RURAL COMMUNITY SURVEY - Statistical Committee of the ...

NATIONAL STATISTICAL SERVICE OF THE REPUBLIC OF ARMENIA

REPORT

On

RURAL COMMUNITY SURVEY

YEREVAN 2009

Rural Community Survey Report

2

Table of Contents BACKGROUND .......................................................................................................................3 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS .........................................................................................................3 I. SURVEY METHODOLOGY AND IMPLEMENTATION.............................................4

Sampling ............................................................................................................................4 Survey Instruments ............................................................................................................4 Interviewer Training ..........................................................................................................5 Fieldwork Description .......................................................................................................5 Logical Control, Data Coding and Entry ...........................................................................6

II. SURVEY FINDINGS........................................................................................................6 A. POPULATION ..........................................................................................................6 B. EMPLOYMENT........................................................................................................7 C. SOCIAL INFRASTRUCTURE.................................................................................8

Education ...............................................................................................................8 Health.....................................................................................................................9 Culture and Recreation........................................................................................10

D. PHYSICAL INFRASTRUCTURE AND UTILITIES ............................................11 General ................................................................................................................11 Roads and Transportation ...................................................................................12 Availability of Transportation..............................................................................12 Public Transportation Reliability and Quality ....................................................13 Distances to Key Infrastructure ...........................................................................13 Transportation Costs ...........................................................................................14 Roads....................................................................................................................15

E. ECONOMIC ACTIVITY ........................................................................................15 F. AGRICULTURE AND IRRIGATION ...................................................................17 G. GOVERNMENT POLICIES AND PROGRAMS ..................................................21

III. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ..........................................................22 Recommendations............................................................................................................22

APPENDIX 1: CROP COVERAGE BY MARZ ....................................................................23 APPENDIX 2: QUESTIONNAIRE ........................................................................................28


3

BACKGROUND The Government of the Republic of Armenia entered into the Millennium Challenge Compact with the United States of America, acting through the Millennium Challenge Corporation (MCC) on March 27, 2006, providing for a 5-year grant of up to USD 235,650,000 to advance economic growth and reduce poverty in Armenia.

The Compact signed between the Millennium Challenge Corporation and the Government of Armenia aims to reduce rural poverty through a five year program of strategic investment in rural roads and irrigation infrastructure as well as financial and technical support to farmers and agribusinesses. It is expected that the Program will result in increased incomes and reduced poverty in rural areas of Armenia.

To assess the impact of the Program, MCA-Armenia will be using data received through the Integrated Living Conditions Survey (ILCS1) starting from 2007 and during the next four years, which is a household survey conducted annually by the National Statistical Service of the Republic of Armenia (RA NSS). As a result of the rural focus of the MCA-Armenia Program, MCA funding has been used to increase the ILCS sample of rural respondents. Additionally, modifications were made to the ILCS questionnaire. MCA is committed to funding the rural oversample annually from 2007 to 2011. The 2007 ILCS serves as a tool for baseline data collection for MCA-Armenia and will be used for later comparisons and analyses.

In addition, according to the contract amendment signed between MCA-Armenia and RA NSS on September 23, 2008, RA NSS conducted a survey of rural communities that were included in the 2008 ILCS sample. The goal of the Rural Community Survey (RCS) was to collect more comprehensive information at the community level to determine whether alongside with the impacts on the household level, the MCA-Armenia program is affecting improved livelihood at the community level. The following report presents the results of that survey.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS The National Statistical Service of RA and MCA-Armenia are grateful to everyone who has contributed to the implementation of the Rural Community Survey, and in particular:

• To Millennium Challenge Corporation (MCC) for funding; • To Mathematica Policy Research (MPR) representatives for methodological support to the

survey; • To the “Millennium Challenge Account-Armenia” State Non-Commercial Organization

(SNCO) for financial and technical support; • To all the respondents who participated in the survey and the interviewers and supervisors

who conducted the survey. The report was prepared under the responsibility of:

• Diana Martirosova, Head of the Households Survey Division, the National Statistical Service of RA;

• Gala Husikyan, Programmer for the Rural Community Survey. A special gratitude for support and contribution to the survey implementation and preparation of the report to:

• Rebecca Tunstall, Millennium Challenge Corporation (MCC), for editing the report and providing valuable comments;

1 In MCA-Armenia documentation Integrated Living Conditions Survey (ILCS) is also referred as ISLS (Integrated Survey of Living Standards).


4

• Kenneth Fortson, Mathematica Policy Research (MPR), for contribution to the development of survey instruments, overall survey guidance and review;

• Anu Rangarajan, Mathematica Policy Research (MPR), for contribution to the development of survey instruments, overall survey guidance and review;

• Ester Hakobyan, Millennium Challenge Account-Armenia, former Monitoring and Evaluation Officer, for input in the development of survey instrument, overall technical support during the survey planning and implementation;

• Lusine Kharatyan, Millennium Challenge Account-Armenia, Monitoring and Evaluation Officer, for contribution to the development of survey questionnaire, questionnaire pre-test, development of QbyQ detailed instructions and leading the interviewer training;

• Lusine Yeremyan, Millennium Challenge Account-Armenia, Monitoring and Evaluation Specialist, for translating and editing the report.

I. SURVEY METHODOLOGY AND IMPLEMENTATION As mentioned above, the overall goal of the Rural Community Survey was to collect more comprehensive information at the community level to determine whether alongside with the impacts on the household level, the MCA-Armenia program is affecting improved livelihood at the community level. Sampling

The 2008 ILCS sample served as a basis for the Rural Community Survey sample. The primary sampling units for the ILCS are communities, which are selected randomly, stratified by marzes. Overall, 306 communities were included in the ILCS, of which 43 urban and 263 rural communities. For the RCS only rural communities were selected from the overall ILCS sample. As a result, the RCS sample includes 2622 rural communities and the representativeness is ensured at the national level for rural areas. Survey Instruments

The following survey instruments were developed in collaboration with MCA-Armenia, MCC, and the impact evaluators from Mathematica Policy Research:

• Questionnaire (Appendix 2)

• QbyQ detailed instructions to the questionnaire

The draft Rural Community Survey questionnaire was revised based on the comments from all interested parties. Comments from the relevant divisions of RA NSS, as well as members of the National Statistical Council were incorporated. The final version of the RCS questionnaire reflects all comments received. Some preparatory work was done before the survey implementation. The questionnaire was pre-tested twice: in Argavand village of Ararat marz and Aramus village of Kotayk marz. The questionnaire was revised right after the first pretest which allowed RA NSS to conduct the second pre-test with an already improved version of the questionnaire. The second pretest resulted in more questionnaire revisions. The average interview duration was one hour.

2 During the community survey implementation it was revealed that one of the rural communities in Tavush has changed its status and it is a town now. Consequently 262 communities were included in CRS sample, while the ICLS includes 263 rural communities.


5

Finally, the questionnaire was finalized by the RA NSS and presented for the review and approval of the National Council on Statistics. On October 28, 2008 the Rural Community Survey Questionnaire was approved by the RA National Council on Statistics by decree No 35-A. On October 29, 2008 the appropriate number of questionnaire copies was made to start the field work. The questionnaire is filled in by an interviewer. Interviewer Training

The interviewer training for the Rural Community Survey questionnaire was conducted on October 30, 2008. Member of the National Council on Statistics G. Gevorgyan and MCA-Armenia M&E Officer E. Hakobyan were present at the interviewer training. While the training was led by MCA-Armenia M&E Specialist L. Kharatyan, Head of the NSS Division on Households Surveys D. Martirosova, Head of the NSS Division on Population Census and Demography K. Kuyumjyan, and the programmer for the Rural Community Survey G. Husikyan also provided input into the training. All the interviewers received the appropriate number of questionnaires, as well as QbyQ instructions and the list of sampled villages. Three experienced data entry specialists were selected for RCS data entry. The interviewers were also provided with detailed instructions on how to fill in the questionnaire. Fieldwork Description

In November 2008, 36 interviewers and 3 supervisors were grouped into a team to conduct the RCS fieldwork. This team carried out the whole survey. The workload of an interviewer on average was somewhat more than 7 villages. The survey was managed and overseen by A. Khangeldyan, ILCS Project Coordinator, G. Husikyan, Project Programmer and L. Kharatyan, MCA-Armenia M&E Specialist. The fieldwork was finalized by the anticipated deadline without any problems. Not a single complaint was recorded by the interviewers. The fieldwork was double-checked throughout its implementation. All the respondents were very supportive. Detailed information about the fieldwork is presented below in Table 1. Table 1 Armenia. Fieldwork Results

Including

Marz Number of

surveyed villages

Only from core sample of the ILCS

Only from oversample of the ILCS

From both core sample and oversample

of the ILCS

Number of interviewers

Aragatsotn 28 15 8 5 4 Ararat 22 17 3 2 4 Armavir 28 13 8 7 4 Gegharkunik 29 16 8 5 4 Lori 35 15 15 5 4 Kotayk 26 15 7 4 4 Shirak 32 13 14 5 4 Syunik 22 10 12 0 2 Vayots Dzor 14 9 3 2 2 Tavush 26 14 9 3 4 Total 262 137 87 38 36 Source: RCS


6

Logical Control, Data Coding and Entry The fieldwork started on November 1 and was completed on November 30, 2008. The collected information was then coded, logically controlled and entered. The data was entered in parallel with the submission of the questionnaires. Prior to entering the data, data entering program was pre-tested and redesigned based on the operators’ comments and feedback. The data entry was completed in December 2008. As a result a database of 262 villages was created.

Main survey findings are presented in Section II on Findings.

II. SURVEY FINDINGS A. POPULATION The number of rural residents (permanent village residents) of Armenia as of January 1, 2008 is 1,159.6 thousand, or 35.9 percent of the total RA population. Table 2: Armenia. Population of the Republic of Armenia, 1990-2008 (At the beginning of the year)

To the whole population in percent Years Population Total (thousand people) Urban Rural

1990 3514.9 68.8 31.2 1993 3463.7 68.1 31.9 1996 3248.8 66.2 33.8 1999 3232.1 65.3 34.7 2001* 3213.0 64.3 35.7 2002 3212.9 64.3 35,7 2003 3210.3 64.2 35.8 2004 3212.2 64.2 35.8 2005 3215.8 64.1 35.9 2006 3219.2 64.1 35.9 2007 3222.9 64.1 35.9 2008 3230.1 64.1 35.9 Source: NSS, population statistics Note. *) 2001Census According to the RCS, the number of permanent residents in the surveyed communities as of January 1, 2008 was 571,394 or 49 percent of the permanent rural residents in all of Armenia. Children age 0-15 account for 131,968 or 23 percent of the population covered by the survey, adult males (age 16 and higher) account for 215,059 or 38 percent, and adult females (age 16 and higher) account for 224,367 or 39 percent (See Table 3). Table 3: Armenia. Total Number of Permanent Village Residents by Age and Sex in the Surveyed Villages as of January 1, 2008

Including Number of Permanent Village

Residents as of January 1, 2008

Adult Male

(age 16 and higher)

Adult Female

(age 16 and higher)

Children aged 0-15

571,394 215,059 224,367 131,968

100% 38% 39% 23%

Source: RCS


7

As Table 4 illustrates, 77 percent of the total number of registered rural households are farming households (main occupation is farming). Non-farming households (main occupation is not farming) constitute 23 percent of the total number of registered rural households (as of January 1, 2008). Table 4: Armenia. Distribution of Households in the Surveyed Villages by Main Occupation

Including, % Number of registered

households in total

As of January 1, 2008

Non-farming households (main occupation is not

farming)

Farming households (main occupation is

farming)

Households 169,397 23 77

Source: RCS In the framework of the survey the respondents were asked about migration trends in the surveyed villages during the past 3 years. The answers were subjective by nature and achieved the following results: in 42% of respondents’ opinion there are not many migrations in the villages; 34% of respondents think that there is more emigration from the surveyed villages; according to 8% of respondents there is more immigration to the surveyed villages and 16% believes that there are as much of both immigration and emigration. B. EMPLOYMENT According to the survey results, 77 percent of working-age adults are employed. Overall, 54.5 percent of working-age adults who are employed are male and 45.5 percent are female. Agriculture is indicated as the main occupation by 57 percent of working-age adults (see Table 5). Table 5: Armenia. Working-age Adults Employment by Sector in the Surveyed Villages

Percent Including

Total Male Female

Employment of working-age adults 77 54.5 45.5

Of those, main occupation was:

Agriculture 57 52.6 47.4

Businesses/enterprises 3 66.7 33.3 Services including government public servants (e.g. teachers, health service providers), utility workers (gas, electricity, irrigation), etc

11 45.5 54.5

Other activities 6 83.3 16.7 Source: RCS Working-age adult employment by sex is slightly different. The number of employed males is higher.


8

C. SOCIAL INFRASTRUCTURE

Education The data presented in Table 6 show that there are schools in all villages. Fifty-seven percent of villages have pre-schools, 15 percent of villages have Musical schools. Table 6: Armenia. The Condition of Education Facilities in the Surveyed Villages

Education Facility

Percent of villages where education facilities exist

Percent of villages where education facilities are in

need of repair

Pre-school/kindergarten

57

75

Elementary school

0.4

0

8-grade school 9

91

Secondary School

92

74

College (VET institution)

2

40

Musical School

15

74

Art school

6

75

Fine art school

1

33

Sports

5

71

Source: RCS Not surprisingly, education facilities are in need of repair. Particularly 8-grade schools (91 percent), art schools (75 percent), secondary and music schools (74 percent), and sport schools (71 percent) are in bad condition. The critical condition of the facilities is due to the age of the buildings which is presented in Table 7 below.


9

Table 7: Armenia. Age of Education Facilities in the Surveyed Villages

Age of buildings in percent to total Education Facilities

Total Up to 5 years

5-20 years

More than 20 years

Pre-school/kindergarten

100 2 12 86

Elementary school

100 0 0 100

8-grade school

100 0 13 87

Secondary School

100 3 13 84

College (VET institution)

100 0 40 60

Musical School

100 3 21 76

Art school

100 0 12,5 87,5

Fine art school

100 0 33 67

Sports

100 0 14 86 Source: RCS

As Table 7 illustrates, the age of education facilities in the surveyed villages in most cases is more than 20 years. The age of all elementary school buildings is more than 20 years. The same situation is observed in the case of pre-school/kindergarten buildings (86 percent), 8-grade schools (87 percent), secondary schools (84 percent), art schools (87.5 percent), and sport schools (86 percent).

Health

Table 8 indicates that two out of three villages have medical centers and there are ambulatory-policlinics in every third village. Only 6 percent of villages have hospitals. Every fourth village has a pharmacy, and a dentist is available in every tenth village. Table 8: Armenia. Condition of Health Care Facilities in the Surveyed Villages

Health care facility

Percent of villages having health

care facilities

Percent of villages where health care

facilities are in need of repair

Medical centre 66 59

Ambulatory-Policlinic 32 42

Hospital 6 87

Pharmacy 23 27

Dentist 10 41

Source: RCS According to the data presented in Table 9, most health care facilities are more than 20 years old.


10

Table 9: Armenia. Age of Health Care Facilities in the Surveyed Villages

Age of health care facilities in percent to total

Including Health Care Facility Total Up to 5

Years 5-20

Years More than 20 years

Medical centre 100 8 25 67 Ambulatory-Policlinic 100 13 23 64 Hospital 100 7 20 73

Pharmacy 100 43 22 35 Dentist 100 26 26 48 Source: RCS

Culture and Recreation According to the data presented in Table 10 below, there are libraries and cultural centers in the majority of villages (87 and 79 respectively). We observe a relatively low occurrence of other cultural/recreation facilities in the villages. Stadiums/gyms and activity centers for elderly are found in 21 percent of the villages. As regards to other facilities, only 4 percent of villages have museums and 2 percent of the villages have theatres/movies. Table 10: Armenia. Culture and Recreation Facilities in the Surveyed Villages and Building Conditions

Facility Percent of villages having cultural/recreation facilities

Percent of villages where

cultural/recreation facilities are in need of repair

Cultural Center/Events Center

79 89

Theatre/Movie 2 83

Stadium/Gym 21 96

Activity center for elderly 21 85

Museum 4 73

Library 87 90

Source: RCS Not surprisingly, most cultural/recreation facilities are in need of repair (from 73 to 96 percent). The terrible condition of facilities is mainly due to the age of the buildings (see Table 11).


11

Table 11: Armenia. Age of Cultural/Recreation Facilities in the Surveyed Villages

Age of Cultural/Recreation facilities in percent to total

Facility Total Up to 5

years

5-20 years

More than 20 years

Cultural Center/Events Center

100

1

5

94

Theatre/Movie

100 0 0 100

Stadium/Gym

100 0 5 95

Activity center for elderly

100 0 7 93

Museum

100 9 18 73

Library

100 1 6 93

Source: RCS The age of cultural/recreation facilities is more than 20 years for the most part. Theatre/cinema facilities (100 percent) are more than 20 years old. The same situation is observed for stadiums/gyms (95 percent), cultural centers (94 percent), activity centers for elderly and libraries (93 percent). D. PHYSICAL INFRASTRUCTURE AND UTILITIES

General Availability of centralized infrastructure/utility in the villages is presented in Table 12 below. Table 12: Armenia. Centralized Infrastructure/Utility Available in the Surveyed Villages

For connected households, what is the availability of service, in percent to total*

Infrastructure/utility

Percent of households connected 24 hours a

day 6-12 hours a

day Less than 6 hours a day

Electricity 99.7 99 1 0

Gas 64 Drinking water (with a pipeline) 76 41 27 32 Telephone 58 Mobile phone 78 Internet 1

Other (satellite) 1

* This question relates to the first and the third rows. Source: RCS


12

According to Table 12, the percent of households with electricity is high (99.7 percent). The percent of households with piped drinking water and gas is 76 and 64 percent respectively. Gas (100 percent) and electricity (99 percent) are available for connected households for 24 hours a day. As regards to drinking water, it is available for 24 hours a day in only 41 percent of the villages.

Roads and Transportation The type and condition of village roads is presented in Table 13 below. Table 13: Armenia. Type and Condition of Roads in Surveyed Villages

Type of roads (percent)

Condition of roads (percent)

Type of Road

Dirt

Gravel

Asphalt

Good

Average Poor

Average number of

months when these roads

are not useable

Roads within villages 70 13 17 0 26 74 0.9

Roads to regional towns or markets 15 4 81 18 39 43 0.6

Source: RCS

The main type of roads within villages is dirt (70 percent). Roads to regional towns or markets are asphalt (81 percent). As a result of the survey, roads within villages are assessed as poor in 74 percent of villages. Roads to regional towns or markets are assessed as poor in only 43 percent of the villages.

Availability of Transportation On average, about one in four households has a car, with trucks less common. Most of these vehicles (86%) are registered in the village, the rest are registered elsewhere (see Table 14). Table 14: Armenia. Average number of Vehicles in the Surveyed Villages per Household (HH)

Car Truck

Total number of vehicles in the village per HH

0.28 0.05

Number of registered vehicles per HH in the village

0.24 0.04

Number of vehicles registered in other places per HH

0.04 0.01

Source: RCS Also, the survey showed that the three most frequently used transportation modes in the villages are: on foot within the village/no transportation (the most widespread mode), car and taxi. As regards to transportation outside the village, the three main transportation modes most frequently used by the village residents are: minivan/bus (the most widespread mode), car and taxi.


13

Public Transportation Reliability and Quality According to the data presented in Table 15 below, the percent of surveyed villages with passenger buses is 76, passenger minivans is 61, and taxis is 70. The reliability of public transportation presented above is usually assessed as average (57-68 percent). Table 15: Armenia. Reliability and Quality of Public Transportation in the Surveyed Villages

Percent

Reliability

How adequate are these services to meet the needs of

village? Type of Public Transportation

Percent of Villages

Poor Average

Good

Poor Average

Good

Passenger bus

76 10 68 22 9 73 18

Passenger minibus 61 9 61 30 9 70 21 Taxis 70 4 57 39 6 61 33 Source: RCS

Distances to Key Infrastructure In Table 16 below, the nearest services from the village center and the average duration of the trip to get there are presented. Table 16: Armenia. Distances to Key Infrastructure in the Surveyed Villages

Source: RCS

The main transportation mode (in percent) to get to the social services is presented in Table 17 below.

Services Average distance (km)

Average duration

(hours)

Health Post 0.6 0.1 Hospitals (Emergency) 12 0.7 Pharmacy 10 0.5 Village office 0.1 0.1 Kindergarten 6 0.5 Complete secondary school 0.7 0.2 Primary general school 1.9 0.1 Markets to sell your produce 14 0.6 Bank/Financial Services 13 0.8


14

Table 17: Armenia. Transportation Mode used to get to Social Services in the Surveyed Villages

Total

Car/ Truck

Minivan/

bus Taxi Train Cart

Walking/no

transportation

Horse/Donkey

Bicycle Other

Health Post 100 3 2 0 0 0 95 0 0 0

Hospitals (Emergency)

100 65 25 5 0 0 5 0 0 0

Pharmacy 100 45 31.6 0.4 0 0 23 0 0 0

Village office 100 3 2 0 0 0 95 0 0 0

Kindergarten 100 20 24 0 0 0 56 0 0 0

Complete secondary school

100 3.2 3.2 0.4 0 0 93.2 0 0 0

Primary general school

100 0 0 0 0 0 100 0 0 0

Markets to sell your produce

100 57 39 0.5 0 0 3.5 0 0 0

Bank/Financial Services

100 52 43.5 0.4 0 0 4.1 0 0 0

Source: RCS

Transportation Costs As we see from Table 18 below, average cost of one round trip to Yerevan is on average twice as high as the average cost of one round trip to the regional center. Table 18: Armenia. The Average Cost of One Time Round Trip to the Regional Center/Yerevan in AMD Expenditure Item Regional Center Yerevan

Gasoline/Petrol 4311 10438 Gas (for automobiles) 1602 4303 Minivan fare 1276 2566 Bus fare 769 2015 Taxi fare 5039 12912 Source: RCS


15

Roads Road rehabilitation projects have been implemented in 41 percent of the surveyed villages in the past three years. Table 19 below presents the data on the length of the rehabilitated roads by type. Table 19: Armenia. Length of Rehabilitated Roads by Type in the Surveyed Villages

Type of road

Percent of villages where

roads are rehabilitated

Length of the rehabilitated

road (per village)

(km)

Roads within village 30.5 4

Roads to regional center or market/inter-community roads

22 4

Roads to capital 9 2.5

Source: RCS

According to the survey results, 92 percent of roads within villages were rehabilitated with state funding and 8 percent with private sources. The duration of construction activities by months (excluding any months in between when construction was not happening) is presented in Table 20 below. Table 20: Armenia. The Duration of Construction in the Surveyed Villages

Duration of construction

Percent

1-2 months 66 3-6 months 24 More than 6 months 6 In process 4 Source: RCS In 6 percent of the villages, the construction disturbed everyday village life. In 29 percent of the villages, local workers were involved in the roads construction and rehabilitation activities. On average, 13 local people per village have been involved in road construction works. E. ECONOMIC ACTIVITY Table 21 presents the availability of non-agricultural business/enterprises in the surveyed villages.


16

Table 21: Armenia. Number of Non-agricultural Business/Enterprises in the Surveyed Villages

Type

Presence in villages

(percent)

Number of non-agricultural

business/enterprises per village

Convenience store (mixed) 94 5 Food shops (including small kiosks) 49 2

Other shops 16 0.3 Car service 16 0.3 Crafts (Carpet weaving, blacksmithing, pottery) 8 0.1 Food processing enterprises 19 0.3 Other industrial enterprises 19 0.5 Restaurant, Cafe, etc 16 0.3 Other (casino, hotel): 4 0.2 Source: RCS

Table 22 illustrates survey findings with respect to the availability of financial services. Table 22: Armenia. Percent of Surveyed Villages where Financial Services are provided Services Percent of villages where the following services are

provided * Banks in the village 2 Universal credit institutions 48 Private credit providers 10 Other (specify) 2 None 40 *- The total amount exceeds 100 percent due to several positive responses. Source: RCS In the absence of a financial services provider, the village residents in need use the nearest services by the following settlements (see Table 23).

Table 23: Armenia. Nearest Services by Settlement in the Absence of Financial Services in the Surveyed Villages # The nearest financial service provider in case there

is no financial service provider in the village (in percent).

1 Nearest village that offers the service 0.4 2 Nearest city 54.2 3 Regional center 44.6 4 Yerevan 0 5 Other (specify) 0 6 None 0.8 Source: RCS

Table 23 illustrates that in the absence of any financial services provider the village residents in the case of necessity often use services provided in the nearest city or in the regional center.


17

F. AGRICULTURE AND IRRIGATION Percent of farming households by type of agricultural activity and by marz is presented in Table 24 below. Table 24: Armenia. Percent of Farming Households by Type of Agricultural Activity

from which Marz Farming On the total area of

the owned land (kitchen plot is

included )

Only on the kitchen plot

Cattle-breeding

Aragatsotn 83 78.3 21.7 58

Ararat 84 89.3 10.7 34 Armavir 76 77.6 22.4 20 Gegharkunik 97 47.4 52.6 57 Lori 86 65.1 34.9 62 Kotayk 68 69.1 30.9 44 Shirak 71 88.7 11.3 65 Syunik 83 90.4 9.6 70 Vayots Dzor 90 82.2 17.8 64 Tavush 83 80.7 19.3 41

Total 83 69.9 30.1 49 Source: RCS

Total area of agricultural land currently cultivated by households per village is 554 ha (in average). The average total area of cultivated agricultural land for villages in Gegharkunik is 939 hectares (ha), whereas in Vayots Dzor it is estimated to be 280 ha (see Table 25). Table 25: Armenia. Total Area of Agricultural Land Currently Cultivated Per Village in the Surveyed Villages Presented by Marz

Marz Total area of agricultural land cultivated per village (ha)

Aragatsotn 742 Ararat 359

Armavir 558 Gegharkunik 939

Lori 350 Kotayk 440 Shirak 676 Syunik 651

Vayots Dzor 280 Tavush 357 Total 554

Source: RCS

The five most common crops cultivated in the communities are presented in Table 26 below.


18

Table 26: Armenia. Five Most Common Crops in the Surveyed Villages

Hectare Including Crop Total number

of hectares under

cultivation

Percent of farming households cultivating this crop compared to

total number of households (percent)

consumed by HH (for personal needs)

sold or bartered by HH

Wheat 34,671 33.7 65 35 Barley 22,392 21.3 69 31 Potato 12,469 46.6 71 29 Alfalfa 10,455 11.1 88 12 Natural Grass 10,450 7.8 71 29

Source: RCS

As we see from Table 26 wheat is the most common crop both in terms of number of hectares under cultivation (total of 34,671 ha), and percent of farming households cultivating it compared to the total number of households – 33.7%. Whereas the potato is the most common in terms of percent of farming households cultivating it compared to the total number of households (46.6%). Crop coverage by marz is presented in Appendix 1. Table 27: Armenia. WUA Membership in the Surveyed Villages

Marz Number of

villages that are WUA members

Percent of villages that are

WUA members in total to the surveyed villages

Aragatsotn 23 82

Ararat 22 100 Armavir 28 100

Gegharkunik 15 52 Lori 13 37

Kotayk 21 81 Shirak 16 50 Syunik 8 36

Vayots Dzor 8 57 Tavush 19 73 Total 173 66

Source: RCS

Only 66 percent of surveyed villages are WUA members. When observing by marz it becomes obvious that all villages in Ararat and Armavir are WUA members while Syunik, Lori and Shirak villages have 50 percent and even lower WUA coverage (see Table 27). On average, 66.4 percent of villages have an irrigation system. Table 28 illustrates that all surveyed villages in Ararat marz have an irrigation system while only 37 percent of villages in Lori marz have the system.


19

Table 28: Armenia. Irrigation Systems in the Surveyed Villages

Source: RCS

Crop irrigation practices by marz are presented in Table 29 below. Table 29: Armenia. Irrigation of Crops Using Irrigation Practices in the Surveyed Villages (by Marz)

Including Marz Total Irrigation (canal)

Deep or other well or

drinking water

(pipeline)

Only natural sources,

rivers/rain fed

Irrigation, deep well

and drinking

water

Irrigation and natural sources,

rivers/rain fed

Not watered/ irrigated

Aragatsotn 100 43 2 10 1 4 40

Ararat 100 76 16 6 2 0 0

Armavir 100 74 16 0 0 2

Gegharkunik 100 34 12 15 4 17 18

Lori 100 25 3 27 0 0 45

Kotayk 100 62 17 5 0 5 11

Shirak 100 28 0.1 2 35 0 34,9

Syunik 100 63 0 2 0 0 35

Vayots Dzor 100 62 4 1 9 9 15

Tavush 100 32 4 30 0.5 0 33,5

Total 100 48 9 11 5 5 22

Source: RCS

Overall, 66 percent of arable land was irrigated during the previous main agricultural season.

Marz Percent of villages having irrigation systems




Vayots Dzor 86 Tavush 62

Total 66


20

Table 30: Armenia. Percent of Irrigated Land in the Surveyed Villages during the Previous Main Agricultural Season (by Marz)

Source: RCS Forty percent of all surveyed villages received water on time during the last main agricultural season, although that indicator fluctuates when observing the picture by marz. As Table 31 illustrates, only 17 percent of the surveyed villages of Lori marz received water on time during the last main agricultural season, whereas, 71 percent of Vayots Dzor villages received water on time. Table 31: Armenia. Percent of On Time Water Receipt in the Surveyed Villages during the Previous Main Agricultural Season (by Marz)

Marz Percent of Villages





Source: RCS

The data presented in Table 32 show that 33 percent of villages have received a sufficient quantity of water during the last main agricultural season. The percent of sufficient water receivers was the lowest in Lori marz (only 17 percent), and the highest in Armavir marz (64 percent).

Marz

Percent of irrigated land






21

Table 32: Armenia. Percent of Villages from the Pool of Surveyed Villages who have Received Sufficient Quantity of Water During the Last Main Agricultural Season (by Marz)

Source: RCS Table 33 below presents the availability of agricultural services in the surveyed villages, the quality of the services provided and the location of the services. Table 33: Armenia. Availability of Agricultural Services in the Surveyed Villages

The quality of services

Presence

Good Average Bad

Location of the nearest service

(distance in km)

Agriculture Support Regional Center (ASRC)

76 22 72 6 18

Agronomist 54 42 55 3 1.8 Agricultural cooperatives 4 64 18 18 0.5

Veterinarian 99 53 45 2 1.4 Source: RCS

As the table illustrates a veterinarian is available in nearly all surveyed villages (99 percent). The service provided by veterinarians in general is assessed well. An Agricultural Support Regional Center (ASRC) is observed in 76 percent of the villages. The service provided by the latter is mainly assessed average. Location of the nearest ASRC is 18 km. G. GOVERNMENT POLICIES AND PROGRAMS

Within the past 12 months, 50 percent of surveyed villages have benefited from projects implemented by the Government or other institutions.

Marz

Percent of Villages who have Received Sufficient Quantity of

Water During the Last Main Agricultural Season

(percent) Aragatsotn 28

Ararat 18 Armavir 64

Gegharkunik 27 Lori 17

Kotayk 35 Shirak 41 Syunik 36



22

III. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

The 2008 Rural Community Survey carried out by the RA NSS has shown that in villages most of the social infrastructure facilities are in bad condition. Most of those facilities are functioning in old buildings (20 years and older). Therefore, the buildings are in need of repair. Physical infrastructure and utilities (with the exception of electricity) are in need of improvement. Roads within villages are mainly dirt and are in bad condition. In 31 of the surveyed villages roads within the village have been rehabilitated. The average length of the rehabilitated road within the village is 4 kilometers per village. In terms of non-agricultural economic activity, the most frequently found enterprises are shops. At the same time, universal credit institutions are the most widespread among financial service providers (48% of villages). Recommendations General Recommendations

(a) It is strongly recommended to have the Rural Community Survey conducted annually to record the impact dynamics of rural development programs, and particularly the MCA-Armenia Program. As a result, aggregated database with time-series data collected through the 2008-2011 Rural Community Surveys would be created and the list of surveyed communities would be developed. In addition, the annually conducted RCS would help to reduce the number of questions included in the overloaded ILCS Questionnaire.

(b) If a decision is made to conduct the survey annually, then a detailed approach to the next rounds would be developed.

(c) To have a valid comparison, we could also consider a separate HH survey in those communities where MCA-Armenia Projects are implemented.

(d) In the survey budget for the next rounds it is recommended to include a separate position for data analyst, so the survey results are analyzed more comprehensively and presented in a more interesting manner.

(e) For the next rounds it is recommended to have double-key entry and data verification practices.

Questionnaire-related Recommendations If future rounds are implemented, the RCS questionnaire should be revised.

(a) Given that the health post and ambulatory-policlinic are separate items in table B 2.1, it is recommended to have them separated in C 4.1 as well.

(b) In column 5 of the table C 2.2. it is recommended to change the unit of measurement for the duration when roads are not useable from months to days, given that the roads are not usable only for some days during a year and not months.

(c) In column 2 of table 4.1 the “hours” can be changed to “minutes,” given that the duration to get somewhere is most often expressed by minutes.

(d) In table D1 of the questionnaire the word “shop” can be replaced with the word “trade station.”


23

APPENDIX 1: CROP COVERAGE BY MARZ

Marz Crop Number of cultivated hectares

Percent of farming households

cultivating this crop compared to total

number of households in the

marz

Consumed by HH for own needs

%

Sold or bartered by HH

%

Wheat 3116 23.68 75.83 24.17 Emmer Wheat 10 0.11 20 80

Barley 4362 26.47 68.81 31.19 Apple 740 14.34 50.83 49.17 Grape 575 9.57 54 46

Apricot 73 0.97 15 85 Pear 35 2.52 80 20

Sweet Cherry 124 5.46 20 80 Walnut, hazelnut

20 1.89 50 50

Tomato 51.7 3.02 78 22 Cucumber 30 3.99 10 90 Cabbage 51 1.77 63.33 36.67 Carrot 1.5 0.86 62.5 37.5 Onion 10.6 2.29 50 50 Garlic 2 0.89 80 20 Potato 733 32.11 62.37 37.63

Sunflower 20 0.8 0 100 Grass

(natural) 2725 10.85 90 10

Alfalfa or other special

feed

3067 18.93 75.71 24.29

Other fruits 370 6.64 47.5 52.5

Aragatsotn

Other vegetables

5 0.11 100 0

Wheat 1273 9.74 64.62 35.38 Maize 11 0.4 5 95 Apple 42 0.8 21.33 78.67 Grape 1006 27.4 19.47 80.53 Peach 352 7.24 19.55 80.45

Apricot 592 21.67 21.67 78.33 Pear 111 1.63 23.33 76.67

Water melon 320 2.3 15 85 Strawberry 4 0.5 10 90

Tomato 952 32.29 36.18 63.82 Cucumber 9 5.09 75 25 Eggplant 36 1.84 40 60 Pepper 32 3.17 25 75 Onion 40 0.25 10 90 Garlic 7 2.79 40 60 Sorgo 41 2.43 5.5 94.5

Ararat

Greens (coriander,

basil, parsley, tarragon, etc.)

62 5.86 28.33 71.67


24





marz


%


%


feed

804 9.15 77.78 15.56

Other vegetables

19 0.69 30 70

Wheat 2069 21.38 62.37 37.63 Maize 160 0.76 5 95 Grape 1003 12.63 13.33 86.67 Peach 400 5.34 10 90

Apricot 921 10.62 12.27 87.73 Prunes 215 1.94 15 85 Plum 15 0.23 10 90

Quince 380 1.14 80 20 Water melon 711 7.55 6.08 93.92

Tomato 1179.7 10.56 12.56 87.44 Cucumber 392 7.42 12.09 87.91 Eggplant 716 3.57 4 95 Pepper 68 1.3 27.25 71.25

Cabbage 135 2.6 3.5 95 Onion 639 4.94 3.43 96.57 Potato 320.2 2.01 12.5 90 Haricot 5 0.21 100 0 Sorgo 28 1.92 1 99.5 Grass

(natural) 30 0.34 10 90


feed

3033 23.35 29.38 75.26

Armavir

Other vegetables

52 1.36 3.67 96.33

Wheat 5618 42.47 72.5 27.5 Emmer Wheat 190 0.62 80 20

Barley 6686 42.31 74.07 25.93 Maize 3 0.05 100 0 Apple 157 42.03 94.29 1.43

Cabbage 385.5 25.56 90 10 Garlic 10 0.24 5 95 Potato 5468 95.71 55.34 44.66 Haricot 20.5 4.35 84 16 Greens

(coriander, basil, parsley, tarragon, etc.)

253 33.33 100 0

Grass (natural)

900 9.42 95 5

Gegharkunik


feed

1311 11.97 89.17 10.83


25





marz


%


%

Wheat 3226.5 35.72 65.65 31.74 Barley 917 11.61 77.5 19.13 Maize 361 9.19 50 50 Apple 304.4 30.16 94.44 5.56 Grape 16.4 0.87 55 45 Peach 15 1.99 30 70 Pear 136 19.88 92.86 7.14 Plum 0.4 0.03 100 0

Cherry 0.4 0.03 100 0 Walnut, hazelnut

30.4 3.78 60 40

Cucumber 10 0.71 100 0 Cabbage 123.33 15.25 90 10 Carrot 10 1.49 50 50 Garlic 3 0.99 50 50 Potato 1753.3 75.31 80.31 19.69

Red beet 20 0.99 50 50 Sunflower 450 1.97 15 85

Haricot 10 1.07 100 0 Grass

(natural) 1497 16.23 99 1


feed

340 3.42 100 0

Other fruits (specify)

298.5 38.07 86.67 13.33

Lori

Other vegetables (specify)

258.1 44.63 94.71 5.29

Wheat 3637 24.28 80.05 19.95 Emmer Wheat 1212.6 7.02 35 65

Barley 1271.7 10.64 87.08 13.17 Maize 1 0.04 70 30 Apple 1192 40.28 55 46.5 Grape 65 6.53 25 75

Apricot 138 17.14 30 70 Pear 197 12.46 51.25 48.75

Prunes 6 1.52 100 0 Sweet Cherry 17.4 5.47 67.5 32.5

Tomato 38.7 5.76 64.75 24 Cucumber 6.2 3.71 63.33 36.67 Cabbage 66.3 2.8 51.2 30.8 Carrot 46 4.72 28.75 51.25 Onion 9.7 1.21 80 20 Potato 214 4.95 79 21

Red beet 3 0.23 7 3

Kotayk

Haricot 32 8.59 44 56


26





marz


%


%

Grass (natural)

245 8.97 76.67 23.33


feed

454 9.57 95.71 4.29

Wheat 7882.9 75.72 76.78 23.22 Emmer Wheat 295 11.43 100 0

Barley 6557.2 60.28 71 29 Cabbage 130.34 27.03 58.53 41.47 Carrot 179.61 22.39 34.67 65.33 Garlic 4 2.61 27.5 72.5 Potato 2539.01 68.81 69.34 30.66

Red beet 21 4.21 40 60 Grass

(natural) 800 1.22 100 0

Shirak


feed

1172 10.07 94.74 5.26

Wheat 5611 46.43 55.76 44.24 Emmer wheat 836 38.04 26.67 73.33

Barley 1770 31.74 50.77 49.23 Apple 119.3 27.63 58.1 41.9 Pear 2.3 3.19 45 55

Walnut, hazelnut

15 2.68 30 70

Cabbage 3.5 2.88 90 10 Potato 632 86.9 57.77 42.23 Haricot 20 18.38 78.88 21.13 Grass

(natural) 4193 63.58 85.47 14.53


feed

130 2.71 80 20

Other fruits 3.2 1.05 85 15

Syunik

Other vegetables

10.5 5.01 85.25 14.75

Wheat 571 29.94 78.89 21.11 Emmer Wheat 55 7 70 30

Barley 407.5 20.34 74.29 25.71 Apple 273 70.41 30.91 68.64 Grape 442 42.15 30 70 Peach 36 2.11 20 80

Apricot 100 16.13 26.25 73.75 Walnut, hazelnut

65.5 18.09 15.83 84.17

Tomato 8 30.89 96.67 3.33 Cucumber 1 3.73 100 0

Vayots Dzor

Carrot 4 1.93 80 20


27





marz


%


%

Onion 17.4 18.56 77.5 22.5 Potato 72.9 37.46 86 13.5 Haricot 17.5 16.07 88.33 11.67


feed

127.5 10.33 76.25 23.75

Wheat 1815 37.04 88.61 2.89 Emmer wheat 45 1.79 30 70

Barley 401 9.13 75.83 24.17 Maize 671 37.39 89.72 6.56 Apple 15 3.64 86.67 13.33 Grape 750 29.03 30.42 69.58 Peach 166 3.13 12.5 87.5 Prunes 90 1.79 30 0 Plum 47 19.13 74.17 21.33 Fig 0.1 0.5 100 0

Pomegranate 0.1 0.17 100 0 Cherry 8 1.95 100 0 Cornel 25.5 5.75 12.5 87.5

Water melon 56 0.72 35 65 Tomato 99 7.68 85 1.67

Cucumber 21.9 11.8 88 12 Cabbage 3 5.34 100 0 Onion 70 0.26 90 0 Garlic 90 2.1 35 0 Potato 737 58 94.4 5.75

Red beet 70 2.55 100 0 Sunflower 891 5.53 1 99

Haricot 410.5 48.3 69 31 Tobacco 17.3 0.59 0 100

Tavush

Grass (natural)

60 0.75 90 10


28

APPENDIX 2: QUESTIONNAIRE

NATIONAL STATISTICAL SERVICE OF THE REPUBLIC OF ARMENIA

RURAL COMMUNITY SURVEY QUESTIONNAIRE FOR MILLENNIUM CHALLENGE ACCOUNT – ARMENIA

November 2008

Approved by the RA National Council on Statistics by decree No 35-A,

October 28, 2008

Identification:

1. Questionnaire Code 2. Marz Code 3. Date of interview 4. Code of enumerator 5. Code of supervisor 6. Village Code 7. Distance from Yerevan km 8. Phone number of the person interviewed3 9. Position in the village

10. Sex of person interviewed (1-man, 2-woman) 11. Start time 12. End time

Comments: -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

3 The Rural Community Questionnaire targets people in the community who are responsible for administrating the community (primarily the community mayor).

_______November,


29

SECTION A: General Village Characteristics A.1. POPULATION A1.1. Please, provide the number of permanent village residents as of January 1, 2008 broken down as follows:

Total Population Adult Male (age 16 and

higher)

Adult Female (age 16 and

higher)

Children aged 0-15

N

1 2 3 4 1. Population

Numbers

A.1.2. Total number of registered households (as of January 1, 2008):

Number of registered households in total

(Number)

Non-farming households (main occupation is not

farming) (Percent)

Farming households (main occupation is

farming) (Percent)

N

1 2 3 1. Households A.2. MIGRATION A.2.1. During the past 3 years, would you say that there has been much out- or in-migration? (If the respondent has not been in this village within past 5 years, the enumerator should request the assistance of someone who can answer).

no, there were not many migrations……..……….1 yes, many families have migrated: more immigration……………..2 more emigration……………….3 as much of both………………..4

A.3. EMPLOYMENT

A. 3.1. Please, estimate the following (%):

Total Male Female N 1 2 3

1. What percent of working-age adults are employed, including agriculture?

Of those, main occupation was:

2. Agriculture

3. Businesses/enterprises

4. Services including government public servants (e.g. teachers, health service providers), utility workers (gas, electricity, irrigation), etc

5. Other sectors


30

SECTION B. Social Infrastructure B.1. EDUCATION B1.1. Which of the following educational institutions exists in your community and in what condition?

Number

Age(s) of Buildings (in years)

1. up to 5 years 2. 5-20 years 3. more than 20 years

Building conditions:

in need of repair 1. Yes 2. No

3.

N

Educational Facility

1 2 3

1. Pre-school/kindergarten

2. Elementary school

3. 8-grade school

4. Secondary School

5. College (VET institution)

6. Musical school

7. Art school

8. Fine art school

9. Sports


31

B.2. HEALTH B2.1. Which of the following health care facilities exists in your village and in what condition?

Number

Age(s) of buildings (in years)

1. up to 5 years 2. 5-20 years

3. more than 20 years



N Health Facility

1 2 3 1. Health Post

2. Ambulatory-Policlinic

3. Hospital

4. Pharmacy

5. Dentist

6. Other (specify)

B.3. CULTURE and RECREATION B3.1.Which of the following recreational/cultural facilities exists in your village?

Number Age(s) of Buildings (in years)

1. up to 5 years 2. 5-20 years

3. more than 20 years



N Facility

1 2 3

1. Cultural Center/Events Center

2. Theatre/Movie

3. Stadium/Gym

4. Activity center for elderly

5. Museum 6. Library


32

SECTION C. Physical Infrastructure and Utilities

C.1. GENERAL C1.1. Is the following centralized infrastructure/utility available in the village and in what quality?

Percent of households connected

For connected households, what is the availability of service

1. 24 hours a day 2. 6-12 hours a day 3. Less than 6 hours

N Infrastructure/utility

1 2 1. Electricity 2. Gas 3. Drinking water (with a pipeline) 4. Telephone 5. Mobile phone 6. Internet 7. Other (specify):

C.2. ROADS AND TRANSPORTATION C2.1. How many kilometers is the total length of the roads (streets) within the village? km C2.2. Type and condition of roads used by the village

Type of Road (Percent)

Condition of Roads

Dirt Gravel Asphalt 1. Poor 2. Average 3. Good

Average number of

months when these roads are

not useable

N Type of Road

1 2 3 4 5

1. Roads within your village

2. Roads to regional towns or markets


33

C.3. AVAILABILITY OF TRANSPORTATION C.3.1 How many registered cars/trucks are there in the village?

Car Truck N 1 2

1. Total number of vehicles in the village

2. Number of vehicles registered in the village

3. Number of vehicles registered in other places (approximately)

C.3.3. Please chose three transportation modes most frequently used by the villagers from the following list starting from the most used one:

Three most frequently used transportation modes within the village

Three most frequently used transportation modes outside the village

N Transportation mode

1 2 1. Car 2. Minivan/bus 3. Taxi 4. Train 5. Cart 6. Walking/no transportation 7. Horse/Donkey

8. Bicycle C.3.4.Public Transportation Availability and Quality

Number Reliability 1. Poor 2. Average 3. Excellent

How adequate are these services to meet the needs of the village? 1. Poor 2. Average 3. Excellent

N Type of Public Transportation

1 2 3 1. Passenger bus lines 2. Passenger minibus lines 3. Taxis


34

C.4. TRAVEL TIMES/DISTANCES TO KEY INFRASTRUCTURE C4.1. How far are the nearest services from the village center and how long does it take you to get there? Note: If there is a secondary school in the village do not ask about the primary

C. 5. TRANSPORTATION COSTS

C5.1. How much does one round trip to the regional center/Yerevan cost:

Regional Center Yerevan N Expenditure Item

1 2 1 Gasoline/Petrol (for automobiles) 2 Gas 3 Minivan fare 4 Bus fare 5 Taxi fare

N Services Distance (km) Duration (hours)

Transportation Mode 1. Cars 2. Minivan/Buses 3. Taxi 4. Train 5. Carts 6. Walking 7. Horse/donkey 8. Bicycle 9. Other

1 2 3 Health Post Hospitals (Emergency)

Pharmacy Village office Kindergarten Complete secondary school

Primary general school

Markets to sell your product

Bank/Financial Services


35

C.6. OTHER TRANSPORTATION-RELATED ISSUES

C6.1. Have there been any road rehabilitation/construction projects in the past three years?

1. Yes 2. No >> SECTION D

C6.2. What type of roads was rehabilitated/constructed? Type of road Length of the

rehabilitated/constructed road (km)

Source of funding (only in case of roads within village)

1. private 2. public

1 2 1. Roads within village

(streets)

2. Roads to regional center or market/inter-community roads

N/A

3. Roads to capital

N/A

C6.3. How many months did the construction activities happen (excluding any months in between when construction was not happening)?

3. One-two months 4. 3-6 months 5. More than 6 months 6. In the process

C6.4. Were there disruptions to villagers due to construction?

1. Yes 2. No

C6.5. Have local employees been employed in the construction or rehabilitation of local roads?

1. Yes 2. No >> SECTION D

C6.6. If yes, how many local employees were employed?

people


36

SECTION D. Economic Activity D1. Please, list the number and type of non-agricultural businesses/enterprises in the village:

N Type Number

1. Convenience store (mixed) 2. Food shops (including

small kiosks)

3. Other shops 4. Car service 5. Crafts (Carpet weaving,

blacksmithing, pottery)

6. Food processing enterprises 7. Other industrial enterprises 8. Restaurant, Café, etc 9. Other (specify):

D2. Which of the following financial services are offered in your village? Note: In case of 1-4 >> Section E N Services 1. Yes

2. No

1. Banks in the village 2. Universal credit institutions (AREGAK, Kamurj, etc) 3. Private credit providers 4. Other (specify) 5. None

D3. If there is no any financial service provider in your village, where do you go?

1. Nearest village that offers the service 2. Nearest city 3. Regional center 4. Yerevan 5. Other (specify) 6. None


37

SECTION E: Agriculture and Irrigation E.1. What percentage of households is involved in the following agricultural activities?

N Sectors Household %

1. Farming

2. from which, on the total area of the owned land (including kitchen plot)

3. only on kitchen plot 4. green houses 5. Cattle-breeding 6. Other (specify)

E.2. What is the total area of agricultural land currently cultivated by households of your village? ha E.3. What are the five most common crops in your village? N Crop Number of

hectares under cultivation

Share of farming households cultivating this crop compared to total number of households (percent)

Percent of this crop that is consumed by households

Percent of this crop that is sold or bartered

1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 5

E.4. Is your village a member of a Water User Association?

1. Yes 2. No


38

E.5. Does the village have an irrigation network?

1. Yes 2. No >> Q E10

E.6. What percent of farmers in the village water their crops using each of the following types? N Irrigation practices Percent of Farmers

1. Irrigation (canal) 2. Deep or other well or drinking water (pipeline) 3. Only natural sources, rivers/rain fed 4. Irrigation and deep or other well or drinking water 5. Irrigation and natural sources, rivers/rainfed

E7. What proportion of arable land was irrigated during the last (previous) main agricultural season?

% E.8. Did the village receive water when needed during the last (previous) main agricultural season? 1. Yes 2. No E.9. Did the village receive as much water as needed during the last (previous) main agricultural season? 1. Yes 2. No E.10. Are the following support structures available in your village?

If yes, how would you describe the quality of services?

N Available

1. Yes 2. No

Poor Average Good

Location of the

nearest service

(distance in km)

1 2 3 4 5

1 Agriculture Support Center

2 Agronomist

3 Agricultural cooperatives

4 Veterinary


39

SECTION F. Government Policies and Programs F.1. Does the village benefit from any project organized by the Government or other institutions within the past 12 months? 1. Yes 2. No>> END F.2. Socio-economic development programs and project activities in the village within the past 12 months:

N

Project / activity name (e.g., hospital

rehabilitation, school construction,

etc.

Start date

End date

Sponsoring Agency

1 2 3 4 1

2

3

4

5

6

7

RURAL COMMUNITY SURVEY - Statistical Committee of the ...

Documents

Transcript of RURAL COMMUNITY SURVEY - Statistical Committee of the ...