Get documents about "UPA Baseline report
Description
Baseline study on Urban and Peri-Urban Agriculture in Monrovia, Tubmanburg and Gbarnga, Liberia, 2011 by Research Institute of the University of Liberia, for CARE Liberia, Welthungerhilfe, financed by the European Union
Document Sample
INSTITUTE OF RESEARCH
UNIVERSITY OF LIBERIA
Urban and Peri-Urban
Agriculture (UPA)
Baseline Survey
Monrovia, Gbarnga and Tubmanburg
FEBRUARY 2011
This project is funded by the European Union
Index
Acknowledgements Page 2
List of Tables 3
Executive Summary 6
1. Introduction 8
2. Scope of the UPA Baseline Survey 9
3. Methodology 9
4. Results 13
Annex I – Tables 28
Annex II – The UPA Questionnaire 62
Annex III – The UPA Focus Group Discussions (FGDs) 74
This publication has been produced with the assistance of the European Union. The
contents of this publication are the sole responsibility of the Research Institute of the
University of Liberia and can in no way be taken to reflect the views of the European Union.
1
Acknowledgements
This study could not have been undertaken nor completed without the support of Dr. Jeanette Carter
(Institute of Research, University of Liberia). I am sincerely grateful to her for the research insight,
guidance, encouragement and supervision that she provided through all phases of this study.
Furthermore, I am thankful to Prof. Wilson K. Tarpeh, Vice-President of the University of Liberia for Fiscal
Affairs and Finance, who played an important role in ensuring the timely and effective implementation of
this study. My appreciation also goes to Mr. Theophilus Baah, who assisted me from the start of this
research with enthusiasm, commitment and his knowledge of agricultural sciences in general and of the
Liberian case in particular.
I would like to express my gratitude also to Alberto Giani (CARE) and Andre Stelder (Welthungerhilfe):
managers of the two respective UPA projects, they provided essential support and much valued inputs
throughout this study. While it is not possible to mention here all those who contributed to the
successful completion of this work, my appreciation goes particularly to all the members of the data-
collection and data-entry teams as well as to the staff members of CARE, Welthungerhilfe, Africa 2000
Network (A2N) and Human Development Foundation (HDF) who participated in this UPA baseline survey.
Last, but certainly not least, I am thankful to those who directly provided the data: all the informants and
participants of this study who gave us some of their time, thoughts and information, hopeful that their
contribution could help bring positive change.
Dr. Nicola Cozza
Principal Investigator
UPA Baseline Survey
2
List of Tables
Table 1 - “In which NGO project do you participate?” Page 28
Table 2 - “In which aspect of the project do you participate?” 28
Table 3 - Beneficiaries’ Gender 28
Table 4 - Beneficiaries’ Age Group 28
Table 5 - Attended Academic School 29
Table 6 - Level of Formal Academic Education 29
Table 7 - Years Spent in the Current Household Location 29
Table 8 - Beneficiaries’ Household Composition (Adult Members) 29
Table 9 - Beneficiaries’ Household Composition (Children) 30
Table 10 - Beneficiaries’ Position in the Household 30
Table 11 - Beneficiaries’ Adult Dependents 30
Table 12 - Beneficiaries’ Child Dependents 30
Table 13 - Beneficiaries’ Main Source of Income 31
Table 14 - Times per Day Food is Cooked for the Whole Household 31
Table 15 - Number of Cups of Rice Cooked for the Household per Day 31
Table 16 - Share of the Household Food Directly Produced by the Household 31
Table 17 - Sources of Food Items that Are Not Produced by the Respondent’s Household 32
Table 18 - Frequency of Food Item Consumption During Previous 7 Days 32
Table 19 - Experienced Insufficient Food in the Past 12 Months 32
Table 20 - Months in which Insufficient Food was Experienced 32
Table 21 - Beneficiaries’ Assessment of the Variety of Food during the Previous Month 33
Table 22 - Beneficiaries’ Assessment of the Quality of Food during the Previous Month 33
Table 23 - Beneficiaries’ Households Involved in Small Garden Cultivation 33
Table 24 - Beneficiaries’ Households Involved in Large Size Cultivation 33
Table 25 - Average Size of Fields/Plots that Beneficiaries Cultivate 34
Table 26 - Owner of the Fields/Plots that Beneficiaries Cultivate 34
Table 27 - Land Use Arrangement on Fields/Plots that Beneficiaries Cultivate 34
Table 28 - Existence of Property Document for the Cultivated Fields/Plots 34
Table 29 - For How Long Beneficiaries Think They Can Use the Cultivated Fields/Plots 35
Table 30 - Access to Additional Land for Cultivation 35
Table 31 - Type of Land that Beneficiaries Cultivate 35
Table 32 - General Conditions of the Soil 35
Table 33 - Preparation of Soil Before Cultivation 36
Table 34 - Types of Land Preparation Used 36
Table 35 - Key Data on Beneficiaries’ Agricultural Production (Monrovia) 37
Table 36 - Key Data on Beneficiaries’ Agricultural Production (Gbarnga) 38
Table 37 - Key Data on Beneficiaries’ Agricultural Production (Tubmanburg) 39
Table 38 - Key Data on Sources of Labor Used in Beneficiaries’ Agricultural Production (Monrovia) 40
3
Table 39 - Key Data on Sources of Labor Used in Beneficiaries’ Agricultural Production (Gbarnga) 41
Table 40 - Key Data on Sources of Labor Used in Beneficiaries’ Agricultural Production (Tubmanburg) 42
Table 41 - Key Data on Agricultural Tools Used by Project Beneficiaries (Monrovia) 43
Table 42 - Key Data on Agricultural Tools Used by Project Beneficiaries (Gbarnga) 44
Table 43 - Key Data on Agricultural Tools Used by Project Beneficiaries (Tubmanburg) 45
Table 44 - Beneficiaries Who Use Fertilizers for their Agricultural Production 46
Table 45 - Beneficiaries Who Use Fertilizers for their Agricultural Production: Type of Fertilizer 46
Table 46 - Type of Organic Fertilizer 46
Table 47 - Sources of Fertilizers 46
Table 48 - Use of Methods to Control Weeds 47
Table 49 - Beneficiaries’ Access to Processing Facilities 47
Table 50 - Type of Processing Facilities 47
Table 51 - Percentage of Beneficiaries Who Experience General Farming Problems 47
Table 52 - Percentage of Beneficiaries Who Experience General Pest and Disease Problems in Farming 48
Table 53 - Beneficiaries’ Views on Production Situation in Their Cultivated Fields/Plots 48
Table 54 - Beneficiaries’ View on The Need to Improve their Farming Methods 48
Table 55 - Beneficiaries’ Who Own Small Livestock 48
Table 56 - Percentage of Beneficiaries Who Own Livestock, by Type 49
Table 57 - Percentage of Beneficiaries by Type and Number of Reared Livestock (MONROVIA) 49
Table 58 - Percentage of Beneficiaries by Type and Number of Reared Livestock (GBARNGA) 49
Table 59 - Percentage of Beneficiaries by Type and Number of Reared Livestock (TUBMANBURG) 50
Table 60 - Percentage of Beneficiaries Who Engage in Fishing 50
Table 61 - Percentage of Beneficiaries Who Own Livestock, by Use of the Livestock 50
Table 62 - Beneficiaries’ Sources of Income, In Order of Importance 50
Table 63 - Percentage of Beneficiaries By Importance of Income From Agriculture 51
Table 64 - Percentage of Beneficiaries By Importance of Income From Market Sales 51
Table 65 - Percentage of Beneficiaries By Their View of Their Household’s Income VS. Income of
51
Other Households in the Same Area
Table 66 - Beneficiaries’ Views on The Availability of Opportunities for Income Generation 51
Table 67 - Beneficiaries’ View of Available Opportunities for Income Generation, by Type of
52
Opportunity
Table 68 - Percentage of Beneficiaries By Quantity of Household Income Spent on Food 52
Table 69 - Relative Weight of Various Types of Expenses on Household’s Income 52
Table 70 - Percentage of Beneficiaries By View on How Much They Are Able to Save 52
Table 71 - Percentage of Beneficiaries by Presence of a Market in the Community Where They Live 53
Table 72 - Percentage of Beneficiaries Who Have a Market in the Community Where They Live, by
53
Type of Market
Table 73 - Percentage of Beneficiaries Who Sell in Local or Other Market 53
Table 74 - Percentage of Beneficiaries Who Sell Products from their Farm/Garden 53
Table 75 - Percentage of Beneficiaries’ Who Sell in the Market, by Means Used to Sell 54
Table 76 - Percentage of Beneficiaries Who Sell in Market, By Way of Carrying Goods to the Market 54
Table 77 - Percentage of Beneficiaries Who Sell in Market, By Market Facilities Used When Selling 54
4
Table 78 - Percentage of Beneficiaries Who Sell in Market, By Their View on the Price They Obtain for
54
Their Merchandise
Table 79 - Percentage of Beneficiaries Who Sell in the Market, by Their Knowledge of the Price of
55
Their Merchandise in Other Markets
Table 80 - Percentage of Beneficiaries By Type of Business System 55
Table 81 - Percentage of Beneficiaries By View on Degree of Availability of Investment Opportunities 55
Table 82 - Percentage of Beneficiaries By Their Access to Community/Group Managed Seed Bank 55
Table 83 - Percentage of Beneficiaries By Their Access to Credit/Loan facilities 56
Table 84 - Who Provides Credit/Loan 56
Table 85 - Percentage of Beneficiaries Who Have Obtained Credit/Loan in the Past 56
Table 86 - Percentage of Beneficiaries Who Received Credit/Loan, By How They Used the Credit/Loan 56
Table 87 - Percentage of Beneficiaries Who Received Credit/Loan, By How They Paid Back the
57
Credit/Loan
Table 88 - Percentage of Beneficiaries, By Main Source of Drinking Water for Their Household 57
Table 89 - Percentage of Beneficiaries By Presence of Any Health Care Facility in Their Community 57
Table 90 - Percentage of Beneficiaries, By Type of Health Care Facility in Their Community 57
Table 91 - Percentage of Beneficiaries By Presence of Any Public School in Their Community 58
Table 92 - Percentage of Beneficiaries By Having Received Agricultural Farming Assistance from Any
58
Organization (Except CARE and WHH)
Table 93 - Percentage of Beneficiaries By Type of Agricultural Farming Assistance Received 58
Table 94 - Percentage of Beneficiaries, By Having Received a Visit of an Extension Agent on their
58
Farm
Table 95 - Percentage of Beneficiaries Who Received a Visit of an Extension Agent on their Farm, By
How Often the Extension Agent Visits the Farm 59
Table 96 - Percentage of Beneficiaries Who Received a Visit of an Extension Agent on their Farm, By If
59
They Have Benefited from the Extension Services Provided
Table 97 - Percentage of Beneficiaries By Having A Demonstration Farm / Farmers’ Field School In
Their Communities 59
Table 98 - Percentage of Beneficiaries Who Have a Demonstration Farm / Farmers’ Field School In
Their Communities By Having Received Training from Demonstration Farm / Farmers’ Field 60
School
Table 99 - Percentage of Beneficiaries By Having A Community / Town Development Committee In
60
Their Communities
Table 100 - Percentage of Beneficiaries By Having A Self-help Group In Their Communities 60
Table 101 - Percentage of Beneficiaries Who Have A Self-help Group In Their Communities, By Status
60
of the Self-help Group
Table 102 - Percentage of Beneficiaries Who Have A Self-help Group In Their Communities, By How
61
Long the Self-help Group Has Been in Existence
Table 103 - Percentage of Beneficiaries By Having An NGO Working In Their Communities 61
Table 104 - Percentage of Beneficiaries Who Have An NGO Working In Their Communities (Except
61
CARE and WHH), By Type of Activity
5
U G CU U (UPA) S SURVEY IN LIBERIA
URBAN & PERI-URBAN AGRICULTURE (U ) BASELINE SU
Institute of Research, University of Liberia
Executive Summary
This report presents the results of an Urban and Peri-Urban Agriculture (UPA) Baseline Survey
undertaken by the Institute of Research of the University of Liberia for CARE and Welthungerhilfe during
the last quarter of 2010. The aim of the baseline study has been to provide representative and relevant
information on the socio-economic environment targeted by CARE and Welthungerhilfe’s UPA projects in
Liberia. The objective of these projects is to contribute to poverty reduction and sustainable
development by improving urban and peri-urban agriculture among highly vulnerable households in
Liberia.
Primary data for this research were collected from a representative sample of project beneficiaries, as
well as members of affected communities, in Greater Monrovia, Gbarnga and Tubmanburg. Both an UPA
questionnaire and focus group discussions were utilized as data collection tools. The analysis of the
collected data shows that most project beneficiaries in Monrovia and Gbarnga are women. Usually heads
of their households, the majority of the beneficiaries have between 26 and 55 years of age, some degree
of formal education and have spent six or more years in their present locations. Their main source of
income is vegetable farming, followed by trading and, to a significantly lower degree, employment.
The food items that beneficiaries consume the most are rice, fish and palm oil. These are not produced
by project beneficiaries in sufficient quantities to meet the needs of their households. More generally,
the large majority of beneficiaries’ households produce less than half of the food they consume and
therefore depend upon local markets and shops for the procurement of foodstuff. Set in this context,
food security emerges as a major concern for the large majority of beneficiaries, who often experience
lack of food particularly during the last months of the rainy season: August and September.
Most beneficiaries are involved in the cultivation of ‘gardens’ and small plots: over 90% of them cultivate
areas below the local standard measure of one ‘lot’ of land. Cultivated land usually belongs to the
beneficiaries themselves or to their households. For this reason, written land-use agreements are
uncommon and most beneficiaries believe they can use the land under cultivation for as long as they
desire.
In most cases, cultivation takes place on upland or previously developed lowland in the form of flat or
raised beds. Virtually all project beneficiaries utilize only local seeds and use most of their agricultural
produce for sale without previous processing. Agricultural productivity tends to be higher in
6
Tubmanburg, followed by Monrovia and Gbarnga. In all three locations insects and, to a less extent, rats
and groundhogs are the main causes of harvest loss, which is typically less than half of the total harvest.
Beneficiaries themselves and their households’ members are the main source of agricultural labour and
are usually paid in kind. Hired labour, hired kuu groups and the kuu system are significantly less common
and are normally used only for the most labour-intensive activities, such as brushing and major digging.
The availability of tools is significantly higher in Monrovia as compared to Gbarnga and Tubmanburg. This
said, in all three locations the lack of tools is the most common farming problem, followed by (in
decreasing order of importance): poor quality seeds, poor access to water, lack of knowledge, labour
and storage space.
While fishing is a marginal activity, about half of the project beneficiaries own small livestock. These are
mostly chicken, which in a few cases are reared in large numbers. On the whole, the data collected on
nutrition and livestock suggest that an increase in small livestock husbandry and fishing is desirable and
possible, also in the light that chicken and fish are in large demand on the Liberian food market and some
relevant knowledge on this aspect of agricultural production is already locally available.
The large majority of beneficiaries operate their income-generating activities as ‘sole owners’ or on a
‘self-help’ basis. Partnerships and external investments are a rare occurrence. Although most
beneficiaries perceive the existence of valuable local opportunities for income generation, their very
limited chance to save income and to access credit facilities remain compelling obstacles to the pursuit of
new endeavours. This situation is further exacerbated by the scarce availability of support services:
almost all beneficiaries do not have access to community- or group-managed seed banks, extension
services, demonstration farms or any other form of farming assistance.
7
UPA BASELINE FINAL REPORT
This report presents the results of an Urban and Peri-Urban Agriculture (UPA) Baseline Survey
undertaken by the Institute of Research of the University of Liberia for CARE and Welthungerhilfe during
the last quarter of 2010. The study focused on the beneficiaries of the combined UPA projects that the
two international non-governmental organizations have been implementing in Liberia. After an
introduction to the two projects, the following pages present the scope of the study, the methodology
adopted and the main results obtained from the analysis of the collected information.
1. INTRODUCTION
Starting from 2010, the international non-governmental organizations CARE and Welthungerhilfe (WHH)
have implemented two combined UPA projects on urban and peri-urban agriculture in Liberia. The overall
objective of the projects is to contribute to poverty reduction and sustainable development in the
country. More specifically, their aim is to enhance food security and income generation by improving
urban and peri-urban agriculture among highly vulnerable households in Liberia. Both projects are
primarily sponsored by the European Community, whose contribution amounts to 90% of the resources
budgeted for each intervention. While the two UPA projects pursue common goals and adopt
comparable approaches, they have different
territorial targets. Welthungerhilfe’s project
is implemented in the western townships of
Greater Monrovia (Montserrado County) as
well as in the city of Tubmanburg (Bomi
County) and its environs. The areas covered
by CARE’s project are the six eastern
townships of Greater Monrovia as well as
Gbarnga (Bong County) and its
surroundings. The direct beneficiaries of
CARE and Welthungerhilfe’s UPA projects
amount to 1,650 and 1,500 respectively, or
3,150 in total. Among the three targeted
urban and peri-urban areas of Greater
Monrovia, Gbarnga and Tubmanburg, the
capital city and its environs host the largest
CARE’s & Welthungerhilfe’s Target Areas in Greater Monrovia
(Courtesy of CARE and Welthungerhilfe) part of the beneficiaries, whereas the other
8
two equally share the remaining
project participants. Both projects
foresee the implementation of a
baseline survey and of mid-term and
final evaluations. The baseline
survey is meant to provide essential
information to guide the
implementation of the projects and
to help evaluate, at a later stage,
Target Areas outside Monrovia: Gbarnga (CARE) and Tubmanburg (WHH) their effectiveness and impact.
(Courtesy of Welthungerhilfe)
2. SCOPE OF THE UPA BASELINE SURVEY
The primary objective of the baseline survey has been to afford a representative and relevant description
of the socio-economic context targeted by the two UPA projects. In particular, the baseline has aimed to
provide accurate information on the status of key variables at the initial stage of project field activities.
Through the collection and analysis of primary data from the beneficiary population, the study has sought to
produce information that:
a) Enhances the overall understanding of the socio-economic environment that the two projects
intend to affect;
b) Helps guide the implementation of the projects by identifying relevant socio-economic traits and
behaviours common to the targeted beneficiary population;
c) Provides a basis against which the intermediate and final effects of the projects can be exposed and
assessed. In other words, mid-term or final project evaluations may use the results of the baseline
study in order to assess if key socio-economic traits have changed in line with the expectations of
the projects.
3. METHODOLOGY
The methodology of the UPA baseline survey was defined after a careful review of the project
documentation provided by CARE and Welthungerhilfe and following an assessment of the projects’
logical frameworks and indicators. Two different tools for data collection were eventually selected:
1) An ad hoc questionnaire for direct beneficiaries of the two UPA projects;
9
2) Focus Group Discussions (FGDs) with members of communities targeted by the two UPA
projects.
The UPA Questionnaire.
The questionnaire consisted of one hundred questions divided in ten sections (see Annexe II). After an
opening part on respondents’ participation in the UPA projects, the remaining nine sections referred to
key socio-economic aspects of concern for CARE and Welthungerhilfe’s interventions, namely:
Topic 1 – General Information on Respondent and Household
Topic 2 – Nutrition
Topic 3 – Production
Topic 4 – Income
Topic 5 – Expenditures
Topic 6 – Market
Topic 7 – Investment
Topic 8 – Social Services
Topic 9 – Organizations Active in the Respondent’s Area
Virtually all questions were followed by several pre-set answers to choose from. Predefined answers to
most questions included an open option for unanticipated responses. In three cases (questions 36, 37
and 38) the interviewer was required to fill a table on the basis of the interviewee’s answers.
Before the start of the data collection, all questions and their responses were reviewed several times by
the research team in close collaboration with project staff and Monitoring and Evaluation personnel of
the commissioning organizations. A field test of the UPA questionnaire was undertaken in Paynesville
(Monrovia) with actual project beneficiaries. The results of the test helped fine-tune the questionnaire.
The time needed to administer one complete set of questions ranged between forty-five and sixty
minutes.
Informants: type, number and selection. All questionnaire respondents were beneficiaries of either CARE’s
or Welthungerhilfe’s UPA project. Due to the large number of project beneficiaries and the requirement
of providing representative results, it was agreed that a representative sample of the beneficiary
population should be identified. The sample was selected through simple random sampling on the basis
of the lists of beneficiaries’ names and locations provided by CARE and Welthungerhilfe. The table below
shows that, in line with the confidence level and interval agreed by the parties, the needed sample size
was 178 beneficiaries.1 Nevertheless, it was decided to increase the actual sample size to 200
1
Confidence level and interval were chosen in line with the level of representation that CARE and Welthungerhilfe
deemed appropriate and taking into account financial and time constraints.
10
beneficiaries to avoid the risk that some invalid questionnaire forms could bring the total number of valid
questionnaires below the threshold of 178. On the basis of actual beneficiaries’ distribution among the
three cities targeted by the UPA projects, it was agreed that 50% of the selected sample would be made
of beneficiaries in Monrovia while the remaining 50% would be equally divided between Gbarnga and
Tubmanburg.
Total Beneficiary Population of the Two UPA Projects 3,150
Confidence Level 90%
Confidence Interval ±6
Sample Size Needed Using Simple Random Sampling 178
Data Collection Team. Before the start of the data collection, a team of fourteen enumerators was set up.
The team consisted of two Data Collection Supervisors and twelve Data Collection Assistants (two of
which were specialized in focus group discussions). All team members were Liberian graduates, mostly
from the University of Liberia, and had previous relevant experience. They all participated in a two-day ad
hoc workshop, which included training on the objectives, methodology and ethical standards of the data
collection as well as a field test of the UPA questionnaire.
Data collection and analysis. The data collection started on November 17th and ended on December 1st,
2010. Under the supervision of the research staff of the Institute, the Data Collection Team applied the
UPA questionnaire only with those beneficiaries in Monrovia, Gbarnga and Tubmanburg who had been
previously selected as sample of the whole beneficiary population. In only few cases the selected
beneficiaries were not available and their immediate next in the list of beneficiaries were interviewed
instead. Project staff of CARE and Welthungerhilfe − and/or personnel of their respective partner
organizations Africa 2000 Network (A2N) and Human Development Foundation (HDF) − played an
important facilitating role in the identification of selected beneficiaries.
During the data collection, each informant’s answers were directly recorded on the questionnaire form.
The Data Collection Supervisors reviewed each questionnaire form immediately after the completion of
the interview, asking the data-collector for any clarification as deemed appropriate, before submitting
the form to the research investigators. All filled questionnaires were numbered in progressive order,
from 1 to 200. A total of 100 valid questionnaires were collected in Monrovia, while 50 were collected in
Gbarnga and 50 in Tubmanburg. After completion of the data collection, a data entry team composed of
four members entered the answers from the filled questionnaire forms into computerized spread-sheets.
The data entry took place under the supervision of the baseline research team and entered data were
11
double-checked for misreading and typing errors. The data were then analysed using statistical computer
software (SPSS Version 16; MS Excel 2010) to produce accurate descriptive statistics, tables and graphs.
Table 1 (further below) provides additional information on the daily results of the data collection.
The Focus Group Discussions (FGDs).
Besides the UPA questionnaire, important and relevant information of a more qualitative nature was
collected through focus group discussions with members of communities targeted by the UPA projects.
As an integral part of the baseline survey, a total of 8 focus group discussions were completed: 4 in
Monrovia, 2 in Gbarnga and 2 in Tubmanburg (Table 1). The communities where the FGDs took place were
randomly selected within the areas of project operations of CARE and Welthungerhilfe.
Two Data Collection Assistants had been specifically selected for their documented experience in
facilitating group discussions. They worked together (one as facilitator, the other as note-taker) to
complete all 8 FGDs. In their work, they were guided by a list of key questions that the baseline research
team had previously developed (Annex III). For each focus group discussion, two separate reports were
compiled: a transcript of the group discussion and a report on the main themes and issues emerged. The
research team of the UPA baseline survey analysed all FGD reports using standard professional
procedures for qualitative data analysis.
Table 1 – The Data Collection Process
QUESTIONNAIRE NUMBER OF
I-NGO OPERATING
LOCATION DATE IDENTIFICATION FOCUS GROUP
IN THE AREA
NUMBER DISCUSSIONS
MONROVIA 17 Nov. CARE 1 to 25
MONROVIA 18 Nov. CARE 25 to 50
MONROVIA 19 Nov. Welthungerhilfe 51 to 78
MONROVIA 20 Nov. Welthungerhilfe 79 to 100
GBARNGA 22 Nov. CARE 101 to 111
GBARNGA 23 Nov. CARE 112 to 137 1
GBARNGA 24 Nov. CARE 138 to 150 1
TUBMANBURG 25 Nov. Welthungerhilfe 151 to 172 1
TUBMANBURG 26 Nov. Welthungerhilfe 173 to 188 1
TUBMANBURG 27 Nov. Welthungerhilfe 189 to 200
MONROVIA 30 Nov. CARE 2
MONROVIA 1 Dec. Welthungerhilfe 2
12
Ethical Aspects.
Professional ethical standards for applied research were vigilantly implemented throughout the data-
collection and data-analysis process to ensure confidentiality and the utmost respect of respondents’
freewill and dignity. The data-collection was based on the freely given consent of the selected
beneficiaries to take part in the UPA questionnaire. Before each interview, the Data Collection Assistant
explained as fully as possible, and in terms meaningful to the participant, what the research was about,
who was undertaking and financing it, why it was being undertaken and how the research results would
be used. The participants were assured that at no time would their names or identities be disclosed. Also,
they were allowed to leave at any moment during the data collection, if they so wished. Confidentiality
and anonymity were rigorously respected during all the phases of the research process.
4. RESULTS
This chapter presents the results of the analysis of the data collected using both the UPA questionnaire
and the FGDs. The chapter is divided into ten sections, along the lines of the division of topics used in the
questionnaire.
In order to provide easily readable results, whenever possible percentages are used in the following
pages to describe the answers collected through the questionnaire. Such figures refer to the percentage
of the total questionnaire participants who provided a certain answer. It should be noted that the sum of
the percentages of the answers to a given question may be below or above 100% for two reasons: 1) if
some participants did not agree to answer the question (total percentage inferior to 100%); 2) if multiple
answers to the question were admitted (total percentage above 100%). It is also important to highlight
that, unless otherwise specified, the data presented hereafter refer to the period between June and
November 2010, that is to say the six months preceding the data collection. The tables in Annex I present
the data collected through the UPA questionnaire.
Section 1. Participation in UPA Projects as Beneficiary (Annex I, Tables 1 and 2).
This section of the questionnaire helped assess beneficiaries’ knowledge of basic aspects of the UPA
projects, namely: which organization implements the project, and in which aspect of the project the
beneficiary is involved. The collected answers clearly show that beneficiaries have a good knowledge of
both the organization implementing the project and the activities in which the beneficiaries take part.
WHH’s beneficiaries are marginally better informed, both in Monrovia and Tubmanburg. While keeping in
mind that several aspects of the projects have not yet been fully developed, the results of the data
13
collection reveal that agricultural production is by far the main area of beneficiaries’ involvement,
followed by CARE’s Saving & Loans in Monrovia and Gbarnga.
Section 2. General Information on Respondents and Their Households (Annex I, Tables 3 to 13).
In Monrovia and Gbarnga the beneficiaries of the UPA projects are mostly women: respectively the 53%
and 82% of all beneficiaries. Conversely, most beneficiaries (60%) in Tubmanburg are male. In all three
locations, over 70% of the beneficiaries are aged between 26 and 55 years. The largest age group is
between 36 and 45 years: approximately one third of all beneficiaries belongs to this group (Annex I,
Tables 3 and 4).
BENEFICIARIES’ GENDER PROFILE
Monrovia Gbarnga Tubmanburg
Male
18%
Fem.
Male Fem. 40%
47% 53% Male
Fem. 60%
82%
While most beneficiaries of the UPA projects have some formal school education, the data collected
show that the percentage of formally educated is the highest in Monrovia, followed by Tubmanburg and,
last, Gbarnga. Over two thirds of educated beneficiaries have reached secondary education (between
grade 7 and 12 in the Liberian education system), while there are a few cases of beneficiaries with some
university education (between 1% and 2% of the total; Annex I, Tables 5 and 6).
Significant differences have emerged in the time that beneficiaries’ households have spent in their
current locations. The largest share of beneficiaries’ households (over one third of the total) has been
living in their current locations for over ten years. Nevertheless, lower but significant numbers of
households have been in their current locations for 2 to 5 years (on average, 27% of all households) or for
6 to 10 years (23%; Annex I, Table 7).
Concerning beneficiaries’ household composition, the most common household types are as follows:
- Monrovia: 2 female adults; 1 male adult; 1 female child; 1 male child.
- Gbarnga: 2 female adults; 2 male adults; 1 female child; 1 male child.
14
- Tubmanburg: 2 female adults; 1 male adult; 2 female children; 1 male child.
This been said, significant variations are again frequent. Larger households with more than 7 members
are common among beneficiaries in all three locations and they are more frequent in Monrovia (Annex I,
Tables 8 and 9).
Approximately two thirds of the beneficiaries are heads of their household. The analysis of beneficiaries’
dependents reveals that it is common for large households to include members who are not dependents
of the head of the household (HoH). In this context, it should not be assumed that large households (i.e.
with 7 or more members) are worse-off than small ones: in other words, larger households can usually
count on one or more members who do not depend on the HoH for their living (Annex I, Tables 10 to 12).
Although section 6 below looks in more detail at beneficiaries’ earnings, the data collected under the
present section already reveal that farming vegetables is by far the main source of beneficiaries’ income
in all areas targeted by the UPA projects.
BENEFICIARIES’ MAIN SOURCE OF INCOME
Monrovia 8% Gbarnga
1%
6% 26%
60%
19%
2%
1%
72% 4%
1%
2%
2%
Tubmanburg
12%
Farming Vegetables
2%
Farming Roots & Tubers
Farming Cereals 4%
Farming Fruit 62%
Farming Medical Crops
Raising Livestock 16%
Trading
Employment
Selling Labour
After farming vegetables, trade and employment are, in this order, the other most common main sources
of income in Monrovia and Gbarnga. Tubmanburg presents some significant differences in this respect: it
is the only location where farming cereals is the main sources of income for a section of the beneficiary
15
population (4%) and where employment is not a main source of earnings for any beneficiary (Annex I,
Table 13).
Section 3. Nutrition (Annex I, Tables 14 to 22).
Among beneficiaries of the UPA projects, cooking food once a day for the whole household is the most
common practice: it is the habit of 60% of the beneficiaries in all three locations. Over one third of all
beneficiaries have food cooked twice per day. Although the number of cups of rice that are cooked each
day for the household can vary significantly among beneficiaries, over two thirds of them cook between
3 and 6 cups per day of Liberia’s staple food. Cooking more than 6 cups is more common in Monrovia and
least frequent in Gbarnga, with Tubmanburg occupying an intermediary position between the two other
locations (Annex I, Tables 14 and 15).
Two thirds of UPA beneficiaries in all locations directly produce up to half of the food consumed by their
households. Only in Tubmanburg a small but significant number of beneficiaries (6%) produces all the
food that their households need. Beneficiaries in Monrovia purchase their household food most often
from shops; Gbarnga beneficiaries prefer wholesale markets while in Tubmanburg food is most often
bought in local markets (Annex I, table 17).
The analysis of food consumption among UPA beneficiaries reveals that rice is the food most frequently
consumed, followed by fish, palm oil and greens. It is also interesting to note that powdered milk is very
often consumed by beneficiaries in Monrovia and Gbarnga (Annex I, table 18). The collected data reveal
that, apart from greens, the most frequently eaten food items are not produced in sufficient quantities
by the beneficiaries, who therefore need to purchase such foodstuff.
Over 80% of the UPA beneficiaries in all locations have experienced periods of insufficient food during
the twelve months prior to the data collection. From this point of view, the worst months have coincided
with the second half of the rainy season: August and September. Among all beneficiaries, those in
Gbarnga appear to have been the most affected by lack of food over the period of reference. Among the
three locations, Tubmanburg has the lowest frequency of insufficient food during the dry season, but it
experiences significant lack of food between July and October (Annex I, Table 20). On the whole, the
collected data clearly show that food security is indeed a major present concern among beneficiaries of
the UPA projects.
16
SOURCES OF FOOD ITEMS FOR BENEFICIARIES’HOUSEHOLDS
(Apart from Direct Agricultural Production)
4%
Monrovia Gbarnga
1% 14%
6%
5%
40%
34%
27%
41%
20%
2%
Tubmanburg
36%
24%
24%
Wholesale Market Local Markets
Shops Food for Work
Food from Relief Others
26%
Section 4. Production (Annex I, Tables 23 to 61).
Over 90% of the beneficiaries’ households in all three locations are directly involved in small garden
cultivation. The majority of the beneficiaries’ households in Monrovia and Gbarnga do not take part in
any large scale cultivation which, on the other hand, is more frequent in Tubmanburg (54% of
beneficiaries’ households; Annex I, Table 24).
The most common sizes of the fields that the UPA beneficiaries cultivate are: 1) small gardens
(approximately 50% of the beneficiaries in Monrovia and Gbarnga and 34% of those in Tubmanburg); 2)
plots below 1 lot of land (47% in Monrovia and 40% in Gbarnga and Tubmanburg). Field sizes above one lot
are rare in Gbarnga (4% of the beneficiaries) but relatively more common in Monrovia (15%) and in
Tubmanburg (20% of the beneficiaries; Annexe I table 25).
The majority of the land cultivated by beneficiaries in Monrovia and Gbarnga belongs to the beneficiaries
themselves or to their family. In Tubmanburg this typology of ownership characterizes the 42% of the
cultivated land. Approximately 10% of the plots under cultivation in Monrovia and Tubmanburg are public
land. “Community land” is a major component only in Tubmanburg, where it accounts for 28% of the
17
cultivated areas. Rented land is a clear minority in all three locations: 19% and 18% of the cultivated land in
Monrovia and Gbarnga respectively and just the 12 % in Tubmanburg (annex I, Table 26).
Set in this context, it is no surprise that most cultivated land is available for “free use” or with “no
arrangement”. Only in a minority of cases (from 18% in Monrovia up to 28% in Gbarnga) something is
given for the use of the land: cash or produce, since working on landowner’s farm is not practiced
(Annex I, Table 27).
When asked about the availability of official property documents for the cultivated land, most
beneficiaries stated that such documents are available. “Papers” are very common both in Monrovia
(80% of beneficiaries) and in Gbarnga (78%) but less so in Tubmanburg (50%). It should also be noted that
a small but significant share of beneficiaries does not know whether property documents are available or
not: this condition is shared by approximately 10% of the beneficiaries in Monrovia and Gbarnga, but by as
many as 28% in Tubmanburg (Annex I, Table 28).
OWNERSHIP OF FIELDS/PLOTS THAT BENEFICIARIES CULTIVATE
Monrovia Gbarnga
28% 26%
14%
29% 4%
11%
28%
4%
18%
7%
21% 5%
19%
2%
Tubmanburg
10%
Beneficiary 20%
Beneficiary's Spouse/Partner 2%
Beneficiary's Family
Landlord 28%
Community 20%
Public Land
12%
Others
Since most cultivated land belongs to the beneficiaries or their families, most beneficiaries think that
they can continue cultivating their plots for as long as they desire. Also, the majority believes that they
can have access to more land if they so wish. This said, uncertainly affects a sizeable minority:
18
respectively 17% and 16% of the UPA beneficiaries in Monrovia and Tubmanburg do not know for how
long they can continue working on the plots that they are currently cultivating, and this percentage rises
to 26% among beneficiaries in Gbarnga. A similar pattern of uncertainty can be seen in beneficiaries’
opinions on the availability of additional land: respectively 10% and 8% of the beneficiaries in Monrovia
and Tubmanburg do not know if they can have access to additional land and this percentage reaches 16%
among beneficiaries in Gbarnga (Annex I, Tables 29 and 30).
As regards the typology of cultivated land, upland is the most common among beneficiaries in all three
locations, followed by previously developed lowland and undeveloped lowland. The general conditions
of the soil are reported to be between “fair” and “very good” by over two thirds of the beneficiaries.
Poor soil conditions are reported by 20% of the beneficiaries in Gbarnga, by 16% in Monrovia and only 10%
in Tubmanburg. The preparation of the soil for cultivation is undertaken virtually only with non-mechanic,
manual tools. Cultivation takes place using mostly “flat beds” or “raised beds” (Annex I, Tables 31 to 34).
Collected data on beneficiaries’ agricultural production are presented in table 2 below and, in more
detail, in Annex I (tables 35 to 37). Taking into consideration that the beneficiaries interviewed in
Monrovia were two times those in each of the other two cities, Tubmanburg shows the highest levels of
agricultural production in all types of crops except for greens and plantains, which are harvested in
largest quantities in Monrovia. Among the three locations, Gbarnga has the lowest agricultural
production except for cassava and rice.
Most beneficiaries in all three locations reported that their total harvest loss during the previous six
months was less than half of all harvested produce. Such loss is mostly due insects and, in second
instance, to rats and groundhogs.
Almost all beneficiaries use exclusively local seeds: only 10% of the beneficiaries in Monrovia, 8% in
Gbarnga and 6% in Tubmanburg use improved seeds. There is a generally high level of satisfaction
concerning the quality of the produce, which is regarded to be of a good or very good standard by 75% of
the beneficiaries in Monrovia, 78% of those in Gbarnga and 83% in Tubmanburg.
As shown in Table 3 below, beneficiaries use their agricultural production mostly for consumption and
sale and, to a much lower extent, for seeds. Table 4 goes into more detail as refers to the part of produce
that is used for food and for sale.
The use of most of the produce for sale is consistent with findings in section 3 above: the food items that
are more often consumed by the beneficiaries are not those directly produced, hence the need to sell an
important part of the agricultural produce to later purchase the desired food.
It is important to highlight that almost all beneficiaries from the three locations do not process their
agricultural produce in any way. Among all the data collected, there are only few, occasional reports of
produce processing of cassava and greens, mostly in the form of cooking and, to a less extent, milling.
19
Concerning the labour that beneficiaries use for their agricultural production, in most cases this is labour
of the beneficiaries themselves and their household members (Table 5 below; Tables 38 to 40 in Annex I).
This type of labour is paid almost exclusively in kind and is used for all activities related to the agricultural
production cycle. Hired labour is less frequently used but still relevant. Usually paid in cash, hired labour
is mostly utilized for brushing and digging. The use of labour from hired kuu groups or through the kuu
system accounts for approximately 10% of all agricultural labour in Monrovia and Gbarnga but is more
significant in Tubmanburg (20%). While hired kuu groups are paid mostly in cash and, to a less extent,
with returned labour, the kuu system remains mostly paid through returned work. Labour from hired kuu
groups or kuu system is mostly used for highly labour-intensive activities such as brushing and, to a lesser
extent, ploughing and planting.
Table 2 - Beneficiaries’ Total Production in the Period June-November 2010
Monrovia Gbarnga Tubmanburg
Type of Crop Unit
RICE Bags 130 131 499
CASSAVA Bags 365 205 519
CORN Bags 181 83 154
GREENS Tub-full 784 90 346
PLAINTAINS Heads 603 85 98
PEPPER Bags 73 18 437
BITTER BALL Bags 88 27 154
OTHER VEGETABLES Bags 147 45 247
FRUIT Bags 16 2 13
Information concerning agricultural tools that UPA beneficiaries use in Monrovia, Gbarnga and
Tubmanburg are presented in Annex I (Tables 41, 42 and 43). On the whole, beneficiaries in Monrovia
have more access to agricultural tools while those in Gbarnga are in the weakest position in this respect.
In particular, beneficiaries in Monrovia not only possess more tools but can more easily borrow them and
obtain additional tools from government agencies, non-governmental and community-based
organizations. This been said, lack of tools remains the most common farming problem among UPA
beneficiaries in all three locations: 77% of the beneficiaries in Monrovia stated that the lack of tools is a
recurring, major problem, as compared to 84% of the beneficiaries in Gbarnga and 86% of those in
Tubmanburg (Annexe I, Table 51).
20
Table 3 - Beneficiaries’ Use of Their Agricultural Produce
(Percentage of Total Beneficiaries’ Answers in each Location)2
Location Consumption Sale Exchange Seeds Other
MONROVIA 43% 47% 1% 9% 0%
GBARNGA 48% 44% 0% 8% 0%
TUBMANBURG 45% 40% 1% 11% 2%
Table 4 – Quantity of Total Produce used for Food and Sale
(Percentage of Total Beneficiaries’ Answers in each Location)3
Location <Half Half >Half All Other
Produce MONROVIA 57% 19% 9% 14% 2%
used for GBARNGA 44% 27% 11% 17% 1%
FOOD TUBMANBURG 45% 26% 11% 15% 2%
Produce MONROVIA 13% 17% 58% 7% 5%
used for GBARNGA 13% 30% 47% 1% 9%
SALE TUBMANBURG 10% 25% 51% 5% 9%
Table 5 – Type of Labour Used in Beneficiaries’ Agricultural Production
(Percentage of Total Beneficiaries’ Answers in each Location)
Household Hired Hired Kuu Kuu
Location Self
Member Labour Group System
MONROVIA 35% 33% 22% 5% 4%
GBARNGA 39% 38% 14% 5% 5%
TUBMANBURG 31% 27% 22% 7% 13%
Agricultural fertilizers are used by most project beneficiaries in Monrovia (79%), Gbarnga (66%) and
Tubmanburg (62%). Although chemical fertilizers are more frequently utilized, organic fertilizers are also
common and a significant part of the beneficiaries use both types (Annex I, Table 45). As refers to the
typology of organic fertilizer, ash is the most widespread, closely followed by compost, manure and
green manure (Annex I, Table 46). Although self-production of fertilizers is relatively frequent (on
2
It should be noted that the indicated percentages are calculated on the basis of the total answers, so to obtain an
indication of the “relative weight” of each response. Nevertheless, most beneficiaries use their produce in more
than one way (see Annex I, Tables 35 to 37).
3
The percentages concerning the part of total produce used for food or sale are accurate and internally consistent for
each category (i.e. food, sale). Nevertheless they cannot be totally consistent when both categories are considered
together. This is due to the fact that the questionnaire participants were free to answer or not any given question:
some answered the question about food and refused to answer the question about sale, and vice versa.
21
average, one out of four beneficiaries fabricates such agricultural inputs), most beneficiaries purchase
their fertilizers (Annex I, Table 47).
As mentioned above, the lack of tools is the most common farming problem among UPA beneficiaries in
the three locations: on average, it affects more than 80% of all beneficiaries. Other slightly less common
problems which affect the large majority of the beneficiaries are lack of seeds and pests. In addition to
these major obstacles, large shares of the beneficiary population are also affected by poor quality seeds,
poor access to water, lack of knowledge, labour and storage space (Annex I, Table 51).
RELATIVE PREVALENCE OF GENERAL FARMING PROBLEMS AMONG BENEFICIARIES
1%
Monrovia 9%
Gbarnga
18%
3% 9%
7%
9% 11%
17%
7% 12% 18% 21%
8%
6%
17%
19% 4%
8% Tubmanburg
7%
18%
8%
Lack of Seeds Poor Quality Seeds 7% 10%
Lack of Tools Lack of Labour
Pests Lack of Storage 17% 21%
Lack of Knowledge Water
Others 8%
Among pests, insects are the most common threat, followed by rodents and viral/fungal diseases: to
different extents, they all affect a large majority of the beneficiaries. When compared to these general
farming problems, birds and scavengers are significantly less frequent in Monrovia and Gbarnga, while
they affect Tubmanburg’s beneficiaries to a large extent. Set in this context, it is little surprise that over
90% of the whole beneficiary population clearly states the need for improving their farming methods to
reduce harvest loss and achieve better results (Annex I, Table 52 and 54).
22
Concerning small livestock, this is owned by half of the beneficiaries in Monrovia and Tubmanburg and by
70% of those in Gbarnga. Chickens are by far the most common type of livestock and small shares of
beneficiaries rear them in significant quantities, particularly in Gbarnga. Ducks are the second most
widespread type of small livestock in Monrovia and Gbarnga, while in Tubmanburg pigs occupy this
position. Reared livestock is mostly used for food: 50% of beneficiaries who own small livestock in
Gbarnga and Tubmanburg, and 40% in Monrovia, use it for consumption. The second most common use is
for sale, particularly in Gbarnga and Tubmanburg.
Finally, fishing is a marginal activity among the UPA beneficiary population: approximately 20% of the
beneficiaries in Gbarnga and Tubmanburg engage themselves in fishing, whereas only 10% in Monrovia.
On the whole, the data collected about nutrition and livestock suggest that an increase in small livestock
husbandry and fishing is desirable and possible, also in the light that small livestock is in demand for meat
and some relevant knowledge on this aspect of agricultural production is already locally available (Annex
I, Tables 55 to 61).
Section 5. Income (Annex I, Tables 62 to 67).
The analysis of the data collected on income shows that farming vegetable is the main source of earnings
for the largest share of the beneficiary population. Trading is the second most important source of
income in Monrovia and Gbarnga, followed by employment and farming roots and tubers. Tubmanburg
shows a rather different trend. Here farming roots and tubers occupies the second position and
employment is less important even when compared to farming cereals and raising livestock. In general
terms, raising livestock occupies an intermediary position while farming fruit and medicinal crops are
marginal sources of income, particularly in Monrovia and Gbarnga (Annex I, Table 62).
Over two thirds of all beneficiaries believe that additional income-generation opportunities are available.
Such opportunities are perceived to be mostly in farming and, to a less extent, in trade, small livestock
production and employment.4 Only much smaller numbers of beneficiaries see income-generating
opportunities in charcoal production, processing of agricultural produce and tree nurseries (Annex I,
Table 67).
Finally, it is interesting to note that over one third of all beneficiaries see their household as being in a
“good” or “very good” position (from an income perspective) when compared to other households in
the same area. In general terms, the large majority of the beneficiaries sees their households as being on
or above the average-income line in their respective areas of residence (Annex I, Table 65).
4
It is worth noting that employment is seen as an important income-generating opportunity in Tubmanburg and
Monrovia, but not in Gbarnga.
23
Section 6. Expenditures (Annex I, Tables 68 to 70).
Beneficiaries’ assessment of the relative weights of different types of expenses on their household
income is presented in Table 6 below. It is interesting to note the primary position of education in
households’ expenses as well as the relative importance of farming costs, particularly in Gbarnga and
Tubmanburg (Annex I, Table 69).
On the one hand, relatively high farming expenses could be expected since –as noted above– farming is
the main source of income for most beneficiaries’ households. In other words, such expenses are likely to
be prioritized since they are essential to generate further income. On the other hand, it is important to
note that higher relative farming expenses in Gbarnga and Tubmanburg are not necessarily associated
with higher production. In fact, Monrovia beneficiaries give less relative weight to farming expenses, but
their average production is higher than in Gbarnga. Healthcare deserves a special mention. Expenses in
healthcare are at the bottom of the list, comparable to expenses in cell-phone scratch cards.
Table 6 – ‘Weight’ of Different Expenses on Beneficiaries’ Household Income
‘Weight’ of Expenses Monrovia Gbarnga Tubmanburg
1 - Highest Education Education Education
House Rent Farming Expenses Farming Expenses
Food House Rent Food
Household Needs Household Needs Household Needs
Farming Expenses Food House Rent
Healthcare Scratch Cards Healthcare
Scratch Cards Healthcare Transport
8 - Lowest Transport Transport Scratch Cards
Finally, the collected data show that the large majority of beneficiaries in all three locations are able to
save only “very little” or “nothing”. In Monrovia, 88% of the beneficiaries are in this position, against 78%
in Gbarnga and 92% in Tubmanburg (Annex I, Table 70). In this context, and in the absence of crediting
facilities (see section 8 below), beneficiaries are mostly unable to take advantage of the envisaged
income-generating opportunities (which are mainly in the agricultural sector) mentioned under section 5
above.
Section 7. Market (Annex I, Tables 71 to 79).
Project beneficiaries who have a market within their local community are 80% of the total in Monrovia,
52% in Gbarnga and only 38% in Tubmanburg. In most cases such markets are daily markets (Annex I,
Tables 71 and 72).
24
The majority of the beneficiaries do not sell in the market. Those who do, usually merchandise their own
products. Wholesale and retail are, by far, the most common ways used by beneficiaries to sell in
markets: wholesale is slightly more common than retail in Monrovia, while the latter predominates in
Gbarnga and Tubmanburg (Annex I, Tables 73 to 75).
Beneficiaries who carry their merchandise to the market usually do so by head-load and, less often, by
hired transportation and wheelbarrow. Once in the market, they often sell their products on tables and,
with lower frequency, on stalls or wheelbarrows. Other means (such as buckets of different sizes and
tarpaulin laid on the ground) are equally or even more common ways of displaying the merchandise,
particularly in Gbarnga and Tubmanburg (Annex I, Tables 76 and 77).
In all three locations, the large majority of beneficiaries who sell in markets are satisfied with the sale
price that they usually obtain. This said, it is important to note that most of these beneficiaries have very
limited or no knowledge of the prices of their merchandise on other markets (Annex I, Tables 78 and 79).
Section 8. Investment (Annex I, Tables 80 to 87).
The most common business systems among project beneficiaries are two: “sole-ownership” and “self-
help”. Sole-ownership of productive activities prevails in Gbarnga (38%) and especially in Monrovia (53%),
while self-help is more frequent in Tubmanburg (58%). Business systems based on partnership and
external investments are rare in all three locations (Annex I, Table 80).
The majority of beneficiaries are confident that investment opportunities are available, whereas one
third regards the availability of such opportunities as poor. It is important to note that approximately 10%
of the beneficiaries do not know whether investment opportunities are available or not. This is a small
but significant percentage, which highlights the need for more and better information on this key aspect
of economic development (Annex I, Table 81).
BENEFICIARIES’ ACCESS TO CREDIT
Monrovia Gbarnga Tubmanburg
Don't Don't
Don't Access
Know Access Know, Access
Know 2%
7% 7% 10% 6%
10%
No No
No
Access Access
Access
85% 88%
84%
25
The existence of investment opportunities, envisaged by most, crashes against the very limited resources
that beneficiaries are able to save and, importantly, against their poor access to credit. Over 80% of the
beneficiaries in Monrovia and Tubmanburg stated that they do not have access to credit or loans. This
percentage is significantly lower in Gbarnga (56%), where 36% of the beneficiaries reported having
obtained a credit or loan in the recent past. It is interesting to note that, among the relatively few
beneficiaries who obtained a credit or loan, this was mostly used for trading and, to a lesser extent, to
purchase farming inputs. Available loans have mostly been provided by local Susu Clubs and, to a lesser
extent, by non-governmental and community-based organizations. The main means of paying back the
credit or loan has been cash, while payment with agricultural produce is a much less frequent option
(Annex I, Table 83 to 87). Finally, it is important to note that very few beneficiaries have access to a
community- or group-managed seed bank: only 7% in Monrovia, 6% in Gbarnga and 2% in Tubmanburg
(Annex I, Table 82).
Section 9. Social Services (Annex I, Tables 88 to 91).
Hand-pumps are the most common source of drinking water in Monrovia and Tubmanburg: they are
used by 49% and 86% of the local beneficiaries respectively. In Monrovia, an important percentage of
beneficiaries (21%) obtain drinking water from the public pipe system of the capital city. Gbarnga shows a
different trend: here most beneficiaries (52%) draw their drinking water from open wells, with a
consequently higher risk of exposure to water-borne diseases (Annex I, Table 88).
When asked about the presence of health care facilities within the community of residence, over two
thirds of the beneficiaries in Gbarnga and Tubmanburg answered that such facilities are not available. By
contrast, in Monrovia most beneficiaries (55%) reported having a health care facility within their
communities. Easily accessible health facilities are mostly clinics in Monrovia, the hospital in Tubmanburg
and drug stores in Gbarnga. In all three locations, pharmacies and drug-stores play an important role in
facilitating beneficiaries’ health care (Annex I, Tables 89 and 90).
Concerning the availability of public schools within the beneficiaries’ communities, a similar patter
emerged as in the case of health care facilities. Most beneficiaries in Gbarnga (56%) and Tubmanburg
(52%) do not have public schools within their communities of residence, whereas in Monrovia most
beneficiaries (52%) do have nearby access to such educational facilities (Annex I, Table 91).
Section 10. Organizations Active in the Respondent’s Area (Annex I, Tables 92 to 104).
The collected data display a grey picture as refers to services provided to the project beneficiaries by
public and private non-profit organizations.5 Over two thirds of the beneficiaries in all three locations
55
CARE and Welthungerhilfe were excluded from beneficiaries’ answers.
26
(78% in Monrovia and Tubmanburg and 92% in Gbarnga) have not received any agricultural farming
assistance from any organization. For the minority that did receive such assistance, this consisted mostly
of farming tools and seeds and, more occasionally, of training and livestock (Annex I, Table 92 and 93).
By the same token, over 80% of the beneficiaries in the three locations have not received any visit of an
Extension Agent to their farms. From the data provided by the minority that received such visits, it
appears that they have not followed any systematic chronological pattern. Nevertheless, when asked if
they had benefited from such visits, respondents in Monrovia and Gbarnga provided mostly positive
answers, whereas only negative answers were collected in Tubmanburg (Annex I, Tables 94 to 96).
Concerning Demonstration Farms or Farmers’ Field Schools, most beneficiaries (86% of those in Monrovia
and Tubmanburg and 72% in Gbarnga) stated that such facilities have not been available in their
communities. It is interesting to note that, among the small minority of beneficiaries that had access to
Demonstration Farms or Farmers’ Field Schools, they all received training (Annex I, Tables 97 and 98): a
clear sign of beneficiaries’ interest in these type of training opportunities.
Community or Town Development Committees appear to be marginally more common in the
beneficiaries’ communities: 22% of the beneficiaries in Monrovia, 34% of those in Gbarnga and 28% in
Tubmanburg indicated the existence of such organizations in their areas of residence. In most cases,
such committees were reported to be functional and to have been operating in the different
communities from one to more than five years (Annex I, Tables 99 to 102).
Finally, over two thirds of the beneficiaries in all three locations (75% in Monrovia, 70% in Gbarnga and 84%
in Tubmanburg) reported that there have not been non-governmental organizations (NGOs) working in
their respective communities. Table 7 below shows NGOs’ areas of activity in those relative few
communities where such organizations have operated.6
Table 7 – NGOs’ Fields of Operation in Beneficiaries’ Areas
With Percentage of Beneficiaries’ Positive Answers
Monrovia Gbarnga Tubmanburg
Health Care 8% Agriculture 3% Agriculture 4%
Agriculture 4% Infrastructures 2% Education 2%
Education 1% Health Care 1% ---
6
See also Annex I, Tables 103 and 104.
27
ANNEX I - TABLES
SECTION 1. PARTICIPATION IN UPA PROJECTS AS BENEFICIARY.
Table 1
In which NGO’s project do you participate?
Location
CARE WHH A2N HDF Don’t
Know
Monrovia 41% 47% 8% 2% 2%
Gbarnga 94% - - - 6%
Tubmanburg - 100% - - -
Table 2
In which aspect of the project do you participate?
Location Food Security Agricultural Livestock Tree Savings
Micro
Fishing & Others
Facilitator Production Production Nurseries Retailer
Loans
Monrovia 19% 79% 13% 3% 4% 0% 17% 2%
Gbarnga 14% 72% 6% 0% 4% 2% 46% 4%
Tubmanburg 6% 88% 18% 10% 0% 0% 0% 0%
SECTION 2. GENERAL INFORMATION ON RESPONDENTS AND THEIR HOUSEHOLDS
Table 3
Beneficiaries’ Gender
Location
Female Male
Monrovia 53% 47%
Gbarnga 82% 18%
Tubmanburg 40% 60%
Table 4
Beneficiaries’ Age Group
Location
0-18 19-25 26-35 36-45 46-55 Above 55 No Answer
Monrovia 3% 1% 20% 33% 27% 14% 2%
Gbarnga 0% 6% 26% 32% 18% 10% 8%
Tubmanburg 0% 10% 32% 32% 12% 12% 2%
28
Table 5
Attended Academic School
Location
Yes No
Monrovia 77% 23%
Gbarnga 58% 42%
Tubmanburg 66% 34%
Table 6
Level of Formal Academic Education
Location
Grades Grades Above
1 to 6 7 to 12 Grade 12
Monrovia 11% 65% 1%
Gbarnga 12% 44% 2%
Tubmanburg 16% 48% 2%
Table 7
Years Spent in the Current Household Location
Location
Less than 2 y. 2 to 5 y. 6 to 10 y. More than 10 y.
Monrovia 4% 25% 24% 46%
Gbarnga 2% 32% 26% 36%
Tubmanburg 8% 26% 20% 42%
Table 8
Beneficiaries’ Household Composition (Adult Members)
Location Number of Adult Female Number of Adult Male
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 >8 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 >8
Monrovia 0% 27% 36% 12% 14% 6% 1% 0% 0% 3% 0% 37% 19% 13% 12% 11% 1% 1% 1% 2%
Gbarnga 0% 28% 36% 20% 6% 8% 0% 0% 0% 2% 0% 30% 38% 12% 2% 8% 0% 0% 2% 0%
Tubmanburg 0% 28% 36% 22% 6% 2% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 34% 26% 10% 10% 4% 6% 0% 0% 0%
29
Table 9
Beneficiaries’ Household Composition (Children)
Location Number of Female Children Number of Male Children
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 >8 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 >8
Monrovia 0% 21% 19% 16% 13% 6% 4% 1% 0% 5% 0% 25% 23% 18% 14% 6% 2% 0% 1% 3%
Gbarnga 0% 34% 22% 14% 14% 4% 6% 0% 0% 2% 0% 26% 14% 16% 8% 4% 0% 0% 0% 4%
Tubmanburg 0% 16% 38% 22% 10% 2% 0% 0% 0% 2% 0% 24% 14% 20% 6% 12% 0% 0% 2% 2%
Table 10
Beneficiaries’ Position in the Household
Location
Head of Partner of
Other
Household Head of Household
Monrovia 65% 25% 9%
Gbarnga 64% 26% 8%
Tubmanburg 66% 26% 8%
Table 11
Beneficiaries’ Adult Dependents
Location Number of Adult Female Dependents Number of Adult Male Dependents
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 >8 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 >8
Monrovia 0% 34% 24% 10% 9% 5% 3% 0% 0% 0% 0% 28% 14% 10% 9% 9% 0% 2% 0% 0%
Gbarnga 0% 30% 20% 18% 8% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 36% 26% 8% 4% 2% 0% 0% 0% 0%
Tubmanburg 0% 32% 24% 20% 4% 2% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 38% 6% 12% 4% 4% 2% 0% 0% 0%
Table 12
Beneficiaries’ Child Dependents
Location Number of Child Female Dependents Number of Child Male Dependents
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 >8 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 >8
Monrovia 0% 21% 18% 16% 14% 7% 3% 0% 0% 3% 0% 21% 24% 18% 15% 5% 2% 0% 1% 0%
Gbarnga 0% 36% 22% 10% 16% 6% 4% 0% 0% 0% 0% 24% 14% 18% 6% 4% 0% 0% 0% 2%
Tubmanburg 0% 16% 38% 24% 4% 2% 0% 0% 0% 2% 0% 26% 16% 16% 6% 8% 0% 0% 2% 2%
30
Table 13
Beneficiaries’ Main Source of Income
Farming Farming
Location Farming Farming Farming
Selling
Labor
Roots & Medicinal Raising
Trading Employment
Vegetables Cereals Fruit Livestock
Tubers Crops
Monrovia 72% 1% 0% 0% 0% 1% 19% 6% 1%
Gbarnga 60% 4% 0% 0% 0% 2% 26% 8% 0%
Tubmanburg 62% 16% 4% 2% 2% 2% 12% 0% 0%
SECTION 3. NUTRITION
Table 14
Times per Day Food is Cooked for the Whole Household
Location
1 Time 2 Times 3 Times 4 Times Other
Monrovia 60% 36% 2% 1% 1%
Gbarnga 60% 38% 2% 0% 0%
Tubmanburg 60% 36% 4% 0% 0%
Table 15
Number of Cups of Rice Cooked for the Household per Day
Location
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 >10
Monrovia 0% 0% 2% 10% 22% 18% 20% 9% 12% 5% 1% 0%
Gbarnga 0% 0% 8% 24% 16% 28% 16% 8% 0% 0% 0% 0%
Tubmanburg 0% 4% 6% 24% 26% 10% 10% 6% 4% 4% 4% 2%
Table 16
Share of the Household Food Directly Produced by the Household
Location Less than More than
None Half Don’t
All
Half Half Know
Monrovia 18% 48% 18% 13% 1% 2%
Gbarnga 18% 52% 26% 4% 0% 0%
Tubmanburg 2% 32% 36% 24% 6% 0%
31
Table 17
Sources of Food Items that Are Not Produced by the Respondent’s Household
Location
Wholesale Local Food for Food from
Shops Other
Markets Markets Work Relief
Monrovia 27% 36% 41% 5% 1% 6%
Gbarnga 40% 20% 34% 14% 0% 4%
Tubmanburg 24% 26% 24% 0% 0% 2%
Table 18
Frequency of Food Item Consumption During Previous 7 Days
(Range: 0 Min.; 7 Max.)
OTHER FRUIT
SHEEP MEAT
GOAT MEAT
BUSH MEAT
Location
POWDERED
FRESH VEG.
PLANTAINS
COW MEAT
POTATOES
PALM OIL
CASSAVA
CHICKEN
EDDOES
GREENS
SWEET
BEANS
ARGO
CORN
EGGS
MILK
YAM
FISH
RICE
Monr. 5.5 2.2 1.8 1.5 1.3 1.7 1.8 3.5 1.9 2.9 2.3 2.8 3.7 3.2 5.3 2.7 2.6 1.6 2.4 5.0 2.4
Gbar. 5.1 2.8 2.3 2.4 2.0 2.2 1.4 3.7 1.5 2.0 1.6 2.0 4.3 2.6 5.4 1.0 0 0 2.3 5.1 2.2
Tubm. 5.3 3.0 2.0 2.1 1.2 2.4 1.5 3.7 1.9 2.4 1.7 1.6 2.0 2.3 4.5 2.0 0 1.0 1.9 4.8 1.9
Table 19
Experienced Insufficient Food in the Past 12 Months
Location
YES NO DON’t KNOW
Monrovia 89% 8% 2%
Gbarnga 83% 8% 4%
Tubmanburg 85% 12% 1%
Table 20
Months in which Insufficient Food was Experienced
Location
Nov. Dec. Jan. Feb. March Apr. May June July Aug. Sept. Oct.
2009 2009 2010 2010 2010 2010 2010 2010 2010 2010 2010 2010
Monrovia 9% 7% 33% 11% 14% 25% 16% 25% 30% 46% 37% 27%
Gbarnga 16% 8% 18% 16% 10% 14% 18% 32% 44% 56% 54% 28%
Tubmanburg 14% 2% 12% 8% 16% 14% 16% 16% 24% 52% 50% 34%
32
Table 21
Beneficiaries’ Assessment of the Variety of Food
during the Previous Month
Location
Very
Poor Fair Good Very Don’t
Poor Good Know
Monrovia 3% 24% 22% 48% 1% 1%
Gbarnga 2% 14% 26% 50% 2% 6%
Tubmanburg 0% 32% 16% 52% 0% 0%
Table 22
Beneficiaries’ Assessment of the Quality of Food
during the Previous Month
Location
Very
Poor Fair Good Very Don’t
Poor Good Know
Monrovia 2% 18% 30% 48% 1% 1%
Gbarnga 2% 18% 20% 52% 0% 6%
Tubmanburg 2% 32% 26% 40% 0% 0%
SECTION 4. PRODUCTION
Table 23
Beneficiaries’ Households Involved in Small Garden
Location Cultivation
Yes No
Monrovia 92% 7%
Gbarnga 98% 2%
Tubmanburg 94% 6%
Table 24
Beneficiaries’ Households Involved in Large Size Cultivation
Location
Yes No
Monrovia 45% 55%
Gbarnga 42% 58%
Tubmanburg 54% 46%
33
Table 25
Average Size of Fields/Plots that Beneficiaries Cultivate
Location
From 1/4 to 1 Above 1 Small Don’t
Lot Lot Garden Know
Monrovia 47% 15% 49% 3%
Gbarnga 40% 4% 52% 2%
Tubmanburg 40% 20% 34% 8%
Table 26
Owner of the Fields/Plots that Beneficiaries Cultivate
Location Beneficiary’s Beneficiary’s
Beneficiary Landlord Community Public
Others
Spouse/Partner Family Land
Monrovia 29% 5% 21% 19% 7% 11% 14%
Gbarnga 26% 0% 28% 18% 4% 4% 28%
Tubmanburg 20% 2% 20% 12% 28% 10% 2%
Table 27
Land Use Arrangement on Fields/Plots that Beneficiaries Cultivate
Pay Rent
Location Free Shared Work on
Or No
Other
Use Harvest Owner’s Farm Arrangement
‘Pay Toll’
Monrovia 44% 9% 9% 0% 11% 3%
Gbarnga 46% 12% 16% 0% 10% 0%
Tubmanburg 62% 12% 10% 0% 12% 0%
Table 28
Existence of Property Document for the Cultivated Fields/Plots
Location
YES NO DON’t KNOW
Monrovia 80% 3% 11%
Gbarnga 78% 6% 12%
Tubmanburg 50% 22% 28%
34
Table 29
For How Long Beneficiaries Think They Can Use the Cultivated Fields/Plots
Location 1 2 to 3 4 to 5 6 to 10
As Long Don’t
Year Years Years Years As Desired Know
Monrovia 6% 3% 0% 0% 68% 17%
Gbarnga 8% 10% 0% 0% 54% 26%
Tubmanburg 2% 10% 0% 0% 72% 16%
Table 30
Access to Additional Land for Cultivation
Location
YES NO DON’t KNOW
Monrovia 75% 9% 10%
Gbarnga 68% 14% 16%
Tubmanburg 84% 8% 8%
Table 31
Type of Land that Beneficiaries Cultivate
Previously
Location Undeveloped Around the
Upland Developed Other
Lowland House
Lowland
Monrovia 51% 28% 30% 13% 1%
Gbarnga 66% 14% 26% 10% 4%
Tubmanburg 62% 34% 42% 10% 8%
Table 32
General Conditions of the Soil
Location
Very Poor Poor Fair Good Very Good Don’t Know
Monrovia 6% 16% 24% 35% 13% 6%
Gbarnga 0% 20% 14% 50% 14% 0%
Tubmanburg 0% 10% 22% 52% 14% 0%
35
Table 33
Preparation of Soil Before Cultivation
Location
With Manual Using
Others
Tools Machines
Monrovia 97% 0% 0%
Gbarnga 99% 0% 16%
Tubmanburg 99% 8% 8%
Table 34
Types of Land Preparation Used
Location
Flat Beds Raised Beds Ridges Mounds Other
Monrovia 55% 57% 4% 1% 8%
Gbarnga 66% 50% 4% 6% 2%
Tubmanburg 68% 42% 2% 4% 10%
36
Table 35
KEY DATA ON BENEFICIARIES' AGRICULTURAL PRODUCTION (MONROVIA)
QUANTITY of
WHAT DID YOU DO
QUANTIY of QUALITY OF Harvested QUANTITY of Harvested Produce
CAUSES of LOSS Type of WITH THE
Produce PRODUCE Produced Harvested Produce PROCESSED
of Produce SEEDS HARVESTED
LOST HARVESTED used as SOLD before SALE
PRODUCE?
FOOD
QUANTITY OF PRODUCE
HARVESTED 1= RATS / GROUNDHOG
Type of 1= Used as FOOD
at the end of 1= LESS than Half 2 = INSECTS 1= VERY POOR 1= LESS than Half 1= LESS than Half 1= LESS than Half
CROP the last farming season 1 = LOCAL 2 = SOLD for Money
2 = HALF 3 = RAIN / MOISTURE 2 = POOR 2 = HALF 2 = HALF 2 = HALF
2= 3 = EXCHANGED
3 = MORE than Half 4 = BIRDS 3 = AVERAGE 3 = MORE than Half 3 = MORE than Half 3 = MORE than Half
IMPROVED 4 = Used for NEXT
4 = ALL 5 = THEFT 4 = GOOD 4 = ALL 4 = ALL 4 = ALL
3= OTHERS SEASON
5 = OTHERS 6 = VIRUSES/FUNGUS 5 = VERY GOOD 5 = OTHERS 5 = OTHERS 5 = OTHERS
5 = OTHERS
7 = OTHERS
Unit Amount 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 1 2 3 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5
RICE Bags 130 4 1 2 0 1 5 0 1 6 0 1 0 7 0 0 0 0 1 6 1 7 3 0 2 0 2 0 2 3 1 3 0 2 0 2 0 0 0 0 0
CASSAVA Bags 365 17 8 4 0 2 18 7 7 0 8 6 0 31 0 0 0 3 8 17 5 26 21 0 4 1 16 3 4 9 0 8 3 14 0 5 1 0 0 0 0
CORN Bags 181 30 7 5 0 2 12 28 4 12 10 8 0 43 4 0 0 2 9 32 7 36 44 0 10 0 30 8 6 1 1 6 8 29 3 0 0 0 1 0 0
GREENS Tub-full 784 51 12 4 3 7 6 59 15 1 5 21 0 80 1 0 1 1 17 54 12 65 73 2 14 0 45 20 10 8 0 9 16 51 4 6 0 0 1 0 1
PLAINTAINS Heads 603 7 2 2 1 3 1 2 1 1 5 4 0 14 0 0 0 2 2 11 2 13 9 0 2 0 8 4 0 5 0 6 2 5 1 1 0 0 0 0 0
PEPPER Bags 73 18 9 1 0 1 1 19 5 2 6 6 0 32 1 0 0 5 7 18 5 26 30 1 6 0 21 7 1 4 0 0 9 19 4 0 0 0 0 0 0
BITTER BALL Bags 88 12 8 3 0 1 2 22 5 0 5 3 0 26 4 0 0 3 5 19 2 20 25 2 5 0 17 6 1 3 0 0 6 18 2 0 0 0 0 0 0
OTHER VEGETABLES Bags 147 18 7 1 3 0 5 23 3 2 0 6 0 18 14 1 1 1 5 18 8 20 24 0 0 1 17 5 1 5 4 3 3 18 5 1 0 0 0 0 0
FRUIT Bags 16 1 0 1 1 2 0 3 1 0 0 1 0 4 1 0 0 1 0 3 1 4 4 0 1 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 1 0 0 0 0 0 0
158 54 23 8 19 50 163 42 24 39 56 0 255 25 1 2 18 54 178 43 217 233 5 44 2 159 53 25 38 6 35 47 159 20 15 1 0 2 0 1
NOTE: Data refer to the number of Beneficiaries who provided a specific answer.
Table 36
KEY DATA ON BENEFICIARIES' AGRICULTURAL PRODUCTION (GBARNGA)
QUANTITY of
WHAT DID YOU DO
QUANTIY of QUALITY OF Harvested QUANTITY of Harvested Produce
CAUSES of LOSS Type of WITH THE
Produce PRODUCE Produced Harvested Produce PROCESSED
of Produce SEEDS HARVESTED
LOST HARVESTED used as SOLD before SALE
PRODUCE?
FOOD
QUANTITY OF PRODUCE
HARVESTED 1= RATS / GROUNDHOG
Type of 1= Used as FOOD
at the end of 1= LESS than Half 2 = INSECTS 1= VERY POOR 1= LESS than Half 1= LESS than Half 1= LESS than Half
CROP the last farming season 1 = LOCAL 2 = SOLD for Money
2 = HALF 3 = RAIN / MOISTURE 2 = POOR 2 = HALF 2 = HALF 2 = HALF
2= 3 = EXCHANGED
3 = MORE than Half 4 = BIRDS 3 = AVERAGE 3 = MORE than Half 3 = MORE than Half 3 = MORE than Half
IMPROVED 4 = Used for NEXT
4 = ALL 5 = THEFT 4 = GOOD 4 = ALL 4 = ALL 4 = ALL
3= OTHERS SEASON
5 = OTHERS 6 = VIRUSES/FUNGUS 5 = VERY GOOD 5 = OTHERS 5 = OTHERS 5 = OTHERS
5 = OTHERS
7 = OTHERS
Unit Amount 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 1 2 3 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5
RICE Bags 131 5 4 1 0 0 6 1 1 4 2 0 1 9 0 0 0 2 0 7 2 8 5 0 2 0 0 3 2 5 0 2 1 1 0 3 0 0 0 0 0
CASSAVA Bags 205 17 6 2 0 1 18 5 4 0 10 6 3 28 0 0 0 3 2 23 2 24 24 1 4 0 14 8 3 3 0 2 8 15 0 2 0 0 0 0 0
CORN Bags 83 10 3 3 0 1 7 6 0 3 5 1 2 19 2 0 0 3 1 15 4 18 20 0 2 0 13 4 2 2 0 3 7 11 0 1 0 0 0 0 0
GREENS Tub-full 90 27 3 3 0 2 3 24 6 1 3 7 4 40 1 0 0 3 5 33 4 40 35 0 7 0 19 12 4 7 0 5 13 17 0 3 0 0 0 0 0
PLAINTAINS Heads 85 5 1 0 0 4 0 2 0 2 3 2 4 13 0 0 0 1 1 11 1 10 11 0 1 0 5 5 1 2 1 1 6 4 1 2 0 0 0 0 0
PEPPER Bags 18 8 3 2 0 1 3 7 3 0 1 2 3 16 2 0 0 2 4 12 1 16 14 0 2 0 8 5 2 3 0 2 3 9 0 2 0 0 0 0 0
BITTER BALL Bags 27 8 5 3 0 1 3 10 3 0 2 3 3 19 4 0 0 2 5 14 1 20 17 0 4 0 9 6 3 4 0 3 5 9 0 1 0 0 0 0 0
OTHER VEGETABLES Bags 45 12 0 3 0 1 3 13 3 0 4 3 1 14 4 0 0 3 3 10 3 15 14 0 3 0 9 4 2 3 0 3 3 9 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
FRUIT Bags 2 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 2 1 2 2 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
93 25 17 0 11 43 68 20 10 31 24 21 160 13 0 0 19 21 127 19 153 142 1 25 0 77 48 20 29 1 21 48 75 1 14 0 0 0 0 0
NOTE: Data refer to the number of Beneficiaries who provided a specific answer.
Table 37
KEY DATA ON BENEFICIARIES' AGRICULTURAL PRODUCTION (TUBMANBURG)
QUANTITY of
WHAT DID YOU DO
QUANTIY of QUALITY OF Harvested QUANTITY of Harvested Produce
CAUSES of LOSS Type of WITH THE
Produce PRODUCE Produced Harvested Produce PROCESSED
of Produce SEEDS HARVESTED
LOST HARVESTED used as SOLD before SALE
PRODUCE?
FOOD
QUANTITY OF PRODUCE
HARVESTED 1= RATS / GROUNDHOG
Type of 1= Used as FOOD
at the end of 1= LESS than Half 2 = INSECTS 1= VERY POOR 1= LESS than Half 1= LESS than Half 1= LESS than Half
CROP the last farming season 1 = LOCAL 2 = SOLD for Money
2 = HALF 3 = RAIN / MOISTURE 2 = POOR 2 = HALF 2 = HALF 2 = HALF
2= 3 = EXCHANGED
3 = MORE than Half 4 = BIRDS 3 = AVERAGE 3 = MORE than Half 3 = MORE than Half 3 = MORE than Half
IMPROVED 4 = Used for NEXT
4 = ALL 5 = THEFT 4 = GOOD 4 = ALL 4 = ALL 4 = ALL
3= OTHERS SEASON
5 = OTHERS 6 = VIRUSES/FUNGUS 5 = VERY GOOD 5 = OTHERS 5 = OTHERS 5 = OTHERS
5 = OTHERS
7 = OTHERS
Unit Amount 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 1 2 3 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5
RICE Bags 499 7 3 2 0 2 9 6 3 8 1 0 3 15 1 0 0 1 0 13 1 15 6 1 5 1 0 4 4 7 0 1 5 0 0 5 0 0 0 0 0
CASSAVA Bags 519 22 5 5 0 0 25 6 4 1 10 3 5 33 0 0 2 2 3 25 1 29 22 0 6 2 10 11 4 8 2 2 10 10 3 4 0 0 0 0 0
CORN Bags 154 13 6 2 0 0 11 12 2 3 5 2 0 23 1 0 0 0 2 22 1 20 22 0 5 1 14 6 2 1 1 1 3 18 2 0 0 0 0 0 0
GREENS Tub-full 346 24 3 3 0 4 6 17 6 2 5 5 8 32 2 0 0 2 2 28 3 32 25 1 5 1 15 8 4 7 0 3 9 15 0 3 0 0 0 0 0
PLAINTAINS Heads 98 4 0 2 1 4 0 1 1 0 4 0 6 12 0 0 1 0 0 10 2 7 8 0 1 1 3 3 2 1 1 2 4 1 2 1 0 0 0 0 0
PEPPER Bags 437 18 3 4 1 2 2 14 5 4 6 4 4 26 3 0 1 0 6 19 3 26 26 2 7 1 19 6 3 3 0 2 5 20 1 2 0 0 0 0 0
BITTER BALL Bags 154 16 3 2 1 2 1 13 5 3 5 5 4 25 2 0 1 0 5 17 4 23 23 1 7 1 16 7 3 3 0 3 4 16 0 1 0 0 0 0 0
OTHER VEGETABLES Bags 247 11 1 1 0 1 1 6 2 1 1 4 4 11 3 0 0 0 3 9 2 13 14 0 4 0 8 5 0 0 0 3 3 8 1 0 0 0 0 0 0
FRUIT Bags 13 2 1 0 0 1 2 0 0 0 2 0 3 4 0 0 0 0 1 3 0 4 4 0 2 0 3 1 0 0 0 0 1 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
117 25 21 3 16 57 75 28 22 39 23 37 181 12 0 5 5 22 146 17 169 150 5 42 8 88 51 22 30 4 17 44 90 9 16 0 0 0 0 0
NOTE: Data refer to the number of Beneficiaries who provided a specific answer.
Table 38
KEY DATA ON SOURCES OF LABOUR USED IN BENEFICIARIES' AGRICULTURAL PRODUCTION
(MONROVIA)
Form of
Type of WORK
PAYMENT
Type of 1= CASH 1= BRUSHING
2 = in KIND 2 = PLOUGHING/DIGGING
LABOUR
3 = RETURNED LABOUR 3 = PLANTING
4 = With PRODUCE 4 = HARVESTING
5 = OTHERS 5 = OTHERS
1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5
SELF 72 0 0 0 0 0 57 63 62 47 16
HOUSEHOLD MEMBER 68 8 48 5 4 6 45 48 53 37 15
HIRED LABOUR 44 36 2 5 1 0 42 33 15 10 3
HIRED KUU GROUP 11 6 0 5 0 0 11 8 7 6 0
KUU SYSTEM 9 1 0 9 0 0 9 6 6 5 0
NOTE: Data refer to the number of Beneficiaries who provided a specific answer.
Table 39
KEY DATA ON SOURCES OF LABOUR USED IN BENEFICIARIES' AGRICULTURAL PRODUCTION
(GBARNGA)
Form of
Type of WORK
PAYMENT
Type of 1= CASH 1= BRUSHING
2 = in KIND 2 = PLOUGHING/DIGGING
LABOUR
3 = RETURNED LABOUR 3 = PLANTING
4 = With PRODUCE 4 = HARVESTING
5 = OTHERS 5 = OTHERS
1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5
SELF 43 0 0 0 0 0 31 35 36 26 10
HOUSEHOLD MEMBER 42 2 31 0 1 0 32 31 34 24 9
HIRED LABOUR 16 15 1 1 0 0 14 6 3 2 1
HIRED KUU GROUP 5 3 1 1 0 0 5 2 3 0 0
KUU SYSTEM 5 2 0 3 0 0 5 3 2 1 1
NOTE: Data refer to the number of Beneficiaries who provided a specific answer.
Table 40
KEY DATA ON SOURCES OF LABOUR USED IN BENEFICIARIES' AGRICULTURAL PRODUCTION
(TUBMANBURG)
Form of
Type of WORK
PAYMENT
Type of 1= CASH 1= BRUSHING
2 = in KIND 2 = PLOUGHING/DIGGING
LABOUR
3 = RETURNED LABOUR 3 = PLANTING
4 = With PRODUCE 4 = HARVESTING
5 = OTHERS 5 = OTHERS
1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5
SELF 38 0 0 0 0 0 27 27 33 30 5
HOUSEHOLD MEMBER 34 1 28 1 1 0 25 24 29 23 5
HIRED LABOUR 27 21 0 1 4 0 24 14 12 6 3
HIRED KUU GROUP 9 6 0 3 1 0 8 3 5 3 1
KUU SYSTEM 16 1 2 13 1 0 16 10 13 9 1
NOTE: Data refer to the number of Beneficiaries who provided a specific answer.
Table 41
KEY DATA ON AGRICULTURAL TOOLS USED BY PROJECT BENEFICIARIES
(MONROVIA)
PERCENTAGE OF
AVERAGE NUMBER AVERAGE NUMBER
BENEFICIARIES AVERAGE NUMBER
Type of OF TOOLS OWNED BY OF TOOLS PROVIDED
WHO USE THE TOOL OF TOOLS
TOOLS A BENEFICIARY OR BY GOVERNMENT,
FOR THEIR BORROWED
HIS/HER HOUSEHOLD NGO or CBO
CULTIVATION
CUTLASS 88% 1.6 1.3 0.3
HOE 88% 1.5 1.4 0.4
SHOVEL 76% 1.0 1.2 0.3
AXE 28% 0.8 1.4 0.2
DIGGER 44% 0.7 1.2 0.1
WHEELBARROWS 53% 0.4 1.1 0.1
CHAINSAW 9% 0.4 0.7 0.1
RAKE 68% 0.7 1.2 0.3
WATERING CAN 67% 0.7 1.1 0.3
Table 42
KEY DATA ON AGRICULTURAL TOOLS USED BY PROJECT BENEFICIARIES
(GBARNGA)
PERCENTAGE OF
AVERAGE NUMBER AVERAGE NUMBER
BENEFICIARIES AVERAGE NUMBER
Type of OF TOOLS OWNED BY OF TOOLS PROVIDED
WHO USE THE TOOL OF TOOLS
TOOLS A BENEFICIARY OR BY GOVERNMENT,
FOR THEIR BORROWED
HIS/HER HOUSEHOLD NGO or CBO
CULTIVATION
CUTLASS 96% 0.6 1.0 0.0
HOE 98% 0.7 0.8 0.0
SHOVEL 78% 0.3 0.7 0.0
AXE 54% 0.4 0.4 0.0
DIGGER 56% 0.2 0.5 0.0
WHEELBARROWS 52% 0.1 0.4 0.0
CHAINSAW 8% 0.0 0.5 0.0
RAKE 70% 0.2 0.6 0.0
WATERING CAN 70% 0.3 0.7 0.0
Table 43
KEY DATA ON AGRICULTURAL TOOLS USED BY PROJECT BENEFICIARIES
(TUBMANBURG)
PERCENTAGE OF
AVERAGE NUMBER AVERAGE NUMBER
BENEFICIARIES AVERAGE NUMBER
Type of OF TOOLS OWNED BY OF TOOLS PROVIDED
WHO USE THE TOOL OF TOOLS
TOOLS A BENEFICIARY OR BY GOVERNMENT,
FOR THEIR BORROWED
HIS/HER HOUSEHOLD NGO or CBO
CULTIVATION
CUTLASS 98% 1.0 0.9 0.2
HOE 92% 1.1 0.9 0.2
SHOVEL 86% 0.5 0.6 0.2
AXE 54% 0.3 0.7 0.0
DIGGER 68% 0.4 0.5 0.2
WHEELBARROWS 54% 0.2 0.5 0.0
CHAINSAW 14% 0.0 0.6 0.0
RAKE 60% 0.3 0.6 0.2
WATERING CAN 66% 0.5 0.6 0.2
Table 44
Beneficiaries Who Use Fertilizers for their
Location Agricultural Production
Yes No
Monrovia 79% 15%
Gbarnga 66% 30%
Tubmanburg 62% 38%
Table 45
Beneficiaries Who Use Fertilizers for their Agricultural Production:
Location Type of Fertilizer
Organic Chemical Both
Monrovia 24% 31% 24%
Gbarnga 12% 30% 24%
Tubmanburg 16% 30% 16%
Table 46
Type of Organic Fertilizer
Location
Ash Compost Green Manure Manure Other
Monrovia 30% 30% 24% 27% 3%
Gbarnga 36% 18% 20% 22% 4%
Tubmanburg 28% 19% 20% 28% 5%
Table 47
Sources of Fertilizers
Location
Purchase From Gov./NGO Credited Self-Production Other
Monrovia 72% 0% 0% 24% 2%
Gbarnga 73% 0% 7% 19% 0%
Tubmanburg 63% 5% 0% 29% 0%
46
Table 48
Use of Methods to Control Weeds
Location
Picking Cover Crops Mulching Brushing Herbicides Hoeing Others
Monrovia 92% 1% 6% 14% 0% 56% 2%
Gbarnga 96% 0% 2% 14% 0% 62% 2%
Tubmanburg 80% 0% 0% 14% 0% 68% 2%
Table 49
Beneficiaries’ Access to Processing Facilities
Location
YES NO DON’T KNOW
Monrovia 3% 91% 2%
Gbarnga 6% 90% 2%
Tubmanburg 6% 92% 2%
Table 50
Type of Processing Facilities
Location Drying
Mill Oil Press Thresher Cooking Others
Floor
Monrovia 0% 0% 0% 0% 2% 1%
Gbarnga 0% 6% 0% 0% 0% 0%
Tubmanburg 0% 0% 0% 0% 6% 0%
Table 51
Percentage of Beneficiaries Who Experience General Farming Problems
Location Lack Poor Lack
Lack of Lack of Lack of
None of Quality of Pests Water Others
Labor Storage Knowledge
Seed Seeds Tools
Monrovia 0% 69% 47% 77% 31% 68% 30% 28% 35% 14%
Gbarnga 0% 72% 46% 84% 24% 74% 30% 36% 38% 2%
Tubmanburg 2% 72% 40% 86% 34% 70% 30% 32% 28% 18%
47
Table 52
Percentage of Beneficiaries Who Experience General Pest and Disease Problems in Farming
Location
Viral/Fungal
None Pests/Rodents Scavengers Insects Birds Other
Diseases
Monrovia 3% 61% 58% 32% 78% 24% 8%
Gbarnga 6% 78% 64% 16% 80% 26% 6%
Tubmanburg 2% 68% 64% 40% 86% 52% 6%
Table 53
Beneficiaries’ Views on Production Situation in Their Cultivated Fields/Plots
Location
Poor Fair Good Very Good Don’t Know
Monrovia 19% 36% 38% 3% 2%
Gbarnga 12% 42% 42% 0% 2%
Tubmanburg 14% 30% 46% 6% 4%
Table 54
Beneficiaries’ View on The Need to Improve their Farming Methods
Location
YES NO DON’T KNOW
Monrovia 92% 3% 3%
Gbarnga 90% 0% 8%
Tubmanburg 96% 4% 0%
Table 55
Beneficiaries’ Who Own Small Livestock
Location
Yes No
Monrovia 51% 49%
Gbarnga 70% 30%
Tubmanburg 50% 50%
48
Table 56
Percentage of Beneficiaries Who Own Livestock, by Type
Location
Guinea- Grass-
Chickens Ducks Goats Sheep Pigs Others
fowl cutters
Monrovia 47% 15% 1% 1% 0% 2% 2% 4%
Gbarnga 64% 18% 6% 4% 2% 2% 2% 4%
Tubmanburg 44% 8% 0% 2% 0% 2% 14% 2%
Table 57
Percentage of Beneficiaries by Type and Number of Reared Livestock (MONROVIA)
Type
1 to 3 4 to 6 7 to 10 11 to 15 16 to 20 21-30 Above 30
Chickens 20% 2% 2% 10% 5% 3% 5%
Ducks 7% 1% 2% 1% 0% 0% 4%
Goats 0% 1% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%
Guineafowl 1% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%
Grasscutters 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%
Sheep 1% 0% 1% 0% 0% 0% 0%
Pigs 1% 0% 0% 1% 0% 0% 0%
Others 3% 0% 1% 0% 0% 0% 0%
Table 58
Percentage of Beneficiaries by Type and Number of Reared Livestock (GBARNGA)
Type
1 to 3 4 to 6 7 to 10 11 to 15 16 to 20 21-30 Above 30
Chickens 28% 6% 8% 4% 4% 6% 8%
Ducks 8% 2% 2% 0% 6% 0% 0%
Goats 4% 2% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%
Guineafowl 2% 0% 2% 0% 0% 0% 0%
Grasscutters 0% 0% 0% 2% 0% 0% 0%
Sheep 2% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%
Pigs 0% 2% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%
Others 0% 0% 2% 0% 2% 0% 0%
49
Table 59
Percentage of Beneficiaries by Type and Number of Reared Livestock (TUBMANBURG)
Type
1 to 3 4 to 6 7 to 10 11 to 15 16 to 20 21-30 Above 30
Chickens 20% 4% 4% 2% 6% 0% 8%
Ducks 0% 2% 0% 2% 0% 2% 2%
Goats 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%
Guineafowl 1% 0% 0% 1% 0% 0% 0%
Grasscutters 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%
Sheep 2% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%
Pigs 6% 4% 0% 2% 2% 0% 0%
Others 2% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%
Table 60
Percentage of Beneficiaries Who Engage in Fishing
Location
Yes No
Monrovia 10% 90%
Gbarnga 21% 79%
Tubmanburg 20% 80%
Table 61
Percentage of Beneficiaries Who Own Livestock, by Use of the Livestock
Location
Use for Food Sell for Money Exchange Ritual/Ceremony Others
Monrovia 40% 26% 0% 2% 4%
Gbarnga 50% 42% 0% 2% 8%
Tubmanburg 50% 38% 2% 2% 6%
SECTION 5. INCOME
Table 62
Beneficiaries’ Sources of Income, In Order of Importance
(Range: 1 Most Important, 11 Least Important)
Location Farming Farming
Farming Farming Farming
Sale of
Selling
Assets
Other
Labor
Roots & Medicinal R a i s i n g Trading
Employ-
Vegetables Cereals Fruit Livestock ment
Tubers Crops
Monrovia 1 5 8 9 11 6 2 4 10 7 3
Gbarnga 1 4 6 9 10 7 2 5 11 8 3
Tubmanburg 1 2 4 6 10 5 3 7 11 8 9
50
Table 63
Percentage of Beneficiaries By Importance of Income From Agriculture
Location
None Less than Half Half More than Half All Don’t Know
Monrovia 8% 29% 21% 13% 21% 3%
Gbarnga 6% 36% 30% 6% 18% 2%
Tubmanburg 0% 30% 26% 24% 18% 2%
Table 64
Percentage of Beneficiaries By Importance of Income From Market Sales
Location
None Less than Half Half More than Half All Don’t Know
Monrovia 26% 25% 15% 16% 11% 4%
Gbarnga 16% 34% 12% 14% 18% 3%
Tubmanburg 20% 34% 16% 12% 12% 2%
Table 65
Percentage of Beneficiaries By Their View of Their Household’s Income
Location VS. Income of Other Households in the Same Area
Very Poor Poor Fair Good Very Good Don’t Know
Monrovia 2% 19% 26% 39% 7% 6%
Gbarnga 4% 20% 28% 36% 2% 10%
Tubmanburg 0% 30% 28% 30% 4% 8%
Table 66
Beneficiaries’ Views on The Availability of Opportunities for Income Generation
Location
YES NO DON’T KNOW
Monrovia 81% 12% 6%
Gbarnga 68% 22% 8%
Tubmanburg 69% 21% 10%
51
Table 67
Beneficiaries’ View of Available Opportunities for Income Generation,
by Type of Opportunity
Location Processing
Farming Small Livestock Charcoal Trade Agricultural Tree
Employment Others
Nurseries
Produce
Monrovia 43% 22% 7% 28% 8% 4% 22% 12%
Gbarnga 36% 28% 4% 34% 0% 2% 8% 12%
Tubmanburg 40% 22% 10% 32% 12% 4% 24% 2%
SECTION 6. EXPENDITURES
Table 68
Percentage of Beneficiaries By Quantity of Household Income Spent on Food
Location
Less than Half Half More than Half All Don’t Know
Monrovia 14% 49% 28% 4% 5%
Gbarnga 26% 36% 32% 0% 4%
Tubmanburg 24% 38% 34% 0% 2%
Table 69
Relative Weight of Various Types of Expenses on Household’s Income
Location (Range: 1=Highest Expense; 10=Lowest Expense)
House Household Current/ Farming Scratch
Food Education Healthcare Transport Others
Rent Needs Electricity Expenses Card
Monrovia 3 1 6 2 8 4 9 5 7 10
Gbarnga 5 1 7 3 8 4 9 2 6 10
Tubmanburg 3 1 6 5 7 4 9 2 8 10
Table 70
Percentage of Beneficiaries By View on How Much They Are Able to Save
Location
Nothing Very Little Just Enough A Lot Don’t Know
Monrovia 27% 61% 8% 0% 2%
Gbarnga 8% 70% 12% 0% 2%
Tubmanburg 38% 54% 8% 0% 0%
52
SECTION 7. MARKET
Table 71
Percentage of Beneficiaries by Presence of a Market in
Location the Community Where They Live
YES NO
Monrovia 80% 20%
Gbarnga 52% 48%
Tubmanburg 38% 62%
Table 72
Percentage of Beneficiaries Who Have a Market in the
Location Community Where They Live, by Type of Market
Daily Market Weekly Market
Monrovia 78% 22%
Gbarnga 54% 10%
Tubmanburg 32% 10%
Table 73
Percentage of Beneficiaries Who Sell in Local or Other Market
Location
Sell in Local Sell in Other Don’t sell in
Market Market Market
Monrovia 27% 16% 53%
Gbarnga 26% 16% 44%
Tubmanburg 24% 12% 60%
Table 74
Percentage of Beneficiaries Who Sell Products from
Location their Farm/Garden
Yes No
Monrovia 47% 53%
Gbarnga 34% 66%
Tubmanburg 42% 58%
53
Table 75
Percentage of Beneficiaries’ Who Sell in the Market, by Means Used to Sell
Location Joint-Product Contract with
Wholesale Retail Barter Direct Sale
Others
Sale Wholesaler (Farm’s Gate)
Monrovia 25% 22% 0% 1% 4% 8% 1%
Gbarnga 16% 40% 0% 0% 2% 2% 8%
Tubmanburg 18% 26% 0% 0% 4% 4% 0%
Table 76
Percentage of Beneficiaries Who Sell in Market, By Way of Carrying
Goods to the Market
Location
Hire
Head Load Wheelbarrow Other
Transportation
Monrovia 27% 17% 20% 4%
Gbarnga 46% 6% 12% 2%
Tubmanburg 32% 10% 16% 0%
Table 77
Percentage of Beneficiaries Who Sell in Market, By Market Facilities Used
Location When Selling
Stall Table Wheelbarrow Shop/Booth Other
Monrovia 11% 17% 8% 4% 10%
Gbarnga 6% 10% 6% 0% 32%
Tubmanburg 6% 12% 8% 0% 18%
Table 78
Percentage of Beneficiaries Who Sell in Market, By Their View on the Price They
Location Obtain for Their Merchandise
Poor Fair Good Very Good Don’t Know
Monrovia 12% 17% 21% 1% 1%
Gbarnga 6% 34% 16% 0% 0%
Tubmanburg 10% 18% 18% 0% 2%
54
Table 79
Percentage of Beneficiaries Who Sell in the Market, by
Their Knowledge of the Price of Their Merchandise in
Location
Other Markets
Yes No
Monrovia 47% 53%
Gbarnga 34% 66%
Tubmanburg 42% 58%
SECTION 8. INVESTMENT
Table 80
Percentage of Beneficiaries By Type of Business System
Location External
Sole Owner Partnership Self-Help Others None
Investment
Monrovia 53% 5% 3% 37% 2% 0%
Gbarnga 38% 6% 0% 34% 0% 2%
Tubmanburg 34% 4% 2% 58% 2% 0%
Table 81
Percentage of Beneficiaries By View on Degree of Availability of
Location Investment Opportunities
Poor Fair Good Very Good Don’t Know
Monrovia 35% 22% 28% 2% 11%
Gbarnga 36% 22% 30% 0% 12%
Tubmanburg 32% 32% 26% 0% 8%
Table 82
Percentage of Beneficiaries By Their Access to Community/Group Managed Seed Bank
Location
Yes, Have Access No, Don’t Have Access Don’t Know
Monrovia 7% 85% 7%
Gbarnga 6% 84% 10%
Tubmanburg 2% 88% 10%
55
Table 83
Percentage of Beneficiaries By Their Access to Credit/Loan facilities
Location
Yes, Have No, Don’t Have Don’t
Access Access Know
Monrovia 10% 83% 3%
Gbarnga 38% 56% 6%
Tubmanburg 2% 86% 8%
Table 84
Who Provides Credit/Loan
Location Susu NGO
Family Friends CBO Bank Government Others
Club (not CARE)
Monrovia 1% 3% 5% 3% 2% 2% 0% 0%
Gbarnga 0% 0% 24% 4% 8% 0% 0% 2%
Tubmanburg 0% 0% 0% 2% 0% 0% 0% 0%
Table 85
Percentage of Beneficiaries Who Have Obtained
Location
Credit/Loan in the Past
Monrovia 10%
Gbarnga 36%
Tubmanburg 2%
Table 86
Percentage of Beneficiaries Who Received Credit/Loan,
By How They Used the Credit/Loan
Location Other
Buy Farming
Buy Food Trade Household Other
Inputs
Needs
Monrovia 2% 3% 6% 1% 3%
Gbarnga 6% 4% 26% 2% 4%
Tubmanburg 0% 4% 2% 0% 0%
56
Table 87
Percentage of Beneficiaries Who Received Credit/Loan,
Location By How They Paid Back the Credit/Loan
Cash Produce Service Seeds Other
Monrovia 11% 3% 1% 0% 1%
Gbarnga 33% 3% 0% 0% 0%
Tubmanburg 2% 0% 0% 0% 0%
SECTION 9. SOCIAL SERVICES
Table 88
Percentage of Beneficiaries,
Location By Main Source of Drinking Water for Their Household
Pipe-bone Stream Open Well Hand Pump Other
Monrovia 21% 0% 27% 49% 2%
Gbarnga 0% 0% 52% 46% 0%
Tubmanburg 0% 6% 8% 86% 0%
Table 89
Percentage of Beneficiaries By Presence of Any Health Care Facility in Their Community
Location
Yes, Is No, Is Don’t
Available Not Available Know
Monrovia 55% 44% 1%
Gbarnga 34% 64% 0%
Tubmanburg 24% 74% 2%
Table 90
Percentage of Beneficiaries,
Location By Type of Health Care Facility in Their Community
Hospital Clinic Pharmacy Drug Store Other
Monrovia 5% 46% 10% 27% 3%
Gbarnga 2% 12% 2% 34% 0%
Tubmanburg 14% 6% 6% 10% 0%
57
Table 91
Percentage of Beneficiaries By Presence of Any Public School in Their Community
Location
Yes, Is No, Is Don’t
Available Not Available Know
Monrovia 52% 47% 0%
Gbarnga 42% 56% 0%
Tubmanburg 44% 52% 2%
SECTION 10. ORGANIZATIONS ACTIVE IN THE RESPONDENT’S AREA
Table 92
Percentage of Beneficiaries By Having Received Agricultural Farming Assistance
Location from Any Organization (Except CARE and WHH)
Don’t
Yes No
Know
Monrovia 17% 78% 2%
Gbarnga 8% 92% 0%
Tubmanburg 16% 78% 6%
Table 93
Percentage of Beneficiaries By Type of Agricultural Farming Assistance Received
Location
Farming Tools Seeds Livestock Cuttings Training Other
Monrovia 13% 14% 0% 0% 9% 2%
Gbarnga 2% 6% 0% 0% 0% 0%
Tubmanburg 14% 4% 4% 0% 2% 0%
Table 94
Percentage of Beneficiaries,
By Having Received a Visit of an Extension Agent on their Farm
Location
Yes, from NGO Don’t Know
Yes, from MoA No
(not CARE/WHH)
Monrovia 3% 4% 84% 6%
Gbarnga 0% 8% 86% 2%
Tubmanburg 2% 6% 84% 2%
58
Table 95
Percentage of Beneficiaries Who Received a Visit of an Extension Agent on their Farm,
By How Often the Extension Agent Visits the Farm
Location
(Not CARE or WHH)
Weekly Monthly Quarterly Twice a Year Other
Monrovia 0% 1% 1% 0% 5%
Gbarnga 4% 4% 0% 0% 0%
Tubmanburg 4% 0% 0% 2% 2%
Table 96
Percentage of Beneficiaries Who Received a Visit of an Extension Agent on their Farm,
By If They Have Benefited from the Extension Services Provided
Location
(Not CARE or WHH)
Yes, Have Benefited No, Have Not Benefited Don’t Know
Monrovia 5% 2% 0%
Gbarnga 6% 2% 0%
Tubmanburg 0% 8% 0%
Table 97
Percentage of Beneficiaries
By Having A Demonstration Farm / Farmers’ Field School
Location
In Their Communities
Don’t
Yes No
Know
Monrovia 6% 86% 6%
Gbarnga 16% 72% 8%
Tubmanburg 8% 86% 2%
59
Table 98
Percentage of Beneficiaries Who Have
a Demonstration Farm / Farmers’ Field School In Their Communities
Location
By Having Received Training from Demonstration Farm / Farmers’ Field School
Don’t
Yes No
Know
Monrovia 6% 0% 0%
Gbarnga 16% 0% 0%
Tubmanburg 8% 0% 0%
Table 99
Percentage of Beneficiaries
By Having A Community / Town Development Committee
Location
In Their Communities
Don’t
Yes No
Know
Monrovia 30% 57% 12%
Gbarnga 34% 60% 4%
Tubmanburg 40% 46% 10%
Table 100
Percentage of Beneficiaries
Location By Having A Self-help Group In Their Communities
Don’t
Yes No
Know
Monrovia 22% 71% 7%
Gbarnga 34% 58% 6%
Tubmanburg 28% 68% 2%
Table 101
Percentage of Beneficiaries Who Have A Self-help Group In Their Communities,
Location By Status of the Self-help Group
Functional Not Functional Don’t Know
Monrovia 18% 3% 1%
Gbarnga 32% 1% 1%
Tubmanburg 28% 0% 0%
60
Table 102
Percentage of Beneficiaries Who Have A Self-help Group In Their Communities,
Location By How Long the Self-help Group Has Been in Existence
Less Than 1 1 to 2 3 to 5 More than 5
Other
Year Years Years Years
Monrovia 4% 4% 5% 8% 1%
Gbarnga 18% 7% 7% 2% 0%
Tubmanburg 6% 10% 8% 4% 0%
Table 103
Percentage of Beneficiaries
By Having An NGO Working In Their Communities
Location
(Except CARE and WHH)
Don’t
Yes No
Know
Monrovia 16% 75% 8%
Gbarnga 8% 70% 20%
Tubmanburg 10% 84% 4%
Table 104
Percentage of Beneficiaries Who Have An NGO Working In Their Communities
(Except CARE and WHH), By Type of Activity
Location
Agriculture Education Health Care Infrastructure Don’t Know Others
Monrovia 4% 1% 8% 0% 3% 0%
Gbarnga 3% 0% 1% 2% 1% 1%
Tubmanburg 4% 2% 0% 0% 2% 2%
61
ANNEX II – THE UPA QUESTIONNAIRE
FORM#: ..............
UPA Baseline
QUESTIONNAIRE
INSTRUCTIONS:
The interview aims at collecting key information from beneficiaries of the two combined projects on Urban
and Per-urban Agriculture (UPA) of CARE and Welthungerhilfe in Liberia.
AT THE START OF THE INTERVIEW:
For the respondent:
x Confidentiality
x Anonymity
x Not a test of the respondent’s capacities or performance
x Unless otherwise indicated, questions refers to the respondent’s experience during the past
six months
x Essential: truthful and accurate answers
For the interviewer:
x Provide more information if the question/answer is not clear to the respondent
x Write down additional relevant information
x The symbol “§” in front of a question means that it can have more than one answer
INITIAL INFORMATION TO BE PROVIDED BY DATA COLLECTION ASSISTANT AND SUPERVISOR:
DATE OF INTERVIEW: ........................................ TIME OF INTERVIEW (START): ................
LOCATION: ....................................................................................................................................
COUNTY: 1 MONTSERRADO 2 BOMI 3 BONG
NGO: 1 CARE 2 Welthungerhilfe
62
NAME OF DATA COLLECTION ASSISTANT: ..................................................................................
SIGNATURE: .............................................
NAME OF DATA COLLECTION SUPERVISOR: ...............................................................................
SIGNATURE: .............................................
PARTICIPATION IN UPA PROJECTS AS BENEFICIARY
1. In which NGO’s project do you participate?
1 CARE
2 WELTHUNGERHILFE
3 AFRICA 2000 NETWORK (A2N)
4 HUMAN DEVELOPMENT FOUNDATION (HDF)
§2. In which aspect of the project do you participate?
1 FOOD SECURITY FACILITATOR (FSF) 2 AGRICULTURAL PRODUCER
3 SMALL ANIMAL PRODUCER (LIVESTOCK) 4 ORNAMENTAL & FRUIT TREE NURSERIES
5 MICRO-RETAILER 6 FISHING
7 SAVINGS & LOANS 8 Other (Specify): ..............................
TOPIC 1: GENERAL INFORMATION ON RESPONDENT & HOUSEHOLD
3. Gender of Respondent: 1 FEMALE 2 MALE
4. Age of Respondent: ...............................
5. Have you attended academic school?
1 Yes 2 No (go Q.7)
6. (If Yes) Which Grade have you completed? ................................
7. What is the present location of your household (group of people eating from the same pot)?
NAME OF COMMUNITY: ...........................................................
DISTRICT: ..............................................................................
COUNTY: 1 MONTSERRADO 2 BOMI 3 BONG
8. How many years have you lived in this location? ....................................
9. How many people are part of your household?
ADULTS: FEMALE: ......................... MALE: ..................
CHILDREN (0-17): FEMALE: ......................... MALE: ...................
63
10. What is your position in the household?
1 HEAD OF HOUSEHOLD (go Q.12) 2 PARTNER OF HEAD OF HOUSEHOLD
3 OTHER POSITION (PLEASE SPECIFY): .................................................
11. (IF THE RESPONDENT IS NOT HEAD OF THE HOUSEHOLD) Who is the head of the household?
1 FEMALE 2 MALE AGE: ...............................
12. How many dependents do you have (people you are directly responsible for, e.g. children)?
ADULTS: FEMALE: ......................... MALE: .................
CHILDREN (0-17): FEMALE: ......................... MALE: .................
13. What is the most important source of income for your household?
1 Farming vegetables 2 Farming roots & tubers (e.g. cassava, eddoes)
3 Farming cereals (e.g. rice) 4 Farming fruit
5 Farming medicinal crops 6 Raising livestock
7 Food Processing (i.e. Any transformation of agricultural products, including meat)
8 Trading and marketing 9 Employment
10 Selling labour 11 Other (Specify): .......................................................
TOPIC 2: NUTRITION
14. In your household, how many times per day is food cooked for the whole household?
(on average during the last six months)
1 One time 2 Two times 3 Three times 4 Four times
5 Others (Specify): ..............
15. How many cups of rice do you cook for your household per day? ............
16. How much of the household food is grown by your household?
1 Less than half of the food 2 Half of the food
3 More than half of the food 4 All the food (go Q.18)
5 None: we buy all the food 6 I don’t know
§17. If you do not grow all your food, how do you get the food?
(0=NEVER; 1=SOMETIMES; 2=OFTEN; 3=VERY OFTEN)
1 Big, wholesale markets........ 2 Smaller, local markets......
3 Shops........ 4 Food for work........
5 Food from relief........ 6 Others (Specify): .........................................
64
§18. During the past seven days, on how many days (0-7) did you eat the following food?
1 Rice........ 2 Cassava........ 3 Plantains....... 4 Eddoes........
5 Yam........ 6 Sweet potatoes........ 7 Corn........ 8 Greens........
9 Beans........ 10 Other fruit (not plantains)........
11 Fresh vegetables (e.g. cucumber, cabbage)........
12 Eggs........ 13 Powdered milk........ 14 Chicken........ 15 Fish........
16 Cow meat...... 17 Goat meat...... 18 Sheep meat...... 19 Bush meat....
20 Palm oil........ 21 Argo (vegetable oil)........
22 Others (Specify): ..........................................................................
19. In the past 12 months, did you experience one or more months in which your household had
insufficient food?
1 Yes 2 No (go Q.21) 3 I don’t know (go Q.21)
§20. In which month(s)?
1 Nov. 2009 2 Dec. 2009 3 Jan. 2010 4 Feb. 2010
5 March 2010 6 April 2010 7 May 2010 8 June 2010
9 July 2010 10 Aug. 2010 11 Sept. 2010 12 Oct. 2010
21. In the past 1 month, in your opinion how was the VARIETY of food in your household?
1 Very poor 2 Poor 3 Fair 4 Good 5 Very Good
6 I don’t know 7 Others (Specify): ............................................................................
Comments: .........................................................................................................................
22. In the past 1 month, in your opinion how was the QUALITY of food in your household?
1 Very poor 2 Poor 3 Fair 4 Good 5 Very Good
6 I don’t know 7 Others (Specify): ............................................................................
Comments: .........................................................................................................................
TOPIC 3: PRODUCTION
23. Do you or your household do any small garden cultivation?
1 Yes 2 No
24. Do you or your household do any larger size cultivation?
1 Yes 2 No
IF 23=NO AND 24=NO, THEN GO TO QUESTION #51
§25. What is the size of the fields/plots that you and/or your household are cultivating?
1 Lots (or fraction, specify): ........................ 2 Acres(or fraction, specify): .................
3 Small garden (not measurable) 4 I don’t know
5 Other measure (Specify): .....................................................................................................
65
§26. Who is the land for that you or your household is cultivating?
1 Yourself..... .. (go Q.29) 2 Your spouse....... 3 Family.......
4 Landlord....... 5 Community...... 6 Public Land.......
6 Other (Specify): ........................................................
§27. What is the land use arrangement?
1 Free use...... 2 Pay rent or “pay toll”...... 3 Share harvest......
4 Work on owner’s farm......
5 No arrangement (go Q.29) 6 Other (Specify) ...................................
§28. Whom do you have an arrangement with?
1 Family...... 2 Landlord or caretaker...... 3 Chief/Elder......
4 Group/organization...... 5 Other (Specify): ...........................................................
29. Does anyone have a “paper” for the land? If yes, what kind of “paper?”
1 Yes, type of “paper”: ....................................................................................................
2 No 3 Don’t know
30. How long will you be able to use this field/plot?
1 One year only 2 Two-three years 3 Four-Five years 4 Six-Ten years
5 As long as I want 6 Don’t know
7 Others (Specify)..................................
31. If necessary, can you have access to more land for cultivation?
1 Yes 2 No 3 I don’t know
§32. What type(s) of land are you cultivating?
1 Upland...... 2 Undeveloped lowland......
3 Previously developed lowland...... 4 Around the house......
5 Other (Specify): .................................................................................
§33. What is the general condition of the soil(s)?
1 Very poor...... 2 Poor...... 3 Fair...... 4 Good......
5 Very Good...... 6 I don’t know 7 Other (Specify): ............................................
34. How do you usually prepare the soil before cultivation?
1 Using Manual Tools 2 Using Machines
3 Others (Specify): ................................................................................
35. What type of land preparation do you use?
1 Flat beds 2 Raised beds 3 Ridges 4 Mounds
5 Others (Specify): ........................................................................
36. Table on Agricultural Production (see Tables 35 to 37 in Annex I above)
66
§37. What is the source of labour for your crop production(s)?
Form of PAYMENT Type of WORK
1=CASH 1=BRUSHING
Type of Type of
2=in KIND 2=PLOUGHING/DIGGING
LABOUR CROP
3=RETURNED LABOUR 3=PLANTING
4= With PRODUCE 4=HARVESTING
5=OTHER (Specify) 5=OTHER (Specify)
1 Self
2 Household members
3 Hired Labour
4 Hired Kuu Group
5 Kuu System
6
7
§38. What tools do you use?
# FROM
# OWNED BY OTHER
TOOLS # BORROWED GOVERNMENT,
YOU/HOUSEHOLD REMARKS
NGO or CBO
Cutlass
Hoe
Shovel
Axe
Digger
Wheelbarrows
Chainsaw
Rake
Watering-can
39. Do you use fertilizers on your farm?
1 Yes 2 No (go Q.43)
§40. What type of fertilizer do you use?
1 Organic 2 Chemical (go Q.42)
§41. What type of organic fertilizer do you use?
1 Ash 2 Compost 3 Green Manure 4 Manure
5 Others (Specify)………………………………………………………………………………
§42. How do you obtain the fertilizers?
1 Buy it 2 From Gov’t/NGO/CBO 3 Credit it 4 Fix it myself
5 Others (Specify)………………………………………………………………………………
67
§43. How do you control weeds?
1 Picking 2 Planting cover crops 3 Mulching 4 Brushing
5 Herbicides 6 Hoeing
7 Others (Specify)………………………………………………………………………………
44. Do you have access to processing facilities?
1 Yes 2 No (go Q.46) 3 Don’t know (go Q.46)
§45. What type of processing facilities?
1 Drying floor 2 Mills 3 Oil Press 4
Threshers
5 Cooking 5 Others (Specify)....................................................................
§46. What are the general farming problems you experience?
1 None 2 Lack of seeds 3 Poor quality seeds 4 Lack of tools
5 Lack of labour 6 Pests 7 Lack of storage
8 Lack of knowledge 9 Water
10 Others (Specify): ..................................................
§47. What are the general pests and disease problems you experience each year?
1 None 2 Pests/Rodents 3 Viral/Fungal Diseases 4 Scavengers
5 Insects 6 Birds 7 Others (Specify): .........................................
48. What is your general view of the production situation on your farm?
1 Poor 2 Fair 3 Good 4 Very Good
5 I don’t know (please clarify): …………………………………………………………………………..
49. Is there a need to improve your farming methods?
1 Yes 2 No (go Q.51) 3 I don’t know (go Q.51)
50. How do you think your farming methods can be improved?
51. Do you own small livestock?
1 Yes 2 No (go Q.54)
§52. What kind of livestock?
1 Chickens 2 Ducks 3 Goats 4 Guinea-fowl
5 Grass-cutters 6 Sheep 7 Pigs
8 Others (Specify)……………………………………………
§53. About how many of each type of livestock do you rear in a year?
1 Chickens..... 2 Ducks..... 3 Goats..... 4 Guinea-fowl.....
5 Grass-cutters..... 6 Sheep..... 7 Pigs.....
8 Others (Specify)……………………………………………
68
54. Do you engage in fishing?
1 Yes 2 No
§55. (IF RESPONDENT HAS LIVESTOCK AND/OR FISHES)
What do you do with the livestock/fish? Rank options in order of importance
(1=MOST IMPORTANT...)
1 Use for food..... 2 Sell for money..... 3 Exchange for other things.....
4 Ritual/Ceremony..... 5 Others (Specify)…………………………………………………………...............
TOPIC 4: INCOME
§56. Please list your sources of income in order of importance
(1=MOST IMPORTANT...)
1 Farming vegetables........ 2 Farming roots & tubers (e.g. cassava, eddoes)........
3 Farming cereals (e.g. rice)........ 4 Farming fruit........
5 Farming medicinal crops........ 6 Growing animals (livestock)........
7 Trading and marketing........ 8 Employment........
9 Sale of productive assets (e.g. land, tools) (Specify): ........................................................
10 Sell Labour 11 Others (Specify): ...............................................
57. How much of your household income is from agriculture (i.e. farming/livestock/fish etc)?
1 None 2 Less than half 3 Half4 More than half 5 All
6 I don’t know
58. If you sell in market, what part of your household income comes from your market sales?
1 Less than half 2 Half3 More than half 4 All 5 I don’t know
59. Comparing with other households in your area, how do you consider your household income?
1 Very poor 2 Poor 3 Fair 4 Good 5 Very Good 6 Don’t know
60. Do you see other opportunities available for your income generation?
1 Yes 2 No (go Q.62) 3 I don’t know (go Q.62)
§61. What kind of opportunities?
1 Farming 2 Small livestock production 3 Charcoal 4 Trade
5 Processing of Agricultural Produce 6 Tree Nurseries
7 Employment 8 Others (please specify): ...................................................................
Comment: .................................................................................................................................
TOPIC 5: EXPENDITURES
62. How much of your household income is spent on food?
1 Less than half 2 Half 3 More than half 4 All 5 I don’t know
69
§63. What part of your household income is spent on the following items?
(1-5)
(1= NOTHING; 2=SMALL; 3=AVERAGE; 4=LARGE; 5=VERY LARGE)
1 Food........ 2 Education........
3 Health care........ 4 House rent........
5 Transportation........ 6 Household needs (e.g. clothes, house items)........
7 Current (Light/electricity)...... 8 Farming expenditures (e.g. land rent, tools)........
9 Scratch card........
10 Others (Specify): ..........................................................................................................
§64. Who decides how to spend the household income? Please list in order of importance
(1= MOST IMPORTANT)
1 Head of household........ 2 Spouse of Head of Household........
3 Others (Specify): ............................................................................................................
Comments: .........................................................................................................................
65. How much are you able to save?
1 Nothing 2 Very little 3 Just enough 4 A lot 5 I don’t know
6 Others (If possible, write amount): .................................................................................
TOPIC 6: MARKET
66. Do you have a market in your community?
1 Yes 2 No (go Q.68) 3 Don’t know (go Q.68)
§67. What type of market?
1 Daily market 2 Weekly market
68. Do you sell in the market?
1 Yes, in the Local Market 2 Yes, in Other Market 3 No (go Q.75)
69. Do you sell products from your farm/garden?
1 Yes 2 No (go Q.71)
3 Other (Please clarify): ......................................................
70. Which of the following means do you use to sell your produce?
1 Wholesale (go-by-chop) 2 Retail 3 Barter
4 Joint-Product Sale 5 Contract with Wholesaler 6 Direct sale (farm’s gate)
7 Others (Specify): ..................................................................
§71. How do you carry your goods to the market?
1 Head load 2 Wheelbarrow 3 Hire transportation
3 Others (Specify): ...........................................................................................................
72. Do you use any of these market facilities?
1 Stall 2 Table 3 Wheelbarrow 4 Shop/Booth
5 Others (Specify): ...........................................................................................................
70
73. On average, do you get a good price?
1 Poor 2 Fair 3 Good 4 Very Good
5 Don’t know (please clarify): .............................................................................................
Comment: ............................................................................................................................
74. Do you have information about the price of your goods in other markets?
1 Yes 2 No 3 Other (Please clarify):..............................
TOPIC 7: INVESTMENT
75. What kind of business farming system are you doing?
1 Sole owner 2 Partnership 3 External investment 4 Self-Help
5 Others (Specify)……………………………………………………………………………….. 6 None
76. How are the investment opportunities available to you for farming or trading?
1 Poor 2 Fair 3 Good 4 Very Good 5 Don’t know
77. Do you have access to a community/group managed seed bank?
1 Yes 2 No 3 Don’t know
78. Do you have access to credit/loan facilities?
1 Yes 2 No (go Q.83) 3 Don’t know (go Q.83)
§79. Who provides the credit/loan?
1 Family 2 Friends 3 Susu Club 4 CBO
5 NGO (NOT CARE) 6 Bank 7 Government
6 Others (Specify)………………………………………..
80. Have you obtained any credit/loan in the past?
1 Yes 2 No (go Q.83)
§81. What did you do with the credit/loan?
1 Buy food 2 Farming Inputs 3 Trade 4 Other household needs
5 Others (Specify)………………………………………………………………………………..
§82. How do you pay back the credit/loan?
1 Cash 2 Produce 3 Service 4 Seeds
5 Others (Specify)………………………………………………………………………………..
TOPIC 8: SOCIAL SERVICES
83. What is the main source of drinking water for your household?
1 Pipe-borne 2 Stream 3 Open well 4 Hand Pump
5 Others (Specify)………………………………………………………………………………
84. Is there any Health Care Facility in your Community?
1 Yes 2 No (go Q.86) 3 Don’t know (go Q.86)
71
§85. Which kind?
1 Hospital 2 Clinic 3 Pharmacy 4 Drug Store
5 Others (Specify)………………………………………………………………………………
86. Are there public schools in this community?
1 Yes 2 No 3 Don’t know
TOPIC 9: ORGANIZATIONS (APART FROM CARE/WHH/A2N/HDF)
87. Have you ever received agricultural farming assistance from any organization?
1 Yes 2 No (go Q.89) 3 Don’t know (go Q.89)
§88. What type of assistance?
1 Farming tools 2 Seeds 3 Livestock 4 Cuttings
5 Training 6 Others (Specify): …………………………………………………………………
§89. Have an Extension Agent ever visited your farm?
1 Yes, from MoA 2 Yes, from NGO (NOT CARE/ Welthungerhilfe/A2N/HDF)
3 No (go Q.92) 4 Don’t know (go Q.92)
90. How often does the Extension Agent visit your farm?
1 Weekly 2 Monthly 3 Quarterly
4 Twice a year 5 Others (Specify): .............................................................
91. Have you benefited from the Extension Service provided?
(NOT CARE/ Welthungerhilfe/A2N/HDF)
1 Yes 2 No 3 Don’t know
92. Do you have a demonstration farm/farmers’ field school in your community?
1 Yes 2 No (go Q.94) 3 Don’t know (go Q.94)
93. Have you ever received training from the demonstration farm/farmers’ field school?
1 Yes 2 No 3 Don’t know
94. Is there any Community/Town Development Committee in this Community?
1 Yes 2 No 3 Don’t know
95. Do you have any Self-help group in this community?
1 Yes 2 No (go Q.99) 3 I don’t know (go Q.99)
96. What kind of Self-help group? ……………………………………………………………………………….
97. What is its present status?
1 Functional 2 Not Functioning 3 I don’t know
98. How long has it been in existence?
1 Less than a year 2 Over a year 3 3 -5 years
4 More than 5 years 5 Others (Specify): ……………………………………………………………
72
99. Are there any NGOs workings in this Community? (NOT FROM CARE/ Welthungerhilfe/A2N/HDF)
1 Yes 2 No (END) 3 Don’t know (END)
100. What type of activities are they doing?
1 Agriculture 2 Education 3 Health Care 4 Infrastructure
6 Don’t know 5 Others (Specify).............................................................................
THANK YOU!
FOR INETRVIWEE. Sign here to acknowledge receipt of 100L$ as participation
allowance: ....................................
73
ANNEX III – THE UPA FOCUS GROUP DISCUSSIONS (FGDs)
QUESTIONNAIRE FOR FOCUS GROUP DISCUSSIONS (FGDS)
WITH COMMUNITY MEMBERS
QUESTIONS FOR DISCUSSION
1) IN YOUR EXPERIENCE, WHAT IS THE SITUATION OF FOOD AND NUTRITION IN YOUR CITY?
2) IN YOUR OPINION, HOW AGRICULTURE IN AND AROUND YOUR CITY CAN HELP THE FOOD
SITUATION?
3) WHAT IS THE PRESENT SITUATION OF AGRICULTURE IN AND AROUND YOUR CITY?
4) WHAT ARE THE MAIN PROBLEMS AND DIFFICULTIES OF AGRICULTURE IN AND AROUND
YOUR CITY?
5) IN YOUR OPINION, HOW AGRICULTURE IN AND AROUND YOUR CITY CAN BE IMPROVED?
6) IN YOUR EXPERIENCE, HOW IS THE AVAILABILITY OF LOANS AND CREDIT IN YOUR
COMMUNITY?
THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR YOUR KIND COOPERATION.
74
