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.
B.
C.
D.
E.
Data Collection Tools

Sampling Methodology
Team Composition and Training
Data Entry and Analysis
Limitations
6. Detailed Findings
A.
B.
C.
D.
E.
Food Consumption
Livelihoods
Food Access
Food Availability
Difference between HANDS and non-HANDS Communities
7. Conclusions
8. Summary of Recommendations
LIST OF ACRONYMS
ACF
ANOVA
CDC
EVD
FAO
FGD
FEWS NET
HANDS
KII
M&E
NGO
OICI
PPS
PTA
RRA
UNDP
UNICEF
USAID
WFP
Action Contra La Faim

Analysis of Variance
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention
Ebola Virus Disease
Food and Agriculture Organization
Focus Group Discussion
Famine Early Warning System
Health, Agriculture, Nutrition and Development for Sustainability
Key Informant Interview
Monitoring and Evaluation
Non-Governmental Organization
Opportunities Industrialization Centers International
Probability Proportionate to Size
Parent Teacher Association
Rapid Rural Assessment
United Nations Development Program
United Nations Childrens Fund
United States Agency for International Development
World Food Program
I.EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
In June 2010, USAID Office of Food for Peace
awarded OIC International a five-year Title II MultiYear 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.
II. SUMMARY
of Key Findings
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.
LIVELIHOOD
There 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.
FOOD ACCESS
Food 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. INTRODUCTION
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. 1
EVD IN GRAND GEDEH AND RIVER GEE
While 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.
uninterrupted 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.

MAP OF GRAND GEDEH AND RIVER GEE COUNTIES, IN YELLOW
IV. OBJECTIVES
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.
I.EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Team 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
A. DATA COLLECTION
Tools
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 REVIEW
An 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 SURVEYS
A 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-
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 DISCUSSIONS
Moderator-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 INTERVIEWS

Semi-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.
B. TEAM COMPOSITION
and Training
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
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 ENTRY
and 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. LIMITATIONS
Conducting 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
VI. DETAILED FINDINGS

All methodology tools were designed to use a sixmonth 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 inkind 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
from 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. CONCLUSIONS
Data 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. 2 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,
2. The kuu farming system is an informal cooperative labor agreement in
which rural farmers plant, harvest, and help work one anothers fields.
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.
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 INSECURITY
The 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 INSECURITY
The 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 & GROUPS
Data 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 marketbased 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. SUMMARY
of 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 VOUCHER
There 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 VOUCHER
The 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 WORK
Food 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 METHODOLOGY

The 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 multistage 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:

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 singlemethod 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.

ANNEX 2: SIX-MONTH COMPARISON OF HOUSEHOLD DEBT & INCOME, AS OF MARCH 2015
DEBT
17%
More debt Now

Less debt Now
Same as 6 months ago
INCOME
55%
28%
9% 6%
More income Now

Less income Now
Same as 6 months ago
85%

ANNEX 3: STATE OF HOUSEHOLD FOOD STOCKS

ANNEX 4: FOOD ACCESS & AVAILABILITY
YES / NO

ANNEX 5: COPING STRATEGIES

ANNEX 6: SAMPLING FRAMEWORK

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

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

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

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

FOOD SECURITY AND LIVELIHOOD ASSESSMENT