Results-based public management · 2017-11-28 · i Evaluation United nations Food and agRicUltURe oRganization S a n t i a g o , 2 0 1 4 Results-based public management tools for

1Evaluation

Results-based public management

tools for the design and implementation of public rural

development programs with a project cycle approach

Design

DiagnosisEvaluationMoDulE 4

Implementation and

Monitoring

Gestión Pública con base en resultados HErraMiEntas para El DisEño E instruMEntación DE prograMas públicos DE DEsarrollo rural MEDiantE El EnfoquE DEl ciclo DEl proyEcto

2

iEvaluation

United nations Food and agRicUltURe oRganiz ation

S a n t i a g o , 2 0 1 4

Results-based public management

tools for the design and implementation of public rural

development programs with a project cycle approach

Design

DiagnosisEvaluationMoDulE 4

Implementation and

Monitoring


ii

the designations employed and the presentation of material in this information

product do not imply the expression of any opinion whatsoever on the part of the

food and agriculture organization of the united nations (fao) concerning the legal

or development status of any country, territory, city or area or of its authorities, or

concerning the delimitation of its frontiers or boundaries. the mention of specific

companies or products of manufacturers, whether or not these have been patented,

does not imply that these have been endorsed or recommended by fao in preference

to others of a similar nature that are not mentioned.

the views expressed in this information product are those of the author(s) and do not

necessarily reflect the views or policies of fao.

isbn 978-92-5-108662-9

© fao, 2015

fao encourages the use, reproduction and dissemination of material in this information

product. Except where otherwise indicated, material may be copied, downloaded and

printed for private study, research and teaching purposes, or for use in non-commercial

products or services, provided that appropriate acknowledgement of fao as the source

and copyright holder is given and that fao’s endorsement of users’ views, products or

services is not implied in any way.

all requests for translation and adaptation rights, and for resale and other commercial

use rights should be made via www.fao.org/contact-us/licence-request or addressed to

[email protected].

fao information products are available on the fao website (www.fao.org/publications)

and can be purchased through [email protected].

iiiEvaluation

contents

acknowledgements ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- vii

presentation ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ix

introduction ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- xi

I. Impact evaluation of a program or project --------------------------------------------------------------------- 1

Chapter 1 Impact evaluation of a program or project ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- 2

1.1 outcome and impact evaluation ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 3

1.2 impact evaluation methods ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 3

Chapter 2 Case study: Impact evaluation of a livestock genetic improvement program ---------------------------------11

2.1 Description of the program to be evaluated --------------------------------------------------------------------11

2.2 sampling method ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------11

2.3 Evaluation methodology --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------12

2.4 Determinants of participation in the program ------------------------------------------------------------------13

2.5 Matching and estimation of impacts -----------------------------------------------------------------------------15

2.6 analysis of results ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------17

Summary ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------18

Tool -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------19

questionnaire for the impact evaluation of the livestock genetic improvement program --------------------------19


iv

f I G u r E S

Figure 1. life cycle of the project: Evaluation ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 2

Figure 2. common support zone for matching ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- 5

Figure 3. area of common support ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------15

Ta b l E S

Table 1. types of evaluation throughout the project cycle --------------------------------------------------------------- 3

Table 2. sample composition for the collection of data -----------------------------------------------------------------12

Table 3. annual average impact of the livestock genetic improvement program on the beneficiaries with three different methods of matching for selected indicators ------------------------------------------16

Table 4. bias of the estimated impact as a percentage of the standard error* -------------------------------------17

vEvaluation

a C r o n y M S

fao united nations food and agriculture organization

lf logical framework

fW fall-Winter

lGIP livestock genetic improvement program

PSM propensity score Matching

SS spring-summer

SaGarPa Ministry of agriculture, livestock, rural Development, fishing and food

CSZ common support Zone


vi

viiEvaluation

acknowledgements

for more than ten years, the united nations food and agriculture organization (fao), through ongoing rural policy

evaluation and analysis projects, has provided technical assistance to the Ministry of agriculture, livestock, rural

Development, fishing and food (sagarpa) of Mexico, in the area of evaluation of programs promoting agriculture,

fishing and aquaculture production, and rural development. in the framework of this cooperation, methodological

tools have been developed jointly for the management of the different phases of a program: sector diagnosis, design,

implementation and evaluation. this document brings together the experiences obtained from the projects so that

they can be reproduced or referenced by actors involved in the management of programs or projects with similar

characteristics.

in the development of the projects the contributions of the following sagarpa officers stands out: arturo Enciso

serrano, Ernesto Ezequiel abraham tarrab, Horacio santoyo, José de Jesús romo santos, José correa, Juan carlos

vargas Moreno, lucía rosas ortíz, Miguel Ángel lópez arreguín, omar anaya Mandujano, alan Kristian Hernández,

pablo Hernández alarcón, patricia valtierra carrillo, claudia gabriela valadez romero, roberto cedeño, rogelio

carmona león, Eduardo benitez paulín, José Merced tulais lópez and silvia urbina Hinojosa.

a special mention is made of veronica gutierrez Macías, Jaime clemente Hernandez and renato olvera nevarez (in

memoriam).

alfredo gonzalez cambero, who directed the projects from 2007 to 2012, and salomón salcedo baca, senior policy

officer of the regional office for latin america and the caribbean of the fao and at the time technical leader of the

projects, were the lead authors of this publication. ana Harumi Hayashida carrillo and ina salas casasola, both fao

consultants, participated in its drafting. Members of the projects collaborated in the systematization of each of the four

modules of this compendium of tools, contributing their knowledge and experiences in each of the phases of a project.

particular recognition is given to isabel Madrid pérez, ruth Mendoza ortinez, Mariana ortega ramirez and alejandro

Davila topete who contributed to the construction of the alternatives tree for the sustainability of natural resources.

finally, the operational leadership of the projects is acknowledged to the representation office of fao in Mexico.


viii

ixEvaluation

Presentation

since the Marrakech round table in 2004, the international community has supported five specific commitments related

to improving the effectiveness of development assistance1, synthesized in the concept of “Managing for Development

results”. this implies taking into account from the beginning of any initiative, project or program the expected outcomes

and how to achieve them. furthermore, the implementation, progress monitoring, and subsequent evaluation should

consider the expected outcomes that were established at the beginning of the process.

in this regard, there is a great challenge for developing countries to adopt a new vision. this means breaking with old

customs and patterns in the manner of handling the project cycle, changing from a focus on addressing demand to a

planning process for achieving specific outcomes, established from the beginning. While there is no single approach,

since each country, each sector and each project presents particular situations, there are experiences that can be

systematized and shared.

the preparation of a set of tools for results-based management responds to the need to break with inertial operating

schemes of public development programs in the majority of countries, which do not contemplate efficiency and efficacy

in achieving results. the absence of such an approach implies that substantial resources are spent without a timeframe

for resolving the problems that the public interventions are intended for.

this document brings together the experiences obtained from the Evaluation and analysis of rural policies project

undertaken by the united nations food and agriculture organization (fao) and the Mexican Ministry of agriculture,

livestock, rural Development, fishing and food (sagarpa) during the implementation of the “results based

Management” focus in its different programs. in this respect, on four occasions the national council for the Evaluation

of social Development policy of Mexico has granted recognition to sagarpa for its good practices in the development,

execution and evaluation of public policy in the field since 2007, taking an important step toward improving its programs

and orienting them toward performance and impact in the rural sector.

the document “results based public management: tools for the design and implementation of public rural development

programs with a project cycle approach” includes the four phases of the life cycle of a project or program. the first

module includes the methodological tools for conducting a sector diagnosis, which constitutes the first step that justifies

the intervention by making it possible to identify a problem, dimension it, identify and quantify the population or area

facing the problem, and stratify such population.

the second module presents the procedure and methodological tools for the design of a program or project which will be

synthesized in the logical framework. in this module the methodology is shown for conducting the objectives analysis

and the alternatives analysis, constructing performance indicators, identifying the means of verification, identifying risk

and assumptions, and collecting counterfactual data for a baseline of the performance indicators of the program or

project.

1 the principles of results based Management agreed on during the second round table on managing for development results in 2004, are: 1) focus the dialog on results in all the phases of the development process; 2) align programming, monitoring and evaluation with results; 3) keep measurement and reporting simple; 4) manage for, not by, results; and 5) use results information for learning and decision-making.


x

the third module provides the methodology for the implementation of a program or project which, under the results

approach, should include a monitoring and evaluation system consistent with its design, budgeting, and regulation, as

well as design and processes evaluations in the first year of implementation of the program or project.

the fourth module consists of the methodology for evaluating the outcomes obtained by the program or project as a

result of its implementation through the design of the results and impact evaluation of a program or project.

Each module is structured with a chapter on theory and a chapter on experience referring to the mentioned project, and

complemented with the systematization of the methodological tools for a better understanding of the sections.

Salomón Salcedo baca alfredo González Cambero

senior policy officer project Director (2007-2012)

xiEvaluation

introduction

the evaluation is the stage that closes the virtuous circle of the project or program cycle. it involves the measurement

and comparison of the impacts of the interventions with respect to their expected outcomes; in other words, what

was planned and what was achieved, and how it was achieved. in this regard, the evaluation establishes whether

the implementation of the project or program changed the targeted situation or resolved the targeted problem, and

measures the magnitude of the change. thus, the impact evaluation reveals whether a program has had the desired

effects on the target population and whether those effects are attributable to the interventions of the program. the

impact evaluation can also explore unintentional consequences, whether positive or negative, on the beneficiaries.

the measurement of the outcomes and impacts resulting from the public policy interventions is extremely important

in order to have arguments regarding their effectiveness. therefore, the Evaluation Module of the toolkit includes,

in chapter 1, the conceptual aspects of the impact evaluation and, in chapter 2, a case study applying the impact

evaluation. finally, at the end of the Module a questionnaire for collecting the information used in the case study is

provided.


xii

1Evaluation

impact evaluation of a program or project4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4

4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4

I


2

2.Design

1.Diagnosis

4.Evaluation

3.Implementation and Monitoring

fIGurE 1. lifE cyclE of tHE proJEct: EvaluaTIon

chapter 1impact evaluation of a program or project

the life cycle of a program or project culminates with its final evaluation (figure 1), in which the results achieved and the impacts of the intervention are assessed. the purpose of the impact evaluation is to determine if the program or project had or is having the desired effects on the individuals, the households or the entities for which it was intended to remedy a negative situation previously identified as a development problem, and whether these effects are attributable to the interventions represented by that program or project. specifically, the effects the program or project had according to the goal established in the design of the program can be measured through the impact evaluation. in contrast to the monitoring of a program or project that reports the values of the performance indicators, the evaluation reveals the reason for this value. in this regard, the evaluation is a systemic assessment of the program or project that explains how its elements, from the diagnosis that was the basis for its design to its implementation and monitoring, resulted in the outcomes and impact found.

therefore, as part of the toolkit for the results based management of a program or project, this chapter presents conceptual aspects of impact evaluation.

3Evaluation

1.1 outcome and impact evaluation

the design of a program or project starts with a development problem that needs to be resolved or, in other words, a negative situation that can be remedied through the intervention. the evaluation of outcomes and impact, therefore, establishes to what extent the intervention achieved its mission in relation to the change sought in the problem situation identified in the diagnosis; this means the difference between the values of the indicators of the initial situation and the value of those indicators observed in the final situation attributable to the program or project. thus the evaluation responds to questions such as: What would have been the performance of the individuals that benefited from the program in its absence? What would have been the performance of those that did not benefit from the program if they had been exposed to the program? is the intervention producing the benefits expected and what was the general effect on the target population? the impact evaluation also tries to measure the results of the intervention of a program or project isolating it from other possible factors.

impact evaluation, in contrast to the design and processes evaluation, is done at an advanced or final stage of the execution of the program or project. in this regard, the evaluation of managing (design, processes and intermediate performance), as seen in Module iii, corresponds to the implementation and monitoring stage, and not to the evaluation stage itself, since its objective is to provide feedback on the managing of the program or project (table 1).

Type of Evaluation

Timetable Purpose

Designbefore or at the beginning of the execution of the program or project.

provides feedback in relation to the internal consistency of the program or project, specifically on the horizontal relationship and the vertical relationship of the logical framework of the program or project.

processesDuring the first implementation period.

provides feedback by analyzing whether the program carries out its implementing processes efficiently and effectively for achieving the outcomes sought.

impactafter a reasonable time for maturing and/or at the end of the project or program.

Measures and analyzes the outcomes and impact achieved and attributable to the intervention.

1.2 impact evaluation methods

in general terms, the quantitative methods for evaluating impacts can be divided into two groups: experimental and quasi-experimental. the experimental methods eliminate the effect of selection bias on the results of the program or project since the benefits (or treatments) of the program or project are assigned randomly to the potential population such that the non-treated units constitute a control group to compare to the situation of the treated beneficiaries or units. However, the random assignment of the benefits of a program or project is not common practice because, among other reasons, it may be unviable2. given, then, that experimental methods are generally the exception, with

2 When a potential beneficiary eligible for the benefits of a program or project is excluded from them, this can be considered unethical, not to mention the political consequences this could have.

TablE 1. typEs of Evaluation tHrougHout tHE proJEct cyclE


4

the quasi-experimental methods a comparison group can be formed from the non-beneficiaries (non-treated units) of the program or project which can be compared to the units under analysis of the beneficiary population. considering the above, one of the primary quasi-experimental methods is presented below.

1.2.1 Propensity score matchingas mentioned previously, quasi-experimental methods can be used for impact evaluation when it is not possible to construct treatment and control groups randomly. through these techniques, the comparison groups are formed based on certain co-variants that are common to the members of the treatment group or beneficiaries. once both groups are formed, the beneficiaries are compared to their respective matches in the group of non-beneficiaries that, having been eligible for the program or project, did not participate in it. another advantage of this technique is that it can be used in the absence of a baseline of the program or project.

typically, the matching methods match participants and non-participants in the program or project based on similar observable characteristics between them and the impact of the program or project is estimated by the difference in the value of the indicator of the program goal; for example, income, level of education, etc. However, given the number of observable characteristics required, establishing statistically equivalent comparison groups may be unviable3.

this difficulty is solved using the propensity score matching method (psM), through which each beneficiary is matched with a non-beneficiary taking as a comparison variable the probability of participating in the program or project. considering that the treatment is independent of the potential results of the intervention given the vector of co-variants, then it is also the case that one function (of a lesser dimension) of this vector is independent. this is to say that instead of matching the set of co-variants, just one variable is matched: the conditional probability of treatment, given the co-variants.

the propensity score is estimated econometrically for each of the units under analysis, treated and non-treated, through a logit model, thereby obtaining comparability measurements of the units belonging to the comparison group with respect to the units of the treatment group in terms of the probability of access to the program or project. for this purpose the model includes a binary variable as a dependent variable to which the value of 1 is given if the unit was a beneficiary of the treatment and the value of 0 if it was not. the independent variables are those listed in the co-variants vector.

where p(x) is the probability of receiving the benefits of the program or project T given the vector of co-variants X and P is the functional operator of probability. this function is also the conditional expectation of T given X:

in this way, the observations of the treated group and those of the comparison group selected to have the same values of p(x) will have the same distribution of X; that is, T and X are conditionally independent given p(x). in other words, given p(x), X must have the same distribution both in the treatment group and in the comparison group, and therefore the matching resembles a random treatment upon balancing the distribution of the co-variants in the treated group and in the comparison group.

3 this procedure becomes unviable because the number of non-beneficiary candidates for matching with those that are beneficiaries is reduced. for example, one observable variable would be sex, and therefore the group of non-beneficiaries would be reduced to almost half. given that matching by sex would not be sufficient to establish statistically significant groups, another variable would be required that makes the groups more specific for purposes of comparison, such as education. by incorporating this second variable, the group of non-beneficiaries is reduced even more. by repeating this procedure successively the number of possible non-beneficiary candidates can be exhausted before reaching the statistical equivalence between beneficiaries and non-beneficiaries.

p(x)=P(T=1|X=x),

E[T |X=x]=1·P(T=1|X=x)+0 ·P(T= 0|X=x)=P(T=1|X=x)=p(x)

5Evaluation

therefore, one way of proceeding is to form the groups of beneficiaries and non-beneficiaries based on the probability that a particular individual is found in the comparison group or in the treated group since such probability of participation in the project or program depends on the characteristics of the individuals, both observable and non-observable.

once the propensity score for each unit of analysis is estimated, the next step is to determine the common support zone, which is given by the overlap of the distribution of p(x) of the treatment group and the distribution of the comparison group (figure 2). in other words, it involves the region where the propensities to participate in the program or project estimated for the units of analysis of one group overlap with the propensities of the units of the other group.

.

once the common support zone is established, all observations of the units for which the propensity score is less than the minimum points that the treated units show and greater than the maximum points that the non-treated units obtained are discarded, such that all the observations, both of treated and non-treated units, that fall outside of the common support zone are eliminated.

When the common support zone has been determined, the next step is to match the beneficiary units and non-beneficiary units from among the units that fall inside the overlap (common support) zone. the matching is done, then, selecting individuals that show a probability of having belonged to the treated group similar to the probability of those that in fact did. this is what is known as the matching of the propensity score to participate. in other words, the matching of the individuals based on the observable and non-observable characteristics is done indirectly through the matching

Density of probability

Propensity score

PS Minimun PS Maximun

Group ofnon-beneficiaries

Group of beneficiaries

Matching zone

Region of common support

0

fIGurE 2. coMMon support ZonE for MatcHing


6

of the probability or propensity to participate in the program or project, which is possible under the presumption that the individuals in the treatment group and those in the comparison group have, in principle, the same distribution of the matching variables4, both observable and non-observable.

it should be noted that the estimations of impacts through matching will be reliable if a) the participant group and the comparison group have the same distribution of non-observable characteristics5, b) the observed characteristics have the same distribution in both groups, c) the same instrument for obtaining the information is applied to both beneficiaries and non-beneficiaries, d) the beneficiaries and the non-beneficiaries belong to the same environment. Without these conditions, the estimation of the impacts would be biased6.

in order to match the propensity to participate it is necessary to have two samples, one corresponding to the participants or beneficiaries and the other corresponding to the non-participants or non-beneficiaries. from the non-participants sample a sub-sample is extracted that contains the comparison group from which the closest neighbors of the participants can be identified. in this case, the variables that define the closest neighbors are the co-variants X.

once both samples are obtained, the effect of the program or project is estimated through the sum of the differences:

where Yi (1) is the value observed in the impact indicator through the implementation of the program or project and Yi (0) is the value of the same indicator but in absence of the treatment that the program or project represents.

the quasi-experimental methods, as mentioned before, have the inconvenience of being “quasi”. in other words, since they are not random assignments of the treatments and do not maintain a control group that is also random, the problem of selection bias arises in impact evaluation. this selection bias arises from the non-observable characteristics7 that affect the decision to participate in the program or project. for example, the participants of the program can be the individuals that have the greatest possibility of benefiting from a particular program and therefore are motivated to participate in the activities of the program. thus, the changes in the impact indicator observed among these groups selected non-randomly would indicate the impact of the program on motivated participants, but may not reflect the impact of the program on the average target population. the selection bias may also show reverse effects; that is, that the individuals may choose to participate in the program or project due to a sense of vulnerability, in which case the effects of the program do not show the results that would have been obtained in the absence of this bias. note should be taken that the bias can also come from the fact that the beneficiaries are in different geographic areas.

the problem of the selection bias arises, therefore, due to missing data on the common factors that affect participation in the program or project and the results that are obtained from it. it is important to note that, in contrast to the standard problem of omitted variables in econometric estimates, the problem of selection bias arises from a lack of data in certain dependent variables of the analysis. in other words, it’s not missing variables, but rather missing observations. the selection bias is also present in random assignments; however, the differences with respect to the average are canceled out given their randomness.

4 rosenbaum paul, rubin Donald. 1985. constructing control group using Multivariate Matched sampling Methods that incorporate the propensity score. the american statistician, vol. 39, no. 1.

5 When such distribution is different, then there is a selection problem.

6 Jalan Jyotsna and ravaillon Martín. 1998. income gains from Workfare: Estimates for argentina’s trabaJar program. Washington, D.c. Development research group. the World bank.

7 such as motivation, organizational capacity, entrepreneurial capacity; or pessimism, vulnerability, etc.

∑[Yi(1)-Yi(0)],i =1

n1n

7Evaluation

there are different econometric techniques used in quasi-experimental designs to model the processes of participation in a program or project and to estimate the impact of the intervention. the central principle is to compare the participants with the non-participants of the program or project.

it is extremely important to mention that there is no perfect method and thus it is desirable to triangulate the evaluation methods and analyze the results in light of a theoretic model on expected outcomes and the theory of change. some of the possible methods to triangulate are the following:

i) simple propensity score Matching of the closest neighbor. Matching using the n neighbors with the closest propensity score, where n=1 defines the matching of the closest neighbor, which is the conventional estimator. versions of the closest neighbor estimator that average the results of the five or ten closest neighbors are also considered.

ii) Mahalanobis Matching within calibrators of propensity scoring. in this method first the set of possible matches is restricted to individuals that are within a specific range of the propensity score and, subsequently, within that range the closest individual is chosen utilizing the Mahalanobis metric as matching. if there is no individual within the range, the one with the closest propensity score is selected as a match. Heckman, ichimura and

todd (1997)8 utilize a caliper width equal to

, where are the variances of

the propensity score within the treatment and comparison groups. they also test caliper width equal to the distance of the nth score of the closest propensity, n=5 and n=10. variable caliper widths guarantee a set of potential matches within a range.

iii) correspondence of local lineal propensity score. this forms a weighted average on the results of the comparison group utilizing local lineal regression weights with bandwidths equal to 0.04 and 0.06.

iv) smoothed Mahalanobis Distance Matching between calipers. caliper widths of n=5 and n=10 are used, with which the set of possible matches is limited. subsequently, an average weighted estimate of is constructed using local lineal regressions and smoothing the Mahalanobis metric. a bandwidth equal

to the distance of the closest nth according to the Mahalanobis metric ensures that all the observations within the width of the caliper are used in the smoothing.

v) Matching adjusted by lineal local regressions. uses data of individuals that did not request to enter the program (D=0):

,

where is estimated non-parametrically by lineal local regressions. the results of the participants adjusted by X, are matched with the adjusted results of the non-participants, . the weights of local lineal regressions are used to construct the matched results.

qualitative methodologies are also used to complement quantitative methods in evaluating the impact of a program or project. these techniques provide information on how the beneficiaries perceive the project and how they are affected by it. they are used together with the quantitative techniques in order to triangulate the information and give greater solidity and meaning to the results.

some of the qualitative methods are: participatory rural Evaluation, a set of techniques that emphasize local knowledge and motivate people to do their own analysis and planning; sarar9, a participatory approach that strengthens the capacities of local facilitators in relation to the construction of knowledge, evaluation, planning and organization; systematic consultation of the client, a group method used to strengthen the communication between beneficiaries

8 Heckman, J., ichimura, H., todd, p.1997. Matching as an econometric evaluation estimator: Evidence from evaluating a job training programme. review of Economic studies 64(4).

9 sarar is an acronym resulting from the initials of four human qualities: self-esteem, associative strength, resourcefulness, action planning and responsibility for follow through.


8

and government agents, financers, etc.; and the social Evaluation, a systematic investigation of the social process and factors that affect the impact and development outcomes.

the exclusive use of qualitative methods in an impact evaluation is not sufficient, since the analysis lacks a comparison group and the statistical solidity contributed by an experimental or quasi-experimental design.

How to do an impact evaluation

before doing any impact evaluation it should be determined whether it is feasible, taking into account the time for the intervention to mature and the cost implied in carrying it out. in this regard, the following points should be taken into consideration:

• Due to the complexity and cost of doing an impact evaluation it is important to determine whether it is necessary to do this type of evaluation and whether it is feasible.

• for methodological purposes, it must be taken into account whether the program or project focuses on a group of the potential population or if it has universal coverage.

• progress made in the program or project to know if it is possible to evaluate and measure its results.

• availability and type of information on the beneficiaries and non-beneficiaries of the program or project.

• availability of financial and human resources to do the evaluation.

considering the above mentioned points, and assuming that the program or project follows the design and implementation best practices referred to in previous Modules, it is advisable to ask yourself questions such as:

• Does the program or project have a baseline?

• is the coverage of the program or project sufficient to have a “treatment” population?

• is there a population of non-beneficiaries of the program or project that is eligible for it which could be established as the comparison, “control” or counterfactual population?

• is there socioeconomic information on the beneficiaries and non-beneficiaries from the beginning and the end of the program or project for purposes of matching and comparison?

• Was the selection of beneficiaries random or by self-selection?

• is there information from the monitoring of the indicators of the program or project and is it accessible?

• is there information, and is it accessible, on the results of prior evaluations, such as design, processes, etc.?

• What are the amounts and the sources for financing the evaluation?

once the feasibility of the impacts evaluation has been determined, it can be designed. for this purpose it is important to establish the objective of doing the evaluation, the topics it will cover, the approach that will be adopted, the methodology that will be followed and the sources of information that will be utilized.

9Evaluation

objectives of the evaluation

the general objective of the evaluation is to provide information to the interested parties on whether or not the goal of the program or project has been achieved and the reasons for success or failure. since the objective of the evaluation is also to learn about the causality of the outcomes, that should be clear when establishing the evaluation objectives.

in this regard, the logical framework of the program or project is useful for establishing the objectives of the evaluation, since that is where the purpose and goal of the program or project are established. in addition, given that the evaluation presents systematized information on outcomes and impacts, it is possible to learn more about the specific program or project and therefore specific objectives in this respect should be included. objectives related to the accountability of the interested parties are also useful to establish for the evaluation.

clearly established evaluation objectives help to determine the appropriate evaluation methodology, as well as the appropriate sources of information. With respect to the latter, however, the means of verification for each level of the narrative summary are already specified in the logical framework of the program or project.

evaluation topics

although the evaluation topics are specified or can be inferred from the lf of the program or project at the purpose and goal level, it is a good idea to specify what it is that will be evaluated in terms of the outcomes and impact; for example, if there is interest in going deeper into the causality of the impacts or referring to the impacts on a specific segment of the target population. it is also possible that the program or project will have had unintended results, either positive or negative, which would also be an evaluation topic to consider.

sometimes the interested parties need the information more detailed at the outcomes level since that would enrich the understanding of the program or project, and in those cases the spectrum of topics would have to be expanded in order to include this more specific level of outcomes.

in all cases, the evaluation objective should guide the specification of the evaluation topics to consider.

evaluation approach

once the evaluation topics are specified and delineated, the next step is to establish how the evaluation will be approached. in establishing the evaluation approach, the users of the evaluation should be taken into account, so it can be accommodated to the needs of that audience. for example, if the users are the decision makers, the evaluation will have to contain information for decision making; if the purpose of the evaluation is for accountability, then the evaluation must provide information that is understandable for the interested parties.

the approach of the evaluation also establishes whether the method of carrying it out will be quantitative, qualitative or mixed.

evaluation methodology

the clear establishment of the objectives, topics and approach of the evaluation provides a basis for determining the methodology to use, for which full knowledge of the program or project and its respective objectives is also important. the information available is also a significant factor at the time of selecting the evaluation methodology. the method, whether experimental or quasi-experimental, can be determined from the concurrence of these criteria. in the case of the quasi-experimental methods, the availability of data to carry out the evaluation is decisive in the selection of which


10

quasi-experimental method, among which the most common are matching, difference in differences, instrumental variables and reflexive comparisons.

sources of information

the sources of information are those specified in the means of verification of the lf of the program or project, which generally include baselines, surveys, censuses and documentary information of the program from which data can be obtained for the calculation of the indicators, also specified in the logical framework of the program.

the collection and analysis of data constitutes one of the most substantive activities of impact evaluation. in this respect, it is important to be sure to at least have the pertinent and sufficient information for the purpose indicators.

in the case of quasi-experimental evaluation methods, it is also important to have data on variables that influence the participation or non-participation in the program or project being evaluated.

f o r M o r E i n f o r M at i o n :

baker Judy (2000). Evaluación de impacto de los proyectos de desarrollo en la pobreza. Manual para profesionales. banco Mundial. Washington, D.c.

bryson, alex, richard Dorsett and Susan Purdon (2002). The use of propensity score matching in the evaluation of active labour market policies. Working paper 4. policy studies institute and national centre for social research.

Campbell, D. T. and Stanley, J. C. (1963). Experimental and quasi-experimental designs for research. chicago: rand Mcnally.

Cook Thomas, Campbell Donald (1979). Quasi-Expermientation. Design & analysis Issues for field Settings., ed. Houghton Mifflin company.

Dehejia, r. and Wahba, S. (2002). Propensity score matching methods for non-experimental causal studies. review of Economics and statistics 84(1)

raajeev, H. Dehejia and Sadek Wahba (2002). Propensity score matching methods for non-experimental causal studies. review of Economics and statistics (84)1: 151-161.

ravaillon, M. The Mystery of vanishing benefits: Ms. Speddy analyst’s Introduction to Evaluation. the World bank. Washington, D.c.

rosenbaum, P. and rubin, D. (1985). Constructing Control Group using Multivariate Matched Sampling Methods that Incorporate the Propensity Score. the american statistician, vol. 39, no. 1.

11Evaluation

chapter 2case study: impact evaluation of a livestock genetic improvement program

in this chapter the case of the impact evaluation of the livestock genetic improvement program of the Mexican Ministry of agriculture, livestock, rural Development, fishing and food (sagarpa) is presented, which was done by the Evaluation and analysis of rural policies project in the framework of the fao-sagarpa technical cooperation.

the purpose of the evaluation was to measure the impact of the program on the Highlands zone of Jalisco, Mexico, which consists of 19 municipalities and is considered a cluster of the livestock industry, particularly of dairy.

2.1 description of the Program to be evaluated

the livestock genetic improvement program (lgip) provides aid for the improvement of livestock breeds and its purpose is to “increase the production of meat and milk per animal unit, and to support the growth of the livestock inventory, making accessible to all producers the acquisition of national and imported sires and female reproducers with and without registration, for their incorporation into the commercial herd, thereby promoting the production of high quality genetic livestock by the breeders”.

to achieve its objective, the program provides sires, female reproducers, doses of semen, implanted embryos and cryogenic equipment. Each beneficiary may receive one or a mixture of these types of aid.

the breeds normally requested in the semen doses are mostly Holstein frisiam and in some cases swiss american. the sires most requested by the beneficiaries of the program are swiss american breeds (milk) at 20 percent, swiss European (double purpose) at 20 percent, simmental (double purpose) at 20 percent, charolais (meat) at 20 percent, bramahan (meat) at 20 percent and other breeds in very small percentages.

the program does not focus on the potential population and the aid is granted to the petitioners who meet the requirements to be chosen on a first come first served basis. it should be mentioned that the program began operating without having first developed a baseline.

the profile of the beneficiaries of the program consists of two principal groups of producers: one composed of specialized ranchers that have relatively high income, a considerable size herd, access to program information and a good level of technology. the other group is composed of lesser income producers, with agricultural holdings that combine agriculture and livestock.

as a result of the execution of the program 1,399 ranchers benefited, being granted 5,047 heads of cattle, 6,610 doses of semen, 35 cryogenic bottles and 20 embryos. the aid was delivered primarily through livestock fairs or “tianguis”.

2.2 sampling method

the unit of analysis was the livestock production unit, which is composed of the farms, lands or parcels used for agriculture, ranching and forestry activity and the animals raised for meat, milk, eggs, hide, honey or for work, regardless of their location, as well as the production elements available for these activities, provided that in the agricultural year under analysis all of these activities have been handled by the same production unit.


12

the sampling framework to determine the sample of beneficiaries was obtained from the list of beneficiaries of the program. in order to form the sampling framework, the collaboration of the local livestock associations (la) in each of the 19 municipalities forming the Highlands region was also sought. the la provided information regarding the names of the ranchers and the heads of livestock they possess, which made it possible to target the search for non-beneficiaries of the program.

the information for the evaluation was collected in two rounds. in the first round a random sample was taken from 249 sampling units, which were composed of 126 beneficiaries and 123 non-beneficiaries. With the information obtained from the first round of the sample the desired precision was determined; the sizes of the primary sampling units were established; the variance of the interest variable was surmised, which in the case of this study was the extension in hectares and number of heads; the sampling size was determined to achieve the desired precision and the process was repeated until the size of the sample was feasible to carry out (table 2).

Group 0- N e n calculated

beneficiaries 420.12 180 7% 126

non-beneficiaries 420.12 40715 7% 415

Total 541

in the second round 292 units, corresponding only to non-beneficiaries of the program, were surveyed in order to expand the number of candidates to match with the beneficiaries of the program surveyed previously. this second sampling was done by quotas according to the distribution of the sample of bovine heads of beneficiaries that was obtained in the first round of the application so that the newly surveyed would be the closest in characteristics to the beneficiaries already surveyed. in some municipalities, with the guidance of the local associations, the interviewers were indicated the localities, ejidos or ranches where they could find a certain stratus of producers. the interviewers went to the localities surveying each of the habitants as the sample quotas indicated to them. in other cases the interviewers were sent to points where the producers congregate, such as cooling tanks where they go to deliver milk and there they were approached and asked the number of heads in their herd, and if they met the requirements of the sample the survey was taken. in other places, the municipal authorities and the local offices of the Ministry of agriculture were approached and the livestock producers were summoned there. one important characteristic of this field operation is that it involved a targeted search for matches for the beneficiaries of the program given that there was more information than in the first round of the sampling.

During the interviews, the livestock producers were asked for information on the total land and animals in possession of the production unit, the resources used by such unit for its management and exploitation, as well as certain socio-demographic characteristics of the family. tool 1 of this Module presents the questionnaire applied in this survey.

2.3 evaluation methodology

the impacts were estimated by means of a quasi-experimental design that uses the propensity score, which is equivalent to the probability of participation in the program based on observable characteristics, and the Mahalanobis distance.

Where X is the vector of co-variants and ∑ is the matrix of co-variants formed by the beneficiaries sample.

TablE 2. saMplE coMposition for tHE collEction of Data

|| Xi-Xj || =(Xi-Xj)’∑-1(Xi-Xj)

13Evaluation

once these measurements are obtained the ten closest matches were sought for each beneficiary among a sample of livestock producers that were not beneficiaries of the livestock genetic improvement program.

2.4 determinants of participation in the Program

one of the problems faced using non-experimental methods is the presence of selection bias given unobservable characteristics of the individuals such as ability, willingness to participate in the program and other subjective aspects. in the case of the Highlands of Jalisco, traditionally a livestock zone in which the activity is inherited generationally, observing differences in the family traditions with respect to livestock production and how these influence their participation in the program would be difficult. this difficulty was overcome by using the propensity score to match beneficiaries with non-beneficiaries so that the differences in the characteristics of both beneficiaries and non-beneficiaries, with respect to the variable representing the expected impact of the program could be observed.

an important feature of the program is that participation in it is voluntary, although to be able to participate it is necessary to be eligible, to have knowledge of the program, to apply for the aid, to be accepted, to have sufficient resources to make the corresponding contribution and to enter as beneficiary; it is also important to take into account that the livestock genetic improvement program sought to induce a technological change through the introduction or transfer of more advanced technologies. this information was used directly in the calculation of the participation propensity score of the program, which was estimated through a logarithmic regression calculated through a logit model:

where p(x) is the probability that the production unit receives the benefit of the program, T, given the vector of co-variants, X, and P is the functional operator of probability. the model includes as a dependent variable one binary variable which has the value of 1 if it was a beneficiary of the program and the value of 0 if it was not. this function is also the conditional expectation of T (the treatment) given X (the vector of co-variants):

as independent variables, a set of variables were proven that in general can be classified in three groups: a) socio-demographic variables, b) agriculture and livestock variables that include technological and economic variables and c) variables of knowledge of the program.

from the calculation of different propensity scores combining the different variables in different ways, the best option was sought to calculate unbiased impacts. the decision as to which was the best propensity score was guided by the minimization of the average distance between the matches, the maximization of the number of individuals within the common support area, the minimization of bias by a bootstrapping procedure and the construction of a theoretic model on the participation in the program.

one of the problems that was faced at the beginning was the collapse of the common support area and, therefore, a large distance between matches10. the problem for this study consisted in that the variables of knowledge and prior participation in the program, as well as participation in other related governmental programs, such as animal health campaigns, made a perfect prediction of the participation in the lgip, causing this collapse. However, by eliminating the variables that were perfectly predictable it was possible to find a common support area.

10 in the empirical matching studies, under the premise of conditional independence, the collapse of the common support area can result from two sources: a) variables are being included that perfectly predict the participation; in other words, they lead to an estimated probability of participation of 1 for some observations, and b) the estimated values of the propensity score are such that there are simply no matches in the sample. lechner Michael. 2000. a note on the common support problem in applied evaluation studies, swiss institute for international Economics and applied Economic research, university of st. gallen.

p(x) =P(T=1| X = x)

E[T |X=x]=1·P(T=1|X=x)+0 ·P(T= 0|X=x)=P(T=1|X=x)=p(x)


14

upon resolving this first problem, a second problem became evident, which was that the propensity score presented a chi-squared type distribution. this form of distribution was caused by certain variables that compose the vector of co-variants of the score, such as the land area or the amount of production assets, which themselves have a chi-squared type distribution. one of the problems of this distribution is that when the co-variants are not distributed elipsoidally, the propensity score and Mahalanobis distance methods can present limitations in relation to their efficiency and they may be violating the property of bias reduction in equal percentages11.

However, the elimination of land area variables (in equivalent hectares) and value of production assets from the calculation of the propensity score could imply biases in the calculation of impacts due to the fact that it reduces realism to the theoretical model on the participation in the program, and therefore it was decided to include them notwithstanding their distribution.

finally, following an estimation of the bias, the calculation of the average distance between matches and the power of prediction of the logit, a vector was found that responded better to the three criteria and that was theoretically solid, the vector of co-variants X being formed by the following variables:

1) size of the family

2) total number of adult men in the family

3) total number of adult women in the family

4) total number of girls under 15 years old in the family

5) total number of boys under 15 years old in the family

6) gender of the beneficiary or head of household

7) age of the beneficiary or head of household

8) schooling of the beneficiary or head of household

9) Migration experience in the production unit

10) total irrigated land area

11) total rainfed land area

12) total pasture land area

13) principal crop in spring-summer

14) agriculture technology index (mechanization, fertilization, irrigation, seeds)

15) livestock technology index (animal feed)

16) value of assets

17) reception of direct transfers to agricultural producers

18) reception of transfers of the Human Development program existing in the country

19) participation in an organization supporting agricultural activities

including all these variables in the calculation of the score an area of common support was found (figure 3).

11 Diamond alexis, sekhon Jasjeet. 2005. genetic Matching for Estimating causal Effects: a new Method of achieving balance in observational studies. paper prepared for presentation at the 63th annual Meeting of the Midwest political science association. chicago, illinois, april 7-10, 2005.

15Evaluation

2.5 Matching and estimation of impacts

once the best vector of co-variants was selected, the matching was done using three different methods and for each of them the impacts per production unit were estimated for the variables of interest. the matching methods used were the following:

a) the closest neighbor based on propensity score matching (psM)

b) Mahalanobis matching within a propensity score caliper

c) Kernel matching

by using the three methods it was found that the impact estimates varied significantly depending on what type of matching was used. table 3 presents the estimated average impacts, according to the matching method used, for the production units participating in the program.

the first problem found is that the common support Zone (csZ) is different, both in size and composition, for each case. regarding the order of beneficiaries with respect to non-beneficiaries, it can be said that if they are arranged according to their propensity score, they always keep the same order if the same co-variants vector is used. in other words, it is possible to generate just one list for all the beneficiaries and non-beneficiaries, with which it is possible to graph the csZ distribution.

the distance in the case of the closest neighbor (psM) and kernel methods is the simple difference in the value of the propensity score, choosing the ten matches whose difference is the least. With the Mahalanobis distance this is not possible due to the fact that it is measured with respect to a particular observation; in other words, such distance is calculated with respect to each beneficiary and from that order the ten closest non-beneficiaries are chosen for each beneficiary; therefore, if an arranged list of the observations is sought there would be as many rankings as beneficiaries in the csZ. the propensity score, on the other hand, does not depend on the relative position of the observations, but rather it is independent of how far or close they are from one another and it is defined based only on the observable characteristics of each unit of analysis.

another important difference between the methods that use the propensity score to measure distances (psM and kernel) and the method that uses the Mahalanobis distance results from the fact that the matches that are selected to measure impacts are different depending on the measurement used. in other words, the propensity score and the Mahalanobis distance, being different measurements, do not coincide in the definition of what the matches closest to

0.019766 0.999231

0.372168

treatment=0

fraction

0.019766 0.999231

0.372168

treatment=1

fIGurE 3. arEa of coMMon support


16

the beneficiaries within the csZ are. the fundamental problem in this regard is the manner of defining the distance in the space of observable characteristics, because being a multi-dimensional space the measurements of distance do not converge, so that using the propensity score it can appear that the closest are certain individuals while using the Mahalanobis distance these same individuals are more distant than others that were not considered close by the propensity score. in other words, if a number line is placed on the units of analysis based on their distance measured by the propensity score and a line is placed over it with the position of the same units but based on the Mahalanobis distance (keeping the corresponding scale between the two measurements), it would be seen that the units are not found in the same place and that their order is different12, which results in different impact estimations (table 3).

Mahalanobis Distance

Closest neighbor according to the propensity score

Kernel matching

net livestock income MX 23,746.3 MX 40,893.5 MX 45,297.7

livestock costs MX 71,392.3 MX 58,854.6 MX 36,832.0

Standing heads sold 2.58 2.8 2.6

net dairy income MX 35,815.7 MX 31,742.5 MX 48,075.5

Dairy production value MX 117,754.2 MX 70,591.5 MX 76,972.8

Costs of dairy production MX 81,938.5 MX 38,849.0 MX 28,897.2

Production of liters of milk 19,083.7 9,568.7 12,674.2

Milk productivity per head of livestock 158.2 lt 343.4 lt 187.6 lt

finally, an estimate of the bias was obtained by bootstrapping on the average impact of the treated production units. the basic idea of the bootstrap is to simply use the distribution function induced by the data in order to estimate some characteristic of the population, in this case the impact of the program. in general it is accepted that when the estimated bias is less than 25% of the standard error the bias is not relevant. the estimates of bias and standard error were obtained by bootstrapping 200 replications and it was found that the bias varied depending on the indicator in question; for example, while for the net livestock income, which indicator includes all the producers (dairy, meat and double purpose), the bias of the estimates of the matching with the Mahalanobis distance is considerably less, for the net dairy income this is not the case. the dairy income is an indicator that only considers the dairy and double purpose producers. based on the analysis of the bias as a percentage of the standard error it was found that the Mahalanobis method averages 38%, while that of the closest neighbor according to the propensity score averages 20% and that of kernel matching 17% (table 4). in this regard, the most reliable estimators are those of closest neighbor and kernel matching. it is important to clarify that the impact estimates of the three methods have the same direction of change and only vary in magnitude.

12 this phenomenon was corroborated using the stata commands mahapick and matchnum developed by David Kantor of John Hopkins university.

TablE 3. annual avEragE iMpact of tHE livEstocK gEnEtic iMprovEMEnt prograM on tHE bEnEficiariEs WitH tHrEE DiffErEnt MEtHoDs of

MatcHing for sElEctED inDicators

17Evaluation

Mahalanobis Distance

Closest neighbor according to

propensity scoreKernel matching

net livestock income 18.3 73.3 46.2

livestock costs 42.4 4.4 12.1

Standing heads sold 11.9 27.6 12.3

net dairy income 53.9 44.6 52.8

value of the dairy production 80.8 38.6 38.6

Costs of the dairy production 66.2 1.0 7.9

Production of liters of milk 87.7 39.8 41.8

Dairy productivity per head of livestock 23.2 10.3 25.9

avEraGE PErCEnTaGE 48.05 29.95 29.7

* the bias and the standard error were estimated by bootstrapping the average impact on those treated.

2.6 analysis of results

this section presents an analysis of impact using the estimations of the closest neighbor method.

2.6.1 incomein analyzing the impact of the livestock genetic improvement program on the livestock producers (of meat and dairy) that were beneficiaries of the program in the Highlands zone of Jalisco it was found that the net annual livestock income, defined as the income from the sale of standing heads plus the income from the sale of milk less costs, had an average value of MX 111,152 per unit of production. of that income MX 40,893 can be attributable to participation in the program which is equivalent to an income increase of 58% with respect to the production units not participating in the program.

the total cost of livestock production includes labor hired for these activities, the total cost of the feed and medicines for the animals, the veterinarian costs and the cost for the use of water for the livestock activity. according to the estimates the cost of production was 25% greater for those that participated in the program with respect to the non-participants, coming to MX 271,374.

considering only dairy producers, the average value of milk production was MX 323,664 for the participants in the program, 27% above the income of the non-participants. the costs increased 16% in the case of the beneficiaries, coming to MX 280,325, which is a result of the fact that the genetic improvement requires the adoption of a more costly technological package, especially concerning handling, medicines and feed.

TablE 4. bias of tHE EstiMatED iMpact as a pErcEntagE of tHE stanDarD Error*


18

2.6.2 Production and productivitythe positive impact of the program on income is explained by higher productivity, a lower mortality rate and a higher birth rate. the herds of the beneficiary producers produced on average 98,445 liters of milk annually, equivalent to 10% higher production than if they had not participated in the program.

the average number of heads of the beneficiaries of the program is 56 animals, 6.8 heads of livestock more than in the case of the non-participants in the program. this is due to the fact that, among other factors, the herds of the program beneficiaries have a lower mortality rate and a higher birth rate since, on average, the herds of the beneficiaries presented an annual rate of survival of 37%, 6.5% higher than the non-participating production units.

S u m m a r ythe life of a program or project culminates with the evaluation of the results obtained and the impact generated, whether positive or negative, in the target population or focus area. this type of evaluation presumes the estimation of a counterfactual scenario that is compared with the scenario that was intervened in, using quantitative, experimental or quasi-experimental methods and qualitative methods.

although each impact evaluation has unique characteristics that require different methodological approaches, it is ideal to combine quantitative and qualitative methods, thereby obtaining a solid quantifiable result supported with a qualitative perception of the same beneficiaries on the project.

for the design of an impact evaluation the availability of data must be considered, and it must be verified that sufficient time has passed so that the effects of the program or project can be observed. similarly, the aspects of time and human and financial resources will be decisive in the determination of the methods used.

from the impact evaluation information is extracted with which the effectiveness of the program or project can be assessed. but lessons learned and recommendations can also be extracted that can be used in the design and operation of similar programs and projects, in order to thereby ensure that public policy meets expectations.

19Evaluation

tool

Q

ues

tion

nai

re fo

r th

e im

pac

t eva

luat

ion

of t

he

liv

esto

ck g

enet

ic i

mp

rove

men

t Pro

gram

Dat

e of

inte

rvie

w

Day

Mon

thye

ar

qu

Esti

on

na

irE

nu

Mb

Er

nam

e of

inte

rvie

wer

____

____

____

____

____

____

____

____

____

____

____

____

____

____

____

____

____

____

____

____

____

_

nam

e of

sup

ervi

sor_

____

____

____

____

____

____

____

____

____

____

____

____

____

____

____

____

____

____

____

____

____

_


20

iNiT

iaTi

ON

OF

THe

Su

rVe

Y

WH

En I

nIT

IaTI

nG

TH

E S

ur

vEy,

TH

E I

nTE

rvI

EW

Er S

Ho

ulD

rE

aD

TH

E f

oll

oW

InG

Par

aGr

aPH

vEr

baT

IM:

“goo

d m

orni

ng/

afte

rnoo

n/ n

ight

, m

y na

me

is _

____

____

__ a

nd i

wor

k fo

r th

e fo

od a

nd a

gric

ultu

re o

rgan

izat

ion

of t

he u

nite

d n

atio

ns.

i do

not

wor

k fo

r th

e go

vern

men

t and

i as

k th

at y

ou p

leas

e gi

ve m

e a

little

of y

our

time

to r

espo

nd to

som

e qu

estio

ns. c

urre

ntly

we

are

doin

g in

terv

iew

s fo

r th

e ev

alua

tion

of th

e li

vest

ock

gen

etic

im

prov

emen

t p

rogr

am.

you

wer

e ch

osen

bec

ause

you

r si

tuat

ion

and

the

situ

atio

n of

you

r fa

mily

rep

rese

nt t

he r

ealit

y fo

r m

any

citiz

ens

of t

his

coun

try.

you

r pa

rtic

ipat

ion

is e

xtre

mel

y im

port

ant b

ecau

se th

e in

form

atio

n yo

u pr

ovid

e us

will

hel

p to

take

mea

sure

s th

at im

prov

e ai

d. t

he in

form

atio

n yo

u pr

ovid

e is

con

fiden

tial a

nd

will

be

used

in y

our

bene

fit a

nd th

e be

nefit

of o

ther

pro

duce

rs.”

I. D

EMo

Gr

aPH

IC M

oD

ulE

nam

e of

the

bene

ficia

ry in

terv

iew

ed:

firs

t las

t nam

e

seco

nd l

ast n

ame

firs

t nam

e

Mid

dle

nam

e

add

ress

:

stre

et a

nd n

umbe

r

21Evaluation

tow

n

Mun

icip

ality

stat

e

pos

tal c

ode

1. M

embe

rs o

f th

e ho

useh

old:

per

sons

tha

t liv

e un

der

the

sam

e ro

of a

nd e

at f

rom

the

sam

e fo

od p

urch

ases

.

no.

nam

e of

the

fam

ily m

embe

r1

Circ

le if

mal

e or

fem

ale

rel

atio

nshi

p2a

ge3

Sch

oolin

g(y

ears

in

scho

ol

begi

nnin

g w

ith

elem

enta

ry)

lang

uage

s th

at t

he h

ead

of h

ouse

hold

spe

aks

Wor

ks in

the

fam

ily

prod

uctio

n un

it(c

ircl

e as

app

licab

le)

Span

ish

oth

er4

Mf

yes

no

yes

no

11

21

10

10

21

21

0

31

21

0

41

21

0

51

21

0

61

21

0

71

21

0

81

21

0

91

21

0

101

21

0

111

21

0

121

21

0

not

es:

1/ b

egin

the

list w

ith th

e na

me

of th

e be

nefic

iary

.2

/ ind

icat

e th

e re

latio

nshi

p co

de a

ccor

ding

to th

e ta

ble

prov

ided

.3/

lis

t the

mem

bers

from

old

est t

o yo

unge

st.

4/ i

ndic

ate

the

lang

uage

cod

e: s

ee c

odes

in th

e ta

ble

prov

ided

.


22

II. M

IGr

aTIo

n M

oD

ulE

2. H

ave

you

or a

ny f

amily

mem

ber

mig

rate

d to

wor

k el

sew

here

; th

at is

, ha

ve y

ou w

orke

d fo

r a

perio

d of

mor

e th

an o

ne m

onth

out

side

you

r co

mm

unit

y?

yes:

1n

o: 0

if th

e re

spon

se is

no,

go

to q

uest

ion

4.

3. I

f th

e an

swer

is y

es,

list

all t

he p

erso

ns o

lder

tha

n te

n th

at h

ave

mig

rate

d, b

egin

ning

with

you

(th

e in

terv

iew

ee), a

nd t

he f

irst

and

last

pla

ces

they

wen

t.

no.

nam

e of

fam

ily

mem

ber

Whe

re h

ave

you

mig

rate

d to

w

ork?

In w

hat

year

did

you

mig

rate

fo

r th

e fir

st t

ime?

In w

hat

year

did

you

mig

rate

th

e la

st t

ime?

Do

you

mig

rate

eve

ry y

ear?

(indi

cate

acc

ordi

ng t

o de

stin

atio

n)

am

ount

of

mon

ey

you

sent

du

ring

the

last

yea

r m

igra

ted4

ME

X2

usa

oth

er3

____

ME

X2

usa

oth

er3

____

ME

X2

usa

oth

er3

____

ME

X2

usa

oth

er3

____

11

01

01

01

01

01

0

21

01

01

01

01

01

0

31

01

01

01

01

01

0

41

01

01

01

01

01

0

51

01

01

01

01

01

0

61

01

01

01

01

01

0

71

01

01

01

01

01

0

81

01

01

01

01

01

0

91

01

01

01

01

01

0

101

01

01

01

01

01

0

1/ n

ote

acco

rdin

g to

the

num

ber

corr

espo

ndin

g to

the

pers

on in

que

stio

n 1.

2/ r

efer

s to

mig

ratio

n to

ano

ther

par

t of t

he M

exic

an r

epub

lic.

3/ s

peci

fy th

e co

untr

y of

des

tinat

ion.

4/ a

sk th

e am

ount

in p

esos

.

23Evaluation

4. I

f so

me

mem

ber

of t

he h

ouse

hold

, w

hoev

er h

e/sh

e is

, ha

s to

look

for

wor

k el

sew

here

, w

ould

he/

she

have

aid

for

tha

t?

no.

opt

ions

Circ

le t

he r

espo

nse

to a

ll th

at a

pply

ME

Xu

sao

ther

1

____

____

____

____

____

yes

no

yes

no

yes

no

To w

ork

in (c

ount

ry):

10

10

10

1H

as a

frie

nd in

the

city

whe

re h

e/sh

e w

ould

go

to w

ork

10

10

10

2H

as a

fam

ily m

embe

r in

the

city

whe

re h

e/sh

e w

ould

go

to w

ork

10

10

10

3W

ould

go

at h

is/h

er o

wn

expe

nse

with

out k

now

ing

anyo

ne

10

10

10

4th

ey a

lread

y kn

ow h

im/h

er in

the

job

whe

re h

e/sh

e w

ould

go

10

10

10

5o

ther

(spe

cify

):1

01

01

0

not

e:1/

spe

cify

cou

ntry

of d

estin

atio

n.

III. la

nD

TEn

ur

E a

nD

uSE

Mo

Du

lE

5. W

hat

was

the

pro

pert

y sy

stem

and

land

use

und

er w

hich

you

wor

ked

durin

g th

e in

dica

ted

year

s?

no.

Wat

er r

egim

e an

d us

eIr

rigat

ion

rai

nfed

for

ag

ricul

tura

l use

Pas

ture

land

or

hilly

land

fore

sto

ther

Tota

l

Type

of

owne

rshi

pva

riabl

es(

1 )

( 2

)(

3 )

( 4

)(

5 )

( 6

)

20##

620

##20

##6

20##

20##

620

##20

##6

20##

20##

620

##20

##6

20##

1Ej

idal

land

are

a (h

a)

valu

e ($

/ha)

1

ren

t ($/

ha/y

ear)

2

2c

omm

unity

pr

oper

ty

land

are

a (h

a)

valu

e ($

/ha)

1

ren

t ($/

ha/y

ear)

2


24

3p

rivat

e pr

oper

ty

land

are

a (h

a)

valu

e ($

/ha)

1

ren

t ($/

ha/y

ear)

2

4sh

arec

ropp

ing3

land

are

a (h

a)

ren

t ($/

ha/y

ear)

2

5r

ente

d4la

nd a

rea

(ha)

ren

t ($/

ha/y

ear)

6o

ther

form

of

tenu

re5

land

are

a (h

a)

valu

e ($

/ha)

1

ren

t ($/

ha/y

ear)

2

not

es:

1/ t

he v

alue

that

sho

uld

be r

ecor

ded

corr

espo

nds

only

to th

e la

nd, w

ithou

t inc

ludi

ng w

hat i

s pl

ante

d on

it.

2/ i

ndic

ates

wha

t he/

she

wou

ld r

ecei

ve if

he/

she

rent

ed th

e la

nd.

3/ if

he/

she

shar

ecro

ps o

r w

orks

und

er s

ome

othe

r fo

rm o

f ten

ure,

indi

cate

how

muc

h he

/she

wou

ld p

ay p

er h

ecta

re if

he/

she

rent

ed th

em.

4/ i

ndic

ate

how

muc

h he

/she

pay

s in

ren

t per

hec

tare

.5/

oth

er fo

rm o

f ten

ure

refe

rs to

loan

ed la

nds,

nat

iona

l lan

ds o

r an

othe

r fo

rm th

at a

llow

s th

e pr

oduc

er to

hav

e ac

cess

to th

e us

ufru

ct o

f the

land

.6

/ ref

ers

to th

e pr

ices

that

he/

she

paid

or

wou

ld h

ave

paid

that

yea

r.

6. D

id y

ou r

ent,

loan

or

shar

ecro

p yo

ur o

wn

land

dur

ing

20##

?

yes:

1n

o: 0

if th

e an

swer

is n

o, g

o to

que

stio

n 8

25Evaluation

7. I

f ye

s, h

ow m

any

hect

ares

did

you

ren

t ou

t or

off

er f

or s

hare

crop

ping

to

othe

r pr

oduc

ers,

and

how

muc

h m

oney

did

you

obt

ain

for

it?

no.

use

and

wat

er r

egim

er

ente

d ou

t(H

as)

Shar

ecro

pped

(Has

)

Tota

l mon

ey r

ecei

ved

for

the

land

s re

nted

out

or

shar

ecro

pped

($

)

(1)

(2)

(3)

1ir

rigat

ion

2r

ainf

ed fo

r ag

ricul

tura

l use

3p

astu

re o

r hi

lly la

nd

4fo

rest

ry

5o

ther

6to

tal

8. o

f th

e to

tal l

ands

you

hav

e w

orke

d, w

heth

er f

or p

lant

ing

crop

s or

for

pas

turin

g liv

esto

ck d

urin

g th

e ye

ars

betw

een

20##

and

20#

#, h

ow m

uch

was

irrig

ated

an

d ho

w m

uch

rain

fed?

year

land

cul

tivat

ed a

nd/o

r w

orke

d (h

ecta

res)

ow

n la

ndr

ente

du

nder

oth

er f

orm

of

tenu

re

irrig

ated

rai

nfed

irrig

ated

rai

nfed

irrig

ated

rai

nfed

20##

20##

9. D

id y

ou p

urch

ase

or s

ell l

ands

in t

he y

ears

20#

# a

nd 2

0##?

year

num

ber

of h

ecta

res

you

sold

num

ber

of h

ecta

res

you

boug

htTo

tal h

ecta

res

sold

Tota

l hec

tare

s bo

ught

Ejid

alc

omm

unity

ow

ned

priv

ate

com

mun

ityp

rivat

eEj

idal

(ha)

(ha)

20##

20##

not

e: 1

/ref

ers

to to

tal l

and

the

prod

ucer

pos

sess

es a

nd th

eref

ore

incl

udes

ejid

al, c

omm

unity

ow

ned

and

priv

ate.


26

Iv. aG

rIC

ulT

ur

al a

CTIv

ITIE

S M

oD

ulE

10. W

hat

wer

e th

e ag

ricul

tura

l pro

duct

s th

at y

ou c

ultiv

ated

in t

he S

prin

g-Su

mm

er 2

0##

cyc

le?

beg

in w

ith t

he p

rimar

y cr

op1 .

no.

Cro

p2

land

are

a cu

ltiva

ted

(ha)

Tota

l pro

duct

ion

obta

ined

Des

tinat

ion

of t

he p

rodu

ctio

n in

%Q

uant

ity

sold

Sal

e pr

ice6

To w

hom

di

d yo

u se

ll?7

Whe

re d

id

you

sell?

8fa

mily

sel

f-co

nsum

ptio

n4

self-

cons

umpt

ion

for

prod

uctio

n5a

mou

ntu

nit3

pric

eu

nit3

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

not

es:

1/ t

he p

rimar

y cr

op r

efer

s to

the

one

that

occ

upie

s th

e gr

eate

st la

nd a

rea

culti

vate

d.

2/ n

ote

the

code

of t

he c

rop

acco

rdin

g to

the

cro

ps t

able

pro

vide

d. f

or e

xam

ple,

for

corn

the

crop

cod

e is

64.

3/

not

e th

e pr

oduc

tion

obta

ined

usi

ng th

e un

its o

f mea

sure

men

t acc

ordi

ng to

the

uni

ts o

f Mea

sure

men

t tab

le p

rovi

ded.

4

/ pro

duct

ion

for

the

food

con

sum

ptio

n of

the

fam

ily.

5/ r

efer

s to

the

prod

uctio

n th

at is

use

d fo

r se

ed fo

r pl

antin

g, li

vest

ock

feed

, exc

hang

e in

kin

d fo

r ot

her

inpu

ts o

r pr

oduc

ts, p

aym

ent i

n ki

nd to

the

wor

kers

, gift

s or

man

ufac

turin

g of

oth

er

prod

ucts

.6

/ not

e th

e sa

le p

rice

per

unit

of m

easu

rem

ent.

7/ in

dica

te th

e co

de a

ccor

ding

to th

e co

rres

pond

ing

tabl

e pr

ovid

ed.

8/ i

ndic

ate

the

code

acc

ordi

ng to

the

corr

espo

ndin

g ta

ble

prov

ided

.

27Evaluation

11. W

hat

wer

e th

e ag

ricul

tura

l pro

duct

s th

at y

ou c

ultiv

ated

in t

he f

all-W

inte

r 20

##-2

0##

cyc

le?

beg

in w

ith t

he p

rimar

y cr

op11 .

no.

Cro

p2

land

are

a cu

ltiva

ted

(ha)

Tota

l pro

duct

ion

obta

ined

Des

tinat

ion

of t

he p

rodu

ctio

n in

%Q

uant

ity

sold

Sal

e pr

ice6

To w

hom

di

d yo

u se

ll?7

Whe

re d

id

you

sell?

8fa

mily

sel

f-co

nsum

ptio

n4

self-

cons

umpt

ion

for

prod

uctio

n5q

uant

ityu

nit3

pric

eu

nit3

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

not

es:

1/ t

he p

rimar

y cr

op r

efer

s to

the

one

that

occ

upie

s th

e gr

eate

st la

nd a

rea

culti

vate

d.

2/ n

ote

the

code

of t

he c

rop

acco

rdin

g to

the

cro

ps t

able

pro

vide

d. f

or e

xam

ple,

for

corn

the

crop

cod

e is

64.

3/

not

e th

e pr

oduc

tion

obta

ined

usi

ng th

e un

its o

f mea

sure

men

t acc

ordi

ng to

the

uni

ts o

f Mea

sure

men

t tab

le p

rovi

ded.

4

/ pro

duct

ion

for

the

food

con

sum

ptio

n of

the

fam

ily.

5/ r

efer

s to

the

prod

uctio

n th

at is

use

d fo

r se

ed fo

r pl

antin

g, li

vest

ock

feed

, exc

hang

e in

kin

d fo

r ot

her

inpu

ts o

r pr

oduc

ts, p

aym

ent i

n ki

nd to

the

wor

kers

, gift

s or

man

ufac

turin

g of

oth

er

prod

ucts

.6

/ not

e th

e sa

le p

rice

per

unit

of m

easu

rem

ent.

7/ in

dica

te th

e co

de a

ccor

ding

to th

e co

rres

pond

ing

tabl

e pr

ovid

ed.

8/ i

ndic

ate

the

code

acc

ordi

ng to

the

corr

espo

ndin

g ta

ble

prov

ided

.


28

12. In

the

Spr

ing-

Sum

mer

20#

# a

nd f

all-W

inte

r 20

##-2

0##

cyc

les

wha

t di

d yo

u do

with

you

r by

prod

ucts

and

stu

bble

of

the

crop

s yo

u pr

oduc

ed o

n th

e la

nd

you

culti

vate

d?

no.

byp

rodu

cts

or s

tubb

le

am

ount

use

d in

se

lf-co

nsum

ptio

n fo

r pr

oduc

tion

am

ount

sol

d an

d pr

ice

of s

ale

of

bypr

oduc

ts o

r st

ubbl

eTo

who

m d

id y

ou s

ell?

1W

here

did

you

sel

l?2

Qua

ntit

y in

ton

s$

per

ton

1c

orn

2b

eans

3W

heat

4b

arle

y

5so

rghu

m

6g

arba

nzo

7o

ats

8o

ther

not

es:

1/ in

dica

te th

e co

de a

ccor

ding

to th

e co

rres

pond

ing

tabl

e pr

ovid

ed.

2/ i

ndic

ate

the

code

acc

ordi

ng to

the

corr

espo

ndin

g ta

ble

prov

ided

.

29Evaluation

13. W

hat

wer

e th

e ag

ricul

tura

l pro

duct

s yo

u cu

ltiva

ted

in t

he f

all-W

inte

r 20

##-2

0##

cyc

le?

beg

in w

ith t

he p

rimar

y cr

op1 .

no.

Cro

p2

land

are

a cu

ltiva

ted

(ha)

Tota

l pro

duct

ion

obta

ined

Des

tinat

ion

of t

he p

rodu

ctio

n in

%Q

uant

ity

sold

Sal

e pr

ice6

To w

hom

di

d yo

u se

ll?7

Whe

re d

id

you

sell?

8fa

mily

sel

f-co

nsum

ptio

n4

self-

cons

umpt

ion

for

prod

uctio

n5q

uant

ityu

nit3

pric

eu

nit3

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

not

es:

1/ t

he p

rimar

y cr

op r

efer

s to

the

one

that

occ

upie

s th

e gr

eate

st la

nd a

rea

culti

vate

d.2

/ not

e th

e co

de o

f the

cro

p ac

cord

ing

to th

e c

rops

tab

le p

rovi

ded.

for

exa

mpl

e, fo

r co

rn th

e cr

op c

ode

is 6

4.3/

not

e th

e pr

oduc

tion

obta

ined

usi

ng th

e un

its o

f mea

sure

men

t acc

ordi

ng to

the

uni

ts o

f Mea

sure

men

t tab

le p

rovi

ded.

4/ p

rodu

ctio

n fo

r th

e fo

od c

onsu

mpt

ion

of th

e fa

mily

.5/

ref

ers

to th

e pr

oduc

tion

that

is u

sed

for

seed

for

plan

ting,

live

stoc

k fe

ed, e

xcha

nge

in k

ind

for

othe

r in

puts

or

prod

ucts

, pay

men

t in

kind

to th

e w

orke

rs, g

ifts

or m

anuf

actu

ring

of o

ther

pr

oduc

ts.

6/ n

ote

the

sale

pric

e pe

r un

it of

mea

sure

men

t.7/

indi

cate

the

code

acc

ordi

ng to

the

corr

espo

ndin

g ta

ble

prov

ided

.8

/ ind

icat

e th

e co

de a

ccor

ding

to th

e co

rres

pond

ing

tabl

e pr

ovid

ed.


30

14. W

hat

wer

e th

e ag

ricul

tura

l pro

duct

s yo

u cu

ltiva

ted

in t

he S

prin

g-Su

mm

er 2

0##

cyc

le?

beg

in w

ith t

he p

rimar

y cr

op1 .

no.

Cro

p2

land

are

a cu

ltiva

ted

(ha)

Tota

l pro

duct

ion

obta

ined

Des

tinat

ion

of t

he p

rodu

ctio

n in

%Q

uant

ity

sold

Sal

e pr

ice6

To w

hom

di

d yo

u se

ll?7

Whe

re d

id

you

sell?

8

In w

hat

year

di

d yo

u pl

ant

the

pere

nnia

l cr

ops?

fam

ily s

elf-

cons

umpt

ion4

self-

cons

umpt

ion

for

prod

uctio

n5q

uant

ityu

nit3

pric

eu

nit3

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

not

es:

1/ t

he p

rimar

y cr

op r

efer

s to

the

one

that

occ

upie

s th

e gr

eate

st la

nd a

rea

culti

vate

d. in

this

tabl

e th

e pe

renn

ial c

rops

are

als

o re

cord

ed, i

ndic

ated

with

a p

in th

e c

rops

tab

le.

2/ n

ote

the

code

of t

he c

rop

acco

rdin

g to

the

cro

ps t

able

pro

vide

d. f

or e

xam

ple,

for

corn

the

crop

cod

e is

64.

3/

not

e th

e pr

oduc

tion

obta

ined

usi

ng th

e un

its o

f mea

sure

men

t acc

ordi

ng to

the

uni

ts o

f Mea

sure

men

t tab

le p

rovi

ded.

4

/ pro

duct

ion

for

the

food

con

sum

ptio

n of

the

fam

ily.

5/ r

efer

s to

the

prod

uctio

n th

at is

use

d fo

r se

ed fo

r pl

antin

g, li

vest

ock

feed

, exc

hang

e in

kin

d fo

r ot

her

inpu

ts o

r pr

oduc

ts, p

aym

ent i

n ki

nd to

the

wor

kers

, gift

s or

man

ufac

turin

g of

oth

er

prod

ucts

.6

/ not

e th

e sa

le p

rice

per

unit

of m

easu

rem

ent.

7/ in

dica

te th

e co

de a

ccor

ding

to th

e co

rres

pond

ing

tabl

e pr

ovid

ed.

8/ i

ndic

ate

the

code

acc

ordi

ng to

the

corr

espo

ndin

g ta

ble

prov

ided

.

31Evaluation

15. In

the

fal

l-Win

ter

20##

/20#

# a

nd S

prin

g-Su

mm

er 2

0##

cyc

les,

wha

t di

d yo

u do

with

you

r by

prod

ucts

or

stub

ble

from

the

cro

ps y

ou p

rodu

ced

on t

he la

nds

you

culti

vate

d?

no.

byp

rodu

cts

or s

tubb

le

Qua

ntit

y us

ed f

or

self-

cons

umpt

ion

for

prod

uctio

n

Qua

ntit

y so

ld a

nd s

ale

pric

e of

by

prod

ucts

or

stub

ble

To w

hom

did

you

sel

l?1

Whe

re d

id y

ou s

ell?

2

Qua

ntit

y in

ton

s$

per

ton

1c

orn

2b

eans

3W

heat

4b

arle

y

5so

rghu

m

6g

arba

nzo

7o

ats

8o

ther

not

es:

1/ in

dica

te th

e co

de a

ccor

ding

to th

e co

rres

pond

ing

tabl

e pr

ovid

ed.

2/ i

ndic

ate

the

code

acc

ordi

ng to

the

corr

espo

ndin

g ta

ble

prov

ided

.


32

16. o

n al

l of

your

land

s w

hat

mec

hani

zed

agric

ultu

ral w

ork

did

you

do, w

hat

wer

e yo

ur t

otal

cos

ts a

nd o

n ho

w m

any

hect

ares

did

you

do

the

wor

k? I

ndic

ate

acco

rdin

g to

the

spe

cifie

d cy

cles

.

no.

labo

r

Sprin

g-Su

mm

er 2

0##

fall-

Win

ter

20##

-20#

#fa

ll-W

inte

r 20

##-2

0##

Sprin

g-Su

mm

er 2

0##

yes

no

Tota

l C

ost

num

ber

of

hect

ares

yes

no

Tota

l C

ost

num

ber

of

hect

ares

yes

no

Tota

l C

ost

num

ber

of

hect

ares

yes

no

Tota

l C

ost

num

ber

of

hect

ares

1ir

rigat

ion

cana

l rou

ting

10

10

10

10

2li

ght p

low

ing

10

10

10

10

3fa

llow

ing

10

10

10

10

4le

velin

g1

01

01

01

0

5b

orde

ring

10

10

10

10

6fu

rrow

ing

10

10

10

10

7p

lant

ing

10

10

10

10

8H

oein

g1

01

01

01

0

9W

eedi

ng1

01

01

01

0

10H

arve

stin

g1

01

01

01

0

11o

ther

(spe

cify

):1

01

01

01

0

33Evaluation

17. D

escr

ibe

the

seed

or

the

plan

t m

ater

ial t

hat

you

use

prim

arily

in y

our

crop

s?

no.

Cro

p1

Sprin

g-Su

mm

er 2

0##

fall-

Win

ter

20##

-20#

#

It is

not

se

lect

edIt

is s

elec

ted

by

the

prod

ucer

Impr

oved

Cer

tifie

dIt

is n

ot

sele

cted

It is

sel

ecte

d by

th

e pr

oduc

erIm

prov

edC

ertif

ied

yes

no

yes

no

yes

no

yes

no

yes

no

yes

no

yes

no

yes

no

11

01

01

01

01

01

01

01

0

21

01

01

01

01

01

01

01

0

31

01

01

01

01

01

01

01

0

41

01

01

01

01

01

01

01

0

51

01

01

01

01

01

01

01

0

61

01

01

01

01

01

01

01

0

71

01

01

01

01

01

01

01

0

81

01

01

01

01

01

01

01

0

91

01

01

01

01

01

01

01

0

101

01

01

01

01

01

01

01

0

17. C

ontin

uatio

n. .

. D

escr

ibe

the

seed

or

plan

t m

ater

ial t

hat

you

use

prim

arily

in y

our

crop

s?

no.

Cro

p1

fall-

Win

ter

20##

-20#

#Sp

ring-

Sum

mer

20#

#

It is

not

se

lect

edIt

is s

elec

ted

by

the

prod

ucer

Impr

oved

Cer

tifie

dIt

is n

ot

sele

cted

It is

sel

ecte

d by

th

e pr

oduc

erIm

prov

edC

ertif

ied

yes

no

yes

no

yes

no

yes

no

yes

no

yes

no

yes

no

yes

no

11

01

01

01

01

01

01

01

0

21

01

01

01

01

01

01

01

0

31

01

01

01

01

01

01

01

0

41

01

01

01

01

01

01

01

0

51

01

01

01

01

01

01

01

0

61

01

01

01

01

01

01

01

0

71

01

01

01

01

01

01

01

0

81

01

01

01

01

01

01

01

0

91

01

01

01

01

01

01

01

0

101

01

01

01

01

01

01

01

0

1/ n

ote

the

crop

cod

e ac

cord

ing

to th

e c

rops

tab

le p

rovi

ded.

for

exa

mpl

e, fo

r co

rn th

e cr

op c

ode

is 6

4. v

erify

that

the

crop

s ar

e th

e sa

me

as th

ose

reco

rded

in q

uest

ions

10,

11,

13

and

14.


34

18. D

id y

ou a

pply

any

of

the

follo

win

g sa

nita

ry c

ontr

ol p

ract

ices

on

your

cro

ps?

no.

Cro

p1

Sprin

g-Su

mm

er 2

0##

fall-

Win

ter

20##

-20#

#

use

of

plan

t m

ater

ial

resi

stan

t to

pes

ts o

r di

seas

es

Com

batin

g of

pes

ts a

nd

dise

ases

Wee

d co

ntro

lE

arly

fa

llow

ing

See

dtr

eatm

ent

use

of

plan

t m

ater

ial

resi

stan

t to

pes

ts o

r di

seas

es

Com

batin

g of

pes

ts a

nd

dise

ases

Wee

d co

ntro

lE

arly

fa

llow

ing

See

d tr

eatm

ent

yes

no

yes

no

yes

no

yes

no

yes

no

yes

no

yes

no

yes

no

yes

no

yes

no

11

01

01

01

01

01

01

01

01

01

0

21

01

01

01

01

01

01

01

01

01

0

31

01

01

01

01

01

01

01

01

01

0

41

01

01

01

01

01

01

01

01

01

0

51

01

01

01

01

01

01

01

01

01

0

61

01

01

01

01

01

01

01

01

01

0

71

01

01

01

01

01

01

01

01

01

0

81

01

01

01

01

01

01

01

01

01

0

91

01

01

01

01

01

01

01

01

01

0

101

01

01

01

01

01

01

01

01

01

0

1/ n

ote

the

crop

cod

e ac

cord

ing

to th

e c

rops

tab

le p

rovi

ded.

for

exa

mpl

e, fo

r co

rn th

e cr

op c

ode

is 6

4. v

erify

that

the

crop

s ar

e th

e sa

me

as th

ose

reco

rded

in q

uest

ions

10,

11,

13

and

14.

35Evaluation

18. C

ontin

uatio

n. .

. D

o yo

u ap

ply

any

of t

he f

ollo

win

g sa

nita

ry c

ontr

ol p

ract

ices

on

your

cro

ps?

no.

Cro

p1

fall-

Win

ter

20##

-20#

#Sp

ring-

Sum

mer

20#

#

use

of

plan

t m

ater

ial

resi

stan

t to

pes

ts o

r di

seas

es

Com

batin

g of

pes

ts a

nd

dise

ases

Wee

d co

ntro

lE

arly

fa

llow

ing

See

dtr

eatm

ent

use

of

plan

t m

ater

ial

resi

stan

t to

pes

ts o

r di

seas

es

Com

batin

g of

pes

ts a

nd

dise

ases

Wee

d co

ntro

lE

arly

fa

llow

ing

See

d tr

eatm

ent

yes

no

yes

no

yes

no

yes

no

yes

no

yes

no

yes

no

yes

no

yes

no

yes

no

11

01

01

01

01

01

01

01

01

01

0

21

01

01

01

01

01

01

01

01

01

0

31

01

01

01

01

01

01

01

01

01

0

41

01

01

01

01

01

01

01

01

01

0

51

01

01

01

01

01

01

01

01

01

0

61

01

01

01

01

01

01

01

01

01

0

71

01

01

01

01

01

01

01

01

01

0

81

01

01

01

01

01

01

01

01

01

0

91

01

01

01

01

01

01

01

01

01

0

101

01

01

01

01

01

01

01

01

01

0

1/ n

ote

the

crop

cod

e ac

cord

ing

to th

e c

rops

tab

le p

rovi

ded.

for

exa

mpl

e, fo

r co

rn th

e cr

op c

ode

is 6

4. v

erify

that

the

crop

s re

cord

ed a

re th

e sa

me

as th

ose

reco

rded

in q

uest

ions

10,

11,

13

and

14.

19. D

id y

ou u

se n

itrog

en f

ertil

izer

s in

you

r pr

imar

y cr

ops

durin

g Sp

ring-

Sum

mer

20#

# a

nd/o

r fa

ll-Sp

ring

20##

-20#

#?

yes:

1n

o: 0

if th

e an

swer

is n

o, g

o to

que

stio

n 21


36

20. If

the

ans

wer

is y

es,

prov

ide

info

rmat

ion

on t

he q

uant

ity

used

per

hec

tare

of

nitr

ogen

fer

tiliz

ers

on e

ach

of y

our

crop

s, a

ccor

ding

to

the

corr

espo

ndin

g cy

cle.

no.

Cro

p1

Sprin

g-Su

mm

er 2

0##

fall-

Win

ter

20##

-20#

#

fert

ilize

r2 1

fer

tiliz

er2 2

fert

ilize

r2 3

fert

ilize

r2 4

fert

ilize

r2 1

fert

ilize

r2 2

fert

ilize

r2 3

fert

ilize

r2 4

yes

no

Qua

ntit

y (K

g/ha

)ye

sn

oQ

uant

ity

(Kg/

ha)

yes

no

Qua

ntit

y (K

g/ha

)ye

sn

oQ

uant

ity

(Kg/

ha)

yes

no

Qua

ntit

y (K

g/ha

)ye

sn

oQ

uant

ity

(Kg/

ha)

yes

no

Qua

ntit

y (K

g/ha

)ye

sn

oQ

uant

ity

(Kg/

ha)

11

01

01

01

01

01

01

01

0

21

01

01

01

01

01

01

01

0

31

01

01

01

01

01

01

01

0

41

01

01

01

01

01

01

01

0

51

01

01

01

01

01

01

01

0

61

01

01

01

01

01

01

01

0

71

01

01

01

01

01

01

01

0

81

01

01

01

01

01

01

01

0

91

01

01

01

01

01

01

01

0

101

01

01

01

01

01

01

01

0

not

es:

1/ n

ote

the

crop

cod

e ac

cord

ing

to th

e c

rops

tab

le p

rovi

ded.

for

exa

mpl

e, fo

r co

rn th

e cr

op c

ode

is 6

4.

2/ r

ecor

d th

e fe

rtili

zer

acco

rdin

g to

the

corr

espo

ndin

g co

de in

the

tabl

e pr

ovid

ed.

21. D

id y

ou u

se n

itrog

en f

ertil

izer

s on

you

r pr

imar

y cr

ops

durin

g fa

ll-W

inte

r 20

##-2

0##

and

/or

Sprin

g-Su

mm

er 2

0##?

yes:

1n

o: 0

if no

, go

to q

uest

ion

23

37Evaluation

22. If

yes

, pr

ovid

e in

form

atio

n on

the

qua

ntit

y us

ed p

er h

ecta

re o

f ni

trog

en f

ertil

izer

s on

eac

h of

you

r cr

ops,

acc

ordi

ng t

o th

e co

rres

pond

ing

cycl

e.

no.

Cro

p1

fall-

Win

ter

20##

-20#

#Sp

ring-

Sum

mer

20#

#

fert

ilize

r2 1

fer

tiliz

er2 2

fert

ilize

r2 3

fert

ilize

r2 4

fert

ilize

r2 1

fert

ilize

r2 2

fert

ilize

r2 3

fert

ilize

r2 4

yes

no

Qua

ntit

y (K

g/ha

)ye

sn

oQ

uant

ity

(Kg/

ha)

yes

no

Qua

ntit

y (K

g/ha

)ye

sn

oQ

uant

ity

(Kg/

ha)

yes

no

Qua

ntit

y (K

g/ha

)ye

sn

oQ

uant

ity

(Kg/

ha)

yes

no

Qua

ntit

y (K

g/ha

)ye

sn

oQ

uant

ity

(Kg/

ha)

11

01

01

01

01

01

01

01

0

21

01

01

01

01

01

01

01

0

31

01

01

01

01

01

01

01

0

41

01

01

01

01

01

01

01

0

51

01

01

01

01

01

01

01

0

61

01

01

01

01

01

01

01

0

71

01

01

01

01

01

01

01

0

81

01

01

01

01

01

01

01

0

91

01

01

01

01

01

01

01

0

101

01

01

01

01

01

01

01

0

not

es:

1/ n

ote

the

crop

cod

e ac

cord

ing

to th

e c

rops

tab

le p

rovi

ded.

for

exa

mpl

e, fo

r co

rn th

e cr

op c

ode

is 6

4.

2/ r

ecor

d th

e fe

rtili

zer

acco

rdin

g to

the

corr

espo

ndin

g co

de in

the

tabl

e pr

ovid

ed.

23. D

id y

ou u

se p

hosp

horu

s fe

rtili

zers

on

your

prim

ary

crop

s du

ring

the

Sprin

g-Su

mm

er 2

0##

and

/or

fall-

Win

ter

20##

-20#

# c

ycle

s?

yes:

1n

o: 0

if no

, go

to q

uest

ion

25


38

24. If

yes

, pr

ovid

e in

form

atio

n on

the

qua

ntit

y us

ed p

er h

ecta

re o

f ph

osph

orus

fer

tiliz

ers

on e

ach

of y

our

crop

s, a

ccor

ding

to

the

corr

espo

ndin

g cy

cle.

no.

Cro

p1

Sprin

g-Su

mm

er 2

0##

fall-

Win

ter

20##

-20#

#

fert

ilize

r2 1

fer

tiliz

er2 2

fert

ilize

r2 3

fert

ilize

r2 4

fert

ilize

r2 1

fert

ilize

r2 2

fert

ilize

r2 3

fert

ilize

r2 4

yes

no

Qua

ntit

y (K

g/ha

)ye

sn

oQ

uant

ity

(Kg/

ha)

yes

no

Qua

ntit

y (K

g/ha

)ye

sn

oQ

uant

ity

(Kg/

ha)

yes

no

Qua

ntit

y (K

g/ha

)ye

sn

oQ

uant

ity

(Kg/

ha)

yes

no

Qua

ntit

y (K

g/ha

)ye

sn

oQ

uant

ity

(Kg/

ha)

11

01

01

01

01

01

01

01

0

21

01

01

01

01

01

01

01

0

31

01

01

01

01

01

01

01

0

41

01

01

01

01

01

01

01

0

51

01

01

01

01

01

01

01

0

61

01

01

01

01

01

01

01

0

71

01

01

01

01

01

01

01

0

81

01

01

01

01

01

01

01

0

91

01

01

01

01

01

01

01

0

101

01

01

01

01

01

01

01

0

not

es:

1/ n

ote

the

crop

cod

e ac

cord

ing

to th

e c

rops

tab

le p

rovi

ded.

for

exa

mpl

e, fo

r co

rn th

e cr

op c

ode

is 6

4.

2/ r

ecor

d th

e fe

rtili

zer

acco

rdin

g to

the

corr

espo

ndin

g co

de in

the

tabl

e pr

ovid

ed.

25. D

id y

ou u

se p

hosp

horu

s fe

rtili

zers

in y

our

prim

ary

crop

s du

ring

the

fall-

Win

ter

20##

-20#

# a

nd/o

r Sp

ring-

Sum

mer

20#

# c

ycle

s?

yes:

1n

o: 0

if no

, go

to q

uest

ion

27

39Evaluation

26. If

yes

, pr

ovid

e in

form

atio

n on

the

qua

ntit

y us

ed p

er h

ecta

re o

f ph

osph

orus

fer

tiliz

ers

on e

ach

of y

our

crop

s, a

ccor

ding

to

the

corr

espo

ndin

g cy

cle.

no.

Cro

p1

fall-

Win

ter

20##

-20#

#Sp

ring-

Sum

mer

20#

#

fert

ilize

r2 1

fer

tiliz

er2 2

fert

ilize

r2 3

fert

ilize

r2 4

fert

ilize

r2 1

fert

ilize

r2 2

fert

ilize

r2 3

fert

ilize

r2 4

yes

no

Qua

ntit

y (K

g/ha

)ye

sn

oQ

uant

ity

(Kg/

ha)

yes

no

Qua

ntit

y (K

g/ha

)ye

sn

oQ

uant

ity

(Kg/

ha)

yes

no

Qua

ntit

y (K

g/ha

)ye

sn

oQ

uant

ity

(Kg/

ha)

yes

no

Qua

ntit

y (K

g/ha

)ye

sn

oQ

uant

ity

(Kg/

ha)

11

01

01

01

01

01

01

01

0

21

01

01

01

01

01

01

01

0

31

01

01

01

01

01

01

01

0

41

01

01

01

01

01

01

01

0

51

01

01

01

01

01

01

01

0

61

01

01

01

01

01

01

01

0

71

01

01

01

01

01

01

01

0

81

01

01

01

01

01

01

01

0

91

01

01

01

01

01

01

01

0

101

01

01

01

01

01

01

01

0

not

es:

1/ n

ote

the

crop

cod

e ac

cord

ing

to th

e c

rops

tab

le p

rovi

ded.

for

exa

mpl

e, fo

r co

rn th

e cr

op c

ode

is 6

4.

2/ r

ecor

d th

e fe

rtili

zer

acco

rdin

g to

the

corr

espo

ndin

g co

de in

the

tabl

e pr

ovid

ed.


40

27. H

ow m

any

day’

s w

ork1 ,

hired

and

fam

ily,

did

you

use

per

hect

are

for

each

of

your

cro

ps?

Pro

vide

the

info

rmat

ion

acco

rdin

g to

the

cor

resp

ondi

ng c

ycle

.

no.

Cro

p2

Sprin

g-Su

mm

er 2

0##

fall-

Win

ter

20##

-20#

#

Hired

fam

ily3

Hired

fam

ily3

yes

no

Qua

ntit

yS

alar

y pe

r da

y ($

)ye

sn

oQ

uant

ity

yes

no

Qua

ntit

yS

alar

y pe

r da

y ($

)ye

sn

oQ

uant

ity

11

01

01

01

0

21

01

01

01

0

31

01

01

01

0

41

01

01

01

0

51

01

01

01

0

61

01

01

01

0

71

01

01

01

0

81

01

01

01

0

91

01

01

01

0

101

01

01

01

0

not

es:

1/ o

ne d

ay’s

wor

k is

equ

ival

ent t

o 8

hour

s of

wor

k a

day.

2

/ not

e th

e cr

op c

ode

acco

rdin

g to

the

cro

ps t

able

pro

vide

d. f

or e

xam

ple,

for

corn

the

crop

cod

e is

64.

3/

fam

ily d

ay’s

wor

k ar

e co

nsid

ered

thos

e in

whi

ch th

e w

orke

r do

es n

ot r

ecei

ve c

ompe

nsat

ion

for

his/

her

wor

k; if

a fa

mily

mem

ber

rece

ives

a p

aym

ent,

it sh

ould

be

cons

ider

ed u

nder

the

head

ing

of h

ired

wor

kers

and

vic

e ve

rsa.

41Evaluation

27. C

ontin

uatio

n. .

. H

ow m

any

day’

s w

ork1 ,

hired

and

fam

ily, di

d yo

u us

e pe

r he

ctar

e fo

r ea

ch o

f yo

ur c

rops

? Pro

vide

the

info

rmat

ion

acco

rdin

g to

the

co

rres

pond

ing

cycl

e.

no.

Cro

p2

fall-

Win

ter

20##

-20#

#Sp

ring-

Sum

mer

20#

#

Hired

fam

ily3

Hired

fam

ily3

yes

no

Qua

ntit

yS

alar

y pe

r da

y ($

)ye

sn

oQ

uant

ity

yes

no

Qua

ntit

yS

alar

y pe

r da

y ($

)ye

sn

oQ

uant

ity

11

01

01

01

0

21

01

01

01

0

31

01

01

01

0

41

01

01

01

0

51

01

01

01

0

61

01

01

01

0

71

01

01

01

0

81

01

01

01

0

91

01

01

01

0

101

01

01

01

0

not

es:

1/ a

day

’s w

ork

is e

quiv

alen

t to

8 ho

urs

of w

ork

a da

y.

2/ n

ote

the

crop

cod

e ac

cord

ing

to th

e c

rops

tab

le p

rovi

ded.

for

exa

mpl

e, fo

r co

rn th

e cr

op c

ode

is 6

4.

3/ f

amily

day

’s w

ork

are

cons

ider

ed th

ose

in w

hich

the

wor

ker

does

not

rec

eive

com

pens

atio

n fo

r hi

s/he

r w

ork;

if a

fam

ily m

embe

r re

ceiv

es a

pay

men

t, it

shou

ld b

e co

nsid

ered

und

er th

e he

adin

g of

hire

d w

orke

rs a

nd v

ice

vers

a.


42

28. W

here

did

you

buy

the

inpu

ts y

ou u

sed

in t

he a

gric

ultu

ral p

rodu

ctio

n du

ring

fW20

##-2

0##

and

SS2

0##?

no.

Type

of

inpu

tPur

chas

edPl

ace

of p

urch

ase1

How

man

y es

tabl

ishm

ents

se

lling

the

inpu

ts t

hat

you

use

exis

t in

the

com

mun

ity?

If t

here

are

no

esta

blis

hmen

ts,

how

man

y ki

lom

eter

s fr

om

your

com

mun

ity

is t

he c

lose

st

one?

yes

no

1fe

rtili

zers

10

2a

gro-

chem

ical

s1

0

3se

eds

or s

eedl

ings

10

4o

ther

inpu

ts o

r m

ater

ials

10

not

e:1/

not

e th

e co

rres

pond

ing

num

ber

of th

e pl

ace

of p

urch

ase

tabl

e.

29. W

hat

is t

he c

urre

nt e

stim

ated

val

ue o

f th

e co

nstr

uctio

ns f

or t

he a

gric

ultu

ral p

rodu

ctio

n?

no.

Con

stru

ctio

ns:

Est

imat

ed

valu

e of

the

co

nstr

uctio

n in

it

s cu

rren

t st

ate

($)

year

in w

hich

you

acq

uire

d th

e co

nstr

uctio

n

Prio

r to

20#

#

(spe

cify

)20

##20

##

20##

20##

1W

areh

ouse

or

stor

age

area

11

11

2c

iste

rn o

r w

ater

dep

osit

for

use

in a

gric

ultu

ral a

ctiv

ities

11

11

3fe

ncin

g of

plo

t1

11

1

4p

rodu

ct d

ryin

g ar

ea

11

11

5c

old

room

11

11

6p

atio

or

corr

al1

11

1

7si

lo1

11

1

8c

oolin

g ta

nk

11

11

9o

ther

(spe

cify

):1

11

1

not

e: t

he p

urpo

se is

to e

stim

ate

thei

r va

lue

in th

e m

arke

t at c

urre

nt p

rices

.

43Evaluation

30. D

urin

g th

e ye

ars

20##

and

20#

#, d

id y

ou m

ake

any

inve

stm

ents

in t

he f

ollo

win

g co

ncep

ts?

no.

Des

crip

tion

year

s

20##

20##

To im

prov

e or

con

stru

ct f

acili

ties:

yes

no

am

ount

of

inve

stm

ent

($)

yes

no

am

ount

of

inve

stm

ent

($)

1W

areh

ouse

or

stor

age

area

10

10

2c

iste

rn o

r w

ater

dep

osit

for

use

in p

rodu

ctio

n ac

tiviti

es1

01

0

3fe

ncin

g of

plo

t1

01

0

4fe

ncin

g of

pas

ture

10

10

5p

rodu

ct d

ryin

g ar

ea

10

10

6c

old

room

10

10

7in

stal

latio

ns fo

r w

ater

, ele

ctric

ity, e

tc.

10

10

8o

ther

(spe

cify

):1

01

0

To im

prov

e yo

ur la

nds:

9 fo

r ag

ricul

tura

l use

10

10

10fo

r liv

esto

ck u

se1

01

0

11fo

r fo

rest

ry u

se1

01

0

12fo

r ot

her

use

10

10

To e

stab

lish

plan

tatio

ns o

r pe

renn

ial c

rops

or

impr

ove

exis

ting

ones

:

13g

rass

land

s1

01

0

14a

lfalfa

10

10

15fr

uit t

rees

11

01

0

16o

ther

10

10

17o

ther

10

10

not

e:

1/ in

the

case

of f

ruit

tree

s or

oth

ers

writ

e th

e na

me

or n

ames

; if i

t is

mor

e th

an o

ne u

se th

e lin

es w

here

it s

ays

“oth

er”.


44

31. Pl

ease

pro

vide

the

use

and

cos

t of

inpu

ts f

or a

ll yo

ur c

rops

in y

our

prod

uctio

n un

it ac

cord

ing

to t

he p

erio

d in

dica

ted.

no.

Cro

p1

Sprin

g-Su

mm

er 2

0##

fall-

Win

ter

20##

-20#

#

agr

o-ch

emic

als

(her

bici

des,

fu

ngic

ides

, in

sect

icid

es)

See

ds o

rpl

ants

vario

usm

ater

ials

(sac

ks, bo

xes,

et

c.)

vario

us s

ervi

ces

(tra

nspo

rtat

ion,

ad

min

istr

atio

n,

etc.

)

agr

o-ch

emic

als

(her

bici

des,

fu

ngic

ides

, in

sect

icid

es)

See

ds o

rpl

ants

vario

usm

ater

ials

(sac

ks,

boxe

s,

etc.

)

vario

us s

ervi

ces

(tra

nspo

rtat

ion,

ad

min

istr

atio

n,

etc.

)

yes

no

Cos

t/ha

yes

no

Cos

t/ha

yes

no

Cos

t/ha

yes

no

Cos

t/ha

yes

no

Cos

t/ha

yes

no

Cos

t/ha

yes

no

Cos

t/ha

yes

no

Cos

t/ha

11

01

01

01

01

01

01

01

0

21

01

01

01

01

01

01

01

0

31

01

01

01

01

01

01

01

0

41

01

01

01

01

01

01

01

0

51

01

01

01

01

01

01

01

0

61

01

01

01

01

01

01

01

0

71

01

01

01

01

01

01

01

0

81

01

01

01

01

01

01

01

0

91

01

01

01

01

01

01

01

0

101

01

01

01

01

01

01

01

0

not

e:1/

not

e th

e cr

op c

ode

acco

rdin

g to

the

cro

ps t

able

pro

vide

d. f

or e

xam

ple,

for

corn

the

crop

cod

e is

64.

ver

ify th

at th

e cr

ops

are

the

sam

e as

thos

e re

cord

ed in

que

stio

ns 1

0 an

d 11

.

45Evaluation

31. C

ontin

uatio

n. .

. u

se a

nd c

ost

of in

puts

for

all

your

cro

ps in

the

pro

duct

ion

unit

acco

rdin

g to

the

per

iod

indi

cate

d.

no.

Cro

p1

fall-

Win

ter

20##

-20#

#Sp

ring-

Sum

mer

20#

#

agr

o-ch

emic

als

(her

bici

des,

fu

ngic

ides

, in

sect

icid

es)

See

ds o

rpl

ants

vario

usm

ater

ials

(sac

ks, bo

xes,

et

c.)

vario

us s

ervi

ces

(tra

nspo

rtat

ion,

ad

min

istr

atio

n,

etc.

)

agr

o-ch

emic

als

(her

bici

des,

fu

ngic

ides

, in

sect

icid

es)

See

ds o

rpl

ants

vario

usm

ater

ials

(sac

ks,

boxe

s,

etc.

)

vario

us s

ervi

ces

(tra

nspo

rtat

ion,

ad

min

istr

atio

n,

etc.

)

yes

no

Cos

t/ha

yes

no

Cos

t/ha

yes

no

Cos

t/ha

yes

no

Cos

t/ha

yes

no

Cos

t/ha

yes

no

Cos

t/ha

yes

no

Cos

t/ha

yes

no

Cos

t/ha

11

01

01

01

01

01

01

01

0

21

01

01

01

01

01

01

01

0

31

01

01

01

01

01

01

01

0

41

01

01

01

01

01

01

01

0

51

01

01

01

01

01

01

01

0

61

01

01

01

01

01

01

01

0

71

01

01

01

01

01

01

01

0

81

01

01

01

01

01

01

01

0

91

01

01

01

01

01

01

01

0

101

01

01

01

01

01

01

01

0

not

e:1/

not

e th

e cr

op c

ode

acco

rdin

g to

the

cro

ps t

able

pro

vide

d. f

or e

xam

ple,

for

corn

the

crop

cod

e is

64.

ver

ify th

at th

e cr

ops

are

the

sam

e as

thos

e re

cord

ed in

que

stio

ns 1

3 an

d 14

.


46

32. In

dica

te if

you

irrig

ated

and

wha

t irr

igat

ion

tech

nolo

gy y

ou u

sed,

acc

ordi

ng t

o th

e cy

cles

indi

cate

d.

no.

year

Irrig

ated

Irrig

atio

n Te

chno

logy

Gra

vity

in e

arth

en

cana

lG

ravi

ty in

line

d ca

nal

Gra

vity

in p

ipes

Sprin

kler

Drip

yes

no

yes

no

yes

no

yes

no

yes

no

yes

no

1sp

ring-

sum

mer

20

##1

01

01

01

01

01

0

2fa

ll-W

inte

r 20

##-2

0##

10

10

10

10

10

10

3fa

ll-W

inte

r 20

##-2

0##

10

10

10

10

10

10

4sp

ring-

sum

mer

20

##1

01

01

01

01

01

0

33. In

dica

te t

he c

rops

and

land

are

a th

at y

ou c

ultiv

ated

with

irrig

atio

n du

ring

the

cycl

e in

dica

ted.

beg

in w

ith t

he p

rimar

y cr

op.

no.

Cro

p1Sp

ring-

Sum

mer

20#

#2fa

ll-W

inte

r 20

##-2

0##

fall-

Win

ter

20##

-20#

#Sp

ring-

Sum

mer

20#

#2

yes

no

haye

sn

oha

yes

no

haye

sn

oha

1

10

10

10

10

21

01

01

01

0

3

10

10

10

10

4

10

10

10

10

51

01

01

01

0

61

01

01

01

0

71

01

01

01

0

81

01

01

01

0

91

01

01

01

0

101

01

01

01

0

11to

tal

not

es:

1/ n

ote

the

crop

cod

e ac

cord

ing

to th

e c

rops

tab

le p

rovi

ded.

for

exa

mpl

e, fo

r co

rn th

e cr

op c

ode

is 6

4. v

erify

that

the

crop

s ar

e th

e sa

me

as th

ose

reco

rded

in q

uest

ions

10,

11,

13

and

14.

2/ i

n th

is s

ectio

n in

clud

e th

e pe

renn

ial c

rops

.

47Evaluation

34.

In

dica

te t

he s

ourc

e of

wat

er f

or ir

rigat

ion

acco

rdin

g to

the

cyc

le in

dica

ted.

no.

Sou

rce

Sprin

g-Su

mm

er 2

0##

fall-

Win

ter

20##

-20#

#fa

ll-W

inte

r 20

##-2

0##

Sprin

g-Su

mm

er 2

0##

yes

no

yes

no

yes

no

yes

no

1D

ams

or c

anal

s1

01

01

01

0

2W

ell

10

10

10

10

3r

iver

s or

str

eam

s1

01

01

01

0

4o

ther

10

10

10

10

35. I

ndic

ate

the

use

of ir

rigat

ion

wat

er p

er c

rop

and

prod

uctio

n cy

cle,

cor

resp

ondi

ng t

o th

e pe

riods

20#

# a

nd 2

0##.

no.

Cro

p1

Sprin

g-Su

mm

er 2

0##

fall-

Win

ter

20##

-20#

#fa

ll-W

inte

r 20

##-2

0##

Sprin

g-Su

mm

er 2

0##

Hou

rs o

firr

igat

ion

no.

of

irrig

atio

nsH

ours

of

irrig

atio

nn

o. o

f irr

igat

ions

Hou

rs o

firr

igat

ion

no.

of

irrig

atio

nsH

ours

of

irrig

atio

nn

o. o

f irr

igat

ions

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

not

e:1/

not

e th

e cr

op c

ode

acco

rdin

g to

the

cro

ps t

able

pro

vide

d. f

or e

xam

ple,

for

corn

the

crop

cod

e is

64.

ver

ify th

at th

e cr

ops

are

the

sam

e as

thos

e of

que

stio

n 3

3.


48

36. In

the

cas

e of

irrig

atio

n w

ith p

ump,

indi

cate

the

dia

met

er, in

inch

es, of

the

pip

e of

you

r irr

igat

ion

pum

p:

37. I

ndic

ate

the

cost

s de

rived

fro

m t

he ir

rigat

ion

per

crop

and

pro

duct

ion

cycl

e, c

orre

spon

ding

to

the

cycl

es in

dica

ted.

no.

Cro

p1

Sprin

g-Su

mm

er 2

0##

fall-

Win

ter

20##

-20#

#fa

ll-W

inte

r 20

##-2

0##

Sprin

g-Su

mm

er 2

0##

Elec

tric

ity

or f

uel

($)

fee

for

wat

er($

)El

ectr

icit

y or

fue

l($

)fe

e fo

r w

ater

($)

Elec

tric

ity

or f

uel

($)

fee

for

wat

er($

)El

ectr

icit

y or

fue

l($

)fe

e fo

r w

ater

($)

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

not

e:1/

not

e th

e cr

op c

ode

acco

rdin

g to

the

cro

ps t

able

pro

vide

d. f

or e

xam

ple,

for

corn

the

crop

cod

e is

64.

ver

ify th

at th

e cr

ops

are

the

sam

e as

thos

e of

que

stio

n 3

3.

38. If

the

cur

rent

sou

rce

of w

ater

is a

wel

l, w

hich

of

the

follo

win

g si

tuat

ions

exi

st?

no.

Des

crip

tion

yes

no

Doe

s no

t kn

ow

1th

e pr

oduc

ers

that

use

that

wel

l hav

e a

regu

latio

n fo

r its

use

10

2

2th

ere

are

met

ers

inst

alle

d to

mea

sure

the

wat

er e

xtra

cted

10

2

3th

e m

eter

s in

stal

led

are

func

tioni

ng1

02

4th

e m

otor

use

d to

pum

p th

e w

ater

is e

lect

ric1

02

5th

e m

otor

to p

ump

the

wat

er u

ses

dies

el o

r an

othe

r fu

el1

02

49Evaluation

v. l

IvES

ToCK

aCT

IvIT

IES

Mo

Du

lE

39. W

hat

wer

e th

e pr

imar

y sp

ecie

s of

ani

mal

s yo

u ha

d in

the

yea

rs 2

0##

and

20#

#?

no.

year

Spec

ies

num

ber

of h

eads

at

the

be

ginn

ing

of t

he

year

Cha

nge

in t

he in

vent

ory

num

ber

of h

eads

at

the

end

of

the

ye

ar

ann

ual

inco

me

for

sale

s of

an

imal

s

aver

age

mar

ket

pric

e ($

/un

it or

he

ad)

How

man

y di

d yo

u bu

y?

How

man

y w

ere

give

n to

you

?

How

m

any

did

you

give

aw

ay?

How

m

any

died

or

wer

e lo

st?

How

m

any

wer

e bo

rn?

How

man

y di

d yo

u sa

crifi

ce

for

fam

ily

cons

umpt

ion?

How

m

any

did

you

sell

stan

ding

?

120

##

cat

tle

shee

p

goa

ts

pig

s

pou

ltry

bee

s1

Hor

ses

oth

er

220

##

cat

tle

shee

p

goa

ts

pig

s

pou

ltry

bee

s1

Hor

ses

oth

er

1/ in

the

case

of b

ees,

indi

cate

the

num

ber

of h

ives

.


50

40.

Wha

t liv

esto

ck p

rodu

cts

or s

ub-p

rodu

cts

did

you

sell

in t

he y

ears

20#

# a

nd 2

0##?

no.

year

live

stoc

k pr

oduc

ts a

nd s

ub-p

rodu

cts

Qua

ntit

y($

/uni

t)To

who

m d

id y

ou

sell?

2W

here

did

you

sel

l?3

120

##

Milk

( li

ters

)

Eggs

( k

ilogr

ams

)

Woo

l ( k

ilogr

ams

)

Hon

ey (

lite

rs )

Man

ure

(tons

)1

pou

ltry

man

ure

(ton

s)

oth

er (s

peci

fy)_

____

____

220

##

Milk

( li

ters

)

Eggs

( k

ilogr

ams

)

Woo

l ( k

ilogr

ams

)

Hon

ey (

lite

rs )

Man

ure

(tons

)

pou

ltry

man

ure

(ton

s)

oth

er (s

peci

fy)_

____

____

not

es:

1/in

the

case

of m

anur

e or

pou

ltry

man

ure

note

the

quan

titie

s in

tons

.2

/ ind

icat

e th

e co

de a

ccor

ding

to th

e co

rres

pond

ing

tabl

e pr

ovid

ed.

3/ in

dica

te th

e co

de a

ccor

ding

to th

e co

rres

pond

ing

tabl

e pr

ovid

ed.

51Evaluation

41. W

hat

is t

he c

urre

nt e

stim

ated

val

ue o

f th

e co

nstr

uctio

ns f

or li

vest

ock

prod

uctio

n?

no.

Con

stru

ctio

ns:

Est

imat

ed v

alue

of

the

cons

truc

tion

in it

s cu

rren

t st

ate1

($)

In w

hat

year

was

con

stru

ctio

n ac

quired

?

Prio

r to

20#

#

(spe

cify

)20

##20

##20

##20

##

1r

oofe

d ar

ea fo

r liv

esto

ck p

rote

ctio

n 1

11

1

2fe

edin

g tr

ough

s fo

r liv

esto

ck1

11

1

3c

iste

rn o

r w

ater

dep

osit

for

lives

tock

act

ivity

11

11

4c

onst

ruct

ion

or fe

ncin

g of

cor

rals

11

11

5ti

ck b

aths

11

11

6o

ther

(in

dica

te):

11

11

not

e:1/

the

pur

pose

is to

est

imat

e th

eir

valu

e in

the

mar

ket a

t cur

rent

pric

es.

42. H

ow m

any

day’

s w

ork,

hired

and

fam

ily d

id y

ou u

se f

or y

our

lives

tock

act

iviti

es?

Pro

vide

the

info

rmat

ion

acco

rdin

g to

the

cor

resp

ondi

ng y

ear:

no.

Type

20##

20##

Hired

fam

ily2

Hired

fam

ily2

yes

no

Qua

ntit

yS

alar

y pe

r da

y ($

)ye

sn

oQ

uant

ity

yes

no

Qua

ntit

yS

alar

y pe

r da

y ($

)ye

sn

oQ

uant

ity

1c

attle

10

10

10

10

2sh

eep

10

10

10

10

3g

oats

10

10

10

10

4p

igs

10

10

10

10

5p

oultr

y1

01

01

01

0

6b

ees1

10

10

10

10

7o

ther

10

10

10

10

not

es:

1/ o

ne d

ay’s

wor

k is

equ

ival

ent t

o 8

hour

s of

wor

k a

day.

2

/ fam

ily e

mpl

oyee

s ar

e th

ose

wor

kers

who

do

not r

ecei

ve c

ompe

nsat

ion

for

thei

r w

ork;

if a

fam

ily m

embe

r re

ceiv

es p

aym

ent,

he/s

he s

houl

d be

con

side

red

as h

ired

empl

oyee

s an

d vi

ce v

ersa

.


52

43.

In

your

prim

ary

lives

tock

act

ivit

y, w

hat

infr

astr

uctu

re a

nd e

quip

men

t ha

ve y

ou h

ad in

you

r fa

cilit

ies?

Pro

vide

the

info

rmat

ion

acco

rdin

g to

the

cor

resp

ondi

ng

year

:

no.

Infr

astr

uctu

re a

nd f

acili

ties

20##

20##

yes

no

yes

no

1H

andl

ing

area

s (c

orra

ls, r

oom

s fo

r bi

rthi

ng, w

eani

ng, b

reed

ing,

fatt

enin

g, m

ilkin

g, e

tc.)

10

10

2c

emen

t flo

or (n

ot e

arth

en fl

oor)

10

10

3r

oof

10

10

4Eq

uipm

ent f

or b

reed

ing

and

prod

uctio

n (c

ages

, drin

king

trou

ghs,

feed

trou

ghs,

etc

.)1

01

0

5Eq

uipm

ent o

r m

eans

for

rem

ovin

g w

aste

10

10

6n

one

10

10

44.

Ind

icat

e th

e ge

netic

qua

lity

of y

our

anim

als

for

the

year

s 20

## a

nd 2

0##.

no.

Spec

ies

20##

20##

Indi

geno

usIm

prov

ed a

nim

als

with

out

regi

stra

tion

ani

mal

s w

ith c

ertif

ied

gene

tic q

ualit

y or

w

ith g

enea

logi

cal

regi

stra

tion

Indi

geno

usIm

prov

ed a

nim

als

with

out

regi

stra

tion

ani

mal

s w

ith c

ertif

ied

gene

tic q

ualit

y or

w

ith g

enea

logi

cal

regi

stra

tion

yes

no

Qua

ntit

y2ye

sn

o Q

uant

ity2

yes

no

Qua

ntit

y2ye

sn

o Q

uant

ity2

yes

no

Qua

ntit

y2ye

sn

o Q

uant

ity2

1c

attle

10

10

10

10

10

10

2sh

eep

10

10

10

10

10

10

3g

oats

10

10

10

10

10

10

4p

igs

10

10

10

10

10

10

5p

oultr

y1

01

01

01

01

01

0

6b

ees1

10

10

10

10

10

10

7H

orse

s1

01

01

01

01

01

0

8o

ther

10

10

10

10

10

10

not

es:

1/ in

the

case

of b

ees,

indi

cate

the

num

ber

of h

ives

acc

ordi

ng to

the

gene

tic q

ualit

y of

the

quee

n be

e.2

/ ref

ers

to th

e av

erag

e qu

antit

y of

ani

mal

s fo

r th

e ye

ar.

53Evaluation

45. W

hich

of

the

follo

win

g sa

nita

ry p

reve

ntio

n an

d co

ntro

l tas

ks d

id y

ou c

arry

out

in t

he y

ear

20##

?

no.

Spec

ies

20##

San

itar

y co

ntro

l act

ions

use

of

vacc

ines

Com

batin

g of

dis

ease

s (t

reat

men

ts,

use

of

med

icin

es)

Clea

ning

and

di

sinf

ectio

n of

fa

cilit

ies

use

of

food

su

pple

men

ts

Inte

rnal

and

/or

ext

erna

l de

wor

min

g

rot

atio

n of

pa

stur

es a

nd

gras

slan

dsn

one

oth

er

yes

no

yes

no

yes

no

yes

no

yes

no

yes

no

yes

no

yes

no

1c

attle

10

10

10

10

10

10

10

10

2sh

eep

10

10

10

10

10

10

10

10

3g

oats

10

10

10

10

10

10

10

10

4p

igs

10

10

10

10

10

10

10

10

5p

oultr

y1

01

01

01

01

01

01

01

0

6b

ees1

10

10

10

10

10

10

10

10

7H

orse

s1

01

01

01

01

01

01

01

0

8o

ther

1

01

01

01

01

01

01

01

0

not

e:1/

rot

atio

n eq

uiva

lent

to c

hang

ing

the

hive

s to

ano

ther

pla

ce.


54

45. C

ontin

uatio

n .

. w

hat

sani

tary

pre

vent

ion

and

cont

rol t

asks

did

you

car

ry o

ut in

the

yea

r 20

##?

no.

Spec

ies

20##

San

itar

y co

ntro

l act

ions

use

of

vacc

ines

Com

batin

g of

dis

ease

s (t

reat

men

ts,

use

of

med

icin

es)

Clea

ning

and

di

sinf

ectio

n of

fa

cilit

ies

use

of

food

su

pple

men

ts

Inte

rnal

and

/or

ext

erna

l de

wor

min

g

rot

atio

n of

pa

stur

es a

nd

gras

slan

dsn

one

oth

er

yes

no

yes

no

yes

no

yes

no

yes

no

yes

no

yes

no

yes

no

1c

attle

10

10

10

10

10

10

10

10

2sh

eep

10

10

10

10

10

10

10

10

3g

oats

10

10

10

10

10

10

10

10

4p

igs

10

10

10

10

10

10

10

10

5p

oultr

y1

01

01

01

01

01

01

01

0

6b

ees1

10

10

10

10

10

10

10

10

7H

orse

s1

01

01

01

01

01

01

01

0

8o

ther

1

01

01

01

01

01

01

01

0

not

e:1/

rot

atio

n eq

uiva

lent

to c

hang

ing

the

hive

s to

ano

ther

pla

ce.

55Evaluation

46.

Wha

t w

ere

the

sour

ces

of f

eed

for

your

ani

mal

s in

the

yea

rs 2

0##

and

20#

#?

no.

Spec

ies

20##

20##

Gra

zing

on

past

ures

an

d na

tura

l gr

assl

ands

Gra

zing

on

impr

oved

pa

stur

es

with

fee

d su

pple

men

ts

Gre

en

fodd

er,

stub

ble,

by

prod

ucts

of

cor

n,

bean

s or

ot

her

crop

s w

ithou

t fe

ed

supp

lem

ents

Sila

ge f

eed

with

out

feed

su

pple

men

ts

Sila

ge f

eed

with

fee

d su

pple

men

ts

Gra

zing

in

past

ures

an

d na

tura

l gr

assl

ands

Gra

zing

in

impr

oved

pa

stur

es

with

fee

d su

pple

men

ts

Gre

en

fodd

er,

stub

ble,

by

prod

ucts

of

cor

n,

bean

s or

ot

her

crop

s w

ithou

t fe

ed

supp

lem

ents

Sila

ge f

eed

with

out

feed

su

pple

men

ts

Sila

ge f

eed

with

fee

d su

pple

men

ts

yes

no

yes

no

yes

no

yes

no

yes

no

yes

no

yes

no

yes

no

yes

no

yes

no

1c

attle

10

10

10

10

10

10

10

10

10

10

2sh

eep

10

10

10

10

10

10

10

10

10

10

3g

oats

10

10

10

10

10

10

10

10

10

10

4p

igs

10

10

10

10

10

10

10

10

10

10

5p

oultr

y1

01

01

01

01

01

01

01

01

01

0

6b

ees1

10

1

0

7H

orse

s1

01

01

01

01

01

01

01

01

01

0

8o

ther

1

01

01

01

01

01

01

01

01

01

0

not

e:1/

Mar

k if

you

give

feed

sup

plem

ents

to y

our

bees

.

47. W

here

do

you

curr

ently

buy

the

inpu

ts t

hat

you

use

in li

vest

ock

prod

uctio

n?

no.

Type

of

inpu

tD

id y

ou b

uy?

Plac

e of

pu

rcha

se1

How

man

y es

tabl

ishm

ents

in

the

com

mun

ity

sell

the

inpu

ts

that

you

use

?

If t

here

are

non

e, h

ow

man

y ki

lom

eter

s fr

om y

our

com

mun

ity

is t

he c

lose

st o

ne?

yes

no

1va

ccin

es1

0

2M

edic

ines

10

3sa

nita

ry s

ervi

ces

and/

or s

ervi

ces

of th

e ve

terin

aria

n1

0

4in

dust

rializ

ed fe

ed a

nd o

ther

mat

eria

ls1

0

not

e:1/

not

e th

e nu

mbe

r co

rres

pond

ing

to p

lace

of p

urch

ase

tabl

e.


56

48.

Ind

icat

e th

e co

sts1

for

the

live

stoc

k pr

oduc

tion

in t

he y

ear

indi

cate

d.

no.

Spec

ies

20##

20##

feed

Med

icin

esve

terin

aria

nW

ater

us

ead

min

istr

atio

nfe

edM

edic

ines

vete

rinar

ian

Wat

er

use

adm

inis

trat

ion

1c

attle

2sh

eep

3g

oats

4p

igs

5p

oultr

y

6b

ees2

7H

orse

s

8o

ther

not

es:

1/ t

he a

mou

nts

refe

r to

the

tota

l cos

t or

expe

nse

expl

icit

or d

ispe

rsed

in e

ach

of th

e co

ncep

ts p

er t

ype

of li

vest

ock.

2/ i

n th

e ca

se o

f bee

s, in

dica

te th

e nu

mbe

r of

hiv

es a

ccor

ding

to th

e ge

netic

qua

lity

of th

e qu

een

bee.

vI. fa

rM

Pr

oCE

SSIn

G a

CTIv

ITIE

S M

oD

ulE

49. D

id y

ou p

rodu

ce a

ny o

f th

e fo

llow

ing

prod

ucts

tak

ing

adva

ntag

e of

the

pro

duct

ion

you

obta

in f

rom

you

r la

nds

or y

our

lives

tock

? If

yes

, pl

ease

pro

vide

the

da

ta r

elat

ed t

o th

e pr

oduc

ts y

ou p

rodu

ced:

no.

Pro

duct

Pro

duce

du

nit

of m

easu

rem

ent1

Tota

l pro

duct

ion

in

the

year

Sal

e pr

ice

$ /

unit

Inco

me

from

sal

es

20##

20##

20##

20##

20##

20##

20##

20##

20##

20##

yes

no

yes

no

1c

hees

e1

01

0

2yo

gurt

10

10

3c

ajet

a1

01

0

4c

ured

mea

t1

01

0

5sa

usag

es (c

horiz

o, h

am, e

tc.)

10

10

6p

rese

rves

1

01

0

7ta

nnin

g of

hid

es1

01

0

8o

ther

s (s

peci

fy):

10

10

1/ n

ote

the

prod

uctio

n ob

tain

ed u

sing

the

units

of m

easu

rem

ent a

ccor

ding

to th

e u

nits

of M

easu

rem

ent t

able

.

57Evaluation

50. W

hat

was

the

des

tinat

ion

of t

he p

rodu

cts

deriv

ed f

rom

agr

icul

tura

l act

ivit

y in

the

yea

rs 2

0##

and

20#

#?

no

year

Des

tinat

ion

Pro

duct

os

Pro

duct

1 1

____

____

__Pro

duct

1 2

____

____

__Pro

duct

1 3

____

____

__Pro

duct

1 4

____

____

__Pro

duct

1 5

____

____

__Pro

duct

1 6

____

____

__

120

##

fam

ily s

elf-

cons

umpt

ion

sale

in th

e co

mm

unity

or

loca

lity

whe

re th

e pr

oduc

tion

unit

is lo

cate

d (lo

cal m

arke

t)

sale

out

side

of t

he c

omm

unity

or

loca

lity

whe

re th

e pr

oduc

tion

unit

is lo

cate

d (n

atio

nal m

arke

t)

Exp

ort

oth

er (s

peci

fy)

220

##

fam

ily s

elf-

cons

umpt

ion

sale

in th

e co

mm

unity

or

loca

lity

whe

re th

e pr

oduc

tion

unit

is lo

cate

d (lo

cal m

arke

t)

sale

out

side

the

com

mun

ity o

r lo

calit

y w

here

the

prod

uctio

n un

it is

loca

ted

(nat

iona

l mar

ket)

Exp

ort

oth

er (s

peci

fy)

not

e:1/

not

e th

e pr

oduc

t cod

e ac

cord

ing

to th

e ca

talo

g pr

ovid

ed.

vII.

baC

Kya

rD

aCT

IvIT

IES

Mo

Du

lE

51. D

o yo

u ha

ve in

the

pat

io o

r co

rral

of

your

hom

e an

imal

s, f

ruit, flo

wer

s or

ano

ther

act

ivit

y of

whi

ch w

e ha

ve n

ot s

poke

n be

fore

and

tha

t ha

s pr

ovid

ed in

com

e du

ring

the

year

s 20

## a

nd 2

0##?

yes:

1n

o: 0

if no

, go

to q

uest

ion

53


58

52. If

yes

, pr

ovid

e th

e da

ta f

or t

he in

dica

ted

year

s:

no.

year

act

ivit

y an

d/or

pro

duct

ion

yes

no

Tota

l pr

oduc

tion

obta

ined

uni

t1Pric

e pe

r un

it2

Qua

ntit

y of

pro

duct

ion

you

sold

Tota

l Inc

ome

num

ber

of u

nits

3

120

##

vege

tabl

es1

0

frui

ts1

0

orn

amen

tal

10

cat

tle1

0

shee

p1

0

goa

ts1

0

Milk

10

pig

s1

0

pou

ltry

10

bee

s (h

ives

)1

0

bee

s (h

oney

)1

0

Woo

d pr

oduc

ts1

0

oth

er

10

220

##

vege

tabl

es1

0

frui

ts1

0

orn

amen

tal

10

cat

tle1

0

shee

p1

0

goa

ts1

0

Milk

10

pig

s1

0

pou

ltry

10

bee

s (h

ives

)1

0

bee

s (h

oney

)1

0

Woo

d pr

oduc

ts1

0

oth

er

10

1/n

ote

the

prod

uctio

n ob

tain

ed u

sing

the

units

of m

easu

rem

ent a

ccor

ding

to th

e u

nits

of M

easu

rem

ent t

able

pro

vide

d.

2/ r

ecor

d th

e nu

mbe

r of

uni

ts in

Kg.

, lite

rs, m

eter

s, e

tc.,

as a

pplic

able

.3/

ref

ers

to th

e pr

ice

of a

uni

t in

the

loca

l mar

ket:

insi

st o

n ob

tain

ing

the

pric

e of

eac

h un

it ev

en th

ough

the

prod

uctio

n ha

s no

t bee

n so

ld a

nd th

e pr

oduc

t has

bee

n co

nsum

ed in

the

hom

e.

59Evaluation

vIII.

no

n-a

Gr

ICu

lTu

ral

aCT

IvIT

IES

an

D In

CoM

E M

oD

ulE

53. D

urin

g th

e ye

ars

20##

and

20#

# d

id y

ou e

ngag

e in

any

typ

e of

act

ivit

y ot

her

than

agr

icul

ture

on

your

ow

n ac

coun

t or

as

your

ow

n bu

sine

ss?

yes:

1n

o: 0

if no

, go

to q

uest

ion

55

54.

If

yes,

ple

ase

prov

ide

the

requ

este

d in

form

atio

n, a

ccor

ding

to

the

corr

espo

ndin

g ye

ar:

no.

ye

arD

escr

iptio

nCi

rcle

the

ans

wer

Est

imat

ed a

nnua

l net

1

inco

me

per

activ

ity

yes

no

120

##

cra

fts

10

trad

e: m

echa

nic,

car

pent

er, m

ason

, plu

mbe

r, ch

auffe

ur, e

tc.

10

gro

cery

sto

re1

0

oth

er t

ype

of b

usin

ess

10

sale

of c

onst

ruct

ion

mat

eria

ls1

0

oth

ers

(spe

cify

):1

0

220

##

cra

fts

10

trad

e: m

echa

nic,

car

pent

er, m

ason

, plu

mbe

r, ch

auffe

ur, e

tc.

10

gro

cery

sto

re1

0

oth

er t

ype

of b

usin

ess

10

sale

of c

onst

ruct

ion

mat

eria

ls1

0

oth

ers

(spe

cify

):1

0

not

e:1/

insi

st o

n ob

tain

ing

the

net i

ncom

e; th

at is

gro

ss in

com

e le

ss c

osts

.


60

55. D

urin

g th

e ye

ars

20##

and

20#

#, d

id t

he m

embe

rs o

f th

is h

ouse

hold

rec

eive

com

plem

enta

ry in

com

e fo

r an

y of

the

fol

low

ing

conc

epts

? Pro

vide

the

in

form

atio

n ac

cord

ing

to t

he c

orre

spon

ding

yea

r:

no.

year

Prim

ary

activ

ity

Circ

le t

he a

nsw

erQ

uant

ity

rece

ived

pe

r m

onth

($)

Mon

ths

of t

he

year

tha

t yo

u re

ceiv

e it

ann

ual i

ncom

eye

sn

o

120

##

ret

irem

ent p

ensi

on

10

Dis

abili

ty o

r su

rviv

or p

ensi

on

10

ren

t of h

ouse

s or

land

for

com

mer

cial

use

10

ban

k in

tere

st1

0

scho

lars

hips

for

the

child

ren

10

cas

h ai

d fo

r pr

eser

ving

the

envi

ronm

ent a

nd th

e na

tura

l re

sour

ces

10

oth

ers

(spe

cify

):1

0

220

##

ret

irem

ent p

ensi

on

10

Dis

abili

ty o

r su

rviv

or p

ensi

on

10

ren

t of h

ouse

s or

land

for

com

mer

cial

use

10

ban

k in

tere

st1

0

scho

lars

hips

for

the

child

ren

10

cas

h ai

d fo

r pr

eser

ving

the

envi

ronm

ent a

nd th

e na

tura

l re

sour

ces

10

oth

ers

(spe

cify

):1

0

61Evaluation

56. D

urin

g th

e ye

ars

20##

and

20#

#, d

id a

ny m

embe

r of

the

hou

seho

ld c

ontr

ibut

e in

com

e fr

om a

ctiv

ities

out

side

of

the

fam

ily f

arm

?

no.

year

rel

atio

nshi

p1fi

rst

Job

Sec

ond

Job

Tota

l in

com

e ob

tain

ed

durin

g th

e ye

arC

ode

Job

that

you

di

d2

How

man

y m

onth

s di

d yo

u w

ork?

Wha

t w

ere

your

net

ea

rnin

gs p

er

mon

th?

How

muc

h di

d yo

u co

ntrib

ute

to t

he

hous

ehol

d3?

Job

that

you

di

d2

How

m

any

mon

ths

did

you

wor

k?

Wha

t w

ere

your

net

ea

rnin

gs p

er

mon

th?

How

muc

h di

d yo

u co

ntrib

ute

to t

he

hous

ehol

d3?

120

##

220

##

not

es:

1/ r

ecor

d th

e co

de a

ccor

ding

to th

e co

rres

pond

ing

tabl

e pr

ovid

ed.

2/ r

ecor

d th

e co

de a

ccor

ding

to th

e co

rres

pond

ing

tabl

e pr

ovid

ed.

3/ r

efer

s to

the

net i

ncom

e th

at th

e m

embe

r of

the

hous

ehol

d gi

ves

to th

e fa

mily

. rec

ord

the

net i

ncom

e in

pes

os.


62

IX. D

ur

ablE

Go

oD

S M

oD

ulE

57. In

you

r ho

useh

old

do y

ou h

ave

any

of t

he f

ollo

win

g do

mes

tic a

pplia

nces

? Pl

ease

indi

cate

for

the

cor

resp

ondi

ng y

ear.

no.

Des

crip

tion

20##

20##

yes

no

yes

no

1g

as s

tove

10

10

2r

efrig

erat

or1

01

0

3te

levi

sion

10

10

4r

adio

or

tape

pla

yer

10

10

5El

ectr

ic ir

on1

01

0

6W

ashi

ng m

achi

ne

10

10

7b

lend

er1

01

0

8vi

deo

play

er1

01

0

9r

ecor

d pl

ayer

or

com

pact

dis

k eq

uipm

ent

10

10

10D

vD1

01

0

11c

ompu

ter

10

10

12o

ther

(spe

cify

):1

01

0

63Evaluation

58.

Wha

t is

the

est

imat

ed v

alue

in t

he m

arke

t of

the

mac

hine

ry, eq

uipm

ent

and

tool

s th

at y

ou o

wn?

Pro

vide

the

info

rmat

ion

for

the

indi

cate

d ye

ar:

no.

Des

crip

tion

20##

20##

yes

no

num

ber

of

unit

s1

Est

imat

ed

valu

e in

the

cu

rren

t st

ate

at 2

0##

pr

ices

2

yes

no

num

ber

of

unit

s1

Est

imat

ed

valu

e in

the

cu

rren

t st

ate

at c

urre

nt

pric

es2

1tr

acto

r1

01

0

2H

arve

ster

or

com

bine

10

10

3Eq

uipm

ent f

or s

pray

ing

agro

-che

mic

als

10

10

4El

ectr

ical

inst

alla

tions

for

agric

ultu

ral o

r liv

esto

ck p

rodu

ctio

n ac

tiviti

es1

01

0

5in

stal

latio

n of

wat

er fo

r th

e ag

ricul

tura

l or

lives

tock

pro

duct

ion

activ

ities

10

10

6th

resh

er1

01

0

7p

loug

hs1

01

0

8r

ake

10

10

9g

rade

r1

01

0

10se

eder

10

10

11H

arve

ster

10

10

12b

aler

(to

mak

e ba

les)

10

10

13M

ill1

01

0

14M

ilkin

g m

achi

ne1

01

0

15fe

ed m

ixer

1

01

0

16ve

hicl

es (a

utom

obile

, tru

ck, m

otor

cycl

e, b

icyc

le, e

tc.)

10

10

17to

ols

(hoe

s, s

cyth

es, s

hove

ls, e

tc.)

10

10

not

es:

1/ if

co-

owne

r, re

cord

the

prop

ortio

nal p

art c

orre

spon

ding

to h

im/h

er.

2/ i

nsis

t on

obta

inin

g th

e va

lue

for

the

mac

hine

ry a

nd e

quip

men

t.


64

X. H

ou

SIn

G C

Har

aCTE

rIS

TIC

S M

oD

ulE

59. In

the

yea

rs 2

0##

and

20#

#, t

he h

ouse

whe

re y

ou a

nd y

our

fam

ily li

ve o

r ha

ve li

ved

is:

no.

Des

crip

tion

20##

20##

yes

no

yes

no

1yo

ur o

wn

and

fully

pai

d1

01

0

2yo

ur o

wn

and

still

bei

ng p

aid

for

10

10

3r

ente

d or

leas

ed1

01

0

4lo

aned

10

10

5o

ther

(spe

cify

):1

01

0

60.

In

the

year

s 20

## a

nd 2

0##,

wha

t m

ater

ials

wer

e th

e flo

or, th

e ro

of a

nd t

he w

alls

of

your

hou

se p

rimar

ily m

ade

of?

Plea

se p

rovi

de t

he in

form

atio

n ac

cord

ing

to t

he in

dica

ted

year

.

no.

Des

crip

tion

20##

20##

Cod

e1C

ode1

1fl

oor

2r

oof

3W

alls

not

e:1/

not

e th

e co

de a

ccor

ding

to th

e m

ater

ials

tabl

e pr

ovid

ed.

65Evaluation

61. In

you

r ho

use

do y

ou h

ave?

no.

Des

crip

tion

20##

20##

yes

no

yes

no

1El

ectr

icity

10

10

2te

leph

one

10

10

3in

tern

et1

01

0

4r

unni

ng w

ater

10

10

5sh

ower

10

10

6p

lum

bing

10

10

7to

ilet

10

10

8la

trin

e1

01

0

9se

ptic

tank

10

10

10o

ther

(spe

cify

):1

01

0

62. In

the

yea

rs 2

0##

and

20#

# in

the

pla

ce w

here

you

live

was

the

re:

no.

Des

crip

tion

20##

20##

If n

o, in

20#

#, h

ow m

any

kilo

met

ers

was

the

clo

sest

on

e?ye

sn

oye

sn

o

1p

resc

hool

1

01

0

2El

emen

tary

sch

ool

10

10

3se

cond

ary

or s

econ

dary

thro

ugh

sate

llite

sch

ool

10

10

4H

igh

scho

ol1

01

0

5H

ealth

ser

vice

s1

01

0

6H

ealth

pro

mot

er o

r le

ader

of t

he c

omm

unity

10

10

7lo

ng d

ista

nce

tele

phon

e.1

01

0

8o

ther

s (s

peci

fy):

10

10


66

XI. Cr

EDIT

Mo

Du

lE

63.

In

the

year

s 20

## a

nd 2

0##,

did

you

obt

ain

loan

s in

divi

dual

ly f

or y

our

prod

uctio

n ac

tiviti

es?

If y

es, in

dica

te t

he a

mou

nt a

ccor

ding

to

the

year

and

typ

e of

lo

an, be

ginn

ing

with

the

mos

t re

cent

:

Type

of

loan

Sou

rce

of t

he lo

an

year

20##

20##

loan

am

ount

($)

loan

am

ount

($)

fixe

d as

sets

(to

pay

in

mor

e th

an o

ne y

ear)

1. l

oan

gran

ted

by th

e r

ural

ban

k of

the

gov

ernm

ent

2. f

unds

of t

he g

over

nmen

t thr

ough

a p

rivat

e ba

nk

3. l

oan

gran

ted

by a

com

mer

cial

ban

k

4. l

oan

gran

ted

by th

e fe

dera

l gov

ernm

ent

5. l

oan

gran

ted

by th

e st

ate

gove

rnm

ent

6. l

oan

gran

ted

by th

e m

unic

ipal

gov

ernm

ent

7. s

avin

gs b

ank

or c

redi

t uni

on

8. l

oan

from

pro

duce

rs u

nion

9. l

oan

gran

ted

by th

e pr

ovid

er

10. l

oan

gran

ted

by a

priv

ate

lend

er

11. l

oan

mad

e by

a fa

mily

mem

ber

12. o

ther

: (fr

iend

s, e

tc.)

67Evaluation

63.

Con

tinua

tion.

. .

Type

of

loan

Sou

rce

of lo

an

year

20##

20##

loan

am

ount

($)

loan

am

ount

($)

Wor

king

cap

ital

(to

pay

in

less

tha

n on

e ye

ar)

1. l

oan

gran

ted

by th

e r

ural

ban

k of

the

gov

ernm

ent

2. g

over

nmen

t fun

ds th

roug

h a

priv

ate

bank

3. l

oan

gran

ted

by a

com

mer

cial

ban

k

4. l

oan

gran

ted

by th

e fe

dera

l gov

ernm

ent

5. l

oan

gran

ted

by th

e st

ate

gove

rnm

ent

6. l

oan

gran

ted

by th

e m

unic

ipal

gov

ernm

ent

7. s

avin

gs b

ank

or c

redi

t uni

on

8. l

oan

from

pro

duce

rs o

rgan

izat

ion

9. l

oan

gran

ted

by th

e pr

ovid

er

10. l

oan

gran

ted

by a

priv

ate

lend

er

11. l

oan

give

n by

a fa

mily

mem

ber

12. o

ther

(frie

nds,

etc

.)

64.

reg

ardi

ng y

our

loan

exp

erie

nce,

hav

e yo

u ha

d an

y re

stric

tion

by t

he b

ank

on a

cces

s to

cre

dit

in t

he y

ears

20#

# a

nd 2

0##?

no.

Des

crip

tion

20##

20##

yes

no

yes

no

1th

e in

tere

st r

ate

they

cha

rged

was

abo

ve th

e m

arke

t rat

e11

01

0

2th

e am

ount

gra

nted

was

less

than

wha

t was

req

uest

ed1

01

0

3th

ey d

id n

ot d

eliv

er th

e ag

reed

am

ount

s on

the

agre

ed d

ates

10

10

4it

was

del

iver

ed a

fter

the

time

it w

as n

eede

d 1

01

0

5H

is/h

er c

olla

tera

l was

insu

ffic

ient

to o

btai

n th

e am

ount

req

uest

ed1

01

0

6o

ther

(spe

cify

):1

01

0

not

e:1/

con

side

r th

e in

tere

st r

ate

char

ged

by th

e ba

nk a

s th

e m

arke

t rat

e.


68

XII.

Go

vEr

nM

EnTa

l aI

D M

oD

ulE

65. In

the

yea

rs 2

0##

and

20#

# d

id y

ou r

ecei

ve a

ny o

f th

e fo

llow

ing

aid?

no.

Des

crip

tion

20##

20##

Circ

le t

he a

nsw

er a

s ap

plic

able

Est

imat

ed a

mou

nt

of a

id f

or t

he y

ear

($)

Circ

le t

he a

nsw

er a

s ap

plic

able

Est

imat

ed a

mou

nt

of a

id f

or t

he y

ear

($)

yes

no

yes

no

1a

id b

y di

rect

tran

sfer

s to

the

agric

ultu

ral p

rodu

cers

10

10

2a

id fo

r m

arke

ting

10

10

3a

id fr

om th

e M

inis

try

of a

gric

ultu

re1

01

0

4a

id fr

om th

e n

atio

nal W

ater

com

mis

sion

10

10

5a

id fr

om th

e H

uman

Dev

elop

men

t pro

gram

10

10

6a

id fr

om th

e fu

nd fo

r sm

all b

usin

esse

s1

01

0

7M

ilk s

ubsi

dize

d by

the

gove

rnm

ent

10

10

8sc

hool

bre

akfa

st1

01

0

9g

roce

ries

from

the

pro

gram

for

chi

ldho

od D

evel

opm

ent

10

10

10p

rogr

ams

for

the

deve

lopm

ent o

f ind

igen

ous

peop

le1

01

0

11p

rogr

ams

of th

e st

ate

gove

rnm

ent

10

10

12a

id p

rogr

ams

of th

e m

unic

ipal

gov

ernm

ent

10

10

13a

id p

rogr

am fo

r w

omen

1

01

0

14te

mpo

rary

em

ploy

men

t pro

gram

s1

01

0

15a

id th

roug

h di

rect

tran

sfer

s to

agr

icul

tura

l pro

duce

rs1

01

0

16o

ther

(spe

cify

):1

01

0

69Evaluation

XIII.

SPE

CIfI

C M

oD

ulE

on

TH

E l

IvES

ToCK

GEn

ETI

C IM

Pro

vEM

EnT

Pro

Gr

aM

66. H

ave

you

hear

d of

the

liv

esto

ck G

enet

ic I

mpr

ovem

ent

Pro

gram

?

yes:

1n

o: 0

if no

, go

to q

uest

ion

74

67. If

yes

, do

you

kno

w t

he t

ypes

of

aid

that

the

liv

esto

ck G

enet

ic I

mpr

ovem

ent

Pro

gram

off

ers?

yes:

1n

o: 0

68.

In

wha

t ye

ars

have

you

rec

eive

d ai

d fr

om t

he l

ives

tock

Gen

etic

Im

prov

emen

t Pro

gram

?

20##

20##

20##

20##

20##

20##

20##

20##

20##

yes

no

yes

no

yes

no

yes

no

yes

no

yes

no

yes

no

yes

no

yes

no

10

10

10

10

10

10

10

10

10

10

10

10

10

10

10

10

10

10

10

10

10

10

10

10

10

10

10

10

10

10

10

10

10

10

10

10

10

10

10

10

10

10

10

10

10


70

69. If

you

hav

e he

ard

of t

he l

ives

tock

Gen

etic

Im

prov

emen

t Pro

gram

and

hav

e ne

ver

bene

fited

fro

m it

, in

dica

te t

he m

ost

impo

rtan

t re

ason

.

no.

Des

crip

tion

Circ

le

1la

ck o

f res

ourc

es to

mak

e hi

s/he

r co

ntrib

utio

n1

2D

oes

not h

ave

conf

iden

ce in

the

pro

gram

2

3th

e au

thor

ities

of t

he c

omm

unity

do

not s

uppo

rt h

im/h

er in

the

proc

essi

ng3

4le

arne

d of

the

pro

gram

too

late

4

5H

as o

bser

ved

that

thos

e w

ho h

ave

part

icip

ated

do

not o

btai

n be

nefit

s5

6th

e p

rogr

am d

oes

not o

ffer

the

aid

that

he/

she

need

s6

7b

ecau

se h

e/sh

e co

nsid

ers

that

ther

e is

favo

ritis

m in

gra

ntin

g th

e ai

d7

8H

e/sh

e ha

s ap

plie

d an

d ha

s ne

ver

rece

ived

aid

8

9o

ther

(spe

cify

):9

70. b

etw

een

the

year

s 20

## a

nd 2

0##

hav

e yo

u pa

rtic

ipat

ed in

any

of

the

sani

tary

cam

paig

ns p

rom

oted

by

the

Min

istr

y of

agr

icul

ture

?

no.

Cam

paig

n20

##20

##20

##20

##

1b

ovin

e tu

berc

ulos

is1

01

01

01

0

2c

lass

ic s

win

e fe

ver

10

10

10

10

3c

offe

e be

rry

bore

r1

01

01

01

0

4fr

uit f

ly1

01

01

01

0

5c

itrus

tris

teza

viru

s1

01

01

01

0

not

e:1/

ref

ers

to a

ctiv

ities

of p

reve

ntio

n an

d co

ntro

l of p

ests

and

dis

ease

s. E

xam

ples

: par

ticip

ate

in p

laci

ng in

sect

trap

s, in

form

the

auth

oriti

es if

he/

she

dete

cts

the

pres

ence

of a

ny p

est o

r di

seas

e,

and

part

icip

ate

in th

e de

stru

ctio

n of

infe

cted

pla

nts,

am

ong

othe

rs.

71Evaluation

XIv.

TEC

Hn

ICal

aSS

ISTa

nCE

/ E

XTEn

SIo

n M

oD

ulE

74. In

the

yea

rs b

etw

een

20##

and

20#

# d

id y

ou r

ecei

ve a

ny t

echn

ical

ass

ista

nce?

yes:

1n

o: 0

if no

, go

to q

uest

ion

77

75. If

you

rec

eive

d te

chni

cal a

ssis

tanc

e be

twee

n 20

## a

nd 2

0##,

ple

ase

indi

cate

who

pro

vide

d it

and

how

muc

h it

cost

you

:

no.

Pro

vide

r of

the

ser

vice

20##

20##

20##

20##

yes

no

ann

ual c

ost

yes

no

ann

ual c

ost

yes

no

ann

ual c

ost

yes

no

ann

ual c

ost

1te

chni

cian

pai

d by

the

gove

rnm

ent

10

10

10

10

2in

depe

nden

t pro

fess

iona

l1

01

01

01

0

3p

rovi

der

10

10

10

10

4n

on-g

over

nmen

tal o

rgan

izat

ion

10

10

10

10

5b

uyer

s1

01

01

01

0

6o

ther

s: s

peci

fy1

01

01

01

0 76

. If

you

rec

eive

d te

chni

cal a

ssis

tanc

e, in

divi

dual

or

grou

p, p

leas

e pr

ovid

e th

e fo

llow

ing

info

rmat

ion:

year

Con

tinue

s ap

plyi

ng w

hat

he/s

he le

arne

d or

was

rec

omm

ende

d w

ith t

he

tech

nica

l ass

ista

nce

he/s

he r

ecei

ved

in:

Incr

ease

d hi

s/he

r in

com

e, w

heth

er f

rom

incr

ease

s in

pro

duct

ion

or in

yi

elds

, as

a r

esul

t of

the

tec

hnic

al a

ssis

tanc

e he

/she

rec

eive

d

yes

no

yes

no

20##

10

10

20##

10

10

20##

10

10

20##

10

10


72

Xv. Pa

rTI

CIPa

TIo

n In

or

Gan

IZaT

Ion

S M

oD

ulE

77. H

ave

you

ever

par

ticip

ated

in a

ny o

rgan

izat

ion

that

sup

port

s ag

ricul

tura

l act

iviti

es?

yes:

1n

o: 0

if yo

u ha

ve n

ot p

artic

ipat

ed g

o to

que

stio

n 81

78. If

yes

, pr

ovid

e th

e in

form

atio

n in

the

fol

low

ing

tabl

e:

no.

year

in

whi

ch

it w

as

foun

ded

Was

it o

r is

it le

gally

in

corp

orat

ed?

In w

hat

year

di

d yo

u fir

st

beco

me

a m

embe

r?

In w

hat

year

did

you

ce

ase

to b

e a

mem

ber?

Indi

cate

the

ben

efit

s yo

u ob

tain

or

obta

ined

fro

m b

elon

ging

to

this

org

aniz

atio

n

bet

ter

pric

es

for

inpu

ts

bet

ter

pric

es

for

sale

of

prod

ucts

Mor

e m

arke

t in

form

atio

nTe

chni

cal

assi

stan

ceacc

ess

to

infr

astr

uctu

reo

ther

yes

no

11

01

01

01

01

01

01

0

21

01

01

01

01

01

01

0

31

01

01

01

01

01

01

0

41

01

01

01

01

01

01

0

73Evaluation

79. In

ord

er t

o m

anag

e an

d re

ceiv

e th

e ai

d th

at t

he g

over

nmen

t pr

ogra

ms

gran

ted

in 2

0##

did

you

hav

e th

e he

lp o

f an

y or

gani

zatio

n(s)

? If

so,

indi

cate

wha

t ty

pe o

f or

gani

zatio

n he

lped

you

.

no.

Des

crip

tion

20#

#

yes

no

1Ej

idos

uni

on1

0

2so

cial

sol

idar

ity a

ssoc

iatio

n1

0

3r

ural

pro

duct

ion

ass

ocia

tion

10

4in

dust

rial a

gric

ultu

ral u

nion

of W

omen

far

mer

s1

0

5st

ock

cor

pora

tion

10

6n

on-p

rofit

org

aniz

atio

n1

0

7c

oope

rativ

e1

0

8in

form

al o

rgan

izat

ion

10

9o

ther

(spe

cify

)1

0

10D

oes

not k

now

or

did

not r

espo

nd1

0

80. I

f ye

s, w

hat

aid

did

you

rece

ive

from

the

liv

esto

ck G

enet

ic Im

prov

emen

t Pr

ogra

m f

or s

tren

gthe

ning

the

org

aniz

atio

n an

d w

hat

addi

tiona

l aid

do

you

requ

ire?

no.

Type

of

aid

Circ

le t

he c

orre

spon

ding

res

pons

e

rec

eive

dr

equi

res

yes

no

yes

no

1a

id to

form

ally

inco

rpor

ate

the

orga

niza

tion

10

10

2a

id to

dra

ft in

tern

al r

egul

atio

ns, o

rgan

izat

iona

l cha

rt, o

rgan

izat

iona

l str

uctu

re1

01

0

3tr

aini

ng fo

r in

tern

al o

rgan

izat

ion

and

man

agem

ent

10

10

4fi

nanc

ing

for

infr

astr

uctu

re a

nd e

quip

men

t1

01

0

5fi

nanc

ing

for

econ

omic

act

iviti

es1

01

0

6p

repa

ratio

n of

pro

ject

s1

01

0

7tr

aini

ng to

par

ticip

ate

in th

e m

anag

emen

t of l

ocal

dev

elop

men

t1

01

0

8tr

aini

ng fo

r pr

oduc

tion

10

10

9o

ther

(spe

cify

):1

01

0


74

XvI.

Po

lITI

Cal

PrES

Sur

E M

oD

ulE

81. To

hav

e ac

cess

to

the

aid

gran

ted

by t

he l

ives

tock

Gen

etic

Im

prov

emen

t Pro

gram

dur

ing

20##

, di

d an

y of

the

fol

low

ing

situ

atio

ns e

xist

or

occu

r?

no.

Des

crip

tion

Circ

le t

he

resp

onse

yes

no

1yo

u ha

d to

join

a p

oliti

cal o

rgan

izat

ion

activ

e in

the

com

mun

ity

10

2a

rep

rese

ntat

ive

or m

embe

r of

a p

oliti

cal o

rgan

izat

ion

offe

red

you

aid

unde

r ce

rtai

n co

nditi

ons

10

3a

lead

er o

r m

embe

r of

a p

oliti

cal p

arty

pro

pose

d th

at y

ou v

ote

for

a pa

rtic

ular

par

ty

10

4a

mun

icip

al e

mpl

oyee

insi

sted

on

offe

ring

you

aid

in e

xcha

nge

for

you

help

ing

the

auth

oriti

es1

0

5a

sta

te e

mpl

oyee

insi

sted

on

offe

ring

you

aid

in e

xcha

nge

for

you

help

ing

the

auth

oriti

es1

0

6c

ondi

tioni

ng th

e ai

d of

the

gove

rnm

ent p

rogr

ams

on y

ou b

elon

ging

to th

e or

gani

zatio

n in

whi

ch h

e/sh

e pa

rtic

ipat

es1

0

7in

the

com

mun

ity w

here

you

live

the

auth

oriti

es r

equi

re s

ome

kind

of s

ervi

ce in

ord

er to

be

able

to p

artic

ipat

e in

the

gove

rnm

ent p

rogr

ams

10

8yo

u w

ere

aske

d to

par

ticip

ate

in s

ome

mee

ting

or e

vent

org

aniz

ed b

y a

part

y or

pol

itica

l org

aniz

atio

n1

0

9o

ther

(spe

cify

):1

0

82. Th

e Pro

gram

was

not

ava

ilabl

e in

the

com

mun

ity

you

live

in d

ue t

o th

e fa

ct t

hat

the

mun

icip

al g

over

nmen

t an

d th

e st

ate

gove

rnm

ent

are

not

run

by t

he

sam

e po

litic

al p

arty

?

yes:

1n

o: 0

En

D o

f i

nt

Er

viE

W

75Evaluation


76

Documents

Results-based public management · 2017-11-28 · i Evaluation United nations Food and agRicUltURe oRganization S a n t i a g o , 2 0 1 4 Results-based public management tools for