rainfall pattern 30.28 28.35 -0.7945 0 0 - 
Hailstorm 3.22 2.52 -0.7810 0 0 - 
Too much rain 14.17 12.37 0.9955 0 0 - 
Landslide 0.26 0 -1.2802 0 0 - 
Insects invaded & damaged 
crops 20.23 26.14 2.6287*** 0 0 - 
Strong winds 7.86 11.50 2.3172** 1.64 0 -1.0981 
66 Results and Impacts of the Integrated Land and Water Management for Adaptation to Climate Variability and Change (ILWAC) Project: Evaluation Report  
Strongwindswerealsoreportedasashockandabout 2% ofthe ILWACbeneficiariesresponded. Nevertheless, there was no 
significant difference between treatment and control groups. 
 
Table 12 reports the adoption rates of the CSA promoted by ILWAC. In almost all CSA practices, ILWAC beneficiaries 
had higher adoption rate – suggesting favourable impacts of ILWAC on promotion of CSA practices. The difference of 
CSA adoption rates between treatment and control groups is significant for most of the practices. 
 
Table 12: Adoption rate (percent) of key land management practices 
 
CSA practice Treatment Control P-value 
(%) (%) 
Improved maize and rice varieties 45.61 18.31 0.0000 
Microdosing fertilizer 25.63 5.88 0.0025 
Weed control practices 11.88 1.96 0.0353 
Improved storage techniques 8.13 3.92 0.3090 
Assisted natural regeneration (ANR) 74.38 45.10 0.0011 
Secured farm enclosure improved fruits trees 6.25 0 0.0674 
Training on the use of weather information. 82.46 50 0.0006 
Cereal legume intercrop 36.00 23.00 0.2771 
Agroforestry 65.88 24.00 0.0000 
Organic inputs (manure, compost, etc.) ~ 1.1-1.4 Mg/ha for manure 
and 160-440kg/ha for compost 23.01 14.60 0.2883 
Chemical fertilizer (100-200 kg/ha) 39.73 21.86 0.0013 
ISFM (combination of inorganic fertilizer, organic inputs/ 
agroforestry & improved seeds) 
 
59.43 
 
56.21 
 
0.1308 
Rainwater harvesting 4 0 0.0342 
Irrigation 5.5 1.8 0.0004 
Notes: -The p-values indicate significance of differences between treatment and control groups 
-Fertilizer application rates data from FGDs only for a maize crop (could vary with different crops) 
To set stage for the impact assessment of the ILWAC project on key outcomes, we start by exploring the types of shocks, 
which the respondents reported, and the descriptive statistics of key outcomes. Throughout the discussion, treatment 
and control groups are compared. Such comparison allows us to build the impression of the differences between the 
two groups. The descriptive statistics cannot be used to show impact of ILWAC since they are not panel data that could 
allow us to do double difference analysis. 
 
Table 13 reports the shocks that respondents experienced. Major shocks reported were drought, which  about 40% of 
treatment and control groups reported. About 2% of the ILWAC beneficiaries who reported drought responded to it 
compared to none for the control group. The difference of response to drought shock is significant at 1%, yet the small 
percent of those who reported drought shock reflect a weak impact of ILWAC. 
67 Results and Impacts of the Integrated Land and Water Management for Adaptation to Climate Variability and Change (ILWAC) Project: Evaluation Report  
Table 13: Climatic shocks and action taken 
 
Shock Reported shock % yes  Did you take action? % Yes (please 
report only who reported shock and 
drop those who didn’t 
Treat- Control T-value Treat- Control T-value (T=C) 
ment   (T=C)  ment 
Drought 44.33 41.26 -1.1590 1.45 - -1.960*** 
Flood 15.34 8.03 -4.1928*** 3.36 1.97 -0.045 
Erratic rainfall pattern 30.28 28.35 -0.7945 - - - 
Hailstorm 3.22 2.52 -0.7810 - - - 
Too much rain 14.17 12.37 0.9955 - - - 
Landslide 0.26 - -1.2802 - - - 
Insects invaded & 
damaged crops 20.23 26.14 2.6287
*** - - - 
Strong winds 7.86 11.50 2.3172** 1.64  -1.0981 
 
Yield of major crops supported by ILWAC is reported in Table 14. Even though CSA adoption rate of ILWAC 
beneficiaries is higher than the corresponding rates for the control group, yield of millet reported by treatment and control 
groups are not significantly different. This could be due to lagged impact — i.e., adoption rate is reported for the year 
which the harvest was not yet processed. 
 
With reference to Table 14, the lower yields of groundnut were recorded in Senegal where inappropriate varieties were 
disseminated to farmers by other initiatives before the project started. It is important to note that the project did not 
support groundnut cultivation and poultry rearing (Table 15). Therefore, recorded differences are not directly linked to 
the ILWAC project interventions. It should be noted that Senegal has a long history of groundnut growing with 
numerous interventions that embarked on promotion of groundnuts before the ILWAC project. The differences in 
poultry production (Table 15) were not significant. 
 
Table 14: Crop yield with and without treatment 
 
Five Main Crops Treatment (t/ha) Control (t/ha) P-value (T=C) 
Maize 1.56 1.54 0.8919 
Groundnut 1.46 3.39 0.0030 
Cassava 12.49 14.40 0.8677 
Millet 0.85 0.82 0.9177 
Rice 1.42 1.81 0.4918 
Livestock yield are reported in Table 15. Though productivity of beef and eggs are very different in absolute values, 
they are statistically insignificant due to small sample of farmers who reported them. 
 
Table 15: Livestock productivity with and without treatment 
 
Products Treatment (USD) Control (USD) T-value yield 
change (T=C) 
Milk production 149.31 145.14 -0.1322 
Beef 706.21 1278.5 1.5336 
Eggs 71.02 1.81 -0.6326 
Poultry meat 24.75 25.08 0.0312 
68 Results and Impacts of the Integrated Land and Water Management for Adaptation to Climate Variability and Change (ILWAC) Project: Evaluation Report  
Asset endowment is one of the drivers of resilience to shocks. Table 16 shows that ILWAC beneficiaries had significantly 
(at least at P=0.05) more small agricultural tools and mobile phones. Surprisingly, ownership of some of the asset promoted 
by ILWAC were not reported. These include solar powered refrigerators and panels, biogas units, borehole, and tricycles. It 
is possible that some assets were promoted at community level rather than household level. The control group (Table 16) may 
also be benefiting from other projects other than ILWAC. This is consistent with the fact that although the control group did 
not have access to ILWAC interventions, they were not on an isolated island but were exposed to other development oriented 
interventions hence the trends observed in Table 16. 
 
Table 16: Household asset endowment, with and without ILWAC 
 
Asset Name Treatment (Avg) Control (Avg) t-statistic (T=C) 
Small agricultural tools 8.20 6.77 -3.2023*** 
Mobile phones 2.49 2.11 -2.6551*** 
Radio 1.31 1.26 -0.8938 
Wheelbarrow or ox cart 1.24 1.42 -1.7553* 
Motorbike 1.28 1.34 -0.7918 
Bicycle 2.02 2.00 0.1291 
Plough 1.32 1.39 -0.7442 
Television 1.27 1.28 -0.1305 
Solar panels 1.38 1.58 -0.9438 
Borehole 1.35 1.31 0.2008 
Water tank 2.67 3.43 -0.6578 
Water pump and acces- 
sories 1.26 1.94 -1.2351 
Notes: *, **, ***, indicate significant difference at 10%, 5%, and 1% level. 
 
Using data from the impact evaluation study, this cross-sectional analysis examined the association between the 
Household Food Insecurity Access Scale (HFIAS, range: 0–27; high score represents higher food insecurity) for the 
control and treatment households. 
 
Table 17 shows that households in the treatment were generally more food secure apart from Burkina Faso- APESS. 
 
Table 17: Effect of ILWAC program on Household Food Insecurity Access Scale (HFIAS) 
 
COUNTRY TREATMENT CONTROL 
Gambia 1.7 1.8 
Senegal 1.5 2.0 
Nigeria 4.5 5.3 
Benin 3.28 7.24 
Sierra Leone 11.0 11.8 
Burkina Faso-AmREACCAF 2.1 1.8 
Burkina Faso-APESS 5.5 3.0 
69 Results and Impacts of the Integrated Land and Water Management for Adaptation to Climate Variability and Change (ILWAC) Project: Evaluation Report  
Natural log 
of Asset 
Value 
HFIAS 
(Household Food 
Insecurity 
Access Scale) 
Natural log of 
Income (3 main 
crops, livestock 
and livestock 
products) 
DEPENDENT 
VARIABLES 
11.3 Econometric Results 
This section presents results of econometric analysis to evaluate the impacts of participating in the ILWAC program 
by fitting instrumental variable regression, and variable poisson models. The results are presented in subsequent 
tables. 
 
11.3.1 Impact of Participation in ILWAC Project on Household Income 
Three dependent variables were selected as outcome indicators for the ILWAC project; namely, income from crops, sale 
of livestock and their products, Household Food Insecurity Access Scale (HFIAS) and asset value. 
 
Results of the impact of participation in ILWAC program on total household income are presented in Table 18. 
Participation in ILWAC increased income by 19% but the impact was not significant at P=10%. Results further show 
that several other factors significantly improved income. Such drivers of income could be used in designing strategies 
for lifting rural households out of poverty. Consistent with expectation, education level is associated with higher 
income. More literate farmers are likely to adopt better production technologies, and understand information relevant 
for agricultural production and marketing (Jolliffe 2004; Knowler and Bradshaw 2007). Similarly, family size 
increases income. This is attributed to family-labor being the major source of farm labor in rural African context 
(Acheampong 2015). Gambia shows lower income compared to households in Nigeria, Benin and Burkina Faso - 
APESS. Households in Senegal, Sierra Leone and Burkina Faso - AmRECCAF have lower incomes compared to 
Gambia (Table 18). 
 
Table 18: Impact of ILWAC project on income, food security and assets 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Endogenous Regressors 
Treatment 0.191 
(0.52) 
-0.577 
(-0.99) 
0.908*** 
(4.97) 
Agroforestry 4.316* 
(2.34) 
4.080 
(1.89) 
0.276 
(0.32) 
Exogenous Regressors    
Age 0.0777* 
(2.29) 
0.00896 
(0.17) 
0.0181 
(1.02) 
Age squared -0.00100** 
(-2.87) 
-0.000263 
(-0.50) 
-0.000216 
(-1.19) 
Sex of Respondent (b=Female) 
Male 0.102 
(0.38) 
-0.693 
(-1.38) 
0.904*** 
(5.52) 
Position of the respondent in the household (b=Head) 
Spouse -0.0913 
(-0.34) 
-0.287 
(-0.68) 
0.426** 
(2.80) 
Child -0.183 
(-0.31) 
1.057 
(1.24) 
0.00633 
(0.02) 
Other member/relative -0.504 
(-0.64) 
-0.909 
(-1.68) 
0.226 
(0.72) 
Household Worker 0.529 
(1.15) 
-2.910 
(-1.42) 
-0.00178 
(-0.00) 
Other member non-relative -1.903 
(-0.80) 
4.429 
(0.83) 
0.220 
(0.71) 
70 Results and Impacts of the Integrated Land and Water Management for Adaptation to Climate Variability and Change (ILWAC) Project: Evaluation Report  
Natural log 
of Asset 
Value 
HFIAS 
(Household Food 
Insecurity 
Access Scale) 
Natural log of 
Income (3 main 
crops, livestock 
and livestock 
products) 
DEPENDENT 
VARIABLES 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Education (b=Primary) 
Secondary -0.000481 
(-0.00) 
-0.796 
(-1.64) 
0.250 
(1.71) 
Tertiary 0.224 
(0.51) 
-0.707 
(-0.79) 
0.716** 
(3.26) 
Adult Education 1.022* 
(2.50) 
0.847 
(0.96) 
0.0503 
(0.18) 
None/Illiterate 0.0245 
(0.13) 
0.128 
(0.38) 
-0.102 
(-0.96) 
Religious/Koranic 0.0283 
(0.08) 
0.507 
(0.90) 
0.282 
(1.95) 
Country of project (b=Gambia) 
Senegal -1.502*** 
(-4.07) 
-0.298 
(-0.55) 
-1.482*** 
(-9.57) 
Nigeria 3.375*** 
(8.22) 
3.672*** 
(5.42) 
-1.271*** 
(-5.70) 
Benin 1.018** 
(3.09) 
3.071*** 
(4.95) 
-1.846*** 
(-9.82) 
Sierra Leone -0.272 
(-0.84) 
8.381*** 
(18.26) 
-2.525*** 
(-16.04) 
Burkina Faso-AmREACCAF -0.167 
(-0.37) 
-0.980 
(-1.70) 
-0.174 
(-0.86) 
Burkina Faso-APESS 0.665 
(1.66) 
3.111*** 
(4.48) 
-0.563* 
(-2.46) 
Number of household members in the last 12 months 0.0365* 
(2.43) 
-0.00521 
(-0.21) 
0.00382 
(0.48) 
How far in travelling time is the nearest source of 
cooking energy during dry season 
-0.0000400 
(-0.34) 
0.000536 
(1.19) 
-0.000239 
(-1.87) 
Howfarintravellingtimeisthenearestagricultural 
extension office 
-0.00106* 
(-2.17) 
0.00144** 
(2.87) 
-0.0000224 
(-0.13) 
How far in travelling time, is the nearest health 
center? 
0.000466 
(0.58) 
-0.000772 
(-0.68) 
-0.00108 
(-1.84) 
Number of shocks experienced 0.0617 
(0.54) 
0.411* 
(2.03) 
0.0457 
(0.71) 
Number of Livestock 0.00185 
(1.84) 
-0.00443** 
(-2.99) 
-0.0000999 
(-0.12) 
Source of income (b=salary/wages) 
Agriculture(farming/livestock keeping) 1.076 
(1.66) 
2.790*** 
(3.85) 
-0.0806 
(-0.15) 
Business 0.884 
(0.95) 
3.747** 
(2.86) 
0.231 
(0.36) 
Other income sources 0.305 
(0.33) 
3.776** 
(2.73) 
0.283 
(0.46) 
71 Results and Impacts of the Integrated Land and Water Management for Adaptation to Climate Variability and Change (ILWAC) Project: Evaluation Report  
 
Total crop area (3 main crops) 0.0107 
(1.55) 
0.0226 
(1.37) 
0.00853* 
(2.56) 
Number of mobile phones owned 0.0892* 
(2.39) 
-0.348*** 
(-5.72) 
0.316*** 
(13.64) 
Constant 2.523* 
(2.41) 
-0.646 
(-0.43) 
2.806*** 
(4.18) 
Observations 1392 1392 1392 
Under identification (Kleibergen-Paap rk LM 
statistic): 
χ2(1)=12.62*** χ2(1)=12.62*** χ2(1)=12.62*** 
Endogeneity test of endogenous regressors: χ2(3)=9.90*** χ2(3) = 4.87* χ2(3)=10.38*** 
 
Standard errors in parentheses; * p < 0.05, ** p < 0.01, *** p < 0.000 
 
Higher value assets such as livestock significantly influenced income. Assets can be utilized to generate income or 
sold for incomes. As expected, farmers who reported more shocks experience lower percentage of income. However, 
shocks seems to have motivated some farmers to better adapt to the effects of climate changes. Shocks are mitigated 
through utilization of savings, employing other survival strategies such as sale of livestock, assets and saved crop 
harvests - that result into reduced incomes with time. Besides, shocks such as floods and droughts devastate sources of 
livelihoods for the farmers to extent that income variations result into other survival tactics and reduce marginal 
propensity to consume (Carroll (2009). Through ILWAC, various shock-reduction techniques, even though employed, 
would reflect their effectiveness in longer periods of time which may not be addressed by current datasets. 
 
11.3.2 Impact of Participation in ILWAC on Asset Value of the Household 
Table 18 reports the drivers of value of assets in its natural log format, as we control for extreme values and for 
elasticities i.e. degree of response to changes in asset value given other covariates. Just like Miyata et al (2009), this 
study may not enumerate the cause effect relationship between income and assets but still holds that controlling for 
endogeneity reveals the nature and direction of influence of these two variables. 
 
As expected, ILWAC increased significantly value of asset to almost 90%; a factor attributable to additional assets that 
were distributed to farmer groups such as the case of Gambia, Senegal and Sierra Leone. The study therefore confirms 
that more assets in ILWAC supported households offered cushion to such households than those in control. Results 
further show that male-household headed households have a higher value of assets than female- headed households. In 
fact, Doss et al (2018) report that female-headed households are likely to suffer in such scenario and their assets would 
be sold first than the males-headed ones, leaving them vulnerable. This latter finding suggests that a program targeting 
women in building assets could achieve double benefits – directly enhancing resilience and improving other outcomes, 
which have been shown to improve when women assets increase (Quisumbing et al, 2012). 
 
11.3.3 Impact of Participation in ILWAC on Household Food Insecurity Access Scale (HFIAS) of 
the Household 
As presented in Table 17, ILWAC participants were 57.7% less likely to be food insecure. This was positively aided by 
access to agricultural extension services, number of livestock owned and ownership of mobile phones. This is in 
agreement with (Kipkurgat& Tuigong 2015) who reported a positive relationship between extension and food security. 
They further argue that food security can be improved in rural Africa by tailoring extension services to embrace issues 
of production, access to markets and collaborative efforts with private and public organizations. As expected, livestock 
were found to be positive drivers of food security. Livestock 
Natural log 
of Asset 
Value 
HFIAS 
(Household Food 
Insecurity 
Access Scale) 
Natural log of 
Income (3 main 
crops, livestock 
and livestock 
products) 
DEPENDENT 
VARIABLES 
72 Results and Impacts of the Integrated Land and Water Management for Adaptation to Climate Variability and Change (ILWAC) Project: Evaluation Report  
farming is a critical source of livelihood to small scale farmers in developing nations. It is a source of nutritious food 
such as milk and eggs and income/employment for small scale farmers in sub-Saharan Africa. According to Rodríguez et 
al. (2016), animal husbandry enhances food security for poor farmers in developing nations. Izuchukwu (2011) pointed 
out that 
 
Livestock contributed to over 46% of Nigerian GDP in 2010. The results also showed that as the number of mobile 
phones in a household increases, the probability of a household being food insecure reduces by  34.8% and this is 
statistically significant at 1%. Mobile platform makes it easy to link farmers with the markets, access of weather/ 
climate information and ease of monitoring crop performance (Cho and Tobias, 2012). In some African countries such 
as Kenya, mobile phones provides a platform for accessing cheap loans. This is in harmony with Masuki et al., 2010) 
who documented the importance of mobile phones in delivery of information to farmers and ultimate improved access 
to food. 
 
11.3.4 Impact of Participation in ILWAC on Number of CSA Practices Adopted 
Results of IV-Poisson regression analysis to estimate the impact of the ILWAC program on adoption of climate smart 
agriculture (CSA) practices are presented in Table 19. Number of CSA practices was calculated from the promoted 
CSA for each country by ILWAC project. First, the practices were aggregated at household level to determine the 
number a given household could adopt. The variable was count in nature and since it was the number and not the 
binary of whether or not a household adopted, poisson regression was fitted with treatment as endogenous and two 
instruments (distance to town with more than 50,000 people and participation in IP). 
 
With other factors constant, participation in ILWAC increased the number of CSA practices implemented by three 
practices more compared to non-participation, but the effect was not statistically significant at 10% level. Male headed 
households were more likely to practice more CSA technologies by a factor of about 1 compared to female headed 
households. This is backed by reports that males have more access to resources such as land and credit compared to 
females, making them more open to practicing and adopting emerging technologies (Gebregziabher et al, 2013). 
Education also plays a bigger role in the number of CSA practices adopted. A one class/step increase in education 
(especially secondary) was associated with more than 13 units increase in the likelihood of adopting a new CSA 
technology. The works of Bucciarelli, Odoardi and Muratore (2010) corroborate these as the authors indicated that 
education improves the human capital and provides a pathway of promoting technologies. The study also finds that 
additional time increase to an extension office reduced the rate of technology adoption low. It is important to flag the 
importance that extension services play in making farmers adopt technologies as they influence this through 
demonstrations, trainings and capacity building. The works of Pan, Smith and Sulaiman (2018) using a regression 
discontinuity design show that extension through training helped boost farmer productivity and food security. Besides, 
an increase in the number of shocks a household experienced led to a significant improvement in the number of CSA 
activities practiced. This can be explained that as farmers face shocks, they tend to be receptive of ways that can 
mitigate those shocks and help them adopt better. ILWAC promoted CSA practices that would lead to better coping 
with environmental stresses and improve farmer productivity or reduce environmental degradation. It is; therefore, a 
confirmation that the activities that were promoted were likely to lead to change in willingness to adopt especially in 
treatment regions. Evaluation results from FGD discussions revealed that less educated farmers were more risk averse 
and tended to take less effort to invest or take up adoption of CSA practices. The trend was violated for those with 
tertiary education because likely they have significant investments that are off-farm income. It is important to note that 
challenges to adoption of CSA practices in sub-Saharan Africa include economic limitations and the lack of technical 
know-how by smallholders. 
73 Results and Impacts of the Integrated Land and Water Management for Adaptation to Climate Variability and Change (ILWAC) Project: Evaluation Report  
Table 19: Effect of ILWAC program on adoption of climate smart agriculture (CSA) practices 
 
COVARIATE COEFFICIENT STD. ERR. P>|Z| 
Treatment 3.5332 6.9702 0.612 
Age of household head 0.0065 0.0079 0.412 
Male household head 0.9844*** 0.3492 0.005 
Primary Education 0.9952** 0.3875 0.010 
Secondary Education 13.0370*** 4.2222 0.002 
Tertiary Education -0.0626 0.3832 0.870 
Adult Education 0.5491** 0.2558 0.032 
Illiterate 0.3981 0.4652 0.392 
Senegal -20.5944*** 0.4728 0.000 
Nigeria -22.1044*** 0.9866 0.000 
Benin -0.8639** 0.3775 0.022 
Sierra Leone -5.7812*** 1.0480 0.000 
Burkina Faso-AmREACCAF -0.3673 0.5022 0.465 
Burkina Faso-APESS -0.1560 0.4390 0.722 
Household members -0.0198 0.0188 0.293 
Time in minutes to access cooking energy 0.0000 0.0001 0.966 
Time for Extension -0.0198** 0.0084 0.018 
Time for health 0.0120 0.0098 0.221 
Number of shocks 0.3118** 0.1464 0.033 
Total output 0.0000 0.0000 0.989 
Number of livestock owned 0.0107 0.0079 0.178 
Adapted agroforestry -0.0107 0.2403 0.965 
Asset Value -0.0001 0.0001 0.235 
Constant -1.6883*** 0.6134 0.006 
 
Notes: IV-Poisson regression estimates. Dependent variable is number of CSA practices adopted. *, **, *** indicate significant 
effect at 10%, 5%, and 1% level. 
 
11.4 Evaluation of Performance of Innovation Platforms (IPs) 
In this study, we adopt Homann-Kee Tui et al (2013)’s definition of IPs: A forum for learning and action involving a 
group of actors with different backgrounds and interests: farmers, agricultural input suppliers, traders, food processors, 
researchers, government officials, etc. These actors come together to develop a common vision and find ways to 
achieve their goals. They may design and implement activities as a group or coordinate activities by individual actors. 
 
The evaluation design is a comparative case study based on the sites selected for evaluation of the ILWAC project. 
Data, mainly qualitative, were collected through focus group discussions and key informant interviews with the IP 
facilitators and members. The report is based on the analysis of methods used within the context of the IPs themselves 
and comparison of platforms in different settings. 
74 Results and Impacts of the Integrated Land and Water Management for Adaptation to Climate Variability and Change (ILWAC) Project: Evaluation Report  
11.4.1 IP Formation and Functioning 
The ILWAC projects used the innovation platforms approach to explore strategies that can boost their effectiveness in 
stakeholder engagement, and implementation of interventions, promote participation and participatory engagement of 
stakeholders. 
 
In most of the projects we evaluated across the six countries, the ILWAC projects established the IPs. In some few 
cases for example in Nigeria, the project utilized both existing and new IPs. In Sierra Leone, the IPs fully existed 
before the ILWAC project. This approach was able to take advantage of existing opportunities in the project sites and 
foster local ownership and sustainability of existing innovation. However, in some cases, this also hampered the 
participation of new members. The IPs brought actors from various sectors and from different administrative levels, 
with the majority being farmers. This was designed to enhance the knowledge, skills, capabilities, and resources 
available within the group. 
 
IP membership ranged mostly from 15 to 35, composed in most cases of the local community members and project 
facilitators (mostly research institutions and NGO) and government officials. In Benin, the IP also included traders, 
agro-dealers, microfinance, distributors and input suppliers. In Boura, Burkina Faso, the project had one IP with more 
than one hundred members. Some were composed of specific demographic groups e.g., women, youth, and others had 
a mixed gender group. 
 
Innovative and context-appropriate mechanisms for information sharing were included such as, calendar meetings on a 
monthly basis, announcing meetings in public gatherings such as mosques, the use of the ‘town crier’ and loud 
speakers to broadcast information. In Nigeria, we found that some IPs are registered under the state government. 
 
IPs incorporated governance structures with an elected committee of on average four members who included a 
chairperson, vice chairperson, treasurer and secretary. In addition, we found IPs in Sierra Leone with advisory 
positions, whose role and contribution to the IP functioning was not clearly demonstrated. An IP in Sierra Leone hired 
a public relations officer responsible for facilitating communication with platform members and external stakeholders. 
 
The IPs improved community participation and social cohesion and led to increased knowledge on agronomic 
practices. IPs facilitated the inclusion of women and youth contributing to the representation   of their issues. Women 
mainly reported social cohesion, leadership capacity, and economic empowerment and communication skills as 
benefits of belonging to the IP. In Boura, Burkina Faso after the close of the project, the women in the IP formed a 
village saving and loan association (VSLA), currently with about sixty members. Previously, there was no 
participation of women in groups and this was the first women group in the community. 
 
The highest ranking of the IPs by respondents was related to IP facilitation, how well meetings were organized (including 
regulatory), information sharing and relevance of issues discussed. 
 
In Benin, the IPs improved easy access to improved seed and fertilizer. It also facilitated the link between  farmers and 
research partners (INRAB), thereby promoting knowledge exchange and information flow. Exchange visits were 
organized between the IPs in one country and to other countries. The IPs also facilitated learning through demo plots 
which were hosted by farmers. 
 
In Gambia, the IP was composed of farmers, village elders, village development committee member (VDC), women 
president, extension officers, and research institute (NARI). Having same gender IPs may have supported conflict 
resolution. On the other hand, inclusion of men could have supported negotiation power for the women to access more 
land. 
11.4.2 Challenges in the Innovation Platforms 
Some of the challenges in the IPs, based on scoring by respondents were understanding of critical issues being 
addressed, conflict resolution, extent to which objectives were met, and extent to which knowledge of the members 
increased. This may point to low capacity to innovate among the committee members, who mainly facilitated the IP 
functioning, competing commitments and the short time frame of the project played 
75 Results and Impacts of the Integrated Land and Water Management for Adaptation to Climate Variability and Change (ILWAC) Project: Evaluation Report  
a role as well. For IPs that existed before ILWAC, it may also signify lack of ability to regenerate in terms of focus. 
Issues revealed in the IPs may signify limitation in membership skilled to facilitate the objectives and in conflict 
resolution. 
 
The lack of continuous monitoring and evaluation of the IP during the implementation also meant that the facilitators 
did not have an opportunity to ensure that the IP was achieving expected process and outcomes among platform 
members. In some of the platforms, records on the membership and participation was not up to date. Integration of 
relatively simple participatory tools with the assistance and support from M&E personnel may be more appropriate to 
monitor progress and to follow up on action points. IPs can benefit from documenting what is discussed in minutes 
which is then deliberated in the subsequent meetings as a way of tracking progress. The use of ICT tools can also 
support such activities and can also be adopted for information sharing. 
 
Cultural and religious dynamics also affected the IPs, for example in communities where women and men are not 
permitted to gather together. Managing group dynamics was also an issue in terms of individual dynamics and having 
actors from different institutions with multiple institutional bureaucracies. In Benin, the adoption of Mucuna was 
limited because farmers did not understand how to use the plant and its non- edibility. The IPs have not evolved to 
have the capacity to innovate and be able not only to sustain the technology but also take them to scale. They require 
technical and financial support from external actors on reproducing knowledge piloted in the IP across for example 
geographical scale and value chains. This could be one of the reasons why most of the IPs are no longer active after the 
closure of the projects. 
 
A key consideration in the ILWAC context, is whether the IP is the most useful and cost-effective approach to achieve 
the desired objectives as opposed to other participatory tools such as farmer field schools, value chain platforms and 
farmer organizations. Innovation platforms are particularly useful when there are objectives to represent actors of 
different socioeconomic backgrounds, interests and perspectives, who  have a stake in a particular problem or 
solution,to experiment jointly for new solutions and are willing to share knowledge, resources, benefits and risks 
(Buerkler 2013; Schut et al 2018). Additional human resource support beyond the project members and financial 
investments are also needed as well as linkages to private or public networks that have the potential to upscale beyond 
the target beneficiaries. Additionally, the challenges of Innovation Platforms reflect the high potential for agricultural 
and human development for which the Participatory Development Communication (PDC) can be used as a 
methodology to drive IPs and other mixed agricultural production systems (Kheerajit and Flor, 2013). 
 
Methods of knowledge and information sharing used in the IPs was limited in terms of potential to reach  non-
members. Facilitators expressed lack of prior capacity and knowledge in management and governance of an innovation 
platform. Cross-site visits to other successful IPs could have a potential to facilitate learning and sharing.To enable the 
effectiveness and scaling beyond the scope of the platform, IPs should be embedded in existing extension systems. 
Furthermore, the innovation platform approach may need to     be complemented by other innovative agriculture 
approaches such as the use of digital platforms and information and communications technologies (ICTs). 
76 Results and Impacts of the Integrated Land and Water Management for Adaptation to Climate Variability and Change (ILWAC) Project: Evaluation Report  
CHAPTER 12: 
ILWAC Gender Synthesis with a “Capitals” Lens 
In addition to the separate efforts to tease out gender dynamics at the project level in each of the countries, this section 
discusses the overall impact of the ILWAC project on adaptive capacity of women and women empowerment in seven 
West African countries through the lens of Community Capitals Framework (CCF). The CCF presents the 
relationships between women and men to stocks of capitals: social, financial, human, natural, political, cultural, and 
physical and how the relationship between various capitals enables women to spiral upwards in empowerment. 
According to Flora, Flora and Fey, (2004) “Capital is any type of resource capable of producing additional resources. 
When those resources or assets are invested to create new resources, they become capital.” The insights herein are 
based on a qualitative study conducted in different target villages using group discussions with male and female 
beneficiaries, indirect beneficiaries, and key informant interviews with project implementers. 
 
Social capital: The ILWAC project used innovation platforms (IPs) to provide a framework for sharing knowledge on 
adaptation innovations to climate change. The project also used IPs as entry points toward technology dissemination in 
the target areas. Men and women beneficiaries participated in the IPs where collective activities were carried out such 
as supporting each other, meeting on agreed date for a training/ meeting, among others. Participation in IPs also 
enhanced ability of men and women beneficiaries to access resources such as knowledge, technologies, and social 
support, which in turn, enhanced their capacity for climate change adaptation. This helped them to enjoy increased 
harvest returns, stable income and healthy wellbeing. 
 
Human capital: The project equipped beneficiary men and women with the necessary knowledge and skill to enhance 
their adaptive capacity. This includes knowledge on agronomic practices, on application of technologies, on use of 
weather information, computer literacy, financial management and others. With better access to knowledge and skills 
women were able to adopt technologies, to enhance their participation in decision making (at household and community 
level) and to make informed decisions. In cases where men and women do not mix due to religious and cultural reasons, 
the project used women extension workers and NGO workers to reach and benefit women. 
 
Financial capital: Due to increased knowledge/technology/resources and access to income, beneficiary women are 
able to participate in different livelihood options supported either by ILWAC programme or their own (such as petty 
trade); and adopt technologies (for example they are able to buy improved seed varieties from market). They have 
control over the income and are also able to contribute to some of the household expenses such as school fees. 
 
Cultural capital: Increased opportunity for women to earn income for vegetable gardening and to have control over 
the income enabled some changes in gender relations and empowered women at household level. On the contrary, 
increased participation of women in productive activities such as irrigated farming could mean more workload (time-
poverty), as they already have time constraint. More workload on women could be translated to limited time for self-
growth and other productive activities. 
 
Political capital: This refers to women’s ability to participate in decision making at household and community levels. 
Due to intervention by ILWAC, participation of men and women in innovation platforms as members and leaders has 
increased. For women, it increased their self-confidence (ability to express their views and ability to speak in public), 
self-esteem (developing a sense of belongingness in development agenda (as in women beneficiaries in Nigeria), and 
opportunities for self-development (such as networking, learning and sharing). Those in leadership position indicated 
it provided them with opportunities to exercise leadership, to skill development (through increased opportunities for 
trainings) and to enhance their participation in decision making at household and community level. Though the project 
has positive outcome in terms of increasing participation of women in leadership, the number of women participating 
in leadership position is still low. This implies more efforts are needed to enhance participation of women. 
77 Results and Impacts of the Integrated Land and Water Management for Adaptation to Climate Variability and Change (ILWAC) Project: Evaluation Report  
Natural capital: (Asset and resource acquisition) – Women have full control over income they earn from selling 
vegetables and milk (in the case of women beneficiaries from Burkina Faso APESS that they decide whether to invest 
or save. 
 
Physical capital: (Access to local amenities) - In some villages, ILWAC had interventions such as construction of check 
dams and reservoirs; and drilling of wells aimed increasing access to water for domestic and productive uses (watering 
livestock, growing fodder, watering livestock etc.). Increased access to water has helped women to save labour and 
time, and invest it in productive activities such as attending literacy classes, engaging in income generating activities 
and others. Increased access to water also has reduced the occurrence of conflicts that was driven by scarcity of water in 
the study villages. In some cases, the project also provided water distribution systems and irrigation facilities for 
beneficiaries in selected villages. This led to led to reduced drudgery, increase in vegetable cultivation, increased area 
of cultivation and increase in income. However, in some cases, long distance travel and perishable nature of 
vegetables, leads to post harvest losses and may expose women farmers to middlemen who may take advantage of 
their plight by providing unfavourable prices at the farm gate. In Burkina Faso APESS, with construction of biogas 
units   in the study villages women were: able to save labour and time they used to spent for collecting firewood; 
students were able to get light to study at night; sanitation and hygiene of the villages was improved; and health status 
of households was improved (due to better hygiene and absence of noxious fumes and smoke caused by the use of 
firewood). ILWAC project also provided tricycles, solar refrigerators, freezers and small milk collection equipment to 
women in pastoral community engaged in milk production. This improved the supply chain and their access to market 
and hence improved their income. 
 
Using the CCF, it is evident that ILWAC’s approach to invest in critical capitals (physical, human, social, financial) 
has resulted in increased assets within those capitals as well as others that enhanced adaptive  capacity of women. 
Accumulation of these assets also led to an upward spiral in empowerment. 
CHAPTER 13: 
Adapting to Climate Risks in the ILWAC Project Sites 
We interviewed 1411 households in both the surveyed locations, to characterize the vulnerability of smallholder 
farmers, identify how farmers cope with risks and explore strategies needed to help them  adapt to climate change. 
Farmers reported exposure to extreme weather events, which cause significant crop, livestock and income losses and 
exacerbate food insecurity. Farmers reported drought (about 40%   of treatment and control groups), as the most 
prevalent climatic shock, experienced over the last five years, followed by erratic rainfall, flooding and invasion by 
insects (Table 11). There is no significant difference in climate shock events experienced by the treatment and control 
households (Table 11), criteria to select the control villages was based on similarity in agro-ecologies. 
 
Food insecure households reportedly exhibit a range of coping techniques that reflects their vulnerability. We 
identified eleven coping strategies, which used commonly across the sampled locations. Of these five are adopted in 
Burkina Faso-AmRECCAF, seven in Burkina Faso (APESS), eight in Gambia and Nigeria, nine in Senegal, and 10 in 
Gambia and Sierra Leone. In Gambia, purchase of food was the most important (58% in control and 34% in the 
treatment) strategy followed by sale of food reserves (19% in control and 29% in the treatment). 
 
Results from the focus group discussions and farmer interviews revealed that coping strategies are complex behaviours, 
which are inherently context specific. In Benin, the most prevalent strategies are sale of livestock (29% in treatment, 
24% in control) and sale of food reserves (20% in treatment and 29% in control). In Gambia food purchase is most 
common (34% in treatment, 58% in the control) and then sale of food reserves 29% for treatment, 19% for control). 
Thirty eight percent of farmers in the treatment in Senegal sell livestock compared to 32% for the control. Whereas, 
farmers in the treatment in Senegal can access savings to purchase food (24%), respondents in the control depend on 
borrowing from external sources (29%). The most used coping strategy in Nigeria was the purchase of food (32% in 
the treatment, 37% in the control). Second was eating less food in the treatment (24%) and relying on food aid in the 
control villages (26%). Respondents in the  treatment villages in Sierra Leone ate less food (24%) followed by use of 
savings (23%). For the control, purchase food (22%) and eating less food (20%) were most common. Sale of livestock 
was the main coping strategy in Burkina Faso- AmRECCAF (73% in treatment, 91% in control). In addition to 
livestock (351% in treatment, 35% in control), respondents in Burkina Faso-APESS also adopt the use of savings 
during food shortages (37% in treatment, 48% in control). 
 
We categorize strategies adopted depending on the severity of food insecurity. We adopted three categories: low food 
insecurity, moderate food insecurity and high food insecurity. Generally, households in the study sites adopt a series of 
coping strategies patterns. During low food insecurity, households employ food- maximizing strategies such as 
78 Results and Impacts of the Integrated Land and Water Management for Adaptation to Climate Variability and Change (ILWAC) Project: Evaluation Report 
 
purchasing food and eating less food, involving a low commitment of domestic resources enabling quick recovery once 
the crisis eases. In times of moderate food insecurity, households are increasingly required into a greater commitment of 
resources to meet subsistence needs. Strategies during this stage include sale of food reserves, use of savings, sale of 
livestock, borrowing food, and borrowing money (from friends, relatives, private lenders and banks). During high food 
insecurity, strategies are a sign of failure to cope with the food crisis and may involve drastic options that may 
undermine their future ability to prevent, mitigate, cope, and recover from shocks. Households adopt sale of assets 
such as land and homes, keeping children home from school, food aid and migration. 
 
The graphs in Figure 32 reveal the proportion of farmers employing the three different categories of coping strategies 
in response to food insecurity, because of climatic shocks during the last five years. We can look at the changes in 
category of coping behaviours employed over this period and determine how severe the situation is for the group of 
households. The data reveals that overall a higher proportion of farmers in the control adopted strategies correlated to 
high food insecurity, compared to those in the treatment. 
 
 
 
FIGURE 32: Proportion of households using different categories of coping strategies to deal with food insecurity in the control 
and treatment villages 
 
Although farmers use a variety of risk-coping strategies, these are insufficient to prevent them from remaining food 
insecure. Some farmers reported that they have not adjusted their farming strategies in response to climate change, 
owing to limited capacity and resources (Table 20). This presents an opportunity to increase the adaptive capacity of 
farmers to cope with climate-related shocks through information and training empowerment. 
 
Table 20: Percentage of climatic shock events in which farmers reported they did not adopt any coping  strategies 
among the treatment and control villages 
 
COUNTRY TREATMEN
T 
CONTROL 
Gambia 29.63 21.62 
Senegal 22.45 20.41 
Nigeria 83.77 72.86 
Benin 61.54 64.83 
Sierra Leone 34.39 35.82 
Burkina Faso-AmREACCAF 63.56 35.71 
Burkina Faso-APESS 29.41 54.78 
 
79 Results and Impacts of the Integrated Land and Water Management for Adaptation to Climate Variability and Change (ILWAC) Project: Evaluation Report 
 
 
FIGURE 33: Adaptation mechanisms identified from FGDs and Key Informant interviews on coping with diverse drivers in 
communities including climate change. 
80 Results and Impacts of the Integrated Land and Water Management for Adaptation to Climate Variability and Change (ILWAC) Project: Evaluation Report  
As illustrated in Figure 33, communities within the treatment areas adapt to various mechanisms in a multi- faceted 
manner given the various drivers they face. There are several adaptation mechanisms across the different enterprises. 
These mechanisms are mainly helpful in coping to several endogenous drivers given the vulnerability of the region. 
 
Technical, financial and institutional support are required to improve the agricultural production and food security of 
farmers and make their livelihoods resilient to climate change. This will require greater investments in drought and heat 
tolerant varieties, pest tolerant varieties and breeds, irrigation systems, water harvesting techniques, crop and livestock 
insurance, agriculture financing services, climate services, social protection programs, and integrated strategies to 
reduce livelihood risk. 
 
The use of irrigation and retention of water for agriculture remain low despite prevalent droughts reported in the 
region. Most farming communities are far from rivers that will require considerable investment to use irrigation 
facilities. Collecting runoff, improving the infiltration of rain in soils such as through terracing, watershed 
management to increase water storage in soils and the water table, small-scale water harvesting methods using ditches 
to channel run-off into fields, storage systems such as ponds and sub-surface storage, offer additional complementary 
approaches. Village savings and loans groups in which members can borrow in times of need help to reduce the worst 
impacts of extreme weather events, while creating local funds that farmers can tap into for other agricultural 
investments. 
 
While efforts to be more climate resilient are evident in Burkina Faso e.g. water and soil management practices, there is 
still need to upscale to increase productivity. Financial investments should be used at implementing national early 
warning systems, environmental monitoring and capacity building of communities on Climate smart practices. This 
will reduce the impacts of climatic risks and hazards. 
 
In Gambia, water harvesting and use is an important climate smart agriculture technology and practice. This is because 
it allows farmers and pastoralists to store water amid irregular rainfall patterns because of climate change. Common 
irrigation facilities are the pump, tidal systems and boreholes. Investments like efficient irrigation systems present the 
opportunity of improving vegetables productivity particularly by increasing the area under production, which is less 
than one percent of the total agriculture area. 
 
In order for Nigeria to increase its resilience to these extreme events, adaptation strategies will need to focus on 
diversifying livelihoods, adopting drought-tolerant and early maturing varieties of crops, efficient weather forecasting, 
restoring degraded areas, expanding and optimizing irrigation infrastructures, sustainable land management, and 
increasing and upgrading storage facilities. 
 
Climate Smart Agriculture technologies and practices present opportunities to improve agricultural production systems 
(groundnut-millet, rice paddy, sorghum, cassava, mango, maize, cowpeas, horticulture, livestock) in Senegal to be 
more adaptive especially under the new realities of climate change. Some of the CSA technologies that exist among the 
farmers in Senegal include but not limited to use of improved varieties, improved livestock, soil and water management 
practices, agroforestry and assisted natural regeneration. 
 
To reduce population vulnerability to climatic risks and impacts in Sierra Leone, it is important to invest in early 
warning systems, weather index insurance services, water harvesting, storage, and building capacity of farmers to 
implement climate smart technologies across the agriculture value chain. 
 
Across all the locations, low awareness on technologies to cope with climate shocks was reported. Farmers are further 
constrained by having limited access to climatic information (only 33% of the households have access to extension 
services), which could help inform farm management decisions, such as the choice of crops, planting dates, 
management strategies and early warning on climatic events. This requires investment in providing technical 
information and training, focusing on selecting context- appropriate options, and   an assessment of benefits and 
challenges. There is also need to focus on options across the whole value chain, beyond the production stages, which 
we noted was the emphasis of most of the projects activities. Strengthening extension can be effective at convincing 
farmers to change farming practices in response to climate change. 
81 Results and Impacts of the Integrated Land and Water Management for Adaptation to Climate Variability and Change (ILWAC) Project: Evaluation Report  
Farmers in the study regions are in a vicious cycle of food insecurity due to regular shocks that reduce agricultural 
yields and inadequate coping strategies, and this situation is likely to be further exacerbated by climate change. 
Climate smart agriculture (CSA) offers an approach to foster long-term climate-resilient development in the 
agriculture sector. 
 
Table 21 examines resilience consideration within the ILWAC projects using the World Bank Resilience Monitoring & 
Evaluation (ReM&E) framework (World Bank 2017). It shows that 89 percent of the project activities build on 
adaptive resilience capacity. Adaptive capacity relates to the ability of people, assets, and systems to adjust, modify, or 
change characteristics and actions to moderate potential future impacts from hazards so as to continue to function 
without major qualitative changes (World Bank, 2018). Some of the implemented project activities include soil, land, 
and water management, improved varieties and energy saving technologies. 
 
Seven percent of the activities relate to absorptive resilience capacity, meaning they help to prepare for, mitigate, or 
prevent negative impacts of hazards so as to preserve and restore essential basic structures and functions. Example of 
ILWAC activities were assisted natural regeneration (ANR) and soil erosion prevention. Four percent of the project 
activities are transformative, building the ability to create a fundamentally new system to avoid negative impacts from 
hazards. These include the promotion of a shift to higher value horticulture production for livelihood diversification. 
 
Table 21: Resilience capacities, concepts and examples of ILWAC project activities 
 
RESILIENCE CONCEPT EXAMPLE OF PROJECT ACTIVITIES
 COUNTRY CAPACITY 
Absorptive Protection Assisted natural regeneration (ANR) Burkina Faso, Senegal 
Soil erosion prevention around dams Burkina Faso 
Adaptive Diversity Early maturing, high-yielding and 
drought-tolerant crop varieties 
Benin, Gambia, Nigeria, 
Senegal 
Improved forage varieties Burkina Faso 
Microdosing fertilizer Senegal 
Weed control practices Senegal 
Cereal-legume intercrop Benin, 
Agroforestry Burkina Faso, Senegal, Sierra 
Leone 
Organic inputs (manure, compost, etc.) Benin 
Chemical fertilizer Benin, Nigeria 
ISFM (combination of inorganic fertilizer, 
organic inputs/agroforestry & improved 
seeds) 
Benin 
Watering points for livestock & 
household 
Burkina Faso, Nigeria 
Conservation of animal feeds Burkina Faso 
82 Results and Impacts of the Integrated Land and Water Management for Adaptation to Climate Variability and Change (ILWAC) Project: Evaluation Report  
RESILIENCE CONCEPT EXAMPLE OF PROJECT ACTIVITIES
 COUNTRY CAPACITY 
Adaptive Flexibility Improved storage techniques Senegal 
Irrigation Gambia, Senegal, Nigeria 
Soil & water conservation through zai pits, 
stone-bunds and half moon 
Burkina Faso 
Provision of climate and weather 
advisories to farmers 
Senegal 
Wells, water pans and boreholes Burkina Faso, Gambia, Nigeria, 
Sierra Leone 
Agricultural tools to increase land under 
cultivation and reduce labor use 
Gambia, Nigeria, Sierra Leone 
Village savings and loan association Burkina Faso, Sierra Leone 
Bio-digesters Burkina Faso 
Solar energy technologies Burkina Faso, Gambia 
Energy saving stoves Sierra Leone 
Extension services Benin, Burkina Faso, Gambia, 
Nigeria, Senegal, Sierra Leone 
Integration Innovation platforms Benin, Burkina Faso, Gambia, 
Nigeria, Senegal, Sierra Leone 
Collective marketing Benin; Burkina Faso 
Transforma- 
tive 
Livelihood 
diversification 
Shift to higher value horticulture production Gambia, Senegal, Sierra Leone 
 
13.1 Collective Action for Climate Preparedness 
This study offers potential policy-related options that different groups of society can play towards adaptation strategies 
in the face of climate change for the different ILWAC projects. Rather than propose project-specific options, we propose 
a suite of options depending on the various stakeholders along the value chain for agricultural production (Table 21). 
83 Results and Impacts of the Integrated Land and Water Management for Adaptation to Climate Variability and Change (ILWAC) Project: Evaluation Report  
Table 22: Guidelines towards upscaling with roles of stakeholders towards enhancing community resilience and 
adaptation to climate change 
 
STAKEHOLDER ROLES OF STAKEHOLDERS TOWARDS RESTORATION AND 
PREVENTION OF TYPE LAND DEGRADATION 
Government  Sensitization and awareness creation at various levels 
 Capacity building of extension officers 
 Establish strategic partnerships with relevant institutions 
 Establish monitoring and evaluation systems 
Development 
partners and NGOs 
 Provide technical assistance 
 Foster intervention uptake by farmers 
 Upscale best management practices/interventions 
 Facilitate capacity building interventions 
Research partners 
and civil society 
 Participatory action research on improved technologies and practices 
 Steer communities of practice through learning and practice alliances 
 Solicit land degradation and restoration options information 
 Promote indigenous knowledge, practices and technologies 
Private sectors  Identify investment opportunities 
 Seek profit maximization ventures 
 Develop and implement risk management strategies 
 Investing in land restoration implementation and upscaling 
Farmers and local 
resource users and 
stewards 
 Identify land restoration champion stewards 
 Engage in learning alliances and field schools 
 Participate in farm research 
 Share indigenous knowledge 
Media and social 
platforms 
 Disseminate researched land restoration information 
 Produce and share knowledge products 
 Disseminate land restoration guidelines in media platforms 
 Create public awareness program on land restoration related issues 
Donor society  Invest in landscape restoration options 
 Facilitate/shape government policies for land restoration options 
Academia (Schools and 
Universities) 
 Establish intervention programs on restoration in school curricula 
 Participate in civil society restoration options 
 Forge partnerships with NGOs to support restoration programs 
84 Results and Impacts of the Integrated Land and Water Management for Adaptation to Climate Variability and Change (ILWAC) Project: Evaluation Report  
CHAPTER 14: 
Regional Context of ILWAC Assessments with Policy Interfaces 
14.1 Regional Approach 
This study further explored the future trajectory of key drivers impacting the future of West Africa in the context of 
agriculture: population pressure, urbanization, land use changes, water scarcity and climate change. It has been proven 
that qualitative scenario narratives provide a means to explore a range of future possibilities (Enfors et al., 2008) and can 
help highlight knowledge gaps in the context of West Africa. The United Nations 2030 Agenda for Sustainable 
Development provides an aspirational and practical roadmap for action by all countries for achieving long-lasting 
sustainable development outcomes, while ensuring that no one is left behind. Agriculture lies at the heart of this agenda 
with an essential, multifunctional and catalytic role to play. However, to achieve the full range of social, economic and 
environmental benefits needed to realize the SDG Agenda 2030 and AU agenda 2063, it is necessary to reposition 
agriculture and this must be undertaken in the context of the complex and rising set of challenges facing the sector, even 
beyond climate change. Table 23 presents a general summary of the emerging policy implications based on the scope 
of the evaluation explored in this study. The table depicts the overall trends in key drivers, ecosystem integrity and 
human well-being outcomes and how these relate to the SDGs and Africa Union Agenda 2063. It is important realize 
that these summaries are not predictions of the future, but rather aim to give a sense of the range of plausible futures that 
could unfold in the West Africa region, given different sets of drivers, management interventions and governance 
responses and their complex interactions with agriculture, the environment and society. 
 
14.2 Key Success Stories 
When considered at a Regional level, there are numerous bright spots that are evident: 
 
• ILWAC interventions increased social safety nets for communities e.g. APESS-Burkina Faso. 
• ILWAC ensured that effective implementation of community based initiatives were promoted: Specific efforts 
were conducted to legislate and enforce community sensitive environmental policies e.g. AmREACCAF- Burkina 
Faso, ISFM-Benin and ENRACCA-WA- Senegal. 
 
14.3 Challenges 
The work being conducted across several countries if this is to be scaled up, introduces a new dimension related to 
suitability and social preferences form one country to another. In addition, this has implications for achieving overall 
project objectives viz a viz country needs. This calls for concerted efforts to ensure representativeness in the planning 
and implementation of proven interventions. 
 
14.4 Lessons Learnt 
Issues related to the food-water-energy nexus in relation to climate change have many features in common, including 
complex combinations of drivers which make the development, alignment and implementation of policies difficult. 
Furthermore, issues such as poverty alleviation, land use changes require collective agreements for concerted action 
and governance across scales that go beyond political boundaries and individual national benefit (UNEP, 2009). 
 
Table 23: Trends in the drivers of land use changes, ecosystem services and human well-being in West Africa, with 
response options that could help to minimise some of the negative drivers towards achieving the SDGs and Africa 
Agenda 2063 targets. This table summarises the results of the assessment of different drivers as well as dimensions of 
human well-being trajectories for West Africa. The arrows indicate an ( ), decrease ( ), or no change ( ) under each of 
the different categories for the future. The table shows that the impacts of all drivers are expected to increase in future 
scenarios, except for mixed results linked to local sustainability. The final column outlines potential governance 
responses that were derived from insights in Key informant interviews and FGDs that could help to navigate towards 
improving adaptive capacity of communities and human well- being by addressing particular negative drivers. The 
responses are not exhaustive, but showcase examples of how scenario exercises can help to elucidate policy options for 
achieving desirable outcomes. 
85 Results and Impacts of the Integrated Land and Water Management for Adaptation to Climate Variability and Change (ILWAC) Project: Evaluation Report  
  Table 23: Summary of well-being trajectories. Arrows indicate an ( ), decrease (   ), or no change ( )in the 
human well-being component under each potential scenario. 
 
Potential 
scenario 
Adaptation 
mechanisms 
from FGDs and 
KII 
SDGs and 
Targets 
(2030) 
Agenda 2063 
Goals 
D
ri
ve
rs
 
E
co
sy
st
em
 se
rv
ic
es
 
H
um
an
 w
el
lb
ei
ng
 
Potential governance 
responses/emerging 
implications 
Increased 
agriculture 
production, high 
population 
pressure and 
significant land 
use changes with 
high 
soil erosion 
incidence 
coupled with 
climate 
change risk 
(Burkina Faso- 
AmREACCAF; 
Senegal- 
ENRACA) 
 Use of 
improved crop 
seed varieties 
 Use of organic 
manure 
 Diversifiation of 
crops 
 Soil & water 
conservation 
through zai pits, 
stone- bunds 
and half moon 
 Reduced 
deforestation 
 Watering 
points for 
livestock & 
household 
1. No poverty 
(Target 1.4) 
2. Zero hunger 
(Target 2.3) 
3. Good 
health & 
well-being 
(Target 3.3) 
5. Gender 
equality 
(Target 5A) 
3. Healthy 
well nourished 
citizens 
7.5. Climate 
resilience and 
natural 
disaster 
preparedness 
and   
prevention 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 Regulatory frameworks 
e.g. social safety nets to 
ensure basic needs are 
met 
 Build government 
capacity to legislate and 
enforce community 
sensitive environmental 
policies 
 Ensure that value of 
ecosystems are 
incorporated into 
environmental 
management plans 
(private and public 
sector) 
Little collective 
action at the 
grassroots 
to support 
agriculture; 
export driven 
growth strains 
diversification 
(An extreme case 
scenario that 
could be 
applicable for all 
sites) 
 Use of coping 
strategies: early 
maturing 
varieties, early 
planting, 
supplementary 
irrigation 
 Use of 
boreholes and 
reservoir 
 Availability 
of weather 
information 
to community 
inhabitants 
2. Zero hunger 
(Target 2.3) 
15. Life on 
land (Target 
15.2, 15B) 
5. Modern 
agriculture for 
increased 
productivity 
and 
production 
7. Sustainable 
natural 
resources 
management 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 Stimulate capacity, 
livelihoods and job 
creation in diverse 
sectors outside of 
primary industries 
 Ensure effective 
implementation of 
community based 
initiatives are promoted 
 Ensure that private 
and public sector 
developments (e.g. 
industrial, 
agricultural) adhere to 
environmental and 
social standards 
Agriculture 
expands at the 
expense of the 
environment, little 
government 
support; region is 
dependent 
on livestock 
livelihoods but 
threatened by 
climate changes 
(Burkina Faso- 
APESS; Nigeria & 
Benin) 
 Improved 
animal feeds/ 
forage varieties 
 Conservation of 
animal feeds 
 Wells in 
pastoral zones 
 Supplementary 
feeding, 
provision of 
housing, health 
care services 
2. Zero hunger 
(Target 2.3) 
15. Life on 
land (Target 
15.2, 15B) 
5. Gender 
equality 
(Target 5A) 
5. Modern 
agriculture for 
increased 
productivity 
and 
production 
7. Sustainable 
natural 
resources 
management 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 Promote investments in 
environmental friendly 
technologies (e.g. water 
pollution) 
 Strong environmental 
and social regulations 
are enforced 
 Human right based 
approaches are 
enforced to meet and 
reduce inequalities 
86 Results and Impacts of the Integrated Land and Water Management for Adaptation to Climate Variability and Change (ILWAC) Project: Evaluation Report  
Potential 
scenario 
Adaptation 
mechanisms 
from FGDs and 
KII 
SDGs and 
Targets 
(2030) 
Agenda 2063 
Goals 
D
ri
ve
rs
 
E
co
sy
st
em
 se
rv
ic
es
 
H
um
an
 w
el
lb
ei
ng
 
Potential governance 
responses/emerging 
implications 
Social equity 
and welfare are 
prioritized but 
haphazard 
growth may 
induce conflicts. 
Sustainable use of 
resources is 
promoted (Sierra 
Leone, Gambia 
and Senegal- 
ENRACA) 
 Changes in 
management 
practices e.g. 
knowledge in 
vegetable 
gardening 
 Ability to 
cultivate larger 
farm lands 
 Agricultural 
tools to 
increase 
land under 
cultivation and 
reduce labor use 
1. No poverty 
(Target 1.4) 
2. Zero hunger 
(Target 2.3) 
3. Good health 
& well-being 
(Target 3.3) 
5. Gender 
equality 
(Target 5A) 
3. Healthy 
well nourished 
citizens 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 Leverage regional 
strength to access and 
develop sustainable 
global markets without 
compromising local 
ecosystem integrity 
 Build sub-regional 
resilience to shocks (e.g. 
climate related disasters) 
by mainatinging global 
connections (e.g. 
markets, partnerships, 
resources, innovations) 
 
The potential scenarios in Table 23 were derived from a variety of multi-stakeholder interactions through FGDs and 
key informant interviews in the Region and participatory workshops and include visions aligned with key policy 
processes in Africa linked to NEPAD and the African Development Bank. A suite of potential governance responses 
and emerging implications are provided along each scenario and how this relates to the broader policy agenda for 
Africa. 
87 Results and Impacts of the Integrated Land and Water Management for Adaptation to Climate Variability and Change (ILWAC) Project: Evaluation Report  
CHAPTER 15: 
Summary Findings and Recommendations 
15.1 Summary Findings 
The critical role of Innovation Platforms: Results from this assessment across the seven projects revealed that 
innovation platforms provided a framework for sharing knowledge on adaptation innovations to climate change and 
served as entry points for technology dissemination. For APESS-Burkina Faso, the IPs supported better access to 
markets for the farmers, especially women groups that were involved in the milk supply chain. In the Gambia, 
trainings in the innovation platforms resulted in better use of climate smart agricultural practices such as minimum 
tillage and use of polythene to cover soils and reduce growth of weeds. These practices need scaling up to reduce the 
workload for women who spend most of their days weeding the crops. In Sierra Leone, the IPs fully existed before the 
ILWAC project. This approach was able to take advantage of existing opportunities in the project sites and foster local 
ownership and sustainability of existing institutions. However, in some cases, this also hampered the participation of 
new members. The assessment also revealed the close linkage between capacity building and IP membership. There is 
need for enhancement of capacity for diverse stakeholder groups, including farmers, actors in priority value chains, 
extension agents, policymakers and researchers, which is easily enabled with the existence of IPs. For example, 
women in the AmREACCAF project reported social cohesion, leadership capacity, and economic empowerment and 
communication skills as benefits of belonging to the IP. In Boura, Burkina Faso after the close of the project, the 
women in the IP formed a village saving and loan association (VSLA). In summary, the evaluation study showed that 
the innovation platform model can offer the potential to organize stakeholders to address the objective of improving the 
livelihood of their members. Innovation platforms need a strong voice to demand the needed services from service 
providers, negotiate and advocate for collective interests with the private sector and government. 
 
Smallholder adaptation strategies: The pioneering of integrated land and water management for adaptation to climate 
variability stood out as a success for landscape-based initiatives that involve collective action of community members 
towards management of common pool resources. This was particularly evident for the case studies in Senegal, Benin 
and Burkina Faso. One notable example was the AmREACCAF project   in Burkina Faso where there was reduction 
in sedimentation by up to 70%; and reduced runoff by up to 30% resulting in better agricultural practices and 
livelihoods. Additionally, the improved implementation   of agronomic interventions that substantially reduced the 
yield gap such as the use of improved crop varieties with 10 times actual yield increases with improved millet varieties 
(ENRACCA-WA- Senegal) was    a big success. There was household enterprise diversification, the agroforestry tree 
species also acted as windbreaks, and these helped modify the micro-climate of the area that enhances food security and 
revenue generation within target communities, increased farmer adaptive capacity and system resilience. 
 
Gender dynamics: There were improved gender-related dynamics regarding the roles, activities and representativeness 
within the selected projects and resulted in women empowerment economically, socially through leadership positions 
and in formation of interest groups. E.g. the Boura women milk supply chain that was empowered with tricycles to 
reduce travel time to access markets which resulted in higher production and higher incomes. Participation in ILWAC 
increased income by 19%. Results further show that education level and family size is associated with higher income. 
Higher value assets such as livestock did also significantly influence income. ILWAC increased significantly the value 
of assets to almost 90%; a factor attributable to additional assets that were distributed to farmer groups such as the case 
of Gambia, Senegal and Sierra Leone. ILWAC increased the number of CSA practices implemented by three practices 
more compared to non-participation, Male headed households were more likely to practice more CSA technologies by 
a factor of about 1 compared to female headed households. 
 
Is there a missing link to adoption of innovations?:The challenge is  getting  the  technologies  widely  used mainly 
as a result of lack of suitable enabling environment, extension services, financial resources, infrastructure, risk 
management and cross-sectoral linkages. Farmers are further constrained by having limited access to climatic 
information, only 33% of the households have access to extension service. Effective research and innovation are needed 
to continuously improve practices and technologies. A critical addition 
88 Results and Impacts of the Integrated Land and Water Management for Adaptation to Climate Variability and Change (ILWAC) Project: Evaluation Report  
is the need for an enabling policy and institutional environment to provide the conditions and incentives  necessary for 
scaling out. 
 
Institutional and governance mechanisms: Despite the recorded successes there remains room for improvement in 
several institutional and governance realms. Farmers in the project sites are faced by poor extension, with the ratio of 
government paid extension officers to that of farmers being low. This has a negative impact on the quality of extension 
services being offered and building adaptive capacity to deal with climate change. In addition, FGDs and household 
survey result reveal that climate-related challenges are the main causes  of risk and vulnerability through crop failures 
e.g. in the AmREACCAF and EnRACCA-WA projects in Burkina Faso and Senegal respectively. The threat of 
climate variability and change combined with other stressors induced several coping mechanisms within communities. 
Farmers responded to the stresses in different ways over time but the impact of the severity would have been worse if 
farmers did not have social safety nets and interventions. The responses in some cases appeared reactive than proactive 
preparedness either at the household, community or innovation platform levels. ILWAC interventions increased social 
safety nets for communities while putting into consideration potential governance options e.g. APESS-Burkina Faso. 
 
Policy linkages: A priority for policymakers is to safeguard the natural ecosystems that smallholder farmers use as 
safety nets. Grazing lands, forests, wetlands, rivers and other natural areas provide critical ecosystem services, 
including the provision of water, wild foods, livestock fodder, and use as cultural or religious sites, among others. 
These services are important particularly following catastrophic events when farmers turn   to them for food, feed and 
materials to rebuild their livelihoods. Efforts that conserve, restore or sustainably manage these natural ecosystems 
allowing equitable access especially to those who are most vulnerable, particularly women, the disabled and old 
people, are therefore crucial for sustaining farmer livelihoods in West Africa. In a more general context at a Regional 
level, highlighted bright spots that were evident linkages to policy include but were not limited to: 
• -ILWAC ensured that effective implementation of community based initiatives were promoted: Specific efforts 
were conducted to legislate and enforce community sensitive environmental policies e.g. AmREACCAF- Burkina 
Faso, ISFM-Benin and ENRACCA-WA- Senegal. 
 
15.2 Recommendations 
1. Strengthening of Innovation Platforms in the Region: 
Despite their critical importance, ILWAC evaluation results revealed that there are currently 
clear gaps in the structure, composition and functional management of innovation platforms in 
West Africa. The lack of continuous monitoring and evaluation of the IPs during the 
implementation of the ILWAC project meant that the facilitators did not have an opportunity to 
ensure that the IPs were achieving expected progress and outcomes among platform members. 
Additionally, the IPs have not evolved to have the capacity to innovate and be able not only to 
sustain technology use but also support 
uptake to scale. They require technical and financial support from external actors on reproducing knowledge piloted in 
the IP across for example geographical scale and value chains. This could be addressed through building on existent IP 
initiatives of local farmers in the Region. 
 
For all projects, the IPs improved community participation and social cohesion and led to increased uptake of 
agricultural technologies. Additionally, IPs facilitated the inclusion of women and youth contributing     to the 
representation of their issues. The IPs formed platforms for promoting new technologies along the value chain and 
facilitated establishment of public-private-civil society engagement within the rural to urban agricultural sectors. This 
may be bolstered by bringing together a broad variety of stakeholders to create economic incentives for enhanced long-
term sustainability of value-chain driven agricultural operations with multiple stakeholders. This includes technological 
and financial solutions providers, for the participatory development of concepts and, ultimately, large-scale 
implementation programs, towards greater agricultural production. However, future success of IPs will require 
enhancing capacity of smallholder farmers to conduct agriculture as a business. The growing information technologies 
could be used to disseminate technical information, facilitate financial services and other services. Innovation 
platforms need a strong voice to demand the needed services from service providers, negotiate and advocate for 
collective interests with the private sector and government. 
 
 
89 Results and Impacts of the Integrated Land and Water Management for Adaptation to Climate Variability and Change (ILWAC) Project: Evaluation Report  
2. Development of climate smart agriculture options: 
Given the increasing frequency and intensity of climatic shocks and dry environment in most 
of the Western African countries, enhancing agricultural water management (AWM) is key to 
increasing agricultural productivity and reducing production risks.  The decreasing costs of 
solar equipment could enhance development and diffusion of solar-powered AWM equipment 
to enhance production of high value crops – which in turn could simultaneously increase 
income and nutrition and health of households and communities. ILWAC evaluation results for 
example in Senegal show that off-season 
vegetable cultivation by women groups resulted in three times more income than rainfed production. This suggests 
production of horticultural crops is particularly relevant to women who own/manage small plots. A double win 
complemented with a business model angle though the provision of solar panels to access groundwater resources then 
use the water through drip kits irrigation would further make this venture profitable and sustainable. 
 
3. Promote income diversification and de-risking agriculture as means of building household 
resilience: 
ILWAC evaluation results show that the assessed ILWAC  countries remain vulnerable    to 
climate change, not only because of their high exposure to climate change and variability, but also 
because agriculture remains largely rain-fed, and under-developed.  A multi-faceted approach to 
building livelihood resilience  while  providing  pathways for households to escape poverty, 
through enhancing multiple benefits of agricultural produce, adding value, commercialization, and 
expanding the rural non-farm economy of rural economy are required. This study attempted to 
highlight these needs (See Figures 
 
32, 33 and Table 21). Income diversification is one of the strategies for adaptation to climate change and other shocks. 
ILWAC promoted livelihood diversification and the results show it led to accumulation of more productive assets than 
the control group on the overall. Promoting income diversification requires provision of financial services to allow 
farmers borrow start-up capital. It is also imperative to provide farmers with business skills training. IPs and other 
types of farmer groups could help members to be engaged in multiple livelihoods and could facilitate access to credit. 
 
Given the upward trend of negative effects of drought and other shocks, it is important to build mechanisms for 
insurance and other risk sharing mechanisms. This is especially important for livestock which serve as rural people 
live banks. Studies done in the pastoral areas of Kenya – which are comparable to the West African Sahelian region – 
have shown that farmers index-based livestock insurance (IBLI) works very well and was accepted even among Muslim 
communities through the use of the “takaful” system in which pastoral community members contribute money into a 
pool system to guarantee all members of compensation if     a shock happens. The IBLI needs to be promoted both 
from the demand and supply side to ensure it is commercialized. 
 
4. Gender and youth empowerment needs mainstreaming at the community level: 
The ILWAC project had a good footprint in reaching and benefitting men and women in the target 
areas as it provided access to technologies and/or innovations such as improved seeds (ENRACCA-
WA), fertilizers (ISFM-Benin), tricycles for market outlets as well as energy for household cooking 
(APESS Burkina Faso). The better access to technologies coupled with targeted trainings and 
exchange visits enabled men and women beneficiaries to gain 
valuable insights, knowledge and decision making skills which resulted in higher yields and income. 
With encouragement and support from project coordinators, women had good 
participation, however, participation of women in leadership positions was limited indicating the need for more 
capacity building initiatives to enhance their voices at household and community levels. On the overall, both men 
and women had participation in innovation platforms as members but needed more balanced representation to allow 
more women involvement. 
 
The face of the West Africa sub-region has changed profoundly because of the big population rise in the youth. It 
would be a missed opportunity not to include youth targeted components in the design of future 
90 Results and Impacts of the Integrated Land and Water Management for Adaptation to Climate Variability and Change (ILWAC) Project: Evaluation Report  
initiatives within the Region. We recommend embracing of ICT and other advanced technologies that act as 
“enablers” for agriculture but are equally attractive to the youth while they push the edge for enhancing agriculture in 
an innovative and game changing manner. The ICT could be simultaneously promoted with labour saving 
technologies to ease the burden of labour intensive agriculture which is one of the factors which drive the youth away 
from agriculture. 
 
5. Smallholder empowerment through strengthening agricultural extension services: 
Across all the locations of ILWAC beneficiaries, there was very low awareness on 
technologies to cope with climate shocks. Farmers are further constrained by having limited 
access to climatic information (only 33% of the households have access to extension 
services), which could help inform farm management decisions, such as the choice of crops, 
planting dates, agronomic management strategies and early warning on climatic events. This 
requires investment in providing technical information and 
training, focusing on selecting context- appropriate options, and an assessment of benefits and challenges. There 
is also need to focus on options across the whole value chain, beyond the production stages, which we noted was the 
emphasis of most ILWAC projects activities. Strengthening extension can be effective at convincing farmers to change 
farming practices in response to climate change. Despite the recorded successes in some projects such as ENRACCA-
WA in Senegal as well as APESS Burkina Faso, there remains room for improvement in several institutional and 
governance realms. Farmers in the project sites are faced by poor extension, with the ratio of government paid 
extension officers to that of farmers being low. This has a negative impact on the quality of extension services being 
offered and building adaptive capacity to deal with climate change. In addition, ICT infrastructure is rapidly growing 
(for all ILWAC Project countries) thus enabling access to a broad range information for smallholder farmers—
agronomy, weather services, market information, access to extension services and insurance services—all of which 
can help them to bridge the inequitable extension services bottleneck. 
 
6. Channeling ILWAC findings for guidance towards learning, planning and implementation of regional 
priorities and policy initiatives will require collaboration across multiple stakeholders: 
The interventions promoted by ILWAC were well aligned with the Comprehensive Africa 
Agriculture Development Programme (CAADP). However, there appeared no explicit mechanism 
of channeling ILWAC findings to ensure that these inform on regional learning, planning and 
implementation of priorities. This would allow for trackable progress against regionally relevant 
indicators. Alignment of the Agenda 2063 aspirations and Sustainable Development Goals can 
facilitate interventions that achieve multiple transformative outcomes at a Regional level by linking 
agricultural transformation with enhanced human 
well-being in West Africa. Examples that are pertinent for ILWAC include better streamlined access to financial 
instruments, production resources and safety nets. 
 
The ILWACengagementatvariouscountrylevelspavedthewayforfunctionalpartnershipswiththerespective 
Governments. These partnerships have the ability to develop innovative, cost-effective, and decentralized demand-side 
driven solutions for steering forward agricultural transformation in the region while engaging various partners, 
including community leaders, governments, NGOs and farming communities. It is hoped that this model can be 
replicated at scale by Governments and other transformative initiatives and agencies such as ECOWAS. The proposed 
model would work in alignment with the national and regional initiatives. ILWAC specific examples that highlight 
upscaling with roles of stakeholders towards enhancing community resilience and adaptation to climate change are 
provided in Table 22 while higher level governance options and emerging implications are summarized in Table 23. 
 
91 Results and Impacts of the Integrated Land and Water Management for Adaptation to Climate Variability and Change (ILWAC) Project: Evaluation Report  
7. Taking into account the local context: There are no silver bullets: what is “appropriate for impact” can be 
up-scaled but depends on the local context of target beneficiaries: 
The Guide to Sustainable Intensification Assessment Framework was used to 
broadly evaluate ILWAC interventions (Plate 2) using a range of indicators 
highlighted in Plate 1. The ILWAC project resulted in substantial gains in the 
Sustainable Intensification domains related to productivity (animal and crop yields), 
environment (reduced erosion, siltation, water quality) and human (nutrition, food 
diversification) (Plate 2). The social and economic domains depicted differences but these 
did not show substantial differences before and after ILWAC as the other 
aforementioned domains. There were noticeable “triple wins” (production, resilience and sustainability) which existed 
in some situations or local contexts but often there were numerous associated trade- 
offs. Some of the trade-offs were temporal trade-offs between meeting shorter-term food production objectives and 
income needs for the household as opposed to the longer-term resilience objectives. ILWAC Projects such as ISFM 
Benin, ENRACCA-WA in Senegal as well as AmREACCAF-Burkina Faso helped with household enterprise 
diversification e.g. agroforestry tree species which enhanced the resilience 
of smallholder communities with climate smart options but these also enhanced food security and revenue generation 
within target communities and increased farmer adaptive capacity and overall system 
resilience. Evidence revealed from both focus group discussions (FGDs) and key informant interviews (KIIs) 
emphasized that broader and scalable achievements are possible provided one considers the specific local context 
applicable for the target beneficiaries. Given the ILWAC project interventions, there was no ‘one-size-fits-all 
solution’— the appropriate suite of interventions should always be made after careful consideration of the socio-
economic context of the target beneficiaries and beyond. 
 
8. Creation of an enabling environment will be critical if smallholder farmers are to be empowered for 
improved livelihoods and resilience: 
Food insecure households reportedly exhibited a range of coping techniques that reflects 
their vulnerability. Often households adopted various strategies to cope with climatic risks 
through farming enterprise diversification, but the success of these strategies often depends 
on external factors beyond their control. As clearly exemplified in Chapter 13 (See Figures 
32 and 33; Table 21); households adapt to climatic shocks with various coping strategies 
which are complex but also context specific e.g. sale of food reserves, sale of livestock, 
precautionary savings and 
informal risk sharing. The first two are dependent on external factors as both require supporting factors like access to 
functioning markets with conducive prices. If the enabling environment is conducive, these 
coping strategies can greatly improve resilience to climatic shocks as well as livelihood resilience to market shocks. 
For example the APESS project in Burkina Faso, crop diversification was shown to help farmers deal with dry spells 
while in Senegal (ENRACCA-WA) innovative irrigation options were cited as an effective response to climatic 
hazards. In summary, for greatest impacts to be realized, regardless of the location, the enabling environment beyond 
particular needs and constraints of smallholder farmers must be taken into account when designing production 
strategies that aim at improving nutrition, food security and livelihood resilience. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Plate 3: Aborisade village, Nigeria with ILWAC beneficiary vegetable farm, water harvesting pond and Focus group 
discussions (Photo Credit: Vincent Aduramigba-Modupe, Institute of Agricultural Research & Training Obafemi Awolowo 
University) 
92 Results and Impacts of the Integrated Land and Water Management for Adaptation to Climate Variability and Change (ILWAC) Project: Evaluation Report  
CHAPTER 16: 
References 
Acheampong, K. (2015). Determinants of Farm and Non-Farm Family-Controlled Child Labor. International Journal of 
African Development, 2:2. 
 
Andrabi, Tahir; Das, Jishnu; Khwaja, Asim Ijaz. (2006). A Dime a Day: The Possibilities and Limits of Private Schooling in 
Pakistan. Policy Research Working Paper; No. 4066. Washington, DC: World Bank. © World Bank. 
https://openknowledge.worldbank.org/handle/10986/8871 License: CC BY 3.0 IGO.I 
 
Attanasio, O. & Vera-Hernandez, M. (2004). Medium and Long Run Effects of Nutrition and Child Care: Evaluation f a 
Community Nursery Programme in Rural Colombia. Centre for the Evaluation of Development Policies. 
 
Barrett, C. B., F. Place, and A. Aboud. (2002). The challenges of stimulating adoption of improved natural resource 
management practices in African agriculture. In Natural resources management in African agriculture, ed. C. 
 
B. Barrett, Place, and A. A. Aboud. Nairobi, Kenya: World Agroforestry Centre (ICRAF) and CAB International. 
Procedia - Social and Behavioural Sciences Volume 9, 2010, Pages 573-578 open access. 
 
Brett, E.A., (2003). Participation and accountability in development management. The Journal of development studies, 
40(2), pp.1-29. 
 
Brooks, N., E. and Whiteside, M. (2014). Assessing the impact of ICF programmes on household and community resilience 
to climate variability and climate change. Evidence on Demand for DFID. 
 
Brouwer, H., Hiemstra, W., Van Vugt, S. and Walters, H. (2013). Analysing stakeholder power dynamics in multi- 
stakeholder processes: Insights of practice from Africa and Asia. Knowledge Management for Development Journal 
9(3):11–3. 
 
Boateng George. (2018). Agricultural transformation in Africa: The myths, key issues, and the new pathway. African Center 
for Economic Transformation (ACET). http://acetforafrica.org/highlights/agricultural-transformation-in- africa-the-
myths-key-issues-and-the-new-pathway/ 
 
Bucciarelli, A. Odoardi, L. and Muratore, F. (2010). What role for education and training in technology adoption under an 
advanced socio-economic perspective? Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences. 9, 573-578. 
 
Booysen, F., Van Der Berg, S., Burger, R., Von Maltitz, M., & Du Rand, G. (2008). Using an asset index to assess trends in 
poverty in seven Sub-Saharan African countries. World Development, 36(6), 1113-1130. 
 
Carroll, Christopher D. (2009). Precautionary saving and the marginal propensity to consume out of permanent income. 
Journal of Monetary Economics, 56, 780–790. 
 
Chen, J. and Yang. H. (2016). Geographical Mobility, Income, Life Satisfaction and Family Size Preferences: An Empirical 
Study on Rural Households in Shaanxi and Henan Provinces in China. Social Indicators Research, 129:1, 277–290. 
 
Cho, K. M., & Tobias, D. J. (2012). Importance of Mobile Technology in Food and Agribusiness Value Chains: 
Electronically Linking Farmers with Markets. In Conference on International Research on Food Security, Natural 
Resource Management and Rural Development. 
 
Climate Change Knowledge Portal, (2018). http://www.kcckp.go.ke/ 
 
CIAT; BFS/USAID. (2016). Climate-Smart Agriculture in Senegal. CSA Country Profiles for Africa Series. International 
Center for Tropical Agriculture (CIAT); Bureau for Food Security, United States Agency for International Development 
(BFS/USAID), Washington, D.C. 20. 
93 Results and Impacts of the Integrated Land and Water Management for Adaptation to Climate Variability and Change (ILWAC) Project: Evaluation Report  
Cleaver, F. and Nyatsambo, R., (2011). Gender and integrated water resource management. Water resources planning and 
management, 311. Climate Change Knowledge Portal: http://sdwebx.worldbank.org/ 
climateportalb/home.cfm?page=country_profile&CCode=BEN&ThisTab=RiskOverview. 
 
Cordingley, J. E., Snyder, K. A., Rosendahl, J., Kizito, F., Bossio, D. (2015). Thinking outside the plot: addressing low 
adoption of sustainable land management in sub-Saharan Africa. - Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability, 15, 
p. 35-40. ...................................................... DOI: http://doi.org/10.1016/j.cosust.2015.07.010 
 
Denton, F. (2002). Climate Change Vulnerability, Impacts, and Adaptation: Why Does Gender Matter? Gender     & 
Development 10(2). Doss, D., Oduro, A., Deere, C., Swaminathan, H., Baah-Boateng, W., and Suchitra, J. (2018). Assets 
and shocks: a gendered analysis of Ecuador, Ghana and Karnataka, India. Canadian Journal of Development Studies / 
Revue canadienne d’études du développement, 38:1. 
 
Enfors, E. I., L. J. Gordon, G. D. Peterson, and D. Bossio. (2008). Making investments in dryland development work: 
participatory scenario planning in the Makanya catchment, Tanzania. 
 
FAO; ICRISAT; CIAT. (2018). Climate-Smart Agriculture in Benin. CSA Country Profiles for Africa Series. International 
Center for Tropical Agriculture (CIAT); International Crops Research Institute for the Semi-Arid Tropics (ICRISAT); Food 
and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO). Rome, Italy. 22p. 
 
FAOSTAT, 2018. FAO, AQUASTAT. 2018. FAO’s information system on water and agriculture (Food and Agriculture 
Organization of the United Nations). Accessed September 2018. Accessible at: http://www.fao.org/faostat/ en/#data/MK  
 
Gebregziabher, G., Rebelo, L. M., Notenbaert, A., Ergano, K., & Abebe, Y. (2013). Determinants of adoption of rainwater 
management technologies among farm households in the Nile River Basin (Vol. 154). IWMI. 
 
Hengl T., Heuvelink G.B.M., Kempen B., Leenaars J.G.B., Walsh M.G., Shepherd K.D., Sila A., MacMillan, R.A., Jesus, 
J.M., Tamene L., Tondoh J.E. (2015). Mapping Soil Properties of Africa at 250m Resolution: Random Forests 
Significantly Improve Current Predictions. PLOS ONE | DOI:10.1371/journal.pone.0125814. 
 
Homann-Kee Tui, S., Adekunle, A., Lundy, A., Tucker, J., Birachi, E., Klerkx, L., Ballantyne, Duncan, A., Cadilhon, J., and 
Mundy, P. (2013). ‘What are IPs?’ Brief 1 of IP practice briefs by CGIAR Research Program on the Humid Tropics. 
Kenya: ILRI. Available from: http://cgspace.cgiar.org/handle/10568/33667. 
 
Honfoga, B. G. (2018). Diagnosing soil degradation and fertilizer use relationship for sustainable cotton production in Benin. 
Cogent Environmental Science, 4(1), 1422366. 
 
Howden S.M., Soussana J.F., Tubiello F.N., Chhetri N., Dunlop M., Meinke H. (2007). Adapting agriculture to climate 
change. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 19691–19696. 
doi:10.1073/pnas.0701890104. 
 
Izuchukwu, O. (2011). Analysis of the contribution of agricultural sector on the Nigerian economic development. 
World review of business research, 1(1), 191-200. 
 
Jaiteh, Malanding & Sarr, Baboucarr. (2011). Climate Change and Development in The Gambia. 
10.13140/2.1.1731.1040. 
 
Jolliffe, D. (2004). The impact of education in rural Ghana: examining household labor allocation and returns on and off the 
farm. Journal of Development Economics, 2004, vol. 73, issue 1, 287-314. 
 
Kipkurgat, T., & Tuigong, D. (2015). Impact of Agricultural Extension on Food Security Among Small Scale Farmers in 
Wareng District, Kenya. European Journal of Agriculture and Forestry Research, 3(4), 25-28. 
 
Kizito, F., M. Sene, M.I. Dragila, A. Lufafa, I. Diedhiou, E. Dossa, et al. 2007. Soil water balance of annual crop–native shrub 
systems in Senegal’s Peanut Basin: The missing link. Agric. Water Manage. 90:137–148. doi:10.1016/j.agwat.2007.02.015 
94 Results and Impacts of the Integrated Land and Water Management for Adaptation to Climate Variability and Change (ILWAC) Project: Evaluation Report  
Knowler, D. and B. Bradshaw (2007). Farmers’ Adoption of Conservation Agriculture: A Review and Synthesis of Recent 
Research, Food Policy 32: 25-48. 
 
Lambrou, Y. and Piana, G., (2006). Gender: The missing component of the response to climate change. FAO. Lefore, N.; 
Weight, E.; Mukhamedova, N. 2017. Improving gender equity in irrigation: application of a tool to promote learning and 
performance in Malawi and Uzbekistan. Colombo, Sri Lanka: International Water Management Institute (IWMI). 
CGIAR Research Program on Water, Land and Ecosystems (WLE). 
 
Le Masson, V. (2016). Gender and resilience: from theory to practice. BRACED Working Paper, London: Overseas 
Development Institute. 
 
Masika, R. ed., (2002). Gender, development, and climate change. Oxfam. 
 
Masuki, K. F. G., Kamugisha, R., Mowo, J. G., Tanui, J., Tukahirwa, J., Mogoi, J., & Adera, E. O. (2010, March). Role of 
mobile phones in improving communication and information delivery for agricultural development: Lessons from South 
Western Uganda. In Workshop at Makerere University, Uganda (pp. 22-23). 
 
McCarthy, Nancy, Carletto, G., Davis, B., and I. Maltsoglou. (2006). Assessing the impact of massive out-migration on 
agriculture. ESA Working paper No. 06-14. FAO, Rome. 
 
Mendola, M. and Simtowe, F., (2015). The welfare impact of land redistribution: evidence from a quasi-experimental initiative 
in Malawi. World Development, 72: 53–69. 
 
Mitata, S. Minot, N and Hu, D. (2009). Impact of Contract Farming on Income: Linking Small Farmers, Packers, and 
Supermarkets in China. World Development, 37:11, 1781–1790. 
 
Miluka, Juna and Carletto, Calogero and Davis, Benjamin and Zezza, Alberto, The Vanishing Farms: The Impact of 
International Migration on Albanian Family Farming (September 1, 2007). World Bank Policy Research Working Paper 
Series, Vol., pp. -, 2007. Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=1017442. 
 
Miyata, S., Minot, N., and Hu, D. (2009). Impact of contract farming on income: Linking small farmers, packers, and 
supermarkets in China. World Development, 1781-1790. 
 
Nacoulma, J. D., & Guigma, J. B. (2015). Institutional context of soil information in Benin. 
 
Niang, I., Ruppel, O.C., Abdrabo, M.A., Essel, A., Lennard, C., Padgham, J. and Urquhart, P. (2014). Africa. In: Climate 
Change 2014: Impacts, Adaptation, and Vulnerability. Part B: Regional Aspects. Contribution of Working Group II to the 
Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [Barros, V.R., Field, C.B., Dokken, D.J., 
Mastrandrea, M.D., Mach, K.J., Bilir, T.E., Chatterjee, M., Ebi, K.L., Estrada, Y .O., Genova, R.C., Girma, B., Kissel, E.S., 
Levy, A.N., MacCracken, S., Mastrandrea, P .R., and L.L. White (eds.)]. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United 
Kingdom and New York, NY , USA, pp. 1199-1265. 
 
Neitsch, S.L.; Arnols, J.G.; Kiniry, J.R.; Williams, J.R. Soil and Water Assessment Tool Theoretical Documentation, 
version 2009; Texas A&M University: College Station, TX, USA, 2011. 
 
Paciorek, C.J. (2010). The importance of scale for spatial-confounding bias and precision of spatial regression estimators. 
Stat Sci. 2010 Feb; 25(1): 107–125. 
 
Pan, Y., Smith, C and Sulaiman, M. (2018). Agricultural Extension and Technology Adoption for Food Security: Evidence 
from Uganda. American Journal of Agricultural Economics. 100,4:1012–1031. 
 
Ravallion, M. & Wodon, Q. (2000). Does Child Labour Displace Schooling? Evidence on Behavioural Responses to an 
Enrollment Subsidy. The economic Journal, 110, 462. 
 
Rodríguez, D. I., Anríquez, G., & Riveros, J. L. (2016). Food security and livestock: The case of Latin America and the 
Caribbean. Ciencia e investigación agraria, 43(1), 5-15. 
 
Roudier P., Sultan B., Quirion P, & Berg A. (2011). The impact of future climate change on West African crop yields: what 
does the recent literature say? Glob. Environ. Change, 21, 1073–83. 
95 Results and Impacts of the Integrated Land and Water Management for Adaptation to Climate Variability and Change (ILWAC) Project: Evaluation Report  
Schlenker, W. and Lobell, D.B. (2010). “Robust negative impacts of climate change on African agriculture.” 
Environmental Research Letters 5(1), 014010. DOI:10.1088/1748- 9326/5/1/014010. 
 
Sultan, B., & Gaetani, M. (2016). Agriculture in West Africa in the Twenty-First Century: Climate Change and Impacts 
Scenarios, and Potential for Adaptation. Frontiers in Plant Science, 7, 1262. http://doi.org/10.3389/ fpls.2016.01262. 
 
The Climate Change Agriculture and Food Security (CCAFS) “Farms of the Future” project uses the climate analogue tool 
to connect farmers to their possible climate futures via farm visits (https://ccafs.cgiar.org/farms- 
future#.WRG_siMrInM). 
 
Ravallion, M. & Wodon, Q. (2000). Does Child Labour Displace Schooling? Evidence on Behavioural Responses to an 
Enrollment Subsidy. The economic Journal, 110, 462. 
 
Salvador Castell, G., Pérez Rodrigo, C., de la Cruz, J. N., & Aranceta Bartrina, J. (2015). Household food insecurity access scale 
(HFIAS). Nutricion hospitalaria, 31 (3). 
 
Schut, M., Kamanda, J., Gramzow, A., Dubois, T., Stoian, D., Andersson, J.A., Dror, I., Sartas, M., Mur, R., Kassam,  S., 
Brouwer, H. (2018). Innovation platforms in agricultural research for development: Ex-ante appraisal of  the purposes 
and conditions under which innovation platforms can contribute to agricultural development outcomes. Experimental 
Agriculture, Jun:1–22 
 
Smith, J., and P. Todd, (2001). Does matching overcome LaLonde’s critique of nonexperimental estimators? 
Journal of Econometrics 125 (1–2): 305–353. 
 
Stock, J.H. and Yogo, M. (2001). “Testing for Weak Instruments in Linear IV Regression,” manuscript, Harvard University. 
 
Stock, J.H. and Yogo, M., (2005). Testing for Weak Instruments in Linear IV Regression. In D.W.K. Andrews and 
J.H. Stock, eds. Identification and Inference for Econometric Models: Essays in Honor of Thomas Rothenberg. 
Cambridge: Cambridge U y Press, 2005, pp. 80-108. Working paper version: NBER Technical Working Paper 284. 
http://www.nber.org/papers/T0284. 
 
Tsai, H. & Xie, Y., (2011). Heterogeneity in returns to college education: Selection bias in contemporary Taiwan. 
Social Science Research, 40: 796–810. 
 
Turco, M., Palazzi, E., Hardenberg, J. & Provenzale, A. (2015). Observed climate change hotspots. Geophysical Research 
Letters, 3521–3528. 
 
White, S.C., (1996). Depoliticizing development: the uses and abuses of participation. Development in practice, 
6(1), pp.6-15. 
 
Woldu, T., Tadesse, F. and Waller, M.K., (2013). Women’s participation in agricultural cooperatives in Ethiopia. 
Ethiopia Strategy Support Program Working Paper. 
 
World Bank 2017. Operational Guidance for Monitoring and Evaluation M&E in Climate and Disaster Resilience- Building 
Operations. 
 
World Bank. 2018. Scaling Up Climate-Smart Agriculture through the Africa Climate Business Plan. Washington, DC: 
World Bank 
 
World Bank (2012). World Development Report 2012: Gender Equality and Development, Washington, DC: World Bank. 
 
World Bank(2015). Africa’s Infrastructure. A Time for Transformation, AFRICADEVELOPMENTFORUM. Washington, 
DC: World Bank. Vivien Foster and Cecilia Briceño-Garmendia (Editors). 
 
UNDP/GWA (2006). Mainstreaming Gender in Water Management. Resource Guide. UNEP (2009). Annual Report 2009. 
96 Results and Impacts of the Integrated Land and Water Management for Adaptation to Climate Variability and Change (ILWAC) Project: Evaluation Report  
Appendices 
Appendix 1 
Appendix Table I: Covariance matrix for the endogenous and instrumental variables 
 
TREATMENT AGROFORESTR
Y 
TIME TO 
NEAREST 
TOWN WITH 
POPULATIO
N 
>50,000 
PARTICIPATION 
IN IP 
PLOT 
OWNERSHI
P 
Treatment 1     
Agroforestry 0.0284 1    
Time to nearest town with 
population 
>50,000 
-0.0631* 0.1123* 1   
Participation in IP 0.4110* 0.028 -0.0404 1  
Plot ownership -0.0299 -0.1153* -0.1208* 0.0216 1 
Residuals, µ   Cov (Time to 
town, µ) = 0.044 
Cov (IP 
participation, µ) 
= 0.006 
Cov (Plot 
ownership, µ) 
= -0.001 
Notes: * p < 0.05, ** p < 0.01, *** p < 0.000 
 
The table indicates that the correlation between the endogenous and instruments is high and significant indicating that 
our instruments satisfy the condition of correlation between Z (instrument) and the  endogenous regressors (treatment 
and agroforestry) i.e. The second condition is also satisfied as the p-value of the regression between outcome variable, 
instrumental variable and residuals is highly significant at 1% (p=0.004). Besides, the covariance between the 
residuals and the instrumental variables all collapse to   zero i.e. cov (Time to town, µ), cov (IP participation, µ) and 
cov (plot ownership, µ) all collapse to zero after regressing the residuals on the outcomes and the instruments. 
 
Appendix 2: Evaluating ILWAC Impact against Key Performance Indicators 
This study presents the evaluation results in the form of Table II with all results in one main table. 
 
Appendix Table II: Evaluation matrix for the ILWAC Projects 
 
PROJECT 
NAME 
PERFORMANCE INDICATORS 
PROMISED 
STATUS FOR 
INDICATORS 
PROMISE
D 
OUTPUTS 
STATUS 
FOR 
OUTPUT
S 
GENERAL 
COMMENTS 
Enhancing the 
resilience and 
adaptive 
capacity to 
climate change 
through 
integrated land, 
water, and 
nutrient 
management in 
semi-arid West 
Africa 
(ENRACCA- 
WA) 
Access to diverse innovations in 
improved management of soil and 
water. 
Measured Farmers use 
improved maize 
and rice varieties. 
Achieved Verify specific 
communities this took 
place in Senegal and if 
practice is currently 
existent. 
Ability to access climate weather 
information. 
Measured Farmers use 
climate 
information 
in agronomic 
decision making. 
Partially There is no clear 
evidence that this was 
achieved, need to probe 
country teams further. 
97 Results and Impacts of the Integrated Land and Water Management for Adaptation to Climate Variability and Change (ILWAC) Project: Evaluation Report  
PROJECT PERFORMANCE INDICATORS STATUS FOR PROMISED STATUS  GENERAL 
NAME  PROMISED INDICATORS  OUTPUTS  FOR COMMENTS 
OUTPUTS 
Improving 
resilience to 
climate change 
in agricultural 
ecosystems along 
the watershed 
by the 
participatory 
development of 
anti-erosion and 
fertilizer 
agroforestry 
systems in six 
West African 
countries 
(AmREACCAF) 
To adapt and promote management 
techniques related to soil fertility and 
conservation of soil moisture. 
Measured Reduce soil 
degradation for 
60% of the farms 
Reduce soil 
erosion along 
water sheds. 
Achieved This was successful for 
farmers near Boura dam. 
To produce establish a departmental 
nursery for producing trees for 
agroforestry. 
Measured More than 
23000 trees of 
12 species were 
produced in 2014. 
Achieved The trees were sold to 
farmers. 
Number of hectares under 
improved technologies or 
management practices. 
Measured Over 23000 trees 
have been 
produced for 
agroforestry. 
Achieved This was mainly to 
promote agroforestry. 
Number of Technologies and/or 
innovations demonstrated. 
Partially This wasn’t clear. Partially Only tree nurseries were 
spotted. 
Number of Technologies and/ or 
innovations disseminated 
(number). 
Partially Few farmers 
mentioned to 
be practicing 
agroforestry. 
Partially It was not clear if farmers 
were practicing 
agroforestry and soil 
conservation measures on 
their plots. 
Number of beneficiaries who have 
applied/used improved technologies 
promoted by / made available under 
the Project 
(disaggregated by gender, country and 
technology). 
Not clear 239% adoption. Not clear Adoption of improved 
crop varieties by farmers 
wasn’t clear. 
Number of beneficiaries who have 
applied/used improved technologies 
promoted by / made available under 
the Project (disaggregated by gender 
and technology). 
Not clear 239% adoption. Not clear Youth and women 
participation in agriculture 
wasn’t clear. 
Number of beneficiaries who have 
applied/used an improved 
innovation promoted by the project. 
Measured 171% adoption. Achieved Many farmers were 
ware of soil erosion 
measures. 
Number of (direct ) project 
beneficiaries. 
Measured Gender inclusion. Partially Youths were not well 
represented in the 
project. 
Number of actors who have 
benefited from long term training 
(of at least 6 months) 
(disaggregated by category of 
actors, gender and Youths). 
Measured Gender inclusion. Partially Youths were not well 
represented in the 
project. 
Number of actors who have benefited 
from short-term training 
(disaggregated by gender). 
Measured Gender inclusion. Partially Youths were not well 
represented in the 
project. 
Number of Innovation Platforms 
(IPs) in commodity value chains 
that are functional 
Measured Functional IP. Achieved A well-organized IP 
was in existence. To 
do any activity in the 
community, you have to go 
through the IP. 
Female participation in Innovation 
Platforms (number). 
Measured Functional IP. Achieved Female were well 
represented in the IP. 
Some were even 
leaders. 
98 Results and Impacts of the Integrated Land and Water Management for Adaptation to Climate Variability and Change (ILWAC) Project: Evaluation Report  
PROJECT PERFORMANCE INDICATORS STATUS FOR PROMISED STATUS  GENERAL 
NAME  PROMISED INDICATORS  OUTPUTS  FOR COMMENTS 
OUTPUTS 
Development 
and promotion 
of integrated 
management of 
soil fertility 
(ISFM) through 
improved 
suitable 
production 
of major food 
crops 
The degradation of soils under the 
main food crops is reduced for 60% 
of farms that applied the proposed 
production system. 
Partially Degradation of 
soils for 60% of 
farms is reduced. 
Partially Without baseline 
information it is hard to 
quantify if the 60% was 
met. Nevertheless 
some practices such as 
intercropping and farm 
residues are known 
to protect soil from 
erosion. 
100 farms are involved in the tests for 
the adaptation of technological 
innovations. 
Measured 100 
demonstration 
plots are setup. 
Achieved Some farmers who took 
part in this met with 
enumerators and 
confirmed this. 
90% of producers by farm targeted 
mastered the improved system of 
production developed. 
Partially 90% of farmers 
integrate 
techniques that 
promote soil 
fertility and 
conservation of 
soil moisture. 
Partially Not all practices have 
been fully embraced. 
For example not 
all farmers are 
intercropping mucuna or 
pigeon peas with maize. 
A training session on each 
technological innovation is 
organized for the benefit of the 
trainers that empower producers. 
Measured Farmers trained 
on ISFM and soil 
water 
conservation 
techniques. 
Achieved Farmers were trained on 
these techniques and 
implementation can be 
observed in the field. 
Technological innovations applied the 
years after the end of the project. 
Measured Use of ISFM 
and soil water 
conservation 
techniques. 
Achieved Use of organic/ 
inorganic fertilizers, use 
of improved seed 
varieties and good 
agronomic practices 
were observed in the 
field. 
A functional platform for 
technological innovations is available 
in each targeted agro- ecological area. 
Measured Innovation 
platform 
established. 
Achieved Three innovation 
platforms were 
established in Benin 
with verifiable 
membership and 
leadership. 
Sustainable 
soil- water- 
nutrient 
management 
under 
increasing 
climatic 
change and 
variability: 
deployment of 
improved soil 
and water 
management 
technologies 
that will 
mitigate 
the impact 
of climatic 
variability 
Number of check dams and tube 
wells constructed. 
Conducted Check dams 
verified in 
existence. 
Achieved Verifiable after field 
visits. 
Number of Technologies and/or 
innovations demonstrate. 
Conducted 5 soil-water- 
nutrient 
management 
techniques 
identified and 
promoted. 
Achieved Verifiable after field 
visits. 
 Conducted Sustainable 
partnership for 
innovations in 
soil and water 
management 
established. 
Achieved Not verified if 
partnership is still in 
existence? 
Number of beneficiaries who have 
applied/used improved technolo- gies 
promoted by /made available under 
the project. 
Conducted Improved 
knowledge and 
skill of key 
actors in soil- 
water-nutrient 
management. 
Achieved Enthusiasm and 
continued pursuit of 
project promoted 
technologies 
such as improved 
maize varieties was 
commendable. 
99 Results and Impacts of the Integrated Land and Water Management for Adaptation to Climate Variability and Change (ILWAC) Project: Evaluation Report  
PROJECT PERFORMANCE INDICATORS STATUS FOR PROMISED STATUS  GENERAL 
NAME  PROMISED INDICATORS  OUTPUTS  FOR COMMENTS 
OUTPUTS 
Provision of 
water and 
renewable 
energy for 
pastoralists in 
West Africa 
(APESS) 
Number of protected water points 
rehabilitated/ reconstructed. 
Conducted Protected water 
points verified. 
Achieved Watering points reduced 
conflicts. 
Number of biogas units 
established. 
Conducted Biogas units 
present. 
Achieved Biogas units provided 
means of lighting 
and cooking for 
households. 
Number of solar powered refrigerators 
provided for women. 
Conducted Solar refrigerators 
present. 
Achieved Solar refrigerators 
provided longevity to 
milk products at an 
affordable cost. 
Number of tricycles provided for 
women milk processors. 
Conducted Tricycles verified. Achieved Tricycles improved 
milk transportation to 
distribution hubs. 
Number of Technologies and/or 
innovations demonstrated. 
Conducted 54 50 These were verifiable 
in the field even after 
project completion. 
Number of Technologies and/or 
innovations disseminated. 
Conducted 90 80 These were verifiable 
in the field even after 
project completion. 
Number of beneficiaries who have 
applied/used improved technologies 
promoted by / made available under 
the Project 
(disaggregated by gender, country and 
technology). 
Conducted 26 22  
Male  40 32 Improper gender balance 
towards technology 
promotion. 
Female  4 4 Improper gender balance 
towards technology 
promotion. 
Youth (18-30 Years).  4 4  
Number of beneficiaries who have 
applied/used an improved 
innovation promoted by the project. 
Conducted 20,000 27,400  
Male  10,000 13,152 These figures were not 
easily verifiable in the 
field. 
Female  10,000 14,248 These figures were not 
easily verifiable in the 
field. 
Youth (18-30 Years)  0 0 It was clearly verifiable 
that there was little 
absence of the youth in 
the project. 
Number of (direct ) project 
beneficiaries. 
Conducted 20,000 27,400 These figures were not 
easily verifiable in the 
field. 
Male  10,000 13,152 These figures were not 
easily verifiable in the 
field. 
Female  10,000 14,248 These figures were not 
easily verifiable in the 
field. 
Youth (18-30 Years)  0 0 Improper gender balance 
towards technology 
promotion with very little 
youth inclusion. 
100 Results and Impacts of the Integrated Land and Water Management for Adaptation to Climate Variability and Change (ILWAC) Project: Evaluation Report  
PROJECT PERFORMANCE INDICATORS STATUS FOR PROMISED STATUS  GENERAL 
NAME  PROMISED INDICATORS  OUTPUTS  FOR COMMENTS 
OUTPUTS 
Improvement 
of water 
sources 
for women 
vegetable 
growers in the 
Gambia 
Indicator 1 : Number of hectares 
under improved technologies or 
management practices. 
Measured 20,000 27,400 Acreage varied with 
season and crop in 
interest. 
Indicator 2: Number of [improved 
water points rehabilitated/ 
reconstructed]. 
Measured 10,000 13,152 Water use efficiency 
partially achieved in 
some gardens but 
generally dis- adopted. 
Indicator 6: Number of Technologies 
and/or innovations demonstrated 
(number). 
Not clear 10,000 14,248 Farmers have their 
traditional crops that are 
preferred over improved 
varieties such as sorrel. 
Indicator 7: Number of Technologies 
and/or innovations disseminated 
(number). 
Not clear 0 0 Water use efficiency 
partially achieved in 
some gardens but 
generally dis- adopted. 
Number of beneficiaries who are 
applying/ using improved [water 
management] technologies promoted 
by/made available under the Project 
(disaggregated by youths , 18 - 30 
years ). 
Measured 1,700 
beneficiaries 
reached. 
Achieved Beneficiaries used water 
management techniques to 
certain point then dis- 
adopted. 
Number of beneficiaries who are 
applying/using improved [ water 
management] innovations promoted 
by /made available 
under the Project ( disaggregated by 
youths , 18 - 30 years ). 
Measured 1,700 
beneficiaries 
reached. 
Achieved Water management not 
commonly adopted. 
Number of [direct] project 
beneficiaries. 
Measured 1,700 
beneficiaries 
reached. 
Partially Beneficiaries are more 
(direct and indirect). 
Number of beneficiaries [ small 
holder vegetable women growers] 
who have benefited from long term 
training (of at least 6 months) 
(disaggregated by category of actors, 
gender and Youths) Youth (18-30 
Years). 
Not clear Weather 
information 
accessible. 
Partially Trainings offered to 
improve adoption of 
promoted technologies. 
Number of beneficiaries [ smallholder 
vegetable women growers] who have 
benefited from short- term training (of 
at least 6 months) (disaggregated by 
Youths, 18 - 30 years). 
Partially VDC established. Partially Various beneficiaries 
reached through VDCs. 
Number of Innovation Platforms 
(IPs) in commodity value chains 
that are functional. 
Measured 3 Achieved IPs are still functional 
and have been doing 
well. 
Female participation in Innovation 
Platforms. 
Measured Women 
participating 
more in IPs. 
Achieved IPs are still functional 
and new members 
automatically join the 
IPs. 
101 Results and Impacts of the Integrated Land and Water Management for Adaptation to Climate Variability and Change (ILWAC) Project: Evaluation Report  
PROJECT 
NAME 
PERFORMANCE INDICATORS 
PROMISED 
STATUS FOR 
INDICATORS 
PROMISE
D 
OUTPUTS 
STATUS 
FOR 
OUTPUT
S 
GENERAL 
COMMENTS 
Building the 
resilience of 
women in Bo 
District in post 
Ebola Sierra 
Leone 
Female participation in Innovation 
Platforms. 
Conducted The influence of 
the women in the 
decision-making 
process in their 
communities. 
Achieved Women's participation in 
decision making 
improved within the IP 
Number of beneficiaries who are 
applying/using improved technol- 
ogies promoted. 
Conducted Percentage 
increase in their 
productivity and 
food security. 
Not clear Limited vegetable and 
fruit tree production after 
the project. 
Challenges cited are 
limited access to seed. 
Number of Technologies and/or 
innovations demonstrated. 
Conducted  Achieved Vegetable seed, fruit 
tree seedlings and 
boreholes 
disseminated. 
 102 Results and Impacts of the Integrated Land and Water Management for Adaptation to Climate Variability and Change (ILWAC) Project: Evaluation Report 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Top picture: APESS Project Burkina Faso: Community provision of multi-use water sources (Photo Credit: Julienne Kuiseu, CORAF) 
Bottom picture: ILWAC Evaluation inception meeting in Senegal, Dakar, May 2018 (Photo Credit: Fred Kizito, CIAT).