Upper Mandrare Basin Development Project

(Southern Madagascar)

Madagascar Country Programme Case Study - October 2007

Director: Benoît Thierry, IFAD Country Programme ManagerEditor: Sylvie Leguevel, Institut Superieur Technique d’Outre Mer, France

Impact on Upper Mandrare Basin population livelihoods –

Comparisons with coastal communes in Amboasary District

www.phbm.mg

2

General mapUpper Mandrare Basin – Amboasary District

3

Access to social services Improved access to water (36 water points constructed

by PHBM partners)

Households with access to drinking water (%)

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

2002 2003 2004 2005 2006

%

4

Access to social services Improved health services

• 9 communes provided with a basic health centre• Community health activities with promising

results: Contraception rate: 27% + First prenatal consultation: 70% + 60% of young people made aware about

sexually transmitted diseases

5

Access to social services Education and literacy training

An increased rate of primary school attendance

6,636 adults now able to read and write

Rate of primary school attendance

34.3

51.3 47.743.7

47.651.6

88.1

78.3

62.369.2

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

2002 2003 2004 2005 2006

Taux net

Taux brutb

6

Revitalized rice production Increased areas: from 1,061 ha in 1996 to 5,230 ha in

2007 (x 4.9) Rising yields

Production of 22,000 t in 2005

Rice yields (t/ha)

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

3

3.5

4

2002 2003 2004 2005 2006

t/H

a

7

More profitable crops Rice: price per kg increased 4- and even 6-fold

(from 167 to 660 and even 1,000 MGA/kg) Other crops:

0

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

2002 2003 2004 2005 2006

Manioc Patate Maïs Arachide Légumineuses

8

Increased incomes …

Evolution des revenus, dépenses et épargne

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

2002 2003 2004 2005 2006

Mon

tant

en

mill

ier

d'Ar

iary

0

20

40

60

80

100

% d

es m

énag

es p

ouva

nt

épar

gner

Revenu par habitant Dépenses par habitant Ménages pouvant épargner (%)

9

… especially for the poorest! In 2002, type-1 inhabitants were those with neither land nor cattle

Type 2: small farms (areas under 30 ares – less than 6 head of cattle)

Type 3: medium-sized farms

Type 4: large farms

Type 5: very large farms (areas over 30 ares – more than 50 head of cattle)

Variation du revenu par tête entre 2002 et 2005

177,4159,2

122,2 123,7

58,8

020406080

100120140160180200

Type 1 Type 2 Type 3 Type 4 Type 5

%

10

A satisfactory cash potential

11

Food security Increase in quantities consumed

Proportion de ménages suivant la quantité de riz consommée hors période de soudure

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

2002 2003 2004 2005 2006

> 3 kg

1,5 - 3 kg

0,5 - 1,5 kg

0 - 0,5 kg

Proportion de ménages suivant la quantité de maïs consommée hors période de soudure

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

2002 2003 2004 2005 2006

> 3 kg

1,5 - 3 kg

0,5 - 1,5 kg

0 - 0,5 kg

12

Food security Diversification in diet

Consommation de viande hors période de soudure

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

2002 2003 2004 2005 2006

plus de 8 fois/mois

1 à 7 fois/mois

jamais

Consommation de poisson hors soudure

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

2002 2003 2004 2005 2006

plus de 8 fois/mois

1 à 7 fois/mois

jamais

Consommation de légumes secs hors soudure

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

2002 2003 2004 2005 2006

plus de 8 fois/mois

1 à 7 fois/mois

jamais

Consommation de lait hors période de soudure

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

2002 2003 2004 2005 2006

plus de 8 fois/mois

1 à 7 fois/mois

jamais

13

Food security Improvement in food coverage in rice since 2003 40% of households have cassava for up to 6

months

Couverture alimentaire en riz

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

2002 2003 2004 2005 2006

0 mois

0 à 3 mois

3 à 6 mois

6 à 9 mois

> 9 mois

Couverture alimentaire en manioc

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

2002 2003 2004 2005 2006

0 mois

0 à 3 mois

3 à 6 mois

6 à 9 mois

> 9 mois

14

Food security Food potential in months of consumption

15

Structural vulnerability