THE IMPACT OF AGRICULTURAL DEVELOPMENT PROJECTS IN POVERTY

REDUCTION IN NONGOWA CHIEFDOM, KENEMA DISTRICT OF EASTERN

SIERRA LEONE

BY:
AMARA SANDI KONGOLEY
ID NO.:

THIS DISSERTATION IS SUBMITTED TO THE DEPARTMENT OF

AGRICULTURAL ECONOMICS, SCHOOL OF SOCIAL SCIENCES AND LAW,
NJALA UNIVERSITY IN PARTIAL FULFILMENT FOR THE AWARD OF A
BACHELOR OF SCIENCE WITH HONORS IN AGRICULTURAL ECONOMICS.

SEPTEMBER 2024.
 DECLARATION

I, AMARA SANDY KONGOLEY, affirm that the content in this dissertation is my original
work and has not been submitted to any other institution for a degree or certificate. I have
properly cited any information obtained from external sources in the references section of this
dissertation.

Signed……………………………………. Date……………………………………….

KONGOLEY, Amara Sandy

(ID. No: 69907)

i
 CERTIFICATION

I confirm that AMARA SANDI KONGOLEY conducted the study titled "The Impact of
Agricultural Development Projects in Poverty Reduction in Nongowa Chiefdom, Kenema
District of Eastern Sierra Leone" under my supervision. All sources of information used in the
study are properly referenced and acknowledged.

Signed……………………………………. Date……………………………………….

Mr. Mohamed S.M. Feika

Project Supervisor & Lecturer

Department of Agricultural Economics

ii
 DEDICATION

This particular work is dedicated to my father and mother, Andrew Jonathan Sandy Kongoley &
Mabaindu Grace Kongoley and to the rest of the KONGOLEY FAMILY whose unconditional
love and support have been the bedrock upon which I have built my academic journey. To my
parents, thank you for believing in me, even when I doubted myself.
I also dedicate this to the resilient and hardworking farmers of Nongowa Chiefdom, whose
determination and commitment to improving their livelihoods serve as a beacon of hope and
inspiration for others. Your efforts in the face of adversity and your perseverance in the quest for
better living standards embody the true spirit of agricultural development and poverty reduction.
Lastly, I dedicate this research to the countless men, women, and children around the world who
continue to suffer from poverty and hunger. May this work contribute, even in a small way, to
the ongoing efforts to build a more just, equitable, and prosperous world for all.

iii
 ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

First and foremost, I would like to express my heartfelt gratitude to the Almighty God for His
guidance, strength, and wisdom throughout this research. Without His divine intervention, this
work would not have been possible.
I would like to extend my sincere appreciation to my academic supervisor, Mr. Mohamed S.M
FEIKA, for His unwavering support, close guidance, and constructive feedback during every
stage of this research. Your encouragement and expertise have been invaluable, and I am truly
grateful for your love
I would also like to acknowledge the Ministry of Agriculture and food Security of Sierra Leone
for their invaluable support and for providing the data and resources essential to this study.
Special thanks go to the staff in the Kenema District Agricultural Office, who facilitated my
fieldwork in Nongowa Chiefdom and provided essential local insights into the agricultural
development projects in the area.
To the farmers and community leaders of Nongowa Chiefdom, I extend my deepest gratitude for
their participation, cooperation, and willingness to share their experiences. Their stories and
perspectives were central to this study, and it is their resilience and dedication that have inspired
this research.
I also appreciate the efforts of the CHURCH OF JESUS CHRIST OF LATER DAY SAINTS for
their support in providing the weariless internet services in helping me fulfill this Research work
A special thanks goes to my family and friends for their patience, support, and understanding
throughout the course of this research. Your encouragement has been a great source of strength
for me.
Finally, I would like to acknowledge all the researchers, authors, and organizations whose work
has contributed to the broader understanding of agricultural development and poverty reduction,
which forms the foundation of this study.

iv
v
 TABLE OF CONTENT

DECLARATION..............................................................................................................................i

CERTIFICATION...........................................................................................................................ii

DEDICATION...............................................................................................................................iii

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT..............................................................................................................iv

LIST OF TABLES...........................................................................................................................x

LIST OF FIGURES........................................................................................................................xi

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS.......................................................................................................xii

ABSTRACT.................................................................................................................................xiii

CHAPTER ONE..............................................................................................................................1

1.0 Introduction............................................................................................................................1

1.1 Background of the Study........................................................................................................1

1.2 Problem Statement.................................................................................................................2

1.3 Aim and Objectives of the Study...........................................................................................3

1.3.1 Objectives of the Study...................................................................................................3

1.4 Research Questions................................................................................................................3

1.5 Significance of the Study.......................................................................................................3

1.6 Hypothesis of the Study.........................................................................................................4

1.7 Scope and Limitation of the Study.........................................................................................4

1.7.1 Limitation of the Study....................................................................................................4

1.8 Organization of the Study......................................................................................................5

1.9 Definition of Key Terms........................................................................................................6

CHAPTER TWO.............................................................................................................................7

REVIEW OF LITERATURE..........................................................................................................7

2.0 Introduction............................................................................................................................7

2.1 Overview of Agricultural Development Projects in the World and Poverty Reduction........7

vi
 2.3 Agricultural Development Projects in Sierra Leone..............................................................8

2.4 The Different Types of Agricultural Development Projects Implemented in Poverty

Reduction in Developing Countries.............................................................................................9

2.5 The Perceptions of Farmers on the Implementation of Agricultural Development Projects

in Reducing Poverty.....................................................................................................................9

2.6 The Effects of Agricultural Development Projects on Farmers’ Livelihoods.....................10

2.7 Challenges Faced by Project Implementers.........................................................................10

2.8 Gaps in Literature.................................................................................................................11

CHAPTER THREE.......................................................................................................................13

RESEARCH METHODOLOGY..................................................................................................13

3.0 Introduction..........................................................................................................................13

3.1 Study Area Design...............................................................................................................13

3.2 Study Area Description........................................................................................................13

3.4 Sample Size and Techniques................................................................................................15

3.5 The Target Population..........................................................................................................15

3.6 Method of Data Collection...................................................................................................15

3.6.1 Primary sources of data.................................................................................................16

3.6.2 Secondary sources of data.............................................................................................16

3.6.3 Instruments of Data Collection......................................................................................16

3.7 Data Analysis.......................................................................................................................16

3.8 Ethical Consideration...........................................................................................................17

CHAPTER FOUR.........................................................................................................................18

RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONS..................................................................................................18

4.1 Introduction..........................................................................................................................18

4.2 Section A: Presentation and Analysis of Data on the Demographic Characteristics of

Respondents...............................................................................................................................18

4.2.1 Gender Distribution.......................................................................................................19

vii
 4.2.2 Educational Level..........................................................................................................19

4.2.3 Marital Status................................................................................................................20

4.2.4 Age Group.....................................................................................................................20

4.2.5 Types of Agricultural Activities....................................................................................20

4.2.6 Engagement in Other Occupations................................................................................21

4.2.7 Types of Other Occupations..........................................................................................21

4.2.8 Farming Experience......................................................................................................22

4.3 Section B: Presentation and Analysis of Data on the Different Agricultural Development
Projects that Help Reduce Poverty.............................................................................................22

4.3.1 Awareness of Agricultural Development Projects........................................................22

4.3.2 Types of Agricultural Development Projects................................................................22

4.3.3 Project Implementation Years.......................................................................................23

4.3.4 Effectiveness of Projects in Reducing Poverty.............................................................23

4.3.5 Services and Products Provided by Projects.................................................................24

4.3.6 Organizing Bodies.........................................................................................................24

4.3.7 Project Beneficiaries......................................................................................................24

4.4 Presentation and Analysis of Data on the Farmers’ Perception of Agricultural Development
Projects.......................................................................................................................................25

4.4.1 General Perception of Agricultural Development Projects...........................................25

4.4.2 Belief in Poverty Reduction Impact of Projects............................................................25

4.4.3 Extent of Poverty Reduction Impact.............................................................................25

4.4.4 Aspects of Livelihood Improved by Projects................................................................26

4.4.5 Projects with the Greatest Impact on Household Income.............................................26

4.5 Presentation and Analysis of Data on the Effects of Agricultural Development Projects on
the Livelihood of Farmers in Nongowa Chiefdom....................................................................26

4.5.1 Primary Effects of Agricultural Development Projects................................................27

4.5.2 Specific Impacts of Projects on Farm Productivity and Costs......................................27

viii
 4.5.3 Effect of Projects on Household Income.......................................................................28

4.6 Presentation and Analysis of Data on the Challenges Encountered in the Implementation of
Agricultural Development Projects............................................................................................28

4.6.1 Key Challenges Faced in Project Implementation........................................................29

4.6.2 Experience of Challenges During Project Implementation...........................................29

4.6.3 Seriousness of Challenges Encountered........................................................................29

4.6.4 Specific Implementation Challenges Rated by Respondents........................................30

4.6.5 Farmers' Response to New Farming Technologies.......................................................30

4.6.6 Alignment of Farmers' Expectations with Project Goals..............................................31

4.6.7 Achievement of Project Goals and Objectives..............................................................31

4.7 Discussions...........................................................................................................................31

CHAPTER FIVE...........................................................................................................................33

SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS................................................33

5.0 Introduction..........................................................................................................................33

5.1 Summary of Findings...........................................................................................................33

5.1.1 Demographic characteristics of household respondents...............................................34

5.1.2 Different Agricultural Development Projects that Help Reduce Poverty in Nongowa
Chiefdom................................................................................................................................34

5.1.3 The Perceptions of Farmers on the Implementation of Agricultural Development

Projects in Reducing Poverty.................................................................................................35

5.1.4 The Effects of Implemented Agricultural Development Projects on the Livelihood of

Rural Farmers.........................................................................................................................35

5.1.5 Challenges Faced by Project Implementers in the Implementation Process of Projects

................................................................................................................................................35

5.2. Conclusions.........................................................................................................................36

5.2.1 Different Agricultural Development Projects on the Livelihood of Farmers in

Nongowa Chiefdom...............................................................................................................36

ix
 5.2.2 Perceptions of Farmers on the Impact of Agricultural Development Projects..............36

5.2.3 The Effects of Implemented Agricultural Development Projects on the Livelihood of

Rural Farmers.........................................................................................................................36

5.2.4 Challenges Encountered by Farmers in Implementing Agricultural Development

Projects in Nongowa Chiefdom.............................................................................................37

5.3 Recommendations................................................................................................................37

5.3.1 Suggestions for Further Research..................................................................................38

APPENDIX A................................................................................................................................39

REFERENCES...........................................................................................................................39

APPENDIX B................................................................................................................................41

SURVEY QUESTIONNAIRE..................................................................................................41

x
 LIST OF TABLES

Table 1: Percentage Distribution of Respondents’ Gender...........................................................19

Table 2: Percentage Distribution of Respondents’ Level of Education........................................19
Table 3: Percentage Distribution of Respondents’ Types of Agricultural Activities Engaged in.20
Table 4: Percentage Distribution of Engagement in Other Occupation........................................21
Table 5: Percentage Distribution of Respondents’ Engagement with Other Occupations............21
Table 6: Percentage Distribution of Respondents’ Other Type of Occupation.............................21
Table 7: Percentage Distribution of Respondents’ Awareness of Agricultural Development......22
Table 8: Percentage Distribution of Project Effectiveness............................................................23
Table 9:Percentage Distribution of Provides/Service Provided by the Project.............................23
Table 10: Percentage Distribution of Organising Body................................................................24
Table 11: Percentage Distribution of the Effect of Promoting Household Income.......................28
Table 12: Percentage Distribution of the Key Challenges Faced in Project Implementation.......29
Table 13: Percentage Distribution of the Seriousness of Challenges Encountered.......................29
Table 14: Percentage Distribution of Respondents’ Specific Implementation Challenges..........30
Table 15: Percentage Distribution of Farmers' Response to New Farming Technologies............31

xi
 LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1: Study Area Map.............................................................................................................15

Figure 2: Percentage Distribution of Respondents’ Marital Status...............................................19
Figure 3: Percentage Distribution of Respondents’ Age Group....................................................20
Figure 4: Percentage Distribution of Project Implementation Years.............................................23
Figure 5: Percentage Distribution of Respondents’ Perception of Agricultural Development.....25
Figure 6: Percentage Distribution of Projects with the Greatest Impact on Household Income...26
Figure 7: Percentage Distribution of the Primary Effects of Agricultural Development Projects 27
Figure 8: Percentage Distribution of the Specific Impacts of Projects on Farm Productivity......27
Figure 9: Percentage Distribution of Challenges Faced During Project Implementation.............29
Figure 10: Percentage Distribution of the Alignment of Farmers' Expectations with Project......31

xii
 LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS

UNDP United Nations Development Projects

ADB African Development Bank
WDR World Development Report
GDP Gross Domestic Product
NGOs Non-Governmental Organizations
IFAD International Fund for Agricultural Development
SPSS Statical Package for Social Science

xiii
 ABSTRACT

This study assesses the impact of agricultural development projects on poverty reduction in
Nongowa Chiefdom, Sierra Leone, focusing on their effects on livelihoods, productivity, and food
security in a predominantly farming community. Using a descriptive research design, the study
integrates both qualitative and quantitative approaches to collect and analyse data. Surveys and
interviews were conducted with 100 respondents involved in agricultural activities, and the data
was analysed using descriptive statistics, with the aid of the Statistical Package for Social Sciences
(SPSS). A majority of respondents (77%) reported a moderate increase in income, while 21%
experienced significant income growth. The positive perception of these projects was evident, with
56% of respondents viewing them favourably and 38% highly favourably. However, challenges
were identified, including resource constraints (35.3%), lack of training (38.7%), and poor
infrastructure (26%). Limited access to land and reluctance to adopt new technologies also
hindered project outcomes. Addressing these barriers through enhanced training, increased funding,
and improved infrastructure could further elevate the projects' impact and sustainability. This
research emphasizes the critical role of tailored agricultural development initiatives in rural poverty
alleviation. It recommends targeted interventions that increase resource availability,
expand capacity building, and engage the community, ultimately supporting sustainable poverty
reduction and economic resilience in Nongowa Chiefdom.

xiv
 CHAPTER ONE

1.0 Introduction

Agricultural Development projects have a strong link to poverty alleviation, particularly in rural
areas. Agriculture can help reduce poverty, raise incomes, and improve food security for most of
the people living around the world, who live in rural areas and work mainly in farming. Agriculture
has been a helping sector in many developing economies, providing a foundation for economic
growth, employment, and poverty reduction.
Sierra Leone’s economy is significantly dependent on agriculture. In recent years, Agriculture has
played a crucial role in supplying vital inputs to other non-agricultural sectors such as industry and
services, and it is a significant source of foreign exchange through agricultural exports (World
Bank, 2007; Christiaensen et al., 2011). Additionally, by providing affordable food in urban areas,
agriculture can enhance food security for urban populations (Dither and Efenberger, 2012).

However, the role of agriculture has declined due to various structural inefficiencies and
underinvestment, contributing to widespread poverty. The situation is particularly dire in rural areas
like Nongowa Chiefdom, Eastern Sierra Leone, where agricultural productivity is low, and poverty
rates remain high.

This study aims to evaluate the impact of agricultural development projects on poverty reduction in
Nongowa Chiefdom. By examining the successes and challenges of these interventions, it seeks to
provide insights into how agricultural projects can better contribute to poverty alleviation in rural
Sierra Leone.
This chapter provides a comprehensive background on the impact of agricultural development
projects on poverty reduction in Nongowa Chiefdom in Eastern Sierra Leone, the problem
statement, aim and objectives for undertaking the research, the research questions, Hypothesis of
the study, research significance, scope and limitation of the study and definitions of some key
teams.

1.1 Background of the Study

Globally, Agriculture plays a pivotal role in poverty reduction, raising incomes, and improving
food security for rural populations, especially in developing economies. Historically, agriculture

1
has been a cornerstone for economic growth, employment generation, and poverty alleviation,
providing essential inputs to industries and services.
Sierra Leone like other developing African Nations heavily relies on agriculture, which contributes
significantly to food security, income generation, and rural livelihoods. However, in recent years,
structural challenges and other difficulties such as road network, access to new farming
technologies, climate change, and low levels of income have weakened the sector, contributing to
the persistent poverty levels making Sierra Leone one of the poorest countries in the world ranked
175th on the 2024 UNDP Human Development Index.

The agricultural sector in the country was severely impacted by the decade-long civil war, which
affected its socioeconomic, and physical infrastructure. By 2002, as the country emerged from
conflict, almost 90% of the population was living below the poverty line. In response, the
government, with support from international agencies like the African Development Bank (ADB),
launched several agricultural rehabilitation projects to restore rural livelihoods and improve food
security. These projects were crucial in rebuilding the agricultural sector, which continues to be the
backbone of rural life, engaging over 70% of the population.

1.2 Problem Statement

Despite the various agricultural development projects implemented to increase productivity and
reduce poverty, the poverty rate in Sierra Leone continues to be one of the highest worldwide, with
many rural households lacking access to basic necessities, including food, healthcare, and
education. According to recent data, over 70% of the rural population are engaged in agriculture,
yet their livelihoods remain vulnerable due to limited access to markets, insufficient infrastructure,
and inadequate farming technologies. Furthermore, food insecurity remains a major issue,
compounded by challenges such as climate change and soil degradation. Various initiatives and
agricultural development projects have been implemented in Nongowa Chiefdom with the goal of
improving livelihoods, increasing food production, and reducing poverty. However, the
effectiveness of these interventions has been inconsistent, with some projects yielding limited
success due to challenges such as poor implementation, lack of farmer participation, and
mismanagement between project goals and local needs.
This study aims to bridge the gap by assessing the impact of agricultural development projects on
poverty reduction in Nongowa Chiefdom. Specifically, it evaluates the different agricultural
development projects that help reduce poverty in Nongowa Chiefdom, determine farmers’
perceptions on implemented agricultural development projects in reducing poverty, examine the
2
effects of the implemented agricultural development projects on the livelihood of farmers and
investigate the challenges faced by the project implementers in their implementation processes.
Through this analysis, the study will provide valuable insights into how agricultural interventions
can be used to reduce poverty in rural Sierra Leone specifically in Nongowa Chiefdom

1.3 Aim and Objectives of the Study

The general aim of this study was to evaluate the impact of agricultural development projects in
poverty reduction in Nongowa chiefdom, Kenema district of eastern Sierra Leone

1.3.1 Objectives of the Study

The specific objectives of the study include the following:

I. To evaluate the different agricultural development projects that help reduce poverty in
Nongowa Chiefdom.
II. To determine farmers’ perceptions on implemented agricultural development projects in
reducing poverty in the study area.
III. To examine the effects of the implemented agricultural development projects on the
livelihood of farmers in the study area.
IV. To investigate the challenges faced by the project implementers in their implementation
processes.

1.4 Research Questions

The researcher asked the following questions below:

I. What were the different agricultural development projects implemented in Nongowa
chiefdom for poverty reduction in the study area?
II. What are the perceptions of farmers with regards the implemented agricultural development
projects in the study area?
III. How effective are agricultural development projects on the livelihood of farmers in
Nongowa chiefdom?
V. Are there challenges faced by the project implementers in their implementation processes.

3
1.5 Significance of the Study

This study is much as important because, it provides an evidence-based evaluation of agriculture

development projects, which is essential for policymakers, development agencies and stakeholders
involved in poverty reduction and agricultural development

Secondly, this study will benefit various government bodies and agricultural organizations by
providing valuable insights to guide the investment decisions that enhance the role of agriculture in
economic development. It will contribute to understanding how agricultural development projects
can effectively reduce poverty in Nongowa Chiefdom, thereby supporting policy formulation and
project implementation.
Finally, this research will serve as a foundation for future studies on the subject, providing useful
data and analysis for researchers interested in the study of agriculture and poverty alleviation. For
individual farmers, the findings of this study could offer practical guidance to increase agricultural
productivity and income, ultimately contributing to poverty reduction and improved livelihoods.

1.6 Hypothesis of the Study

The hypothesis of this study states that:

H0. There is No impact of Agricultural Development Project on Poverty Reduction in the
Nongowa Chiefdom.
H1. There is great impact of Agricultural Development Project on Poverty Reduction in the
Nongowa Chiefdom

1.7 Scope and Limitation of the Study

This study focuses on Nongowa Chiefdom in Eastern Sierra Leone. It will investigate the impact of
agricultural development projects on poverty reduction in the chiefdom by focusing on the different
agricultural development projects that help reduce poverty in Nongowa, determine farmers’
perceptions on implemented agricultural development projects in reducing poverty, examine the
effects of the implemented agricultural development projects on the livelihood of farmers and
investigate the challenges faced by the project implementers in their implementation processes.
The study will assess various agricultural development initiatives implemented in the chiefdom,
exploring how they influence income generation, food security, and the adoption of modern
farming techniques. Data will be collected through surveys and interviews to provide a

4
comprehensive analysis of the challenges and opportunities related to agricultural development
projects in Nongowa Chiefdom.

1.7.1 Limitation of the Study

This study has the following challenges and limitations

 Finance - One of the key limitations encountered in this study is the financial constraint, which
restricted access to certain remote farming communities. Due to the limited budget, the study
could not extensively cover all sections within Nongowa Chiefdom, which may have affected
the comprehensiveness of data collection and the scope of the analysis. These financial
limitations also restricted the number of field visits and logistical support required for broader
coverage, potentially impacting the accuracy of the study’s findings.
 Data accuracy - Data collection in rural areas presented several challenges. Remote
communities were difficult to reach, resulting in limited access to certain farming populations.
Additionally, Farmers and stakeholders may have provided responses they believed were
expected, rather than honest reflections of their experiences. As a result, the data collected may
not fully capture the diversity of experiences and outcomes within the entire chiefdom.
 Practical Constraints - There were several constraints faced during the research process. The
geographical remoteness of some farming communities posed logistical challenges, which
limited the ability to engage with all potential respondents. Weather conditions and
infrastructure challenges, such as poor road networks, further complicated the research team’s
ability to collect data effectively.

1.8 Organization of the Study

The study comprises five chapters, each with a distinct purpose. Chapter One establishes the
foundation, encompassing the introduction, background, problem statement, research questions,
objectives, hypothesis, scope and limitations, structure, and key term definitions. Chapter Two is
dedicated to the literature review, consolidating existing research on the effects of agriculture and
its economic implications. It encompasses global and regional studies, focusing on similar contexts,
and discusses relevant theoretical frameworks while identifying gaps in the literature. This chapter
situates the study within broader academic discourse and emphasizes the need for localized
research in Nongowa. Chapter Three outlines the research methodology, providing a detailed
description of the study area, study area design, population and sample, data collection methods
(both quantitative and qualitative), and data presentation and analysis. It also addresses ethical

5
considerations. Chapter Four focuses on the presentation, analysis, and discussion of the collected
data. It examines the findings to the research questions and compares them with existing literature,
discussing implications for agricultural practices and economic strategies in Nongowa. Chapter
Five concludes the study by summarizing key findings, drawing conclusions, and offering practical
recommendations. It also suggests areas for further research and acknowledges the study's
limitations, contributing to both academic knowledge and practical solutions.

1.9 Definition of Key Terms

This section defines key concepts essential to understanding the study, focusing on:
I. Agricultural Development,
II. Agricultural Projects.
III. Agricultural Productivity,
IV. Poverty.
 Agricultural Development - This refers to improvements in the living standards of a population
through economic and social progress, including increased income, poverty eradication, and
reduced inequality. (World Bank 2021) It is a dynamic process involving structural changes in
economic activities, enhanced individual choices, and improved self-esteem.
 Agricultural Project - This means any project proposing agricultural uses such as commercial
farming (e.g., row, field, tree, and nursery crop cultivation) or animal husbandry (e.g., cows,
goats, and hogs).
 Agricultural Productivity - This is defined as the ratio of agricultural outputs to inputs, with
various measures including output per unit of labour, capital, land, and raw materials. Total
Factor Productivity (TFP) is also used to measure agricultural productivity.
 Poverty - According to the World Bank organization in 2022 it describes poverty as a ‘multi-
dimensional phenomenon characterized by severe deprivation of basic human needs, including
food, water, shelter, and education’. It is often defined in terms of both absolute poverty, which
measures the minimum living standards required for survival, and relative poverty, which
considers an individual’s living standards compared to others in society.

6
 CHAPTER TWO

REVIEW OF LITERATURE

2.0 Introduction

This chapter provides existing literature on how agricultural development projects affect poverty
reduction. It examines global perspectives, focuses on Sierra Leone, and discusses how these
projects work in rural farming communities. The chapter is structured as follows

 Overview of Agricultural development projects in the world and Poverty reduction

 Agricultural Development Projects in Sierra Leone
 The different types of agricultural development projects implemented in poverty
reduction in developing countries
 The perceptions of Farmers on the implementation of agricultural development projects
in reducing poverty.
 The effects of implemented agricultural development projects on the livelihood of rural
farmers
 Challenges faced by project implementers in the implementation process of projects.

2.1 Overview of Agricultural Development Projects in the World and Poverty Reduction

Researchers in the economic history tradition are generally clear on the key role of agriculture in
economic growth (Thorbecke and Ouyang, 2016; Austin 2016). Agricultural development projects
refer to the improvement in the standard of living across a nation or region. It is a dynamic process
that encompasses economic and social dimensions, necessitating a rising per capita income, the
eradication of absolute poverty, and a reduction in inequality over the long term. According to
Norton (2004), this process is marked by changes in the structure and level of economic activities,
alongside increased opportunities for individual choice and the enhancement of self-esteem.

Norton and Alwang (1993) noted that development can be a challenging and sometimes painful
process. In its early stages, inequality and absolute poverty may worsen, leading to significant
social upheaval, the displacement of traditional lifestyles, and challenges to existing social norms.
This period often requires substantial institutional and political reforms, as the economy and
culture undergo significant changes.

7
Evidence from the past decades highlights that agricultural growth is highly effective in alleviating
rural poverty and more so than industrial growth in reducing urban poverty. Researchers have
compiled and analyzed data on income distribution in rural and urban areas, leading to important
findings. Ravalli on and Datta (1998) analyzed data from 33 household surveys conducted in India
between 1951 and 1991. Their analysis revealed that both rural and urban poor benefited from rural
sector growth, although urban growth had adverse distributional effects within urban areas.
Furthermore, many studies, such as those by War (2001) and Datt and Ravallion (1996),
demonstrate that agricultural growth benefits poor households more than growth in other sectors.
For example, Gallup et al. (1997) found that a 1% increase in per capita agricultural output led to a
1.61% increase in the incomes of the poorest 20% of the population. The World Development
Report (WDR) 2008 emphasizes the significant role of agriculture in economic growth and poverty
reduction. The report highlights that agricultural growth in Africa is accelerating, although
productivity growth is slower. The report also indicates that GDP growth attributed to agriculture
improves the income of the poor two to four times more effectively than non-agricultural GDP
growth. Notably, 81% of the worldwide reduction in rural poverty from 1993 to 2002 is attributed
to improved conditions in rural areas. Agricultural development benefits both rural and urban areas
in several ways:

2.3 Agricultural Development Projects in Sierra Leone

Sierra Leone agricultural sector is largely dominated by smallholder farmers. These farmers
typically cultivate small plots, ranging from 2 to 5 hectares, and are significant to the country’s
agricultural output. Large-scale commercial farming is less active, with smallholders contributing
significantly to both food production and local economies

Sierra Leone and other developing African countries often have a range of interventions aimed at
improving productivity, increasing food security, and reducing poverty. These projects may involve
the distribution of improved seeds, the introduction of modern farming techniques, and access to
credit or financial services. In developing countries, these projects are often supported by
governments, NGOs, and international donors.

Sierra Leone projects have focused on rebuilding agricultural infrastructure, such as roads and
irrigation systems, and adopting climate-resilient practices to address climate change (World Bank,
2019).

8
Successful projects often engage local communities in their design and implementation. Fan et al.
(2009) argue that involving local stakeholders ensures that projects meet community needs and
have a greater chance of success and sustainability. Additionally, efforts have been made to
introduce climate-resilient agricultural practices to mitigate the effects of climate change on food
production (World Bank, 2019). This approach not only increases the likelihood of project success
but also ensures sustainability in the long term.

2.4 The Different Types of Agricultural Development Projects Implemented in Poverty

Reduction in Developing Countries

Agricultural development projects are crucial for reducing poverty as they boost productivity,
create jobs, and increase farmers’ incomes. These projects often introduce new technologies,
provide essential inputs, and open market opportunities. For instance, research by Fan and Chan-
Kang (2005) shows that investing in agriculture can significantly lower poverty, especially when
targeting smallholder farmers, who make up a large portion of the agricultural workforce in many
developing countries, including Sierra Leone.

Studies have consistently shown that agricultural projects can improve rural livelihoods. For
example, Diao et al. (2010) found that farmers who received training, better seeds, and market
access saw increases in productivity and income, which helped lift many households out of
poverty. Similarly, IFAD (2012) demonstrated that projects providing credit, inputs, and
infrastructure lead to better food security and more sustainable livelihoods.

However, the success of these projects depends on their design, implementation, and the local
context. Olsson & Svärd (2020) argue that without proper support structures like extension services
and rural infrastructure, the benefits of these projects may not be fully realized. Thus, a
comprehensive approach, including capacity building and market access, is necessary for
successful agricultural development.

2.5 The Perceptions of Farmers on the Implementation of Agricultural Development Projects

in Reducing Poverty

The success of agricultural development projects often depends on the perceptions and engagement
of the farmers who benefit from these interventions. Farmers’ attitudes towards these projects can
significantly influence the adoption of new technologies and practices. Studies have shown that

9
when farmers perceive a project as beneficial to their livelihoods, they are more likely to
participate actively and adopt the recommended technologies.

For instance, Minten and Kyle (2019) found that farmers who were involved in decision-making
processes and who understood the long-term benefits of agricultural projects were more likely to
adopt improved farming practices. When farmers are not adequately informed about the goals of a
project or when they feel excluded from the process, they may resist changes, resulting in poor
project outcomes (Bryceson et al., 2008).

Understanding farmers’ perceptions of agricultural projects is critical for ensuring their success.
Projects that align with farmers’ needs, provide clear benefits, and address local challenges are
more likely to be well-received. Anderson et al. (2017) emphasized the importance of
communication and education in agricultural projects to ensure that farmers are fully aware of how
the interventions can benefit them.

2.6 The Effects of Agricultural Development Projects on Farmers’ Livelihoods

Agricultural development projects have profound effects on the livelihoods of rural farmers. These
effects can be seen in increased income, improved food security, and enhanced resilience to
external shocks such as climate change. According to a study by Dorosh et al. (2010), farmers who
participate in development projects typically see significant improvements in crop yields, which in
turn increase household food availability and reduce hunger.

Moreover, agricultural projects that provide market linkages or introduce value-added activities,
such as food processing, can help farmers diversify their income sources. This diversification is
essential for reducing poverty and ensuring that farmers are not overly reliant on a single crop or
income source. The increased access to markets, combined with higher yields, enables farmers to
sell their surplus produce and generate income, which can be reinvested in their farms or used for
other livelihood improvements (IFAD, 2012).

However, the success of these projects depends on addressing the specific challenges that rural
farmers face, including limited access to finance, inadequate infrastructure, and climate variability.
Projects that incorporate these considerations into their design are more likely to achieve lasting
impacts on poverty reduction (World Bank, 2019).

10
2.7 Challenges Faced by Project Implementers

The implementation of agricultural development projects comes with several challenges such as:

 Limited financial resources

 Poor infrastructure
 And logistical difficulties
these challenges affect the effective delivery of inputs and services to farmers. Furthermore,
corruption, political interference, and weak governance structures can undermine the success of
these projects.

Eaton et al. (2019) identified a lack of coordination between government agencies and international
donors as a major challenge in the implementation of agricultural development projects.
Additionally, Bryceson et al. (2008) pointed out that poor rural infrastructure, such as inadequate
road networks, can delay the delivery of inputs to farmers and limit their access to markets.

Another challenge is the sustainability of projects once external funding is withdrawn. Many
projects face difficulties in maintaining operations beyond the initial funding period, particularly
when local capacities have not been fully developed (Fan & Zhang, 2008). To address these
challenges, project implementers need to ensure that there is a strong emphasis on capacity
building, community ownership, and long-term planning.

while agricultural development projects have the potential to significantly reduce poverty in rural
areas, their success depends on careful planning, adequate funding, and strong community
engagement. By addressing the challenges faced during implementation and aligning projects with
local needs, these initiatives can contribute to the sustainable development of rural communities.

of non-economic factors, and the long-term sustainability of these projects. Addressing these gaps
could provide a more nuanced understanding of how agricultural development can more effectively
reduce poverty in this specific context

2.8 Gaps in Literature

Even though of the numerous literatures that provides an insight on the impacts of agricultural
development on poverty reduction, there has not been sufficient research conducted in Sierra Leone
concerning this subject. There are limited studies that explain the impact of such initiatives on
poverty reduction in rural areas like Nongowa Chiefdom, Eastern Sierra Leone.

11
This study seeks to fill the gap by offering empirical evidence on how agricultural development
projects influence poverty reduction, with a specific focus on the different agricultural development
projects that help reduce poverty in Nongowa, determine farmers’ perceptions on implemented
agricultural development projects in reducing poverty, examine the effects of the implemented
agricultural development projects on the livelihood of farmers and investigate the challenges faced
by the project implementers in their implementation processes.

12
 CHAPTER THREE

RESEARCH METHODOLOGY

3.0 Introduction

This chapter deals with the methodology used to undertake the Study ‘The Impact of Agricultural
Developments Projects on Poverty Reduction in Nongowa Chiefdom Eastern Sierra Leone. the
main issue discussed in this chapter includes;
 Study area description
 Study area design
 methods of data collection
 Data presentation and analysis

3.1 Study Area Design

This study adopts a descriptive research design, which is well-suited to documenting current
agricultural practices and economic conditions in Nongowa Chiefdom. The design provides a
comprehensive overview of the agricultural development projects implemented in the area and
their impact on poverty reduction. A combination of qualitative and quantitative approaches is used
to assess both the tangible and intangible outcomes of these projects. Purposive sampling ensures
that the participants, including community members, farmers, and project partners, are
representative of the population, allowing for meaningful insights into the projects’ effectiveness.

3.2 Study Area Description

Nongowa Chiefdom, located within Kenema District in the eastern region of Sierra Leone, stands
as a significant area for agricultural activity and cultural heritage. The Chiefdom administrative
headquarters is in Kenema town which serves as a central hub for economic and social activities.
The chiefdom is sub-divided into bigger villagers like Hanga, Combema, Gumbu, etc. and other
smaller communities such as Tissor Mano junction and others
Nongowa’s proximity to Njaluahun to the East, Dama and Guara Chiefdoms to the South and small
Bo to the West. This strategic position has increased its commercial and social dynamics,
positioning Nongowa as a key area for economic growth, particularly in agriculture and trade.

13
Agriculture forms the backbone of Nongowa’s economy, with a majority of the population engaged
in farming. The Chiefdom is characterized by its fertile land, ideal for cultivating staple crops such
as rice, cassava, and groundnuts, making it essential for both local food security and income
generation. The chiefdom agricultural productivity not only sustains livelihoods but also makes
Nongowa a focal point for studying the impact of agricultural development projects on poverty
reduction.
The tropical climate in Nongowa, is distinct wet and dry seasons, significantly influences farming
cycles and overall productivity. However, recent challenges brought on by climate change such as
unpredictable rainfall, increased temperatures, and extreme weather events—have impacted
agricultural output. These shifts pose critical challenges to the livelihoods of farmers, making it
essential to study how agricultural development projects can help mitigate these challenges and
contribute to poverty alleviation.
Nongowa chiefdom is also rich in natural resources, with dense forests, fertile soils, and abundant
waterways that support agriculture and biodiversity. However, environmental degradation and
unsustainable practices threaten these resources. The need for sustainable management is
paramount, and agricultural development projects in the region must incorporate strategies that
protect these natural assets while enhancing productivity.
Nongowa Chiefdom is home to a diverse population with a total number of 67,547 according to
the 2021 midterm conscious and has a population density of 6.8% annual population change with
an area of 118.6/km
The Mende is the predominant ethnic group, alongside smaller communities such as the Limba,
Kissie, Fulla, and Mandingo. This diversity strengthens the community’s social fabric and adds
depth to its agricultural and resource management practices. Traditional knowledge and local
customs play a pivotal role in shaping sustainable agricultural practices, making Nongowa a
vibrant and dynamic region for agricultural research and development.

14
Figure 1: Study Area Map

(Source: Field Data 2024)

3.4 Sample Size and Techniques

A sample size of 100 was chosen to ensure a diverse range of perspectives. Purposive sampling is
used to select participants based on specific criteria, ensuring that the sample is representative of
the population and addresses the research objectives (Lemos, 2009)

3.5 The Target Population

The target population includes key community stakeholders, farmers, and agricultural development
partners. A sample size of 100 respondents was selected, which includes 40 community members,
40 farmers, and 20 project partners. The study prioritizes ethical considerations, ensuring the
protection and well-being of participants (Johnson, 2017).

15
3.6 Method of Data Collection

The data collection for this study combines both primary and secondary sources.

3.6.1 Primary sources of data

The study gathered primary data through surveys and interviews. Surveys provide quantitative data
on agricultural practices, crop yields, and household income, while interviews with key
stakeholders such as farmers and project implementers offer qualitative insights into the personal
experiences and challenges related to agricultural development projects.

3.6.2 Secondary sources of data

This was obtained from published literature, reports, and statistical data from sources such as the
Sierra Leone Statistical Service, which provides relevant information on poverty and agricultural
productivity in the chiefdom. This combined data collection approach allows for a more
comprehensive analysis of the relationship between agricultural development projects and poverty
reduction in Nongowa Chiefdom.

3.6.3 Instruments of Data Collection

A mixed-methods approach is utilized, incorporating surveys, and interviews, Surveys provide

quantitative data on agricultural practices and economic conditions, while interviews with key
stakeholders offer qualitative insights into personal experiences with agricultural development
projects.

3.7 Data Analysis

Data analysis involves the use of both quantitative and qualitative techniques to provide a complete
picture of the impact of agricultural development projects. Quantitative data from surveys is
analyzed using descriptive statistics, with tools such as percentages and tables employed to present
findings clearly. The Statistical Package for Social Sciences (SPSS) is used to process and analyze
this data, ensuring accuracy and reliability.
For qualitative data, thematic content analysis is applied to identify recurring themes and patterns
from interviews and open-ended survey responses. These themes help capture the nuanced
experiences of participants and provide deeper insights into the success and challenges of the
agricultural development projects in relation to poverty reduction.

16
By integrating both qualitative and quantitative methods, the study is able to assess not only the
measurable outcomes of these projects, such as increased crop yields or income levels, but also the
personal and social impacts on the lives of the people in Nongowa Chiefdom.

3.8 Ethical Consideration

Ethical considerations were central to this study. Informed consent was obtained from participants,
ensuring they were fully aware of the research objectives and their right to withdraw.
Confidentiality was maintained by anonymizing personal data and securing information storage.
The researcher also minimized disruptions to participants’ daily lives, respecting cultural norms,
and prioritizing community well-being. Transparency in the research process was upheld, with
regular updates provided to participants and stakeholders. Ethical approval was sought from
relevant boards to ensure compliance with established ethical standards.

17
 CHAPTER FOUR

RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONS

4.1 Introduction

This chapter discusses the presentation of findings and the analyzed data collected according to the
information gathered from respondents based upon random sampling selection from one hundred
(100) households that lived in the study area. The data collected are presented in tables and graphs
respectively and they contained frequencies and percentages describing the impact of agricultural
development projects on poverty reduction in Nongowa Chiefdom, Kenema District.
This chapter is sub divided in to four key sections. They include the following:

Section A: Presentation and analysis of the demographic characteristics of household respondents.

Section B. Presentation and analysis of the different agricultural development projects that help
reduce poverty in Nongowa Chiefdom.
Section C: Presentation and analysis of farmers’ perceptions on implemented agricultural
development projects in reducing poverty in the study area.
Section D: Presentation and analysis of the effects of the implemented agricultural development
projects on the livelihood of farmers in the study area.
Section E: Presentation and analysis of the challenges faced by the project implementers in their
implementation processes.
Note: All the variables of the dated collected were not analyzed and discussed, only those with
very important relationship to the research topic were taken into consideration.

4.2 Section A: Presentation and Analysis of Data on the Demographic Characteristics of

Respondents

Understanding the demographic characteristics of respondents provides insight and highlight the
socioeconomic diversity within Nongowa Chiefdom's agricultural sector and underscore the
potential for targeted interventions. The data indicates a strong foundation for continued
agricultural development but also suggests areas where additional support is needed, such as
education, gender inclusion, and support for multi-occupational farmers.

18
Table 1: Percentage Distribution of Respondents’ Gender
Gender Frequency Percentage (%)
Female 48 48.0
Male 52 52.0
Total 100 100.0
(Source: Field Data 2024)

4.2.1 Gender Distribution

The gender distribution is fairly balanced, with 52% male and 48% female respondents. This
balance indicates an active involvement of both genders in agricultural activities within the
community. It underscores the need for gender-inclusive agricultural development policies to
address the needs and challenges of both male and female farmers.

Table 2: Percentage Distribution of Respondents’ Level of Education

Educational Level Frequency Percent (%)
Arabic Education 11 11.0
Non-Formal Education 11 11.0
Primary 19 19.0
Secondary 52 52.0
Tertiary 7 7.0
Total 100 100.0
(Source: Field Data 2024)

4.2.2 Educational Level

Most respondents (52%) have secondary education while a smaller percentage (7%) have attained
tertiary education. A significant portion has only Arabic or non-formal education (22% combined),
indicating limited access to formal education. This distribution suggests that educational
interventions alongside agricultural projects could enhance the effectiveness of poverty reduction
efforts by improving skills and literacy among farmers.

Figure 2: Percentage Distribution of Respondents’ Marital Status

50
40
30
20
10
0
19-30 31-50 Above 50 Less than 18
Frequency Percentage (%)

19
(Source: Field Data 2024)

4.2.3 Marital Status

The marital status data indicate that the majority of respondents are married (59%), which may
suggest greater stability in family and community engagement. However, 23% of the respondents
are divorced, a relatively high figure that could have implications for household labor availability
and financial stability in agricultural activities.

Figure 3: Percentage Distribution of Respondents’ Age Group

4%

96% No Yes

(Source: Field Data 2024)

4.2.4 Age Group

Discussion: The age distribution shows that the majority of respondents are young adults, with 45%
between 19-30 years and 24% under 18 years. Only 1% are above 50, suggesting that agriculture is
predominantly a youth activity in Nongowa Chiefdom. This data supports the potential of youth-
targeted agricultural projects, which could harness the energy and adaptability of younger farmers.

Table 3: Percentage Distribution of Respondents’ Types of Agricultural Activities Engaged in

Responses (Multiple)
Frequency (N) Percentage (%)
Crop Farming 77 39.3
Livestock Rearing 63 32.1
Agro-processing 29 14.8
Marketing 27 13.8
Total 100.0
(Source: Field Data 2024)
4.2.5 Types of Agricultural Activities

The data from Table 1 above show that, a significant proportion of respondents (39.3%) engage in
crop farming, which is the most common agricultural activity in the study area. Livestock rearing
(32.1%) is also prevalent, highlighting the dual role of crop and animal farming in supporting
20
livelihoods. Agro-processing (14.8%) and marketing (13.8%) are less common but essential for
value addition and market access. These results align with rural agricultural trends in Sierra Leone,
where smallholder farming remains dominant.

Table 4: Percentage Distribution of Engagement in Other Occupation

Frequency Percentage (%)
No 4 4.0
Yes 96 96.0
Total 100 100.0
(Source: Field Data 2024)

4.2.6 Engagement in Other Occupations

A high percentage of respondents (96%) engage in occupations other than agriculture, indicating a
diverse income base. This trend emphasizes the need to support multi-occupational engagement
through agricultural projects that allow flexibility and complement other income-generating
activities.

Table 5: Percentage Distribution of Respondents’ Engagement with Other Occupations

Occupation Frequency Percentage (%)
Civil Servant 15 15.0
Self-Employed 76 76.0
Teaching 7 7.0
Trading 2 2.0
Total 100 100.0
(Source: Field Data 2024)

4.2.7 Types of Other Occupations

Discussion: The majority of those with other occupations are self-employed (76%), followed by
civil servants (15%). This distribution reflects the rural economy's dependence on small-scale, self-
employment opportunities. Recognizing and supporting self-employment within agricultural
development can enhance overall community resilience and economic diversity.

Table 6: Percentage Distribution of Respondents’ Other Type of Occupation

Experience (Years) Frequency Percentage (%)
10-15 years 57 57.0
16-25 years 25 25.0
35-50 years Farming 1 1.0
Less than 10 years 17 17.0
Total 100 100.0
(Source: Field Data 2024)

21
4.2.8 Farming Experience

Discussion: A majority (57%) have between 10-15 years of farming experience, demonstrating a
considerable level of knowledge and familiarity with agricultural practices. Those with less than 10
years of experience (17%) represent newer entrants into farming, possibly due to economic
pressures or recent interest in agriculture. Experienced farmers can be leveraged to mentor newer
farmers, which may enhance project outcomes.

4.3 Section B: Presentation and Analysis of Data on the Different Agricultural Development
Projects that Help Reduce Poverty

This section presents data on the agricultural development projects implemented in Nongowa
Chiefdom. It includes respondents' awareness of projects, the types of projects they identified,
implementation years, perceived effectiveness, services provided, organizing bodies, and primary
beneficiaries.

4.3.1 Awareness of Agricultural Development Projects

All respondents (100%) indicated awareness of agricultural development projects in the chiefdom.
This high level of awareness suggests successful outreach and visibility of these projects, a critical
factor in promoting participation and community engagement in development initiatives.

Table 7: Percentage Distribution of Respondents’ Awareness of Agricultural Development

Projects
Project Responses (Multiple)
Frequency (N) Percentage (%)
Feed Sierra Leone Rice Project 71 30.5
Agricultural Value Development Project (AVDP) 84 36.1
National Sustainable Agricultural Development Plan 34 14.6
IFAD Agricultural Finance Project 44 18.9
Total 233 100.0
(Source: Field Data 2024)

4.3.2 Types of Agricultural Development Projects

The Agricultural Value Development Project (AVDP) was the most commonly identified project,
recognized by 36.1% of the respondents. The Feed Sierra Leone Rice Project followed closely at
30.5%. Both of these projects focus on critical areas—rice production and overall value
enhancement—that directly impact food security and income in rural Sierra Leone. Additionally,
the IFAD Agricultural Finance Project (18.9%) and the National Sustainable Agricultural

22
Development Plan (14.6%) provide financial and structural support to enhance sustainability in the
sector.

Figure 4: Percentage Distribution of Project Implementation Years

60
40
20
0
2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024
Frequency (N) Percent (%)
(Source: Field Data 2024)
4.3.3 Project Implementation Years

Projects have been consistently implemented from 2018 through 2024, with a noticeable increase
in 2023 (21.5%) and 2024 (23.3%). This trend could reflect a growing recognition of the need for
agricultural support in the chiefdom, or perhaps increased funding and collaboration with
development organizations. Continued support across multiple years is essential for sustained
poverty reduction, as it allows for gradual adoption and adaptation of practices.

Table 8: Percentage Distribution of Project Effectiveness

Effectiveness Frequency Percentage (%)
Moderately effective 81 81.0
Very effective 19 19.0
Total 100 100.0
(Source: Field Data 2024)

4.3.4 Effectiveness of Projects in Reducing Poverty

A majority of respondents (81%) rated the projects as "moderately effective" in reducing poverty,
while 19% viewed them as "very effective." This positive perception indicates that the projects are
making a difference, but there may still be room for improvement in their implementation or scope.
Ensuring more impactful results could involve addressing specific challenges that respondents may
have experienced with these projects.

Table 9:Percentage Distribution of Provides/Service Provided by the Project

Service/Product Frequency (N) Percentage (%)
Crop Farming 77 29.4
Seeds 79 30.2
Fertilizers 86 32.8
Loans 15 5.7
23
 Transportation 5 1.9
Total 100.0
(Source: Field Data 2024)

4.3.5 Services and Products Provided by Projects

Fertilizers (32.8%) and seeds (30.2%) are the most commonly provided services, followed closely
by support for crop farming (29.4%). Access to essential farming inputs is crucial for improving
productivity, which is likely why these services are prioritized. The limited provision of loans
(5.7%) and transportation (1.9%) suggests areas for potential expansion, as financial and logistical
support are often essential for maximizing agricultural productivity and market access.

Table 10: Percentage Distribution of Organising Body

Organization Frequency (N) Percent (%)
Government 94 65.3
NGO 50 34.7
Total 144 100.0
(Source: Field Data 2024)

4.3.6 Organizing Bodies

Most projects (65.3%) are organized by the government, with NGOs accounting for the remaining
34.7%. Government involvement demonstrates national commitment to agricultural development,
while NGO participation brings additional resources and specialized knowledge. Collaboration
between these entities could enhance the projects' sustainability and effectiveness by leveraging the
strengths of both sectors.

4.3.7 Project Beneficiaries

Farmers represent the majority of beneficiaries (55.3%), followed by livestock rearers (40.6%) and
petty traders (4.1%). This distribution aligns with the agricultural focus of the chiefdom and
highlights the primary role of crop and livestock farming in local livelihoods. While the focus on
farmers is essential, extending benefits to traders and other allied professions could foster a more
holistic economic upliftment within the community.

24
4.4 Presentation and Analysis of Data on the Farmers’ Perception of Agricultural
Development Projects

This section explores the perceptions of farmers in Nongowa Chiefdom regarding the agricultural
development projects implemented within their community. The responses reflect farmers' views
on the effectiveness of these projects in improving livelihoods and reducing poverty.

Figure 5: Percentage Distribution of Respondents’ Perception of Agricultural Development

Projects

Positive

Neutral

Negative

Highly positive
0 10 20 30 40 50 60
Percentage (%) Frequency
(Source: Field Data 2024)
4.4.1 General Perception of Agricultural Development Projects

The results show that a majority of respondents have a positive perception of agricultural
development projects in the chiefdom, with 56% viewing them as "positive" and 38% as "highly
positive." Only a small fraction (3%) expressed negative or neutral views. This overwhelmingly
positive perception suggests that farmers recognize and appreciate the benefits of these projects,
indicating a high level of community acceptance and support.

4.4.2 Belief in Poverty Reduction Impact of Projects

All respondents (100%) believe that the agricultural development projects have contributed to
poverty reduction in Nongowa Chiefdom. This unanimous agreement indicates that the projects are
perceived as successful interventions for alleviating poverty and enhancing livelihoods.

4.4.3 Extent of Poverty Reduction Impact

While all respondents agree that the projects have reduced poverty, 74% rate the impact as
"moderate," while 26% view it as "high." This distribution suggests that, although the projects are
beneficial, there is still room for improvement. Enhancing project effectiveness could further
elevate their impact, addressing the specific challenges or limitations perceived by the farmers.

25
4.4.4 Aspects of Livelihood Improved by Projects

The primary areas of improvement reported by respondents are food security (37.6%) and income
(34.8%). These aspects are critical to poverty reduction, as enhanced food security and increased
income directly improve the well-being of households. Education (22.4%) also benefits from
agricultural development, likely due to increased income allowing for better educational
opportunities. Health (2.9%) and housing (2.4%) are less frequently impacted, suggesting a need
for projects that target a broader spectrum of livelihood improvements.

Figure 6: Percentage Distribution of Projects with the Greatest Impact on Household Income

100

80
Credit and financial support
60 Irrigation projects
87 Seed and input distribution
40
Training and capacity build-
20 ing

0 4 3 6
Frequency
(Source: Field Data 2024)
4.4.5 Projects with the Greatest Impact on Household Income

The majority of respondents (87%) identified seed and input distribution as having the greatest
impact on household income, highlighting the critical role of access to agricultural inputs in
boosting productivity and income. Training and capacity building (6%) also contributed, though to
a lesser extent, underscoring the need for both physical resources and knowledge to maximize
productivity. The lower impact of financial support (4%) and irrigation projects (3%) may point to
areas that could be expanded to improve household income more comprehensively.

4.5 Presentation and Analysis of Data on the Effects of Agricultural Development Projects on
the Livelihood of Farmers in Nongowa Chiefdom

This section evaluates the impacts of agricultural development projects on various aspects of
farmers' livelihoods, focusing on market access, farm productivity, technology access, credit, and
food security. The analysis also highlights how these projects have influenced household income,
production costs, and general well-being.

26
Figure 7: Percentage Distribution of the Primary Effects of Agricultural Development Projects
90
60
30 79 72 71
24 21.9 21.6 49 58
14.9 17.6
0
ts s y t y
ke eld og edi rit Frequency (N)
ar y i o l cr cu
m hn o se Percent (%)
to fa
rm
tec sst od
ss e fo
e ed rm cc
ac
c as fa A ed
ed cr
e d ov
In ve pr
ov pr
o Im
pr Im
Im \
(Source: Field Data 2024)
4.5.1 Primary Effects of Agricultural Development Projects

The data indicates that the most significant primary effect of these projects is improved access to
markets (24.0%), followed closely by increased farm yields (21.9%) and improved farm
technology (21.6%). This market access is vital as it enables farmers to sell their produce more
effectively, potentially boosting household income. Improved technology and increased yields
further enhance productivity and efficiency, contributing to income generation and food security.
Access to credit (14.9%) and improved food security (17.6%) also play essential roles in stabilizing
and enhancing the livelihoods of farmers, although these effects are slightly less pronounced.

Figure 8: Percentage Distribution of the Specific Impacts of Projects on Farm Productivity and
Costs

60 82
37.6 62 28.4 42 32
0 19.3 14.7

Frequency (N) Percent (%)

(Source: Field Data 2024)

4.5.2 Specific Impacts of Projects on Farm Productivity and Costs

Discussion: The primary impact reported by respondents is an increase in farm products (37.6%),
which directly correlates with enhanced agricultural productivity. Reduced production costs
(28.4%) are another important impact, as lower costs increase profitability for farmers. Access to
new technologies (19.3%) provides farmers with innovative tools and methods to improve farming
27
efficiency and sustainability. Improved food security (14.7%) is also a significant impact, showing
the broader benefit of these projects in meeting household food needs. Collectively, these impacts
demonstrate that agricultural development projects are not only improving yields but also
enhancing the economic viability of farming in the region.

Table 11: Percentage Distribution of the Effect of Promoting Household Income

Effect on Household Income Frequency Percent (%)
Moderately increased 77 77.0
Significantly decreased 2 2.0
Significantly increased 21 21.0
Total 100 100.0
(Source: Field Data 2024)

4.5.3 Effect of Projects on Household Income

The majority of respondents (77%) reported a moderate increase in household income due to the
agricultural development projects. A smaller portion (21%) experienced a significant increase in
income, suggesting that some farmers have benefited more than others, possibly due to the types of
projects they participated in or their level of involvement. Only 2% reported a significant decrease
in income, which may indicate individual challenges or limitations in adapting to new practices.
Overall, the data demonstrates that agricultural projects are generally successful in improving
household income, thereby contributing to poverty alleviation in the chiefdom.

4.6 Presentation and Analysis of Data on the Challenges Encountered in the Implementation
of Agricultural Development Projects.

This section explores the various challenges faced during the implementation of agricultural
development projects in Nongowa Chiefdom, as reported by respondents. These challenges include
resource constraints, lack of knowledge, infrastructure issues, and community dynamics, which can
all impact the effectiveness and sustainability of the projects.

Table 12: Percentage Distribution of the Key Challenges Faced in Project Implementation
Challenge Frequency (N) Percent (%)
Lack of resources 72 35.3
Lack of knowledge/training 79 38.7
Poor infrastructure 53 26.0
Total 204 100.0
(Source: Field Data 2024)

28
4.6.1 Key Challenges Faced in Project Implementation

The primary challenges identified are lack of knowledge or training (38.7%), lack of resources
(35.3%), and poor infrastructure (26.0%). Limited knowledge or training suggests a need for more
comprehensive capacity-building efforts within the community. Resource constraints and
infrastructure challenges also highlight issues that limit effective project implementation,
suggesting that additional investments in materials, financial resources, and infrastructure are
needed to enhance project success.

Figure 9: Percentage Distribution of Challenges Faced During Project Implementation

90

50

10
Yes No
Frequency 98 2

(Source: Field Data 2024)

4.6.2 Experience of Challenges During Project Implementation

Almost all respondents (98%) encountered challenges during the implementation of agricultural
development projects, indicating that obstacles are a common experience in the chiefdom’s
agricultural projects. Addressing these issues could increase the likelihood of project success and
sustainability.

Table 13: Percentage Distribution of the Seriousness of Challenges Encountered

Seriousness of Challenges Frequency Percentage (%)

Moderately Serious 16 16.0
Serious 64 64.0
Very Serious 18 18.0
Total 100 100.0
(Source: Field Data 2024)

4.6.3 Seriousness of Challenges Encountered

The majority of respondents (64%) rated the challenges they encountered as "serious," and 18% as
"very serious." This suggests that the barriers to effective project implementation are significant
and may require substantial intervention or policy adjustments to overcome.

29
Table 14: Percentage Distribution of Respondents’ Specific Implementation Challenges
Note: SD = Strongly Agree, D = Disagree, NS = Not Sure, A = Agree, SA = Strongly Agree
Challenge 1(SD) 2 (D) 3 (NS) 4 (A) 5(SA) Total
Poor cooperation from Frequency 31 48 13 7 1 100
community members Percentage (%) 31% 48% 13% 7% 1% 100.0
Difficulty accessing Frequency 31 31 19 14 1.00 100
land in the community Percentage (%) 31% 31% 19% 14% 1.0 100.0
Political interference Frequency 15 28 27 26 4 100
in project Percentage (%) 15% 28% 27% 26% 4.0 100.0
implementation
Limited funding or Frequency 15 26 1 20 5 100
delays in finance Percentage (%) 48% 26% 1% 20% 5.0 100.0
access
Farmers’ reluctance to Frequency 40 20 5 28 7 100
accept new Percentage (%) 40% 20% 5% 28% 7.0 100.0
ideas/technologies
Lack of awareness and Frequency 0.21 25 23 21 10 100
sensitization about Percentage (%) 0.21 0.25 23% 21% 10.0 100.0
projects
(Source: Field Data 2024)

4.6.4 Specific Implementation Challenges Rated by Respondents

The most agreed-upon challenges were limited funding or delayed access to finance (48% strongly
disagreed with ease of access) and difficulty in obtaining community cooperation. Access to land
and political interference also emerged as notable challenges. Farmers' reluctance to adopt new
technologies further underscores the need for effective sensitization and training to encourage
adoption. These responses indicate that logistical, financial, and social factors contribute to the
complexities of implementing development projects in rural areas like Nongowa Chiefdom.

Table 15: Percentage Distribution of Farmers' Response to New Farming Technologies

Response to New Farming Technologies Frequency Percent (%)
Accepted and implemented 45 45.0
Accepted but did not implement 55 55.0
Total 100 100.0
(Source: Field Data 2024)

4.6.5 Farmers' Response to New Farming Technologies

While 45% of respondents both accepted and implemented new technologies, a larger proportion
(55%) accepted the ideas but did not implement them. This reluctance may stem from various
barriers, including a lack of resources, scepticism about effectiveness, or inadequate follow-up
30
support. Addressing this gap between acceptance and implementation could involve offering more
hands-on training and post-training support to facilitate the adoption of new practices.

Figure 10: Percentage Distribution of the Alignment of Farmers' Expectations with Project
Goals

98.0
98

2.0
2
Y es No
Frequency Percent (%)
(Source: Field Data 2024)
4.6.6 Alignment of Farmers' Expectations with Project Goals

The vast majority of respondents (98%) indicated that their expectations aligned with the projects'
goals and objectives. This alignment suggests that the projects were well-communicated and
relevant to farmers' needs. However, the remaining challenges point to gaps in execution rather
than goal misalignment.

4.6.7 Achievement of Project Goals and Objectives

All respondents confirmed that the projects successfully achieved their established goals and
objectives. Despite encountering various challenges, this feedback suggests that the projects were
predominantly effective in delivering their intended outcomes. Nevertheless, ongoing
improvements in addressing implementation barriers could significantly enhance the projects'
overall impact and sustainability.

4.7 Discussions

This section critically analyses the findings from the study on agricultural development projects in
Nongowa Chiefdom, drawing connections to the established research objectives and relevant
literature. The evidence suggests that these projects have significantly enhanced farmers'
livelihoods, as demonstrated by increased access to markets, improved farm yields, the adoption of
innovative technologies, and heightened food security. A substantial number of respondents
reported notable increases in household income, thereby corroborating the objectives centered on
poverty reduction. These findings are consistent with previous research, which indicates that access

31
to essential resources, market opportunities, and technological advancements empowers rural
communities and bolsters productivity (IFAD, 2012; World Bank, 2019). However, it is
noteworthy that the majority of respondents rated the income impact of the projects as "moderate,"
which raises concerns about possible limitations inherent in the design or resource allocation of the
projects that may undermine their effectiveness. Existing literature emphasizes that sustainable
poverty reduction necessitates comprehensive interventions that tackle various dimensions of rural
livelihoods, including infrastructure and long-term financing (Fan et al., 2009). The favourable
perceptions expressed by farmers regarding the projects indicate a strong alignment with
community needs, a factor critical for achieving long-term sustainability. The consensus among
respondents that the projects contributed to poverty alleviation underscores their perceived value,
which can enhance community participation in project objectives (Anderson et al., 2017).
Nonetheless, the disparity between the adoption of new technologies and their actual
implementation highlighted by the 55% of farmers who did not adopt new methods—underscores
the urgent need for enhanced follow-up support and training (Olsson & Svärd, 2020). Moreover,
challenges such as resource constraints (35.3%), insufficient training opportunities (38.7%), and
logistical difficulties have emerged as significant barriers to project success, aligning with global
findings regarding obstacles to rural development (Eaton et al., 2019). Additionally, respondents
identified socio-political challenges, including inadequate community cooperation and political
interference. This suggests that projects must navigate local dynamics effectively (Bryceson et al.,
2008). The strong correspondence between project goals and the expectations of farmers indicates
a deep understanding of local needs, which is pivotal for achieving meaningful outcomes (Minten
& Kyle, 2019). To enhance the overall impact, it is imperative for projects to broaden their support
beyond food security and income to encompass health and housing initiatives. Targeted
interventions focusing on knowledge transfer, optimal resource allocation, and infrastructural
development are crucial. Policymakers should prioritize a holistic support framework that
addresses socio-political barriers to improve outcomes. Furthermore, the inclusion of local leaders
and community representatives in the planning and implementation phases could significantly
foster cooperation and commitment to project goals (Fan & Zhang, 2008).

32
 CHAPTER FIVE

SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS

5.0 Introduction

This chapter provides the summary of the major findings and concluding statement based on those
findings, its outlined recommendations that would address the challenges identified by the
household farmers in relation to the impact of Agricultural development projects on poverty
reduction in Nongowa Chiefdom, Kenema District. It gives suggestions and initiatives in
improving the livelihoods of local farmers, particularly focusing on the potential for these
programs to address poverty. The major issues discussed are

 Summary of findings
 Conclusions
 Recommendations
 Suggestion for future research

5.1 Summary of Findings

The primary aim of this study was to evaluate the impact of agricultural development projects on
poverty reduction in Nongowa Chiefdom. The study's specific objectives were to:

 Assess the different agricultural development projects implemented for poverty reduction in
the chiefdom.

 Determine farmers’ perceptions of these projects.

 Examine the impact of agricultural projects on farmers’ livelihoods.

 Investigate the challenges faced by project implementers.

A sample size of 100 respondents was selected, using purposive sampling to ensure a
representative range of participants: 40 community members, 40 farmers, and 20 project partners.
This approach helps to focus on key stakeholders who are most likely to provide insights into the
effectiveness of agricultural development projects.

33
Both primary and secondary sources of data were used to investigate households in the study area.
Primary data were sourced from the questionnaires with an interview conducted to households.
While secondary data were obtained from text books, journals, internet etc.

The study uses a descriptive research design to document agricultural practices and economic
conditions in Nongowa Chiefdom. The design includes both qualitative and quantitative
approaches, providing a comprehensive overview of agricultural development projects and their
impact on poverty reduction. Purposive sampling is used to select participants who represent
different stakeholder groups, ensuring a broad and insightful understanding of the projects'
effectiveness.

Data collection was done through surveys (for quantitative data) and interviews (for qualitative
data) with farmers, community members, and project partners. This mixed-methods approach
enabled the study to capture both measurable outcomes (e.g., crop yields, household income) and
personal experiences regarding agricultural development projects.

The findings of the research are stated below based the demographic characteristics of household
respondents and the research objectives. This includes:

5.1.1 Demographic characteristics of household respondents

The demographic analysis indicated a nearly balanced gender distribution, with 52% of
respondents being male and 48% female. Most participants (39.3%) were engaged in crop farming,
followed by livestock rearing (32.1%), agro-processing (14.8%), and marketing (13.8%).
Regarding education, 52% had secondary education, while 11% each had Arabic or non-formal
education. A majority of respondents were young adults, with 45% between 19-30 years,
highlighting the potential for youth-driven agricultural productivity if given proper support and
training.

5.1.2 Different Agricultural Development Projects that Help Reduce Poverty in Nongowa
Chiefdom

The study identified several impactful agricultural development projects, including the Feed Sierra
Leone Rice Project (30.5%), the Agricultural Value Development Project (AVDP) (36.1%), and
the IFAD Agricultural Finance Project (18.9%). These initiatives focused on delivering vital
resources such as seeds, fertilizers, and credit, alongside facilitating market access. Together, these
projects have helped lay the foundation for poverty reduction by addressing critical agricultural
needs and improving productivity in Nongowa Chiefdom.
34
5.1.3 The Perceptions of Farmers on the Implementation of Agricultural Development
Projects in Reducing Poverty

Farmers’ perceptions of these projects were largely favourable, with 56% of respondents
expressing a positive view and 38% reporting a highly positive view. A unanimous 100% of
respondents agreed that these projects have contributed to poverty reduction in their community.
This widespread approval reflects a strong alignment between project objectives and the needs of
local farmers, fostering trust and engagement in the project

5.1.4 The Effects of Implemented Agricultural Development Projects on the Livelihood of

Rural Farmers

The projects had a positive impact on livelihoods, with key improvements in areas such as
increased yields (21.9%), market access (24%), and food security (17.6%). A majority of
respondents (77%) reported a moderate increase in household income, while 21% experienced a
significant income boost. The introduction of modern farming technologies (21.6%) has also
empowered farmers to adopt more efficient practices. However, the moderate-income impact for
most respondents suggests room for enhancement to achieve stronger economic gains.

5.1.5 Challenges Faced by Project Implementers in the Implementation Process of Projects

Significant challenges were identified in project implementation, including lack of knowledge and
training (38.7%), limited resources (35.3%), and poor infrastructure (26%). Resource constraints
and delayed funding affected the timely distribution of materials, while reluctance to adopt new
technologies (55% accepted but did not implement) and issues such as poor community
cooperation (48%) and political interference (28%) also hindered effectiveness. Overcoming these
barriers is essential to maximize the impact and sustainability of agricultural development projects
in reducing poverty in Nongowa Chiefdom.

35
5.2. Conclusions

The major reason of this research was to assess the Impact of agricultural development projects
on poverty reduction in Nongowa Chiefdom Eastern Sierra Leone’ From the above summarized
findings, the conclusions were made as follows:

5.2.1 Different Agricultural Development Projects on the Livelihood of Farmers in

Nongowa Chiefdom

The findings revealed that the majority of respondents had benefitted from the agricultural development
projects. Particularly, the Feed Sierra Leone Rice Project, the Agricultural Value Development Project
(AVDP), and the IFAD Agricultural Finance Project provided critical resources such as seeds, fertilizers,
and credit, which directly contributed to improved agricultural productivity. These projects also
facilitated better market access, enabling farmers to sell their produce at higher prices. Furthermore, many
farmers reported an increase in household income, food security, and overall economic stability. A
significant number of farmers acknowledged that the support they received allowed them to expand their
farming activities and adopt modern farming technologies, leading to higher yields and more sustainable
farming practices.

5.2.2 Perceptions of Farmers on the Impact of Agricultural Development Projects

The majority of respondents expressed positive perceptions of the agricultural development

projects, with 56% offering favorable views and 38% providing highly positive feedback. A
unanimous 100% of respondents agreed that these projects have played a significant role in
poverty reduction within their community. The alignment between project objectives and the
needs of local farmers was a key factor in the widespread support and success of these initiatives.
These findings reflect strong trust and commitment among farmers towards the ongoing projects,
which has been crucial in ensuring their success.

5.2.3 The Effects of Implemented Agricultural Development Projects on the Livelihood of

Rural Farmers

In conclusion, the implementation of agricultural development projects has positively impacted

the livelihoods of rural farmers, demonstrating notable improvements in key areas such as crop
yields, market access, and food security. A significant proportion of respondents (77%) reported
a moderate increase in household income, with 21% experiencing a substantial income boost.
The introduction of modern farming technologies has also empowered farmers, leading to more
efficient agricultural practices. However, while the gains are promising, the moderate income
increase for most respondents indicates that there is still potential for further enhancement. To
maximize the economic benefits and achieve stronger poverty reduction outcomes, continued
support and additional interventions are necessary to build on these initial successes and address
remaining challenges.

5.2.4 Challenges Encountered by Farmers in Implementing Agricultural Development

Projects in Nongowa Chiefdom

Despite the positive impact of these agricultural projects, several challenges were identified that
hindered their full potential. Key issues included a lack of knowledge and training among
farmers, which limited the effective use of new technologies and farming techniques.
Additionally, limited resources and poor infrastructure were significant barriers to timely project
implementation. Some farmers expressed reluctance to adopt new methods, and political
interference and poor community cooperation further complicated project execution. These
challenges resulted in delays and limited the overall effectiveness of the projects in reducing
poverty. It was concluded that overcoming these barriers is essential for ensuring the long-term
sustainability and broader impact of these initiatives on the livelihoods of farmers in the
chiefdom.

5.3 Recommendations

To enhance the impact and sustainability of agricultural development projects in Nongowa

Chiefdom, the following recommendations are proposed:

 Increase Resource Allocation and Financial Support - Government and agencies should
boost funding for agriculture in inputs, infrastructure, and logistics to improve outcomes.
Expanding low-interest loans and grants will help farmers invest in better equipment and
seeds.
 Strengthen Training and Knowledge Transfer - Providing ongoing training sessions on
new technologies, modern farming methods, and best practices can enhance farmers' ability
to adopt and implement innovative solutions. Additionally, offering hands-on support and
follow-up visits from agricultural extension officers can help ensure that the knowledge
gained during training is effectively put into practice.

37
 Address Infrastructure Challenges - Improving rural infrastructure, such as road networks
and storage facilities, can facilitate market access, reduce transportation costs, and minimize
post-harvest losses. Investment in irrigation and water management systems can enhance
resilience against unpredictable climate conditions and increase crop yields.
 Enhance Community Engagement and Participation - Actively involving community
leaders and members in project planning and decision-making processes can foster
ownership and accountability, encouraging community-wide support for project initiatives.
Sensitization programs on the benefits of new farming technologies and techniques can
address farmers' reluctance and increase acceptance.
 Expand Project Scope to Address Broader Livelihood Needs - Future projects should
consider incorporating components that address broader livelihood needs, such as health,
education, and housing, to provide a more holistic approach to poverty reduction. Offering
diversified income opportunities, such as agro-processing and value-added activities, can
reduce farmers' reliance on crop income and increase overall financial stability.
 Strengthen Monitoring and Evaluation Mechanisms - Implementing robust monitoring
and evaluation systems can help track project outcomes and identify areas for improvement.
Regular feedback sessions with community members can ensure that projects remain
responsive to local needs and conditions. Periodic assessments can also help adjust project
components to improve effectiveness and address emerging challenges.

5.3.1 Suggestions for Further Research

This study focused on the effects of agricultural development projects in Nongowa Chiefdom,
with an emphasis on poverty reduction and livelihood improvement. Future research could
explore:

 Long-term Impact Assessments: A longitudinal study to assess the long-term impacts of

these projects on income stability, food security, and community resilience.
 Comparative Studies: Comparing the effectiveness of various types of agricultural projects
across different chiefdoms in Sierra Leone to identify best practices and areas for
improvement.
 Impact of Climate Resilience: Researching how climate-resilient agricultural practices
integrated into development projects can further enhance sustainability and productivity.

38
 APPENDIX A

REFERENCES

1. Anderson et al. (2017): Emphasizes the importance of communication and education in

ensuring farmers are fully aware of how agricultural interventions benefit them.
2. Austin (2016): Provides insights into agricultural development and its role in economic
growth.
3. Bryceson et al. (2008): Argues that excluding farmers from the project design and decision-
making process can result in resistance and poor outcomes.
4. Bryceson et al. (2008): Notes the poor rural infrastructure, such as inadequate road networks,
which can delay input delivery and limit market access.
5. Christiansen, L., Demery, L. & Kuhl, J. (2011). The (Evolving) Role of Agriculture in
Poverty Reduction: An Empirical Perspective. Journal of Development Economics, 96(2),
239-254.
6. Datt and Ravallion (1996): Study showing that agricultural growth reduces poverty more
effectively than growth in other sectors.
7. Datt, G., Ravallion, M. (1998). Growth and Redistribution Components of Changes in
Poverty Measures: A decomposition with applications to Brazil and India in the 1980s.
Journal of Development Economics 38, 275-295.
8. Diao et al. (2010): Provides evidence that farmers who receive training, better seeds, and
market access see improvements in productivity and income.
9. Dorosh et al. (2010): Found that farmers participating in development projects see significant
improvements in crop yields, which improve food availability and reduce hunger.
10. Eaton et al. (2019): Identifies a lack of coordination between government agencies and
international donors as a major challenge in project implementation.
11. Fan & Zhang (2008): Highlights the challenge of sustainability once external funding is
withdrawn and the need for community ownership and capacity building.
12. Fan and Chan-Kang (2005): Argues that investing in agriculture can significantly lower
poverty, particularly for smallholder farmers.
13. Gallup et al. (1997): Finds that a 1% increase in per capita agricultural output leads to a
1.61% increase in incomes for the poorest 20% of the population.

39
14. IFAD (2012): Highlights how introducing market linkages and value-added activities can
diversify farmers’ incomes and reduce poverty.
15. IFAD (2012): Shows how providing credit, inputs, and infrastructure leads to better food
security and sustainable livelihoods.
16. Minten and Kyle (2019): Found that farmers who are involved in decision-making processes
and understand the long-term benefits of agricultural projects are more likely to adopt
improved practices.
17. Norton (2004): Describes agricultural development as a dynamic process impacting both
economic and social dimensions.
18. Norton and Alwang (1993): Discuss the challenging nature of development, including social
upheaval and the need for institutional reforms.
19. Olsson & Svärd (2020): Discuss the importance of support structures like extension services
and rural infrastructure for project success.
20. Ravallion and Datt (1998): Analyzed rural and urban poverty and how agricultural growth
benefits poor households.
21. Thorbecke and Ouyang (2016): Discuss the key role of agriculture in economic growth.
22. War (2001): Indicates that agricultural growth benefits poor households more than industrial
growth.
23. World Bank (2008): Provides statistics on how agricultural growth improves rural poverty
outcomes.
24. World Bank (2019): Details projects in Sierra Leone focused on rebuilding agricultural
infrastructure and adopting climate-resilient practices.
25. World Bank (2019): Discusses the importance of capacity building, community engagement,
and addressing local needs for sustainable project outcomes.
26. World Development Report (WDR) 2008: Highlights the role of agricultural growth in
poverty reduction, specifically in Africa.

40
 APPENDIX B

SURVEY QUESTIONNAIRE

I am AMARA SANDY KONGOLEY a final year student, from NJALA UNIVERSITY, School
of Social Sciences and Law, in the Department of Agricultural Economics. Doing academic
research on the topic ‘The Impact of Agricultural Development Projects on Poverty
Reduction in Nongowa Chiefdom, Kenema District’. I therefore ask for your opinion to
provide me with the requisite answer’s needed to achieve my research objectives. The research
work is a partial fulfilment of the requirements for the award of a Bachelor’s degree in the above
field of study. I assure you that all supplied information will be confidential.
INSTRUCTIONS
There are FIVE sections in all and each section contains FIVE questions in exception of section
A which has TEN questions in particular;
 Please complete all sections of this questionnaire.
 Tick or provide answers in the blank spaces.
 Use ink/pen to answer the questions.
 Answer all questions honestly and accurately.

SECTION A: SOCIAL PROFILE/SOCIO-DEMOGRAPHIC STATUS OF THE

RESPONDENTS
1. Name of Respondent: …………………………………………………………………..
2. Address of Respondent: …………………………………………………………………
3. Type of Agricultural Activity?
A) Crop Farming B) Livestock Rearing C) Agro-processing D) Marketing
Support
E) Others (Specify): …………………………
4. Sex:
A. Male
B. Female

41
 5. Educational Level;
A. Primary B. Secondary C. Tertiary D. Arabic Education E. None of the
above
6. Marital Status:
A) Single B) Married C) Divorced D) Widow E) Widower
7. Age:
A) 0-18 B) 19-30 C) 31-50 D) 51 & Above
8. Apart from participating in agricultural projects, are you involved in any other
occupation?
A) Yes
B) No
9. If YES, what is/are the occupation(s)?
A) Civil Servant
B) Self-Employed
C) Others / Specify: …………………
10. how long have you been engaging in farming? 10-15 years B. 16-25 years C. 26-35
years D 35-50 years

SECTION B: Different agricultural development projects that help reduce poverty in

Nongowa Chiefdom.
11. Are you aware of any agricultural development projects in this chiefdom?
A) Yes B) No
If YES, what are they
Agricultural development projects in Nongowa YES NO
Feed Sierra leone Rice project
AVDP
National sustainable agricultural development plan
IFAD Agricultural finance project
NGOS
Others please specify

42
12. When was this project implemented?
Time YES
2018
2019
2020
2021
2022
2023
2024
13. How effective have these projects been in reducing poverty in your community?
A. Very effective B. Moderately effective C. Ineffective
14. What services or products does the project provide?
A) Seeds B) Loans C) Fertilizers D) Transportation E) Others (specify):
15. Which organization is implementing the project?
A) Government B) NGOs C) Others (specify): ……………
15. Who are the target beneficiaries of the project?
A) Farmers B) Petty Traders C) Livestock Readers D) Others (specify): …………
SECTION C: FARMERS’ PERCEPTION OF AGRICULTURAL DEVELOPMENT
PROJECTS
16. What is your general perception of the agricultural development projects implemented
in the chiefdom?
A. Highly positive
B. Positive
C. Neutral
D. Negative
17. Do you believe these projects have reduced poverty in this chiefdom?
A. Yes
B. No
18. If YES, to what extent?
A. High
B. Moderate
C. Low
19. What aspects of your livelihood have improved due to these projects?
Income
Food security

43
 Health
Education
Housing
A. Other specify …………….
20. Which agricultural development projects have had the greatest impact on your
household income?
A. Irrigation projects
B. Seed and input distribution
C. Training and capacity building
D. Credit and financial support
E. Other (specify) …………………………………………

SECTION D: The Effects of The Agricultural Development Projects on The Livelihood of

Farmers in Nongowa Chiefdom.
21. What are the primary effects of these agricultural projects on your livelihood?
A. Improved access to markets
B. Increased farm yields
C. Improved farm technology
D. Access to credit
E. Improved food security
F. Others (specify) ……………………………………………
22. How has the project impacted your livelihood?
a) Increased farm product
b) Reduced production costs
c) Access to new technologies
d) Improved food security
e) Others (specify): …………

23. How has the project affected your household income?

A. A Significant increase
B. Moderate increase
C. C No change

44
 D. Decrease
24. What challenges do you face in implementing the agricultural techniques promoted by
these projects?
a) Lack of resources
b) Lack of knowledge/training
c) Poor infrastructure
d) Others (specify) ……………………………………………
e)
SECTION E; QUESTIONAIRE FOR PROJECT IMPLEMENTERS
CHALLENGES ENCOUNTERED IN THE IMPLEMENTATION OF AGRICULTURAL
DEVELOPMENT PROJECTS IN NONGOWA CHIEFDOM
26. Have you implemented any agricultural development projects in this chiefdom?
A. Yes
B. No
27. If yes, did you encounter any challenges during the implementation of these projects?
A. Yes
B. No
28. If yes, please indicate the seriousness of the challenges you encountered during the
implementation process in the chiefdom.
1. Very Serious
2. Serious
3. Serious
4. Very serious
5. Do not know

29. Please tick from 1-5 the gravity of the challenges face by the project implanters
N 1 2 3 4 5
O CHALLENGES
1 Poor corporations on farmers community members
2 Difficulty in accessing a land in the community
3 Political interference in projects implementation

45
 3 Limited founding or delay in accessing finance for the projects
4 Farmers reluctant to accept new ideas and technology for the
projects
5 Lack of awareness and sanitation about the projects
6 Others please specify

30. How did farmers respond to the new farming technologies introduced to them to
maximize their production?
A. Accepted and implemented
B. Accepted but did not implement
C. Did not accept and did not implement
31. Were the farmers’ expectations aligned with the project’s goals and objectives?
A. Yes
B. No
32. In your opinion, did the project achieve its set goals and objectives?
A. Yes
B. No
C. Somehow
33. If you answered ‘Somehow’ or ‘No,’ what do you think were the main reasons?
Please explain:
………………………………………………………………………………………………………
………………………………………………………………………………………………………
………………………………………………………………………………………..

THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR YOUR INPUTE

46