SIERRA LEONE maq 4ª.indd - agrilife - Europa

Figure 115. Number of tractors hired and in possession of the households of supported and nonsupported
farmers
differences are not so much in terms of relatively
accessible hand tools (Figure 113) but mainly
concerning heavy machinery such as tractors,
drying or processing equipment.
Non-supported farmers in the Eastern
districts appear to be better off concerning the
use of tractors (Figure 114 and Figure 115).
While in the Northern district, the non-supported
farmers also appear to have a secure access to
drying space and facilities, although this group
also depends on tractor hire. In any case, the
data suggests that the non-supported group
has a relatively stable supply channel of key
agricultural assets potentially creating for them a
disincentive to participate in participatory/rural
development groups or joint initiatives.
To conclude, the selected traits described
above illustrate that the STABEX-funded initiatives
in the selected Northern and Eastern districts of
Sierra Leone mainly focused on smallholders
who were for the most part:
• cultivating smaller plots (than the control group),
• associated to an existing cooperative or
association and
• highly dependent on farming as the main
source of income activity.
Likewise, the supported farmers included
a substantial percentage of female headed
household and household heads that had an
educational achievement slightly above the
average of the control group. Regarding assets, the
non-supported group of farmers appear to have a
relatively good access to agricultural equipment
(mainly tractors and processing equipment in
the Eastern districts and drying facilities in the
Northern districts). It is possible that the latter could
be influencing not only their reduced participation
in farmer associations but also in the participatory
movements organised through the STABEX-funded
measures of Action Aid and Welthungerhilfe.
In conclusion, in both the Eastern and in the
Northern region the control group appears to be
better off than the supported group. However, in
the Northern region the difference between the
supported and non-supported farmers seem to be
lower, and both group are (almost) equally poor.
The latter suggests that the slightly improved
average NFI of the supported farmers in the North
may be attributed to the development initiatives
they were involved in.
Rural poverty reduction and food security: The case of smallholders in Sierra Leone
155