Post-Ebola Food Security and Livelihood Assessment in Grand Gedeh and River Gee Counties, Liberia

FOOD SECURITY AND LIVELIHOOD ASSESSMENT

POST-EBOLA FOOD SECURITY AND LIVELIHOOD ASSESSMENT IN GRAND GEDEH AND RIVER GEE


TABLE OF CONTENTS

1. Executive Summary

2. Summary of Key Findings

3. Introduction

4. Objectives

5. Methodology

A. Data Collection ToolsB. Sampling MethodologyC. Team Composition and TrainingD. Data Entry and Analysis E. Limitations

6. Detailed Findings

A. Food ConsumptionB. LivelihoodsC. Food Access D. Food AvailabilityE. Difference between HANDS and non-HANDS Communities

7. Conclusions

8. Summary of Recommendations


LIST OF ACRONYMS

ACF Action Contra La FaimANOVA Analysis of VarianceCDC Centers for Disease Control and PreventionEVD Ebola Virus DiseaseFAO Food and Agriculture OrganizationFGD Focus Group DiscussionFEWS NET Famine Early Warning SystemHANDS Health, Agriculture, Nutrition and Development for SustainabilityKII Key Informant InterviewM&E Monitoring and EvaluationNGO Non-Governmental OrganizationOICI Opportunities Industrialization Centers InternationalPPS Probability Proportionate to SizePTA Parent Teacher AssociationRRA Rapid Rural AssessmentUNDP United Nations Development ProgramUNICEF United Nations Childrens FundUSAID United States Agency for International DevelopmentWFP World Food Program


I.EXECUTIVE SUMMARYIn June 2010, USAID Office of Food for Peace awarded OIC International a five-year Title II Multi-Year Assistance Program, the Health, Agriculture, Nutrition and Development for Sustainability (HANDS) Program in two southeastern counties of Liberia, Grand Gedeh and River Gee. The overall goal of the HANDS program is to enhance the resiliency and reduce the vulnerability of target communities and households to food insecurity.

OIC International maintained a presence in these two counties throughout the Ebola outbreak, implementing HANDS program activities, and performing regular monitoring of the crisis. As part of this, HANDS staff collected weekly information and price monitoring data, which indicated that the local communities were being impacted by the outbreak, despite having only a comparatively low number of EVD cases. Significant price increases for essential food and non-food items in both counties were noted, as well as a gap in the knowledge being generated around other secondary impacts of EVD, particularly in communities least-affected. A lot of information and data was being generated about the health aspects of EVD and the directly affected counties, but there was very little information regarding the scale of impact in distant counties. Since Ebola peaked in Liberia, the number of cases began to drop and people looked towards recovery, a lot of the focus has been on health infrastructure and Ebola prevention,

but little has been done to study the impact of EVD on food security and livelihood outcomes in counties with comparatively low incidences of EVD.

During the Ebola outbreak, government anti-Ebola measures, such as border closures, the ban on hunting, and limits placed on group gatherings and personal travel, were implemented across the country. These measures were applied nationwide irrespective of EVD prevalence and they disrupted the way of life in all counties throughout Liberia.

OICI hypothesized that the secondary effects of Ebola have negatively affected the food security and livelihood outcomes in Grand Gedeh and River Gee counties. It is expected that this data will fill information gaps regarding food security and livelihood impacts of EVD and identify existing related needs. It is also anticipated that this assessment will show that the number of EVD cases is not the sole factor in determining impact of EVD.


CONSUMPTION Food consumption data shows that the majority of communities are in a state of distress. Overall household food consumption has decreased and people have resorted to survival coping mechanisms as a result of an increase in market food prices and a lack of money to buy food.

The RRA uncovered a prevalent consumption of undesirable foods under extreme hardship. The data shows widespread consumption of immature crops, seed stock and wild roots, all, which are indicative of severe food insecurity and a food crisis. A significant number of households reported that their current food stocks would be depleted within a month.

LIVELIHOODThere were changes made to peoples livelihoods as a response to severe food insecurity. The adaptation of livelihood strategies became necessary when old livelihoods such as hunting, trading and teaching were forcibly abandoned due to the ban on hunting and market, border and school closures.

Negative coping strategies such as buying food, seeds and tools on credit have been widely adopted. Data shows an increased burden of debt and moderate sales of assets to meet immediate food needs. These irreversible coping strategies are damaging to peoples long-term livelihoods, and have the potential to undermine future food security.A breakdown of social networks significantly limited traditional support networks and contributed to atypical long-term migration.

II. SUMMARYof Key Findings

FOOD ACCESSFood access remains a significant issue despite restored market function. Respondents stated that while staple foods may be readily available, they are inaccessible because food costs and transportation remain prohibitively expensive. The timing of the annual lean season and the loss of productivity compound these critical food availability and access issues during the last planting season.

A widely reported decline in the variety of foods available at local markets was identified. Households also reported significant difficulty in growing enough food for their families after the disrupted planting season and in selling their goods at the local markets due to the transportation barrier and decreases in household purchasing power.


III. INTRODUCTIONuninterrupted during the outbreak, but travel restrictions, market disruptions, and school closures did impact some HANDS activities and will continue to impact beneficiary communities as the country transitions into a sustained recovery process.

The first case of Ebola Virus Disease in Liberia was diagnosed in rural communities in Lofa and Nimba counties in March, 2014. From there, the virus quickly spread to neighboring counties and to the capital city, Monrovia, where more than half of all EVD cases in Liberia were reported. In August 2014, the Government of Liberia declared a state of emergency, resulting in the closure of land borders, suspension of all schools, and mandatory quarantine of the worst affected areas. The government also imposed an outright ban on the procurement and sale of bush meat, and temporary bans on public gatherings of any kind. As the outbreak has been brought under control, schools have officially reopened as of February 16, 2015, and travel restrictions, mandatory quarantines, and the ban of public gatherings have been lifted. While the total number of EVD cases as of the week of April 22, 2015 totaled 10,212, currently there are no active Ebola cases in Liberia. The country is being carefully monitored for new cases with the hope that on May 9, 2015 they will be declared Ebola free.

EVD IN GRAND GEDEH AND RIVER GEEWhile all 15 counties in Liberia experienced cases of EVD, the counties in which the HANDS program operates were affected to a much lesser extent than those counties located at a closer proximity to the Guinea and Sierra Leone borders where EVD was more concentrated. To date, Grand Gedeh and River Gee have reported 4 and 18 EVD cases respectively. The HANDS program continued operations largely

1. World Health Organization Ebola Situation Report. World Health

Organization. April 22, 2015. Accessed April 24, 2015. www.appswho.int/

ebola/current-situation-report-22-april-2015-0.

1


MAP OF GRAND GEDEH AND RIVER GEE COUNTIES, IN YELLOW

This assessment seeks to build on the key findings from the most recent EVD situation reports to evaluate the secondary effects of EVD on Grand Gedeh and River Gee communities. Information gleaned from this assessment will be used to identify the priority livelihood and food security needs of both HANDS and non-HANDS communities, and to determine the most appropriate interventions to meet them.

IV. OBJECTIVES


I.EXECUTIVE SUMMARYTeam members from the HANDS Program consortium conducted a Rapid Rural Assessment (RRA) of intervention communities using a series of quantitative and qualitative data collection methods. The RRA method has been identified as the most time efficient and cost-effective data collection method available to the HANDS consortium, and was expected to provide the greatest compliment to existing quantitative data collected through routine monitoring of the HANDS program. The RRA technique is designed to include a combination of iterative data collection and verification methods in order to emphasize the importance of local knowledge, situational relevance, and produce the highest quality of information needed to address the immediate food security and livelihood priorities in Grand Gedeh and River Gee.

The design of this assessment has been informed by an extensive review of the existing literature and data on the effects of EVD in Liberia. The assessment team employed established food security and livelihood rapid assessment methods widely used by the World Food Program (WFP), the Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) of the United Nations, and the United Nations Development Program (UNDP). The Emergency Food Security Assessment Guidelines used to deliver the November 2014 Joint Food Security Assessment led by the Liberian Ministry of Agriculture with support from WFP, FAO, and UNDP were the

same methods to be employed by the assessment team. All processes were designed and implemented in country through a collaborative effort between OICI Headquarter and Country staff, with input from HANDS consortium partners and support from local government authorities and community leaders.

The following table summarizes the range of inquiry that the assessment team undertook. EVD cases is not the sole factor in determining impact of EVD. Consumption


TABLE 1: ASSESSMENT RANGE OF INQUIRY


The data collection tools used in this assessment includes: (1) literature review of secondary and national level data; (2) individual household surveys; (3) focus group discussions; and (4) key informant interviews. All tools were designed around the following broad thematic areas: household food consumptions, livelihoods, food access and availability.

SECONDARY DATA REVIEWAn extensive literature review of secondary and national-level day was conducted to inform the theoretical and methodological basis for this assessment. In addition to existing food security and livelihood data generated from routine monitoring of the HANDS program, including weekly Ebola Situation Reports produced by program staff, the RRA assessment team also reviewed data provided by the WHO, WFP, FAO, UNICEF, CDC, and FEWS NET. The discussion surrounding the secondary effects of EVD on food security and livelihood outcomes that follows is based largely on the findings of these aforementioned international actors in other Ebola affected counties within Liberia, or elsewhere in the West African region, namely Guinea and Sierra Leone.

HOUSEHOLD SURVEYSA structured survey questionnaire covering changes to income, food sources, food consumption, food availability and access, coping strategies, modifications to livelihood activities and assistance received was created with guidance from a variety of food security and livelihood sources, including the WFP and ACF Food Security and Livelihood Assessment Guide. Surveys included both closed-

A. DATA COLLECTIONTools

and open-ended questions to capture individual and household needs as they relate to the impact of EVD on food security and livelihood outcomes.

FOCUS GROUP DISCUSSIONSModerator-facilitated focus group discussions (FGDs) were conducted among targeted groups of interest in order to analyze the strength and validity of the survey responses collected at the household level and reveal a shared view of the impact of EVD at the community level. Comparisons of how EVD has impacted communities was sought by asking the group to discuss the availability of key resources, function of local markets, and changes to livelihoods before, during, and after the outbreak had peaked in the country. One advantage of the use of FGDs is that the qualitative data gathered within an interactive group setting will allow the assessment team to uncover points of interest that cannot be adequately expressed quantitative measures.


KEY INFORMANT INTERVIEWSSemi-structured qualitative key informant interviews (KIIs) were conducted with various persons of interest in leadership positions in order to provide a contextualized indication of trends and dynamics of the secondary effects of the EVD outbreak at the provincial/district level. Comparisons of how EVD has impacted communities was sought by asking local leaders about the availability of key resources, function of local markets, and the effects of EVD prevention measures before, during, and after the outbreak had peaked in the country. Key informants were selected based on their ability to represent a wide cross-section of communities within their leadership role, and for their potential knowledge of livelihood and food security outcomes in the target areas. While the number of KIIs will be limited by virtue of the predetermined informant selection criteria, they will provide evidentially valuable information not captured by the aforementioned data collection methods used at the household and community level.


Assessment teams were determined and organized according to the number of households, key informant interviews and focus groups needed to accurately cover our target sample. Two teams were organized and divided between the two counties with bases of operations created in Zwedru, Grand Gedeh and Fishtown, River Gee. Each team consisted of two team leaders, two HANDS Program Monitoring and Evaluation staff, and one representative from OICI Headquarters in Washington, DC. Enumerators and supervisors were recruited to round out the teams for a total of 11 team members working in Grand Gedeh and 10 team members in River Gee.

These teams were broken down in each county to cover each of the three data gathering methods. Key informant interviews were conducted by a HANDS M&E Officer. Team leaders conducted all focus groups with support from other team members, as well as supervised the household survey teams with assistance from the OICI headquarter representative.

Prior to the start of the assessment, all team members participated in a one-day training and field test held in each county. The purpose of the training was to familiarize the teams with the assessment objectives, data collection tools, household selection practices and standard food security and livelihood concepts in preparation for the assessment. It was also an opportunity to establish roles within the teams and educate everyone on standard protocols and procedures of a rapid rural assessment. Time was allotted

B. TEAM COMPOSITIONand Training

to thoroughly review each question and to hold practice rounds in which surveyors asked questions of each other in order to practice being understood and remaining objective and unbiased.

In addition, a field test was conducted in the local communities to practice data collection and gauge the relevance, applicability and acceptance of the survey tools within the local communities. Feedback from both the training and the field test was used to adjust the data collection methods to further increase understanding for both participants and surveyors as well as to make them more relevant to the local communities.


C. DATA ENTRYand Analysis

Data entry took place simultaneously alongside the data collection process, with each data set entered into a standardized database each day it was collected in the field. This allowed for data to be immediately cleaned and for preliminary analyses to be drawn as the assessment progressed. Data was cleaned and analyzed by the assessment team leaders. Once the data collection portion of the assessment concluded, the two data sets from each county were once again reviewed, cleaned, and joined in a common database where an aggregate data set would be available for further analysis.

D. LIMITATIONSConducting a rapid assessment in a rural, post-disaster context can present a number of constraints with regard to identifying and accessing the communities of concern. The following points should be taken into consideration when interpreting the findings of this assessment, and when undertaking similar efforts in the rural Grand Gedeh and River Gee context in the future.


TABLE 2: LIMITATIONS


All methodology tools were designed to use a six-month comparison time frame as the foundation for the interview and survey questions. For each question, respondents were asked to compare their current situation to the situation 6 months earlier, during the peak of the Ebola outbreak in Liberia. Assessment team members phrased each question so that participants were reminded of the six-month time period for comparison purposes.

Results from the key informant interviews and focus group discussions both support the quantitative data collected through the household surveys. These data tools provided additional information on livelihood coping strategies and social support networks.

Focus group discussions highlighted a widespread sale of productive assets as a key livelihood coping strategy. Participants reported the sale of livestock, agricultural inputs, home furnishings, hardware and clothing in order to provide food for their families.

Interview participants also discussed the lack of availability of social safety nets within their communities to support households struggling to meet daily food needs. Traditional safety nets such as community groups, family and neighbors who could be relied on in the past for support, were no longer accessible due to the ban on group gatherings. Family members living in the capital were unable to send in-kind support due to road closures and roadblocks that made traveling around the country difficult. Some mentioned that even when remittances were sent, high transportation costs prevented them

VI. DETAILED FINDINGSfrom being able to collect them. In addition, due to the widespread negative impacts of Ebola, most people were economically stressed leaving very few in a position to help others. Compounding the issue was the lack of options of formal community safety nets such as VSLAs or credit unions with small loan portfolios that were unable to provide enough capital to sustain all of those in need.

The following tables detail the key quantitative findings from the assessment.


TABLE 3: FOOD CONSUMPTION


TABLE 4: LIVELIHOODS


TABLE 5: FOOD ACCESS AND AVAILABILITY


VI. CONCLUSIONSData collected during the Rapid Rural Assessment supports the original hypothesis stating that secondary effects of Ebola have negatively affected the food security and livelihood outcomes in Grand Gedeh and River Gee Counties. The erosion of traditional livelihoods, loss of family income and poor food access has resulted in significant levels of food insecurity across the two counties.

Fear of EVD kept many community members contained within their homes, avoiding neighbors and abandoning their farms. The breakdown of the traditional kuu farming system, combined with the selling of productive assets such as agricultural inputs, has led to decreased household food production thus creating a greater household dependency on local markets. This dependency makes households more vulnerable to the increase in food and transportation prices and has deepened the struggle for households to meet daily food needs.

Meanwhile, government Ebola containment and prevention measures, such as border closures and bans on hunting, greatly disrupted market function throughout the two counties which are heavily reliant on cross border trade with Ivory Coast. Irregular market function with limited numbers of sellers and a lack of market competition during the EVD outbreak caused food prices to soar beyond the means of most households. At the same time, restrictions on movement and limitations placed on group taxi sharing resulted in increased transportation prices,

making access to markets much more difficult. These effects have been particularly difficult to overcome in Grand Gedeh and River Gee counties, which lack road networks and have very remote communities.

2

2. The kuu farming system is an informal cooperative labor agreement in

which rural farmers plant, harvest, and help work one anothers fields.


Livelihoods such as trading, teaching and hunting were abruptly halted for sustained periods of time due to the EVD outbreak, having dire consequences on household incomes. Many families reported resorting to atypical livelihood opportunities such as digging for gold and doing contract labor work. Others reported the loss of a productive family member to short or long-term migration in search of alternative sources of income. The abandonment of traditional livelihoods has resulted in a loss of household incomes, further weakening family purchasing power and contributing to food insecurity across the region.

Families from both agricultural and market-based households were forced to adopt negative coping strategies to meet family food needs. Almost all surveyed heads of household reported the adoption of at least one negative coping strategy such as the reduction of meal quantity and frequency, reliance on wild and gathered foods, seed stock consumption, the sale of productive assets and a reduction in spending on non-food items. In addition, many families have sought assistance through creditors, taking on large amounts of debt to fill food gaps with little certainty that these debts can be managed and repaid.

The assessment results show high-level food security needs within these two counties and highlight the fact that the EVD outbreak significantly impacted areas outside of the hot zones where EVD cases were comparatively low. Data collected in Grand Gedeh and River Gee counties proves that despite their low incidences of Ebola cases, these communities are highly vulnerable to the secondary effects of EVD. Even in far-reaching communities which remained free of Ebola, the fear of Ebola, anti-Ebola measures, and the resulting changes in market function and household income, created a series of conditions that these

communities are unable to overcome without major changes to their livelihoods and the adoption of negative coping strategies. The survey results underscore the need to acknowledge that despite their low incidences of Ebola cases, Grand Gedeh and River Gee counties are highly vulnerable to secondary effects of EVD. This gives merit to the conclusion that EVD impact should not be measured solely by the number of EVD cases.


SEVERITY OF FOOD & LIVELIHOOD INSECURITYThe adoption of negative coping strategies is illustrative of the severity of the food and livelihood situation in Grand Gedeh and River Gee counties. Households reported moderate to severe reduction in food consumption with more than one-third going without food for entire days. Family diets consist mainly of immature crops, foraged food and

increased cassava consumption. The reduction in meal quality and frequency has the potential to create critical nutritional gaps, particularly among groups traditionally vulnerable to food insecurity. In many households it was reported that child breastfeeding was stopped due to inadequate food for the mother.

Negative coping strategies further contribute to the erosion of livelihoods which puts families at risk of long-term food insecurity until traditional livelihoods can be restored to pre-EVD levels. Some families provided shelter to loved ones who fled EVD hot zones, thus having additional household members to feed. While many families reported the loss of a productive family member to economic-related migration and almost all of those who had to leave had not yet returned at the time of the assessment. Others explained that school-aged children had not returned to recently opened schools, instead foregoing their education in order to supplement family income through gold digging or other wage labor. The change in livelihoods may leave some families permanently vulnerable to food insecurity.

Most families stated their current food stocks at the time of the survey would last less than one month. They also indicated a lack of social support networks to turn to as their situation worsens. This critical situation is compounded by the fact that more than half of the households have already consumed the seed stocks that were meant for the next planting season, thus jeopardizing future agricultural production and the ability to resume normal food consumption.

With most families having taken on large amounts of debt or credit during the outbreak to cover their daily food needs, the economic impact of EVD is expected to be long-term. Families are selling off housing materials, livestock, mattresses, pots and pans and agricultural tools to help pay for food. Full recovery will not be possible until livelihoods are restored


and household incomes are sufficient to shrink their debt burden, restock productive assets and purchase adequate food.

SCALE OF FOOD & LIVELIHOOD INSECURITYThe assessment confirmed that all communities across Grand Gedeh and River Gee are experiencing some level of food insecurity, thus further dispelling the myth that EVD impact is largely associated with EVD incidence. Very few households remained untouched by the secondary effects of EVD and all shared complaints regarding increased food and transportation prices and market disruptions.

Despite mostly restored market function, the lack of household purchasing power needed to overcome high food prices and elevated transportation costs continues. The scale of these effects is likely to worsen as South East Liberia moves into the traditional lean season that precedes the next harvest.

In addition, communities are at risk of losing a second harvest season due to the consumption of seed stocks and the sale of tools and other agricultural inputs. The loss of traditional livelihood activities such as the kuu farming system has the potential to further disrupt agricultural production, thus increasing the possibility of a limited harvest season and threatening medium and long-term food security. Additional lapses in agricultural production will create pressure on already fragile markets and cause larger food gaps for both agricultural and market-based households.

MOST AFFECTED COMMUNITIES & GROUPSData collected across the two counties shows River Gee being more vulnerable to secondary impacts of EVD. The poor road networks and limited market availability compared to Grand Gedeh have contributed to greater food insecurity in River Gee. The adoption of coping strategies was more widespread in River Gee County with a greater

number of households purchasing items on credit and reducing their food consumption. The loss of livelihoods is particularly problematic given the limited livelihood opportunities that exist in River Gee, compared to Grand Gedeh.

In both counties, the most remote and inaccessible communities showed the greatest signs of food insecurity with sharp decreases in food consumption and very low food access. This was a result of a lack of alternative livelihood strategies to cope for the loss of traditional activities as well as the elevated transportation costs that made market access beyond the reach of most families. Agricultural and market-based households both fared poorly due to the loss in agricultural production and the disruption in markets that resulted in lower incomes for both populations.


VIII. SUMMARYof recommendations

The following recommendations are based on an understanding of the underlying causes of food insecurity within Grand Gedeh and River Gee as confirmed by the assessment results. The proposed interventions are designed to quickly meet the immediate needs of the affected communities and to address compounding issues such as market function and accessibility.


FOOD VOUCHERThere was a widespread reporting of decreased food consumption and an increased reliance on undesirable foods by families in the two counties. This was mainly attributed to high transportation and food costs and the inability of household food stocks to meet household food needs.

To help families meet their daily food needs, direct food assistance in the form of a food voucher system is needed. In the case of Grand Gedeh and River Gee, a food voucher program will be advantageous over a direct food distribution because the vouchers can contribute to restoring market function, thus indirectly improving household food access.

For the most remote and inaccessible communities, a community-level food transfer program is recommended. By taking advantage of any food surpluses within the community and bringing food retailers into the communities, the high transportation costs are eliminated as a barrier to food availability and access. The program has the added benefit of encouraging local food production. In both cases, a voucher system will help to restore short-term household purchasing power so families are able to meet basic food needs.

The food voucher and community-level food transfer programs should target those who have become most food insecure, are at the highest nutritional risk or those that are most likely to face a deteriorating food security situation. They are short-term measures meant to help sustain family food consumption and nutritional status. The duration of these programs is anticipated to last through the lean season months to help carry families to the next harvest. It may be necessary to extend the food voucher programs if the upcoming harvest isnt as productive as predicted due to destructive weather patterns or a prolonged fear of Ebola, which would slow the restoration of the kuu farming system.


INPUT VOUCHERThe majority of agricultural households reported having consumed their seed stocks and the selling of their agricultural inputs, such as tools. In order to help these families prepare for the next farming season, a one-time input voucher program for agricultural households at the start of the planting season is a necessary intervention. This is best done at the community level through community seed and agricultural input fairs in which retailers can bring their goods and sell them directly to community members at an accessible, central location. Such a system should appeal to input dealers who are guaranteed strong sales through the voucher system as well as help to overcome the high transportation fees community members would need to pay to buy the seeds and tools in town.

The benefits of an input voucher system are such that it helps to replace seeds and tools that were either consumed or sold and it places agricultural households in a good position for preparing for the next harvest. Supplying the necessary seeds and tools should stimulate and encourage household food production as it removes some of the key barriers to farming that exist in the current planting season. In addition, there is the added benefit of helping to restore the livelihoods of the agricultural households and aiding in the resumption of the traditional kuu farming system.

The input voucher program is a particularly appropriate intervention for those who have had to sell off their productive assets. It should also

be targeted to highly food insecure families who have already consumed next seasons seed stocks. There is the risk that inputs purchased through the voucher system can then be sold for cash instead of used for their intended farming purposes. It is important that such an intervention is coupled with direct food assistance so those basic food needs do not offset the importance of increased household food production. With food gaps filled through the voucher program, families will be more likely to keep their inputs and resume their traditional agricultural livelihoods.

FOOD FOR WORKFood access was widely reported to be one of the main drivers of food insecurity in Grand Gedeh and River Gee. The breakdown in farming activities meant that families could not rely on food from their own farms. For both agricultural and market-based households, incomes were not sufficient to compensate for the high food prices, forcing families to reduce their food consumption. The situation was made worse by the lack of traditional social safety nets and community based social networks to rely on during hard times.

A food for work program would help provide employment to those who have been forced to abandon their traditional livelihoods and it will also improve food access for families. Communities should be consulted to help identify local projects which would benefit the community as a whole and create employment for individuals who would be paid with food for their labor. Assessment data supports using


the food for work program to encourage farmers to resume their agricultural production as well as to help build or maintain access roads into the most remote communities so that they are able to better access local markets.

Providing work opportunities within the communities eliminates the need for productive household members to seek livelihood alternatives elsewhere. Having individuals working together for the good of the community will also help to rebuild social networks and enhance feelings of social connectedness.

For farmers, the food for work program would motivate them to resume agricultural activities, thus minimizing the potential loss of a second harvest season. There is the added benefit of restoring the kuu system and the social cohesion built around agricultural practices. There is some risk that once the food for work program ceases, farmers will no longer feel motivated to continue their farming activities. However, it is expected that the procurement of inputs through the complementary input voucher program, coupled with the social support gained through the kuu farming network, should provide enough motivation to drive household food production following the completion of the food for work program. A food for work program should be short-term to support families through the lean season until new harvests can take the place of food payments and traditional farming practices are fully restored. The temporary nature of the food for work program will help minimize dependence on the program while allowing for the completion of designated projects. It is important that it is viewed by all as a temporary safeguard measure meant to provide direct food assistance to food insecure households and not a long-term sustainable program.


TABLE 6: RECOMMENDATIONS FOR INTERVENTIONS


Based on the results collected in Grand Gedeh and River Gee, the assumption can be made that other counties in Liberia with low Ebola incidence rates are currently experiencing secondary impacts of EVD. These counties would benefit from additional assessments and further research to determine the most appropriate interventions to address the issues identified.

ANNEX 1: SAMPLING METHODOLOGYThe Post-Ebola Food Security and Livelihoods Assessment in Grand Gedeh and River Gee Counties was designed as a multi-stage cluster survey with stratification between HANDS and non-HANDS beneficiary communities. The choice of the multi-stage design was useful given the large population spread over a wide geographic area. The sampling frame for this assessment was composed of the total number of communities in Grand Gedeh and River Gee Counties registered in the most recent Liberian National Census (2008).

For the first stage of cluster sampling, community lists for Grand Gedeh and River Gee Counties were compiled. The Census indicated 263 and 207 registered communities in Grand Gedeh and River Gee respectively. Thus, a total of 470 communities are represented in this assessment. The methodology for calculating the sample size for this assessment was designed to ensure statistical representation of both counties. The same size was calculated using the following standard formula:

2

2


From this calculation, it was determined that the total sample size needed to meet the above criteria was 80 communities. Taking into account the constraints related to logistics, time, survey team composition, and the wide geographic area under consideration, the assessment team determined that a total sample size of 60 individual communities would be acceptable in order to maintain a 95% confidence level with a confidence interval of 11.

In the second stage of cluster sampling, the sample of 60 communities was stratified between HANDS and non-HANDS beneficiary communities before drawing a simple random sample of 30 HANDS beneficiary communities, and 30 non-HANDS beneficiary communities. The distinction between HANDS and non-HANDS beneficiary communities was important in order to be able to compare any differences between communities currently receiving NGO support through long-term food security interventions with those that are not. An analysis of variance (ANOVA) test between HANDS and non-HANDS beneficiary communities was conducted for key food security and livelihood variables in order to highlight these differences and is discussed in detail below. The household sample

size was then calculated using the probability proportionate to size (PPS) method to randomly select a representative household sample within each selected community that was proportionate to the size of the population of that community. The PPS technique was chosen due to the wide degree of variance in population size among the selected communities and to reduce standard error and bias by eliminating the need to weigh household responses. Applying the PPS technique to the 60 randomly selected communities yielded a total of 334 households to be surveyed, representing an estimated 1,915 individuals. The estimated number of individuals represented in a sample size of 334 households was calculated using the following standard annual growth rate formula:


In the last stage of the cluster design, the assessment team employed a non-probability sampling method known as the random walk method to quickly ascertain each qualifying household that would be interviewed for the survey until a pre-determined quota had been reached. This method was chosen in the absence of up-to-date household listings for each community and in order to avoid replacing non-responding households with potentially biased or readily available households. In each case, the starting point along the path of travel from house to house by each enumerator was completely random ensuring that the probability of selection can be calculated as the number of households selected divided by the total number of households in the community.

Once a household was identified, the survey was administered to the identified household head, irrespective of age or gender. In order to facilitate the timely delivery of each survey and to ensure complete anonymity among survey respondents, personally identifiable information was not included in the household-level questionnaires. On average, each household questionnaire took approximately 30 minutes to complete. For the purpose of this assessment, a household was defined as a group of people who consistently share food and resources in order to meet their food consumption needs.

In order to validate the data collected at the household level, this assessment combined focus group discussions and key informant interviews to overcome any bias that may arise from a single-method research design. In addition to the 334 household surveys, this assessment also includes 20 focus group discussions and 12 key informant interviews at the community and district levels.Focus group discussions (FGDs) were conducted among five targeted groups of interest: farmer associations, parent-teacher associations (PTAs), womens groups, youth groups, and community

elders. In each county, one FGD was conducted for each interest group in both HANDS and non-HANDS beneficiary communities for a total of 20 FGDs. Each focus group consisted of a minimum of eight and maximum of ten participants. Individuals were selected for participation based on their belonging to one of the five aforementioned groups of interest, as well as their availability and willingness to participate in a facilitated group discussion for the entire duration of the exercise. A total of 182 individuals are represented in the FGD data. Table 3 summarizes the general composition and size of the FGDs by county. Focus group discussions were facilitated by two members of the assessment team, where one team member worked to engage the group in an active discussion guided by a short list of predetermined topical questions, and the other team member took written notes. Discussions were also digitally recorded with prior consent from each participating individual and consulted during the analysis phase of this qualitative data. On average, focus group discussions lasted approximately one hour.


TABLE 7: FOCUS GROUP DISCUSSION COMPOSITION

Lastly, five key informant interviews (KIIs) were conducted in each county, for a total of 10 KIIs. Because the objective of the KIIs was to ascertain information at the district level for each county, KII participants were chosen by the leadership position they occupy at the district level. The key informant interviews were limited to the following six individuals: county agricultural coordinator, county development superintendent, district commissioner, county market superintendent, and the district market superintendent. Each KII was conducted by one HANDS Monitoring and Evaluation Officer, who facilitated a semi-structured interview guided by a short list of topical questions standardized for all KII participants. Responses were captured through note taking and were also digitally recorded with prior consent from each participating individual and consulted during the analysis phase of this qualitative data. On average, each KII lasted approximately one hour.


55%

28%

17%

More debt Now

Less debt Now

Same as 6 months ago

More income Now

Less income Now

Same as 6 months ago

DEBT

INCOME

85%

9% 6%

ANNEX 2: SIX-MONTH COMPARISON OF HOUSEHOLD DEBT & INCOME, AS OF MARCH 2015


ANNEX 3: STATE OF HOUSEHOLD FOOD STOCKS


YES / NO

ANNEX 4: FOOD ACCESS & AVAILABILITY


ANNEX 5: COPING STRATEGIES


ANNEX 6: SAMPLING FRAMEWORK

Post-Ebola Food Security and Livelihood Assessment in Grand Gedeh and River Gee Counties, Liberia

Documents

Transcript of Post-Ebola Food Security and Livelihood Assessment in Grand Gedeh and River Gee Counties, Liberia