SIERRA LEONE maq 4ª.indd - agrilife - Europa

More documents

Recommendations

Info

5 Survey Methodology 80 Table 19. Basic Income Calculation Household Net Income (HNI) Economic Indicators Calculations Two approaches to measure Farm Net Income Concerning the Farm Net Income calculation two main approaches were used: Neoclassical Approach (NA) and Peasant Farming Approach (PF) (Table 20). One is based on the Neoclassical theory principles, which assume farms to pursue (as capitalist enterprises would) profit maximisation and operate under competitive market conditions (i.e. output/input price takers, high number of suppliers, zero information and transaction, markets not influenced by producers/consumers, no entry or exit barriers, etc.). A second approach takes into account key assumptions introduced by Chayanov (1966 = Farm Net Income + Off-farm Net Income Farm Net Income (FNI) = Output Value – Variable Costs – Fixed Costs Farm Gross Margin (FGM) = Output Value – Variable Costs Farm Net Cash Income (FNCI) = Value of Sales – Variable Costs in cash Output Value (OV) = Value of Sales + Value of Consumption + Value of Stocks Value of Sales = Production for Sale * Unit Price Value of Consumption = Production for Consumption * Unit Price Value of Stocks = Production for Stock * Unit Price Farm Gross Production Production for Sale Production for Consumption = Production for Sale + Production for Consumption + Production for Stock = Crops for Sale + Livestock for Sale = Crops for Consumption + Livestock for Consumption Production for Stock = Crops for Stock Input Costs (IC) = Variable Costs + Fixed Costs Variable Costs (VC) Fixed Costs (FC) = Costs of Household labour + Costs of Hired labour + Costs of Seeds + Costs of Livestock maintenance = Costs of Land rent + Costs of Tools + Costs of Livestock purchase translated from Russian and German editions first published in 1920) concerning peasant farming. The latter argues that the goal of peasant household is reproduction rather than profit maximisation (Ellis 1993, p. 53). Sales under both approaches are valued at market price (as observed in the survey). While under the Neoclassical approach, consumption and stocks are also valued at the market price, under the Peasant Farming approach, these two components of the output are assumed to be valued at a 10% higher than the market prices. Several studies deal with the evaluation of the self subsistence production, where the output value of the staple food was generally valued near retail
price, which is higher than the market price, up to 20-40% higher in some cases (Chibnik 1978). In the case of Sierra Leone, a 10% difference was adopted since this is the prevailing price difference between local and imported rice when purchased in the rural areas. The assumption is that by relying on self-production farm households do not depend on imported rice to fulfil their needs (See section 3.5.2). In other words, this 10% adjustment in value comes from the fact that farm households prefer to secure their food and avoid risks and uncertainties of future unpredictable market economy. In the Neoclassical approach all units of time, whether in housework, wage work or leisure, are valued at their opportunity cost in terms of the market wage (Ellis 1993; Boadway 2006). This means that marginal valuation of labour is equal to market wage. However this does not apply for the farmers operating in areas where labour market is limited/inexistent (Colman & Young 1989). According to Ellis (1993) it is more consistent and analytically useful to consider peasant households in terms of their only partial integration into the market economy and the incomplete markets within which they operate. In other words, following the second approach there are differences both in terms of the objectives guiding peasant behaviour and the impossibility to assume perfect competition in the labour markets. In fact, there is not only a practically non-existent or extremely constrained labour market but a complex institutional setting in which farm households rely for securing other forms of intangible goods and services (i.e. tacit safety nets) in a context of strong social (village) cohesion. The highly constrained or non-existent labour market means that the household labour cannot be effectively valued at market opportunity wage, thus, it is assumed to be close to zero. This follows earlier approaches already applied for similar cases and circumstances (cf. Dasgupta, Marglin and Sen (1972) and Little and Mirrlees (1974)). When there is no labour market, until the value of output riches the minimum subsistence level, the marginal valuation of labour is equal to zero, and leisure cannot be valued at any price (Coman & Young 1989 p.156 top). On commercial farms (also defined as entrepreneurial farms, or capitalist farms), increases in labour input without concomitant income gains can lead to losses because profit equals output value minus outlay on materials minus wages, minus other payments (e.g. debtinterests, land rent). On family/peasant farms, however, increases in (family) labour inputs without corresponding increases in income do not necessarily lead to monetary losses because of the absence of wages. Thus, on family/peasant farms, valuing family labour as equal to the wages of hired workers is nonsensical (Chayanov (1920), on Chayanov theory cf. Chibnik (1989)). As suggested above (and explained in Section 3), there is an important social aspect that needs to be taken into account which is that farm households in Sierra Leone are extremely integrated at village and chiefdom level. On the one hand, property rights are not assured (but rather enforced by the authority of the Paramount Chief) and the land is frequently rotated due to the shifting cultivation system in place (thus not giving them sufficient motivation to put extra efforts33 nor invest34 in one specific plot). On the other hand, all assets are perceived to have a common value and are thus frequently shared between the villagers beyond the household 33 According to survey evaluations by the Government of Sierra Leone (2007) “often farmer groups report very large amounts of labour to complete a given task, especially when the task was carried out by a gang or collective group. It may be that in these cases the task in question was completed in less than a full working day, or it may be that the pace of work in some groups is relaxed with the work treated as much as an opportunity to socialize as to get the job done, or simply that farmers just over-estimate and over-report the time taken”. In other words, issues of free riding may also be taking place at the village level. 34 As stated earlier in Section 3, access to credit at the farm level is infrequent. First because to use land as collateral the individual would require the written permission of the extended family (the latter is an infrequent event) and second, all potential benefits would also have to be redistributed leaving the individual farmers with reduced return for its risk taking. Rural poverty reduction and food security: The case of smallholders in Sierra Leone 81
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 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 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 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: Farm Net Income per working unit: D
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 and 146:
Figure 95. Change in income as a re
Page 147 and 148:
Figure 97. Impact of support on dif
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?