Needs for Technology Dissemination

The needs for technology dissemination are enormous as captured from the survey. From the extension workers perspective, improving extension capacity, use of participatory approaches, making technology available and technology must be cost-effective are key needs amongst others for technology dissemination. The researchers pinpointed that, improving logistical resources for research, demand-driven research, making technologies accessible and technology must be cost-effective are key to technological dissemination. Both extension workers and researchers believe that if these needs are addressed, technological dissemination will be easy (table 10).

Table 10: Needs for Technology Dissemination

needs	extension	research
Make technologies accessible	19	20
Technology must be cost-effective	18	19
Use of participatory approaches	20	16
Demand-driven research	15	20
Improve extension capacity	20	13
Improve logistical resources for research	11	20
Others	0	0
TOTAL	102	108

Project Implemented by Respondent

The number of implemented project by extension workers and researchers in the last three years ranges from 1 to 4. From the table extension workers (9) and researchers (10) have implemented at least 2 projects and, 6 extension workers and 9 researchers have implemented at least 1 project in the last three years. Only 1 researcher and 4 extension workers have implemented 3 projects. In the last three years no researcher have implemented 4 projects and above but 1 extension worker have implemented 4 projects. From the results, all the respondents have implemented or have been part of the implementation of at least one project in the last three years; this indicates that respondents are familiar with project implementation (table 11).

Table 11: Number of Project Implemented in the Last Three Years

NUMBER	extension	research
1	6	9
2	9	10
3	4	1
4	1	0
5 and above	0	0
TOTAL	20	20

Projects Implemented by Respondents that are CRRP Related

Table 12 gives insights into the number of projects implemented by respondents in the last three years that are CRRP related. A total of 20 extension workers and 14 researchers have implemented at least 1 project that are CRRP related. On average, extension workers and researchers have some knowledge on the implementation of CRRP projects.

Table 12: Number of Project Implemented in the Last Three Years Related to CRRP

NUMBER	extension	research
1	14	12
2	6	2
3	0	0
4	0	0
5 and above	0	0
TOTAL	20	14

Technology Development

The areas of technology development were captured during the survey. From table… most of the technologies at extension and research are geared towards increasing production. The research system has also developed transformational technologies. Value addition is also key for diversification, therefore some technologies in the hands of extension workers and at research are value added technologies (table 13).

Table 13: Areas of Technology are Development

AREAS	extension	research
Production	17	11
Transformation	0	5
Added value	3	4
TOTAL	20	20

Exchange Visits

Table 14 shows the field exchanged visits made and the number of participants in each visit as reported by respondents. A considerable number of field visits have been made by the extension workers and researchers which have helped to build their career paths.

Table 14: Field Exchange Visits

field visits	average number of participant
field visits	Extension	Research
Climate smart adaptation	15	20
Technical Package on rice	25
FIPS Africa – Rice value chain	30	150
Value addition (food nutrition security)	44
Food crop production	55
Transforming Africa Rice Sector through Science and R&D Partnership		6
TOTAL

Regional Communication Hub

Table 15 shows the number of new training modules developed, scientific articles published, data collection kits available and the functional regional communication hubs. From the results, extension workers and researchers have developed at least one new training module to guide them in their work. Only the researchers reported having published scientific articles, this is important to researchers as it help them showcase their research activities. Data collection kits are available to both extension and researchers for various data collection purposes and there are functional regional communication hubs.

Table 15: Functional Regional Communication Hub

	number
	Extension			Research
	1	2	3 and above	1	2	3 and above
Number of new training modules	13	3	4	11	6	3
Number of scientific articles published	0	0	0	5	8	7
Data collection kit	18	0	0	7	11	2
Functional Regional Communications Hub	12	0	0	12	8	0
TOTAL	43	3	4	35	33	12

Trainings on SRI and CRRP

Extension workers has been conducting trainings over the last three years as indicated in table 16 on average, the total number of participants is 56, while the total average number of women and men is 31.5 and 24.5 respectively. The results indicate that, trainings have carried out on SRI and CRRP over the last 3 years and have been inclusive with more women participation.

Table 16: Training Sessions carried out on SRI and CRRP over the last 3 years – Extension

type	average total number of participant	average number of women	AVERAGE NUMBER OF MEN
Total number of national trainers	16	8	8
Number of national trainings (Gender disaggregated participation)	40	23.5	16.5
TOTAL	56	31.5	24.5

Capacity Building Needs

Table 17: Needs for Capacity Building

domain	specify
domain	Extension	Research
Trainings	Swamp development, Value addition, best agronomic practices on new methods, climate smart agriculture, soil and water management, pest and diseases management, preparation of organic matter, trainings along the rice value chain and rehabilitation of IVS.	PhD, MSc, Data analysis and management, Marker assisted breeding, crop processing and Value addition
Infrastructure	Storage, drying floor, staff quarters and training centre.	Training center, gene bank, Storage and staff quarters
Equipment	Processing machine, weeder, power tiller, planter, irrigation facility, harvesters, threshers and transportation.	Seed processing machine, tractors, dryers, weeder, power tiller, planter, irrigation facility, harvesters, threshers and transportation.

Baseline survey on SRI/CRRP

The Analysis of the baseline data collected on SRI/CRRP is reported in this section. The data used for the analysis is entirely based on the data set collected during the SRI/CRRP baseline survey conducted by SLARI with the full financial support from October, 2024. The data sets included data and information collected on the characteristics of the different rice production and processing operations, resource use, production costs, access to inputs, credit and technologies, constraints and opportunities in rice production and marketing, and rice enterprise margins. The data collection for the individual rice producers’, Extension and Research services survey was conducted in four regions in Sierra Leone where rice is produced. A total of 60 rice producers, 20 extension officers and 20 Researchers were interviewed.

General Information and Household Characteristics of Rice Producers

Sample Distribution

The data collection for the individual rice producers’ survey was conducted in four regions where rice is produced. Table 1a-b provides details of the sample distribution. A total of 60 rice producers were interviewed with 18 in the East, 12 in the North, 12 in the North West. Table 1a provides the number of producers interviewed per region and their proportion in relation to the total sample size. Table1b provides information on the number of producers interviewed by region and district.

Table 1a: Number of producers interviewed per region

region	Frequency	Percent	Cummulative
EAST	18	30	30
N0RTH	12	20	50
NORTH WEST	12	20	70
SOUTH	18	30	100
TOTAL	60	100

Table 1b: Sample distribution by region and district

Region	BO	BOMBALI	KAILAHUN	KAMBIA	KENEMA	KONO	MOYAMBA	PORT LOKO	PUJEHUN	TONKOLILI	Total
EAST	0	0	6	0	6	6	0	0	0	0	18
N0RTH	0	6	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	6	12
NORTH WEST	0	0	0	6	0	0	0	6	0	0	12
SOUTH	6	0	0	0	0	0	6	0	6	0	18
Total	6	6	6	6	6	6	6	6	6	6	60

Household Characteristics of Rice Producers Interviewed

Sex of Respondents

A total of 60 rice producers were interviewed of which 42 are males and 18 are female. The number of farmers interviewed is proportionately 70% male and 30% female (table 2a). Table 2b reveals the number of farmers interviewed by sex and region.

Table 2a: Sex of respondent

Respondent	Frequency	Percent	Cumulative
Male	42	70	70
Female	18	30	100
Total	60	100

Table 2b: Number of Producers Interview by Sex and Region

region	Farmer	male	female
EAST	18	12	6
N0RTH	12	9	3
NORTH WEST	12	8	4
SOUTH	18	13	5
TOTAL	60	42	18

Age of Respondent

The average age of farmers by gender in the total sample is 45.5 years for men and 32.8 years for women, implying a relatively higher number of adults that are heading rice production activities in the country. The data reveals that, on average, male headed household/head of farms are older than the female headed household/head of farms (table 3a).

Table 3a: Average Age of Respondent by Sex

region	MALE		FEMALE
region	Mean	N	Mean	N
EAST	48.9	12	35	6
N0RTH	43.6	9	34.4	3
NORTH WEST	44	8	28.2	4
SOUTH	45.4	13	33.4	5
TOTAL	45.5	42	32.8	18

Marital status of Respondent

From the 60 farmers interviewed, a total of 48 farmers are married people, which constitute about 80% of respondents, 7 farmers are widow/widower which is about 11.7% of the respondent while the singles constitute about 6.7% and divorced 1.7% of the respondents (table 4a). The results reveal that most of the respondents across all regions are marriage people (table 4b).

Table 4a: Marital Status of Respondent

MARITAL STATUS	FREQUENCY	PERCENT	CUMULATIVE
MARRIED	48	80	80
DIVORCED	1	1.7	81.7
SINGLE	4	6.7	88.3
WIDOW/WIDOWER	7	11.7	100.0
TOTAL	60	100

Table 4b: Marital Status of Respondent by Region

Name of Region	Married	Divorced	SINGLE	Widow /Widower	Total
EAST	14	0	0	4	18
N0RTH	10	0	1	1	12
NORTH WEST	9	1	2	0	12
SOUTH	15	0	1	2	18
TOTAL	48	1	4	7	60

Activities of Respondents

Main Activity

Agriculture constitutes the main activity of the majority of respondents interviewed (91.6%) and trade, livestock, handicraft and other are 2%, 1%, 1% and 1% respectively. However, respondents practice other activities with agriculture remaining their main livelihoods and income generating activities (table 5a).

Table 5a: Main activity of Respondents

Main activity	Frequency	Percent	Cumulative
Agriculture	55	91.6	91.6
Livestock	1	1.7	93.3
Trade	2	3.3	96.6
Handicrafts	1	1.7	98.3
Other (specify)	1	1.7	100
Total	60	100.0

Side Activity

Apart from agricultural activity, a significant proportion of respondents are engaged in trade as side activity (40%). Livestock, community services, fishing, and handicrafts represent the most frequently reported side activities practiced by some of the farmers (table 5b).

Table 5b: Side activity of Respondents’

side activity	Frequency	Percent	Cumulative
Agriculture	5	8.3	8.3
Livestock	9	15	23.3
Fishing	5	8.3	31.6
Service	8	13.4	45
Trade	24	40	85
Handicrafts	4	6.7	91.7
Transporter	2	3.3	95
Other (specify)	3	5	100
Total	60	100.0

Educational Level of Respondent

The educational level of respondents is mostly primary (38.3), none; implies that the farmers that falls in this category does not have any form of education (26.7%), and secondary (23.3). These three groups constitute more than 80% of the total number of respondents. The other respondents less than 20% have benefitted from technical and vocational, tertiary or Arabic education. The results reveal that more than 70% of the respondents have some form of education (table 6a and 6b).

Table 6a: Educational Level of Respondent

EDUCATIONAL LEVEL	Frequency	Percent	Cumulative
None	16	26.7	26.7
Literate	0	0.0	26.7
Primary	23	38.3	65.0
Secondary	14	23.3	88.3
Superior	0	0.0	88.3
Arabic	2	3.3	91.6
Religious School	0	0.0	91.6
Technical And Vocational Education	3	5.0	96.6
Other Level (Tertiary)	2	3.3	100.0
Total	60	100.0

Table 6b: Education level of Respondents by Region

Name of REGION	NONE	LITERATE	PRIMARY	sECONDARY	superior	arabic	religious school	technical and vocational education	other level (tertiary	Total
EAST	4	0	8	6	0	0	0	2	0	20
N0RTH	7	0	6	2	0	0	0	0	1	16
NORTH WEST	2	0	4	3	0	1	0	0	0	10
SOUTH	3	0	5	3	0	1	0	1	1	14
Total	16	0	23	14	0	2	0	3	2	60

Number of Months Worked in Main Activity

In table 7a below the average number of months worked in rice farming per year and household sizes are recorded. The average number of months worked per year is 6.9 across regions. It is highest in south 8 and east 7.2, followed by North West 6.5 and North 6. This may be as a result of the long duration varieties that are dominantly used in the South and East region. In the North West and North regions, most farmers might be using short duration varieties. The time spent on other farming operations might be the same for all regions, except for slight differences as a result of the ecology. The average household size is 9.7. Normally, in farming household, the larger the household the more available labour for farming purposes. On average there are more women (3.8) in farming household which indicates that the labor force in farming household are composed of more women compare to the other categories of people.

Table 7a: Average number of Months Worked in Main Activity per Year by Households Size and Sex

Region	months	household size	man	woman	child	≥ 65
EAST	7.2	7.3	1.2	2.1	4.0	0
N0RTH	6	12.1	3.2	4.6	4.3	0
NORTH WEST	6.5	9.2	2.1	3.1	3.9	0.1
SOUTH	8	10	1.6	5.3	3.1	0
AVERAGE	6.925	9.65	2.025	3.775	3.825	0.025

Household Agricultural Workforce

The average number of household members in the agricultural sector is 8.8 and 8.45 in general agricultural activities and rice cultivation. Majority of the household members contributing to the household labour for agricultural activities are also in rice cultivation. Rice is the main crop cultivated in farming communities, most of the household labor is utilize in rice cultivation while other crops are mostly cultivated as second cropping (table 8).

Table 8: Average Household workforce in Agricultural Activities by Region

Region	agricultural sector	agricultural activities	RICE CULTIVATION
EAST	6	6	6
N0RTH	11.2	10.9	10.9
NORTH WEST	8.9	8.7	8.7
SOUTH	9.1	8.2	8.2
TOTAL	8.8	8.45	8.45

Land and Labour Availability

Area Available for Rice Cultivation

Table 9 provides statistics of the average available area for rice cultivation and cultivated rice area per farmer, by region. The average available area for rice cultivation is 12.3ha and the average cultivated rice area per farmer is 2.0ha. In general, the average cultivated area per farmer is much higher for rice producers in the North West and South regions. The average rented land for cultivation is 0.7ha and there was no reported land borrowed for cultivation from the sample.

Table 9: Average Available Area for Rice Cultivation and Cultivated Rice Area per Farmer

Region	AVAILABLE aREA (hA)	Cultivated AREAA (ha)	rent & cultivate (ha)	borrow & cultivate
EAST	7	1.7	0.4	0
N0RTH	12	1.4	0.8	0
NORTH WEST	16	2.6	1.2	0
SOUTH	14	2.2	0.6	0
TOTAL	12.3	2.0	0.75	0

External Workforce Needs

Most of the farming households cultivating a hectare and above solicit external labour. In table 10, the average external labour needed is 10.1 persons for each period (farming activities). More external labour are utilized in North West and South regions because more rice area is cultivated in these regions compared to the other regions based on the baseline survey conducted. The most prominent farming activities that external labour are required for are, soil preparation, sowing, harvesting, threshing and bagging, these activities are labour intensive and therefore need more hands.

Table 10: Average External Workforce of Household and Periods

Region	workforce	period
EAST	9.1	Soil preparation Sowing Harvesting Threshing and Bagging
N0RTH	8.7
NORTH WEST	12.2
SOUTH	10.3
TOTAL	10.1

Collaboration and Training

Member of Organization

All of the farmers interviewed have at least membership in one or more organization whether agricultural or non-agricultural (table 11a). In table 11b majority of the farmers are engaged in community farmers’ organization and in cooperative or union. Farmers groups in community provides labour support to it members thereby ease the labour pressure on individual farmers. It sometimes encourages farmers to maintain or expand on production area.

Table 11a: Head of Household as Member of Organization

region	member of organization
region	yes	NO
EAST	18	0
N0RTH	12	0
NORTH WEST	12	0
SOUTH	18	0
TOTAL	60	0

Table 11b: Number of Household Head with Membership in Organization in order of Importance

organization	NUMBER OF RESPONDENT
Farmers’ Organization	57
Cooperative or Union	34
NGO	12
Others	9

Organizations in Relationship with Farmers

Table 12 gives an insight into the relationships farmers have established with organizations in agriculture over the years. Based on the results, more farmers have been or are in relationship with politics/ministry (55 farmers), traders (50 farmers), extension (47 farmers), and research (32 farmers). The most relationship types, average duration, whether farmers are satisfied with the relationship or not and the collaboration intensity are indicated in table 12.

Table 12: Organizations in Relationship with Farmers (Past and Present)

organization	YES	NO	MOST RELATIONSHIP TYPES	AVERAGE DURATION (in years)	MIN	MAX	SATISFACTION		COLLABORATION INTENSITY
organization	YES	NO	MOST RELATIONSHIP TYPES	AVERAGE DURATION (in years)	MIN	MAX	YES	NO	VERY HIGH	MEDIUM	WEAK
RESEARCH	32	28	Technical supervision, Training, Climate-resilient practices	3.2	1	8	23	9	2	19	11
EXTENSION	47	13	Technical supervision, Training	4.8	1	10	31	16	10	20	17
NGO	21	39	Training, Provision of materials,	1.5	1	2	14	7	13	6	2
POLITICS/MINISTRY	55	5	Technical supervision, Training, Input subsidy, Provision of materials	4.2	2	7	25	30	15	22	18
FUNDING AGENCY	15	45	Consultation and planning framework, Training, Input subsidy, Climate-resilient practices	1.6	1	2	13	2	7	6	2
TRANSPORT (CARRIER)	0	60	–	–	–	–	–	–	–	–	–
INPUT SUPPLIERS	3	57	Sales of inputs by the institution	1	1	1	2	1	0	3	0
COMMUNICATORS	0	60	–	–	–	–	–	–	–	–	–
EQUIPMENT MANUFACTURERS	0	60	–	–	–	–	–	–	–	–	–
TRADERS	50	10	Sales of inputs by the institution, Purchase of inputs by the institution	3.3	1	6	28	22	14	32	4
SERVICE PROVIDERS	29	31	Others- purchase of local tools	1.8	1	3	14	15	6	18	5
Total	252	408		2.675	1	10	150	102	67	126	59