|
Objectives
The
project aimed to increase pig, poultry and goat production within
the smallholder rural sector, thereby increasing the supply of livestock
products, creating additional rural employment, increasing farm
family incomes and reducing dependence on imported livestock products.
Activities
- Establishment of a pig multiplication centre to breed pigs for distribution
to smallholders.
- Expansion of the existing poultry multiplication centre at Alafua
to supply chickens to village egg-production units, which were to be
established under the Government's Rural Development Project.
- Importation and distribution of goats for breeding and fattening on
smallholder farms.
Establishment of livestock marketing facilities.
- Strengthening of government livestock-support facilities
In November 1989 the project was reviewed and reformulated.
As a consequence, the goat component was abandoned, and new activities
were included. Small-scale cattle-fattening units were to be introduced,
together with smaller pig and poultry units, involving smaller loans that
were more appropriate to IFAD's target group.
OutcomeAlthough the project succeeded in providing all the facilities
that it set out to make available, these facilities were found to be incompatible
with the changing environment and the existing cultural norms in Samoa.
As a result, project sustainability was deeply compromised.
Access
to inputs and infrastructure
| Planned
|
|
Achieved
|
| To increase the production
capacity of the government-owned feed mill (Samoa Feed Limited)
by the provision of two silos, grain dryers and automatic weighing
and mixing equipment.
To establish two market centres at Upolo and Savai'i
to facilitate the marketing of goats and pigs.
To provide a clinic and laboratory. |
|
All equipment was provided
and installed by the third year of the project, with the exception
of one silo, which was imported but never installed.
The two market centres were established and were used
a few times for pig auctions. However, they soon closed due to a
lack of pigs and of buyers.
A clinic was established on Savai'i. However, the
facilities were eventually unused, due to difficulties in attracting
veterinary officers because of the lack of staff incentives. |
Organizations
and people
| Prior to the
project, responsibility for the delivery of livestock and animal
health services was with the Livestock Division of the Department
of Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries (DAFF), which was characterized
by shortages of technical and field extension staff. |
| Planned
|
|
Achieved
|
| To recruit project management
staff drawn from the Livestock Division of DAFF and to provide technical
assistance and support.
To provide training to project staff and project farmers.
To provide transport facilities. |
|
A project manager and
a project administrator were appointed in 1984, but only four of
the seven field assistant posts had been filled by 1987. The project
was dogged throughout by recruitment problems, attributed to government
recruitment freezes due to budgetary constraints. International
volunteers assisted with management and agricultural extension,
and an expatriate project advisor was hired for two years and managed
effectively to train the project manager who took over from him.
Training was provided to project staff.
Eight vehicles and seven motorcycles were provided.
After reformulation, four replacement vehicles were provided for
DAFF, one for the rural women's unit and two vehicles and four motorcycles
for the Development Bank of Western Samoa (DBWS). |
Herd improvement
| Pigs, poultry
and, more recently, cattle constitute an important part of the traditional
rural social system. However, at project appraisal, a number of
barriers to the development of the livestock subsector were identified,
including poor husbandry, the availability of cheap import substitutes,
shortages of breeding stock and the inadequate development of cash
markets, resulting in farmer reluctance to invest in improvements
in productivity. |
| Planned
|
|
Achieved
|
| To construct and renovate
multiplication centres to breed pigs and poultry for distribution
among smallholder farmers.
To support the establishment by smallholders of 155
pig breeding units (changed to 30 modified units after reformulation)
and of 60 poultry breeding units, each with 200-500 pellets (reduced
to 50 laying birds per unit after reformulation).
To import and distribute goats for breeding and fattening
and establish 108 goat units.
To establish cattle-fattening units, each consisting
of six weaner steers. (This activity was initiated only after reformulation.)
To make credit facilities administered by the DBWS
available to project farmers for pig and goat units and also for
15 poultry units after reformulation. |
|
The construction and renovation
of pig and poultry multiplication centres was achieved.
The project imported improved breeds of pigs (Large
White, Durac Cross, Local Cross, Land Cross and Hampshire), but
established only 46 breeding units before reformulation. Afterwards,
27 modified pig units were also established. Fifteen poultry units
were added to the 24 that had already been created under the Rural
Development Project, and three more modified units were set up after
reformulation.
The imported goats numbered 372, including feral goats
from New Zealand and commercially reared goats from Fiji. By 1987,
60 goat units had been established. However, there was little market
for goat meat, and a social stigma was attached to farmers who reared
goats.
Thirty-five cattle-fattening units were established.
This component was relatively popular, since cattle ownership is
regarded as a basis of power and prestige in Samoa. However, its
sustainability was threatened by the failure of the Western Samoa
Trust Estates Corporation to continue to supply the steers, due
to organizational problems.
The DBWS approved a total of 270 loans during the
project period. However, 80% of these loans were in arrears by April
1992, largely due to the high transaction costs for small loans
and the lack of economic and financial analysis of the investment
policy. |
Lessons learned
- Over-reliance on the public sector can cause problems of unreliability
and inefficiency and staff, resource and skills shortages. As an alternative,
private-sector involvement should be encouraged.
- The mere provision of physical facilities does not necessarily guarantee
project success.
- Since marketing is an essential part of any livestock production enterprise,
market surveys should be conducted before livestock projects are designed
and implemented.
- The cultural beliefs, norms and practices of project beneficiaries
have an important effect on project implementation and should be taken
into account before project formulation.
- For any project to be sustainable, the adequate availability of inputs
at reasonable prices must be guaranteed prior to and during project
implementation. Project design should therefore take into account issues
such as possible changes in government policy.
|
| Project information |
|
Total cost: USD 2.47 million Livestock cost (as a
percentage of total): 96% Duration: The project was approved on 9 September
1981, began in June 1982 and was expected to end in December 1987. However,
due to implementation problems, closure was extended to December 1988.
In November 1989, the project objectives were reformulated, and the
project was finally closed on 31 December 1990.
Beneficiaries: Initially,
the project targeted all smallholder farmers, defined as villagers
outside urban areas. After project reformulation, the emphasis was
placed on women's associations and on 81 disadvantaged villages
(44 on Upolo, Apolima and Manono and 37 on Savai'i). Disadvantaged
villages were identified by location, infrastructure constraints,
low exposure to commercial agriculture and limited earning potential.
|
| References |
Project Proposal Report, Asian Development Bank, July 1981.
Report and Recommendation of the President to the Executive
Board, September 1981.
IFAD Mid-Term Evaluation Report, February 1987.
IFAD Completion Evaluation Report, June 1992.
Preparation Report, Australian Agricultural Consulting and
Management Company, PTY Ltd, 1980. |
|
|