FINAL EVALUATION: Integrated Agriculture for Women’s Empowerment (INAWE) Foya and Kolahun Districts, Lofa County, Liberia This Final Evaluation is made possible by the generous support of the American People through the United States Agency for International Development (USAID). The contents are the responsibilities of Samaritan Purse International Relief, and do not necessarily reflect the views of USAID or the United States Government. BY: AFRICAN DEVELOPMENT ASSOCIATES (ADEAS) CAPITOL BYE-PASS, OPPOSITE LNP HEADQUARTERS MONROVIA, LIBERIA PHONE NO 231-6-513397/845405 EMAIL: adeas_liberia@yahoo.com Website: http://www.adeaslr.org 2013 FINAL EVALUATION: SPLiberia—Integrated Agriculture for Women’s Empowerment (INAWE) Project; adeas_liberia@yahoo.com; www.adeaslr.org Page 1of 48 TABLE OF CONTENTS LISTS OF TABLES, FIGURES, AND APPENDIXES .....................................................................................3 MAP OF LOFA COUNTY.......................................................................................................................4 FOREWORD: ......................................................................................................................................5 ACKNOWLEDGEMENT: .......................................................................................................................6 ACRONYMS:.......................................................................................................................................7 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY .......................................................................................................................8 I. BACKGROUND:.........................................................................................................................14 II. LITERATURE REVIEW:................................................................................................................16 III. METHODOLOGY:.......................................................................................................................20 A. The Scope of the Project:...............................................................................................................22 B. The Sample Size of the Final Evaluation: .......................................................................................22 C. MAJOR CONSTRAINTS:...................................................................................................................23 IV. MAJOR FINDINGS .....................................................................................................................24 A. Gender Approach...........................................................................................................................24 B. Value Chain Approach....................................................................................................................26 C. Community Leadership and Spouse Support for Women .............................................................28 D. Training ..........................................................................................................................................29 E. Increased Food Production............................................................................................................33 F. Post-Harvest Handling, Storage, and Value Addition ....................................................................35 G. Credit and Asset Investment..........................................................................................................36 H. The DAC Criteria.............................................................................................................................40 V. CONCLUSIONS ..........................................................................................................................45 VI. RECOMMENDATIONS ...............................................................................................................46 APPENDIXES ....................................................................................................................................48 FINAL EVALUATION: SPLiberia—Integrated Agriculture for Women’s Empowerment (INAWE) Project; adeas_liberia@yahoo.com; www.adeaslr.org Page 2of 48 LISTS OF TABLES, FIGURES, AND APPENDIXES Tables Table 1: Actual Sample Size 24 Table 2: Women’s Decision-Making Power 26 Table 3: Women’s Access and Control over Garden Tools 27 Table 4: SPL Input/Supplies 29 Table 5: Project Cost Description 46 Figures Figure 1: Portion of Harvest that Went to Waste 28 Figure 2: Means of Preventing Post-Harvest Loss 29 Figure 3: Spouse’s Support for Women in Leadership 31 Figure 4: Beneficiaries’ Literacy Skills 31 Figure 5: Beneficiaries who Participated in Numeracy Classes 32 Figure 6: Beneficiaries Ability to Calculate 32 Figure 7: Beneficiaries Knowledge of Nutrition 33 Figure 8: Food Security of HHs 35 Figure 9: Post-Harvest Handling 38 Appendixes Appendix I: Bibliography Appendix II: Project Scope—Community Appendix III: The Selection of Communities (SRS) Appendix IV: Targeted Community Sample Size—Factorization Appendix V: Actual Sample Size Appendix VI: The SPSS Database Appendix VII: SPSS Data Analysis Appendix VIII: Final Questionnaire Appendix IX: INAWE Field Guide Appendix X: INAWE Final TOR Appendix XI: INAWE Photo Gallery FINAL EVALUATION: SPLiberia—Integrated Agriculture for Women’s Empowerment (INAWE) Project; adeas_liberia@yahoo.com; www.adeaslr.org Page 3of 48 MAP OF LOFA COUNTY FINAL EVALUATION: SPLiberia—Integrated Agriculture for Women’s Empowerment (INAWE) Project; adeas_liberia@yahoo.com; www.adeaslr.org Page 4of 48 FOREWORD: According to the Food and Agriculture Policy Strategy documents of the Ministry of Agriculture, approximately 70% of Liberia’s population is actively involved in agriculture. In spite of this, the agricultural sector is deeply constrained. The lack of adequate farming tools, modern agricultural training techniques, storage facilities, and access to markets are major impediments. Consequently, 40% of Liberia’s population, mostly women and children, is vulnerable to food insecurity. Realizing these national drawbacks, Samaritan’s Purse Liberia implemented a three year project - the Integrated Agriculture for Women’s Empowerment (INAWE) project - from October 2010 to September 2013. The project was meant to empower women with training in improved agricultural techniques, as well as literacy and numeracy skills. The final evaluation shows, among other things, the impact and challenges of the project. It is therefore anticipated that the findings and recommendations of the final evaluation will help in the implementation of future projects. Respectfully Submitted: James Kormon Chairman, Board of Directors FINAL EVALUATION: SPLiberia—Integrated Agriculture for Women’s Empowerment (INAWE) Project; adeas_liberia@yahoo.com; www.adeaslr.org Page 5of 48 ACKNOWLEDGEMENT: The Chairman and members of the Board of Directors of the African Development Associates (ADEAS) extend their profound thanks and appreciation to Samaritan’s Purse Liberia for the opportunity afforded us in conducting the final evaluation of the INAWE project in Foya and Kolahun districts, Lofa County. The successful evaluation of the project rested upon the meaningful contributions made by numerous actors. Our gratitude goes to the various community leaders for providing unhindered access to the communities. Most importantly, the 432 - beneficiaries and the participants from the eight focus-group discussions deserve our warmest gratitude for their patience and cooperation in responding to the questionnaire. We wish to equally recognize the assistance of SPLiberia field staff, in particular Mrs. Elizabeth Renner, Production Coordinator and Mr. Alfred Worzi, M&E Officer for providing valuable information. Special recognition goes to Mr. Winstone Nkhoma, Deputy Country Director of SPLiberia, for providing us with background documents and information. We equally appreciate Mr. Nkhoma and Ms. Leta Krumrine’s critical analysis of the draft report From ADEAS, we are grateful for the enormous contributions made by our research staff - Mr. Philip Torgbor, Mr. Alex Moore, Mr. Prince Teh, and Ms. Adeline Jebboe - and our data analysts - Mr. Lewis Marwolo, Mr. Elton Saah, Mr. Marcus Gaye, Mr. Osman Tejan-sie, and Mr. Kelvin Kormon. Our supervisor, Mrs. Agnes Kormon, deserves special commendation for the professional manner in which the research activities were coordinated and for spearheading the database analysis. We greatly appreciate the tireless efforts of our team, despite the constraints encountered. We hope this report will assist SPLiberia to appreciate the impact of the intervention; learn lessons for future interventions; improve on future projects; and play a meaningful role in the achievement of Liberia’s Vision 2030, the realization of the Food and Agriculture Policy Strategy and, most importantly, the Millennium Development Goals with emphasis on the eradication of extreme poverty and hunger (MDG Goal 1) and the promotion of gender equality and women’s empowerment (Goal 3). FINAL EVALUATION: SPLiberia—Integrated Agriculture for Women’s Empowerment (INAWE) Project; adeas_liberia@yahoo.com; www.adeaslr.org Page 6of 48 ACRONYMS: ADEAS African Development Associates AfT Agenda for Transformation AWD Acute Waterborne Diseases CBOs Community-Based Organizations CDA Cooperative Development Agency CWIQ Core-Welfare-Indicators Questionnaire DAC Development Assistance Committee FAO Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations FE Final Evaluation FGDs Focus Group Discussions GDP Gross Domestic Products GOL Government of Liberia HANDS Health Agriculture Nutrition Development and Sustainability HHs Households HIV/AIDS Human Immunodeficiency Virus/Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndrome INAWE Integrated Agriculture for Women’s Empowerment KII Key Informant Interview LIC Low-Income Countries LISGIS Liberia Institute for Statistics and Geo-Information Services LPMC Liberia Produce Marketing Corporation LRWNE Liberian Rural Women’s Network for Empowerment MDGs Millennium Development Goals MEL Monitoring, Evaluation, and Learning MIA Ministry of Internal Affairs MOA Ministry of Agriculture MTE Mid-Term Evaluation NGOs Non-Governmental Organizations NWRSB National Water Resource and Sanitation Board PRS Poverty Reduction Strategy SA Sustainable Agriculture SARD Sustainable Agriculture and Rural Development SGBV Sexual Gender-Based Violence VSLAs Village Saving and Loan Associations FINAL EVALUATION: SPLiberia—Integrated Agriculture for Women’s Empowerment (INAWE) Project; adeas_liberia@yahoo.com; www.adeaslr.org Page 7of 48 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The final evaluation (FE) of the Integrated Agriculture for Women’s Empowerment (INAWE) project was conducted by the African Development Associates (ADEAS), and was commissioned by Samaritan’s Purse Liberia (SPL). Greatly sponsored by the United States Agency for International Development (USAID), the project was implemented by SPL in Foya and Kolahun districts, Lofa County. The project, which targeted mainly 1,000 women and 500 men, reached 25 communities in the two districts. The project was implemented under two key objectives: 1. To increase women’s asset control and leadership capacities, and 2. To increase income of rural small-holder households through agribusiness. The FE was conducted in 13 communities comprising 52% of the total intervention communities. A total of 432 beneficiaries were interviewed, including 316 women (73%) and 116 men (27%). These figures constitute 29% of the overall project beneficiaries. A total of eight focus group discussions were held in the two districts. Four of these FGDs were disaggregated by sex, while the remaining four were held jointly. In addition to the household interviews and focus group discussions, key informant and specialized interviews were conducted. Below is a summary of the findings of the final evaluation. Gender Approach - Women’s Decision-Making Power: Findings from the final evaluation revealed that,compared to the past where men made all HH decisions, women now either make decisions on their own or jointly with their partners. FGDs in eight of the 13 communities further revealed that both men and women in the project were trained on joint decision making. Currently over 80% of women make joint decisions along with their husbands on majority of HH issues. Gender Approach - Women’s Asset and Control: Unlike the past when men had complete control over HH assets, the FE revealed that women now have either equal access with men or, in some cases, more access to garden tools. Value Chain Approach: 62% of beneficiaries of the INAWE project indicated that less than a quarter of their produce goes to waste due to the value-added approach introduced by the project. Beneficiaries said that they were taught how to process their produce to add value to it. Produce like pepper and other agricultural produce used to go to waste in the past. But with the knowledge acquired, most of the produce is now either sold or processed for storage. Input/Supplies: FGDs revealed that there were several inputs from SPL to communities in which the project was implemented. During the swamp rehabilitation, SPL supplied material such as hoes, shovels, slings, axes, and rain boots to each community. One major input was seed rice which the communities paid back to SPL. To enhance women’s control over HH assets, FINAL EVALUATION: SPLiberia—Integrated Agriculture for Women’s Empowerment (INAWE) Project; adeas_liberia@yahoo.com; www.adeaslr.org Page 8of 48 SPL also supplied women with garden tools such as shovels, cutlasses, watering cans, rakes, and garden forks. SPL also built piggeries in communities that qualified for the raising of pigs and supplied six pigs as a startup kit. Duck shelters were built in other communities that qualified for ducks and 12 ducks were supplied under the project. For the construction of fish ponds, materials such as shovels, wheel barrels, pipes, cutlasses, hoes, and diggers were supplied to communities. SPL also assisted the adult-literacy program in all of the communities by supplying pencils, pens, copy books, sharpeners, erasers, and a generator that were to be used only during the training. The generators were returned to SPL at the end of the training to be used by other communities. In the establishment of VSLAs in some of the intervention communities, SPL supplied locking savings boxes, record books, and passbooks. Community Leadership and Spouse Support: Findings from the FE revealed that 33% of the women interviewed occupy some form of leadership positions, and 88% stated that they are strongly supported by their spouses in the discharge of their duties. Training - Literacy Skills: The literacy training incorporated both men and women, 88% of whom reported having been taught how to read letters of the alphabets, spell their names, and read simple sentences. As a result of this training, 42% of the respondents read part of a sentence displayed to them, while 13% read the whole sentence. Training - Numeracy Skills: 87% percent of the respondents said they had received numeracy skills training. As a result of the training, 62% were able to calculate easily, and 28% could calculate, but with much difficulty. The remaining 10% of the respondents still cannot calculate at all. Training - Life Skills: Life-skills training helped beneficiaries in joint decisions making, conflict resolution, having mutual respect for each other, and gender-based violence prevention. 98% of the respondents said they have received training in these areas. Joint decision making and mutual understanding between husband and wife are common in the communities, according to FGD respondents. They revealed further that gender related problems are not as common as they used to be. Training - Environmental Health/Schistosomiasis: Since the INAWE Project was focused on swamp-rice production, beneficiaries were made to be aware of the dangers associated with working in swampy areas. Farmers were gravely cautioned on the effects of schistosomiasis - a fresh-water disease that can cause liver and intestinal damage. Farmers were taught how to prevent it. In addition to the awareness on water-borne diseases, protective materials, including rain boots, were provided to them. Increased Food Production: The project also provided specialized technical trainings in several areas, including improved rice production, improved pig-husbandry techniques, and improved FINAL EVALUATION: SPLiberia—Integrated Agriculture for Women’s Empowerment (INAWE) Project; adeas_liberia@yahoo.com; www.adeaslr.org Page 9of 48 duck production. In most of the communities visited, progress was reported in the production of rice and vegetables. Fish production has been added to farming activities in some of the communities, while improved animal husbandry is being practiced in other communities. As a result of training acquired and applied at the community level and on personal farms, 98% of the respondents of the FE said that the food security situation in their homes has improved. As a result of the training acquired under the project, 96% of the beneficiaries interviewed in the two districts are undertaking lowland rice production. Some of the communities are doing extremely well. Tagulahun, for example, produced 56kg bags of rice from a 1kg bag of seed rice. Pig production is progressing well in Kumassadu, where they have added nineteen (19) piglets. Boundodu has already made four fish harvests and is on the verge of harvesting the balance from two ponds. Kolochoe has also harvested two of its six fish ponds, and the remaining four were ready for harvest at the time of ADEAS’ visit. Other communities provided encouraging reports. Post-Harvest Handling, Storage, and Value Addition: Through the INAWE project, post-harvest handling practices and techniques were introduced to beneficiaries for the sole purpose of reducing crop losses and spoilage after harvest. Beneficiaries of the project informed the evaluation team that produce waste has been reduced considerably in the communities since the commencement of the project: 62% percent of the respondents said less than a quarter (1/4) of their harvest went to waste, only 2% experienced half (1/2) of their produce being wasted, and 36% percent of the respondents did not experience any waste. This can be counted as a major contributing factor to improvements in HH food situation. Respondents named marketing (30%), storage (29%), and processing (21%) as key elements in their post-harvest handling practices, while crushing, packaging, and other forms of handling practices are amongst the least used practices with 0%, 0%, and 1%, respectively. FGDs and KIIs revealed beneficiaries were taught improved storage practices in order to promote the marketing of their produce under appropriate conditions for better sales and maximum profit. Before the implementation of the project, farmers most often sold their produce at ‘give away’ prices in order to avoid the inconveniences of carrying produce to and from markets or to avoid perishable goods/produce from getting damaged. Beneficiaries participating in FGDs reported that vegetables are now processed in such a way that they can be stored the longest, while the owners fetch better sales or buyers. Credit and Asset Investment: Access to credit is gradually improving, and there are indications that it will get better in the communities. In most of the communities, access to credit is mainly credit paid on out-of-harvest or in-kind sales. Appropriate production technology and farming inputs, such as a 50kg bag of seed rice, were provided to the communities. All the communities visited confirmed completion of the payback for the rice that was given to them. Among the communities visited, no community has yet been linked to an external source or institution for microfinance purposes. However, the project was successful in establishing FINAL EVALUATION: SPLiberia—Integrated Agriculture for Women’s Empowerment (INAWE) Project; adeas_liberia@yahoo.com; www.adeaslr.org Page 10of 48 VSLAs in some of the communities, thus creating access to credit for some of the beneficiaries. Other sources of credit in some of the communities range from Susu groups1 (small rotating savings and credit groups), friends, family members, and the likes. Consequently, 61% of the beneficiaries indicated that they have taken loans to invest on their farms. Of these, 69% got the loans from VSLAs established by the project. Agri-Management Training: Of the beneficiaries interviewed, 87% revealed that they have received agri-management training. Despite the training, which stressed that the advertisement of agriculture produce should be done by use of community billboards or FM radios, 81% of respondents still advertise their produce by word of mouth. The project’s billboard is being used by only 16% of the respondents, radio is used by 2%, and 1% are advertising by giving away free samples. The training further taught beneficiaries how to determine the production cost of their produce. Consequently, 41% of beneficiaries considered overhead costs, 31% considered labor costs, 23% considered raw materials, and 5% considered other factors in determining their cost of production. Although beneficiaries were trained to calculate the production cost of their produce, there is still a challenge in setting the market price, as reflected by 89% of beneficiaries reporting that they sell their produce at the same price in the market/community (rather than setting prices based on their own costs). CONCLUSION: The Integrated Agriculture for Women’s Empowerment project has made outstanding progress in accelerating women’s roles from being passive to being active in household and community activities. Women now make joint decisions with their partners and have equal access to HH assets. One critical issue to note is that although garden tools were given to women for their personal use, the FE shows that besides the watering can, which women have more access to, both women and men have equal access to both of the tools. The project also recorded remarkable success in agri-business training, which has enabled beneficiaries to know how to add value to their produce. Beneficiaries could explain the process from memory, as though they had known it all along. Because of the knowledge acquired, post-harvest waste has reduced tremendously since the baseline study was done. The adult literacy and numeracy training, which included a sub-topic on gender issues, were also rated high among the beneficiaries. However, time allotted for the adult literacy was reportedly too short to enable the participants to be able to read full sentences. Although some of them could spell their names, others reported that they had forgotten how to do so because of the short timeframe. As for the numeracy skills, most of the beneficiaries could calculate 1 Susu means money cooperative; a term derived from the Youruba Language – esusu. http:universaloutreachfoundation.org/Liberian-english FINAL EVALUATION: SPLiberia—Integrated Agriculture for Women’s Empowerment (INAWE) Project; adeas_liberia@yahoo.com; www.adeaslr.org Page 11of 48 easily because they were used to simple calculation, which could be easily translated from their local dialects to English. Food production has increased, and food security in the communities has also been increased. However, fruit production is taking a downward trend because many of the trees planted were destroyed by adverse weather condition or fire. This can be attributed to the lack of interest by beneficiaries in the production of fruits, which is considered a long-term investment. Marketing of agricultural produce as a means of preventing post-harvest losses achieved great impact during the project. However, the methods used to advertise produce are not being fully utilized. Most of the communities continue to use word of mouth to advertise their commodities. Furthermore, most of the beneficiaries also sell their produce at the prevailing market price, instead of calculating the production cost of their own produce. RECOMMENDATIONS: In view of the findings and conclusions of the final evaluation of the Integrated Agriculture for Women’s Empowerment project, ADEAS wishes to make the following recommendations: 1. To sufficiently acknowledge and attract potential buyers to the sale of farm products, billboards should be positioned not only in communities, but also in other places like markets, districts headquarters, cities, and on main roads. 2. In order to achieve maximum impact from the adult literacy and numeracy trainings, a period of two or more years should be allocated to this aspect of the project in the future. 3. Ample awareness should be given to the communities on the importance of planting fruit trees, which are the same as life trees. The communities should be made to understand that the younger generation stands to benefit from these investments. With constant and continuous awareness, the communities could develop interest, thus making fruit-tree production a success story. 4. To further enhance post-harvest handling and value addition, the availability of cold storage will provide marketing options for the sale of both fresh and dried fish as well as vegetables. 5. Due to the lack of interest in the production of fruit trees, SPL could consider replacing them with other crops to avoid loss of limited resources. 6. It will be expedient for SPL to monitor and encourage communities involved with the INAWE project whenever SPL is working or implementing other projects in the region. This will strengthen the sustainability strategy of the beneficiaries. FINAL EVALUATION: SPLiberia—Integrated Agriculture for Women’s Empowerment (INAWE) Project; adeas_liberia@yahoo.com; www.adeaslr.org Page 12of 48 7. Owing to the fact that good performances were shown in improved rice production, the provision of rice mills to all project communities should be considered in order to upgrade production, reduce cost of production, and increase value for the rice. 8. Due to this improvement, the production of rice should be accompanied by adequate storage facilities to accommodate quantity influx and prevent weather effect that causes damage. 9. Communities that were interested in pigs and received ducks did not apply much care for the ducks, which caused them to die. Therefore, in livestock production, the project should consider the interest of the communities in some cases. This will yield optimal production as the burden of achievement will be upon the communities. 10. Considering Liberia’s social and economic problems, especially with rural dwellers, intervention in the areas of food security and income should consider programs that yield benefits in one or two years. 11. Communities should be encouraged to avoid hasty implementation of projects. FINAL EVALUATION: SPLiberia—Integrated Agriculture for Women’s Empowerment (INAWE) Project; adeas_liberia@yahoo.com; www.adeaslr.org Page 13of 48 I. BACKGROUND: Liberia is situated on the West Coast of Africa and has a tropical climate with abundant rainfall. Annual average rainfall is estimated at more than 5,000 mm, making Liberia one of the wettest countries in the world. Liberia is also blessed with many natural resources, including iron ore, timber, diamond, gold, and recently discovered crude oil. Liberia’s population is currently estimated at 3.5 million, with an annual growth rate of 2.1%2. Average life expectancy is 45 years3 , even though other sources put it at 57.41 (55.82 for males and 59.04 for females)4 . Liberia ranks 182 out of 187 countries on the UNDP Human Development Index5 . The level of poverty is alarming. Of the 3.5 million people, 63.8% are living in poverty, while 1.3 million Liberians, mostly women and children are living in extreme poverty. A majority (56%6 ) of the population is functionally illiterate. Although approximately 70%7 of Liberia’s population is engaged in agriculture activities8 , most of the food eaten in Liberia is imported. Food importation stands at 80%, but quite interestingly, most of these inputs are crops that can easily be grown in Liberia. Fourteen years of civil conflict heightened the problem of food insecurity by further shattering all forms of coping mechanisms and causing huge displacement of people. In 2006, a constitutionally elected government was sworn in and was then re-elected in 2011. But Liberia’s quest for humanitarian assistance remains high. Consequently, the government’s stance against poverty gave birth to several policies and programs, including the Poverty￾Reduction Strategy, the County Development Agenda, the Ministry of Agriculture’s Food and Agriculture Policy and Strategy titled “From Subsistence to Sufficiency.” Most recent documents also include Liberia Rising Vision 2030, Agenda for Transformation, Liberia Decentralization and Local Government Policy, National Gender Policy, and National Social Protection Policy. Despite these policies and programs, the problems persist. Most families cannot afford a single meal a day and a significant number of farmers do not have access to micro-credit opportunities for agricultural activities and also lack the necessary skills to market their produce. 2 Republic of Liberia 2008 Population and Housing Census Final Results, LISGIS, 2008; p.6-8. 3 PRS, 2008, p.30. 4 http://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/li.html 5 http://hdr.undp.org/en/statistics; Liberia is above Chad (183), Mozambique (184), Burundi (185), Niger (186), and the Democratic Republic of Congo (187). 6 PRS, 2008, p.111. 7 FAPS, p.x 8 The damage to the food-production sector is manifested in low productivity of agricultural and horticultural systems; disruption of production due to the displacement of farming and growing communities; erosion of marketing systems due to degradation of roads, transport, and processing infrastructure; absence of extension services; lack of food production inputs in the areas of displacement; and socio-economic dislocation. As a result, Liberia has remained among the most food￾insecure countries, with less than 10% of the arable land being cultivated. FINAL EVALUATION: SPLiberia—Integrated Agriculture for Women’s Empowerment (INAWE) Project; adeas_liberia@yahoo.com; www.adeaslr.org Page 14of 48 Even Lofa County9 , the bread basket of Liberia prior to the war, is experiencing food insecurity. Farmers are faced with numerous agricultural challenges. Farmers lack appropriate strategies and skills in improved agronomic practices. Other challenges include lack of crop diversification, and livestock enterprises, and strategies to transform subsistence farming into commercial farming. Moreover, the lack of tools, seeds, access to improved agricultural techniques, and knowledge on improved nutrition have been major factors for the poor nutritional and health status of many women and children in Foya10 and Kolahun11 districts. Cultural practices in many communities have also contributed to low yields. Hunger is felt by many in both rural and urban areas. It has led to high rates of infant-mortality and malnutrition among children. In buttressing government’s effort of ensuring food security in Liberia, SPL, a non-governmental organization, implemented the USAID-funded12Integrated Agriculture for Women’s Empowerment (INAWE) project in Foya and Kolahun Districts, Lofa County. The project was aimed at: • Increasing women’s asset control and leadership capacities; • Increasing income of rural, small-holder households through agribusiness; and • Enhancing women’s self-confidence, decision-making power, and capacity to manage agribusiness. • The development of foundational literacy, finance and life skills. 9 Lofa County is one of the counties that were negatively affected by the 14 years of civil war. Foya and Kolahun districts are two of the most affected districts in Lofa County. Although considered to be the bread basket of Liberia prior to the civil war, Lofa County is now faced with numerous agricultural challenges, for example, the lack of appropriate strategies and skills for agricultural farming system; and the lack of diversification of crops, livestock enterprises, and strategies to transform subsistence farmers to commercial farmers. Lofa County is found in the North Western part of Liberia, and is the second largest county in Liberia. Lofa is bounded on the East and North by the Republic of Guinea,on the West by the Republic of Sierra Leone, and on the South by Gbarpolu and Bong counties. Lofa County has six political sub-divisions, which include Salayea, Zorzor, Voinjama, Kolahun, Foya, and Vahun. Another region, QuarduBourdi, is yet to become an administrative district. Although all sixteen tribes of Liberia are found in the county, the six major tribes are Lorma, Kissi, Gbandi, Mende, Mandingo, and Kpelle. Lofa County was seriously hit by the civil crisis. The county served as the headquarters for two major warring factions—the United Liberation Movement of Liberia (ULIMO-K) and the Lofa Defense Force (LDF). Lofa County experienced some of the most horrible atrocities during the civil war. Apart from massive killing and looting, there were mass displacement of people; and the destruction of infrastructure, schools, basic social services, and most livelihood activities. 10Foya District is one of the smallest districts in Lofa County. The name Foya is derived from Gbandi, one of the several languages in Lofa County, and means “wilderness” due to its isolation from the Political Capital, Vonjama. In the past, it was also believed that no one could survive in such area. Foya shares boarders with both Guinea and Sierra Leone. The district is composed of three major clans with more than forty towns and villages making up each clan. The total population of the district is about 73,312, with a male population of 36,152 and female population estimated at 37,160. There are six accessible roads to the districts and eight operational health centres. 11Kolahun District is the fourth largest of the six districts in Lofa County. The name of the district is derived from a Gbandi word that means a “place of obedience; or the place where one is obligated to obey.” Kolahun is composed of six clans, with more than 300 villages and towns. The population of the district is put at 60,557, with males constituting 28,586 and a female population of 31,971. Kolahun has five accessible roads. 12The project was jointly funded by USAID and Samaritan’s Purse. USAID provided US$1, 272,228 and Samaritan’s Purse provided US$45,390.00, for a total of US$ 1,317,618.00. FINAL EVALUATION: SPLiberia—Integrated Agriculture for Women’s Empowerment (INAWE) Project; adeas_liberia@yahoo.com; www.adeaslr.org Page 15of 48 Other activities targeted by the project were women’s control of assets through credit, group production, and processing equipment; control over income; and women’s participation in community committees. The INAWE project was implemented in twenty-five communities in Foya and Kolahun districts. The project activities began in ten communities (40%) during the first year (November 2010), while similar activities began in 15 communities (60%) during the second year (February/March 2012). The project targeted a total of 1,500 beneficiaries, including 1,000 women and 500 men. Lofa County was selected for this intervention because of its population - 8% of Liberia’s total population13. Moreover, it was based on the passion exhibited for a previous USAID-funded project - Liberia Integrated Assistance Program (LIAP) - and Lofa County being considered as the pre-war breadbasket for the country. Communities were selected based upon a set criteria covering agricultural potential, access to market, vulnerability, and experience with past USAID projects14. In accordance with good humanitarian practices, SPL commissioned a baseline study in March 2011; a mid-term review in June 2012, and a final evaluation of the project in August 2013. The two latter studies were meant to determine the impact, efficiency, relevance, and effectiveness of the INAWE project. This report constitutes the findings of the final evaluation. The report begins with a literature review, the methodology, followed by specific objectives of the study, the scope and sample size, major constraints, major findings, conclusion, and recommendations. The report is supported by eleven (11) appendixes: Appendix I) Bibliography, Appendix II) Project Scope/Communities, Appendix III) Selection of Communities through Systematic Random Sampling (SRS),Appendix IV) Targeted Communities Sample Size/Factorization, Appendix V) Actual Sample Size, Appendix VI) the SPSS Database, Appendix VII) SPSS Data Analysis, Appendix VIII) Final Questionnaire, Appendix IX) INAWE Field Guide, Appendix X) INAWE Final ToR, and Appendix XI) INAWE Photo Gallery. II. LITERATURE REVIEW: Prior to the commencement of the final evaluation of the INAWE Project, an in-depth literature review was undertaken. The literature reviewed covered various internet sources, books, periodicals, and relevant publications. Major documents reviewed included the project’s document, summary of the project’s budget, the baseline and mid-term evaluation (MTE) reports. These documents provided background information on the project. Various findings from both national and international sources were collaborated. Information on the Global Impact Website states that over 80% of poor people who live in developing countries spend a 13 Lofa is the fourth most populated county, and has a total population of 276,863, with females constituting 52% of the total. 14Reference was made to activities such as swamp-rice production and communities that benefited from health sessions under LIAP and CLP. FINAL EVALUATION: SPLiberia—Integrated Agriculture for Women’s Empowerment (INAWE) Project; adeas_liberia@yahoo.com; www.adeaslr.org Page 16of 48 significant portion of their income on food15. According to the Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO), over 850 million people constituting 13% of the world’s population were malnourished between 2006 and 200816. Liberia’s undernourished prevalence rate was estimated at 32% out of a population of 3.5 million. Prominent among the national literature reviewed were Liberia Rising Vision 2030, Agenda for Transformation, Liberia Decentralization and Local Government Policy, National Gender Policy, National Social Protection Policy, the Poverty Reduction Strategy, and the Comprehensive Food Security and Nutritional survey (CFSNS). To inform the future growth and development of the agriculture sector, the government also adopted the Cooperative Development Act 2010 and an accompanying Liberia Cooperative Development Regulations of 2010. Liberia Rising Vision 2030: This document sets the broad aspiration for the country over the next 18 years to achieve the middle-income benchmark of USD $1,000 per capita, and defines the initial steps toward the achievement of the national vision. It provides the framework to guide public investment programs and ensures inclusive growth, to reduce marginalization and build human, social, and physical capital. It outlines the major priorities and interventions required for growth and wealth creation in Liberia. The agricultural sector is greatly emphasized. Agenda for Transformation (AfT): The AfT is the Government of Liberia’s five-year development strategy. It follows the Lift Liberia Poverty-Reduction Strategy (PRS), which raises Liberia from post-conflict emergency reconstruction and positions it for future growth. It is the first step in achieving the goals set out in Liberia Rising Vision 2030, Liberia’s long-term vision of socio-economic transformation and development. The AfT sets out precise goals and objectives that Liberia will achieve in the next five years in order to take the necessary steps toward its long-term goals; to become a more prosperous and inclusive society. The AfT is consistent with the principles of the Paris Declaration, Accra Agenda for Action, and the New Deal for Engagement in Fragile States. The AfT has four main pillars: 1) Peace, Security, and Rule of Law; 2) Economic Transformation; 3) Governance and Pubic Institutions; and 4) Human Development. A fifth pillar on Cross-Cutting Issues supports these core foundations. The empowerment of women, mostly rural women, is a core objective of the Aft. Liberia Decentralization and Local Government Policy: This policy emphasizes an improved system of governance that is more localized and more responsive to the needs and aspirations of all citizens throughout the country. Decentralization of power, decision-making, and government authority will improve governance over time, increase transparency of government processes, enhance accountability, and ultimately result in better delivery of services and the fulfillment of the Government’s responsibilities to serve the Liberian people, promote democracy, and reduce poverty. The long-term objective of governance and decentralization in 15 http://.charity.org/net 16 www.fao.org/hunger/en/ FINAL EVALUATION: SPLiberia—Integrated Agriculture for Women’s Empowerment (INAWE) Project; adeas_liberia@yahoo.com; www.adeaslr.org Page 17of 48 Liberia is sustainable political harmony, inclusive socio-economic growth, and rights-based and gender-responsive development. As a means to accomplish these, decentralization seeks to bring planning and decision-making closer to the people by devolving political, administrative, and fiscal powers to local governments. Women in agriculture are major targets. National Gender Policy: The National Gender Policy is an instrument for change illustrating the government‘s bold step to break from the past and move on with sustainable development for both women and men in Liberia. The policy demonstrates high political will and commitment by the government to eliminate all forms of gender-based discrimination in order to achieve gender equality. Despite these commitments, much more remains to be done. Women in Liberia still face discrimination and marginalization in many ways. Women do not share equally in the fruits of production. Gender disparities and unacceptable inequalities persist at all levels. Deeply entrenched attitudes against women and girls perpetuate inequality and discrimination against women in public and private life on a daily basis. It is important to note that equal opportunity for all people is essential to the construction of a just and democratic society. The vision of the National Gender Policy is to guide the country towards achieving gender equity and equality, building and utilizing the potential of women, men, boys, and girls in pursuing and benefiting from national development goals. The goal of the National Gender Policy is to mainstream gender in the national development processes, enhance women and girls‘empowerment for sustainable and equitable development, and to create and strengthen gender responsive structures and mechanisms where both women and men can participate and benefit from development programs on equal basis. The INAWE project vividly captures the aspiration of the National Gender Policy. National Social Protection Policy: This policy seeks to enable the poorest people to move out of poverty. Social protection needs to be combined with investments across a range of areas, including improvements in the accessibility and quality of other services. It calls for reforms that will enable the underemployed to access jobs or skills training, and commitments to secure basic rights and entitlements for all citizens. It indicates how specific vulnerable groups, such as people with disabilities and old people, mostly farmers, will be supported. Social protection is a package of policies and programs implemented as part of public action that provide income or consumption transfers to the poor. It also protects the vulnerable against livelihood risks, and promotes efficient labor markets, all with the aim of reducing food insecurity and deprivation, and increasing resilience to shocks, as well as ensuring equitable access to basic services and adequate employment. The objectives of the INAWE project fall in line with the National Social Protection Policy. The Poverty Reduction Strategy (PRS): Published by the Government of Liberia in 2006, the PRS indicates that a large portion of the economically active population of Liberia is engaged either directly or indirectly in subsistence agriculture and fisheries. However, agriculture performance in Liberia has been limited by structural constraints, poor policies, and armed conflicts. Other FINAL EVALUATION: SPLiberia—Integrated Agriculture for Women’s Empowerment (INAWE) Project; adeas_liberia@yahoo.com; www.adeaslr.org Page 18of 48 constraints include the scarcity of seeds, poor storage facilities, the lack of fertilizers and markets, and poor road conditions. As a result, in 2006, 81% of the rural population was found to be suffering from food insecurity; and the rate of chronic malnutrition for children under five reached 39%. Despite these challenges, 70% of Liberians are actively engaged with agricultural activities, according to the Ministry of Agriculture’s Food and Agriculture Policy and Strategy document. The document presents sector policies and strategies on improved food and nutrition. Emphasis is placed on availability and adequacy, support to rural employment and self-reliance, sustainability, and linkages to markets. Issues of human and institutional capacities are also addressed. The importance of food and tree crops, as well as trade policies; strategies, monitoring, and evaluation are equally highlighted. CFSNS: Finally, an important document reviewed was the report on the Comprehensive Food Security and Nutritional Survey (CFSNS) conducted by the Ministry of Health and Social Welfare in 2006. The field survey was done at the household, individual, and community levels. The survey covered rural and semi-rural groups, representing about 65 percent of the total population. The study was conducted in collaboration with international and local partners. It was estimated that about 36 percent of households benefited from food-assistance programs, mainly through food-for-education and resettlement programs. 61% benefited from agricultural interventions, mainly in the form of tool and seed distributions. The result of the survey revealed that 11% of Liberians are food insecure, 40% are highly vulnerable, and 41% are highly vulnerable to becoming food insecure. The report further reveals that 39% of children under five were stunted, or too short for their ages, while 6.9% were wasted or too thin for their height. On the other hand, 27% of children under five were underweight17. In view of the findings, it is recommended, among other things, that the Government of Liberia should increase food availability through food production and productivity; increase people’s economic access to food through income diversification; increase food-crop yields by adopting new techniques and technologies; improve access to seeds, fertilizers, and other inputs; and strengthen linkages to output markets, primarily by rebuilding farm-to-market roads18. Complementing the Government of Liberia’s agricultural development program, Samaritan’s Purse Liberia implemented the INAWE project in Foya and Kolahun districts, Lofa County. The three-year project began in 2010 and is due to end in September 2013. Total project cost is US$1,317,618.00: USAID provided 97% of the total cost, and SP provided the rest (3%). 17 Ministry of Health and Social Welfare, Comprehensive Food Security and Nutritional Survey, 2006 18 PRS, 2006, P-61 FINAL EVALUATION: SPLiberia—Integrated Agriculture for Women’s Empowerment (INAWE) Project; adeas_liberia@yahoo.com; www.adeaslr.org Page 19of 48 III. METHODOLOGY: The final evaluation (FE) used six major research tools, covering both qualitative and quantitative approaches19, namely: desk review/literature review, key-informant interviews (KIIs), focus group discussions (FGDs), inspection of facilities20, observations, and quantitative household survey (432 HHs). The FE covered thirteen communities (7 in Foya and 6 in Kolahun districts), Lofa County in Northern Liberia. Five researchers were selected and trained on the various data-collection tools and techniques. The training also involved modification of the questions, which was required to better suit the final evaluation. Translation of the questions into the local dialects of Foya District was also done to ensure data accuracy. The research team ensured that these modifications and translations did not alter the meaning of the questions and discussion guide. Before the commencement of the actual survey, the survey instruments were reviewed by both ADEAS and SPL, and the outcome of the revision exercise was discussed. Necessary corrections to the questionnaires were made, accordingly. The actual data collection took place from August 7–19, 2013; immediately after the amendments were completed by the five researchers headed by a supervisor. Quality control during the data-collection period was ensured by the supervisor. The supervisor carried out daily checks on the activities of the researchers. Desk Review/Literature review: The desk review provided an opportunity to peruse relevant secondary data relating to the project. Major documents reviewed included the terms of reference (ToR), and the baseline and mid-term reports. The literature review proved useful in establishing the relevance of the project, as well as generating the required survey instruments and discussion guides for the research tools, in particular, the household surveys, key￾informant interviews (KIIs), and focus-group discussions (FGDs). Focus Group Discussions: Focus group discussions were held with beneficiaries in eight communities. Out of the eight FGDs, four were disaggregated by sex, while four were held with both males and females. FGDs enabled researchers to gauge the views of beneficiaries on various issues of the project, for examples, the OECD–DAC criteria21, constraints, and general experiences. The FGDs served as an important qualitative tool in providing insight into issues through interaction with community people, and gave the researchers an opportunity to follow￾up on the identification of needs and challenges around the project components. 19The research team employed both qualitative and quantitative approaches to generate the required data for the final evaluation of the INAWE project in Foya and Kolahun districts. The qualitative data was generally gathered through desk review, focus-group discussions, and key-informant/stakeholder interviews. 20 The research team visited farms, duck shelters, piggeries, and fish ponds. 21The Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD)–Development Assistance Committee (DAC) 1999 criteria lists relevance, connectedness, coherence, coverage, efficiency, effectiveness, and impact for complex emergency projects. For development projects, sustainability is considered. FINAL EVALUATION: SPLiberia—Integrated Agriculture for Women’s Empowerment (INAWE) Project; adeas_liberia@yahoo.com; www.adeaslr.org Page 20of 48 Key Informant Interviews: Key stakeholders and partners, such as SP staff members, District Agricultural Officers, and the District Commissioner (Kolahun) were interviewed. Specific and structured questions were asked and responses greatly helped to enrich the qualitative data of the FE. Quantitative Data-Collection Technique: In addition to the qualitative data-collection process, individual interviews were conducted with randomly selected beneficiaries. This was designed to not only complement, but also corroborate, information gathered through the KIIs and FGDs. A structured questionnaire was designed and administered to a total of 432 randomly selected beneficiaries. Although 40 out of the 60 beneficiaries in each sampled community were to be interviewed, the number of questionnaires administered in some communities was affected by external factors22. Data Analysis: Quantitative data received from 432 beneficiaries was entered into Epidata; and transposed to SPSS. The data was cleaned and analyzed. This was achieved by reading through the recorded responses, grouping the data question-by-question, and drawing correlations between discrete pieces of data to form interpretations. Data received from other sources, such as FGDs and KIIs, were triangulated to enhance the credibility and validity of the findings. Scope and Limitation of the Final Evaluation: Although the final evaluation was limited to the 13 sampled communities, the findings of the final evaluation can be used to deduce what beneficiaries in the 12 other un-sampled communities feel about the project. The Objectives of the Final Evaluation: In accordance with the terms of reference (ToR), the objectives of the final evaluation were to: 1. Assess the extent to which the INAWE project has achieved its goal and objectives; 2. Determine, as systematically and objectively as possible, the relevance, efficiency, effectiveness, impact, and sustainability of the project; 3. Assess the achievements of the project against its stated outcomes, including a re￾examination of the relevance of the outcomes and the project design; 4. Identify significant factors that facilitated or impeded the delivery of outcomes; and 5. Come up with recommendations and lessons learned to guide future programming. Consequently, a well-defined reporting format was submitted to ADEAS by SPL and agreed upon, as reflected in the table of contents. 22 Some beneficiaries moved to other communities (population movement / migration), some died, whilst others abandoned the project. The latter group were expecting some immediate financial benefits FINAL EVALUATION: SPLiberia—Integrated Agriculture for Women’s Empowerment (INAWE) Project; adeas_liberia@yahoo.com; www.adeaslr.org Page 21of 48 A. The Scope of the Project: The project was undertaken in 25 communities of Foya and Kolahun districts, Lofa County, targeting 13 communities in Foya and 12 communities in Kolahun districts, and including a total of 1,500 beneficiaries—sixty beneficiaries in each community. Females constituted 67% of beneficiaries, and males constituted 33%. Appendix II shows the areas of intervention and the number of targeted beneficiaries, disaggregated by sex. B. The Sample Size of the Final Evaluation: Unlike the baseline survey and the mid-term review, which targeted ten communities each; the final evaluation targeted thirteen communities (52%) from the twenty-five communities of intervention. Similar to the mid-term review, and to avoid bias, the 13 communities were selected through systematic random sampling (SRS). The sample size for the communities was obtained from the RAOSoft23 Sample-Size Calculation Standard Table/the Researcher Guide. With a total of 1,500 beneficiaries in the twenty-five communities, SP recommended a sample size of 515 (34.33%), which has a confidence level of 95% and margin of error of 0.035. Males constituted 33% of total beneficiaries, while females constituted 67%. Appendix IV shows the sample size for each community; however, Table 1 below shows the actual sample size24 for the 13 communities that were selected through SRS. 23www.raosoft.com/samplesize.html/january2013 24In some communities, it was very difficult to find beneficiaries of the project. Some beneficiaries had moved to other communities (population movement/migration), some had died, and others had abandoned the project. Few were expecting some immediate financial benefits. FINAL EVALUATION: SPLiberia—Integrated Agriculture for Women’s Empowerment (INAWE) Project; adeas_liberia@yahoo.com; www.adeaslr.org Page 22of 48 Table 1: Actual Sample Size # District COMMUNITY MALE FEMALE Total 1 Foya BOUNDODU 6 18 24 2 Foya KOLOCHOE 13 29 42 3 Foya KPANGBENIN 13 27 40 4 Foya NGORKUMA 13 27 40 5 Foya SINGOLOE 12 21 33 6 Foya KUMASSADU 6 28 34 7 Foya JOMATTA 5 15 20 8 Kolahun BOTEMBA 0 22 22 9 Kolahun KOIVATAHUN 9 24 33 10 Kolahun KORLEHOWAI 12 26 38 11 Kolahun PORLOWU 7 31 38 12 Kolahun TAGULAHUN 9 23 32 13 Kolahun YENBELAHUN 11 25 36 TOTAL 116 316 432 Minimum 0 15 20 Maximum 13 31 42 Average 9 24 33 SEX MALE 27% FEMALE 73% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% MALE FEMALE Overall, males constituted 27% and females constituted 73% of beneficiaries interviewed. The highest number of male beneficiaries interviewed (13) came from Kolochoe, Kpangbenin, and Ngorkuma; while the highest number of female beneficiaries (31) came from Porlowu. C. MAJOR CONSTRAINTS: The team experienced three major constraints. Reduction of Sample Size: Although mobilization was done, most of the communities visited experienced dramatic decreases in the number of beneficiaries present. As a result, the planned sample size for most of the communities was unattainable, thereby reducing the total actual sample size from 515 to 432; a reduction of 16%. Bad Road Conditions: Bad road conditions leading to some of the communities impeded travel. Consequently, three out of the original thirteen planned communities could not be reached, but were replaced. Jomatta community replaced Yengbemai,Kumassadu replaced Yendema,and Korlehomai replaced Ngokorhun. Repeated Visitations: Due to farming activities and other engagements on the part of beneficiaries, the team was constrained to undertake follow-up visits in order to obtain information: Kpangbenin, Sinagoloe, and Boundodu communities were each visited twice. FINAL EVALUATION: SPLiberia—Integrated Agriculture for Women’s Empowerment (INAWE) Project; adeas_liberia@yahoo.com; www.adeaslr.org Page 23of 48 In spite of these constraints, the major findings are presented below. IV. MAJOR FINDINGS A. Gender Approach 1. Women’s Decision-Making Power One major objective of the INAWE project was to empower women by giving them a chance to contribute to HH decision making. The end-of-term evaluation of the project revealed that women either make decisions on their own or jointly. FGDs in eight of the 13 communities further revealed that both men and women in the project were trained on joint decision making. Women beneficiaries of the project said that prior to the beginning of the INAWE project, men made almost all household decisions on their own without consulting the women. The women further explained that they had also been left to make some minor decisions on their own without consulting their partners. However, with the training on joint decision making acquired through the INAWE project, men and women are now making joint decisions. Consequently, the FE recorded high percentages of HHs that make joint decisions on issues regarding the welfare of the family. The table 2 below shows the trend from the baseline to the MTE, and then the FE. Table 2: Women’s Decision-Making Power # INDICATORS BASELINE MTE FE 1 Women with Control over Household Assets 53% 54% 2 Women with Control over Household Income 37% 32% 42% 3 Women Owning Assets (Land) 16% 29% 12% 4 Women Owning Assets (Land) Jointly with their Partners 80% 5 Women Owning Assets (Dwelling) 16% 29% 10% 6 Women Owning Assets (Dwelling) Jointly with their Partners 84% 7 Women Owning Assets (Livestock) 16% 29% 12% 8 Women Owning Assets (Livestock) Jointly with their Partners 79% 8 Women Holding Leadership Roles 41% 44% 33% 10 Spouse’s Support for Women in Leadership 81% FINAL EVALUATION: SPLiberia—Integrated Agriculture for Women’s Empowerment (INAWE) Project; adeas_liberia@yahoo.com; www.adeaslr.org Page 24of 48 # INDICATORS BASELINE MTE FE 11 Women Participating in Community Committees 68% 51% 93% 12 Women Who Can Sell Assets Without Permission 47% 24% 13 Women Who Sell Household Assets with Partner’s Permission 76% 14 Women Who Can Decide by Themselves to Work/Earn Money 36% 13% 15 Women Who Decide Jointly with their Partners to Work/Earn Money 76% 16 Women Who Can Decide on Healthcare by Themselves 29% 13% 17 Women Who Decide on Healthcare Jointly with their Partners 80% 18 Women Who Can Decide on Buying of Household Items 32% 13% 19 Women Who Decide on Buying of Household Items Jointly with their Partners 81% 2. Women’s Access and Control over Assets Another target of the INAWE project was to ensure that women have control over HH assets. Toward this end, the project distributed garden tools to all women in the project. The table below shows the level of access and control women and men have over these household assets. Table 3: Women’s Access and Control over Garden Tools NO. ITEM LEVEL OF ACCESS EQUAL ACCESS MORE ACCESS 1 Garden hoe 65% 35% 2 Axe 88% 12% 3 Watering can 68% 32% 4 Shovel 84% 14% Unlike the past where men had complete control over HH assets, the FE reveals that women now either have equal access with men or, in some cases, more access to garden tools. FINAL EVALUATION: SPLiberia—Integrated Agriculture for Women’s Empowerment (INAWE) Project; adeas_liberia@yahoo.com; www.adeaslr.org Page 25of 48 B. Value Chain Approach Beneficiaries of the INAWE project informed ADEAS’ researchers that since the implementation of the project, a small amount of their produce goes to waste. Findings from the HH questionnaire administered revealed that 62% of respondents said less than a quarter of their harvest went to waste, while 36% said none of their produce went to waste. Figure 1 below depicts the findings. Figure 1: Portion of Harvest ThatWent to Waste FGDs with beneficiaries of the project indicated that they were trained in several ways to prevent post-harvest losses. 1. Food processing, packaging & Storage One means of preventing post-harvest losses, according to beneficiaries, is to process the produce. FGDs with community members indicated they were trained on how to add value to their produce by preserving it. For example, they were taught to dry pepper if the market prices were not favorable, and to wait for a time when it is in high demand. The beneficiaries further explained that, unlike the past when they were constrained to sell their produce at any price, they have now been trained to process the produce so as to add value to it, allowing them to request for a higher selling price. 2. Marketing Findings from the FE revealed that marketing is one of the major ways to prevent post-harvest loss, and 30% of respondents emphasized this method of preventing losses. Findings from FGDs also indicated that, under the agri-business training component of the project, beneficiaries were taught to use their farming activities as a business, thus they were advised to market three quarters of their harvest. FINAL EVALUATION: SPLiberia—Integrated Agriculture for Women’s Empowerment (INAWE) Project; adeas_liberia@yahoo.com; www.adeaslr.org Page 26of 48 Figure 2: Means of Preventing Post Harvest Losses 3. Input Supplies According to beneficiaries of the project, SPL offered supplies to enhance the project’s activities. The table below gives a brief description of supplies given to the communities for each of the activities. Table 4: SPL Input/supplies # Activity Input/supplies from SPL Category of communities that receive inputs 1 Swamp Rehabilitation/Preparation Rain boots All communities Cutlass Hoe Tape line Bucket Sling Wheel barrow Seed rice, on a pay-back basis 2 Women’s Garden Tools Shovel All communities Cutlass Watering can Rake Garden fork 3 Piggery SPL provided all materials for the construction of the piggery Communities that did not receive duck 6 Pigs (2 male and 4 female) shelters 4 Duck Shelter SPL provided all materials for the construction of duck shelters Communities that did not receive 12 Ducks piggeries FINAL EVALUATION: SPLiberia—Integrated Agriculture for Women’s Empowerment (INAWE) Project; adeas_liberia@yahoo.com; www.adeaslr.org Page 27of 48 Besides the inputs mentioned above, there are some communities, like Tagulahun and Yengbehlahun, where SPL has promised to provide a rice mill for the processing of rice. C. Community Leadership and Spouse Support for Women Another major objective of the project was to get women involved in community leadership, and to also encourage their partners to support them in these leadership positions. Findings from the FE revealed that 33% of women interviewed occupied some forms of leadership positions. Of those, 81% said that they are supported by their husbands in the discharge of their duties. An example of spouse support for women was observed in Jomatta, where the husband of the chairlady of the INAWE project was involved in the mobilization of project participants when ADEAS research team visited the community. Figure 3: Spouse’s Support for Women in Leadership 5 Fish Pond Shovel Only communities that had features to accommodate fish ponds Wheel barrow Pipes Hoe Digger Rubber tub Pig foot barrel File Grinding stone 6 Adult Literacy Copy books All communities Pencils Pens Sharpeners Erasers Generators, to be returned after program 7 VSLAs Saving boxes Communities that demonstrated much progress with the little that was entrusted to them Record books Passbooks FINAL EVALUATION: SPLiberia—Integrated Agriculture for Women’s Empowerment (INAWE) Project; adeas_liberia@yahoo.com; www.adeaslr.org Page 28of 48 D. Training Both FGDs and HH questions revealed that there were several trainings undertaken during the course of the project. Adult literacy, numeracy, and life-skills training were some of the trainings offered by the project. 1. Literacy Training Under this component of the project, both men and women participated in adult literacy training. Under the literacy component of the project, 88% of beneficiaries interviewed admitted that they were taught how to read letters of the alphabet, spell their names, and read simple sentences. Consequently, 42% of the respondents could read parts of a sentence displayed to them, while 13% could read the whole sentence. The figure below shows findings. Figure 4: Beneficiaries’ Literacy Skills 2. Numeracy Training Participants of the project were also taught simple numeracy skills. According to beneficiaries in several FGDs, the numeracy skills were intended to teach them how to keep and calculate records of money spent in the production of agricultural produce. 87% of beneficiaries interviewed said that they received training in numeracy skills. FINAL EVALUATION: SPLiberia—Integrated Agriculture for Women’s Empowerment (INAWE) Project; adeas_liberia@yahoo.com; www.adeaslr.org Page 29of 48 Figure 5: Beneficiaries Who Participated in Numeracy Classes Of the number of beneficiaries who acquired numeracy skills, 62% were able to calculate easily, while 28% could calculate, but with much difficulty. Figure 6 below shows the findings. Figure 6: Beneficiaries’ Ability to Calculate 3. Life Skills Training Beneficiaries were taught several life skills. 98% of the respondents said they received training on joint decision making and training on how to prevent gender-based violence. FGDs also revealed that, compared to the past where men made all HH decisions, women and men now jointly make decisions. 99% of respondents also learned about mutual respect, while 97% learned about conflict resolution. FGDs in some communities revealed that, since the adult￾literacy component of the training, which included conflict resolution, husbands and wives now live in peace and harmony. The chief of one of the communities said, “my people no longer go to Foyah to judge husband and wife confusion We handle everything right in the town.” a. Family Nutrition Another training carried out under the INAWE project was on family nutrition. FGDs in several of the communities revealed that beneficiaries were taught how to prepare household meals, FINAL EVALUATION: SPLiberia—Integrated Agriculture for Women’s Empowerment (INAWE) Project; adeas_liberia@yahoo.com; www.adeaslr.org Page 30of 48 as well as learning what kinds of food that are good for pregnant women and children. Unlike the past, when women gave their children chicken feet to eat, the project taught women to give children the fleshy parts of the chicken. Women of the project further explained that they were taught to feed their children with the flesh of any kind of meat that was prepared in the home because children need the protein to develop. 90% of respondents of the FE said that they have been trained on food preparation and nutritional contents. The figure below depicts the findings. Figure 7: Beneficiaries’ Trained in Nutrition b. Schistosomiasis/Environmental Health Since the INAWE project emphasized swamp rice production, beneficiaries were taught about the dangers of working in swampy areas. In several FGDs, beneficiaries explained that they were taught there are some germs in the swamp that are harmful to the human body. They further explained that when these germs enter the human body, they could cause much damage to a person’s system, making them sick most of the time. In order to avoid such sickness, participants of the project were taught to wear rain boots when working in the swamp, and to properly wash their feet and hands when they returned from working in the swamp. Beneficiaries of the project said that they were further warned to rub lime and salt on their feet to prevent them from contracting schistosomaisis. Although beneficiaries did not mention the name of the disease, INAWE employees, in a semi￾structured interviewed (SSI), indicated that beneficiaries were taught about the disease through awareness, prevention, and medication.FDGs in some communities revealed that there also was awareness of the need to use safe drinking water. Fish pond in one of the communities where beneficiaries have to harvest by getting into the water. FINAL EVALUATION: SPLiberia—Integrated Agriculture for Women’s Empowerment (INAWE) Project; adeas_liberia@yahoo.com; www.adeaslr.org Page 31of 48 c. Specialized Technical Training The INAWE project also provided several specialized trainings to the beneficiaries. Some of the trainings included agri-business training, improved duck production, improved fish production, and fruit and vegetable production. 1. Improved Rice Production Participants in the FGDs informed ADEAS that some technical trainings were implemented by the project; this was confirmed by information gathered from specialized interviews. The training on improved rice production involved almost all 60 members in each community; consequently, the FE revealed that 90% of respondents reported having acquired some knowledge of improved rice production. Participants of several FGDs revealed that project beneficiaries were taught how to lay out the swamp for the cultivation of rice, and how to construct irrigation canals, when to feed water to the rice, and when to let the water out. The participants also said the new techniques have reduced the number of times they have to weed grass from the rice; when they feed water to the rice, it kills the grass, thus sparing them of extra labor of weeding. 2. Improved Pig-Husbandry Techniques 51% of respondents informed the research team that they had acquired training in improved pig-husbandry techniques. Participants of the FGDs revealed to the team that one of the six groups was trained to cater to communities that were given pigs. Participants were taught how to cater to pigs and how to prepare food for the pigs with pawpaw and kernel cakes. They also were trained to clean the pig pen daily. Additionally, they were trained how to cater to the sow (female pigs) when they conceived. Visits to most of the piggeries proved that the trainings were well utilized because the piggeries were all in clean conditions. Swamp Rice production in Kolochoe, Foya District. Information regarding pig production in Kolehewai. FINAL EVALUATION: SPLiberia—Integrated Agriculture for Women’s Empowerment (INAWE) Project; adeas_liberia@yahoo.com; www.adeaslr.org Page 32of 48 3. Improved Duck Production Beneficiaries in several FGDs also informed the research team that the project provided training on duck production. Instead of allowing ducks to stray in the community in search of food, beneficiaries were taught to keep ducks in a shelter, which was erected by SPL, and to feed them with specific kinds of food. E. Increased Food Production In most of the communities visited, there is reported progress in the production of rice and vegetables. Fish production has also been added to farming activities in some of the communities, while improved animal husbandry is being practiced in other communities. As a result of training acquired and applied on both project sites and personal farms, 98% of respondents of the FE said that the food security situation in their home has improved (see Figure 8 below). Figure 8: Food Security of HHs FINAL EVALUATION: SPLiberia—Integrated Agriculture for Women’s Empowerment (INAWE) Project; adeas_liberia@yahoo.com; www.adeaslr.org Page 33of 48 1. Aquaculture In the two districts visited, 44% of the beneficiaries interviewed reported being part of the development of fish ponds as a result of the training acquired under the project. Fish production is doing well in some communities. For example, Boundodu has completed a total of four fish harvests and sales, while Kolochoe has had two harvests and sales. 2. Lowland Rice Production Improved rice production is being carried out in the two districts visited during the final evaluation. Ninety six percent (96%) of the beneficiaries interviewed are undertaking lowland rice production as a result of training received under the project. In nine communities, 100% of the beneficiaries interviewed are involved in improved rice production as a result of the training. Some of these communities include Boundodu, Kolochoe, and Yengbalahun. The community with the least respondents in improved rice production is Tagulahun, where only 75% of its respondents are involved in improved rice production. In spite of this, of the 13 communities visited, Tagulahun reported the highest amount of rice produced. FGDs revealed that SPL supplied the community with a 50kg bag of seed rice and the community was able to produce 56 bags of rice weighing 50kg each. 3. Livestock Production (Pigs and Ducks) Ducks were given to some communities. Most of the communities are yet to have these ducks multiply for reasons ranging from late arrival of ducks, to appalling health conditions upon arrival that led to their death. In some of these communities, however, farmers remained unwavering in their efforts to produced ducks under improved conditions. In Jomatta, for example, all of the ducks died upon arrival. However, the community was able to pool their resources to purchase more ducks from SPL to replace the ones that died. Pigs were given to some communities. The awarding of pigs to a community was predicated upon the community’s demonstrated improvement in other aspects of the project, mainly rice and vegetable production, according to the Production Coordinator, Ms. Elizabeth Renner. However, among the communities that received pigs, the production is doing well, especially in Kumassadu where 19 piglets have been added to the six pigs originally supplied to the Fish pond s in the town of Kolochoeready for harvest. Rice production in Tungularhun, Kolahun District. FINAL EVALUATION: SPLiberia—Integrated Agriculture for Women’s Empowerment (INAWE) Project; adeas_liberia@yahoo.com; www.adeaslr.org Page 34of 48 community. This is the highest number seen thus far amongst the communities visited. Other communities are still working towards their first production. 4. Fruit Trees Even though not much appreciation for fruit trees is shown by the farmers, 90% of the beneficiaries interviewed in the districts acknowledged planting fruit trees. In most of the communities, over 90% of the beneficiaries interviewed acknowledged they had participated in the planting of fruit trees. The least number of beneficiaries that reported participation are from Ngorkuma (37%), Sinagoloe (73%), and Tagulahun (75%). However, FGDs in several of the communities revealed that there has been no significant impact in the production of fruits under the INAWE project. According to beneficiaries, most of the fruit trees got damage during the dry season, while others were destroyed by wild fire. 5. Vegetables According to the beneficiaries interviewed in the districts, vegetable production, especially during the dry season, is enhanced by improved methods of planting learned during the trainings. Participants of FGDs emphasized that vegetables were also produced in good quantity, as is the rice. As a result of good post-harvest handling practices and improved storage techniques learned, beneficiaries are experiencing better sales from the vegetables. For example, pepper, a high-earning vegetable, is not sold immediately after harvest as it used to be; instead, the crop is processed and allowed to dry. According to beneficiaries interviewed, the crop is transformed into a state that allows it to be stored for long period, and can be sold at a later time for the best possible gain. All the communities visited are involved in vegetable production. Some communities are yet to sell rice harvested, but sales from vegetables are being used to undertake other projects or to operate their local microfinance clubs. F. Post-Harvest Handling, Storage, and Value Addition Under the INAWE project, post-harvest handling practices and techniques were introduced to beneficiaries for the sole purpose of reducing crop losses and spoilage after harvest. As a result of improved post-harvest-handling practices, 62% of the beneficiaries interviewed reported that less than one quarter of their produce went to waste, and 2% reported about half of their produce went to waste. However, 36% of the beneficiaries interviewed reported that none of their produce went to waste (see Figure 9 below). Pawpaw trees, as shown from one of the communities, are used primarily to feed the pigs. FINAL EVALUATION: SPLiberia—Integrated Agriculture for Women’s Empowerment (INAWE) Project; adeas_liberia@yahoo.com; www.adeaslr.org Page 35of 48 Figure 9: Post-Harvest Handling Respondents named marketing (30%), storage (29%), and processing (21%) as key elements in their post-harvest handling practices; while crushing, packaging, and other forms of handling practices are among the least used practices with 0%, 0%, and 1% respectively. FGDs and KIIs revealed that storage practices were taught to the beneficiaries in order to promote the marketing of their produce under appropriate conditions and timeframes for improved sales and greater income. The ADEAS research team was further informed that the absence of storage practices and facilities were key factors that have long undermined the marketing of produce for optimal sales. Farmers most often sold their produce at ‘give away’ prices in order to avoid the inconvenience of carrying produce to and from markets or having produce get damaged due to weather conditions. Value addition, which includes packaging, branding, and quality standards, could take greater effect in the long run. Though the project has run for three years, the capacity of the farmers is still at the level of producers’ groups. Improvements are being reflected, but mainly in rice production. Activities such as packaging, branding, and quality standards require more time to be factored into the current activities. Production of packaging materials requires some training, after which raw materials have to be made available. The alternative is the purchase of these materials. In some of the communities, the rice is bagged, but obtaining bags depends on the sale or purchasing of imported rice. However, once the production potential of farmers increases, the value addition can begin to be factored in. At this stage, however, it is better to see the farmers’ activities reach optimal at the group level. G. Credit and Asset Investment Appropriate production technology was provided to the communities, as evidenced through the various trainings beneficiaries referred to during household interviews and FGDs. However, agro-processing equipment, such as mechanized tillers and rice mills, are yet to be received by beneficiaries in some of the communities. In most of the communities, therefore, beneficiaries FINAL EVALUATION: SPLiberia—Integrated Agriculture for Women’s Empowerment (INAWE) Project; adeas_liberia@yahoo.com; www.adeaslr.org Page 36of 48 could not speak much to these assets in terms of the 10% payback scheme. Still, all the communities visited did confirm the completion of payback for high-yielding rice varieties that were given to them. Access to credit is gradually improving, and there are indications that it will get better. In most of the communities, access to credit is mainly credit paid for out-of-harvest or in-kind sales. Amongst the communities visited, no community has yet been linked to an external source or institution for microfinance purposes. Access to microfinance currently is by means of VSLAs, Susu groups (small rotating savings and credit groups), friends, family members, etc. According to the SPL field coordinator in Foya, only 11 out of the 25 communities had VSLAs officially established during the final evaluation. However, when asked whether or not beneficiaries have access to microfinance, 69% of the beneficiaries interviewed in the districts said “Yes,” while 35% said “No.” All the beneficiaries interviewed (100%) in three communities—Kolochoe, Botemba, and Tagulahun—said they have access to microfinance. With the exception of beneficiaries in Boundodu and Kpangbenin, over 40% of the beneficiaries interviewed in the rest of the communities said they have access to microfinance. Boundodu sits at the bottom with 25%. The low rating, in terms of access to microfinance, can be attributed to community dwellers lack of credit due to a pending project - the construction of a community school. The school project will be funded by out-of-harvest sales. In spite of the above, 61% of the beneficiaries interviewed in the districts confirmed they have taken loans to invest in business or farming, while 39% did not do so. In the communities, the highest number of loan recipients comes from Jomatta, with 88%, followed by Kolochoe, with 85%. The community with the least number of loan recipients is Ngorkuma, with 20%. As to who provided funds for the loans, the biggest providers in the districts are the VSLAs, being referred to by 63% of the beneficiaries interviewed. Susu clubs followed, reported by 20%; then family members, reported by 10%. Religious institutions based in the communities were named the least (1%) providers of loans. In the communities, beneficiaries interviewed reported that VSLAs are most effective in giving loans in Korlehowai and Kolochoe. All the beneficiaries interviewed (100%) in both communities named the VSLAs as providing funds for their loans. These two communities are followed by Tagulahun and Botemba, with 95% and 93% of the beneficiaries in these communities, respectively, referring to VSLAs as providing funds for their loans. FINAL EVALUATION: SPLiberia—Integrated Agriculture for Women’s Empowerment (INAWE) Project; adeas_liberia@yahoo.com; www.adeaslr.org Page 37of 48 1. Agri-Business Training Agri-business training was meant to further develop the skills of business-oriented farmers to enhance the formation and development of cooperatives. The training should have incorporated the management and governance of associations; market access and analysis, including the use of radios and mobile phones; negotiations; and contracts. This aspect of the project seems to be that of a long-run implementation. Beneficiaries are basically doing their utmost to maintain the project at the group level in the communities for now. The groups must be encouraged in each of the communities to maintain the presence of the 25 community-based organizations. Moreover, some of these groups are already declining in manpower. The formation of the three agri-business associations designed under the project can be deferred to the long run when groups and CBOs would have been strengthened. Market access is possible in most of the communities, but there is still a need to upgrade beneficiaries’ knowledge on issues of market analysis in the current period. The use of radios and mobile phones are made difficult in most of the communities due to the lack of communication signals. Most of the sales currently being carried out are with individual buyers, and beneficiaries are yet to begin the arrangement of contracts, negotiations for optimal supply, or sales to institutions, as had been planned. 2. Agri-Business Management Training In the communities, 87% of the beneficiaries interviewed reported that they received agri￾business management training, and only 13% said they did not. Advertisement, determination of production cost, and the determination of market price are essential tools that farmers were trained to apply in order to adequately determine the value of their produce prior to sale. a. Advertisement The most common form of advertisement used is word of mouth. In the districts, 81% of the beneficiaries interviewed indicated the use of word of mouth as a means of advertising their produce. Billboards, introduced under the project, are used by 16% of the beneficiaries interviewed, while the use of radio was indicated by only 2% of the beneficiaries interviewed. As a result of the agri-business training, beneficiaries have learned the right time for planting, so farmers are now seeing greater yields from their labor. The picture above shows the production of swamp rice under the project. FINAL EVALUATION: SPLiberia—Integrated Agriculture for Women’s Empowerment (INAWE) Project; adeas_liberia@yahoo.com; www.adeaslr.org Page 38of 48 In the communities, the highest users of billboards are beneficiaries in Ngorkuma, where 49% of the beneficiaries interviewed confirmed the use of the billboards. Boundodu was next, with 39% of the beneficiaries indicating the use of the boards. In Jomatta, only 5% of the beneficiaries interviewed cited the use of billboard for advertisement, thus ranking them the least billboard users. Word of mouth is widely used in Koivatahun and Botemba, with 100% of the beneficiaries interviewed in these communities reporting the use of word of mouth as their means of advertisement. The use of word of mouth is wearing off in Boundodu, where only 22% of the beneficiaries interviewed indicated use of this method, thereby ranking them the least users of this method of advertising. The use of radio for advertising is highest in Boundodu, with 33% of the beneficiaries interviewed confirming the use of radio; followed by Jomatta, at 10%. The least use of radio advertising (2%) was reported in Kpangbenin. b. Determining Production Cost In the determination of production cost, beneficiaries interviewed named several factors, including labor, raw materials, and overhead costs. In the communities, 45% of the beneficiaries interviewed referred to overhead costs in determining their production cost. 28% named raw materials in determining the production cost of their products, and 27% cited labor as a determination of production cost. In Botemba, 68% of the beneficiaries interviewed referred to overhead cost in determining their production cost; followed by Tagulahun (65%). The community that made the least reference to overhead costs was Kpangbenin, with only 18%. The highest reference to raw materials in the determination of production cost was made by beneficiaries in Kpangbenin (44%); followed by Sinagoloe, with 40%. The least reference made to raw material costs was reported by beneficiaries in Jomatta (6%). 42% of beneficiaries in Kolochoe named labor in determining the production cost of their product; followed by Ngorkuma, with 40%. The least reference made to labor in determining production cost was reported by beneficiaries in Botemba, with only 10%. Several of the communities make use of the billboards provided by SPL for information dissimilation and advertisement. However, most communities still advertise their produce primarily by word of mouth. FINAL EVALUATION: SPLiberia—Integrated Agriculture for Women’s Empowerment (INAWE) Project; adeas_liberia@yahoo.com; www.adeaslr.org Page 39of 48 c. Determining Market Price In the communities, 41% of the beneficiaries interviewed cited the use of overhead costs (transportation, energy, etc.) in determining the market price of their products and 31% of the beneficiaries interviewed cited using labor costs in determining the market price, while only 23% reported the costs of raw materials. Among the beneficiaries interviewed, 70% in Botemba referred to overhead costs in determining market price of products; followed by 60% in Tagulahun; Kolochoe had the least (19%). The highest reference made to labor in determining market price of products was in Sinagoloe (50%); followed by 42% in Boundodu. The least reference made to labor costs in determining market price was in Botemba (16%). The highest reference made to raw material in determining market price of products was in Kolochoe (44%); followed by 28% in Kumassadu; while the least reference made to raw materials in determining market price of products was made by beneficiaries in Tagulahun( 12%). H. The DAC Criteria a. Relevance There are tangible indications that the Integrated Agriculture for Women’s Empowerment project was appreciated by inhabitants of the intervention communities in Foya and Kolahun districts. The project introduced improved farming methods, taught management skills, and provided life-skills training and farming inputs; it also provided an opportunity for micro-credit in some communities as well. Inhabitants of these communities are mainly farmers whose production potentials were constrained by the application of traditional farming methods plus the absence of essential farming inputs, such as seeds and tools. Due to the lack of these basic farming inputs and technology, farming activities in these communities have been characterized by low crops yields and significant post-harvest losses. FGDs held with project beneficiaries confirmed the root causes of the problems to include the lack of adequate training in crops cultivation and farm management skills, as well as poor access to farming inputs. Under these conditions, farmers’ production potentials were limited to yields that were most often not enough to meet the needs for individual households’ consumption. Moreover, the inadequate food situation resulting from the low yields was worsened by the lack of management in households. Food preparation was poorly managed, in terms of quantity apportioned for daily consumption. As a result, most of the households ran out of food sooner than expected. Despite having farms, these households experienced regular periods of hunger, and food security was far from being “Our farms used to be big but the harvest can be small but now the swamps are not big but the harvest can be all right”. Female Beneficiaries from one of the communities. FINAL EVALUATION: SPLiberia—Integrated Agriculture for Women’s Empowerment (INAWE) Project; adeas_liberia@yahoo.com; www.adeaslr.org Page 40of 48 achieved. A female beneficiary in Porlowu community lamented on the situation of low yield during a FGD. “Our farms used to be big but the harvest was small, but now even though the swamps are not big, the harvest can be all right” she said, referring to the use of upland farming techniques they have learned. The project was also relevant because it addressed the issue of poor management and marketing. Illiteracy and lack of information impeded the efforts of those who wanted to market their produce. The people could not arrange prices, or even determine the factors to consider in arranging the price of their produce, due to illiteracy and lack of information. As a result, they were not able to determine their profits or losses. Compounding the problem further was the issue of women’s roles in households and communities, but the project empowered women in decision-making. Prior to the project, women played passive roles in household decision making and control over assets. They were given no chance to acquire leadership skills or to play the roles of leaders. They also were often subjected to various forms of gender-based violence. For instance, an elder in Boundodu community in Foya revealed to ADEAS researchers during a focus-group discussion that the community had experienced frequent instances of violence against women. As the old man put it, “every day the police came to our town to carry people to police station, court, or jail for misunderstanding and fighting between men and women.” He continued, “The place used to be bad.” Instances of gender-based violence were also emphasized in Jomatta. The focus-group participants in several communities outlined the absolute roles men have played in decision making in households and in the community, exercising control over all assets. Some participants attributed the dominant roles played by men to long￾standing dysfunctional cultural practices, which were addressed by the project. In summary, the goals and objectives of the Integrated Agriculture for Women’s Empowerment project were precisely relevant to the needs of the communities in these two districts. Beneficiaries, both men and women, cherished the project, considering it unparalleled in their prior experience. In the words of Kolahun District Commissioner of 15 years, Morris Tamba, “the Samaritan’s Purse Women’s Empowerment Project,” as he calls it, “is actually the kind of project the people have been wanting.” b. Effectiveness of the Project Several activities were planned and earmarked for implementation under the Integrated Agriculture for Women’s Empowerment project. Key activities were adult-literacy training, farm-management skills, life skills, and several others. The implementation schedule of the INAWE project was slightly delayed from January 2011 to April 2011. The delay, according to “Every day the police came to our Town to carry people to police station, court or jail for misunderstanding and fighting between men and women”. “The place used to be bad. Elder from Bondudo speaking on Gender￾based violence FINAL EVALUATION: SPLiberia—Integrated Agriculture for Women’s Empowerment (INAWE) Project; adeas_liberia@yahoo.com; www.adeaslr.org Page 41of 48 the project officer, was primarily attributed to adherence to best practices. She reported, “Appropriate measures in line with international best practices needed to be put in place before the project could commence.” Firstly, the selection of communities was carried out on the basis of a needs assessment. Several factors were considered in the selection process. Agricultural orientation and available land were key factors. According to Mr. Winstone Nkhoma, Deputy Country Director of SPLiberia other factors considered were access to roads, markets, and an exemplified interest in farming as shown in communities’ track records. Various trainings were provided to mobilized community members, including 1,000 women and 500 men. According to beneficiaries, they underwent technical training on adult literacy and numeracy skills, improved rice production, animal husbandry, farm-management skills, and life skills. Other trainings received included food preparation, nutrition, schistosomiasis awareness and prevention, and leadership training for the women. Livestock of two kinds; namely ducks and pigs, were to be provided to the communities. The livestock were provided on the basis of performance in rice and vegetable production. Communities that showed signs of improvement in their undertakings were given pigs, while those of lesser improvement were given ducks. The construction of animal shelters preceded the receipt of the animals in the communities. To enhance the production of rice and vegetables, materials were to be provided to communities, as well as to women separately. Each community was to receive wheel barrows, diggers, axes, hoes, and shovels, while each of the forty women in the 25 communities was to receive a shovel, a hoe, a watering can, a rake, a garden fork, and a cutlass. From household interviews conducted in thirteen communities during the final evaluation, coupled with focus-group discussions and specialized interviews, all the communities visited confirmed receipt of the items promised under the project, as well as the various trainings conducted. The trainings conducted by the partners - LEED, et al were well comprehended by the beneficiaries, as evident from practical displays and reported yields. The life skills and agri-business skills training are key elements of objective one. Women’s capacity to manage agri-business is certainly enhanced by skills acquired from literacy and numeracy sessions. Women can now calculate and have their names written or identified on documents or slips, be it for business or medical purposes. Most men have accepted women’s involvement in household decision making, and have come to believe that women’s participation in decision making is equally necessary. It brings relief, according to some. Women’s asset control and ownership has increased, along with their leadership capacities, as men tend to accommodate and cooperate. Relative to objective two of the project, the application of the improved farming methods, farm-management skills, and processing are good results for farming households. In some FINAL EVALUATION: SPLiberia—Integrated Agriculture for Women’s Empowerment (INAWE) Project; adeas_liberia@yahoo.com; www.adeaslr.org Page 42of 48 communities, for example Tagulahun, agricultural production is increasing. A single bag of seed rice produced a 56 bag yield. In Boundodu, fish are being sold in addition to rice and vegetables, with community planning the construction of a school from the proceeds. Kolochoe has a community project nearing completion financed by funds realized from the marketing of farm produce. Pig production is progressing well in Kumassadu with the addition of nineteen piglets. From the sale of fish, Yengbalahun has a church building under construction. Several other communities reported good production and processing of farm produce for onward marketing. In this way, objective two of the project was largely achieved. c. Efficiency Although a significant amount of the budget went to supplies, a piece of major equipment that had been planned for the project—a mechanized tiller—was not purchased. The table below shows the breakdown of the budget, which does not take into consideration this equipment. # Description US$ 1 Personnel 332,730.32 2 Fringe Benefits 84,634.93 3 Travel 174,160.40 4 Equipment 0 5 Direct Program Supplies 480,506.98 6 Other Supplies 69,444.20 7 Contractual Services 35,109.25 8 Other Expenses 1,292.50 9 Total Direct Project Costs 1,177,878.58 10 Indirect Costs 131,686.83 11 TOTAL PROJECT COSTS 1,309,565.41 Personnel 25% Fringe Benefits 7% Travel 13% Equipmen t 0% Direct Program Supplies 37% Other Supplies 5% Contractu al Services 3% Other Expenses 0% Indirect Costs 10% Some beneficiaries were not content with the supplies received. Some beneficiaries were expecting financial compensation, while others abandoned their groups due to the lack of transparency on the part of community leaders. In some communities, fish were sold, but the money was diverted by group leaders. These actions on the part of SPL and beneficiaries compromised the efficiency of the project. d. Impact of the Project The INAWE project has significantly transformed the lives of beneficiaries to a measurable extent, in that many beneficiaries who were unable to read or write their names prior to the project are now capable of writing their names. In Sinagoloe, a female beneficiary clearly stated not only can she write her name but she is able to identify her name from an array of printed FINAL EVALUATION: SPLiberia—Integrated Agriculture for Women’s Empowerment (INAWE) Project; adeas_liberia@yahoo.com; www.adeaslr.org Page 43of 48 names listed in any order. Most importantly, many of the beneficiaries are able to perform basic calculations with ease when tested. The foundational business-management skills and micro-credit schemes introduced in the communities are two factors beneficiaries are enthusiastic about. They are able to plan, work cooperatively, take records, market their produce, and measure their profits. In some of the communities, beneficiaries are now undertaking community self-help projects. In Kolochoe community, Foya District, beneficiaries are providing accounts of development made as a result of funds acquired from project activities. Currently, a town hall is nearing completion. Funds being used in the construction of the town hall were acquired from savings made from the sale of farm produce, mainly rice. Agricultural activities, such as swamp rice production and the growing of needed vegetables are progressing better than before as evident by the yields measured. In Tagulahun, farmers were able to produced 56 bags of seed rice from one bag of seed rice given to them. This is equivalent to 2.8 metric tons. For other farmers, the training or knowledge acquired under the project are transferred for use on their individual farms. This practice has increased food production in the various project communities, dramatically impacting reduction in periods of hunger in households. “Months of severe hunger, mainly rainy-season months, are now being covered by the improvements,” revealed Abacus Jallah, District Agriculture Officer, Ministry of Internal Affairs (MIA), Kolahun District. Most of the respondents acknowledged improvements in their household food situations and attributed this development to the project. In a related development, women are now actively involved in household and community decisions making. They are undertaking leadership roles and have equal control over assets. It was observed that men are also becoming increasingly aware of the benefits of women’s participation in decision making at household and community levels. In most households, decisions are made jointly and assets are jointly owned. e. Sustainability of the Project According to most beneficiaries, the project’s sustainability largely rests upon the various trainings they received. In Kumassadu for example, beneficiaries expressed optimism over the Project’s continuity and played down the issue of members quitting. They emphasized that the training received was more important than any number of persons that have participated in the project. The beneficiaries stressed further that if traditional methods that were haphazardly passed on to them by their forefathers can be sustained for many decades, then, how can it be a problem to pass on to their children the knowledge acquired through a unique training process, and to keep making progress. Most of the respondents during the focus group discussions and key informant interviews overwhelmingly cited the passing on of training received as the most reliable means of sustaining current levels of progress. There were a few individuals who tried to give consideration to the issue of proper management of the swamps and animals as a means of FINAL EVALUATION: SPLiberia—Integrated Agriculture for Women’s Empowerment (INAWE) Project; adeas_liberia@yahoo.com; www.adeaslr.org Page 44of 48 sustaining the project. However, these respondents were quick to believe that properly managing the farms entails training, and they believed further that the training encompassed all other activities implemented under the project. They all agreed that to sustain the progress made, they must pass on the information they learned to their children, neighbors, and others. V. CONCLUSIONS The Integrated Agriculture for Women’s Empowerment project has made outstanding progress in accelerating women’s roles from passive to active in both household and community activities. Community committees have seen an upsurge in women participants, from 68% during the baseline survey to 93% in the final evaluation. This achievement is worthy to be attributed, as well, to their male spouses, who provided firm support and acceptance on the increasing roles of women in leadership, decision making, and control over assets in both households and communities. During the final evaluation, 81% of the men interviewed support their women in undertaking leadership roles. There are notable achievements in women having ownership and control over assets, as well. For example, women now either have equal access with men or, in some cases, more access to assets such as garden tools. One critical issue to note is that although garden tools were given to women for their personal use, the FE shows that besides the watering can, which women have more access to, both women and men have equal access to both of the tools. The project also made remarkable success with agri-business training, which enables beneficiaries to know how to add value to their produce. Beneficiaries could explain the process from memory, as though they had known it all along. Because of the knowledge acquired, post-harvest waste has reduced tremendously since the baseline study was done. The adult-literacy and numeracy training, which also included training on gender issues, also rated high among the beneficiaries. However, time allotted for the adult literacy was too short to enable the participants to be able to read full sentences. Although some of them could spell their names, others reported that they had forgotten how to do so because of the short timeframe. As for the numeracy skills, most of the beneficiaries could perform basic calculations easily because they were used to simple calculation that could be easily translated from their local dialect to English. In spite of the difficult times beneficiaries are having in some areas under the project, there are still prospects for achievements. For instance, in some communities, the ducks did not survive at the early stage, and in other communities the pigs are yet to multiply. Still beneficiaries remained steadfast in their efforts to successfully yield increases. In some cases, the ducks were restocked through purchasing while, as for the pigs, communities continue to nurture them toward future increases. These are clear indications that most of the communities are maintaining some sense of resilience in the achievement of the project’s goals. FINAL EVALUATION: SPLiberia—Integrated Agriculture for Women’s Empowerment (INAWE) Project; adeas_liberia@yahoo.com; www.adeaslr.org Page 45of 48 Food production, especially in the areas of rice and vegetables, has increased to an extent where overall food security in the communities has been increased. However, fruit production is taking a downward trend, as many of the planted trees have been destroyed by adverse weather condition or fire. This can be attributed to beneficiaries’ lack of interest in the production of fruits due to the long-term benefits being reaped in other areas. Marketing of agriculture produce as a means of preventing post-harvest losses has achieved great impacts during the project. However, the methods used to advertise produce are not being fully utilized. Most of the communities continue to use word of mouth to advertise their commodities. Furthermore, most of the beneficiaries are also selling their produce at prevailing market prices, rather than calculating their production costs to set prices. In view of the findings and conclusions of the final evaluation of the Integrated Agriculture for Women’s Empowerment project, ADEAS wishes to make the following recommendations. The recommendations target SPL, the Government of Liberia, and the beneficiary communities. VI. RECOMMENDATIONS SPLiberia: 1. To sufficiently acknowledge and attract potential buyers to the sale of farm products, billboards should be positioned not only in communities, but also in other places like markets, districts headquarters, cities, and on main roads. 2. In order to achieve maximum impact from the adult literacy and numeracy training, a period of two or more years should be allocated to this aspect of the project in the future. 3. Ample awareness should be given to the community on the importance of planting fruit trees, which are the same as life trees. The communities should be made to understand that the younger generation stands to benefit from these investments in the future. With constant and continuous awareness, the communities could develop interest, thus making fruit-tree production a success story replicating other projects. 4. Due to the dismal performances of the communities in the growing of fruit trees, future projects should consider replacing the trees with manageable crops to avoid incurring loss of limited resources. 5. To further enhance post-harvest handling and value addition, the availability of cold storage will provide marketing options for the sale of both fresh and dried fish and vegetables. 6. It will be expedient for SPL to monitor and encourage communities involved with the INAWE project whenever SPL is implementing other projects or working in the region. This will strengthen the sustainability strategy for the beneficiaries. FINAL EVALUATION: SPLiberia—Integrated Agriculture for Women’s Empowerment (INAWE) Project; adeas_liberia@yahoo.com; www.adeaslr.org Page 46of 48 7. Owing to the fact that good performances were shown in improved rice production, the provision of rice mills to all project communities should be considered to upgrade production, reduce cost of production, and increase value for the rice. 8. Due to improved rice production and yields, the project should include adequate storage facilities to accommodate quantity influx and prevent weather or storage￾related damage. 9. In livestock production, the project should consider the interest of the communities in some cases. This will yield optimal production, as the burden of achievement will be upon the communities. Communities that were interested in pigs and received ducks did not apply much care for the ducks, which caused them to all die. 10. Considering Liberia’s social and economic problems, especially with rural dwellers, intervention in the areas of food security and income should consider programs that yield benefits in one or two years. 11. Communities should be encouraged to avoid hasty implementation of projects and allow the promotion and growth of a favorable financial balance; The communities: 1. Although community development projects are important, community members should first of all establish a firm financial base from out-of-harvest sales and create access to microfinance in order to promote small-scale investment activities for members. 2. To maintain unity and togetherness amongst groups in all the communities, all interactions, including sales, loans, and community projects, should be carried out in a very transparent manner. 3. Community members must learn to consider situations not only for current benefit, but for the future as well. This will present a healthy economic atmosphere for the younger generation. 4. Community members should be sincere in their resolve to transfer newly-acquired knowledge from the project to those of the younger generation. This will help ensure sustainability and food security. The Government of Liberia 1. To promote the marketing of farm produce and income generation for rural dwellers, the government should regularly rehabilitate farm-to-market roads. 2. Government should empower county and district agriculture officers to work along with beneficiaries in project communities after project implementation in order to ensure FINAL EVALUATION: SPLiberia—Integrated Agriculture for Women’s Empowerment (INAWE) Project; adeas_liberia@yahoo.com; www.adeaslr.org Page 47of 48 sustainability and promote awareness on knowledge and skills offered under the project. 3. Government should show firm commitment to poverty reduction by allowing projects of this magnitude to be linked with related agencies, such as the Liberia Produce Marketing Corporation (LPMC) and the Cooperative Development Agency (CDA), thereby promoting the marketing of beneficiaries’ farm produce. APPENDIXES ATTACHED FINAL EVALUATION: SPLiberia—Integrated Agriculture for Women’s Empowerment (INAWE) Project; adeas_liberia@yahoo.com; www.adeaslr.org Page 48of 48 53 Appendix I: Bibliography: i. .Republic of Liberia, Interim Poverty Reduction Strategy: “Breaking with the Past: from Conflict to development” Monrovia: MPEA, 2006 i. Abbott, J and Makeham, J Agriculture Economic and Marketing in the Tropics, 4th ed, Hong kong: Longman Group Limited, 1984 ii. Adam, M., Agriculture extension in the Developing Countries, in Abbott, J. and Makeham, J., Agriculture Economic and Marketing in the Tropics, Hong Kong: Longman Group Limited, 1984 iii. Akinsanmi, O, Senior Secondary Agricultural Science, London, Longman Group Limited, 1994. iv. Bedell, B., Farm machinery, Lagos: Farming Press Limited, 1989 v. Brady, N., The Nature and Properties of soil, 8th edition, London: Macmillan publishing co., 1994 vi. Devendrand, C and Maclerop G., Goat and Sheep Production in the Tropics in Abbott, J. and Makeham, J., Agriculture Economic and Marketing in the Tropics, Hong Kong: Longman Group Limited, 1984 vii. Eusebio, J., Pig Production in the Tropics in Abbott, J., and Makeham, P., Agriculture Economic and Marketing in the Tropics, Hong Kong: Longman Group Limited, 1984 ii. Government of Liberia and UNDP Liberia, Millennium Development Goal Report Liberia, 2004 iii. Government of Liberia and UNDP Liberia, Rural Montserrado County, Two￾Year Reintegration/Reconstruction Plan, January 1999. iv. Government of Liberia et al, Challenges and Opportunities for Fulfilling the Rights of Children in War-Town Liberia: A Situation Analysis, MOE, 2000 v. Government of Liberia, 150-Day Action Plan, January 2006 vi. Government of Liberia, United Nations and World Bank, Joint Needs Assessment, February 2004 vii. Government of the Republic of Liberia, 2008 National Population and Housing Census Preliminary Results (LISGIS) – Monrovia, Liberia, June 2008. viii. Government of the Republic of Liberia, Five-Year National Reconstruction Plan (2002 – 2007)-Monrovia, Liberia, July 2002. viii. Hall, H., Diseases and Parasites of Livestock in the tropics in Abbott, J., and Makeham, J., Agriculture Economic and Marketing in the Tropics, Hong Kong: Longman Group Limited, 1984 ix. Mills, D and Waller,J, Pest and Disease of Tropical Crops in Abbott, J., and Makeham, J., Agriculture Economic and Marketing in the Tropics, Hong Kong: Longman Group Limited, 1984 ix. MPEA, Plan of Action for the Implementation of the National Policy on Population for Social and Economic Development, Monrovia, Liberia, November 2008. x. Philip, T., An Agricultural Notebook with special reference on Nigeria London: Longman. xi. Reid, W. et al, Raising Healthy poultry , 3rd edition Seatle: Christian Veterinary Mission x. Republic of Liberia and UNDP, Capacity Needs Assessment Report – Disaster Risk Reduction – County, District and Community Assessment, Monrovia, Liberia, July 2009. xi. Republic of Liberia and UNDP, Liberia’s Progress towards the Millennium development Goals 2008, Monrovia, October 2008. FINAL EVALUATION: SPL INTEGRATED AGRICULTURE FOR WOMEN EMPOWERMENT (INAWE) PROJECT,adeas_liberia@yahoo.com; www.adeaslr.org 54 xii. Republic of Liberia, 2008 Population and Housing Census Final Results, (LISGIS), Monrovia, Liberia, May 2009. xiii. Republic of Liberia, Draft 3 – The National Gender Policy – Ministry of Gender and Development, August 2009. xiv. Republic of Liberia, Liberia National Policy on Non-Governmental Organizations, MPEA: January 2008 xv. Republic of Liberia, Liberia National Policy on Non-Governmental Organizations, MPEA: January 2008 xvi. Republic of Liberia, Lift Liberia Poverty Reduction Strategy – Second Annual Progress Report, April 2009 – March 2010, Liberia. xvii. Republic of Liberia, Lofa County Development Agenda: 2008 - 2012, MPEA: 2008 xviii. Republic of Liberia, National Budget: Fiscal Year July 2011 – June, 2012, Bureau of the Budget, August 2008. xix. Republic of Liberia, Poverty Reduction Strategy, Monrovia, 2008 xii. Tindall, H. Vegetable production in the tropics, London: MacMillan Press LTD, 1983 i. United Nations, Common Country Assessment Liberia, Consolidating Peace and National Recovery for Sustainability Development, Monrovia, June 2006 xiii. United Nations, Investing in Development, Millennium Development Project Report, 17 January 2005 xiv. Williams, C et al, Tree and field crops of wetter regions of the tropics in Abbott, J., and Makeham, J., Agriculture Economic and Marketing in the Tropics, Hong Kong: Longman Group Limited, 1984 xv. World Bank, Building Effective State, Forging Engaged Societies, Washington DC, 2005 FINAL EVALUATION: SPL INTEGRATED AGRICULTURE FOR WOMEN EMPOWERMENT (INAWE) PROJECT,adeas_liberia@yahoo.com; www.adeaslr.org SAMARITAN’S PURSE INTEGRATED AGRICULTURE FOR WOMEN’S EMPOWERMENT LIBERIA 2011 – 2013 FINAL EVALUATION INTRODUCTION: My Name is ___________I am a researcher / Monitoring and Evaluation Officer from ADEAS. ADEAS has been hired by Samaritan’s Purse to conduct the Final Evaluation of the Integrated Agriculture for Women Empowerment (IN-AWE) Project in Foya and Kolahun Districts, Lofa County. Samaritan’s Purse is a Non-Governmental Organization that helps to improve the lives of people. The specific objectives of the IN-AWE Project are to increase women’s asset control and leadership capacities as well as to increase income of rural, small holder households through agribusiness. Findings from the final evaluation will, inter alia, help Samaritan’s Purse to identify gaps in the implementation of the IN-AWE Project; and help in designing the appropriate strategies for future projects. Do you accept to be interviewed? Researcher’s Reflection: • Objective 1: Increase women’s asset control and leadership capacities o Rural women enhance their capacity to manage agribusiness o Rural women increase self-confidence and decision-making power in the household • Objective 2: Increase income of rural, smallholder households through agribusiness o Smallholder farmers increase agricultural production and processing o Smallholder farmers increase marketing and sales of agricultural products • The DAC Criteria o Relevance of the project o Efficiency of the project o Effectiveness of the project o Impact of the project o Level of sustainability SAMARITAN’S PURSE - INAWE FINAL EVALUATION FINAL QUESTIONNAIRE: adeas_liberia@yahoo.com 1 SPL – INAWE HOUSEHOLD QUESTIONNAIRE TEAM INFORMATION 1 TEAM CODE 2 FORM NO. 3 COMMUNITY 4 DISTRICT 5 COUNTY 6 NAME OF INTERVIEWER 7 DATE GENERAL INFORMATION 8 NAME (OPTIONAL) 9 CONTACT NO. 10 SEX 1 MALE 2 FEMALE 11 AGE 1 15 – 24 2 25 – 34 3 35 – 44 4 45 – 54 5 55 – 64 6 OVER 64 12 STATUS IN HOUSEHOLD 1 FATHER 2 MOTHER 3 UNCLE 4 AUNTY 5 OTHER (SPECIFY)…………………………………… 13 MARITAL STATUS 1 SINGLE 2 MARRIED 3 DIVORCED 4 WIDOWED 5 SEPARATED 5 LIVING WITH A PARTNER GENDER APPROACH - WOMEN CONTROL OVER ASSET AND DECISION MAKING 14 WHAT IS YOUR OWNERSHIP STATUS OF THE FOLLOWING: 1. DO NOT OWN 2. OWN JOINTLY 3. OWN ALONE LAND HOUSE/DWELLING YOU LIVE IN LIVESTOCK (SHEEP, GOAT, CHICKEN, DUCK, ETC.) 15 CAN YOU SELL ANY OF THESE WITHOUT ANYONE’S PERMISSION? 1 YES 2 NO 16 WHO IN YOUR FAMILY HAS THE FINAL SAY ON WHETHER OR NOT YOU SHOULD WORK TO EARN MONEY? 1 MYSELF 2 MY PARTNER 3 MY PARTNER AND I JOINTLY 4 SOMEONE ELSE 5 SOMEONE ELSE AND I JOINTLY 6 DECISION NOT MADE /NOT APPLICABLE 17 WHO IN YOUR FAMILY HAS THE FINAL SAY ON HOW ANY MONEY YOU 1 MYSELF SAMARITAN’S PURSE - INAWE FINAL EVALUATION FINAL QUESTIONNAIRE: adeas_liberia@yahoo.com 2 RECEIVE IS USED? 2 MY PARTNER 3 MY PARTNER AND I JOINTLY 4 SOMEONE ELSE 5 SOMEONE ELSE AND I JOINTLY 6 DECISION NOT MADE /NOT APPLICABLE 18 WHO MAKES DECISIONS ABOUT HEALTH CARE FOR YOURSELF OR OTHER FAMILY MEMBERS? 1 MYSELF 2 MY PARTNER 3 MY PARTNER AND I JOINTLY 4 SOMEONE ELSE 5 SOMEONE ELSE AND I JOINTLY 6 DECISION NOT MADE /NOT APPLICABLE 19 WHO MAKES DECISIONS ABOUT BUYING HOUSEHOLD ITEMS? (E.G. RADIO, COOKING UTENSILS, BED/MATTRESS, TABLES, CHAIRS ETC)? 1 MYSELF 2 MY PARTNER 3 MY PARTNER AND I JOINTLY 4 SOMEONE ELSE 5 SOMEONE ELSE AND I JOINTLY 6 DECISION NOT MADE /NOT APPLICABLE 20 DO YOU HAVE ANY MONEY OF YOUR OWN THAT YOU ALONE CAN DECIDE HOW TO USE? 1 YES 2 NO 21 DO YOU HAVE A BANK ACCOUNT OR AN ACCOUNT IN ANY SAVING INSTITUTION? 1 YES 2 NO 22 IF YES, IN WHOSE NAME IS THE ACCOUNT KEPT? 1 IN MY NAME 2 IN MY PARTNER AND I NAME 3 IN MY PARTNER’S NAME 4 OTHERS 23 WHAT IS YOUR LEVEL OF ACCESS AND CONTROL OVER THE FOLLOWING HOUSEHOLD ITEMS? (EQUAL ACCESS =1, MORE = 2) MEN WOMEN GARDEN HOE AXE CUTLASS WATERING CAN SHOVEL OTHERS (SPECIFY) TRAINING - ADULT LITERACY AND NUMERACY SKILL 24 WHAT IS YOUR HIGHEST EDUCATIONAL LEVEL ATTAINED? 1 NONE 2 PRIMARY (1-3) 3 ELEMENTARY (4-6) 4 JUNIOR HIGH (7-9) 5 SENIOR HIGH(10-12) 6 OTHERS (SPECIFY)…………………………… 25 HAVE YOU PARTICIPATED IN ANY NON-FORMAL LITERACY CLASSES? 1 YES 2 NO 26 WILL YOU PLEASE READ THIS SENTENCE TO ME? 1 CANNOT READ AT ALL 2 ABLE TO READ ONLY PARTS OF SENTENCE 3 ABLE TO READ WHOLE SENTENCE 4 BLIND / VISUALLY IMPAIRED 27 HAVE YOU PARTICIPATED IN ANY NON-FORMAL NUMERACY CLASSES? 1 YES 2 NO 28 WILL YOU PLEASE CALCULATE THIS FOR ME? 1 CANNOT CALCULATE AT ALL 2 ABLE TO CALCULATE WITH MUCH DIFFICULTY SAMARITAN’S PURSE - INAWE FINAL EVALUATION FINAL QUESTIONNAIRE: adeas_liberia@yahoo.com 3 3 ABLE TO CALCULATE EASILY 4 BLIND / VISUALLY IMPAIRED TRAINING - FAMILY NUTRITION 29 HAVE YOU RECEIVED TRAINING ON FOOD PREPARATION IN THE LAST TWO YEARS? 1 YES 2 NO 30 WHICH NGO PROVIDED THE TRAINING? 31 HAVE YOU RECEIVED TRAINING ON NUTRITION IN THE PAST TWO YEARS? 1 YES 2 NO TRAINING – SICHISTOSOMAISIS 32 HAVE YOU RECEIVED TRAINING ON THE USE OF SAFE DRINKING WATER? 1 YES 2 NO 33 HAVE YOU BEEN TRAINED ON HOW TO AVOID THE USE OF UNSAFE WATER THAT LEADS TO WATER BORNE DISEASES? 1 YES 2 NO 34 WHICH NGO PROVIDED THE TRAINING? TRAINING - SPECIALIZED 35 HAVE YOU RECEIVED TRAINING ON FARM MANAGEMENT SKILLS IN THE LAST TWO YEARS? 1 YES 2 NO 36 HAVE YOU RECEIVED TRAINING ON ANY OF THE BELOW LIFE SKILLS IN THE PAST YEARS? 1 (YES) 2 (NO) JOINT DECISION MAKING PREVENTING GENDER-BASED VIOLENCE MUTUAL RESPECT HEALTHY CONFLICT RESOLUTION 37 HAVE YOU HAD ANY TRAINING ON FOOD PREPARATION AND NUTRITIONAL CONTENT? 1 YES 2 NO 38 HAVE YOU RECEIVED TRAINING ON ANY OF THE FOLLOWING IN THE LAST TWO YEARS? 1 (YES) 2 (NO) IMPROVED RICE PRODUCTION IMPROVED FISH PRODUCTION IMPROVED PIG HUSBANDRY TECHNIQUES IMPROVED DUCK PRODUCTION INCREASED FOOD PRODUCTION 39 HAVE YOU UNDERTAKEN ANY OF THE FOLLOWING AS A RESULT OF THE TRAINING ACQUIRED? 1 (YES) 2 (NO) DEVELOPED FISH PONDS PLANTED FRUIT TREES CONSTRUCTED PIGGERIES PREPARED DUCK SHELTERS PRODUCED PIGS PRODUCED DUCKS LOWLAND RICE PRODUCTION VEGETABLE PRODUCTION 40 HAS YOUR INVOLVEMENT IN THESE ACTIVITIES HELPED TO INCREASE YOUR FOOD SITUATION? 1 YES 2 NO 41 IF YES, TO WHICH EXTENT? 1 A LITTLE 2 MODERATELY 3 IMMENSELY COMMUNITY LEADERSHIP & SPOUSE SUPPORT FOR WOMEN - WOMEN PARTICIPATION IN COMMUNITY DECISIONS & ASSOCIATIONS ( only Women) 42 DO YOU ATTEND COMMUNITY MEETINGS? 1 YES SAMARITAN’S PURSE - INAWE FINAL EVALUATION FINAL QUESTIONNAIRE: adeas_liberia@yahoo.com 4 2 NO 43 IF YES, DO YOU HAVE TO OBTAIN PERMISSION FROM YOUR HUSBAND BEFORE GOING? 1 YES 2 NO 44 DO YOU MAKE SUGGESSTIONS AT COMMUNITIY MEETINGS? 1 YES 2 NO 45 TO WHICH EXTENT DO YOU PARTICIPATE IN MAKING FINAL DECISIONS DURING COMMUNITY MEETINGS? 1 ALWAYS VOTE 2 ALWAYS SUGGEST 3 SOMETIMES AGREE 4 SOMETIMES DISAGREE 5 REMAIN MUTE 46 DO YOU HOLD ANY LEADERSHIP POSITION IN YOUR COMMUNITY? 1 YES 2 NO 47 WHICH POSITION DO YOU HOLD? 1 CHAIRLADY 2 VICE 3 SECRETARY 4 BOARD MEMBER 5 OTHERS (SPECIFY) 48 DOES YOUR HUSBAND SUPPORT YOU BEING IN THIS POSITION? 1 YES 2 NO 49 ARE YOU A MEMBER OF ANY ASSOCIATION, GROUP, OR CLUB THAT HOLDS REGULAR MEETINGS? 1 YES 2 NO 50 IF YES, WHAT KIND OF ASSOCIATION, GROUP OR CLUB IS IT? 1 VSLA 2 RELIGIOUS 3 SOCIAL 4 WOMEN’S ORGANIZATION 5 LABOR (KUU GROUP) 6 POLITICAL 7 SUSU 8 OTHERS (SPECIFY) 51 HAVE YOU RECEIVED ANY LEADERSHIP TRAINING IN THE LAST TWO YEARS? 1 YES 2 NO 52 WHAT KIND OF LEADERSHIP TRAINING WAS IT? 53 WHICH NGO CONDUCTED THE TRAINING? CREDIT AND ASSET INVESTMENT 54 DO YOU HAVE ACCESS TO MICRO FINANCE? 1 YES 2 NO 55 IF YES, HAVE YOU EVER TAKEN LOAN TO INVEST IN BUSINESS /FARMING? 1 YES 2 NO 56 IF YES, WHICH ENTITY GAVE YOU THE LOAN? 1 VSLA 2 FAMILY MEMBERS 3 FRIENDS 4 SUSU CLUB 5 RELIGIOUS ORGANIZATION 6 NGO 7 OTHERS (SPECIFY) 57 IS YOUR FARM REGISTERED AS A BUSINESS? 1 YES 2 NO 58 IF YES, UNDER WHICH ORGANIZATION IS YOUR FARM REGISTERED? 1 COUNTY DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY 2 MINISTRY OF AGRICULTURE 3 COOPERATIVE 4 OTHERS (SPECIFY) 59 HAVE YOU BEEN TRAINED IN AGRIMANAGEMENT SKILLS? 1 YES 2 NO SAMARITAN’S PURSE - INAWE FINAL EVALUATION FINAL QUESTIONNAIRE: adeas_liberia@yahoo.com 5 POST HARVEST HANDLING AND VALUE ADDITION 60 DO YOU SELL SOME OF YOUR PRODUCE 1 YES 2 NO 61 IF YES, WHAT PORTION OF YOUR PRODUCE DO YOU SELL 1 LESS THAN ONE QUARTER 2 ABOUT ONE HALF 3 ABOUT THREE QUARTERS 4 ALL 62 WHERE DO YOU SELL YOUR PRODUCTS? 1 ON THE FARM 2 COMMISSION AGENT 3 LOCAL MARKET 4 OTHERS (SPECIFY) 63 WHO ARE YOUR CUSTOMERS? 1 BUSINESSES 2 INSTITUTIONS 3 INDIVIDUALS 4 MIDDLEMEN 5 OTHERS (SPECIFY) 64 HOW DO YOU ADVERTISE YOUR PRODUCTS? 1 WORD OF MOUTH 2 FM RADIO 3 HAND BILLS 4 FREE SAMPLE 5 SPONSORSHIP 6 BILL BOARDS 7 OTHERS (SPECIFY) 65 HOW IS THE PRICE OF YOUR COMMODITY COMPARED WITH SIMILAR PRODUCTS IN YOUR MARKET AREA? 1 SAME 2 CHEAPER 3 MORE EXPENSIVE 4 OTHERS (SPECIFY) 66 HOW DO YOU DETERMINE THE PRODUCTION COST OF YOUR PRODUCTS? 1 RAW MATERIALS 2 OVERHEADS (TRANSPORT, ENERGY ETC.) 3 LABOR 4 OTHERS (SPECIFY) 67 HOW DO YOU DETERMINE THE MARKET PRICE OF YOUR PRODUCTS? 1 RAW MATERIALS 2 OVERHEADS (TRANSPORT, ENERGY ETC.) 3 LABOR 4 OTHERS (SPECIFY) 68 HOW DO YOU OBTAIN INFORMATION ABOUT THE MARKET PRICE OF YOUR PRODUCTS? 1 NEWSPAPER 2 RADIO 3 WORDS OF MOUTH 4 OTHERS (SPECIFY) 69 WHAT PORTION OF YOUR PRODUCT WENT TO WASTE DURING THE LAST HARVEST PERIOD? 1 NONE 2 LESS THAN ONE QUARTER 3 ABOUT ONE HALF 4 ABOUT THREE QUARTERS 5 ALL 70 WHAT DO YOU DO TO PREVENT POST HARVEST LOSSES? 1 HANDLING 2 PRESERVING 3 PROCESSING 4 CRUSHING 5 STORAGE 6 PACKAGING 7 MARKETING 8 OTHER S(SPECIFY) Convey Thanks and Appreciation for the Time and Information; and ask respondent if he/she has any question to ask you. SAMARITAN’S PURSE - INAWE FINAL EVALUATION FINAL QUESTIONNAIRE: adeas_liberia@yahoo.com 6 SAMARITAN’S PURSE INTEGRATED AGRICULTURE FOR WOMEN’S EMPOWERMENT LIBERIA 2011 – 2013 FOCUS GROUP DISCUSSION GUIDE TARGET - COMMUNITY MEMBERS (INTENDED TO TRIANGULATE INFORMATION THAT WILL BE OBTAINED FROM THE HH QUESTIONNAIRE). 1 NAME OF COMMUNITY 2 NAME OF DISTRICT 3 NO. OF MALE PARTICIPANTS 4 NO. OF FEMALE PARTICIPANTS 5 INTERVIEWER 6 DATE OF INTERVIEW 7 STARTING TIME 8 ENDING TIME ENTERPRISE DEVELOPMENT 9 PLEASE INDICATE THE FARMING ACTIVITIES THAT ARE UNDERTAKEN IN YOUR COMMUNITY. 10 WHICH OF THE FARMING ACTIVITIES ARE YOU ENGAGED IN? 11 DO YOU OPERATE YOUR FARMING ACTIVITY AS A REGISTERED BUSINESS? 12 IF YES, WITH WHICH ORGANIZATION IS YOUR BUSINESS REGISTERED? 13 HOW MANY PARTNERS OR SHAREHOLDERS DO YOU HAVE? SAMARITAN’S PURSE - INAWE FINAL EVALUATION FINAL QUESTIONNAIRE: adeas_liberia@yahoo.com 7 14 HOW WOULD YOU UNDERTAKE THESE MANAGEMENT TASKS FOR YOUR BUSINESS? 1. PLANNING 2. COOPERATION 3. PROFIT MARGINS 4. RECORD KEEPING 5. PERSONAL FINANCES MARKETING WHERE DO YOU SELL YOUR PRODUCTS? WHO ARE YOUR CUSTOMERS? HOW DO YOU MAKE YOUR PRODUCT KNOWN TO CUSTOMERS? ARE YOU ABLE TO SELL ALL THAT YOU PRODUCE? HOW DOES THE PRICE OF YOUR PRODUCT COMPARE WITH SIMILAR PRODUCTS IN YOUR MARKETING AREA? HOW DO YOU ARRIVE AT THE PRODUCTION COST OF YOUR PRODUCTS? HOW DO YOU ARRIVE AT THE PRICE OF YOUR PRODUCTS? WHERE DO YOU OBTAIN INFORMATION ABOUT THE MARKET PRICE(S) OF YOUR BUSINESS PRODUCTS? ARE THERE SIMILAR PRODUCTS COMING INTO YOUR TOWN / VILLAGE FROM OUTSIDE THIS DISTRICT? FROM WHICH PLACES ARE THOSE SIMILAR PRODUCTS COMING? WHAT ARE THE CURRENT MINIMUM AND MAXIMUM UNIT COSTS AND UNIT SELLING PRICES(S/P) OF EACH OF THE FOLLOWING PRODUCTS? PRODUCT UNIT COST UNIT S/P MIN MAX MIN MAX 1. PIGS (SINGLE) 2. RICE (PER BAG) 3. FISH (PER CARTON) 4. DUCKS (SINGLE) 5. FRUITS (PER SACK) 6. VEGETABLES (PER SACK OR CARTON) SAMARITAN’S PURSE - INAWE FINAL EVALUATION FINAL QUESTIONNAIRE: adeas_liberia@yahoo.com 8 WHAT HAS THE VOLUME OF SALES OF YOUR PRODUCTS BEEN IN THE PREVIOUS TIMES INDICATED BELOW? PRODUCT PERIOD 1. PIGS 2. RICE 3. FISH 4. DUCKS 5. FRUITS 6. VEGETABLE S 7. OTHER 1-MONTH 3-MONTHS 6-MONTHS 1-YEAR HOW MANY REGULAR CUSTOMERS PATRONIZE YOUR PRODUCT? PRODUCT 1: PRODUCT 2: ………………….…………… PRODUCT 3: ……………..……………… CUSTOMER CATEGORY FREQUENCY CUSTOMER CATEGORY FREQUENCY CUSTOMER CATEGORY FREQUENCY FREQUENCY: 1. DAILY 2. WEEKLY 3.BI-WEEKLY 4.QUARTERLY 5.SEMI-ANNUALLY 6. ANNUALLY RELEVANCE - For community Members and Relevant County Officials • TO WHAT EXTENT DID WOMEN HAVE DECISION MAKING POWER IN THIS COMMUNITY BEFORE THE COMING OF THE IN-AWE PROJECT? • TO WHAT EXTENT DID WOMEN HAVE CONTROL OVER HOUSEHOLD ASSETS AND FARMING TOOLS BEFORE THE COMING OF THE IN-AWE PROJECT? • DID PEOPLE OPERATE THEIR FARMS AS A BUSINESS BEFORE THE IN-AWE PROJECT? • WERE THERE PROBLEMS OF FOOD SECURITY IN YOUR COMMUNITY BEFORE THE IN-AWE PROJECT? • WHICH NEED WAS REALLY PRESSING? • WHICH ONE OF THESE NEEDS DID THE PROJECT MEET? • WHAT WERE THE CONDITIONS OF WOMEN PRIOR TO THE PROJECT o RELATIVE TO INPROVED FARMING TECHNIQUES SAMARITAN’S PURSE - INAWE FINAL EVALUATION FINAL QUESTIONNAIRE: adeas_liberia@yahoo.com 9 o TRAINNING / LITERACY o NUTRITION o PRODUCT, PROCESSING AND MARKETING OF PRODUCTS EFFICIENCY(NOTE: FOR SPL PROGRAM MANAGER / SENIOR STAFF) • WHAT IS THE LEVEL OF OUTPUTS? • WERE INPUTS PROPERLY UTILIZED TO DRIVE THE OUTPUTS? • WAS THE APPROACH USED THE MOST EFFICIENT? • WERE INPUTS USED ECONOMICALLY? • WHAT WAS THE OTHER ALTERNATIVE MODE OF INTERVENTIONS WHEN COMPARED TO THIS ONE? • WHAT WERE THE SOURCES OF INPUTS? • WERE GOODS PROCURED LOCALLY / IMPORTED? • WERE LOCAL TENDERS SOUGHT? • ARE THERE BREAKDOWN ON COSTING – COST OF INPUTS – LOCAL AND INTERNATIONAL; TRANSPORTATION; STAFF COST – LOCAL AND EXPATRIATE AND ADMINISTRATIVE COSTS? EFFECTIVENESS (NOTE: FOR SPL PROGRAM MANAGER / SENIOR STAFF, community members and relevant county officials) • WAS THE PROJECT IMPLEMENTED ACCORDING TO SCHEDULE? • WERE ALL THE ACTIVITIES IMPLEMENTED ACCORDING TO SCHEDULE? • ARE THERE ACTIVITIES THAT NEEDS TO BE COMPLETED? • WHERE OTHER STAKEHOLDERS/COMMUNITY MEMBERS INVOLVED IN THE IMPLEMENTATION OF THE PROJECT? • HOW MANY TRAININGS WERE CONDUCTED DURING THIS PROJECT • CAN YOU DESCRIBE THE CONTENTS OF THE TRAINING IMPACT – for community members and relevant County officials • WHAT HAS CHANGED IN THE COMMUNITY AS A RESULT OF THE PROJECT INTERVENTION? • HAS THE ROLE OF WOMEN IN DECISION MAKING CHANGED? If yes, how has it changed? • DO WOMEN HAVE MORE CONTROL OVER INCOME AND ASSETS? If yes, what evidence have you seen? • WHAT ARE THE INFRASTRUCTURES THAT WERE ERECTED AS A RESULT OF THE PROJECT? SUSTAINABILITY – community members and relevant County Officials • DO YOU THINK THE COMMUNITY CAN CONTINUE THE ACTIVITIES OF THIS PROJECT AFTER SPL LEAVES? SAMARITAN’S PURSE - INAWE FINAL EVALUATION FINAL QUESTIONNAIRE: adeas_liberia@yahoo.com 10 • IF YES, WHAT ARE THE MECHANISMS PUT IN PLACE TO ENSURE PROJECT SUSTAINABILITY? OTHERS: o WHAT DO YOU THINK WAS THE MAJOR ACHIEVEMENT OF THE PROJECT? o WHAT DO YOU THINK WAS RESPONSIBLE FOR THIS ACHIEVEMENT? o WHICH ACTIVITIES WERE THE LEAST ACHIEVED? o WHAT WERE THE FACTORS THAT IMPEDED THE ACHIEVEMENT OF THESE ACTIVITIES? o WHAT WOULD YOU RECOMMEND IF A PROJECT OF SIMILAR NATURE WAS TO BE REPEATED IN THIS COMMUNITY? . SAMARITAN’S PURSE - INAWE FINAL EVALUATION FINAL QUESTIONNAIRE: adeas_liberia@yahoo.com 11