SIERRA LEONE maq 4ª.indd - agrilife - Europa

6 Survey Results
144
respondents reported some improvement and
some (up to 5%) replied that great improvement
was observed from the development initiatives
which STABEX was implemented. The most
satisfactory results were found in the Northern
region where more than 20% of respondents
agreed that great improvement was achieved
(Figure 93 and Figure 94) the rest stating that there
was some improvement and hardly any stated
no improvement in production. In the Northern
region the relative proportion of farms perceiving
great improvement was higher in case of NGOs
compared to Action Aid support, however in the
Eastern region Welthingerhilfe was perceived
better providing greater improvement in
production compared to other NGOs.
Regarding government-based support,
smallholders did not comment on the
effectiveness of such measures (mainly related
to training in the East and to drying/storage
facilities in the North which were previously
reported as inadequate in quantity) as these
were not perceived to directly affect their
production performance (nor their income
as illustrated below), possibly due to the fact
that most government related initiatives were
also deemed as not adequate and/or not
provided. In any case, the results illustrate that
STABEX-funded initiatives were indeed filling
a gap in terms of the services provided by
the Sierra Leone government in these districts
and they managed to secure a certain degree
of improvement in terms of farm household
production and income.
Smallholders were also asked to evaluate
the level of improvement in income resulting
from the aid programmes in which they
were engaged (Figure 95 and Figure 96). The
results in terms of income closely match those
for production, with one main difference:
In the Northern region, more than 20% of
the respondents (involved in the Action Aid
initiatives) stated that the aid did not directly
contribute to improve their income. This may
imply that the reported “some improvement” in
production may have contributed to increasing
household consumption rather than achieving
higher commercialisation of the farm produce.
Although cash income may not have improved
from the point of view of respondents in the
Northern region, the reported improvement in
production may imply that an increase in food
security was nonetheless observed. Once again,
government-based measures through MAFFS
project and extension services were regarded as
not directly affecting farm-household incomes.
6.4.3 Impact
Impact measures to what extent the
completion of project tasks have had an
effect on food security and livelihood at the
household level. In the Sierra Leone survey,
the latter was addressed by asking smallholders
the following: “Describe (in terms of “Great
Improvement”, “Some improvement” or “No
Improvement”) the impact of the STABEX
support received on your food security by
commenting on the change perceived or
experienced under the categories specified as
follows: on-farm food storage capacity, access
to markets, prices for staple food, consumption
of staples, yields of staple food, cultivated area,
food production".
The smallholders’ responses are summarised
in Figure 97 and Figure 98. The results show that
the impact on food security perceived by farmers
slightly differs across the regions, though the
majority of the households stated some kind of
improvement in most of the categories assessed.
In the Eastern region, the results are mixed.
On one hand, changes concerning on-farm food
storage capacity were perceived as having the
lowest impact on their food security; followed
closely by changes in the prices and yields of
staple foods. On the other hand, the highest
impact to the improvement of their food security
is believed to be in measures related to market
access, cultivated area and food production,
which is directly related to the provision of