| This study examined the effects of the International Fund for Agriculture Development funded intervention of the Liberia Agriculture Sector Rehabilitation Project on smallholder farmer households’staple food crops (rice and cassava) production, income and consumption the North western counties (Grand Cape Mount, Bomi, Montserrado, and Grand Bassa). From the listing of the first year target of1,610households,250households were randomly selected from the four IFAD funded project counties.147were female headed households and103were male headed households. The samples of respondents from each county were selected randomly proportional to its population size.69beneficiary households were selected and interviewed in Grand Cape Mount County,61in Bomi County,61in Montserrado County and59in Grand Bassa County respectively. Through informal focus group meetings with project staffs, community leaders and members of farmer-based organization in the22project communities, rice and cassava farmers both males and females were identified. A random sampling approach was then used to select133male headed households and117female headed households with a total of250non beneficiary households.56non beneficiary households were selected and interviewed in Grand Cape Mount County,64in Bomi County,64in Montserrado County and66in Grand Bassa County respectively. Both descriptive and econometrics analyses were used in this study. Descriptive analysis shows that there have been large distributions of improved planting materials to ASRP/IFAD beneficiary households to enhance their staple food crops (rice and cassava) production by the implementing partners.40%of the250beneficiary households used improved upland rice variety, while2%of the non-beneficiary households planted improved variety.16%of the total beneficiary households cultivated improved lowland rice variety, whereas only1.2%of the250sampled non beneficiary households planted improved lowland rice variety. Of the250beneficiary households surveyed,47.6%cultivated improved variety of cassava, while1.6%of the non-beneficiary households cultivated improved variety of cassava.Findings of the study show that the average yield in50kg bag of rice (paddy) by non-beneficiary households was14.4bags, whereas for beneficiary households was13.5bags. The average yield in50kg bag of cassava for non-beneficiary households was10.8bags, while for beneficiary households was10.1bags. The distribution of seeds and cassava cuttings to farmers was delayed by ASRP/IFAD Implementing Partners because of the procurement procedures. While non-beneficiary households were planting their crops on time, beneficiary households’fields were cleared and awaiting for the distribution of the seeds and cassava cuttings. This delayed the beneficiary households’time of planting and their fields were not planted on time and some of the seeds and cuttings distributed to them were not viable. Moreover, the inputs distributed were not sufficient for their farm sizes. These reasons may have reduce the yields of the beneficiary households, thereby showing little or no impact of the improved inputs (seeds&cassava cuttings) distributed by the project. It was indicated by the surveyed participants that there were high pre and post-harvest losses on their crop yields. It is important to improve post-harvest handling and processing to improve food security. The results reveal that53%of the beneficiary households were rearing chickens with an average of5chickens, while36%of the non-beneficiary households were rearing chickens with an average of6chickens.15%of the total beneficiary households were rearing goats with an average of2goats, whereas7.2%of the non-beneficiary households were breeding goats with an average of3goats.14%of the sampled beneficiary households were rearing sheep with an average of2sheep, while2%of the non-beneficiary households were rearing sheep with an average of2sheep.The study results further reveal the average farm income of ASRP/IFAD project beneficiary households and non-beneficiary households. The average farm income for beneficiary households was2,605.66Liberian Dollars, while the average farm income for non-beneficiary households was1,988.08Liberian Dollars. The average monthly income for beneficiary households was2,095.18Liberian Dollars, whereas the average monthly income for non-beneficiary households was1,830.08Liberian Dollars.The logit model results after estimating the propensity score show that there is no significant difference between ASRP/IFAD beneficiary households and non-beneficiary households on the quantity produced in upland rice, lowland rice, cassava and the amount from rice sale. The results show a significant difference at the5%level between ASRP/IFAD beneficiary households and non-beneficiary households on the amount from cassava sale. There is a31%increase in the amount generated from cassava sale for non-beneficiary households. This low amount generated from cassava sale by ASRP/IFAD beneficiary households may have been due to the untimely distribution of cassava cuttings with some unviable by implementing partners (IPs) to farmers; thereby delaying the appropriate time of planting and hence reducing yield.The average consumption expenditure of grains (rice) and cassava is higher for ASRP/IFAD beneficiary households only by10%and2.1%respectively. There is a significant difference at the5%level between beneficiary households and non-beneficiary households in pulses (beans, ground nut) consumed. ASRP/IFAD beneficiary households’ consumption expenditure on pulses is64%higher than that of the non-beneficiary households. In addition, animal product consumption expenditure of ASRP/IFAD beneficiary households is higher24%than the non-beneficiary households and it significant at5%.Based on the results of the study, it is recommendable that ASRP/IFAD increases the high-yielding rice seeds. These rice seeds and cassava cuttings must be test for quality and viability and timely distributed to farmers. The project should procure livestock in the local communities and distribute it farmers thereby empowering the community’s dwellers financially.Other possible recommendations are strengthening farmers organization, expansion and continuation of farmer field schools; encouraging non-farm employment such as education, training, credit services, and public investment; and promoting value addition and product diversification and creating markets are the recommended policy implications. |
PDF Full Text Request