SIERRA LEONE maq 4ª.indd - agrilife - Europa

More documents

Recommendations

Info

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
Figure 97. Impact of support on different aspects of food security in the Eastern region of Sierra Leone Figure 98. Impact of support on different aspects of food security in the Northern region of Sierra Leone market information, building market centres and the provision of tools and seeds to most of the smallholders in the region. In other words, in the Eastern region smallholders are very much aware that any changes which improve their marketing mechanisms and area of production of cash crop are bound to ameliorate their food security and livelihoods. In the Northern region higher impact to improving food security is associated to changes in staple food prices, cultivated area and food production. Unlike the Eastern districts, change in the degree of access to markets is deemed (by approximately 40% of respondents) to have less of an impact; which is consistent given their current crop production orientation aimed mainly at domestic consumption (i.e. no presence of cash crops such as cocoa and coffee due to the different agro-ecological settings between the Northern and Eastern region of Sierra Leone). Likewise, changes in on-farm food storage capacity are also recognised as having reduced impact on their food security, most likely because the largest proportion of harvest output is usually consumed every year. Rural poverty reduction and food security: The case of smallholders in Sierra Leone 145
Page 3 and 4:
Rural poverty reduction and food se
Page 5 and 6:
Table of Contents Acknowledgments 2
Page 7 and 8:
7 Conclusions 157 7.1 Surveyed Smal
Page 9 and 10:
Table 31. Different output values a
Page 11 and 12:
Figure 34. Local participation in t
Page 13 and 14:
Figure 96. Change in income as a re
Page 15 and 16:
Executive Summary Agriculture is es
Page 17:
attention needs to be paid to the i
Page 20 and 21:
1 Introduction 18 Box 1: Food Secur
Page 23 and 24:
2 Description of the Context in Sie
Page 25 and 26:
Figure 2. Structure of the populati
Page 27 and 28:
Diseases such as malaria and tuberc
Page 29 and 30:
to energy supplies 8 , a low-skille
Page 31:
Figure 4. Composition of exports fr
Page 34 and 35:
3 The Agricultural Sector 32 agrari
Page 36 and 37:
3 The Agricultural Sector 34 Figure
Page 38 and 39:
Page 40 and 41:
3 The Agricultural Sector 38 3.1.2
Page 42 and 43:
3 The Agricultural Sector 40 scale
Page 44 and 45:
3 The Agricultural Sector 42 absorb
Page 46 and 47:
Page 48 and 49:
3 The Agricultural Sector 46 availa
Page 50 and 51:
3 The Agricultural Sector 48 and in
Page 52 and 53:
3 The Agricultural Sector 50 origin
Page 54 and 55:
3 The Agricultural Sector 52 The us
Page 56 and 57:
3 The Agricultural Sector 54 crops
Page 58 and 59:
3 The Agricultural Sector 56 • Se
Page 60 and 61:
3 The Agricultural Sector 58 severe
Page 62 and 63:
Page 64 and 65:
3 The Agricultural Sector 62 Table
Page 66 and 67:
3 The Agricultural Sector 64 Table
Page 68 and 69:
3 The Agricultural Sector 66 post-h
Page 70 and 71:
4 EU Support Programmes for Rice an
Page 72 and 73:
4 EU Support Programmes for Rice an
Page 75 and 76:
5 Survey Methodology In this sectio
Page 77 and 78:
sampling techniques were employed t
Page 79 and 80:
up an agrarian system. The househol
Page 81 and 82:
Farm Net Income per working unit: D
Page 83 and 84:
price, which is higher than the mar
Page 85 and 86:
stock or exchanges at the village l
Page 87 and 88:
= 0.72) for non-food requirements.
Page 89 and 90:
6 Survey Results This section addre
Page 91 and 92:
6.1.2 Main activities and income so
Page 93 and 94:
Figure 24. Average acreage under cu
Page 95 and 96: Table 24. Resources of smallholders
Page 97 and 98: Figure 30. Total acre per household
Page 99 and 100: harvesting period (Sesay et al., 20
Page 101 and 102: Figure 34. Local participation in t
Page 103 and 104: improved management strategies at p
Page 105 and 106: Figure 41. Crop mix categories in t
Page 107 and 108: when analysing the smallholder viab
Page 109 and 110: Table 27. Economic results of the s
Page 111 and 112: Table 29. Economic results of the s
Page 113 and 114: Figure 47. Farm Net Income for an a
Page 115 and 116: hired labour costs for self-subsist
Page 117 and 118: Figure 52. Output value of rice per
Page 119 and 120: Figure 57. Distribution of tree cro
Page 121 and 122: Figure 60. Farm viability of smallh
Page 123 and 124: Figure 63. Farm viability per farm
Page 125 and 126: Table 32. Percentage of farms per r
Page 127 and 128: Figure 69. Poverty level per farm t
Page 129 and 130: Figure 72. Cocoa and coffee output
Page 131 and 132: Figure 76. Total labour productivit
Page 133 and 134: Figure 80. Labour productivity per
Page 135 and 136: Figure 83. Labour productivity per
Page 137 and 138: 6.4 Evaluation of the influence of
Page 139 and 140: Table 33. Evaluation Matrix for Sup
Page 141 and 142: Figure 87. Adequacy of support prov
Page 143 and 144: Figure 91. Adequacy of support prov
Page 145: Figure 95. Change in income as a re
Page 149 and 150: Figure 100. Expected sustainability
Page 151 and 152: Figure 103. Average farm net income
Page 153 and 154: Figure 107. Cultivated area of non-
Page 155 and 156: Figure 111. Revelance of income sou
Page 157: Figure 115. Number of tractors hire
Page 160 and 161: 7 Conclusions 158 Table 34. Basic C
Page 162 and 163: 7 Conclusions 160 Under the Peasant
Page 164 and 165: 7 Conclusions 162 In the Eastern di
Page 166 and 167: 7 Conclusions 164 may actually bene
Page 168 and 169: 7 Conclusions 166 determining the d
Page 170 and 171: 8 References 168 Crowley, E.L. (199
Page 172 and 173: 8 References 170 GoSL and EC Govern
Page 174 and 175: 8 References 172 Moreau P., F. Mabo
Page 176 and 177: 8 References 174 van Wesenbeeck C.F
Page 178 and 179: 9 Appendices 176 HOUSEHOLD DEMOGRAP
Page 180 and 181: 9 Appendices 178 COMMUNITY LEADERSH
Page 182 and 183: 9 Appendices 180 Planting materials
Page 184 and 185: 9 Appendices 182 Could you explain
Page 186 and 187: 9 Appendices 184 Externality Please
Page 188 and 189: 9 Appendices 186 Infrastructure/com
Page 190 and 191: 9 Appendices 188 LABOUR INPUT- FOOD
Page 192 and 193: 9 Appendices 190 OTHER INPUTS QUANT
Page 194 and 195: 9 Appendices 192 YIELD LOSSES Now w
Page 196 and 197:
9 Appendices 194 Figure: % of farms
Page 198 and 199:
9 Appendices 196 Figure: Average fa
Page 200 and 201:
9 Appendices 198 Labour productivit
Page 202 and 203:
9 Appendices 200 Labour productivit
Page 204 and 205:
9 Appendices 202
show all

SIERRA LEONE maq 4ª.indd - agrilife - Europa

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?