The case of smallholders in Sierra Leone - agrilife - Europa

More documents

Recommendations

Info

VI ACKNOWLEDGMENTS This study is based on ideas developed at the Sustainable Agriculture (SUSTAG) action of DG JRC IPTS’AGRILIFE Unit. It has been carried out by a network of researchers coordinated by Sergio Gomez y Paloma (JRC – IPTS), Baudouin Michel (Gembloux University and EARTH – GEDIF Belgium) and Alpha Lakoh (Njala University, Freetown Sierra Leone) who coordinated the collection of primary data. The authors are grateful for the help, support and useful comments received from many people during the different stages of the project and the validation of the field data. First, thanks go to the six hundred and fifty nine rural small-holders living in various villages of the following districts: Kono, Kenema Kailahun, Tonkolili and Bombali for the crucial information provided. A special mention goes to the following European Commission officers (their affiliation refer to the year 2010): Willem Olthof, David Radcliffe, Philippe Steinmetz and Paolo Sarfatti (DG Development); Leonard Mizzi and Claudia Wulz (DG Agriculture); Beth Masterson and Didier Nils (DG AIDCO), who have contributed to the general setting of the project - including the selection of Sierra Leone as study area - and provided valuable comments to previous versions of this report and supported the implementation of the project during all stages. Likewise, The Delegation of the European Commission in Sierra Leone: Marc De Bruycker (Head of the Delegation), Mr Matthias Reusing (Head of the Rural Development Section), Georges Dehoux (Food Security Officer), who provided key insights about ongoing EU aid programmes and Mr Paolo Girlando, coordinator for the use of STABEX funds (USTP: Use of STABEX Transfers Project), who offered relevant information about the funds’ utilisation. We would further like to thank Mr Mohamed Ajuba Sheriff, Sierra Leone's Assistant Director of Agricultural Statistics of the Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry and Food Security who provided us with guidance about data availability and quality. Mrs Diana Tempelman (Senior Gender & Development Officer) and Mr Kevin Gallagher (Senior Food Security Development Officer) FAO representatives, as well as Mr Housainou Taal, WFP Deputy Country Director and Ms Miyuki Yamashita and Marit Fikke from the World Food Programme for sharing useful information about the current food security situation in Sierra Leone. During the field validation, Mr Tennyson Williams and Mr. Patrick Sawyer (ActionAid), and Mr. Franz Moestl and Joachim Ballweg (Welthungerhilfe), kindly introduced us to aid implementation sites and informed us about the situation at ground level. Additionally, we would like to thank Mr Doriane Desclee and Mrs Emilie Vautravers (EARTH consultants), who have kindly assisted during the project implementation and validation of the results on the field. We would also like to express our gratitude to those responsible for organising the households’ interview process and data collection in the different locations of Sierra Leone. Also researchers from various institutions contributed to the analytical review of the contents of this report, including Guillermo Filchman and Hatem Belhouchette (Institut Agronomique Méditerranéen de Montpellier IAMM) and Kamel Louhichi (INRA- UMR Economie Publique).
VII Finally we would like to thank the following staff members of the Institute of Prospective Technological Studies (Joint Research Centre - European Commission): Jacques Delincé, Geertrui Louwagie and Stephen Langrell for valuable comments, Monika Schmidt for formatting support and Adriana Cristoiu for contributing to the scientific and conceptual preparation of the project.
Page 1: Rural poverty reduction and food se
Page 4 and 5: Rural poverty reduction and food se
Page 8 and 9: VIII EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Agriculture
Page 10 and 11: X the local circumstances (mainly i
Page 12 and 13: XII 4.1 OBJECTIVES OF THE STABEX FU
Page 14 and 15: XIV LIST OF TABLES Table 1: Distrib
Page 16 and 17: XVI Figure 9: Sierra Leone export v
Page 18 and 19: XVIII Figure 47: Farm Net Income fo
Page 20 and 21: XX Figure 87: Adequacy of support p
Page 22 and 23: 1 Introduction Sierra Leone is a We
Page 24 and 25: and sales, but also questions aimin
Page 26 and 27: official language, but Krio (a Creo
Page 28 and 29: found in the Northern and in the Ea
Page 30 and 31: Figure 3: Economic Growth in Sierra
Page 32 and 33: 2001 and -3.1% in 2002 (Jalloh, 200
Page 34 and 35: According to the first (2003) and t
Page 36 and 37: According to MAFFS (2001) the count
Page 38 and 39: the production of major annual crop
Page 40 and 41: Note: 2009 - 2015 figures are proje
Page 42 and 43: attributed to favourable world mark
Page 44 and 45: the national herd. Prior to the war
Page 46 and 47: Table 7: Agro-Ecological Regions in
Page 48 and 49: potato are substitutes for rice for
Page 50 and 51: Northern region (Kambia, Port Loko)
Page 52 and 53: In the lowlands rice is the dominan
Page 54 and 55: defined physical features (Grigg, 1
Page 56 and 57:
thus has an important role in decid
Page 58 and 59:
equirements, particularly seedling
Page 60 and 61:
Although IPRSP and NRS did not have
Page 62 and 63:
The latter is accompanied by a chan
Page 64 and 65:
3.5 Sector Constraints and Challeng
Page 66 and 67:
Fertilizer usage was less than half
Page 68 and 69:
Figure 18: Number of agricultural w
Page 70 and 71:
Jalloh (2006) argues that it would
Page 72 and 73:
not entirely explained in terms of
Page 74 and 75:
4 EU Support Programmes for Rice an
Page 76 and 77:
Welthungerhilfe (Welthungerhilfe, 2
Page 78 and 79:
paid as compared to previous years.
Page 80 and 81:
In the survey (as in the case of th
Page 82 and 83:
4. STABEX Support: Type of support
Page 84 and 85:
Farm Net Income (FNI) is determined
Page 86 and 87:
FNI/hhWU = (FGO/A - VC/A)*A/hhWU -
Page 88 and 89:
prevailing price difference between
Page 90 and 91:
Household Labour Wage (Opportunity
Page 92 and 93:
defined as the level of expenditure
Page 94 and 95:
Figure 20: Combined productivity ra
Page 96 and 97:
Figure 21: Average gender compositi
Page 98 and 99:
(determining the demand for labour)
Page 100 and 101:
Figure 24: Average acreage under cu
Page 102 and 103:
6.1.4 Resources of smallholders Res
Page 104 and 105:
2 acres per household unit. Figure
Page 106 and 107:
Figure 33: Total household labour a
Page 108 and 109:
Concerning communication infrastruc
Page 110 and 111:
Figure 37: Evaluation of benefits f
Page 112 and 113:
The number of farms and the proport
Page 114 and 115:
Figure 43: Percentage of farms crop
Page 116 and 117:
Agricultural income of smallholders
Page 118 and 119:
Table 27: Economic results of the s
Page 120 and 121:
Table 29 Economic results of the sm
Page 122 and 123:
To visualize the difference between
Page 124 and 125:
Table 31: Different output values a
Page 126 and 127:
Figure 50: Output value of food and
Page 128 and 129:
Figure 54: Distribution of food cro
Page 130 and 131:
calculation the labour costs accoun
Page 132 and 133:
Figure 61: Farm viability of smallh
Page 134 and 135:
Figure 63: Farm viability per farm
Page 136 and 137:
Figure 66: Farm viability per farm
Page 138 and 139:
Figure 68: Poverty level per househ
Page 140 and 141:
6.3 Input factor productivity of sm
Page 142 and 143:
Figure 72: Cocoa and coffee output
Page 144 and 145:
the differences between the Norther
Page 146 and 147:
(Figure 80) that farms in the Easte
Page 148 and 149:
Figure 83 and Figure 84 present the
Page 150 and 151:
6.4 Evaluation of the influence of
Page 152 and 153:
the last two years (when the STABEX
Page 154 and 155:
Figure 87), most of the smallholder
Page 156 and 157:
Figure 87: Adequacy of support prov
Page 158 and 159:
Figure 91 and 137
Page 160 and 161:
Figure 92: Adequacy of support prov
Page 162 and 163:
Figure 93 and Figure 94) the rest s
Page 164 and 165:
Figure 96: Change in income as a re
Page 166 and 167:
Figure 98: Impact of support on dif
Page 168 and 169:
After having analyzed relevance, ef
Page 170 and 171:
production and marketing). One part
Page 172 and 173:
Figure 103: Average farm net income
Page 174 and 175:
Figure 107). 153
Page 176 and 177:
Figure 108: Sex of household head f
Page 178 and 179:
Figure 111 shows the relevance of d
Page 180 and 181:
Figure 113) but mainly concerning h
Page 182 and 183:
Figure 115: Number of tractors hire
Page 184 and 185:
Table 34: Basic Comparison of small
Page 186 and 187:
indirect/transaction costs associat
Page 188 and 189:
above mentioned crop diversificatio
Page 190 and 191:
Sustainability of smallholders in S
Page 192 and 193:
in which personal income and busine
Page 194 and 195:
CSAO/OCDE (2007), Foncier, transfor
Page 196 and 197:
Howe, P. and Devreux S. (2004): Fam
Page 198 and 199:
Ministry of Finance Government of S
Page 200 and 201:
Welthungerhilfe (2009) Support to C
Page 202 and 203:
Section Village Household number HO
Page 204 and 205:
Major Economic Activities Sources o
Page 206 and 207:
COMMUNITY LEADERSHIP/SOCIAL PARTICI
Page 208 and 209:
INSTITUTIONAL SUPPORT technology /
Page 210 and 211:
Impact of support on food Security
Page 212 and 213:
Level Of Improvement In Income As a
Page 214 and 215:
FARM CHARACTERISTICS household Heal
Page 216 and 217:
Precise the number. Externality Cat
Page 218 and 219:
Input of other type of mulch/soil c
Page 220 and 221:
Infrastructure/communication Please
Page 222 and 223:
Appendix II. Questionnaire B SMALL
Page 224 and 225:
Tractor Tractor hire Drying Floor/e
Page 226 and 227:
Now we will want to have some infor
Page 228 and 229:
Appendix III. Farm types Figure: Nu
Page 230 and 231:
Figure: % of total land area per fa
Page 232 and 233:
Appendix IV. Combined productivity
Page 234 and 235:
213/231
Page 236 and 237:
Figure Labour productivity for Coff
Page 238 and 239:
European Commission EUR ….. EN -
show all

The case of smallholders in Sierra Leone - agrilife - Europa

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?