4.1 Demographic characteristics of the Respondents
Table 1, shows the respondents’ characteristics. Averagely, each of the participants was aged 49 years; 33% were below 45 years, 35% were aged 45 to 54 years, 25% were aged 55 to 64 years, while not more than 8% are aged 65 years and above. Most of the respondents (71%) had just the primary school education, 16% had a secondary school education, 12% had no form of education at all, while only one respondent indicated having a higher education. The study also revealed that the majority of the respondents are male with 66% and 34% are female. The respondents disclosed that (88%) have male persons as their head of households with 12% indicating they had a female person heading their households. Averagely, the household size observed from the entire respondents has about six persons per household; also, revealed was that each household had about 3 females and 3 males averagely. A very large proportion of the respondents (72%) had at least five persons in their household, 24% had a household size of three to four persons, 4% had a household size of not more than two persons.
Table 1: Demographic Characteristics information.
Frequency
|
Percentage
|
Age []
|
Below 45 years
|
94
|
32.9
|
45 – 54 years
|
99
|
34.6
|
55 – 64 years
|
70
|
24.5
|
65 years & above
|
23
|
8.0
|
Level of Education
|
Non-formal
|
35
|
12.2
|
Primary school
|
203
|
71.0
|
Secondary school
|
47
|
16.4
|
HND/University degree
|
1
|
0.4
|
Gender
|
Male
|
189
|
66.1
|
Female
|
97
|
33.9
|
Head of Household
|
Male
|
251
|
87.8
|
Female
|
35
|
12.2
|
Total Household Size []
|
1 – 2
|
11
|
3.8
|
3 – 4
|
69
|
24.1
|
5 or more
|
206
|
72.0
|
Source: Data generated by the authors from a field survey (n = 286)
4.2 Cocoon production among smallholder sericulture farmers
In Table 2, this show before and during the intervention of the PRICE project. 70% of the respondents had a self-owned farm, 18% inherited mulberry farmlands, 2% indicated they owned rented mulberry farmlands, 8% reported having jointly owned mulberry farmlands and 2% acquired their farmlands by other forms before joining the PRICE project. 73% reported self-ownership of the mulberry farmlands during PRICE, 16% still used inherited farmlands, while 2% claimed they still used rented farmlands during PRICE, while 7% reported jointly owned farmlands and 3% reported that they got their mulberry farmlands by other forms during PRICE. This study also revealed that 44% of the respondents claimed farm ownership affected their cocoon production before PRICE intervention while 40% indicated their farm ownership currently has an effect on cocoon production during PRICE.
Table 2: Number of Farmers in Cocoon production before and during PRICE
Before PRICE
|
Frequency Percentage
(n = 286)
|
During PRICE
Frequency Percentage
(n = 286)
|
Farm ownership
|
Farm ownership
|
Self-owned
|
199 69.7
|
208 72.7
|
Inheritance
|
51 17.8
|
45 15.7
|
Rent
|
7 2.4
|
5 1.7
|
Jointly owned
|
22 7.7
|
20 7.0
|
Other forms
|
7 2.4
|
8 2.8
|
Effect of farm ownership on cocoon production
|
Effect of farm ownership on cocoon production
|
Yes
|
125 43.7
|
114 39.9
|
No
|
161 56.3
|
172 60.1
|
Member of Farmer’s Cooperative
|
Member of Farmer’s Cooperative
|
Yes
|
139 48.6
|
164 57.3
|
No
|
147 51.4
|
122 42.7
|
Member of savings and loan group
|
Member of savings and loan group
|
Yes
|
215 75.2
|
238 83.2
|
No
|
71 24.8
|
48 16.8
|
Accessing finance assistance from savings and loan group
|
Accessing finance assistance from savings and loan group
|
Yes
|
112 39.2
|
118 41.3
|
No
|
174 60.8
|
168 58.7
|
Access to market
|
Access to market
|
Yes
|
177 61.9
|
221 77.3
|
No
|
109 38.1
|
65 22.7
|
Source: Data generated by the authors from a field survey (n = 286)
4.3 Effect of cocoon production on the livelihood of smallholder sericulture producers
This study found that the level of cocoon production of the farmers during PRICE was distributed by various background characteristics, with a view to understanding if production differs across categories of some variables. The result showed that the cocoon production level of the farmers did not significantly vary across age group, household size, gender, cultivating other agricultural commodities, farm ownership, and awareness of an organized market for silk (Table 3). Conversely, production level differed by land acquirement status of the farmers; farmers who planted mulberry on a leased land had the highest production of the cocoon (391kg per year), while those who planted mulberry on purchased land had a cocoon production of about 164kg per year, and those with inherited land produced the least cocoon (114kg per year). Moreover, it was discovered from the result that the level of education and the number of years of experience in mulberry plantation contributes to huge cocoon production; farmers with secondary school education had cocoon production of (223kg per year), for farmers with primary school education realized cocoon production of (181kg per year), while those with Non-Formal education had cocoon production of (126kg per year). Whereas, farmers with 11-20 years of experience in mulberry plantation produced (196kg per year), and those with 1-10 years of experience produced cocoon of (156kg per year).
Furthermore, Table 4 shows the income level from cocoon production was dispersed across various background factors to determine if the income level varies by categories of any of the factors. Results from the analysis revealed that the income level of the farmers was significantly different by the level of education, age, household size, gender, cultivating other agricultural commodities, years of experience, land acquirement, farm ownership, awareness of an organized market for silk exportation and access to market during PRICE. Notable from the result was that sericulture farmers with no formal education had the highest annual income $360.75 (USD) per year, farmers with secondary education averaged an annual income level of $327.52 (USD), while those with primary education had the least income with $177.17 (USD) per year. It was also observed from the result that farm ownership is keen because sericulture farmers with self-owned mulberry farmlands averagely receive an income of $247.77 (USD) annually; sericulture farmers with inherited mulberry farmlands received an average of $189.10 (USD) per year; those farmers with rented mulberry farmlands incurred an average of $177.77 (USD) per annum; while jointly owned mulberry farmlands farmers had an average income of $135.83 (USD) annually, and sericulture farmers that indicated that they got their farmlands from other means made an average of $201.60 (USD) per year. Besides, age also plays a key role because the result proves that sericulture farmers between the ages of 45-54 years earned an average income of $265.52 (USD) annually; as for the sericulture farmers of 65 years & above received an average income of $169.61 (USD).
Table 3: Distribution of production level before and during PRICE by background.
Before PRICE
|
During PRICE
|
Average Quantity
Produced (in kg)
|
p-
value
|
Average Quantity
Produced (in kg)
|
p-
value
|
Age
|
Below 45 years
|
73.4
|
0.372
|
124.4
|
0.290
|
45 – 54 years
|
76.4
|
195.9
|
55 – 64 years
|
81.0
|
239.2
|
65 years & above
|
72.0
|
135.5
|
Level of Education
|
Non-formal
|
75.8
|
0.582
|
126
|
0.555
|
Primary
|
75.5
|
180.5
|
Secondary
|
80.7
|
222.7
|
Total Household Size
|
1 – 2
|
97.4
|
0.007
|
152.8
|
0.783
|
3 – 4
|
69.6
|
208.2
|
77.2
|
171.2
|
Gender
|
Male
|
74.1
|
0.108
|
186.7
|
0.667
|
Female
|
80.2
|
165.0
|
Cultivate other commodities
|
Yes
|
75.9
|
0.455
|
177.1
|
0.701
|
No
|
81.6
|
217.5
|
Years of experience
|
1 – 10 years
|
66.7
|
< 0.001
|
156.1
|
0.411
|
11 – 20 years
|
82.7
|
195.9
|
Land acquirement
|
Inherited
|
82.7
|
0.257
|
114.1
|
0.007
|
Purchased
|
74.8
|
163.9
|
Lease
|
75.4
|
391.0
|
Farm ownership
|
Self-owned
|
75.7
|
0.893
|
195.6
|
0.756
|
Inheritance
|
80.6
|
108.4
|
Rent
|
69.6
|
102.0
|
Jointly owned
|
79.1
|
121.9
|
Others
|
75.0
|
130.0
|
Aware of an organized market for silk
|
Yes
|
76.1
|
0.637
|
179.9
|
0.840
|
No
|
82.5
|
143.8
|
Source: Data generated by the authors from a field survey (n = 286)
[1]*“p-value”
Table 4: Distribution of income during PRICE by background information.
Average Annual
Income $ (USD)
|
p-value
|
Age
|
Below 45 years
|
212.34
|
0.552
|
45 – 54 years
|
265.52
|
55 – 64 years
|
215.96
|
65 years & above
|
169.61
|
Level of Education
|
Non-formal
|
360.75
|
0.001
|
Primary
|
177.17
|
Secondary
|
327.52
|
Total Household Size
|
1 – 2
|
249.94
|
0.849
|
3 – 4
|
208.21
|
233.73
|
Gender
|
Male
|
244.74
|
0.258
|
Female
|
195.96
|
Cultivate other commodities
|
Yes
|
213.00
|
0.010
|
No
|
410.53
|
Years of experience
|
1 – 10 years
|
297.49
|
< 0.001
|
11 – 20 years
|
149.60
|
Land acquirement
|
Inherited
|
189.93
|
0.207
|
Purchased
|
252.49
|
Lease
|
154.16
|
Farm ownership
|
Self-owned
|
247.77
|
0.588
|
Inheritance
|
189.10
|
Rent
|
177.77
|
Jointly owned
|
135.83
|
Others
|
201.60
|
Aware of an organized market for silk
|
Yes
|
212.35
|
0.095
|
No
|
301..24
|
Access to market during PRICE
|
Yes
|
227.11
|
0.922
|
No
|
231.90
|
Source: Data generated by the authors from a field survey (n = 286)
[2] *“p-value”
Interestingly, the result established the findings that there is more awareness among the smallholder sericulture farmers regarding the organized market for silk exportation and therefore, the impact of the rural income project on silk exports and livelihood of smallholder producers has been extremely improved because this intervention project has generated more income for the sericulture farmers and has improved them socioeconomically. Hence, the PRICE intervention programme has been beneficial because there has been a turnaround in the lives of many sericulture farmers engaged in this project. After all, the impact has been felt on the livelihood status and social status of these farmers.
In Figure 3, the majority of the farmers confirmed their income level, production level, and quantity of silk exported have been on the improving side since they joined PRICE; most of them also indicated improvement in social services such as access to drinking water, access to electricity, access to school, access to healthcare services, means to communication and access to information while few affirmed that the state of electricity, access to drinking water and access to school worsened since they joined the PRICEintervention programme.
[1] * implies p-value for ANOVA for those variables with more than 2 categories (like the Age & Level of Education) t-test for those variables with just 2 categories (like Gender – which has Male & Female as options.
[2] * implies p-value for ANOVA for those variables with more than 2 categories (like the Age & Level of Education) t-test for those variables with just 2 categories (like Gender – which has Male & Female as options.
Generally, in Figure 4 it was evaluated that 70% of the farmers have had an improvement in their farming outputs and access to social services since they joined PRICE. 28% of the respondents remarked there was generally no change, with 2% who remarked the situation had worsened.
4.4 Sources of Financing to the Farmers
Finance has been identified as one of the main factors militating against the production and activities of smallholder farmers. Many of the farmers have limited access to finance. Before the PRICE intervention program, 49% of the farmers were cooperative members while 57% belonged to a cooperative group during PRICE. 75% of the respondents belong to a savings and loan group before PRICE and 83% were members of a savings and loan group during PRICE. 39% had financial assistance from a savings and loan group before PRICE while 41% had access to financial assistance duringPRICE. 62% had access to the market before PRICEintervention while 77% reported having access to the market since their engagement on the PRICE programme.
While access to credit increased during the PRICE period, this study reveals that 21% of the sericulture farmers received a loan in the previous year. Averagely, each of the loan beneficiaries received about $212.70 (USD); while some received not more than $10.64 (USD), others received as much as $1,063.52 (USD). Most of the recent loan beneficiaries stated they opted-in for monthly repayment (98%), only 1 of the recent loan beneficiaries claimed repayment weekly.
In Figure 5, it present that the respondents who received loans revealed that loan accessed before PRICE were commonly used for solving personal problems (27%), purchase a farm asset (17%), to enhance production generally (11%), to improve cocoon production (6%), to improve other farm activities (9%) and a similar evaluation of the purpose of loan accessed during PRICE revealed that most of the respondents had accepted loans to purchase a farm asset (3%), to enhance production generally (24%) and to improve their cocoon production (42%).
4.5 Impact of cocoon production on the livelihood of smallholder sericulture producers
This study further disclosed that the livelihood status of the sericulture farmers has been improving since joining the PRICE project which includes the household income, quantity and quality of cocoon production and silk exportation, household savings and access to financial institutions (credit, loan and savings societies). Access to improved social services such as drinking water, electricity, educational institutions (primary/secondary schools), health services, better means of transportation, market information and communication.
We further investigated if there is no significant difference in the proportion of beneficiaries indicating no change and improvement in income level during the rural income exports intervention program. Equally, no significant difference in the level of cocoon production before and during the rural income exports intervention programme. The results indicate that 77% affirmed an improvement in their income status, while 23% claimed they had not experienced a change in income since joining PRICE (Table 5). The production of cocoon for farmers per year was 80kg before PRICE but surged to 120kg during the PRICE intervention programme.
Table 5: Hypothesis.
|
No change
|
Improving
|
p-value
|
Level of Income
|
66 (23.1%)
|
220 (76.9%)
|
< 0.001
|
Production of Cocoon (kg)
|
80
|
120
|
Source: Data generated by the authors from a field survey (n = 286)
[1] *“p-value”
It is therefore imperative to know that cooperative society also plays a critical role in the improvement of productivity and income of smallholder farmers. Based on the result, the policy implications signify that the government of Rwanda needs to do more in the provision of access to affordable, sustainable and clean renewable energy, also in the area of improving good health and well-being, quality education, and clean water and sanitation.
4.6 Constraints to the PRICE programme
Results from this study further identified the various constraints faced by farmers. 43% of the farmers reported that they are still faced with little or no technical support. Other constraints identified include lack of good seedlings to ensure quality produce (30%), lack of adequate farm input (28%), lack of storage facility (22%), lack of information on training (21%), lack of funds to enhance production on a larger scale (13%), unavailability of lands to farm (10%), and a few others presented in Figure 6.
[1] * implies p-value for Chi-square variable for Level of Income