Food Security
Organisation

Date

Reporting Period

Embassy of the Kingdom of the Netherlands, Bujumbura (Burundi)

Activity

2014

2014

Implemented by

Rio marker

Gender marker

Number

Name

Actual expenditure

Name Organisation

channel

mitigation/adaptation

significant/principal

significant/principal

25157

Energy supply study

3,510,000

Regideso

Government

Mitigation

Principal

Not applicable

25233

Contribution to fertiliser subsidy

5,000,000

Agriculture Ministry

Government

Not applicable

...

Significant

25672

Locally sourced school feeding

1,766,400

WFP

Multilateral organization

Not applicable

...

Not applicable

25799

Land registration Makamba

938,870

ZOA

NGO

Not applicable

...

Significant

24720
KIG regional

Catalist

for Burundi:

IFDC

NGO

Not applicable

...

Not applicable

Activity

2014

Implemented by

Rio marker

Gender marker

Number

Name

Actual expenditure

Name Organisation

channel

mitigation/adaptation

significant/principal

significant/principal

20415

Land registration

348,250

Swiss Development
Cooperation SDC

...

Not applicable

...

Significant

20900

FORCE Microfinance

551,854

Finance Ministry

Government

Not applicable

...

Not applicable

24122

FARN Nutrition

463,982

GVC

NGO

Not applicable

...

Not applicable

24712

Enquete Agricole Nationale

308,725

BTC

...

Not applicable

...

Not applicable

24759

Fertiliser subsidy support project

1,254,031

IFDC

NGO

Adaptation

Significant

Significant

25030

Mtabila Refugee integration

192,000

UNDP

Multilateral organization

Not applicable

...

Significant

26412

integrated seed sector devloment

639,852

IFDC

NGO

Adaptation

Significant

Significant

25452

MAVC

600.000

ICCO-Terrafina

NGO

Adaptation

Significant

Significant

25927

ABIN

300.000

SPARK-BBIN

NGO

Adaptation

Significant

Significant

...

...

...

...

...

...

...

...

...

...

...

...

...

...

...

...

...

...

...

...

...

...

...

...

...

...

...

...

...

...

...

...

...

...

...

...

...

...

...

...

...

...

...

...

...

...

...

...

Result Area 1
Result Question 1.1a: How large has the increase in food production been?

Increase in sustainable food production

3URGXFWLRQLQKDVSURJUHVVHGRQWKHQDWLRQDOOHYHO7KLVLVUHIOHFWHGLQWKHLQFUHDVHRIHTXLYDOHQWFHUHDOPHDVXUHGE\
(1$%ZKLFKURVHIURPWRFHUHDOHTXLYDOHQWPHWULFWRQQHV7KHPRVWLPSRUWDQWLQFUHDVHLVLQWKHULFHDQG
PDL]HSURGXFWLRQZLWKDUHVSHFWLYHO\DQGLQFUHDVH1HYHUWKHOHVVWKHQXPEHURIPRQWKVZLWKVDWLVIDFWRU\IRRG
DYDLODELOLW\LVVWLOOYHU\ORZ)RRGVKRUWDJHVDWQDWLRQDOOHYHODUHHVWLPDWHGWRUHPDLQDURXQG,WVKRXOGEHQRWHGWKDWWKH
QDWLRQDODJULFXOWXUDOVWDWLVWLFVDUHRIORZTXDOLW\


Baseline

Target 2017

Result 2012

Result 2013

Result 2014

Source

Indicator 1: Production in metric tons cereal equivalents, country

1,700,000

1,910,000

1,700,000

1,700,000

1,836,682

ENAB

Indicator 2: number of farmers with increased production, country

0

600,000

0

0

157,500

IFDC - PANPNSEB project report

Indicator 3: Production in metric tons cereal equivalents, focus area

290,000

351,000

290,000

290,000

Indicator 4: number of farmers with increased production, focus area

0

120,000

0

0

Result Question 1.1b: To what extent has your programme contributed to
these results? Which outputs and (intermediary) outcomes were achieved?

The fertilizer subsidy program PNSEB funded by EKN has contributed to the overall increase. Well over 250,000 farmers benefited from the subsidy fertilizer
program and at least 63% of the beneficiaries experienced a net increase in their production. Farmers and cooperatives highlight the benefits of this fertilizers
subsidy, but exact quantities are not known. The estimation is a general increase of 15%, but this is particularly true for regions that also received good rains. The
percentage attributed directly to the application of fertilizer is difficult to measure. Other activities contributing directly to agricultural production started the second
half of 2014.

WREH
PHDVXUHGEXW
DERYH
WREHPHDVXUHG

ENAB+ PAN PNSEB

Nl funded project reports

It should be noted that Burundi has two major cropping seasons (A and B) per year. The most predominant is the B. For 2014 Season B saw the insidious early
stop of the rains. A recurring phenomenon which is becoming one of the most visible and disturbing issues in production as a consequence of climate change.
Fortunately, the good performance of the season A have shown the positive effects of the fertilizer program and could limit the catastrophe expected as a result of
the dramatic drop in production recorded in season B.

Indicator 1: percentage of farmers at national level benefiting from the
new national fertiliser subsidy program funded by the NL embassy
multiplied by production increase as measured by indicator 1.1a - 1, for
country (tons)
Indicator 2: percentage of farmers at national level benefiting from the
new national fertiliser subsidy program funded by the NL embassy
multiplied by number of farmers as measured by indicator 1.1a - 2, for
country
Indicator 3: percentage of aid to agricultural sector projects provided by
the NL embassy multiplied by production increase as measured by
indicator 1.1a - 3, for focus area (3 provinces) (tons)

Indicator 4: percentage of aid to agricultural sector projects provided by
the NL embassy multiplied by number of farmers as measured by
indicator 1.1a - 4, for focus area (3 provinces)

Before the start of theTarget
program
we recordedResult
less than
60,000 producers
subsidized
out of a total of 1,500,000 farming families. This
Baseline
2017
2012
Result who
2013accessedResult
2014 fertilizers Source
shortage was due to the development of a parallel market created by agents of the Ministry. The consequence was the withdrawal of the private sector in the
import. For now all parties unanimously agree on the benefits of the introduction of a well-controlled subsidy program despite the resistance before its start.
0
100,000
0
0
22.000
ENAB + project reports

0

200,000

0

0

25.000

IFDC - PANPNSEB project report

0

20,000

0

0

ND

ENAB + project reports

0

40,000

0

0

ND

Project reports

Result Area 1
Result Question 1.2a: How has the use of land, water, energy and labour
developed?

Increase in sustainable food production
Burundi has the most degraded soils in Africa according to a recent study conducted in the framework of a project under NL funding. Faced with this situation
agriculture is becoming a default economic activity and men and to a lesser extent women tend to abandon farming.
Corrective measurements are badly needed to reverse this situation. EKN will invest in this based on a theory of change exercise held at national level. This will
contribute to a more sustainable and more effective increase in food production on the longer-term while the exact correlation between investments and production
increase as the return on investment can only be measured after a couple of years.
The protection of soil and landscapes against erosion requires an assurance for those who want to invest in it. Land security and certainty was felt as the crucial
element that can facilitate such investments contributing to stability and social cohesion as an imperative to guarantee any investments.

Baseline

Target 2017

Result 2012

Result 2013

Result 2014

Source

Indicator 1: Agricultural productivity in tons (cereal equivalents) per ha
per season, country

1.7

2.0

1.7

1.7

1,704

ENAB

Indicator 2: Agricultural productivity in tons (cereal equivalents) per ha
per season, focus area (3 provinces)

1.9

2.5

1.9

1.9

1,704

ENAB

Indicator 3: Area of land with permanent erosion control measures (ha)

not available

to be determined

169,576

ENAB

Indicator 4: Area of land under irrigation (ha)

not available

to be determined

n.a for instance

Projects reports (under collaboration with the NL
funded projects).

Result Question 1.2b: To what extent has your programme contributed to
these results? Which outputs and (intermediary) outcomes were achieved?

Producers highly appreciate the availability of quality inputs and learn to mix well organic manure and mineral fertilizers to increase production. They especially
appreciate being able to calculate and determine its profit before committing. This proper use of fertilizer and the first steps in a better management of soil have
increased production and improved food security at household level initially.
Nevertheless, the increasing threats of soil erosion limit the residual effects of fertility application and manure inputs (so far very limited) as they are quickly washed
out. This represents a loss of income for those concerned due to the increasing demand of input of fertilizer in the next season. This in a context of very limited
financial resources. An urgent focus on the search for a more integrated action to increase the productivity, while reducing recurring financial costs because of
erosion and degradation, is required.

Baseline

Target 2017

Result 2012

Result 2013

Result 2014

Source

Indicator 1: percentage of the new national fertiliser subsidy program
funded by the NL embassy multiplied by productivity increase since
2012 as measured by indicator 1.2a - 1, for country (ton/ha)

0

0.10

0

0

0,03

ENAB + project reports

Indicator 2: percentage of aid to agricultural sector projects provided by
the NL embassy multiplied by productivity increase since 2012 as
measured by indicator 1.2a - 2, for focus area (3 provinces)

0

0.15

0

0

0,02

ENAB + project reports

Indicator 3: Area of land with permanent erosion control measures
funded by NL Embassy program (ha)

6,000 (SEW)

to be determined

6,000

6,000

no updated
statistics

project reports

Indicator 4: Area of land under irrigation (ha) funded by NL Embassy
program

0

to be determined

0

0

idem

project reports

Assessment of results achieved by NL across the entire Result area 1

Increase in sustainable food production

C.

The national fertiliser subsidy program has significantly contributed to increased production and is promising for future results, particularly when embedded in a
broarder approach. The formulation of this program has lead to the assessment of the quantitative results to be obtained as presented in this result framework
(which were not yet quantified in the MASP 2012-2015). The program triggered other programs and the effective combination and linking of the various on-going
and new (PAPAB) programs in the sector are expected to deliver more and more sustainable results.

Results achieved poorer than planned

Reasons for result achieved:

The overall results are less than planned or expected which can to a large part be attributed to the shortfall of rain. Research is required to determine if and to
what extend the use of (subsidized) fertilizer has mitigated crop failure and/or losses.

Implications for planning:

Continue as progammed in new MASP 2014-2017
To improve food security in a sustainable way an integrated approach is required adressing current constraints as climate change, degradation/erosion, lack of
quality inputs, organizational structures and markets- and value chain linkages.
It is well knwon that soil fertility is the most limiting factor in Burundi for increasing agricultural production. Since improved availability of fertilizer will trigger the
demand for more production technologies it is expected that the investment in the fertilizer subsidy program is a valuable proxy for agricultural growth. From 2015
onwards the program will be embedded in a broader approach of natural resources, water and soil fertility management to improve its impact and sustainability.
A focus on the operationalization of an effective, more integrated action plan to progressively increase agricultural productivity is required. Recurring costs should
diminish and more surplusses and better incomes for households should be obtained. For this purpose the planned project PAPAB will come in respons of these
needs and opportunities.Many actors will work together in this strategic program, based on a national ToC event which under others highlighted the loss/costs of
over 1 billion dollar per year (approximately national GDP) due to soil depletion, erosion and in general natural resource degradation.

Result Area 2

Better access to sufficiently nutritious food

Result Question 2.1a: How large has the increase in availability of
sufficiently nutritious food been?

Malnutrition rate decreased in 3 years from 57.7 to 48.8 at national level. Locally (our focus area) this rate is lower due to intensive interventions. The acute
malnutrition rate decreased from 11.27 to 5.4, rewarding the efforts of the GVC (partly funded by EKN). However, the statistics and the way data obtained and
interpreted are not very clear and a more comprehensive evaluation is required.
Food losses are estimated to be very high (above average in Africa) due to lack of (traditional) adequate storage facilities, weak marketing system and limited
processing facilities.
Incomes remain very low (lowest in the world) and also reinvestment in farming systems is minimal. Few results are becoming visible in our focus area where land
ownership is secured and cooperatives are starting to function (due to external assistance).
The school feeding program through WFP contributed strongly to school attendance (more children to school and staying full day), but it is still to early to measure
completion rates due to this specific program.
With the start of the P4P project a clear improvement in student learning conditions was obtained and pupils now attend the course regularly and diligently. The
ranks of Cibitoke and Bubanza for the national test increased from respectively 12 and 15 to 17 to currently 4 and 5 to 17.
Pending the report of the Ministry of Education, the testimonies converge to demonstrate a strong influx of students and a net increase of inscriptions in provincial
Target
Baseline
Result 2012
Result 2013
Result 2014
Source
schools assisted under
P4P. 2017

Indicator 1: under 5 nutrition status in focus area : % of chronically
malnourished children

57

Indicator 2: post harvest losses (percentage) in focus area
andable

not measured

indicator 3: average farmer household income in focus area (USD)

930

1,070

930

indicator 4: primary school completion rate (%)

51

75

51

Result Question 2.1b: To what extent has your programme contributed to
these results? Which outputs and (intermediary) outcomes were achieved?

(1) The FARN project implemented by GVC relies heavily on communty based approach and proceeds through sensitization of the population for behavior change
in general. It contributed a lot to reduce the acute malnutrition rate from 11.27 to 5.4 and that of chronic malnutrition from 56.8 to 48.8 in the space of two years.
This project also collaborated and supported the efforts of REACH SUN movement to introduce kitchen gardens that served as a gateway to these new initiatives.
(2) The implementation of PNSEB was very beneficial for farmers. The results of the survey to assess the changes recorded on crop yields and incomes are very
satisfactory in only two crop years. Over 63% of the producers concerned show a net increase in their yields. Revenues also increased but to a lesser extent
compared to yields (2) It is also obvious that producers hope to obtain better profits from their work by profitting from a functioning market. The lack of market and
remunerative prices for surplus discourages the farmers with an increased agricultural production and this is a real constraint for producers who want to come out
of subsistence agriculture. By insuring a market and providing capacity building trough training of famers, the P4P implemented by WFP and under funding of our
embassy is a good model in pulling production once it focuses on local sourcing.
WFP market through the P4P project has generated to date approximately 4.6 billion Burundi francs to cooperative members. By measuring the increase of the
income the work focused on the population participating in the PNSEB ( project co funded by NL).

46

57

Baseline

Target 2017

Result 2012

Indicator 1: number of communities having benefited from set up and
training of FARNs (100% = 427)

0

427

0

Indicator 2: number of farmers with increased income through NL
funded activities

0

400,000

0

Indicator 3: Number of pupils having benefited from a daily good school
meal (full year)

0

85,000

0

Indicator 4:Number of local farmers having benefited from selling
produce for school meals

0

15,000

0

not measured

48,8

project report GVC

to be measured in
the future

special research

not measured

1102

ENAB + Rapport Evaluation PNSEB

68

Figures via
Mineduc, BTC or
others not yet

Education Ministry and UNICEF

Result 2013

Result 2014

Source

184

202

project report GVC

154,350

ENAB+ progress reports PAN PNSEB (Evaluation
d’impact)

0 (no full year)

47,060

WFP

0 (starts in 2014)

5,438

WFP

Assessment of results achieved by NL across the entire Result area 2

Better access to sufficiently nutritious food

C.

The project provided less results than planned, The achieved results are due to a committed and professional intervention of GVC but could have been better
when a more comprehensive approach would have been applied. Also the really bad nutritional status contributed to the fact that quick results were obtained in
such circumstances while the favorite policy environment created by the government (SUN-REACH approach) added as well.

Results achieved poorer than planned

Reasons for result achieved:

The attribution of other programs to a better nutrition are difficult to define, but it is estimated that the results are below the expected level. E.g. the increased
production due to the fertilizer program has not directly lead to an improved nutritional status because the application was often to a single crop, often being an
expected (depending market opportunities) cash crop e.g. rice or maize.

Implications for planning:

Continue execution of program as decribed in MASP 2014-2017. As already forseen in the MASP we expect to obtain more sustainable production results and as
such also better nutrition resuls through the newly planned PAPAB (2015 - 2018).

Result Area 3
Result Question 3.1a: Did business activity and trade increase and was
it inclusive?

More efficient markets and an improved business climate
Progress of economic development is very slow in Burundi, and hardly any new investors are interested to invest in Burundi. One of the reasons is the extreme
poverty of its population, causing low purchasing power and also continued low productivity in agriculture. Inverting this trend should be done through the
agricultural sector, where 90% of the population still earns its living.
We could say that business has increased in 2014 according the taxes collected by OBR. In 2014, the taxes collected were 655,7 billions BIF compared to 563,4
billions BIF in 2013. However, corruption is still visible in different services. In 2014 Burundi was ranked in the report "Doing Business" 150th out of 186 countries.
Some business indicators have improved. Following examples can reinforce this argument:
Starting a Business (20th to 18th). Obtaining building permits (146th to 133rd), Transfer of ownership (51st to 48th), Payment of taxes (126th to 124th) and
Trading Across Borders (171st to 169th).

Baseline

Target 2017

Result 2012

Result 2013

Result 2014

Source

Indicator 1: GDP of Burundi (millions USD)

2,588

3,170

2,588 (growth 4%)

2,685

3,074

Finance Ministry

Indicator 2: Agricultural GDP of Burundi (millions USD)

1,000

1,200

1,000 (growth 4%)

973

1,202

Finance Ministry

indicator 3: Part of Agricultural GDP sold on markets (%)

12

20

12

not included in
ENAB

indicator 4: Number of farmers having obtained agricultural credit (%)

5

10

5

5

Result Question 3.1b: To what extent has your programme contributed to
these results? Which outputs and (intermediary) outcomes were achieved?

WREHPHDVXUHG ENAB
QRWLQFOXGHGLQ
(1$%
WREHPHDVXUHG ENAB
QRWLQFOXGHGLQ
(1$%

The Embassy contributed to an improved inclusive business climate focussing on the agriculture sector. The program includes improved access to land, market
developement for agricultural inputs (fertiliser and seed) and outputs (value chains) and improved access to agricultural finance. On top of this, a number of
ongoing PSI investment projects will lead to results in terms of newly created jobs and income improvement. Several Dutch trade missions visited Burundi in 2014
and investors have shown increasing interest in the potential of the country. The political uncertaincies so far diminished the number of concrete actions taken..

Baseline

Target 2017

Result 2012

Indicator 1: increased turn over of enterprises supported by NL: PSI,
PUM, DGGF etc. (USD)

0

N/A

Indicator 2: newly created jobs through NL supported businesses (PSI,
PUM, DGGF etc)

0

Result 2014

Source

0

20%

project reports

N/A

0

50

project reports

indicator 3: number of farmers having obtained land certificates through 4,724 of which 4%
female
NL financed land registration services

36,990

4,724 of which 4%
female

14,990 of which
9% female

----

project reports

Indicator 4: number of farmers with access to rural /agricultural credit
due to NL funded support program (compared to 2012)

50,000

0

0

0

Result 2013

WREHPHDVXUHG project reports (MAVC and ABIN began in December
2014. Data will be collected in the 2015 report

Result Area 3

More efficient markets and an improved business climate

Result Question 3.2a: How large has the increase been in international
investments and international trade?

The increase in international trade is low because of slow economic growth, whereas international investment are also low and further depressed by unfavorable
prospects for future growth. Therefore values of the indicators are very variable and unpredictable.
The strong fall of indicator 3 (3.2.a) is due to a shortfall in coffee export and decrease in prices.

Baseline

Target 2017

Result 2012

Result 2013

Result 2014

Source

indicator 1: volume of foreign investment (millions USD)

not determined

N/A

0.59

118

97,8

Burundi reserve bank (BRB) reports

indicator 2: volume of export of agricultural commodities (millions USD)

not determined

150

121

43

40,23

Burundi reserve bank (BRB) reports

indicator 3: volume of export of agricultural commodities to the
Netherlands (millions USD)

not determined

N/A

1.2

1.14

0,536

Burundi reserve bank (BRB) reports

indicator 4: volume of import of goods from the Netherlands (millions
USD)

not determined

N/A

8.2

22.05

15,99

Burundi reserve bank (BRB) reports

Result Question 3.2b: To what extent has your programme contributed to
this results? Which outputs and (intermediary) outcomes were achieved?

The centrally funded PSI program is contributing to foreign investments from the Netherland. A qualitative output of the Embassy has been, through lobby and
technical assistance, the formulation, by the Burundian Government, of a new fertiliser subsidy program which has become operational in 2013, allowing
privatisation of fertiliser supply and higher productivity in agriculture, accessible for all smallholders growing food crops.

Baseline

Target 2017

Result 2012

Result 2013

Result 2014

indicator 1: volume of investment by Dutch businesses (millions USD)

not determined

N/A

0

45,64

ND

Indicator 2: volume of foreign investment that has been co-funded by
Dutch instruments such as PSI (millions USD)

not determined

N/A

t.b.d.

Indicator 3: volume of agricultural export that has been made possible
by NL funded value chain development projects or other support
(partnership programs, PUM, etc.). (millions USD)

not determined

N/A

0

3,250

0

2,371

Source

PSI funded projects reports

Assessment of results achieved by NL across the entire Result area 3

More efficient markets and an improved business climate

C.

The IOB mission of November 2013 recommended additional studies before approving the programmed new projects for agricultural finance (with ICCO-Terrafina)
and value chain development (with ICCO and SPARK). This has caused delays in their start. Also the approval of a new seed sector development program (with
IFDC) met with delays, leading to approval of all these activities after July 2014. As a consequence, results in 2014 have been fewer than planned.

Results achieved poorer than planned

Reasons for result achieved:

The two projects ICCO-terrafina and SPARK were launched in December 2014. The interim results of implementation will be evaluated and included in reports in
2015.
In general the application of Dutch facilitiy instuments became less as compared to previous years. Also the DGGF is probably less equipped for the Burundi
situation. The Orio planned projects delayed. Business missions have resulted in much interest, but so far few results mainly due to the political situation and
slightly less favorite business climate.

Implications for planning:

A more indepth analysis (comare with TMEA reports) of the results obtained and missed opportunities. Better link our programs, particularly food security, to trade
and business opportunities.

Back