ATTENTION:
BEFORE YOU READ THE ABSTRACT OR CHAPTER ONE OF THE PROJECT TOPICS BELOW, PLEASE READ THE INFORMATION BELOW.THANK YOU!
INFORMATION:
YOU CAN GET THE COMPLETE PROJECT OF THE TOPIC BELOW. THE FULL PROJECT COST N5,000 ONLY. THE FULL INFORMATION ON HOW TO PAY AND GET THE COMPLETE PROJECT IS AT THE BOTTOM OF THIS PAGE. OR
YOU CAN CALL: 08068231953, 08168759420
WHATSAPP US ON: 08168759420
TRENDS IN THE ACTIVITIES OF THE MINISTRY OF AGRICULTURE AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT ANAMBRA STATE, NIGERIA, 1991-2013
ABSTRACT
This study evaluated the impact of the extension services of Green River Project (GRP) on fish farmers in Niger Delta, Nigeria. Specifically, it sought to ascertain fishery technologies received by GRP fish farmers; determine adoption of fish farming technologies by fish farmers; determine impact of extension services of GRP on socioeconomic condition of the fish farmers as at the year 2012; ascertain farmers’ perceived constraints to adoption of GRP fish farming technologies; ascertain constraints to effective performance of extension services of GRP and determine perceived strategies to improve effectiveness of the extension services of GRP. The study was carried out in Niger Delta, Nigeria. Multi-stage sampling technique was used to select 120 fish farmers and 20 GRP personnel. Data were collected through the use of questionnaire and interview schedule. Descriptive statistics (frequency, mean statistic, percentage) were used to present data while t-test, regression, chi-square and factor analysis with varimax rotation were used to analyze the data. Mean age of GRP fish farmers and personnel were 50 and 41.70 years, respectively. Majority (76.7% of fish farmers and 65% of GRP personnel) of respondents were male. Also majority (77.5%) of the fish farmers and all (100%) the GRP personnel were married. The respondents were literates. Majority (70.0) of the fish farmers also engaged in other income generating activities. Average household size of the fish farmers and GRP personnel were 6.0 and 4.0 persons, respectively. Average years of participation in GRP for the fish farmers was 8.00 years while the mean years of working with GRP of the personnel was 12.65years. The farmers’ average number of contact with GRP was 4.0 times per month. GRP personnel used different types of teaching methods such as the use of contact group (100%), T&V system (90%) and SPAT (85.0%). Majority (86.7%) of the fish farmers belonged to social organisations. Majority of respondents received most of the technologies disseminated. Adoption index of fish farm management technologies, feeding techniques, fish culture management technique, water quantity and quality management techniques and liming techniques were 0.79, 0.77, 0.77, 0.88 and 0.52 respectively. Extension services of GRP had impact on quantity of fingerlings stocked (t=6.398; p≤ 0.05) and quantity of fishes harvested (t=6.279; p≤ 0.05); income from fishes produced (t=7.390; p≤ 0.05) among others. Constraints to adoption of GRP technologies were grouped into technology dissemination constraints; project implementation and sustainability constraints among others. Some socioeconomic characteristics of the respondents (age (years), years spent in formal education and years of participation in GRP) influenced the adoption of the fish farming technologies. Therefore, the null hypothesis was rejected for these variables. There was significant difference between the average quantities of fish stocked and average quantity of fish harvested by the fish farmers in Imo and Rivers States after participation in GRP hence the null hypothesis was rejected. The null hypothesis was rejected while the alternative hypothesis was accepted. It further revealed that there was no significant difference between the average income earned by the fish farmers in Imo and Rivers States after participation in GRP and the null hypothesis was accepted. Implementation constraints to effective performance of extension services of GRP according to GRP personnel included: climatic uncertainties and flooding (M= 1.55) and delay in input supply (M=1.20). It was recommended that there is need to increase youth involvement in the project (90.0%), increase farmers’ participation in decision making (90.0%) and increase the number of trained extension personnel (85.0%).
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Title page i
Certification ii
Dedication iii
Acknowledgement iv
Abstract v
Table of contents vi
List of Tables vii
List of Figures ix
List of Pictures x
CHAPTER ONE: INTRODUCTION
Background information 1
Problem statement 4
Purpose of the study 7
Hypotheses of the study 7
Significance of the study 7
CHAPTER TWO: LITERATURE REVIEW
2.1. Concept of agricultural projects 9
2.2. Overview of fishery projects in Nigeria 11
2.3. Improved fish farming activities and technologies 13
2.4. Overview of agricultural extension services in Nigeria 19
2.5. The Green River Project 25
2.6. Concept of adoption of innovations 28
2.7. Concept of evaluation 35
2.8. Theories/models of evaluation 40
2.9. Conceptual framework 53
CHAPTER THREE: METHODOLOGY
3.1 Study area 54
3.2 Population and sampling procedure 59
3.3 Instrument for data collection 60
3.4 Measurement of variables 61
3.5 Data Analysis 63
CHAPTER FOUR: RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
4.1 Socio-economic characteristics of GRP fish farmers and GRP personnel 65
4.2: Fish farming technologies received by the GRP fish farmers 76
4.3: Adoption of GRP fish farming technologies by fish farmers 80
4.4 Impact of extension services of GRP on socioeconomic condition of the fish farmers 85
4.5 Constraints to adoption of fish farming technologies disseminated by GRP 97
4.6 Implementation constraints to effective performance of extension services of GRP 100
4.7: Perceived strategies to enhancing the effectiveness of the extension services 102
4.8 Testing of Hypothesis (Socio-economic characteristics of farmers influencing adoption of fish farming technologies) 104
4.9 Testing of differences in socioeconomic conditions of GRP fish farmers in Rivers and Imo States 108
CHAPTER FIVE: Summary, Conclusion and Recommendation
5.1 Summary 110
5.2 Conclusion 112
5.3 Recommendation 114
REFERENCES 115
APPENDIX 124
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1: Comparison of cost and nutritional values of different sources of animal protein per 100 g serving 13
Table 2: Sampling frame 60
Table 3: Percentage distribution of respondents according to socioeconomic characteristics 73
Table 4: Method of extension teaching used by GRP personnel 75
Table 5: Percentage distribution of respondents according to fish farming technologies benefitted from GRP 79
Table 6: Distribution of farmers according to their adoption of improved fish farming technologies 84
Table 7: Distribution of respondents according to impact of extension services of GRP on socioeconomic conditions 90
Table 8: Distribution of respondents according to impact of extension services of GRP 96
Table 9: Constraints to adoption of GRP fish farming technologies by fish farmers 100
Table 10: Distribution of respondents according to implementation constraints to effective performance of the extension services of GRP 102
Table 11: Percentage distribution of respondents according to their perceived strategies to enhancing the effectiveness of the extension services 104
Table 12: Socio-economic characteristics of GRP fish farmers influencing adoption of GRP fish farming technologies 107
Table 13: Comparison of socio-economic conditions of Imo and Rivers State GRP fish farmers 109
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1: Organogram of Green River Project 28
Figure 2: A model of five stages in the innovation-decision process 30
Figure 3: Sigmoid pattern of diffusion 31
Figure 4: Snyder evaluation model 42
Figure 5: Advanced technology program evaluation logic model 44
Figure 6: Kirkpatrick-Phillips learning evaluation model 46
Figure 7: Progamme action logic model 49
Figure 8: Schema showing the impact of extension services of GRP on fish farmers in Niger Delta, Nigeria 53
Figure 9: Map of Niger delta, Nigeria showing the study area 56
Figure 10: Map of Rivers State showing the study area 57
Figure 11: Map of Imo State showing the study area 58
Figure 12: Extension contact of GRP fish farmers 74
Figure 13: Impact of extension service of GRP on proportion of income saved by respondents before and after participation in GRP 97
LIST OF PICTURES
Picture 1: A farmer in Obrikom, Rivers State displaying fish spunning and/or hatchery ponds 90
Picture 2: A farmer in Omoku, Rivers State showing size of fish harvested 91
CHAPTER ONE
INTRODUCTION
1. Background information
The development of state ministry of agriculture in Nigeria changed in political structure after independence. The three regions structure in 1960 gave way to four regions in 1963 and this equally gave way to states creation from 1967 up to 1996 (Ayoola, 2010). The roles of the ministry of agriculture include the following: – Organizing of short duration seminars and workshops to farmers. Providing farmers credit, subsidies and other incentives to boost total output in the various special programmes undertaken by the state government, Agricultural Development Programme (ADP), International Fund for Agricultural Development (IFAD), World Bank, Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) and other support programmes. Conduct market surveys to determine current prices of agricultural inputs and products. Carry out the technical implementation of all agricultural loan schemes. Pest control services. Overseeing the activities of all agriculture related Parastatals and Companies (www.riverstate.gov.ng).
Agriculture in Nigeria has witnessed drastic changes in government programmes ranging from administration, funding, manpower and learning skills, and infrastructural facilities to creation of research institutes (Madukwe, 2008). The first post colonial development era of 1962-1968 period emphasized the introduction of more modern agricultural methods through farm settlements, co-operative plantations, supply of improved farm implements and a greatly expanded agricultural extension service. Some specialized development schemes initiated during this period include: the National Accelerated Food Production Programme (NAFPP), 1972; The World Bank-funded Agricultural Development Projects (ADP) 1975; River Basin and Rural Development Authorities (RBDA) 1976; Operation Feed the Nation, 1976; and Green Revolution Programme, 1980; among others (Jibowo & Ajayi, 2011).
Agricultural Development Programme (ADP) was a bilateral agreement between the World Bank and the Federal Government of Nigeria in 1975. ADP idea is an offshoot of the concept of integrated agricultural and rural development (Jibowo, 2005). The objective is to improve the levels of living and welfare of farmers. It started as an enclave in some states to a multi-stage ADP. The ADP is the implementation organ of the state ministries of agriculture and natural resources (Jibowo and Ajayi, 2011). ADP programmes consist of adaptive research, extension transfer, input supply and rural infrastructure.
Operation feed the Nation (OFN) (1975) was designed to mobilize the general public into participating in agricultural production using mass and individual extension methods (Iwuchukwu and Igbokwe, 2012). Some of these strategies included subsidized production inputs, increased bank credit to farmers, establishment of commodity boards and fixing of attractive prices for agricultural produce (Daneji, 2011). Its main aim was to greatly reduce the cost of living particularly in the urban areas with everybody being able to wholly or partly feed himself (Adebayo and Okuneye, 2011).
River Basin and Rural Development Authorities (RBDA) was launched in 1976. Primarily, the schemes were to harness the country’s water resources by providing employment opportunities through intensified crop, livestock and fisheries production with the hope of improving the standard of living of the rural population (Williams, 1981). Their functions were to facilitate land development and ensure efficient water resource management. Even though the project has succeeded several regimes, irrigated land in Nigeria stood at 0.7% (Adebayo and Okuneye, 2011)
The Directorate of Foods, Road and Rural Infrastructure (DFRRI) was established in 1987 with a mandate to open the rural areas through the construction of access roads, and provision of basic amenities of modern living but due to the following reasons, the programme was not sustainable: The programme was inevitable because it has long been realized according to Otubanjo (1992) that the economic future of Nigeria depends on the development of rural areas. Therefore, the potentials of rural areas were seen to be both immediate and long term (Daneji, 2011). The idea of opening up of rural areas with feeder roads and integrating it with other parts of the country provided basis for food that could be evacuated to enhance the quantity of food and raw materials consumption. During the period of 1980-1988, 30,000km roads were constructed from the targeted 60,000km estimated by DFFRI. The poor quality of infrastructures provided by the directorate probably due to mismanagement of fund made the impact of the programme almost insignificant. However, the directorate had been criticized in the past for lack of proper focus and programme accountability (Idachaba, 1988).
National Poverty Eradication Programme (NAPEP) (1999) mode of operation is tailored towards (subsidized) credit to farmers. The programme consists of four schemes namely, youth empowerment scheme which involves capacity acquisition, mandatory attachment, and credit delivery; Rural infrastructures development scheme which involves the provision of portable water, rural electrification, transportation and communication development; Social welfare Services Scheme which is involved with qualitative education, primary health care, farmers empowerment and provision of social services, provision of agricultural input and credit delivery to rural farmers; and Natural Resources Development and Conservation Scheme which contains programmes for environmental protection through conservation of land and space, development of agricultural resources, solid minerals and waters resources.
National Fadama Development programme (1999) is aimed at increasing income of beneficiaries by at least 20%. It is a major instrument for achieving the government’s poverty reduction objective in rural areas of Nigeria. The programme empowers the association with resources, training, and technical assistance support to properly manage and control the resources for their own development.
Apart from those initiated by federal government and implemented in the state, they were some programmes and projects initiated by Anambra state government which include; Grain Production Agency 1991; Poverty Alleviation Programme 2002; Volunteer Service Agency (VSA) 1991; Anambra State Tractor Hiring Company (ASTRAC) 1991; Small Holder Management Unit 1991; State Agricultural Credit Scheme (SACS) 1991; State Loan Implementation Committee (SIC) 2006; National Programme for Food Security (NPFS) 2007. However, the scope of activities in various programmes mentioned among others, are similarly implemented in areas of policies, funding, manpower training, recruitment and that forms the essence of the problem of this research.
HOW TO RECEIVE PROJECT MATERICAL(S)
After paying the appropriate amount (#5,000) into our bank Account below, send the following information to
08068231953 or 08168759420
(1) Your project topics
(2) Email Address
(3) Payment Name
(4) Teller Number
We will send your material(s) after we receive bank alert
BANK ACCOUNTS
Account Name: AMUTAH DANIEL CHUKWUDI
Account Number: 0046579864
Bank: GTBank.
OR
Account Name: AMUTAH DANIEL CHUKWUDI
Account Number: 3139283609
Bank: FIRST BANK
FOR MORE INFORMATION, CALL:
08068231953 or 08168759420
http://graduateprojects.com.ng/