UPA Baseline report by andyshilongo

VIEWS: 200 PAGES: 75

More Info
									                          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

								
To top