Rwanda Super Foods Project:
Key Findings from the
Endline Survey
KirimiThe Sweetpotato Action for Security and
H Seailnthdini A, frTicea m(SAeSsHAg)en Bocher,
is a five-year
Jeainitiative designed to improve the food security
and  Nlivedlihioroidgsw of epo,o r  &fam Jilieas nin  SLuob-w
Saharan Africa by exploiting the untapped
6th Anpontenutial lo fT sweecethpontaitoc. aIt wl ilMl develotpi nthge
essential capacities, products, and methods to
rVepiolsliatio nP sowerettpooftaitno ion f oHodo etceonlomies of
Sub-Saharan African countries to alleviate
Kigpaovleir,t y2 an9d  uSnedepr-ntuetrmitionb. er 2015
SWEETPOTATO ACTION FOR SECURITY AND HEALTH IN AFRICA
Objectives of 4 Year
Proof-of-Concept Project
1. To develop, compare, and
Northern Districts evaluate the relative efficiency of
 Gakenke two sweetpotato product value
 Rulindo chains and their potential to
 Better Production
Conditions increase farmer income with
 Private sector partner gender equity
Urwibutso Enterprises
located in Rulindo
o 11 stores – 8 districts 2. To re-position white and orange
o 4 stores- Kigali
Southern Districts fleshed sweetpotato (OFSP) and
 Muhanga its products in the rural, urban and
 Kamonyi semi-urban consumer markets.
Individual vs Group Models
4 sweetpotato models developing
Model 1: Model 2:
Farmers  linked as individuals directly to Farmer groups with collective and individual SP plots
processors linked to processors  (20 farmer groups in 4 districts)
(Urwibutso enterprises has 45 farmers)
Individual farmers supply raw roots Farmer groups supply Farmer groups Roots to local
directly to the processors raw roots directly supply raw roots market
to the processors to the markets
Farmers groups
Processors develop high value products for the urban market process high
value products
High value sweetpotato based products available in rural and urban markets
EVALUATION FRAMEWORK:
IMPACT PATHWAY
Areas Outputs Outcomes Outcomes Impact
What project produces that other people use The results of use or influence of outputs (next The results of use or influence of
user) outputs (end user)
Strengthening Market Campaign including information products Producer and Consumer awareness of nutritional
demand about nutritional benefits of SP/OFSP benefits of SP/OFSP
Information products on role of SP for food Producers’, processors’, and decision makers’
security and income opportunities awareness of role in FS and income
Farmers, farmer groups and private sector More products with SP in the market Increased consumption of SP
processors adopting new processing based products
Prototypes of new marketable products from tPercohcneossloogrsie dsWFSP and OFSP evelop new products and launch Consumers purchase new nutritious Increased farmers' income from
Strengthening Value them on the market products from SP SP and increased processors'
Chain support services income from SP based products
Information on processing technologies
Innovation platform engaging value chain Improved trust among VC actors Increased number of market linkages
actors and support services bVeatluwee echna SinP  apcrtoodrusc merosr, ep raobclee stsoo wrso arnkd
Strengthening seed Improved  varieties available which respond to Vine multipliers multiply approriate clean SP eImffpecrotivveedly p troogdeuthcteirv.ity of SP lowering
sytems market preferences vines cost of SP roots per unit
Vine multipliers linked to  VC processors and
producers and responding to prioritized demand
Evidence of efficacy of VC approaches: NGOs and development partners use the
Policy contract farmers & farmer groups evidence for scaling up VC approaches with SP
Monitoring & Survey Work
 Formative research:  OFSP purée products more
economically viable than OFSP flour products
 Monitored yields annually and root & product sales monthly
 Baseline survey:  2012:  596 households;
 279   Northern Districts
 317   Southern Districts
 Endline survey (# hhs):    September 2014, 852 households
 Control (213): No participation in project activities
 Participants (327): Linked to project activities directly
 Spillovers (312): Obtained vines from project multipliers but
no direct access to market opportunities
Test 1: Possible to develop
economically-viable sweetpotato
processed products, acceptable to
Rwandan consumers?  Launch in Nov 2012
 From November 2012
through June 2014,
Sina earned $364,410
in sales of OFSP products
 Post-project
Sales from July 2014-
July 2015, $403,559
--mandazi 81%
--biscuits 19%
Golden Power Biscuits & Fried Doughnuts/Mandazi
Most popular
Biscuit Development Required
Substantial Investment & Training
Old technology Manual biscuits making Wheat flour Biscuits
Biscuits
packaged
Farmer sorting
out SP roots
Packaging
targeting
The Golden Power Biscuit high end
New technology consumer
EIL
Support Packaging
targeting
lower end
consumer
Test 2: If a value chain for
processed products linked to a
private sector actor leads to better
returns for male and female producers
than just accessing the local market
 % of households selling any sweetpotato (SP) in 2013/2014
 50% Control  80% Participant  60% Spillover
 Female participants accounted for 42.5% of total sweetpotato sales
transactions, compared to 11.5% for male participants.
 Both participant female and male SP growers received higher
average prices (145 and 149 Rf/kg, respectively) if they sold to Sina
than if they sold to traders (111 Rw/kg) or directly to consumers (103
and 88 Rf/kg, respectively)
 Note SINA encouraged to pay slightly above going market price
Participant males had the highest
profits & economic efficiency
Sweetpotato Revenue, Profit and Efficiency by Gender of the Principal Sweetpotato Grower
across Categories
Control Participant Spillover
Female Male Female Male Female Male
Variables (N=119) (N=88) (N=247) (N=80) (N=220) (N=92)
Sweetpotato output value ($/ha) 137 69 223 463 205 233
Variable cost ($/ha)+ 120 121 142 146 104 139
Profit ($/ha) 104 31 134 365 139 144
Profit margin++ 75% 45% 60% 79% 68% 62%
Economic efficiency* 0.86 0.25 0.94 2.49 1.33 1.04
Profit efficiency** 47% 35% 55% 42% 56% 43%
Source:  Rwanda Super Foods Endline Survey, September 2014.
+ Variable costs to not include an attributed value for family labor.
++ Profit margin:  profit as a percentage of the revenue (output value).
*Economic efficiency= profit per hectare/ variable cost per hectare.  It is the profit made from unit cost of production;
for instance 1.8 indicates a 1 dollar investment in sweetpotato production system generates a 1.8 dollars net profit.
**Profit efficiency (PE) is computed by using stochastic profit frontier function, which combines technical, allocative
and scale efficiency in profit function. PE is defined as the ability of farmer to achieve highest profit given the output
price and cost of inputs used and profit gained from potential.
SP remained a staple part of the
diet.  Food Security still #1
Quantity of Sweetpotato Produced and Sold by Gender of Principal Grower across Categories*
Group Sample Total produced Sold %  Production Value of Sales
Size (kg/HH) (kg/HH) sold ($/HH)
Control Female 119 409 116 28% 174
Control Male 88 333 147 44% 181
Participant Female 247 1118 364 33% 277
Participant Male 80 1099 321 29% 143
Spillover Female 220 487 134 28% 110
Spillover  Male 92 750 206 28% 109 Disease-free
seed from RAB
Total 846 731 226 31% 187 raised yields
*Source:  Reported production and sales by plot by season for 2013-2014 from Rwanda Endline Survey. & enabled surplus
for sale
Test 3: If men and women farmers benefitted
more by being in groups
backstopped by NGOs, than by being linked as
individuals to the agro-processor
Table 4.  Characteristics of Participant Households in Super Foods Value Chain
Very Type of Supplier/Grower Individual Group Group
distinct Technical Support Provider SINA IMBARAGA YWCA Total
sub-groups Sample Size (N=3377) (N=116699) (N=112211) (N=332277)
Characteristics of HH head
Market- HH head is female (%) 32% 27% 49% 36%
oriented HH head is single (%) 8% 5% 18% 10%
Imbaraga HH head is widowed (%) 24% 18% 26% 22%
HH head is <30 years old (%) 8% 11% 22% 15%
Vulnerable Mean years of formal education 7.26 5.81 5.48 5.85
Household Level
YWCA Wealth index (N, 1-12) 7.67 6.75 6.41 6.73
Total Livestock Units (2014) 1.75 1.12 0.71 1.04
Land under sweetpotato production (ha) in 2013/2014 0.08 0.10 0.05 0.06
Source:  Rwanda Super Foods Endline Survey, September 2014.
Imbaraga farmers had the highest
profits & profit margins, and were
the most economically efficient.
Average Revenue, Costs, Profit per Hectare, Profit Margin, and Economic and Profit Efficiencies
by Category
Control Participant Participant Participant Spillovers
Category of Beneficiary SINA IMBARAGA YWCA
Sample size 213 37 169 121 312
Sweetpotato output value ($/ha) 112 249 357 209 214
Variable cost ($/ha) 115 185 145 123 113
Profit($/ha) 78 153 257 136 141
Profit margin 69% 62% 72% 65% 66%
Economic efficiency 0.7 0.8 1.8 1.1 1.2
Profit efficiency 44% 48% 52% 56% 54%
Source:  Rwanda Super Foods Endline Survey, September 2014.  For definitions see Table 2.
Project set target that 75% of
beneficiaries should be women
Qualitative gender research found:  Income-wise, there were greater benefits
from personal plots than group plots, but women saw groups as platforms
for sharing technical and personal information.
Test 4: If children under 5 years
of age in beneficiary households
show increased diet diversity & OFSP
intake in a marketing focused intervention
OFSP got into young child diet, but probably at lower levels than if had
been a nutrition education component
OFSP consumption: child OFSP consumption: caregiver
Group N mean days/week N mean days/ week
Control 134 0.22 213 0.37
Beneficiaries 165 1.29 326 2.56
Spillover 161 1.05 312 1.88
T- test for mean difference
Control vs Beneficiary -5.99*** -12.69***
Control vs Spillover -4.87*** -9.17***
Beneficiary vs. Spillover 1.17 3.78*
However, no significant effect
on young child diet diversity
& frequency of intake of vitamin
A rich foods…
Dietary diversity scores and consumption of vitamin A rich foods
Group Child Diet Weight score of days/week at
Diversity Score vitamin A rich foods
N Mean N     Mean
Control 93 4.05 94 3.86
Beneficiary 97 4.10 99 4.42
Spillover 116 4.16 83 5.69
Total 4.05 4.66
Control vs Beneficiary -0.26 -1.21
Control vs Spillover -0.56 -3.19**
Beneficiary vs. Spillover -0.30 -2.20*
Note: CDDS child dietary diversity score (0-8); Weight vitamin A (plant + animal source)- less than 6 at risk of vitamin A deficiency
Need investment in nutrition education to get significant impact on diet quality
Test 5:  If the communication
strategy changed SP’s image
RADIO promotion
Exhibitions
Sign post for vines Monthly newsletter
Farmer attitudes are clear…
Group Control Beneficiary Spillover Total
1. Sweetpotatoes that are orange inside are healthier than ones that are white inside
Strongly agree 20% 63% 44% 45%
Agree 28% 34% 47% 37%
Not know or no opinion 46% 3% 7% 15%
Disagree 6% 0% 2% 2%
Strongly disagree 0% 0% 0% 0%
2. Sweetpotato is the most reliable food crop for our family during times of food
shortage
Strongly agree 54% 66% 54% 59%
Agree 42% 33% 43% 39%
Not know or no opinion 0% 0% 1% 1%
Disagree 3% 1% 2% 2%
Strongly disagree 1% 0% 0% 0%
#. Sweetpotato should be included as part of the Crop Intensification Program in my District
Strongly agree 38% 48% 37% 41%
Agree 48% 45% 50% 48%
Not know or no opinion 6% 5% 7% 6%
Disagree 5% 2% 3% 3%
Strongly disagree 3% 0% 3% 2%
Notable effect at district level
-- Urban attitude not yet measured
 Three of the four districts (Rulindo, Gakenke and
Muhanga) have permitted sweetpotato growers to
access valley bottom land
 Two districts (Rulindo and Gakenke) have included
significantly increased sweetpotato production into
their performance targets.
 4 additional processed product efforts
being developed
• One factory is being set-up for OFSP, 1 for
sweetpotato in general and two bakeries starting to
incorporate OFSP
 Awareness widely raised in urban areas
Conclusions
 Successfully demonstrated economically
viable OFSP processed products
 Setting targets for female participation
assured women did not lose out of
commercialization
 Quality seed in sufficient quantities
critical to success, enabling smallholders
to have surplus to sell
 Projects will not get major nutritional
impacts on young children with just a market
intervention
Partners
• International Potato Center (CIP)
• Rwanda Agricultural Board (RAB)
• Catholic Relief Services (CRS-Rwanda)
• Young Women Christian Association (YWCA)
• IMBARAGA
• SINA GERARD/URWIBUTSO enterprises
• Kigali Institute of Science and Technology University
• Rwanda Bureau of Standards
• Rwanda Environment Management Authority
• Jomo Kenyatta University of Science and Technology
Murakoze