Rural Community Development Project - Gente de Valor, IFAD Impact Assessment Surveys, 2019
As part of its greater portfolio in Northeast Brazil, IFAD supported the Brazilian government and State of Bahia to implement the Rural Communities Development Project in the Poorest Areas of the State of Bahia (PRODECAR), popularly referred to as Gente de Valor (GDV), between 2007 and 2013 .The purpose of GDV was to address the multitude of basic service gaps, empowerment deficit, and productive capacity needs experienced by residents of Brazil's Northeast region. Beneficiaries were drawn from the local population of sertanejos; a regional population named in reference to the dryland, sertão agro-climatic zone and among the poorest people in Brazil. As a CDD-style project, GDV's objective was to address their needs through a participatory process that would provide access to water-harvesting cisterns (primarily for household consumption), training on ecologically appropriate agricultural practices, technical assistance and technical inputs, as well as community capacitation to identify and address future development needs.
GDV was selected to be part of the IFAD10 Impact Assessment Agenda that consists of a broader set of impact assessments across the world. The aim is to generate evidence and provide lessons for better rural poverty reduction programs and to measure the impact of IFAD-supported programmes on enhancing rural people's economic mobility, increased agricultural productive capacity, improved market participation and increased resilience.
As almost six years having passed since the project closed, the analysis evaluates the sustainable impacts of GDV under the realm of access to infrastructure, agricultural productivity, poverty impacts, and empowerment of both women, youth and the community at large. Given the role that drought plays in affecting the economic opportunities of sertanejos, it is also relevant that this project evaluates outcomes following the recent multi-year drought. From the years 2010 to 2016, Bahia experienced a drought characterized as one of the worst of the century; affecting 33.4 million people and resulting in an estimated damage of approximately 30 billion USD (Marengo et al., 2017).
For more information, please, click on the following link <https://www.ifad.org/en/web/knowledge/-/publication/impact-assessment-gente-de-valor-rural-communities-development-project-in-the-poorest-areas-of-the-state-of-bahia>.
Kind of Data
Sample survey data [ssd]
Unit of Analysis
The household-level survey contains information about:
- Socio-demographic characteristics
- Agricultural production
- Tree/perennial production
- Home garden production
- Promoted practices
- Food consumption/security
- Other income
- Social capital
- Credit and savings
- PRO WEAI
Producers and sponsors
International Fund for Agricultural Development
International Fund for Agricultural Development
The qualitative portion of the evaluation was conducted prior to the quantitative survey in order to collect information on project targeting and implementation in the targeted areas. Two primary methodologies were employed: Focus Group Discussions (FGD) and Key Informant Interviews (KII). Qualitative interviews took place across seven sub-territories and 17 communities. Communities chosen for the qualitative survey were identified based on the following economic activities: cassava, goats, and backyard gardens in combination with high intensity of water-based activities.
The quantitative data collection covered 2,019 households, and 3,615 individuals (counting 1,615 partners interviewed for the WEAI), in 228 communities. Given that the nature of the intervention expected both household and community impacts, the construction of a counterfactual was a multi-stage process stratified at the community, and then household level.
More details on the sampling procedure can be found in the IA plan and reports, attached in the documentations tab.
Dates of Data Collection
Data Collection Mode
Computer Assisted Personal Interview [capi]
The data were collected using a mixed-method approach in order to capture both expected and unexpected impacts of GDV. The data collection took place six years after the closing of GDV, offering time to identify longer-term outcomes that can lead to more realistic interpretations of impact rather than if the project had been assessed immediately after closure. The event of the multi-year drought, in tandem with continuing erratic rainfall and the loss of support from farmer-oriented public programs, further allows for assessment of the ability of the project to make beneficiaries resilient to drought and economic shocks.
The quantitative portion of the evaluation was primarily used for measurement of impact and consisted of two main instruments: a household-level questionnaire and a community-level questionnaire. These instruments covered a range of modules in order to estimate the multi-faceted aspects of welfare. In particular, the household questionnaire focused on agricultural production, agricultural sales, other income sources such as employment or government assistance, and consumption. Additionally, it included modules on assets, shocks, and migration in order to assess any wealth accumulation, exposure to shocks, and coping strategies. Given that the project placed emphasis on increasing women's leadership and decision-making, an abridged version of the Women's Empowerment in Agriculture Index (WEAI), known as the Project WEAI (Pro-WEAI) was fielded to collect data on indicators that comparatively assess agency and empowerment of male and female decision-makers in a household.
The community questionnaire focused on services that are available to the community and relevant institutions such local infrastructure, economic activities, and access to services. The community questionnaire identified levels of community agency and resilience by asking about recent shocks, coping strategies, and collective action to promote local development. Because the project baseline was incomplete, project baseline data was not used, and respondents were asked to recall levels of assets owned at a reference period pre-GDV in both the community and household questionnaires.
Note: some variables have missing labels. Please, refer to the questionnaire for more details.
The dataset was anonymized using Statistical Disclosure methods by the Office of Chief Statistician at FAO.
The users shall not take any action with the purpose of identifying any individual entity (i.e. person, household, enterprise, etc.) in the micro dataset(s). If such a disclosure is made inadvertently, no use will be made of the information, and it will be reported immediately to FAO
Micro datasets disseminated by FAO shall only be allowed for research and statistical purposes. Any user which requests access working for a commercial company will not be granted access to any micro dataset regardless of their specified purpose. Users requesting access to any datasets must agree to the following minimal conditions:
- The micro dataset will only be used for statistical and/or research purposes;
- Any results derived from the micro dataset will be used solely for reporting aggregated information, and not for any specific individual entities or data subjects;
- The users shall not take any action with the purpose of identifying any individual entity (i.e. person, household, enterprise, etc.) in the micro dataset(s). If such a disclosure is made inadvertently, no use will be made of the information, and it will be reported immediately to FAO;
- The micro dataset cannot be re-disseminated by users or shared with anyone other than the individuals that are granted access to the micro dataset by FAO.
The use of the dataset should be referenced in any publication, using the following citation:
International Fund for Agricultural Development. Rural Community Development Project - Gente de Valor, IFAD Impact Assessment Surveys, Brazil, 2019. Dataset downloaded from https://microdata.fao.org.
Disclaimer and copyrights
The user of the data acknowledges that the original collector of the data, the authorized distributor of the data, and the relevant funding agency bear no responsibility for use of the data or for interpretations or inferences based upon such uses