| Summary: | 碩士 === 國立屏東科技大學 === 熱帶農業暨國際合作研究所 === 91 === As a small island developing states in the Caribbean, Grenada has her own particular human ecology and natural environmental resources differed from other larger developing countries in the region. However, it was evident that due to uneven income distribution, rural poverty issues are more severe in the small states. Timely, International Cooperation Development Fund （ICDF）brought “The Small Farmholders’ Financing Scheme” around the world to increase agro-production and farmers’ income, promote quality of farmers’ life, and alleviate rural poverty.
Grenada was the only country in the Caribbean area that had attempted “The Small Farmholders’ Financing Scheme”. This program combined the joint efforts of the Grenada Agriculture Ministry, Grenada Industry Development Company (GIDC) and Taiwan Mission (R.O.C. Technical Mission). There were two types of loans, working capital loan and equipment purchase loan. Small farmers engaged in horticulture and floriculture practices were eligible for both of the loans. The loan program was started in May of 1999, and has been appraised for its administrative efficiency. After the repayment period, it maintained the repayment rate at 80%. This result was not as successful as a similar program in Honduras but better than the others. Studying the basic data of farmers who joined the program, it became clear that assets, economic situation, education and social position were not as significant to guarantee repayment rate as the intention of repayment. Attitude and method, language ability and technical specialization were three of the most important skills of extension services.
Performance evaluation of the effect of the projects usually depended on the objective of the project, as well as whether it was efficiently carried out. From these perspectives, this study used two major indicators to evaluate the project performance, i.e., the repayment rate and social indicators. Repayment rate was a simple and immediate measurement for the performance of a loan program, but was not necessarily considered carefully where the repayment came from. But social indicators were more detailed and had to be adopted to local situations. For example, poverty line (minimum food requirement for existence or survival), capacity building, kitchen and toilet location, infant mortality, illiteracy rate, and unemployment rate, could be used as indicators for evaluating the loan effect. Thoroughly investigated data would be needed prior to conducting an unbiased assessment of the effect of a loan program for which its goal had been reached.
|
|---|
