ATTENTION:
BEFORE YOU READ THE PROJECT TOPICS BELOW, PLEASE READ THE INFORMATION BELOW.THANK YOU!
NOTE:
WE WILL SEND YOU THE ABSTRACT, TABLE OF CONTENT AND CHAPTER ONE OF YOUR APPROVED TOPIC FOR FREE.
CHOOSE FROM THE LIST OF TOPICS BELOW. SEND YOUR EMAIL ADDRESS AND THE APPROVED PROJECT TOPIC TO ANY OF THESE NUMBERS-08068231953, 08168759420
WE WILL THEN SEND THE ABSTRACT, TABLE OF CONTENT AND CHAPTER ONE FOR FREE
NOTE ALSO:
WE CAN ALSO DEVELOP THE FULL PROJECT WORK
CALL: 08068231953, 08168759420
AGRONOMY PROJECT RESEARCH TOPICS AND MATERIALS
Agronomy
• Impact of Crop Rotation on Soil Fertility and Yield
• The Role of Organic Farming in Sustainable Crop Production
• Effect of Irrigation Practices on Crop Yield in Arid Regions
• Assessing the Effect of Fertilizer Application on Maize Growth
• The Role of Cover Crops in Erosion Control and Soil Health
• Influence of Plant Density on Soybean Yield and Quality
• The Effect of Mulching on Soil Moisture Retention and Crop Growth
• Impact of Conservation Tillage on Soil Structure and Crop Productivity
• Effects of Soil pH on Crop Growth and Yield
• Comparative Study of Conventional and No-Till Farming Practices
• The Role of Biofertilizers in Enhancing Soil Fertility
• Assessing the Influence of Different Organic Amendments on Crop Yield
• Evaluation of Water Use Efficiency in Rice Production Systems
• The Role of Agroforestry in Sustainable Crop Production
• Effect of Plant Growth Regulators on Seed Germination and Early Growth
• Influence of Crop Residue Management on Soil Carbon Content
• Investigating the Impact of Temperature on Germination Rates of Wheat
• Study of the Effect of Nitrogen Application on Rice Productivity
• Role of Integrated Pest Management in Sustainable Crop Production
• Effect of Different Irrigation Schedules on Cotton Yield
• The Role of Legumes in Enhancing Soil Nitrogen Content
• Evaluation of Weed Management Strategies in Maize Fields
• The Impact of Climate Change on Crop Growth and Yield
• The Effect of Fertilizer Micro-nutrients on Wheat Productivity
• Assessing the Effect of Companion Planting on Pest Control
• Evaluation of Drought Tolerance in Sorghum Cultivars
• The Impact of Soil Compaction on Root Development in Crops
• Influence of Light Intensity on Photosynthesis and Crop Growth
• The Role of Precision Agriculture in Enhancing Crop Productivity
• Effect of Different Organic Fertilizers on Tomato Growth and Yield
• Investigating the Effect of Intercropping on Crop Yield and Pest Control
• Soil Erosion and Its Impact on Agricultural Productivity
• The Role of Composting in Soil Fertility and Crop Production
• Evaluation of Different Mulching Materials on Soil Temperature
• The Effect of Soil Fertility on Wheat Growth and Yield
• Role of Sustainable Practices in Maintaining Soil Health
• Evaluation of the Effectiveness of Insect Traps in Managing Pests
• Influence of Soil Texture on Root Penetration and Crop Growth
• Study of Crop Water Requirements in Semi-Arid Regions
• The Effect of Greenhouse Gases on Crop Growth and Productivity
• Investigating the Effect of Biochar on Soil Nutrient Availability
• The Impact of Weed Competition on Maize Yield
• The Role of Microbial Inoculants in Soil Fertility Management
• The Influence of Irrigation Methods on Potato Yield
• Exploring the Role of Crop Diversification in Reducing Pest Infestation
• Effect of Planting Time on Rice and Wheat Yield
• Evaluating the Use of Crop Growth Modeling for Yield Prediction
• The Effect of Different Irrigation Techniques on Potato Productivity
• Investigating the Impact of Soil Microorganisms on Crop Health
• The Influence of Soil Fertility on Tomato Yield and Fruit Quality
• Crop Response to Different Tillage Practices in Semi-Arid Regions
• Evaluating the Impact of Fertilizer Application on Soybean Growth
• The Effect of Climate Variability on Wheat and Rice Productivity
• Investigating the Role of Root Development in Plant Resistance to Drought
• The Impact of Nitrogen Fixing Plants on Soil Nutrient Cycling
• Study of Crop Yield and Soil Health in Agroecological Zones
• Assessing the Effect of Plant Spacing on the Yield of Legumes
• Influence of Organic Mulches on Soil Moisture and Temperature Regulation
• Exploring the Benefits of Green Manure Crops for Soil Fertility
• Investigating the Effect of Nitrogen and Phosphorus Fertilization on Maize
• The Role of Mycorrhizal Fungi in Enhancing Soil Fertility
• The Effect of Irrigation Frequency on Tomato Yield
• Evaluating the Impact of Herbicides on Crop Growth and Soil Health
• Assessing the Efficiency of Various Irrigation Techniques in Rice Production
• Influence of Different Fertilizer Types on the Growth of Corn
• The Effect of Pre-Planting Soil Treatment on Crop Performance
• Investigating the Effects of Plant Stress on Soybean Yield and Quality
• The Role of Crop Rotation in Pest and Disease Management
• Impact of Precision Fertilizer Application on Crop Productivity
• The Role of Soil Erosion in Depleting Agricultural Land
• The Effect of Transgenic Crops on Pest Management
• Impact of Different Fertilization Strategies on Wheat Growth
• Studying the Effect of Phosphorus Fertilization on Legume Yield
• Exploring the Use of Hydrogels for Water Conservation in Agriculture
• Investigating the Effect of Nitrogen Application Timing on Crop Yield
• The Effect of Soil Temperature on Seed Germination and Growth
• The Role of Agriculture in Mitigating Climate Change
• The Impact of Soil Amendments on Crop Production in Sandy Soils
• The Influence of Soil Water Potential on Crop Root Development
• Investigating the Role of Fertilizer Efficiency in Sustainable Agriculture
• The Role of Intercropping in Soil Fertility Management
• Investigating the Role of Sustainable Practices in Improving Crop Yield
• Evaluating the Potential of Hydroponics for Sustainable Crop Production
• The Effect of Crop Residue Burning on Soil Health and Crop Productivity
• Evaluating the Use of Biodegradable Plastics in Mulching
• The Impact of Integrated Farming Systems on Agricultural Resource Management
• Exploring the Impact of Crop Growth Regulators on Vegetative Growth
• The Effect of Plant Hormones on Seed Germination and Early Development
• Impact of Plant-Soil Interaction on Crop Yield in Diverse Agro-Ecologies
• Study of Herbicide Resistance in Weeds and Its Impact on Crop Growth
• The Role of Agrochemicals in Maintaining Crop Health and Productivity
• Investigating the Impact of Greenhouses on Crop Yield and Resource Efficiency
• Exploring the Use of Smart Irrigation Systems for Water Conservation
• The Effect of Bioengineering on Crop Yield and Resistance to Disease
• The Role of Traditional Farming Techniques in Enhancing Soil Health
• Influence of Different Irrigation Methods on Cereal Crop Yield
• Investigating the Use of Seaweed Extracts in Improving Crop Performance
• The Effect of Soil Compaction on Crop Root Development and Yield
• The Role of Nitrogen in Improving Crop Growth and Productivity
• Study of the Impact of Climate Change on the Growth of Cereal Crops
]]>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, 08137701720
WHATSAPP US ON: 08137701720
ANALYSIS OF INTRA-INDUSTRY TRADE IN AGRICULTURAL PRODUCTS BETWEEN NIGERIA AND PARTNER NATIONS WITHIN THE ECONOMIC COMMUNITY OF WEST AFRICAN STATES (1979-2008)
ABSTRACT
The basic tenet of the study was that intra-industry trade occurred when commodities of the same industry are simultaneously exported and imported by partner nations within the sub-region. The objectives of the study were to review Nigeria’s merchandise trade, assess the simultaneous exports and imports of agricultural products by partner nations, evaluate the share of intra-industry trade in agricultural products between Nigeria and the ECOWAS partner nations, and determine the effects of national and partners’ characteristics on the intra-industry trade within the sub-region. The study was carried out on the 15 countries within the Economic Community of West African States (ECOWAS). However, simultaneous exports and imports were only prevalent between Nigeria and four of these countries, namely Benin, Cote d’Ivoire, Ghana, and Togo. These countries have similarities in factor endowments, tastes and fashions of the partner nations. Exports and imports of agricultural products were collected from Federal Office of Statistics, now National Bureau of Statistics, publications. The data on national and partners’ characteristics such as GDP nominal, GNI per capita, size (population), foreign direct investment, value added by manufacturing, agriculture value added, household final consumption expenditure, and government final consumption expenditure were obtained from the United Nations Statistic Division as well as from ECOWAS Statistical Bulletin.
Descriptive statistics were used to achieve objectives (i) and (ii), while objective (iii) was achieved by employing the Grubel-Lloyd approach of measuring intra-industry trade index. Objective (iv) was achieved by adopting the binary logistic analytical technique. The results revealed that the mean value of Nigeria’s merchandise trade with partner nations ranged from ₦201.7, 731.96, 4,480.84, 35,166.6,92, 965.64, to ₦346,029.9 million between 1979 and 2008, respectively. These represent an annual average of 2.66 and 97.34 percents, respectively, of her total merchandise trade to the partners and the other parts of the world for the period 1979-2008. Nigeria’s mean export value of all agricultural commodities ranged from ₦4.35 million between 1979 to ₦2,109.45 million between 2004 and 2008, while the mean import values ranged from ₦3.43 million between 1979 and 1983 to ₦8,215.73 million between 2004 and 2008. These represent 1.72 and 4.0 percent, respectively of the exports, and 16.97 and 16.75 percent, respectively of the imports within the referred periods. The Grubel-Lloyd intra-industry trade indices were computed for agricultural commodity as a whole, live animals, chilled meat, coffee/mate, and product of milling industry, preparation of cereals, miscellaneous edible preparations and residue from food industry for the 30-year period, for each product. The value of the trade indices were either zero or one, and formed the dependent variable.
The key results from the binary logistic model were that the Grubel Lloyd intra-industry trade indices in agricultural commodities were influenced by national population and average partners’ final consumption expenditure, while trade indices in live animals were influenced by partners’ GDP, national agriculture value added, partners’ agriculture value added, and national GDP. Also, intra-industry trade indices in chilled meat were influenced by GNI per capita, national population, and national agriculture value added. Trade indices in Coffee and mate were influenced by national GDP, GNI per capita, and partners’ foreign direct investment, while intra-industry trade in the products of mill industry were determined by GNI per capita, partners’ FDI, and national household final consumption expenditure. In cereal preparations, intra-industry trade indices were influenced by partners’ GNI per capita and partners’ FDI, while trade indices in miscellaneous edible preparations were influenced by partners’ GNI per capita, and partners’ household final consumption expenditure. Trade indices in residue from food industry were influenced by partners’ GDP, partners’ population, national value added by manufacturing, national population, partners’ value added by manufacturing, and national agriculture value added.
It was recommended that ECOWAS nations should encourage its member states to continue to incorporate regional development policy into the national development agenda, sustain macroeconomic stability, further liberalize the economy, promote private sector activity and investment, and reduce vulnerability to exogenous shocks. Also, ECOWAS nations should continue the development of infrastructure and deepen institutional reforms, so as to realize maximum benefits from globalization through diversification of its agricultural production base and export commodities that have value addition. There is the need for ECOWAS policy makers to continue to make concerted efforts to ensure the effective implementation of the ECOWAS trade liberalization scheme and to stimulate the private sector to enhance value addition to the manufactured products of agricultural origin within the community. There is also the need to sustain horizontal differentiation (i.e. different varieties of a given good), and vertical differentiation (i.e. different qualities of a given variety) of agricultural products, given the level of competition the regional economies will be subjected to when the economic partnership agreement Economic Partnership Agreements between the ECOWAS and the European Union (EU) goes into operation.
TABLE OF CONTENTS Page
Title Page i
Certification ii
Dedication iii
Acknowledgment iv
Abstract v
Table of Contents viii
List of Figures xiii
List of Tables xiv
CHAPTER ONE
1.0 INTRODUCTION
1.1 Background Information 1
1.2 Problem Statement 2
1.3 0bjectives of the Study 3
1.4 Hypotheses of the Study 4
1.5 Justification of the Study 4
1.6 Delimitation and Limitation of the Study 5
CHAPTER TWO 7
2.0 LITERATURE REVIEW
2.1 Theoretical Frame Work 7
2.2 Empirical Evidence of Intra-industry Trade 10
2.3 Significance of Intra-industry Trade 11
2.4 Occurrence of Intra-industry Trade 12
2.5 Nigeria’s Merchandise Exports and Imports 13
2.6 International Arrangements to Stimulate Regional Trade 13
2.6.1 Economic Union 13 2.6.2 Economic integration 14
2.6.3 International Arrangements to Stimulate Agricultural Trade 14
2.6.4 The idea of Common Market 14
2.6.5 The Customs Union 15
2.6.6 Free Trade Areas (FTA) 15
2.7 ECOWAS Common External Tariff (CET) 16
2.7.1 Growth Prospects of ECOWAS Region 20
2.7.2 Free Movement of Persons 23
2.7.3 Industry, Promotion of Partnership and Competition 24
2.8 Intra-ECOWAS Trade Transport 27
2.9 Analytical Framework Telecommunication 28
2.9.1 The Wald Statistic 33
2.9.2 R2 for Logistic Regression 33
CHAPTER THREE
3.0 RESEARCH METHODOLOGY 35
3.1 The Study Area 35
3.1.1 The West African Economy 35
3.2 Sampling Procedures 36
3.3 Data Collection 37
3.4 Data Analysis Technique and A-priori Expectations 38 3.5 Model Specification 38
3.5.1 Grubel-Lloyd Analytical Model 39
3.5.2 Binary Logistic Regression Analytical Model (Explicit) 40
3.5.3 Logistic Regression Model for Intra-industry Trade in Agric. Commodity 41
3.5.4 Logistic Regression Model for Intra-industry Trade in Live Animals 41
3.5.5 Logistic Regression Model for Intra-industry Trade in Chilled Meat 42
3.5.6 Logistic Regression Model for Intra-industry Trade in Coffee and Mate 42
3.5.7 Logistic Regression Model for Intra-industry Trade in Prdct. of Mill Ind. 43
3.5.8 Logistic Regression for Model Intra-industry Trade in Preps. of Cereal 43
3.5.9 Logistic Regression for Intra-industry Trade in Misc. Edible Preps 44
3.5.10 Binary Logistic Regression for Intra-industry Trade in Residues from Feed Industry 44
3.6 Hypotheses Testing 45
CHAPTER FOUR
4.0 RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONS 47
4.1 Nigeria’s Total Merchandise Trade 47
4.2 Exports by Agricultural Commodity Sections (fob) 49
4.3 Exports of Live Animals and Animal Products: HS Code I 52
4.4 Exports of Vegetable Products: HS Code II 42
4.5 Exports of Animal and Vegetable Fats and Oils: HS Code III 54
4.6 Exports of Prepared Foodstuffs; Beverages, Spirit etc. HS Code IV 56
4.7 Imports by Agricultural Commodity Sections (cif) 58
4.8 Imports of Live Animals and Animal Products: (HS Code I) 61
4.9 Imports of Vegetable Products: HS Code II 63
4.10 Imports of Animal and Vegetable Fats and Oils: HS Code III 65
4.11 Imports of Prepared Foodstuffs; Beverages, etc. HS Section IV 65
4.12 Intra-industry Trade in Agricultural commodity and Product Subsections 67
4.13 Values of Variables used in the Regression 69
4.14 Classification of Trade in Agricultural Commodity 74
4.15 Determinants of Intra-industry Trade in Agricultural Commodity 75
4.16 Summary of the Relationship between Variables 76
4.17 Test of the Significance of the Coefficients of the Determinants 77
4.18 Classification of Intra-industry Trade in Live Animals 77
4.19 Determinants of Intra-industry Trade in Live Animals 78
4.20 Summary of the Relationship between Variables 80
4.21 Test of the Significance of the Coefficients of the Determinants 80
4.22 Classification of Intra-industry Trade in Chilled Meat 81
4.23 Determinants of Intra-industry Trade in Chilled Meat 82
4.24 Summary of the Relationship between the Depend. and Indepen. Variables 83
4.25 Test of the Significance of the Coefficients of the Determinants 83
4.26 Classification of Intra-industry Trade in Coffee & Mate 84
4.27 Determinants of Intra-industry Trade in Coffee and Mate 85
4.28 Summary of the Relationship between the Depend. and Indep Variables 86
4.29 Test of the Significance of the Coefficients of the Determinants 86
4.30 Classification of Intra-industry Trade in Product of Mill Industry 87
4.31 Determinants of Intra-industry Trade in Product of Mill Industry 88
4.32 Summary of the Relationship between the Depend. and Indep Variables 90
4.33 Test of the Significance of the Coefficients of the Determinants 90
4.34 Classification of Intra-industry Trade in Preparation of Cereals 91
4.35 Determinants of Intra-industry Trade in Cereal Preparations 92
4.36 Summary of the Relationship between the Depend. and Indep Variables 93
4.37 Test of the Significance of the Coefficients of the Determinants 93
4.38 Classification of Intra-industry Trade in Misc. Edible preps 94
4.39 Determinants of Intra-industry Trade in Misc. Edible Preparations 94
4.40 Summary of the Relationship between the Depend. and Indep Variables 95
4.41 Test of the Significance of the Coefficients of the Determinants 96
4.42 Classification of Intra-industry Trade in Residue from Food Industry 97
4.43 Determinants of Intra-industry Trade in Residue from Food Industry 97
4.44 Summary of the Relationship b/w the Depend. and Indep Variables 100
4.45 Test of the Significance of the Coefficients of the Determinants 100
CHAPTER FIVE
SUMMARY, CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS 102
5.1 Summary 102
5.2 Conclusion 107
5.3 Recommendations 108
5.4 Areas Needing Further Research 110
xi
References 111
Appendix 1 116
Appendix 2 118
Appendix 3 121
Appendix 4 122
Appendix 5 125
Appendix 6 127
Appendix 7 129
Appendix 8 131
Appendix 9 133 Appendix 10 135
Appendix 11 137
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
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, 08137701720
WHATSAPP US ON: 08137701720
EFFECTS OF OFF-FARM WORK ON TECHNICAL EFFICIENCY AND PRODUCTION RISK AMONG RICE FARMERS IN ENUGU STATE
ABSTRACT
The study analysed the effects of off-farm work on technical efficiency and production risks among rice farmers in Enugu State, Nigeria. Ninety respondents were selected using multi-stage sampling technique. Data for the study were collected by the use of well structured questionnaire. Descriptive statistics and stochastic production frontier model were used to analyse the data. Results showed that the two groups of rice farmers had similar socio-economic characteristics. Technical efficiency scores for the farmers ranged from 0.579 to 1.000 and 0.0606 to 1.000 for the rice farmers without and with off-farm work respectively. The average efficiencies are 0.964 and 0.871 for rice farmers without and with off-farm work, respectively. This suggests that off-farm work has a negative effect on farmers’ technical efficiency. The result of the student t-test conducted at 5% significance level showed that there is a significant difference in the mean technical efficiency of the two groups of rice farmers. For rice farmers without off-farm work average number of farmers associations (0.646), age (0.328), education (3.838) and extension access (3.144) significantly and positively influenced technical inefficiency effects while for their counterpart age (0.159) and extension access (4.727) significantly and positively influenced technical inefficiency effects and household size (-0.970) was significant but negative. For farmers without off-farm work, family labour (1.287) has a positive and significant effect on production risk, meaning that family labour is a risk increasing factor. Depreciated value of equipment (-12.255) used has a negative and significant effect on production risk which indicates that investment on equipment will decrease the production risk in rice production. For rice farmers with off-farm work none of the factors was significant even though they all had negative sign. The constraints faced by the farmers were inaccessible road, high cost of transportation, inadequate credit, birds’ invasion, inadequate extension support, inaccessibility to cheap farm inputs ranked in ascending order of importance.
vii
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Title……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………i
Certification……………………………………………………………………………………………………………….ii
Dedication…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………iii
Acknowledgement………………………………………………………………………………………………………iv
Abstract…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….v
Table of contents……………………………………………………………………………………………………….vi
List of tables…………………………………………………………………………………………………………….viii
CHAPTER ONE: INTRODUCTION
Background of the Study………………………………………………………………………………………..1
Problem Statement…………………………………………………………………………………………………5
Objectives of the Study…………………………………………………………………………………………..8
Hypotheses of the study………………………………………………………………………………………….8
Justification of the Study………………………………………………………………………………………..9
CHAPTER TWO: REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE
2.1 Characteristics of Nigeria’s Rice Production Systems ………………………………………………11
2.2. Off-Farm Work by Farm Households…………………………………………………………………….12
2.3 Determinants of choice of off farm work…………………………………………………………………13
2.4 Interrelationship between off-farm work and efficiency…………………………………………….14
2.5 Agricultural risk…………………………………………………………………………………………………..15
2.5.1 Classifications of Agricultural Risks…………………………………………………………………….16
2.6 Efficiency…………………………………………………………………………………………………………..17
2.7 Determinants of production efficiency…………………………………………………………………….20
2.8 Measures of Efficiency………………………………………………………………………………………….21
2.8.1 The non-parametric programming approach …………………………………………………………22
2.8.2 Deterministic production frontier models and technical efficiency…………………………..22
2.8.3 Stochastic production frontier models and technical efficiency……………………………….24
2.8.4 Stochastic Frontier model estimation–The Maximum Likelihood Estimation Method…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….27
2.9 Estimating Production Risk and Inefficiency Simultaneously…………………………………..28
2.10 Review of Related Empirical Studies…………………………………………………………………….29
vii
2.11 Theoretical Framework……………………………………………………………………………………….33
2.11.1 The Production Function, Risk, and Technology………………………………………………….33
2.11.2 Farm Household’s Maximization Problem………………………………………………………….33
2.11.3 Production Economics Theory…………………………………………………………………………. 36
2.12 Analytical Framework…………………………………………………………………………………………38
2.12. 1. Estimating the stochastic frontier model with risk………………………………………………38
CHAPTER THREE: RESEARCH METHODOLOGY
3.1 The Study Area…………………………………………………………………………………………………….41
3.2 Sampling Procedure……………………………………………………………………………………………..42
3.3 Data Collection…………………………………………………………………………………………………….42
3.4 Data Analysis………………………………………………………………………………………………………43
3.4.1 Model Specification…………………………………………………………………………………………..43
3.4.1.1 Stochastic frontier production function………………………………………………………………43
3.5.1.2 Likert Scale Rating Technique………………………………………………………………………….47
CHAPTER FOUR: RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
4.1 Socio-economic Characteristics of Respondents………………………………………………………48
4.2 Rice production in the study area……………………………………………………………………………54
4.3 Comparing the distributions of the technical efficiency scores between the two groups of
rice farmers…………………………………………………………………………………………………………55
4.4 Estimation of the Stochastic Production Frontier Model……………………………………………57
4.5 Constraints faced by rice farmers……………………………………………………………………………60
4.6 Test of hypotheses………………………………………………………………………………………………..61
CHAPTER FIVE:SUMMARY, CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATION
……………………………………………………………………………………………………………63
………………………………………………………………………………………………………….64
……………………………………………………………………………………………….64
REFERENCES………………………………………………………………………………………………………..67
viii
LIST OF TABLES
Tables Pages 4.1 Socio-economic characteristics of respondents……………………………………………………….52
4.2 Stochastic Production Frontier Estimates………………………………………………………………57
4.3 Distributions of technical efficiency………………………………………………………………………58
4.4 Constraints faced by rice farmers………………………………………………………………………….59
4.5 Generalized likelihood ratio test……………………………………………………………………………60
4.6 T-test result……………………………………………………………………………………………………….60
CHAPTER ONE
INTRODUCTION
1.1 BACKGROUND OF THE STUDY
The struggle for food is desperate for the 240 million people of West Africa: one of every three of who is a Nigerian (West Africa Rice Development Association (WARDA), 2002). Rice (Oryza sativa) is the staple food of approximately half of the world’s population (International Rice Research Institute (IRRI), 1997). It has traditionally been an important basic food commodity for certain populations in sub-Saharan Africa (SSA), and West Africa in particular. Recent important and major changes have led to a structural increase in rice consumption in the sub-region. Since 1973, regional demand has grown at an annual rate of 6%, driven by a combination of population growth and substitution away from traditional coarse grains (WARDA, 2001). The consumption of traditional cereals, mainly sorghum and millet, has fallen by 12 kg per capita, and their share in cereals used as food decreased from 61% in the early 1970s to 49% in the early 1990s. In contrast, the share of rice in cereals consumed has grown from 15% to 26% over the same period (Akpokodje, Lancon and Erenstein, 2001). Also it was observed that between 1961and 2005, the annual increase in rice consumption was 4.52% in SSA (WARDA, 2007). Growth in regional rice consumption remains high.
The demand for rice has been increasing at a much faster rate in Nigeria than in other West African countries since the mid 1970s (WARDA, 2001). For example, during the 1960’s Nigeria had the lowest per-capita annual consumption of rice in the sub-region (average of 3 kg). Since then, Nigeria’s per capita consumption levels have grown significantly at 7.3% per annum (Ogundele and Okoruwa, 2006). Consequently, per-capita consumption during the 1980s averaged 18 kg and reached 22 kg in 1995-1999. In an apparent move to respond to the increased per capita consumption of rice in Nigeria, local production boomed, averaging 9.3% per annum (Ogundele and Okoruwa, 2006). These increase in local production have been traced to vast expansion of rice area at an annual average of 7.9% and to a lesser extent to increase in rice yield of 1.4% per annum. The reality is that Nigeria has not been able to attain self-sufficiency in rice production despite increasing hectares put into production annually (CBN, 2000). Consequently, Nigeria has depended heavily on imported rice to meet her consumption needs and has become the World’s largest importer of rice (WARDA, 2003). According to Okorji and Onwuka (1994) the rice import bill for Nigeria was N123.61 million in 1980 and has since continued to rise. That Nigeria has remained a net importer of rice with well over ₦150.15 billion spent annually (FOS, 2000) is indicative of the declining self-sufficiency. This constitutes a huge drain on Nigeria’s foreign reserve and a major bottleneck in the balance of payments (Egbuna, 2003).
In a bid to address the demand-supply gap for rice, governments have at various times come up with policies and programmes. However, these policies according to WARDA (2001) have not been consistent due mostly to oscillating import tariffs and import restrictions. For instance, from 1986 to the mid-1990s imports were illegal. In 1995 imports were allowed at a 100% tariff. In 1996 the tariff was reduced to 50% but increased to 85% in 2001. The erratic rice import policy reflects the dilemma of securing cheap rice for consumers and a fair price for producers. Notwithstanding the various policy measures, domestic rice production has not increased sufficiently to meet the increased demand. Even during the rice import ban period, Nigeria was still importing several hundred thousand tons of rice per year through illegal trade. With the removal of the rice import ban, consumption resumed its rapid growth taking advantage of the downward trends of rice price on the world market.
This fluctuation and limited capacity of the Nigerian rice economy to match the domestic demand has raised a number of pertinent questions both in the policy circle and amongst researchers. Such questions include: what are the factors explaining the lag in domestic rice production vis-a-vis demand for the commodity in Nigeria? Which strategy could lead to a sustainable contribution of the Nigerian rice economy to the national food security within a competitive and open economy? Central to this explanation is the issue of efficiency of the rice farmers in the use of resources. West African Rice Development Association (WARDA) in collaboration with the Nigerian Institute for Social and Economic Research (NISER) suggested this strategy of increasing efficiency at producer level as one of the key components to revitalize the rice sector in Nigeria (WARDA, 2003).
Efficiency is a very important factor of productivity growth in an economy where resources are scarce and opportunities for new technologies are lacking. Inefficiency studies have shown that it is possible to raise productivity by improving efficiency without increasing the resource base or developing new technology (Adedapo, 2008). Farrel (1957) decomposed economic efficiency into technical efficiency and allocative efficiency. Technical efficiency is the ability to produce a given level of output with a minimum quantity of inputs under a given technology (Tijani, 2006). Allocative efficiency refers to the ability to choose optimal input levels for given factor prices.
All production is subject to uncertainty, but the risks associated with agricultural production are particularly salient. Crop yields may be affected by the amount and timing of rainfall, temperatures during the growing season, pests, diseases, hailstorms and fire among many other factors (Nauges, O’Donnell and Quiggin, 2011). However, studies have shown that the effect of these uncertainties on production can be investigated through the choice of inputs on the output variance, otherwise known as production risk in inputs (Jaenicke, Frechette and Larson 2003; Bokusheva and Hockmann 2006; Villano and Fleming 2006). This is because some inputs increase while others reduce the level of output variance (production risk). Assessment of the efficiency of biological production sectors (such as rice production) distils important policy implications, provided such assessment takes into account the effects of input use on output variance (production risk), as this is vital for agricultural development planning (Jaenicke, Frechette and Larson 2003; Villano and Fleming 2006). The implication of this is that it is important to incorporate production risk in the measurement of the efficiency of rice farmers.
Off-farm work by farm households is a persistent phenomenon throughout the world, both in less developed and developing countries, and the dependence of farm families on the income from off-farm work has increased steadily over the years (Chang and Wen, 2011) . The importance of off-farm work has also been acknowledged in many countries. For example, by using a random farmer survey in rural Ghana, Jolliffe (2004) reported that approximately 74% of the farm households engaged in some form of off-farm work. Similar evidence has also been found in Taiwan. Based on the statistics summarized from the Agricultural Census data in 2001, approximately 75% of the farm households have reported off-farm income.
In light of the increasing importance of off-farm income as a crucial determinant of farm household well-being, a considerable body of literature has examined the roles of household characteristics, the human capital of the farm operator and spouse, as well as farm programs related to off-farm labour participation (e.g., El-Osta and Morehart, 2008; El-Osta, Mishra and Morehart, 2007, 2008; Huffman and Lange, 1989; Lass, Findeis and Hallberg, 1991; Mishra and Goodwin, 1997). Attention has also been paid to the interaction between the farm practice and the off-farm work of the farm household (e.g., Phimister and Roberts, 2006). It is expected that the increased reliance on off-farm employment affects the allocation of family labour, and thus exerts an influence on farm productivity. On the other hand, off-farm work provides an opportunity for farm households to stabilize household income and reduce the uncertainty associated with agricultural production. It is a generally held belief that off-farm employment provides a risk management tool to reduce the income variability associated with the farm household (El-Osta and Morehart, 2008; El-Osta et al., 2007). Hence, this study becomes crucial in examining the interconnection among off farm work, technical efficiency and rice production risk since increased output and productivity are directly related to production efficiency and production risk.
1.2 PROBLEM STATEMENT
Rice is an important food crop in Nigeria and its consumption is growing particularly among urban dwellers. Domestic production of this commodity has been inadequate and unable to bridge the increasing demand-supply gap. Government efforts of making the country self sufficient has not yielded the required results and thus the resort to importation of the commodity. This constitutes a great drain in the country’s foreign reserve. Government’s goal of achieving self sufficiency in rice production to a large extent will depend on the level of farmers’ productivity which can be determined by rates of adoption of improved technologies and efficiency of resource use. However, with the difficulties encountered by farmers in developing countries for developing and adopting improved technologies due to resource poverty, efficiency has become a very significant factor in increasing productivity (Ali and Chandry, 1990).
Numerous studies (Obwona, 2006; Ogundele and Okoruwa 2006; Tijani, 2006; Al-hassan, 2008; Nwaru and Iheke, 2010, Onoja, and Achike, 2010;) have attempted to determine technical efficiencies of farmers in developing countries including Nigeria because determining the efficiency status of farmers is important for policy purposes. However, few of these studies took account of the presence of risk and the farmers’ responses to it, considering the common knowledge that economic units make their decisions under uncertainty. This presents a research gap that needs to be filled. The presence of risk influences not only production output but also producers’ behaviour, primarily with regard to input use. If risk mitigation plays a principal role in decision-making, then a farm’s technical efficiency score may alter significantly. Therefore, technical efficiency assessment considering a producer’s response to uncertainty is not the same in a setting where no effect of risk on input-use decisions is taken into account. Thus, when uncertainty is pervasive, the theoretical framework for studying technical efficiency is to be extended with respect to risk and producers’ responses to risk. In this study, production risk is assumed to be an important factor that influences production decisions of farmers. Hence, the present study aims to estimate the magnitudes of both technical inefficiency and production risk in rice production in Enugu State.
In recent times farm families in general and small farm operators in particular have been seeking off-farm employment in increasing numbers. A number of studies exist which try to explain the reasons for this phenomenon. Some of the reasons observed by Lanjouw (1999) include declining farm incomes and desire to insure against agricultural production risk. In the beginning, increasing off-farm work by farm operators was viewed only as a transitional phenomenon, but in recent years researchers have concluded that this change is rather permanent. Economists have since turned their attention towards developing models of multiple job holding (Bollman, 1979; Shiskhko and Bernard, 1976). Little attention has been given to estimating the relative efficiency of rice farmers who take up off-farm work viz a viz their counterpart who do not especially in Nigeria. While there is a growing realization that part-time farming is becoming an integral part of Nigerian agriculture, these farms are also likely to have the most staying power since they do not depend solely on farm income for their viability. Some studies have also documented the impacts of off-farm work on farm productivity (Bagi, 1984; Kumbhakar et al., 1989; Sherlund et al., 2002; Smith, 2002). On the other hand, studies on production risk in agricultural production have been extensive over several decades and research interest in agricultural risk continues to grow. The relationship between farmers’ off-farm work and production risks has also been examined. Mishra & Goodwin (1997), for example, have demonstrated that farm households may treat off-farm work as a vehicle to stabilize their income due to farm commodity prices being more variable than off-farm wages. As predicted by production theory, a risk-averse farmer will allocate labour and other resources to the less risky income sources (i.e., the off-farm work) until the expected marginal returns between available activities are equal to each other. As a result, the reduction in farm production risk may lead farmers to participate in the off-farm labour market. In spite of this inter-relationship between off- farm work, production risk and technical efficiency available literature reviewed showed that little or no study have been done in Nigeria with particular emphasis on Enugu State to examine these connections. This study intends to fill this gap. Also, there is need to assess the current levels of technical efficiency of rice farmers in Enugu State and identify factors that affect their technical efficiency. More importantly there is need to determine whether off- farm work improves efficiency, whether there are differences between rice farmers with and without off- farm work, and why.
This study will contribute to previous studies on off farm work by accommodating technical efficiency and production risk simultaneously. The joint consideration of risk, efficiency and off-farm work is important since the technical efficiency of each farmer, as well as production risk, may affect the output response of crop production.
This study in a bid to fill the above-mentioned gaps will provide answers to the following research questions:
How does off-farm work influence technical efficiency and production risk of rice farmers in Enugu State;
Are there factors that affect the technical efficiency and production risk of rice farmers with and without off-farm work and
What are the constraints faced by rice farmers in the study area.
1.3 OBJECTIVE OF THE STUDY
The broad objective of this study is to examine the effects of off-farm work on technical efficiency and production risk among rice farmers in Enugu State, Nigeria. The specific objectives are to:
describe the socio-economic characteristics of rice farmers with and without off-farm work;
describe rice production in the study area;
determine the technical efficiency of rice farmers with and without off-farm work;
compare the technical efficiency of rice farmers with and without off-farm work;
ascertain factors that affect technical efficiency and production risk of the two groups of rice farmers;
identify the constraints faced by the rice farmers in the study area and
make policy recommendations based on the findings.
1.4 HYPOTHESES OF THE STUDY
farmers in the study are not technically efficient;
production risk effects are not present in the model;
there is no significant difference in the technical efficiency of farmers with and without off-farm work and
socio-economic characteristics do not affect the technical efficiency of the two groups of rice farmers.
1.5 JUSTIFICATION OF THE STUDY
Efficiency studies help countries to determine the extent to which they can raise productivity by improving the neglected source, i.e., efficiency, with the existing resource base and available technology (Al- Hassan, 2008). Such studies could support decisions on whether to improve efficiency first or to develop a new technology in the short run. More importantly, enhanced technical efficiency will not only enable farmers to increase the use of productive resources, it will also give direction for the adjustments required in the long run to achieve food sustainability.
It is now widely accepted that to meet the challenges of future agricultural policy design in the future, we must understand farm household behaviour in a more complex policy context that recognizes the diverse nature of farms with respect to farm size, farm production and business organization. We must also recognize the increasing interconnection between decisions made by farm businesses and farm households, and their effects on the well-being of farm families (Kuhn and Offutt 1999; Offutt, 2002). Recommendations suggested from such would boost the effectiveness and success of policies and programmes targeted at increasing productivity. Given the increasing number of farm families taking up off-farm work, the increasing rice demand-supply gap and the risk associated with rice production the need for this study is justified. The recommendations from this study are expected to give direction to policy makers in designing appropriate policies to increase rice productivity in Enugu State and Nigeria as a whole. This is because more knowledge about whether farm productivity and efficiency are affected by part-time farming could help policy makers introduce better rural development policies.
Also, farmers will find this work very useful as it will help increase their productivity as they gain understanding of the interconnection between off-farm work, technical efficiency and rice production risk. Moreover, the results from this study will provide baseline information to researchers who want to undertake further studies in this area. Other stakeholders who can benefit from the results of this study are donor agencies, research stations and even extension workers.
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
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, 08137701720
WHATSAPP US ON: 08137701720
EFFECTS OF OIL EXPLOITATION ON THE EFFICIENCY OF ARTISANAL FISHING HOUSEHOLDS IN THE NIGER DELTA REGION, NIGERIA
ABSTRACT
This study presents the empirical analysis of the effects of oil exploitation on the efficiency of artisanal fishing households in the Niger Delta region, Nigeria. The selection of respondents was multi-staged and involved purposive sampling as well as random sampling methods. A structured questionnaire and interview schedule were used to elicit information from a randomly selected sample of 160 artisanal households from Delta and Bayelsa States, Nigeria. Descriptive statistics, stochastic frontier production and cost function models, inefficiency effects model and multiple regression analysis were used in analyzing the data. Among the major findings were that 84% of the respondents were male-headed households. Fifty percent were between 41-50 years. Sixty three percent were illiterates while 87% were married. The average household size was 7 persons. About 49% of the respondents had fishing experience of above 16 years with a mean experience of approximately 15 years. The average annual income per household was N96, 386.00. About 85%, 6%, 6% and 4% used different fishing gears such as nets, trap, longline and hooks, and fence fishing, respectively. The mean technical efficiency was 73%. The Cobb-Douglas stochastic frontier model showed that labour, quantity of bait used and capital inputs had positive signs and were highly significant at 1% level of probability. Age, access to credit and gender had significant inverse relationship with technical inefficiency while fishing distance, membership of co-operative society, fishing experience, number of trips and oil spill had significant positive relationship with technical inefficiency. Model showed that wage rate, price of baits and output adjusted for statistical noise had direct relationship with the total cost of production and were significant at 1% level of probability. The mean economic efficiency was 68%. The factors influencing economic efficiency showed that Age and household size had a negative relationship with economic inefficiency while access to credit, membership of co-operative society, number of trips and oil spill had significant positive relationship with economic inefficiency. Ninety seven percent of the households confirmed that oil exploitation activities had serious effect on their socio-economic life. Variables such as fishing equipment, non-fishing income and household size were significant at 1%, fishing experience was significant at 5% while micro-credit and compensation received were significant at 10% probability levels. The overall regression result was statistically significant at 5% level of probability as 86% of the total variation was explained by the socio-economic variables. Therefore, the study calls for policies that could reduce the level of oil pollution and increase their technical and economic efficiency.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Title page …………………………………………………………………………………………………… i
Certification………………………………………………………………………………………………… ii
Dedication…………………………………………………………………………………………………… iii
Acknowledgement……………………………………………………………………………………….. iv
Abstract………………………………………………………………………………………………………. v
Table of contents…………………………………………………………………………………………. vi
List of tables…………………………………………………………………… ix
List of figures…………………………………………………………………… x
CHAPTER ONE
INTRODUCTION
1.1 Background of the Study ………………………………………………………………………… 1
1.2 Problem Statement…………………………………………………………………………………. 8
1.3 Objectives of the Study…………………………………………………………………………… 11
1.4 Research Hypothesis………………………………………………………………………………. 11
1.5 Justification of the Study…………………………………………………………………………. 12
1.6 Limitations……………………………………………………………… ……… 13
CHAPTER TWO
REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE
2.1 Crude Oil Exploitation and Nigerian Economy………………………………………. 14
2.2 Degradation due to Oil Exploration and Production in Nigeria………………… 14
2.3 Effects of Crude Oil Exploitation on the Environment and agriculture. 17
2.4 Production Efficiency…………………………… ………………… 18
2.4.1 Technical Efficiency…………………………………………………… 18
2.4.2 Allocative or price efficiency………………………………………….. 19
2.4.3 Economic Efficiency ………………………………………………….. 20
2.5 Efficiency Measurement Techniques …………………………………. 21
Deterministic Frontiers ………………………………………………… 22
2.5.1.1 Non-parametric programming…………………………………………. 22
2.5.1.2 Parametric Programming………………………………………………. 23
2.5.1.3 Statistical Approach…………………………………………………… 24
2.6 Review of Theory……………………………………………………… 25
2.7 Review of Empirical Studies…………………………………………… 26
2.7.1 Production Function Analytical Model………………………………… 26
2.7.2. Stochastic Frontier Production Function………………………………. 28
Theoretical framework…………………………………………………. 33
2.8.1 Theory of production…………………………………………………… 33
2.8.2 Theory of the firm……………………………………………………… 35
Analytical Framework…………………………………………………. 37
2.9.1. Production Function Analytical model………………………………… 37
2.9.2 Stochastic Frontier Production Model…………………………………. 39
2.9.3 Inefficiency Frontier Model……………………………………………… 42
CHAPTER THREE
METHODOLOGY
3.1 The Study Area……………………………………………………………….. 45
3.2 Sampling Procedure…………………………………………………………………………….. 45
3.3 Data Collection…………………………………………………………………………………… 47
3.4 Analysis of Data…………………………………………………………… 48
3.4.1 Model Specification………………………………………………………… 49
3.4.1.1 Stochastic Frontier Production Function Model………………………… 49
3.4.1.2 Technical and Economic Inefficiency Models…………………………… 51
3.4.1.3 Multiple Regression Analysis…………………………………………….. 52
3.5 Likert Scale Analysis………………………………………………………… 54
3.6 Testing of Hypotheses…………………………………………………………. 55
CHAPTER FOUR
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
4.1 Socio-Economic Characteristics of the Respondents……………………… 56
4.2 Artisanal Households Fishing Systems……………………………………… 59
4.3 Technical and Economic Efficiencies of Artisanal Fishing Households…… 60
4.3.1 Estimated Production Function………………………………………………………….. 60
4.3.2 Sources of Technical Efficiency…………………………………………… 61
4.3.3 Estimated…Cost Function………………………………… ……………. 63
4.3.4 Sources of Economic Inefficiency……………………………………………65
4.4 Estimating the Technical Efficiencies of the Artisanal Fishing Households……. 67
4.4.1 Technical Efficiency…..Estimates……………………………………………………….. 67
4.4.2 Estimation of Economic Efficiency………………………………………… 68
4.4.3 Allocative Efficiency among Artisanal Households in the Niger Delta
Region, Nigeria……………………………………………………………………..69
4.5 Environmental, Economic and Social Effects of Oil Exploitation………. 71
4.6 Effects of Relief Programmes on Household Income and
Socioeconomic Characteristics of Household Heads ………………………………76
4.7 Test of Hypothesis………………………………………………………….. 78
CHAPTER FIVE
SUMMARY, CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS
5.1 Summary ………………………………………………………………. 80
5.2 Conclusion…………………………………………………………………… 82
5.3 Recommendations…………………………………………………………… 83
5.4 Contribution to knowledge…………………………………………………. 84
5.5 Areas for Future Research…………………………………………………… 85
REFERENCES…………………………………………………………………. 86
APPENDIX I ………………………………………………………………. 96
CHAPTER ONE
INTRODUCTION
1.1 Background of the Study
The search for oil in Nigeria started in 1906 when the Nigerian Bitumen Corporation (NBC) drilled fourteen wells in Lagos area (Pearson, 1970). This move was however called off due to the outbreak of World War I. Pearson (1970) stated that Shell made Nigeria’s first commercial oil discovery in 1956 at Oloibiri located in Bayelsa State. This according to Pearson (1970) and Ozobia (1998) led to the discovery of numerous other oil fields and subsequently to the development of various terminals. Oil spillage and pollution are some of the negative by-products of the petroleum industry and its effect on socio-economic life of the artisanal households is a source of major concern. The exploration and exploitation have had impacts on the environment through frequent spills, pipe explosions, pollution, sabotage, gas flaring and effluent emission. Other sources of oil pollution to the environment include transportation, effluent water from oil refineries, lubrication oils and other wastes in the form of sludge, bitumen, slops and oil sand/sediment present in large amount within oil flow stations, storage terminals and tanks (Ogri, 2001; Nwilo & Badejo, 2005).
Oil production and consumption has probably brought both the best and worst of modern civilization in Nigeria. It has contributed enormously to the country’s economic growth and on the other hand, has left profound adverse impact on the natural environment. Nigeria is currently the largest producer of crude petroleum in Africa and sixth largest in the World. Estimates of Nigeria’s oil reserve range from 16 billion to 22 billion barrels, mostly found in small fields in the coastal areas of the Niger Delta (Chindah & Braide, 2000). Agriculture is however the major economic activity in the Niger Delta region. The Federal Office of Statistics (F.O.S, 1995) stated that crop farming and fishing account for about 90% of all forms of activities in the areas. However, the level of agricultural production in the Niger Delta is somewhat low given the abundant resource endowment. In the 1960s, Nigeria relied heavily on the agricultural sector for economic development, contributing over 70% of the Gross Domestic Product (GDP). Nevertheless, with the oil boom of the 1970s, the contribution of agricultural sector fell drastically to the extent that the nation became an importer of fish for instance.
Fish production makes immense contribution to agricultural development as recognized in Bada (2005); Bene and Heck (2005). In terms of Gross Domestic product (GDP), the fishery sub-sector has recorded the fastest growth rate in agriculture. The contribution of the fishery sub-sector to GDP at 2001 factor cost rose from N76.76 billion to N162.61 billion in 2005 (CBN 2006).Fish is an important source of protein to a large number of fishing households in Nigeria. It is consumed in a variety of forms, including smoked, dried, fried or steamed. Fish provides 40-50% of the dietary intake of animal protein of the average household in Nigeria (FDF, 2007). According to Adekoya and Miller (2004), fish and fish products constitute more than 60% of the total protein intake in adults especially in rural areas of Nigeria. Amiengheme (2005) enumerated the importance of fish in households Nutrition as follows.
Fish has a nutrient profile superior to all terrestrial meats (beef, pork and chicken, etc) being an excellent source of high quality animal protein and highly digestible energy;
Fish is a good source of sulphur and essential amino acids such as lysine, leucine, valine and arginine. It is therefore suitable for supplementing diets of high carbohydrates contents,
Fish is also a good source of thiamine as well as an extremely rich source of omega-3polyunsaturated fatty acids, fat soluble vitamins (A, D and E) and water soluble vitamins (B complex) and minerals (calcium, phosphorus, iron, iodine and selenium);
It has a high content of polyunsaturated (Omega III) fatty acids, which are important in lowering blood cholesterol level and high blood pressure. It is able to mitigate or alleviate platelet (cholesterol) aggregation and various arteriosclerosis conditions in adult populations;
Nigerians are large consumers of fish with demand estimated at 1.4 million metric tonnes per annum. Moreover, the recent concern is that the demand is out- stripping the supply as explained in Kapadia (2002). The annual state of economic report by sector published by Central Bank of Nigeria shows that, Nigeria imports over US$ 200 million worth of frozen fish per annum to offset the gap in the domestic demand in the country (CBN, 2006). Food and Agricultural Organization (FAO) categorized fishing types as artisanal fishing, aquaculture and industrial fishing (FAO, 2004). It is worthy of note that the artisanal fishing households supply the greatest percentage of Nigeria’s annual fish output as shown in Table 1.1. The table shows that the relative contribution of artisanal households to domestic fish production ranged between 83.0% in 1985 to 81.7% in 2007 with an annual average of 86.1% (FDF, 2007).
Table 1.1: Domestic fish production in Nigeria by sectors (metric tonnes)
Years Artisanal % Aquaculture % Industrial % Total
1985 201,383 83.0 15,000 6.2 26,142 10.8 242,525
1986 267,136 87.0 14,881 4.8 25,042 8.2 307,059
1987 248,987 86.1 15,221 5.3 24,900 8.6 289,108
1988 297,624 85.1 15,764 4.5 36,549 10.4 349,937
1989 303,500 83.7 25,607 7.1 33,645 9.3 362,752
1990 283,534 89.6 7,297 2.3 25,529 8.1 316,360
1991 291,286 84.8 15,840 4.6 36,226 10.6 343,352
1992 283,943 82.8 19,770 5.8 39,365 11.5 343,078
1993 201,176 78.7 18,703 7.3 35,644 13.9 255,523
1994 234,601 82.8 18,104 6.4 30,488 10.8 283,193
1995 320,955 86.5 16,619 4.5 33,479 9.0 371,053
1996 309,200 86.9 19,490 5.5 27,244 7.7 355,934
1997 360,220 87.2 25,201 6.1 27,703 6.7 413,124
1998 433,069 89.6 20,299 4.2 29,955 6.2 483,323
1999 426,786 89.0 21,578 4.5 31,139 6.5 479,503
2000 418,069 89.5 25,689 5.5 23,308 5.0 467,066
2001 433,537 89.1 24,414 5.0 28,378 5.8 486,329
2002 450,965 88.1 30,651 6.0 30,091 5.9 511,707
2003 439,317 88.8 26,493 5.4 29,154 5.9 494,964
2004
2005
2006
2007
451,760
513,537
513,537
504,227
88.9
85.2
81.3
81.7
27,247
56,355
84,533
85,087
5.4
9.7
13.3
13.8
29,003
32,595
33,778
28,193
5.7
5.6
5.3
4.3
508,010
602,482
631,848
617,507
Total 8,188,349 86.1 629,842 6.6 697,550 7.3 9,515,741
Source: Federal Department of Fisheries; Fisheries Statistics of Nigeria, various editions
According to Mathew (2001), “traditional”, “small-scale” or artisanal fisheries are used to characterize those fisheries that were mainly non-mechanised with low level of production. The fisheries sector is almost entirely dominated by small scale, poor fishing households who produce 95% of total marine catch in Nigeria (Mathew, 2001). In Nigeria, the coastal artisanal households use the traditional dug-out canoes or pirogue, ranging from 3-18 metres in length while the gears used include cast nets, handlines, basket traps, longlines, set gillnets and beach and purse seines. The operating range of small-scale fisheries is around the 20 metres depth contour, with operations extending occasionally to a maximum depth of 40 metres (Inoni & Oyaide, 2007). In artisanal fisheries, individual and household groups used labour intensive gears (Coates, 2000). For a long time, fishing has been regarded as one of the most important activities, which form the basis of livelihood of households living along the coast.
The household is normally made up of a father, his wife and children; leadership and responsibility for the wellbeing of the entire household is vested on the head of the family. Omonona (2000) defined artisanal household as a unit consisting of people eating from the same bowl and sharing the same catering services. Grosh and Munoz (1996) in their view defined the household as a group of people who share a roof and a cooking pot. In addition, Agbola, Ikpi and Kormawa (2004) defined a household as a group of individuals who contributed to, shared a common economic resource base, and relied on the income from that base for the greater part of their food acquisition and utilization. The artisanal household is a concept similar to the model of the peasant studies and economic history in Europe and Latin America. The artisanal household is perceived as a major decision making unit in fish production. In practice, the term artisanal fishing household is used interchangeably with the fishing family.
The capacity of artisanal fisheries to play its triple role of food supplier, employment provider and income earner for the artisanal households in the Niger Delta depends on the adoption of appropriate management strategies that will ensure their sustainability in the face of intensive oil exploitation activities. Fishing has substantial social and economic importance. It was estimated that 12.5 million households were employed in related fishing activities in Nigeria and value of fish traded internationally was estimated at US $ 40 billion per annum for the early 1990s. The total production from capture fisheries and aquaculture during the same period reached a total mass of 100 million tonnes in Nigeria (FAO, 1995). The Federal Department of Fisheries (FDF) (2007) reported that the bulk of fish supply in Nigeria comes from the artisanal fishing subsector. Recent accounts show that domestic demand for fish in Nigeria could not be met by dependence on artisanal fisheries, which experts say is fast depleting (Nwosu, Oguoma & Ohajianya 2007;Ojo & Fagbenro, 2004 ). Available statistics show that Nigeria’s inland water bodies are producing less than 13% of their estimated fishery potential (Sule ,Ogunwale & Atala 2002).These water bodies have been reported to have over 200 species of fish, 14 species of reptiles, 7 species of mammals, 59 species of amphibians and 72 species of water-associated birds (Ita, 1993). Inoni and Oyaide (2007) noted that fishing in African rivers, lakes and associated wetlands are usually haphazard. This may however not be unconnected with the oil exploitation activities by oil companies.
The environmental consequences of oil pollution on the artisanal households are enormous. Aghalino (1998) observed that the impacts of oil exploitation on the oil- producing communities are three fold: first, it leads to environmental pollution, second, it destroys the ecosystem and the ways of life of the households; and third, it further impoverishes the oil producing communities. Anderson, Nelf, Cox, Taken and Hightower (1974) reported cases of oil spillage in Sangana, Koluama, Akassa and Brass Communities in Bayelsa State, in which tremendous damage was done to fisheries in the wild. In Nigeria, in particular, the Niger Delta, problems related to oil spillage have caused severe financial losses and implication for economic development. The financial losses to oil spillage run into billions of dollars therefore affecting the economy of the nation (Adebowale, 1996). Government, aware of this discouraging trend, has since put in place various policies and programmes. These measures and programmes include, National Accelerated Food Production Programme (NAFPP), Fisheries Extension Programmes, Fishermen Co-operatives and Fish Exploitation Reforms. These policies and programmes were aimed at raising the productivity and the efficiency of artisanal fishing households.
However, Ite (2007) asserted that the emergence of a petroleum sector in the Nigerian economy has been of great benefit to the agricultural sector of the rural economy because of the agricultural developmental activities of oil companies operating in the country. For instance, Shell Petroleum Development Company as part of her commitment to the development of the host communities, ventures into agricultural support services with a sole mission of contributing to the sustainable development of these communities. This is because over 70 percent of the households are directly involved in artisanal fishing as their primary occupation. The various SPDC Agricultural Projects and services are aimed at helping fishing households improve their mode of operation and quality of life. The Shell community’s assistance programmes can be classified into agricultural practices, infrastructure, education, health services and vocational training. The Nigerian Agip Oil Company (NAOC) Ltd is also involved in farming and fishery projects in some of the rural areas covered under its concessions.
Thus, if the oil industry is considered in view of its enormous contribution to foreign exchange earnings, it has achieved a remarkable success. On the other hand, when considered in respect of its negative impact on the socio-economic life of the fishing households and the environment of the immediate oil producing communities and its inhabitants, it has left a balance sheet of ecological and socio-physical disaster. This rightly provides a framework to analyze the effects of oil exploitation on the artisanal fishing households in the Niger Delta region.
1.2 Problem Statement
Fishing activities remain low, production costs remain unacceptably high, thus, adequate quantity and quality of fish cannot be afforded by many poor rural fishing households (Maduagwu, 2000). This situation is aggravated by losses that occur because of environmental problems such as oil spillage and gas flaring in the oil-producing region of Nigeria especially Delta and Bayelsa States. The exploitation activities have adversely affected the artisanal fishing households by reducing aquatic lives, economic, social and environmental benefits. Oil exploration and exploitation has at least over the last decade (2000-2010) influenced the socio-economic wellbeing of artisanal households and physical environment of the Niger Delta oil producing communities, threatening the subsistent economy and their entire livelihood (Babatunde, 2010). It is obvious that domestic demand for fish in Nigeria has never been met by dependence on output from available aquatic sources. Supply of fish from capture fisheries by artisanal household is decreasing due to oil spills. FAO (1995) maintained that the World fish catches appear to be leveling off below the estimated maximum sustainable yield of 100 million metric tonnes per annum. For example, it was projected that developing countries like Nigeria needed an additional 22.5 million metric tonnes of fish by the year 2000, which highlighted the need to increase fish production by artisanal households.
Although, the importance of fishing to households welfare in oil producing areas has often been raised in policy debates on coastal resources and oil spill management, little empirical evidence is available on the validity of such arguments (Sesabo & Tol, 2005). This implies that there is a need to understand the nature of artisanal fishing operations and fishing households’ level of technical and economic efficiency in the face of oil spills. This will enable policy makers develop efficient policies targeting coastal resources conservation and households’ welfare. It is pertinent to note also that when oil spills occur, they cover the surface of the water. This reduces oxygen exchange thereby causing death of fishes because the oil coats the gills of the fishes preventing them from inhaling oxygen. In addition, oil spills endangers fish hatcheries in coastal waters, contaminates commercially valuable fish and oil slicks prevent sunlight from reaching deeper levels of water where coral thrive, thus limiting food production of plants (photosynthesis). It also brings a setback to households whose main source of survival is fishing and consequently a decrease in their income earning capacity, exacerbating hunger and poverty on fishing households. This has also increased the spread of different types of diseases among the fishers and their household, which include conjunctivitis, cholera, dysentery etc (Okonta & Douglas, 2001; Edwin-wosu & Kinako, 2004). As intensive oil exploitation activities takes place, the issue of having enough artisanal households labour for fishing becomes a problem in the Niger Delta area of Nigeria as many rural dwellers now prefer working as temporary staff in oil related contracting firms around the villages instead of fishing. This has led to labour shortage, underemployment for many fishing operations and has resultantly caused fish shortage. The main challenge for the growth of artisanal fisheries is how to improve production performance while at the same time ensuring sustainable level of fisheries resources for artisanal fishing households. Therefore, measurement and analysis of artisanal fishing households’ performance become important.
In realization of the adverse effects of oil exploitation on agricultural productivity, the oil companies have embarked on agricultural development activities in areas covered under their concessions. For instance, Shell Petroleum Development Company (SPDC) and Nigeria Agip Oil Company (NAOC) Ltd are involved in infrastructure, education, health services, construction of road, provision of micro-credit, provision of materials and implements aimed at facilitating the development of agriculture within their concession areas. The aims of the oil companies are to: increase agricultural productivity, prevent further deterioration of the economic life of artisanal fishing households by equipping them with better fishing techniques, improve the incomes of fishing households, and make them more self-sufficient (Okpara, 2004). Despite the efforts of the oil companies and the Federal Government to improve sustainable fish production and living standards of households in the crude oil producing communities, fish productivity, output and income in these areas have tended to dwindle over the years. Finally, some studies have been conducted on oil exploitation in the crude oil producing riverine areas of Niger Delta. Gbigbi (2008) studied socio-economic implication of oil exploitation on farming communities in oil producing areas of Delta State. The result showed that crop farmers in the affected areas recorded comparatively lower output per hectare and lower earnings than their counterparts in those areas that were not polluted. Nwosu (2007) also studied economics of resource use by farmers in crude oil and non-crude oil producing communities of Imo State. The result showed that there were dissimilarities in age, education, farming experience and income level of food crop farmers, except in marital status. In addition, Inoni, Omotor and Adun (2006) investigated the effects of oil spillage on crop yield and farm income in Delta State. The result showed that oil spill reduced crop yield, land productivity and greatly depressed farm income. However, nothing has been documented for artisanal fishing enterprises, particularly with respect to their level of efficiency under intense oil exploitation. These studies centered on crop production with no attempt made at examining artisanal fishing households’ efficiency. Examining the efficiency of these households will help provide information on their level of performance under oil exploitation and equip policy makers with the necessary and empirical basis for intervention in their case. It is against this background that this research is being carried out. The relevant questions are: what are the socioeconomic characteristics of the fishing households? what are the artisanal fishing systems in the area? What is the fishing households’ level of technical and economic efficiency? What factors drive these indices? What is the effect of oil companies relief programmes on their income? What are the general constraints faced by these households in the course of fishing?
1.3 Objectives of the study
The broad objective of this study is to examine the effects of oil exploitation on the efficiency of artisanal fishing households in the Niger Delta region, Nigeria.
The specific objectives are to:
describe the socioeconomic characteristics of artisanal fishing households;
describe the artisanal fishing systems of artisanal fishing households;
determine factors affecting technical and economic efficiencies of artisanal fishing households;
estimate the technical and economic efficiencies of artisanal fishing households;
describe from the perception of the respondents, the general effects (environmental, social and economic) of oil exploitation on the households;
determine the effects of relief programmes on household income and the socioeconomic characteristics of the household heads.
.
1.4 Research hypotheses
The following hypotheses were tested;
Artisanal fishing households in the study area are technically efficient.
Artisanal fishing households in the study area are economically efficient.
1.5 Justification of the study
Nigeria is endowed with abundant natural and human resources and weather, which support agricultural production throughout the year. Despite the availability of these resources, the artisanal fishing households are plagued with problem of low fish output and productivity (Abowei, Akankali, Tawari & George 2008). To turn the situation around, there is need to step-up the rate of fish production by improving the living conditions of the artisanal households and encouraging the fertility of artisanal fishing and water environment. The prevailing situation in the communities of Delta and Bayelsa States as major oil producing communities whereby the subsistent peasant economy and the environment are being threatened as well as the entire livelihood by oil spillage can neither guarantee increased productivity of fish catch nor better living condition for artisanal fishing households. This situation, which makes fishing households of oil producing communities impoverished, has often resulted in violent conflicts between the affected communities and oil companies.
This study will provide up-to-date information that will guide artisanal households in crude oil producing communities in decision-making and the governments in formulating appropriate policies towards the solution of fishing problems in the Niger Delta region. The study will present a guide for future studies on oil exploitation and artisanal households’ vis-à-vis environmental sustainability and protection and a baseline document that can be updated from time to time. It will equally provide a suitable basis upon which future comparative studies can be undertaken. Besides, the results of the study will arm the NDDC to formulate environmentally compatible strategies to increase fish production and productivity of artisanal households.
1.6 Limitations
A key limitation was inadequate finance. Again, high cost of transportation and speed boat availability was generally problematic. The distance to travel from one community to another was a serious constraint since they were far from each other. Some trained enumerators were employed to solve the problem. There was observed apathy and general indifference of the respondents to questionnaire and interview in terms of objectivity and sincerity. Hence, a lot of persuasion was used to obtain as much of these information as possible. However, these limitations did not in any way impair the reliability of the findings and could therefore be taken to represent the true situation in the study area.
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
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, 08137701720
WHATSAPP US ON: 08137701720
EFFECTS OF REMITTANCES ON THE LIVELIHOOD OF FARM HOUSEHOLDS IN ENUGU STATE, NIGERIA
ABSTRACT
This study examined the effects of remittances on the livelihood of farm households in Enugu State Nigeria. Multistage random sampling technique was used to select 120 remittance recipient households used for the study. Data were collected by the use of structured questionnaire. Both descriptive and inferential statistical techniques were used in data analysis. The study showed that, households whose heads are within, 51 – 70 year of age and are not highly educated are more likely to produce migrants. Also families with large household size (six and above) migrate more. Households with married status were found to be 65.8%, while 56.7% of the household heads were males. Internal remittances formed the bulk of the receipts of 86.7% of the respondents, while 55% of the respondents received between N1, 000 and N10, 000 remittances 4-6 times a year. The most frequent channel for remittance delivery was hand carriage and both cash and non-cash remittances were received. Remittances received were often used to meet pre – existing household needs/expenses. Regression result showed that age of household heads as well as their levels of education affected migration. Other factors that affected migration are farm size and household size. The livelihood of farm households was found to be affected by the number of organizations the household heads belonged to, the age and the level of education of household head, farm size and size of remittances that is invested.
TABLE OF CONTENTS Page
Title page – – – – – – – – – i
Dedication – – – – – – – – – ii
Acknowledgement – – – – – – – – iii
Table of contents – – – – – – – – iv
List of tables – – – – – – – – – vii
Abstract – – – – – – – – – viii
Chapter One: Introduction – – – – – – – 1
1.1 Background Information – – – – – – – 1
1.2 Problem statement – – – – – – – 5
1.3 Objectives of the study – – – – – – – 6
1.4 Research hypotheses – – – – – – – 7
1.5 Justification of the study – – – – – – – 7
Chapter Two: Literature Review – – – – – – 8
2.1 The concept of household – – – – – – – 8
2.2 The concept of remittance – – – – – – 9
2.3 The concept of livelihood – – – – – – 10
2.4 Migrations as a household strategy – – – – – 11
2.5 Remittance transfer mechanisms – – – – – – 12
2.5.1 Reason for channel choice – – – – – – 14
2.6 Household uses of remittances – – – – – – 16
2.7 Variation in remittance behaviour and household characteristics – 17
2.8 Determinants of household livelihood: empirical evidence – – 19
2.8.1 Remittance and human capital development – – – – 20
2.8.2 Remittances and agricultural production – – – – 21
2.8.3 Remittances and poverty – – – – – – 23
2.8.4 Motivation to remit – – – – – – – 24
2.9 Theoretical framework – – – – – – – 25
2.9.1 Neoclassical economics – micro theory – – – – 26
2.9.2 The new-economics of labour migration – – – – 27
2.9.3 Life cycle theory in the context of remittance – – – – 29
2.10 Analytical framework – – – – – – – 29
2.10.1 Multiple regression analysis – – – – – – 30
Chapter Three: Methodology – – – – – – 32
3.1 The study area – – – – – – – – 32
3.2 Sampling procedure – – – – – – – 33
3.3 Data collection – – – – – – – – 33
3.4 Data analysis – – – – – – – – 33
3.5 Testing of hypotheses – – – – – – – 34
Chapter Four: Results and Discussions – – – – – 35
4.1 Description of the socio – economic attributes of recipient households 35
4.1.1 Age of household head – – – – – – 35
4.1.2 Household size of the respondents – – – – – 36
4.1.3 Level of education of household heads – – – – 36
4.1.4 Gender of households heads – – – – – – 37
4.1.5 Marital status of the respondents – – – – – 37
4.2 Identification of sources of remittances and transfer mechanism used 38
4.2.1 Sources of remittances – – – – – – 38
4.2.2 Senders of remittances – – – – – – 39
4.2.3 Channel through which remittances are received – – – 39
4.2.4 Frequency of remittance received by respondents – – – 40
4.2.5 Amount of the remittances received – – – – – 40
4.3 Identification of the types of remittances and uses by farm households 41
4.3.1 Types of remittances received – – – – – 41
4.3.2 Uses of remittances by respondents – – – – – 41
4.4 Determination of factors influencing migration of farm
Household member(s) – – – – – – – 42
4.4.1 Regression result on the socio-economic factor influencing migration 42
4.5 Determination of the effects of remittances on the livelihood of
Farm households – – – – – – – 43
4.5.1 Regression result on the effects of remittances on livelihood – 43
Chapter five: Summary, Conclusion and Recommendation – – 45
Conclusions – – – – – – – – – 46
Recommendations – – – – – – – – 46
References – – – – – – – – – 47
Appendix – – – – – – – – – 61
CHAPTER ONE
INTRODUCTION
1.1 Background Information
With an estimated population of 150 million people, Nigeria is the most populous country in Africa. About two-thirds of the population resides in the rural area where they derive livelihood from Agriculture and allied sectors (Oseni & Winter, 2009). Although, agriculture has remained a rural enterprise, it accounted for 41.21 per cent of the GDP and the largest non-oil export earner to the country (National Planning Commission [NPC] , 2006).
Agriculture as practiced in Nigeria is predominantly of small farm household (comprising the farmer and his family) which usually cultivates an area of land that ranges from 1.5 to 2.0 hectares in fragmented and scattered small holdings. Although these households are individually insignificant, they collectively form an important foundation upon which the Nigerian agricultural economy rests. This category of farmers are desirable not only because they provide employment and food for the country’s teeming population (Nigerian Institute of Social and Economic Research, 2003), but also because they provide a more equitable distribution of income as well as effective demand structure for other sectors of the economy (Dorner, 1995; Bravo-Ureta & Evenson, 1994).
According to Ashley & Carney, (1999); Chambers & Conway (1992) agricultural production is not the only source of livelihood available for the rural people, farm households constantly adjust their on-farm and off-farm activities (e.g. local craftwork, trade, civil service, hunting for game, brick laying, local services such as traditional healing and repairs) in response to some changes in their environment. The characteristics of livelihood components are determined by the resources and values of specific physical, social and environmental assets. Thus, livelihood can be described as consisting of systematic activities or enterprises undertaken by individual households using their capabilities as well as assets to derive material or financial reward and improved status (Assan, 2006). However, the effort by households to improve their well being through engaging in various livelihood options tend to be distressed by environmental factors, unemployment and poverty which dominate the livelihood patterns of farm households (Barrett et al, 2001; Ellis 1998).
Despite the reported decrease in poverty in the last decade (NBS, 2005), it is generally believed that poverty rate is still unexpectedly high in Nigeria with the rural areas more affected (Babatunde & Martinetti, 2010). Moreover, World Development Indicator (2007) and Happe (2003) stated that poverty is disproportionately concentrated among households whose primary livelihood depends on agricultural activities.
Livelihood of the farm households is bedeviled by missing market, lack of fundamental assets, production services and inputs (such as land, water, credit, extension, market information and technical innovation), high unemployment rate, recurring crop failures, precarious labour conditions and low salaries (International Fund for Agricultural Development, (IFAD) 2007; World Bank, 2007). Nwaru (2004) noted that inappropriate policies and programme for Agriculture, pervasive corruption manifesting in misappropriation of resources and embezzlement, ethnic and religious conflicts has resulted to a high sense of insecurity and inefficiency in production.
Owing to the inability of government to meet the needs and interests of the farmers, rural sector within this context, offer inadequate and limited options to satisfy the needs of the rural farm households and provide them with little opportunities to improve their lives (IFAD and FAO, 2008). To guarantee survival, migration as a supplementary source of livelihood and household diversification strategies has assumed importance (FAO, 2007; Samal, 2006).
Migration – (whether Domestic or international) is generally a household decision and a strategy to diversify income, minimize risk, cope with economic crisis and improve livelihood and welfare (Kiiru, 2010; Assan, 2006; Pott, 2006; Samal, 2006; Young, 2006). Evidence has shown that, although the poor have higher migration propensities, the poorest people cannot afford the material cost and risks associated with international migration and are linked more to internal migration (Hatton & Williamson, 2004; Waddington & Sabates-wheeler, 2003). IFAD and FAO (2008) noted that, though internal and international migration have differing characteristics, the motive for displacement is similar – the search for new options to improve the quality of life – and is thus an indication of limited opportunities.
According to Asa (2007) and Samal (2006) remittances are positive outcomes of migration and are the portion of migrant workers’ earnings or available income sent to their families back home (Khoudour-Casteras, 2007). Ratha (2003) stated that private inward remittances are often affected by unanticipated economic shock such as fuel price increase or elimination of agricultural subsidies which leads to income shortfall. However, unlike internal remittances, international remittances have proven surprisingly resilient in economic down turns (World Bank 2006). For instance, remittance flows to the developing countries total US$221 billion in 2006 – an amount that was twice the official development assistance to developing countries in that year (Gupta, Pattillo & Wagh, 2009). IFAD (2007) indicate that the volume of remittances to developing countries increased by 10.7 per cent between 2002 and 2007, thus they predicted that over the next five years, cumulative remittances to developing countries will exceed US $ 1.5 trillion.
Statistics has shown that, Nigeria was the highest receiver of remittances in Africa and thirteenth in the world. With US $ 3.329 billion remittance in 2007, Nigeria alone accounted for about 31 per cent of the total remittances flows to Sub-Saharan Africa (as presented in Table 1) and are the largest share of African migrant population in USA and Europe (SAMP, 2006). However, there are evidences that remittance flows are underreported, so that the actual amount could more than double the official formal transfer (Gupta et al, 2009). According to Pendleton (2006) this is because, migrants predominantly remit through informal money transfer; the formal options are not readily available to undocumented migrants and low income clients wishing to send money across border.
Remittances are believed to have huge impact on the socio economic conditions of families left behind in place of origin (Babatunde & Martinetti 2010). This is because it provides migrant households with funds that are uncorrelated with agricultural income (World Bank, 2006). Furthermore, remittances are overtaking income from agriculture in sheer size and importance, as persistent socio-economic and structural problems continue to depress the level of rural wages and availability of work (Deshingkar & Anderson 2004; Van Der Geest, 2003).
Many researchers have postulated that remittances represent a stable flow that frequently arrive in depressed localities, unbound by the conditionality and dependence of foreign direct investment (Inter-American Development Bank, 2008). Unlike foreign aid, remittances goes directly to intended families in places that are often difficult to reach with official development assistance and it could be used by household according to their own priorities (Kiiru, 2010; Samal, 2006; Stein, 2003). It is also evident that remittances have shown not to be sensitive to market cycles, economic downturn and crisis. Instead, they have even increased during economic recessions (World Bank, 2006).
Table 1: Estimated remittances to selected sub-Saharan Africa countries and other regions, 2010
Countries and regions Remittances amount (US $ billions)
Nigeria 10.0
Sudan 3.2
Senegal 1.2
Uganda 0.8
South Africa
Kenya
1.0
1.8
Lesotho 0.5
Mauritius 0.2
Mali 0.4
Togo 0.3
Cote d’Ivoire 0.2
Ethiopia 0.4
Cape Verde 0.1
Sub-Saharan Africa 21.5
Middle East and North Africa 35.4
South Asia 82.6
East Asia and Pacific 91.2
Latin America and the Caribbean 58.1
Europe and Central Asia 36.7
Source: World Bank, 2011
Availability of remittance – whether cash or in-kind – has the potential to reduce poverty, smoothen consumption and ease capital constraint as well as improve livelihood diversification or intensification among farm households (Deshingkar, 2004). Due to the absence of government interference, remittances usually do not carry any obligations, constraints or preconditions, thus it has adequate scope to become viable rural investment tools provided the required policy, institutional and social security support system are in place.
1.2 Problem Statement
Agriculture plays a predominant role in Nigeria’s drive toward economic development through provision of food, raw material, employment and foreign exchange earnings (Nwankwo 1981). However, the continued performance of this role by farm households has been severely constrained by paucity of fund.
Despite the existence of many financial institutions and the agricultural policy guidelines, commercial banks are reluctant to lend to farmer due to the inherent risks and uncertainties in agricultural production (Adera 1995). This resulted to the vicious circle of low sector income, low savings, low investment and low output as well as falling asset value and uncertain income potentials which has left agriculture in an epileptic state (Duncan & Harrington, 1986). This implies that farmers have to look up to non-farm sources of finance and are often tempted to join non agricultural, non-rural labour market and a higher proportion than usual being forced out of farming or at least into substantial changed mode of operation (Drabenstott, Duncan & Kim Norris, 1985).
Migration has been adopted as a means of spreading the financial risk by farm households, thus the migrant remittances form an important source of income arriving in a depressed locality (IADB 2008). Evidence has shown that remittances – whether cash or in-kind – has the potential to reduce poverty, smoothen consumption and ease capital constraint as well as improve livelihood diversification or intensification among farm households (Samal, 2006; Deshingkar, 2004 Bilsborrow, 1998; Shark, 1991). Despite this perceived importance of remittances in enhancing income of farm households, the mechanism through which remittance are transferred have not been adequately studied in Nigeria. This yawning knowledge gap has continued to persist, notwithstanding the significant effects of remittances on micro as well as macro level of the economy. While there is good information on international remittance, very little is known about domestic remittance (Kiiru, 2010). This study will consider both internal and international remittances. In addition, accurate analysis of remittance utilization by farm households is rarely studied (Meyers, 1998). Quartey (2006), observed that the contribution of remittances to farm households livelihood have received insufficient attention despite the fact that they are invaluable to poverty reduction.
Though, a number of studies have treated the impact of remittances on development, welfare, food security, poverty and income inequality in Nigeria (e.g. Babatunde & Martinetti, 2010; Oseni & winter, 2009; Chukwuone et al., 2007), the authors are silent on the effects of remittance on farm households’ livelihood in the country. In all these studies, the link between migrations, remittance transfer mechanisms and its effects on farm households’ livelihood has not been established empirically in Nigeria. As a result of this research gap, relatively little policy efforts have been made to utilize remittance toward productive use. Concrete policies that could encourage the flow and efficient use of remittances are generally lacking (Maphose, 2007). One reason for this might be the absence of up-to-date empirical evidence regarding the effects of remittances in the specific context (Samal, 2006).
The synergy between migration and livelihood with respect to remittances has largely gone unnoticed, whereas the combination of such perspective could create significant empirical and theoretical cross fertilization. Hence, the pertinent research questions emanating from this proposed study are as follows; what are the factors that influence migrations of household member(s)? What transfer mechanisms have been adopted? What are the sources and uses of remittance? And how do remittances affect the livelihood of farm households in Enugu state? These questions among others will be addressed by this study.
1.3 Objectives of the Study
The main aim of the study is to determine the effects of remittances on the livelihood of farm households in Enugu State.
The specific objectives are to:
describe the socio-economic attributes of the recipient households;
identify the source(s) and remittance transfer mechanism used;
identify the types of remittances and uses to which they are put by farm household;
determine factors that influence migration of farm household member(s);
determine the effects of remittances on farm households’ livelihood;
make recommendations based on findings.
1.4 Research Hypotheses
The study shall be guided by the following null hypotheses:
Ho: Socio-economic factors have no significant effect on migration of household member(s).
Ho: Remittances have no significant effects on livelihood of farm households.
1.5 Justification of the Study
This study is an attempt to determine the effects of remittances on farm households’ livelihood in Enugu State of Nigeria. The importance of remittance in improving the livelihood of farm households underscores the need for intensification of research efforts in this direction. Enugu state represents a good case study for examining these issues. Not only is poverty widespread in the state, but the state also produces a large number of domestic and international migrants (Babatunde & Martinetti, 2010).
Several researchers (Gupta et al., 2009; Quartey, 2006; Samal, 2006; Ratta, 2003) have given evidence regarding the effects of remittances in improving the livelihood and economic status of recipient households. These have been documented mainly in developed countries and other African nations. Not much is documented in this context in Nigeria and Enugu state in particular. There is therefore, every need to undertake a study of this nature as part of the measure to bridge the gap.
This study is expected to identify some of the factors that influence migration and bring to limelight the benefit of out migrant remittances as a portfolio diversification strategy for farm households at the micro level. It also intends to correct the trend on academic, press and policy debates that view migration as problematic and undesirable ignoring the vital effects of remittances in liberating households from the poverty trap (De Haan, 1999).
Finally, the result of this study will guide policy making bodies in formulating policies that will encourage the flow and efficient use of remittances in the country. The study will also add to the available literature on remittances and students and researchers will find this work useful for reference purposes
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
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, 08137701720
WHATSAPP US ON: 08137701720
EFFECTS OF SOCIO-ECONOMIC CHARACTERISTICS ON FORESTLAND CONVERSION IN ISI-UZO L.G.A OF ENUGU STATE, NIGERIA
ABSTRACT
The study was an empirical analysis of the Effects of Socio-Economic Characteristics on forestland conversion in Isi-Uzo Local Government Area of Enugu State. It described the agricultural activities of male and female farmers, problems encountered by both genders during the course of agricultural activities which may be socio-economic dependent. These socio-economic characteristics were identified, examined and linked to their marginal effect on forest neighbourhood. Two hypotheses were formulated to unravel the complexities of these relationships and for better understanding of their effect on the forest environment. Data were collected from the three development councils of the Local Government Area and a total of 160 respondents from the study area were chosen. Their responses were analysed using descriptive statistics, multiple regression, and t-test statistics. The study observed that the agricultural activities in the study area were irrespective of gender. The study further found out that some socio-economic characteristics of the male gender were statistically significant in relation to forestland conversion. None of the female gender socio-economic characteristics was statistically significant. The mean conversion for both genders was insignificant when tested for equality. The study also, found out that ownership of forestland does not influence its management in the study area. Based on these findings, the study concluded that agricultural activities which led to alteration of the forest environment could be more male dependent. Policies which could address the male socio-economic characteristics could have far reaching effect in the stepwise and sustainable utilization of the forest resources in the study area. The study therefore recommended programmes, guidelines and constructs which should aim at addressing the socio-economic characteristics of both genders which should have an ameliorating effect on the forest neighbourhood. It specifically recommends that addressing pronatalists issues of unnecessary increment of family size as a tool for agricultural activities without resounding benefits. Also, efficient institutional constructs (land tenure laws) which could define and allot forest ownership pattern should be enacted in the study area. Creation of jobs, diversification of these jobs and sustainable investments could save our forest and the environments for the benefits of the present and posterity.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
Title Page i
Certification ii
Dedication iii
Acknowledgement iv
Table of contents v
List of Tables vii
Abstract ix
Chapter One:
1.0 Introduction 1
1.1 Background Information 1
1.2 Problem Statement 6
1.3 Objective of the Study 8
1.4 Research Hypothesis 8
1.5 Justification of the Study 8
Chapter Two:
2.0 Literature Review 10
2.1 Forest and Its Perspective 10
2.1.1 Categories of Forest 10
2.1.2 Forest Classification 11
2.1.3 Forest Types 11
2.1.4 Forest and Forestry Terms 12
2.1.5 The Extent of Deforestation in the Tropics 13
2.1.6 Causes of Deforestation 14
2.1.6.1 The Direct Causes of Forestland Conversion 15
2.1.6.2 The Underlying Causes 16
2.1.7 Remedies 17
2.2 Concept of Land Tenure Property Rights 17
2.2.1 Land and Tenurial Problems 18
2.2.2 Land Tenure and Resource Degradation 19
2.2.3 Rationale for Land Reform 19
2.2.4 Types of Land Tenure and Associated Property Rights 20
2.2.5 Concepts associated with Land Tenure 22
2.3 Concept of Gender 22
2.3.1 Women and the Rural Sector 22
2.3.2 Women and their Specific Roles in Agriculture 23
2.3.3 Women Labour Force and their Percentage Contribution
in Agriculture 24
2.3.4 Implications of increased Women Labour Force in Agriculture 24
2.3.5 Average Daily hours of Women in Agriculture 25
2.3.6 Problems of Women in Agriculture 25
2.3.7 Prospects of Women Farmers 25
2.3.8 Women and Environment 26
2.3.8.1 Women and Bio-diversity Degradation 26
2.3.8.2 Women and Resource Degradation 26
2.3.8.3 Women, the Victims of Resource Degradation 27
2.3.8.4 Consequences of Resource Degradation 27
2.3.8.5 Women and Environmental Sustainability 28
2.4 Agricultural Activities 28
2.5 Conceptual and Theoretical Framework 28
2.6 Analytical Framework 30
2.6.1 Regression Analysis 30
2.6.2 The Student T-test (Statistics) 31
Chapter Three:
3.0 Methodology 32
3.1 The Study Area 32
3.2 Sampling Procedure 32
3.3 Method of Data Collection 33
3.4 Method of Data Analysis 33
3.5 Model Specification 34
Chapter Four
4.0 Results and Discussion 35
4.1 Forestland Ownership and Management (Oral Interview of the
Community Leaders) 35
4.2 Ownership of Forestland in the Study Area 36
4.3 Utilization of Forest Resources 37
4.4 Gender Accessibility too Forest and its Resources 39
4.5 Limit to forestland Utilization 40
4.6 Perception of Forest and its Resources by the Respondent 41
4.7 Forestland Management in the Study Area 42
4.8 Socio-Economic Status of Respondents in the Study Area 43
4.9 Interpretation of Parameter Estimates (The Bs) of the
Socio-Economic Characteristics of Male Respondents 49
4.10 Interpretation of Parameter Estimates (The Bs) of the
Socio-Economic Characteristics of Female Respondents 51
4.11 Summary of the Regression Model for the Forestland by Both Genders 52
4.12 Descriptive statistics for the Mean value of Socio-Economic
Variables of the Respondents in Relation to Forestland Conversion 53
4.13 T-Test Table for Mean Hectares Conversion by Both Genders 54
4.14 Hypotheses 54
4.15 Description of the Respondents agricultural Activities 55
5.0 Chapter Five:
5.1 Summary, Recommendation and Conclusion 60
5.2 Recommendations 61
63 Conclusion 62
References 63
Appendices 71
CHAPTER ONE
INTRODUCTION
1.0 Background Information
The usefulness of forest in economic development and environmental sustainability is not in doubt. Forest environment and diversity of life, which they harbour, represent an irreplaceable asset to the biosphere and mankind. Ecologically, their function is unquestionable as they provide two-thirds of net primary productivity of all terrestrial ecosystems, of which our priceless tropical forests account for about sixty percent (Umaru, 2005). Also, they serve as natural habitat for a sizeable chunk of world’s plant and animal species, thus providing the basis for biological diversity, which is crucial for the biosphere’s continuity. Forests provide a home for wild animals such as elephants, monkeys, antelopes, and snakes, which are hunted for food, income and revenue when conserved in reserves.
Economically, logging (lumbering) of forest hard wood for hard currencies, fuel wood gathering, and security for the poor rural population when crop fails or, as an income supplement during the lean farming periods are essential provisions of the forest. Furthermore, all these incalculable activities provide about eighty six percent employment opportunities in rural areas of Enugu State (Enugu State Government and DFID, 2003). This obviously is well acknowledged especially in Isi-Uzo Local Government Area of the State, which is commonly known for its farming activities. Hence, the inhabitants are often called the “Uzegus” meaning literally farmers.
Agriculturally, forest leaves and branches of trees cover the top soil, thereby intercepting heavy down pours of rainfall or high velocity moving wind which would have eroded the soil, thus rendering it less fertile and less productive. Furthermore, dead and decaying portions of forest trees improve the soil texture and structure, hence, increasing water infiltration capacity of the soil. Nutrient recycling ability of the forest trees is also worthwhile. It increases organic and mineral matter of the soil without any adverse effect on the ecosystem. Its mineralization capacity, which makes nutrients available, which would have been permanently, lost is quite fascinating (Okonkwo, 1996). Forest trees bind soil particles together thereby enhancing stability of the structure and porosity for effective microbial activities.
The influential property of the forest in microclimate moderation cannot be over-emphasized. It regulates temperature and humidity thereby causing precipitations. Precisely, forest crowns intercept moisture laden winds causing them to rise up, which when cooling down, induces rainfall. Furthermore, cloud formation through transpiration of forest trees is an essential function of these elements.
The earth’s reflectivity (albedo) is enhanced by forest cover Ebo, Okoye and Ayichi (2002) maintained that forest trees manage and protect water sheds which have cooling effects on neigbourhood. Thus, maintenance of hydrological cycle is an essential function of the forest especially in regions characterized with irregular or seasonal variation of rainfall (Umaru, 2005).
Again, the pharmacopoeia veritable of the forest resources cannot be under-estimated (Miller, 1990). Tropical plants provide essential medicine, and genes from forest biodiversity necessary for breeding improved crop varieties and other medications. Also, half of the worlds prescribed medicine has their origin in wildlife species (Salau, 1992).
The atmospheric purification has lime lighted the crucial importance of the forest in controlling air pollution. The forest biosphere is next biggest sink for atmospheric carbon, hence, the sequestering of atmospheric carbon pollutants by the forest trees is overwhelming (Oyebo, 2002; Umaru, 2005). Thus, this sequestering ability has been the basis advocated for reducing greenhouse effect, and an ultimate clamp down on global warming.
Furthermore, the aesthetic and cultural significance of the forest environment is worth noting. Their values are intangible but real. This non-use value aspect of forest environment is unhidden as people sentimentally disprove its destruction even if they are unlikely to visit the environment.
Despite all these appreciable benefits and unquantifiable resources of forest to mankind, the breaching of forest mantle to make way for systematic agriculture, human settlements, among others have drastically reduced the size of forest and its resources at an alarming rate.
According to a study carried out by the Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO), the world lost 450 million hectares of its tropical cover between 1960 and 1990. This is mainly in Latin America and Africa where about 8.2 million and 5 million hectares respectively are annually deforested (Burgess, 1993). Deforestation is mainly the tragedy of the developing worlds as more developed countries (MDCs) are gaining access to replaced forests (Butler, 2005). Pathetically, deforest rated regions do not regain their original splendour especially in the harsh humid climates.
In Africa, the annual rate of change in total forest area from 1990 to 2000 was estimated to be 5.3 million hectares per year. NEMA( 2000) reported that the rate of forest loss in Africa is about half the rate in Southeast Asia.
In Nigeria, Federal Office of Statistics (2005) revealed that 12.2% or about 11.089,000 hectares of the total landscape is forested. 2.9% or roughly 326,000 hectares is primary forest. The rest is made up of secondary forests (reserves) and plantations.
Table 1 below shows forest reserves and plantation in each of the states of the federation.
Tables 1: Area of Forest Reserve and Plantation by State.
State
Area of forest reserve (ha) Area of forest plantation (ha) % of forest plantation to forest reserve
Abia 8,700 2,051 25
Adamawa 10,011 2 ,374 24
Akwa Ibom 31,857 25 ,800 80
Amambra 32,457 5 ,332 16
Bauchi 840,280 1,200 0
Benue 60,175 2,234 4
Borno 582,820 432,052 74
Cross-River 610,129 19,000 65
Delta 78,506 2,000 3
Edo 482,047 150,000 31
Enugu 8,524 7,498 88
Imo 1,524 1,160 76
Jigawa 1,525 3,000 3
Kaduna 9,200 6146 1
Kano 613,484 2 ,18 6 3
Kastina 77,702 18 ,900 8
Kebbi 245,100 17 ,150 5
Kogi 540,360 5 ,000 1
Kwara 460,350 6,000 1
Lagos 12,579 2,00 16
Niger 756,906 4,956 1
Ogun 273,118 35,000 13
Ondo 337,336 27,153 8
Osun 86,057 6,381 7
Oyo 336,563 8,031 2
Plateau 402,500 6,800 2
Rivers 25,000 231 1
Sokoto 602,631 10,943 2
Taraba 10,011 1,359 14
Yobe n.a n.a n.a
Source: FOS (1997)
Key = n.a = not available.
This total area was lost at a rate of change (conversion) of 31.2% to 3.12% per annum between 2000 and 2005.In total, about 35.7% or 6,145,000 hectares of forest cover was lost between 1990 and 2005( FOS,2005). On the same dimension, Butler (2005) recorded that Nigeria has the world’s highest and worst case of deforestation data released by FAO of the United Nations. The result of Butler (2005) recorded that about 55.7% of the forest was lost between 2000 and 2005.
From the foregoing, poor tropical countries including Nigeria suffer the highest rate of primary forest loss. Table 2 below shows the worst case of deforestation rate of primary forest from 2000 to 2005 for selected countries.
Table 2: Deforestation for selected countries
S/n Country Percentage (%) rate of deforestation
1 Nigeria 55.7
2 Viet Nam 54.5
3 Cambodia 29.4
4 Sri Lanka 15.2
5 Malawi 14.9
6 Indonesia 12.9
7 North Korea 9.3
8 Nepal 9.1
9 Panama 6.7
10 Guatemala 6.4
Source: Rhett: A Butler (2005), Mongabay.com
In Southeastern Nigeria, it was estimated that forest is decimated (converted) at the rate of 3.5 percent annually, which is higher than the national average of 2.5% (Enugu Sate Government and DFID, 2003). In Nigeria and Enugu State, use of satellite imaging instruments, which can readily monitor forest conversion from space, is an illusion. This is because the financial cost of these instruments are enormous and thereby making their acquisition difficult. Forest conversion rate is therefore mere estimate especially in Isi-uzo L.G.A. of the state even as noted by Oyekale (2007) that the difficulty in obtaining data on forest cover or deforestation rates often leads to analysis of the phenomenon indirectly through examining the factors explaining expansion of agriculture or other conversion activities – for instance, the socio-economics characteristics of farmers as a link to agricultural activities which exacerbates pressures on forest ecology.
Obviously, as indicated in Table 1 above, Enugu State has hectares of forest reserve of about 8,524 (FOS, 1997). Table 3 below gives tentatively, the existing forest reserves, the areas in kilometers, hectare and locations in the state.
Table 3: Existing Forest Reserve in Enugu State, Nigeria.
S/n Country L.G.A. Area (Km2)` Hectare (Ha)
1 Aguobu Owa Ezeagu 8.000 800.00
2 Akwariani Nsukka 2.200 220.00
3 Akpakwume Nze Udi 9.110 911.00
4 Awalaw Isikwe Oji River 7.840 784.00
5 Enugu Enugu 11.390 139.00
6 Enugu Extension Eungu 11.620 1162.00
7 Enug W.H.W. Enugu 1.003 396.60
8 Ifite Amoli Awgu 3.966 4618.00
9 Mamu River Oji River 56.180 4618.00
10 Miliken Hill Enugu 0.940 94.03
11. Oji River Oji River 3.618 361.80
12. Umuabi Udi 11.660 1166.00
13. Ekwegbe Gully Nsukka 3.254 325.44
Total 12078.17ha
(Culled from Blue print, Enugu State Government, 1995)
Interestingly, Table 3 indicates that there is no forest reserve in Isi-Uzo Local Government Area. Therefore, the area has to rely solely on the primary forest as its resource base for agricultural activities for livelihood.
Imperatively, since the reactivation and provision of motor rail that ply Enugu and Eha-Amufu, increased agricultural activities were recorded in the study area. Crop farming had increased. This increment could partly be attributed to the recent cassava export policy of the nation and the use of cassava flour in some confectionary industries. People, therefore, cultivate more and even infertile lands to meet up with the economic expectation. These cyclic activities had pushed the forest frontiers to an inevitable disadvantage. Furthermore, logs and lumps of wood in disguise of fuel wood are being transported back to the state capital for urban consumption owing to high prices of petroleum products. The unproductiveness of fertile lands had also contributed to cultivating more hectares of land in order to meet up with reasonable yields.
These fuel wood were actually not dead trees in the forest but felled by poachers in order to earn a living. To maintain the food production in the area, conversion of forests to arable crop land and other uses had exacerbated the problem of deforestation in the area.
The societal benefits arising from food production in the area cannot be over emphasized, but means should be sought to sustain the environment for posterity. This has led to the clarion call by Governments, Non-governmental Organizations (NGOs), and International Agencies to encourage agro-forestry and other environmental friendly farming techniques as a sure bet to avoid over-exploitation of forests and their resources and to sustain them for posterity. Gallivan (1988) stated that agro-forestry is a practical and successful way to avert the ever deterioration and degradation of Nigerian natural environment. Agro-forestry is a systematic farming practice, which involves inter-planting of tree shrubs with crops or with livestock with the aim of optimizing economic and environmental returns. Current, Lutz and Scherr (1995) maintained that the purpose of the practice is to replenish woody perennials while upgrading land, reduction of adverse effect of erosion, conservation of water and other environmental benefits. Agro-forestry complements and reinforces traditional reforestation effort by reducing the pressure on the remaining natural forests for economic purposes and environmental services.
In Western Nigeria, Gallivan (1988) reported that farmers were adopting agro-forestry techniques. In the study area, agro-forestry practices had been an indigenous knowledge, but the practice is with traditional farming technique. This is because strands of tress, shrubs such as oil palm, figs etc are found scattered in farm plots even through these trees may be uneconomical. Nevertheless, instant pruning of branches or even uprooting trees in order to give adequate sunshine to cultivated crops is practised. Agro-forestry practices in the area needs re-orientation to persuade the rural households to plant economic trees in their individual farm plots although land is usually communally owned.
1.2 Problem Statement
It has been widely acknowledged that forest and its resources are decimated at an alarming rate (2009). In Isi-Uzo, the dwindling of forest ecosystem has been imperative owing to the total dependence of the population on forest and its resources to supplement their living. This has led to various accelerated agricultural activities and practices of men and women in order to earn a livelihood. The traditional shifting cultivation has been reduced to a minimum in certain areas, while in some, cultivation at the fringes of the forest seemed an option to boost yield and increase farm size.
Despite the increased agricultural activities in the area, the socio-economic statues of the rural household have been deplorable. For instance, the daily wage for rural women varies between N80 – N150, while that of men is N300 – N600.00 depending on the season and mode of operation. This low earning made savings difficult and resulted to inability to purchase farm inputs in order to cultivate in an environmentally friendly manner and/or diversify into other occupational opportunities. Furthermore, the increase in population and the quest to own a land in the area has exacerbated further pressure on forest and its ecosystem.
Again, in the study area, that the male heads a household does to exclude females within and outside the household to own a farm plot. Instead, male heads may have access to resources more than women. Women then, carry out their agricultural activities where they can, implying that both genders are involved in agricultural activities. Therefore, there is gender bias on forestland conversion in the study area. This is because both men and women carry out agricultural activities irrespective of their gender and sex role. Thus, the argument lies on whether agricultural activities of women are more destructive than those of men or the reverse, or that both genders contribute as much on forestland conversion in recognition of their socio-economic statuses.
A related study on the issue by Onweze, Arene and Okpukpara (2006) in Nsukka L.G.A. concluded that no significant differences on forestland conversion existed between both genders. But care should be taken in homogenizing Nsukka and Isi-Uzo, as Isi-Uzo is unique and different from Nsukka in all ramifications. For instance, geographically, the Isi-Uzo LGA is dominated with dense forest vegetation of primary origin. Also, the Isi-Uzos were known as the “Uzegu” people, meaning true farmers- the population depended on farming for livelihood sustenance. Meanwhile, no available record has shown any documentation on gender activities or forestland conversion in the study area.
Thus, the study is an attempt to investigate the effects of socio-economic characteristics of men and women in forestland conversion in the study area. The following questions were in conformity to the outcome of this study:
(a) Do agricultural activities of men differ from those of women?
(b) Do the socio-economic characteristics of men differ from those of women?
(c) What are the determinants of forestland conversion by men and women in the study area?
(d) Are constraints or problems of agricultural activities the same for both genders?
(e) If both genders are actually involved in forestland conversion, what is the magnitude of this conversion with respect to each gender?
(f) Does ownership of forest influence its conversion management?
1.3 Objectives of the study
The primary objective of this research was to examine the effect of gender agricultural activities on forestland conversion in Isi-uzo L.G.A. of Enugu State.
The specific objectives are to:
Describe agricultural activities by men and women in the study area.
Describe the forest land ownership and management practices in the study area
Determine the magnitude of the forestland conversion effects with respect to both genders.
Describe, determine and analyze the influence of socio-economic status (characteristics) of men and women on forestland conversion.
Identify gender problems of agricultural activities in relation to forestland conversion in the study area.
1.4 Research hypotheses
Ho1: The magnitude of forestland conversion among the gender is insignificant.
Ho2: Socio-economic status (characteristics) of men and women farmers do not significantly influence forestland conversion
1.5 Justification of the Study
Forest conversion has been a worldwide phenomenon. It’s drastic consequence and deterioration of the global environment has led to setting up of committee of International co-operation in managing the global common. This draws attention on world’s tropical forest because of global services provided (Vosti, Witcover, and Carpentier, 2002).
Environment and its sustainability has been the central theme for researches in sub-Sahara Africa nowadays (Salau). First, land mass is fixed, and the deplorable socio-economic status of converter agents (rural households) if not adequately addressed may worsen deforestation. Further, as inevitable as forest is made for man’s use, a more effective approach may be to manage it in a sustainable manner.
Therefore, an empirical data on the effects of socio-economic characteristics of men and women resulting in forestland conversion is necessary to know who converts the forest more. The study would then be justified in that it will unravel the complexity underlying forestland conversion and its proximate causes and the economic agent thereof in the study area and the magnitude of this conversion with respect to the economic agent. Also, using appropriate instruments and analytical tools, the effects of the socio-economic characteristics and agricultural activities of men and women were tested.
The findings from the study would be of immense benefit to the following stakeholders – the government (policy makers), international agencies, academia, and researchers, and rural dwellers. To policy makers, it would serve as an impetus in policy formulation thereby addressing the economic agents responsible for the problem (deforestation). To the International Agencies, and NGOs, it would attract workshops, donations, investments, and grants, which will improve the socio-economic status of the economic agents and overall reinforcement to the neighbourhood. Further, researchers would utilize the findings as a study reference manual and as a model for further research in future. Finally, the rural dwellers would benefit from the recommendation of principle of sustainable agricultural activities and implications of forestland conversion as it affect them presently and for posterity.
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
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, 08137701720
WHATSAPP US ON: 08137701720
EFFICIENCY OF RESOURCE USE IN SESAME PRODUCTION IN BENUE STATE
CHAPTER ONE
INTRODUCTION
Background of the Study
Agriculture is the main source of livelihood for more than 60% of Nigeria’s population (National Bureau of Statistics, 2007; Federal Ministry of Agriculture, 2010). In 2005, for instance, the sector gave employment to 46% of the population and contributed about 40% of GDP of the country (NBS, 2007; FMA, 2010). Of the four sub sectors of agriculture, crop subsector contributed 85% of GDP, while livestock contributed about 10%, fisheries about 4%and forestry 1% (Federal Republic of Nigeria,2006).Growth performance of agriculture is therefore largely driven by the performance of crop subsector on account of dominance (CBN, 2009; FAO, 2009).
Agricultural sector occupies a significant link in the food security and poverty alleviation. It employs more than 70% of the labour force, accounts for over 70% of non-oil export and most importantly provides over 80% of the food needs of the country (Adegboye, 2004). However, over the years there has been a marked decline in the performance of the sector. Nigeria, consequently, had to resort to large importation to cope with increasing demand for food (IITA, 1995). The value of non-oil imports rose steadily from N39.64 million to N599.30 million in 1990, then to N764.20 million, N1.72 billoin, N1.79 billion and N2.09 billion in the year 2002, 2003, 2004, and 2005 respectively (World Bank, 2005). Also, between 2007 and 2010, the Nigerian government spent a whopping sum of N98 trillion on food importation (Adesina, 2011).
Inspite of laudable programmes by successive government in the past, significant volume of food is still imported annually and agricultural productivity has continued to remain low (Nweze, 2002). Nigeria, no doubt, has a landmass of 924,768 square kilometres and about 98 million hectares of land, with 74 million hectares of arable land (NPC, 2004). It is further revealed that of this arable land, only about 30 million hectares are under cultivation. It then means that the arable land would need to be increased and managed so as to raise productivity (NPC, 2004). The small-scale famers who constitute about 85% of the farmers in Nigeria occupy the vertex in the hierarchy of players in food production and produced about 90% of food consumed in the country (FAO, 1999).
In recent times the major concern of the Federal Government of Nigeria is to be self-sufficient in food production, diversify its economic base as well as achieve a sustainable economic development. To this effect, efforts are being made to revitalize the agricultural sector. In 2002, a stakeholders’ summit aimed at evaluating the agricultural sector was held, at the end of which emphasis was placed on production of sesame among other crops with high export value (Iorlamen, 2011).
Sesame is an important crop to Nigerian agriculture. It is widely used within Nigeria and is an important component of Nigeria’s agricultural exports. In Africa, Nigeria ranks second to Sudan in production and export of sesame seed, which is rated second to cocoa in export volume. Sesame from Nigeria is exported to markets in North America, Europe and East Asia. Most of the commercialized part is bulked up and exported with minimal processing limited to drying and cleaning (Raw Materials Research and Development Council Survey, 2004).
Nigeria has a great potential for production of sesame for both domestic and export markets. An estimated 3.5million hectares of the country’s agricultural land is suitablefor its production even under low input systems (Alegbejo, Iwo, Abo& Idowu,2003). Out of this, about 334,685 hectares have so far been cultivated(RMRDC, 2004).Sesame has over 15% margin in terms of value added compared to other cash cropssuch as sheanuts and palm-kernels. For instance in the year 2000, a tonne of sesame(raw seed) sold for N72,000.00 while processed oil of the same quantity sold forN350,000.00 (RMRDC, 2004).
Nutritionally, sesame seeds are rich in proteins, fats, vitamins and selenium. Apart from their commercialisation, they are also an important source of food for local families. The protein content of whole sesame range between 26% and 30% while that of the meal varies from 48% to 59%. The protein is high in methionine and essential amino acid. This is unusual for most plant proteins. The defaulted meal prepared from dehulled seed does not contain undesirable pigment. These unique properties make sesame an excellent protein source to supplement soybean, peanut and other plant proteins, which lack sufficient methionine, to increase their nutritive values (RMRDC,2004).Sesame seeds are unusually high in oil, around 50% of the seed weight, compared to 20% seed oil in soybeans. Sesame is a fairly high value food crop, being harvested both for whole seed used in baking, and for the cooking oil extracted from the seed.
In recognition of the potential of the crop to contribute significantly to improved livelihoods of rural dwellers and in turn the overall growth of the national economy, Raw Materials Research and Development Council (RMRDC) commenced the promotion of the crop through the establishment of 500ha foundation seed farms along main production centers of the crop. RMRDC also established a sesame processing plant at its technology incubation center in Lagos. Other support for promoting the crop by private operatives include Olam Nigeria Limited, one of USAID Markets key partners, which established out grower schemes involving 2,500 and 1,500 farmers in Nassarawa and Benue States respectively in 2006 (USAID, 2009).
Due to its economic importance and various uses, research work on sesame has come out with varieties which are high yielding. However, yields on farmers’ fields in Nigeria are between 500kgand 750kg per ha (RMRDC, 2004) which is low compared with yields of 1000kg and above recorded in the United State of America (USA).In the wake of a looming “global food crisis” that Nigeria is not isolated from, more emphasis is now being placed on increased domestic supplies of agricultural products. One sure way of doing this is by ensuring the efficiency of sesame farmers in their use of production inputs (Emokaro & Erhabor, 2006). A more efficient use of production inputs would ultimately impact positively on productivity and by extension, farmers’ profitability, ceteris paribus. These resource-poor smallholder farmers who contribute more than 90% of agricultural output in Nigeria in particular (FMA&WR, 2008) and Sub-Saharan Africa(Spencer, 2002) must be assisted to rise beyond the level of subsistence to higher levels of productivity through more efficient use of their production resources.
Efficiency of resource use, which is the ability to derive maximum output per unit of resource, is the key to effectively addressing the challenges of achieving food security. Raising productivity in agriculture will certainly lead to availability of food and reduce the real price of food. The question of how efficient smallholder farmer uses farm resources is of considerable interest to this study. The farm-level efficiency of smallholder resources has important implications for the agricultural development of a nation. Efficient farms make better use of available resources and produce their output at the lowest cost.
Problem Statement
One of the most difficult problem in Nigeria is how to provide good livelihood for the rural people through increased productivity of agricultural crops (Kuye, Adinya, & Inyang, 2004). It is also reported that the development of agriculture in Nigeria is not meeting the demand of the teeming population and that despite the country’s endowment with abundant and diversified range of natural, human and capital resources and oil revenue, Nigeria has remained one of the poorest nation in Africa (UNDP, 1999). The low output realised by small-scale farmers is an indication that resources utilised in production of crops are not at optimal levels (Nweze, 2002; Adinya et al., 2008). Spencer (2002) revealed that resource-poor farmers must be assisted to increase production through more efficient use of resources.
Prior to 1970s sesame seed was the number one cash crop for Benue farmers (Iorlamen, 2011). However, following the discovery of other crops like rice, groundnuts and soybean, coupled with lack of good market for sesame, its production encountered relative neglect. The result of this was decrease in its production. Farmers were only producing for local consumption and that led to sesame seed shortage which became a national challenge (Iorlamen, 2011). The full potentials of land, capital and labour resources are yet to be efficiently husbanded for optimum production of sesame. Actual yields of sesame differ significantly from potential yields, and this has been attributed to low resource productivity (FMA1995).
Studies in the past have applied the use of the Stochastic Frontier Production Function (SFPF) in estimating efficiency of resource-use for specific agricultural enterprises (Utomakili, 1992; Eze,2003; Emokaro & Erhabor, 2006; Ogundari, Ojo,& Ajibefun, 2006). The uniqueness of this research, is however, in the fact that this is the first time the SFPF would be used in estimating the efficiency of resource-use and production elasticities among sesame farmers in Benue State. Studies like Abah (2011) addressed resource use efficiency in sesame farming in Nasarawa State; Abu, Abah & Okpachu (2011) analysed the cost and return for sesame production in Nasarawa State: implication for sustainable development in Nigeria; Umar and Ibrahim (2012) assessed energy use and gross margin analysis for sesame production in organic and inorganic fertiliser user farms in Nigeria, and Imoloame, Gworgwor & Joshua(2007) evaluated weed infestation, yield and yield components as influenced by sowing method and seed rate in a Sudan Savannah agro-ecology of Nigeria with variations in techniques and results. All these studies were conducted in other places, but none in Benue State.
There is need to develop a sound knowledge of the current situation as regards sesame smallholders who form the bulk of sesame producers in Benue State of Nigeria, and most especially as regards the utilization of available resources to them.
This study, therefore, seeks to answer the following questions:
are sesame farmers technically efficient in their production?
what are the factors influencing the technical efficiency of sesame farmers in the study area?
are sesame farmers profit efficient in sesame production?
what are the factors influencing the profit efficiency of sesame farmers in the study area?
are farmers efficient in input utilization?
is sesame production a profitable enterprise in the study area?
what are the constraints to sesame production in the study area?
Objectives of the Study
The general objective of the study is to examine efficiency of resource use among sesame farmers in Benue State. Specifically, the study seeks to:
describe socio-economic characteristic of sesame farmers and their influence on
use of production resources;
ii determine the technical efficiency in sesame production;
iii examine factors influencing the technical efficiency of sesame farmers;
iv determine the gross margin of sesame production in Benue State;
v assess the profit efficiency of sesame farmers;
vi examine the determinants of profit efficiency of sesame farmers;
vi i determine the efficiency of input utilization by sesame famers;
viii dentify the problems associated with sesame production in the study area.
Statement of Hypotheses
Based on the specific objectives of the study, the following null hypotheses were tested:
Sesame famers are not technically efficient;
Socio-economic factors do not significantly influence the technical efficiency of sesame farmers in the study area;
1.5 Justification of the Study
Sesame has a large potential to enhance agribusiness development, generate income and employment opportunities that will lead to significant impact in the rural sector particularly for households in Northern Nigeria. Smallholder farmers in Nigeria are accustomed to producing low-value basic food staples for subsistence. However, faced with the increasing need to generate cash income to fulfill basic requirements and improve their livelihoods hence, increasing sesame production in rural communities will impact positively on poverty alleviation among poor resource farmers and other rural households. Also, given the importance of sesame to the Nigerian economy and international demand for it, the Federal Government of Nigeria recently launched a project “increasing sesame production for export”. Hence to farmers and farm organizations, who want to venture into sesame production will find this study very useful. To policy makers, this study will help formulate policies that will have a direct bearing on the farm which will enhance resource use efficiency, leading to greater productivity.
1.6 Limitation of the Study
Time and financial constraints were the major limitations of this study. The execution of this work required time and finance which were very limited. As a result, a random sample of 240 sesame farmers in four local government of Benue State was selected for the study. Again, in order to reduce errors in data collection, the respondents were interviewed (instead of self-administration) all through because of the importance of every information stated in the questionnaire. This made the collection of data to take more time and funds.
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
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, 08137701720
WHATSAPP US ON: 08137701720
EVALUATION OF NON-WOOD FOREST PRODUCTS (NWFPS) TO FARM HOUSEHOLD’S INCOME AND FOOD SECURITY IN ENUGU STATE, NIGERIA
ABSTRACT
The study analyzed the contributions of plant and animal species of Non-Wood Forest Products (NWFPs) to farm household’s income and food security. Three agricultural zones, Nsukka zone, Enugu Ezike zone and Udi zone, were purposively selected for the study. One hundred and twenty (120) respondents were selected through multistage sampling technique. Descriptive statistics, and Probit model were used for the analysis. The results indicated that majority (63.33 %) were males, with a mean age of about 56 years. Most (53.3%) of the respondents were farmers. The average household size was about 5 persons. The respondent’s mean years spent in school was about 7 years (at least completed primary school) and belonged majorly (50.83%) to the medium wealth category. The most commonly collected plant species of NWFPs were bitter kola (Garcina kola), breadfruit (Treculia africana), bush mango (Irvingia gabonenesis and wombulu), kola nut (Cola nitida), cashew (Anacardium occidentale), Icheku (Dalium guinese), African star apple (Chrysophylum albidium), Avocado pear (Persea americana), African bush mango (Dacryodes edulis) and Oil bean (Pentaclethra macrophylla) while the most commonly collected animal species of NWFPs were bee products (Apis mellifera linneaeus 1758), flying termites (Reticulitermes flavipes) and fish (Ictaluruspunctatus). Wealth category (p < 0.01) and occupation (p<0.01) positively and significantly increase the contributions of NWFPs to household food security. Educational level (p < 0.05) had negative and significant effect on the contributions of NWFPs to household food security. On the daily inclusion of NWFPs in respondent’s meals, NWFPs appeared in the meals of the households for a total of 2,150 times (78.5%). The result of the proportion of household food from NWFPs shows that 53.33% indicated that species of NWFPs constituted over 50% of their household food. Based on the food security analysis results, derived using the USDA (2000) approach, few of the urban farmers’ households (47.5%) were food secure, while most of them (52.5%) were food insecure at different levels of food insecurity. The result shows that 25.83% of farm households were food insecure without hunger, 25% were moderately food insecure with hunger and 1.67% was severely food insecure with hunger. Household size and occupation positively and significantly (p < 0.01) increased the contributions of NWFPs to household income. On the market wares inclusion of NWFPs by households, NWFPs appeared in the market wares of the households for a total of 381 times (79.4%). The result of the proportion of household income from NWFPs shows that 54.43% indicated that species of NWFPs constituted over 50% of their household income. The extent of perceived impediments to the continuing use of NWFPs in the area was identified as underdeveloped market (3.44), lack of capital (3.26), lack of storage facility (3.33), poor transportation system (3.38), lack of adequate information (3.13), poor harvesting technique (3.56) and inefficient processing facility (3.2). Remedial measures such as the incorporation of NWFPs in national accounting systems in order to attract the deserved attention from policy makers, public enlightenment campaign on the economic and health benefits of NWFPs by the national orientation agencies and the provision of infrastructural amenities by the government and humanitarian organizations.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
PAGES
Title page i
Certification ii
Dedication iii
Acknowledgement iv
Abstract v
Table of Contents vi
List of Tables ix
CHAPTER ONE: INTRODUCTION
Background of the Study 1
Problem Statement – – – – – – – 4
Objectives of the Study – – – – – – 6
Research Hypotheses – – – – – – – 6
Justification of the Study – – – – – – 7
CHAPTER TWO: REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE
2.1 Conceptual Framework – – – – – – 9
2.1.1 Non Wood Forest Products in Rural Livelihood and Economy – 9
2.1.2 Nigeria Forest Resources and Management – – – – 18
2.2 Theoretical Framework 21
2.2.1 Theories of Household Production Choices – – – – 21
2.3 Analytical Framework 26
2.3.1 Probit Model – – – – – – – – 27
2.3.2 Likert Scale Rating Technique …………………………………………… 28
2.3.3 Food security status using the USDA approach 29
–
CHAPTER THREE: RESEARCH METHODOLOGY
3.1 The Study Area – – – – – – …… 30
3.2 Sampling Procedure – – – – – – …… 31
3.3 Validity and Reliability of instrument…………………………………. . 31-3
3.4 Data Collection – – – – – – – 31
3.5 Data Analysis………………………………………………………………. 32
CHAPTER FOUR: RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
Socioeconomic Attributes of the Respondents 40
Gender of the respondents 40
Age of Household heads 40
Occupation of household heads 41
4.1.4 Household size 42
Years spent in school 42
Wealth category 43
4.1.7 Average income realized from spp of NWFPs 44
Commonly collected NWFPs 45
Plant species of NWFPs 45
Animal species of NWFPs `47
Perception of the respondents on the extent of certain impediments to the continuing use of NWFPs 47
Contributions of NWFPs to household food security 49
Contributions of NWFPs to farm household income 52
CHAPTER FIVE: SUMMARY, CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATION
5.1 Summary 55
5.2 Conclusion 57
5.3 Recommendation 58
5.4 Suggestion for further Research 59
References
CHAPTER ONE
INTRODUCTION
1.1 Background of the Study
A forest, also referred to as a wood or the woods, is an area with a high density of trees. Depending on various cultural definitions, what is considered a forest may vary significantly in size and have different classifications according to how and of what the forest is composed (Lund, 2006). Forests can be classified in different ways and to different degrees of specificity. One such way is in terms of the “biome” in which they exist, combined with leaf longevity of the dominant species (whether they are evergreen or deciduous). Another distinction is whether the forests are composed predominantly of broadleaf trees, coniferous (needle-leaved) trees, or mixed.
The contribution of forests to sustainable livelihood of the rural farmers around the world is immeasurable including the wood and non-wood forest resources. Forests which include all resources that can produce forest products namely woodland, scrubland, bush fallow and farm bush and trees on farms, as well as ecosystem dominated by trees (Arnold,1998), provide households with income, ensure food security, reduce their vulnerability to shocks and adversities and increase their well being. Research on non-farm rural employment and income as a whole has shown that small scale production and trading activities in forest products constitute one of the largest parts of rural non-farm enterprise employment (Liedholm & Mead 1993). It is in acknowledgement of the importance of forests for livelihood and environmental stability that its conservation is included in the Millennium Development Goals of the United Nations. In Nigeria, poverty has led to the dependence of over 90% of the rural population on forests for some livelihoods and economic survival (UN, 2002).
Among the products obtained from forests are those classified as wood forest products and non-wood forests products (NWFPs). Non-wood forests products consist of goods of biological origin other than wood, derived from forests, other wooden land and trees outside forests (FAO, 1999). The United Kingdom‘s Forestry Commission defines non-wood forest product (NTFPs) as “any biological resource found in woodlands except wood (timber and other forms of wood), United Kingdom Forest Research (UFR, 2013). Part of the reforesting Scotland project, defines them as “materials supplied by woodlands – except the conventional harvest of wood, Scotland Forest Harvest (SFH, 2013). These definitions include wild and managed game, fish and insects, Center for International Forestry Research (CIFOR, 2013). When wood other than timber is included it is referred to as non- timber forests products (NTFPs). Generally NWFPs are grouped into: sponges, chewing sticks, tooth cleaners, fibers, bast fibers, jute, cloth, foodstuffs, water, beverage, wine, medicinal plants, latex, rubbers, gums and resins, and decorative beads (Wyatt, 1991). Furthermore, a large portion of NWFPs have medicinal properties. For at least three quarters of the world’s population, traditional medicine is the only source of medicinal treatment (70-80% in Africa) (Van Rijsoort & De pater, 2000). On the use of NWFPs in meals, observation of household in Western Burkina Faso identified that some thirty NWFPs were used, raw or cooked, and that they came from17 tree species of the savanna or traditional forestry parklands (Lamien & Bayala, 1996). This study will focus on flora(plant) and fauna(animal) species of non-wood forest products. Some of the plant species of NWFPs found in Nigeria, according to Osemeobo and Ujor(1999) include Gnetumafricanum , Gongronemalatifolium, pterocarpussoyauxii, Ocimumgratisimum, TreculiaAfricana, Irvingiagabonensis, Dennettiatripetala,chrysophyllumalbidium (white straw apple) , piper guineense, Afromomum spp and Garciniakola. Fauna species include snails, bee product (honey), grass cutter etc.
Non-wood forest products have attracted considerable global interest in recent years because of increasing recognition of their contribution to household economies and food security to some national economies and to environmental objectives such as the conservation of biological diversity. Some 80 percent of the population of the developing world use NWFPs to satisfy health and nutritional needs (UN, 2002). Indigenous population in Nigeria have benefited historically from natural ecosystems through the use of NWFPs. Although NWFPs typically lack statistics on official commerce, they provide a wide range of raw materials and inputs for a diverse array of rural enterprise. Non-wood forest products provide off-farm employment to a large segment of the rural population and account for an enormous share of household income. For example, in 1996 in southeastern Nigeria, 35.7% of the rural population collected NWFPs daily and it accounted for 94% of total income from minor sources (Nweze & Igbokwe, 2000).
Bisong and Ajake (2001) found out that women in southern Nigeria depend heavily on NWFPs. In fact, many Nigerians depend on NWFPs for food, fiber and herbal medicines. In recent times, there has been a reasonable and noticeable shift from the earlier bias in favor of orthodox medicine to greater acceptance of traditional(herbal) medicines in Nigeria as in many other countries worldwide(Akunyili,2003). Over 90% of Nigerians in rural areas and over 40% in urban areas depend partly or wholly on traditional medicine(Osemeobo & Ujor,1999). NWFPs also provide raw materials for large-scale industrial processing including processing of internationally traded commodities such as foods and beverages, confectionery, flavorings, perfumes, medicines, paints and polishes. At present at least 150 NWFPs are significant in terms of international trade; they include honey, gum arabic, rattan and bamboo, cork, forest nuts and mushrooms, essential oils, plant and animal parts for pharmaceutical products. Thus promotion of NWFPs can complement the objectives of rural development and appropriate forest management (Hammet, 1993). Since the early 1990s, the role of Non-Wood Forest Products for sustainable forest management and poverty reduction has received increased attention (Sheil & Wunder, 2002). They play an important part in supporting household livelihoods and therefore can be used to raise the perceived value of forest resources. In developing countries, including Nigeria, majority of rural household and a large proportion of urban household depend on NWFPs to meet some parts of their nutritional, health, construction material and income from selling these products. Elsewhere, NWFPs are the only source of income for the local communities (Wollenberg & Septianinawir 1998). Therefore, NWFPs form an integral part of the rural economy where the majority of the rural populations live especially around the forest resource base. In this perspective, sustainable forest management will be achieved through encouraging participatory management of forest and woodland resources.
FAO, (2002) defined food security as a situation that exist when all people, at all times, have physical, social, and economic access to sufficient, safe, and nutritious food that meets their dietary needs and food preferences for an active and healthy life. Conceptually, food security is broken down into four different components – availability, access, utilization and vulnerability – each capturing different, but overlapping dimension of the phenomenon (Migotto, Davis, Carletto, & Beegle, 2007). To date, a lot of people in the developing world are still suffering from malnutrition despite the efforts made and inclusion of food security as part of the Millennium Development Goals (MDG). Worldwide, approximately 840 million people are undernourished or chronically food insecure and as many as 2.8 million children and 300,000 women die needlessly every year because of malnutrition in developing countries (Guha-Khasnobis, Acharya, &, Davis, 2007).
The Thrust of this research is to evaluate the contributions of Non-Wood Forest Products (NWFPs) to farm household income and food security in Enugu state. This is with a view to gain better insight into farm household’s income and food security and an attempt to strengthen the link between development policies and food security.
1.2 Problem Statement
The need for increased vigor in striving to achieve food security became very prominent with the incessant food crisis, especially in the developing countries. World Bank (1986) defines food security as access by all people at all times to sufficient food for an active and healthy life.
Conceptually, food security is broken down into four different components – availability, access, utilization and vulnerability – each capturing different, but overlapping dimension of the phenomenon (Migotto, Davis, Carletto, & Beegle, 2007). To date, a lot of people in the developing world are still suffering from malnutrition despite the efforts made and inclusion of food security as part of the Millennium Development Goals (MDG). Worldwide, approximately 840 million people are undernourished or chronically food insecure and as many as 2.8 million children and 300,000 women die needlessly every year because of malnutrition in developing countries (Guha-Khasnobis, Acharya, &, Davis, 2007).
In Nigeria, 65% of households in the Core Welfare Indicators Questionnaire (CWIQ) survey (NBS, 2006) had problems meeting food needs. In fact, the greatest percentage (25.27%) of the households indicated that the primary coping mechanism for poverty was reducing the number of meal, and 37% of the populations (47 million people) were unable to meet the 2,900 kcal food requirement in 2004 (NBS, 2004). Access to adequate and nutritious food is limited by low income and poverty especially as nutritious foods are sometimes expensive. Therefore promoting alternative sources and safety nets of food for the households is germane, although very little or no attention is being paid to Non-Wood Forest Products (NWFPs) by policy makers and analysts in Nigeria’s quest for food security, NWFPs have been an important source of food in Nigeria. NWFPs are exploited mostly by the rural poor who often fall back to or rely largely on the products in meeting their food needs. They are also very critical in forest and biodiversity conservation.
Despite the importance of NWFPs in household consumption and forest and biodiversity conservation in Nigeria, they have hitherto been given very little recognition especially by planners and natural resource managers in Nigeria (Adedoyin, 1995). Even in most forest sector policies, for instance in the Nigerian Environmental Policy, NWFPs is not mentioned. Wherever they exist, NWFPs get a mention in passing but without clear objectives, targets and strategies for development and conservation. National statistics hardly offer any reliable data to document their economic role. They are not taken into account in GDP calculations (Osemeobo & Ujor, 1999). It is important to note that indigenous knowledge of local use of species is a key issue in forest and NWFPs conservation and sustainable management (Nair & Merry, 1995).
In Nigeria this is of utmost importance as 70% of Nigerians live below poverty line and the majority depend on forest resources especially NWFPs for their survival. Neglecting the resource may deepen poverty. Neglecting to adequately recognize non-wood values of forests often denies the socioeconomic benefits of forests to those who depend on them. Therefore, development of appropriate management and conservation of NWFP resource, either in natural forests or in plantations are of importance as part of strategies to meet the economic needs of people while maintaining biological diversity (Reis, 1995). Furthermore information on production and local domestic consumption is strikingly lacking for most NWFPs (Reis, 1995). Preliminary investigation showed that with few exceptions, the NWFPs have never been studied in depth, neither in aspect of quantities produced nor their socioeconomic importance to the people. There is considerable ignorance in many quarters concerning the optimal utilization of this resource base to uplift the rural poor, while at the same time protecting biodiversity and ensuring sustainability (Taylor, Butterworth & Matoke, 1996).
There are several positive developments, which have been attained including the work by Chukwuone and Okeke (2012) Can non-wood forest products be used in promoting household food security: Evidence from savannah and rainforest regions of Southern Nigeria. Nzeh, Eboh, and Nweze(2015) Status and trends of deforestation: An insight and lessons from Enugu State. Despite that, there is still scanty information existing on the contributions of animal and plant species of NWFPs towards farm household income and food security and the perceived impediments to this role. Due to this knowledge gap, this research examines the contributions of NWFPs towards household income and food security and the limitations to this role in the study area. The research was therefore anchored on some questions; what are the Socio-economic characteristics that drive their collection of NWFPs? What are the NWFPs that drive the interest of the respondents? What is the contribution of NWFPs to household income? What is the contribution of NWFPs to household food security? And the extent to which certain factors impedes the development of NWFPs in the study area.
The findings of this study will provide the benchmark information for the initiation of appropriate and sound strategies and policy issues on NWFPs towards farm household income and food security of non-wood forest resources.
1.3 Objectives of the Study
The broad objective of this research is to evaluate the contributions of NWFPs to the income and food security of the farm household in Enugu State. The specific objectives were to:
(i) describe the socio-economic characteristics of the farm households in the study area;
(ii) identify and characterize commonly used NWFPs;
(iii) determine the contributions of NWFPs to farm household’s income;
(iv) determine the contributions of NWFPs to farm household’s food security;
(v) identify the extent of perceived impediments to the continuing use of Non-Wood Forest Products(NWFPs) in the study area;
1.4 Research Hypotheses
This study was guided by the following null research hypotheses:
HO1: There is no relationship between the Socio-economic characteristics of the farm household and the degree of contribution of NWFPs to farm household’s food security.
HO2: There is no relationship between the Socio-economic characteristics of the farm household and the degree of contribution of NWFPs to farm household’s income.
1.5 Justification of the Study
The study was justified by the fact that most forest management strategies are focused on timber based products to the neglect of NWFPs. There is abundant knowledge on managing forests for wood products but very little information exists on managing forests for edible medicinal or floral parts (Chamberlain et al., 1998). Although the great potential of managing NWFPs has been frequently emphasized, (peters, 1990; & FAO, 1993), rarely has this objective been achieved (Reis, 1995). Silvicultural prescriptions for natural forest ecosystems that include NWFPs are severely lacking. Notwithstanding some agro forestry systems are available, for example wind breaks and alley farming that includes a NWFPs component, much more work is needed to develop a comprehensive body of knowledge on how to manage forest resources for NWFPs (chamberlain, Bush & Hammet, 1998). There is need to enhance knowledge about NWFPs resources, promote the domestication and utilization of commercially viable NWFPs yielding plant species and conserve natural forests and their species richness (Reis, 1995).
Analysis of the contributions of NWFPs in natural forests (in-situ) is justified by the fact that an estimated 80% of the plant species providing NWFPs are found only in biological richness and ecological complexity of primary/secondary forests; some of them can only thrive in natural habitat and do not lend themselves to domestication(Reis,1995). Moreover, the major collection of NWFPs is not in pristine forests but in secondary forests, bush fallow or farm bush or from trees planted in farm. With shortened fallow periods due to increased agricultural activities, including land clearing, secondary forests, bush fallow and farm bush are likely to diminish hence there is need to conserve forests, and establish and manage common pool tree resources. To enable sustainable development of community forestry, it is thus important to consider what kind of indigenous community forestry systems exists in a specific region and what their dynamics are; such understanding will inform decisions about how to balance the local and professional norms and values(Wiersum,1999).
Furthermore this study is justified by the fact that information on production and local domestic consumption is strikingly lacking for most NWFPs (Reis, 1995). Preliminary investigation showed that with few exceptions, the NWFPs have never been studied in depth, neither in aspect of quantities produced nor their socioeconomic importance to the people. There is considerable ignorance in many quarters concerning the optimal utilization of this resource base to uplift the rural poor, while at the same time protecting biodiversity and ensuring sustainability (Taylor, Butterworth & Matoke, 1996). Although, some efforts have been made since Rio earth summit and convention on Biodiversity, considerable effort is still needed at local, national and international levels for policy development for undertaking proper assessment of NWFPs, wealthy research for optimal use of such products as well as in-situ and ex-situ conservation. The situation of NWFPs in Nigeria would be improved through application of intensive research and smallholder farmer involvement in in-situ conservation (Osemeobo & Ujor, 1999).
It is equally important to gain understanding of the way the significance of NWFPs varies between the poor and wealthy sections of the population (Van Rijsoort, 2000). This makes it easier to determine which NWFPs should be focused or in order to help the poorer section of the population. It is also important to understand the effect of increased prosperity on NWFPs use so as to be able to estimate the consequences for forest management.
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
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, 08137701720
WHATSAPP US ON: 08137701720
EMPIRICAL ANALYSIS OF FEDERAL GOVERNMENT EXPENDITURE POLICY ON AGRICULTURE IN NIGERIA
ABSTRACT
The study assessed the trend, structure, composition, determinants and effectiveness of Federal Government agricultural expenditure policies and the implications of these policies from 1960-98.The study covered the Nigerian nation and used federal level time series data to achieve the set down objectives. The primary analytical method consisted of descriptive analysis, appropriate pictorial diagrams, line and pie charts. Stationarity, co – integration /error correction model (ecm) and granger causality approaches were also employed to verify the characteristics of the data, ascertain the existence of causality/determinants of agricultural expenditure and long run relationship, while the Tin Bergen Model was employed to determine the effectiveness of Federal Government agricultural expenditure policies. The study revealed that the real Federal Government expenditures on agriculture increased enormously since 1970, from N152.0 m to a peak of N 2,473.0m in 1980 due to the oil boom. The proportion of the Federal Government expenditure on GDP fluctuated during the study period, rising from 0.1 per cent in 1960 to a peak of 3.4 per cent in 1987, followed by gradual decline to 0.4 per cent in 1998, implying a decline in agricultural growth. The recurrent capital expenditure ratio stood at 33: 67 in the last decade of the study period, compared to a ratio of 88:11 obtained from 1960-67. The dwindling proportion of recurrent expenditure, particularly overheads, had grave consequences for the sustenance of the numerous agricultural projects on board. The structure of expenditure was generally weakened, with undue emphasis on investments in inefficient parastatals, which prior to SAP engaged in direct production. The crop sub-sector was observed to have crowded other sub sectors such as livestock, fisheries and forestry. The mean civilian total expenditure put at N664.90m was about 1.5 times the average under the military regimes, even though the t-test of significance carried out on these means revealed that they were not significantly different from each other. Expenditure volume during the 1970-85 was about twenty three and two times those of the immediate preceding and proceeding periods, respectively. The Coefficient of Variation (COV) analysis showed that expenditures were more stable and less volatile during the first era (1960-69). The review of expenditure relative to selected sectors of the economy showed that the mean defence and administration expenditures were four times and two times those of agricultural expenditures. The share of agricultural expenditure in total expenditure was an average of three per cent compared to ten per cent, nine per cent, six per cent and two per cent for defence, administration, education and health respectively. The Product Moment Correlation analysis indicated a positive correlation, implying that these expenditures tended to move in the same direction and went to confirm the use of the “across – the – board addition/cut expenditure technique” which had been a disincentive to sectoral peculiar expenditure needs. The causality tests indicated that the real government agricultural expenditure in Nigeria had been largely determined by the level of public financial resources in the Country, while the ecm revealed that there was no long term neutrality of change between agricultural expenditures and the tested determinants. The policy effectiveness elasticity further showed that public expenditure policy on agriculture was generally ineffective, contributing a marginal increase of 0.03 per cent to agricultural output from every 10 per cent increase in agricultural expenditure.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Title Page i
Certification ii
Dedication iii
Acknowledgement iv
Abstract v
Table of Contents vi
List of Tables viii
List of Figures x
Lists of Appendices xi
CHAPTER ONE: INTRODUCTION
1.1 Background Information 1
1.2 Problem Statement 2
1.3 Objectives of Study 3
1.4 Research Hypothesis 4
1.5 Justification of the Study 4
1.6 Limitations of study 5
CHAPTER TWO: LITERATURE REVIEW
2.1 Theoretical Issues and Empirical Evidence 6
2.1.1 Public policy 6
2.1.2 Goal of public policy 7
2.1.3 Theories of public expenditure 8
2.1.4 Classification of government expenditure 10
2.1.5 Objectives and roles of government expenditure 11
2.1.6 Government expenditure on agriculture 13
2.1.7 Determinants of government expenditure 15
2.1.8 Agriculture expenditure policies in other countries 16
2.1.9 Effectiveness of government expenditure policies 17
2.1.10 Limitations of previous studies on government expenditure policy
On agriculture 18
2.1.11 Previous works on causality test 19
2.1.12 Policy reaction approach to identifying determinants of
Government expenditure on agriculture 22
CHAPTER THREE: RESEARCH METHODOLOGY
3.1 Scope of Study 24
3.2 Sources of Data 24
3.3 Description of Study Area 24
3.4 Analytical Framework 29
3.4.1 Model specification 29
CHAPTER FOUR: RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
4.1 Trend, Structure and Composition of Federal Government
Agricultural Expenditure in Nigeria (1960 – 1998) 34
4.1.1 Absolute federal government agriculture expenditure growth 34
4.1.2 Agricultural expenditure in relation to total expenditure 37
4.1.3 Agricultural expenditure growth in relation to GDP/GNP 40
4.1.4 Structure of federal government agriculture expenditure 42
4.1.5 Composition of federal government expenditure in Nigeria 1960-1998 44
4.2 Federal Agricultural Expenditures Under Civilian/Military Administrations
and Along Philosophical Eras. 54
4.2.1 Federal government agricultural expenditures under civilian
and military administrations 54
4.2.2 Federal government expenditure on agriculture along philosophical eras 62
4.3 Comparison of Federal Government Agricultural Expenditures with
Those of Selected Sectors of the Economy 66
4.4 Causes of Public Expenditure Spending in Nigeria. 70
4.4.1 Empirical estimate and analysis 70
4.4.2 Effectiveness of Federal Government Expenditure Policy on
Agriculture in Nigeria (1960 – 98) 84
CHAPTER FIVE: SUMMARY, CONCLUSION AND ECOMMENDATIONS
5.1 Summary 87
5.2 Conclusion 89
5.3 Recommendations 90
REFERENCES 92
APPENDIX 98
Tables Pages
CHAPTER ONE
INTRODUCTION
1.1 Background Information
Agricultural expenditure policies in Nigeria have undergone many changes since independence in 1960. These changes were mainly a reflection of changes in government philosophy to agricultural development, while the philosophical changes were in themselves, often brought by changes in government.
Between 1960 and 1998, the country witnessed six military regimes and three civilian eras (spanning 29 and 10 years, respectively), which implemented varied policy measures in line with the priority of the government. A review of the Federal Government agricultural expenditures by the type of government showed that the average real annual agricultural expenditure on total expenditure was higher under the civilian regimes, averaging about 3.82% compared to the 2.94% under the military regimes. The annual average real civilian government agricultural expenditure was also about 1.5 times that of the military, while the percentage of agriculture’s contribution to GDP average about 47.10% under the civilian regime compared to 38.90% under the military. The total Federal Government agricultural expenditure figure, which reached peak of N2,473 million in 1980, fell to N286.0 million in 1984, after the military came to power.
In a broad sense, however, Federal Government expenditure policy on agricultural development had undergone three major phases, the first, which was the period of decentralized approach to agricultural development, was from 1960 to about 1969. The second from 1970 to 1985, witnessed increased Federal Government participation, while the third, which is still unfolding, from 1986 to the present time is the era of economic reforms (Olayemi and Dittoh, 1995).
A comparison of real Federal Government (FGN) expenditures on agriculture by philosophical orientation revealed that the average real Federal Government expenditure on agriculture of N867.06m recorded during the 1970 – 85 era was higher than the N398.0m and N37.3m obtained under the reform and decentralized era respectively. Also, the annual growth of real government expenditure on agriculture was higher (50%) under the era of increased Federal participation compared to the 16.67% observed for the 1960 – 1969 period and the 11.43% recorded during the 1986 – 1998. Ironically however, the percentage contribution of agriculture to GDP was higher during the decentralized era, averaging about 57.67% compared to 36.25% and 34.04% recorded in the last two periods.
In spite of all these efforts and huge budgetary allocations, the overall agricultural situation deteriorated creating a wide gap between the supply and demand for food. Revenue from agricultural export dwindled (See Appendix 1) and government was faced with mounting food import bills. At the same time, industries increasingly resorted to imports of agricultural raw materials, thus putting lot of stress on foreign exchange. Ojo and Akanji (1996) also noted that the results were inadequate, not only in relation to the committed financial resources, but also with regard to the nation’s minimum needs of agricultural products. Thus, raising questions as to the level, structure, determinants and effectiveness of government expenditure policy on agriculture.
1.2 Problem Statement
The ultimate objective of any public policy on agriculture is to increase total production and enhance agricultural growth. Specifically, both the agricultural credit policy and government direct spending are generally geared towards making farmers more productive and efficient through the provision of the appropriate facilities.
An analysis of the real public sector spending for agricultural development indicates that substantial increases have been recorded. From N373.0 m during the 1960-69 fiscal periods, real Federal Government expenditures (recurrent and capital) rose by about 26 folds N9,672.0m between 1980 and 1989, thus reflecting the broad pattern of Federal Government intervention in agricultural development.
In spite of the increased resource flow to the sector, however, total agricultural production stagnated and eventually declined in the pre-SAP era, while moderate growth was witnessed in the wake of the SAP induced reforms (Ukpong, 1993). Vincent (1981) also affirmed that in spite of the increased flow of funds to the agricultural sector, supplies of agricultural production for consumption, the manufacturing industry and exports also declined with adverse effects on the country’s inflow and outflow of foreign exchange. Also, the results in the market place and on the tables of consumers have been worrisome. Food prices have been rising persistently over the years with the average price of garri, a major staple food, rising to about N63.3/kg in December, 2007, compared to N5.80/kg in August, 1992 (APMEU, 1993; NFRA, 2008). The World Bank (1996) also argued that even though social and economic indicators had been improving somewhat, it remained far below acceptable levels and below levels that should have been expected on the basis of previous high expenditures. It, however, noted that key programmes related to poverty reduction, health care, education, transport and agriculture received lower funding than administration and security.
Inspite of the FGN’s investment in the agricultural sector over the years, Czech Conroy Natural Resources Institute (2003) noted that the sector had been dominated by poor, smallholder, peasant farmers and had performed below expectations. According to AfDB (2006), the sector employed about 70 percent of the estimated 140 million people, 80 per cent of the rural population and contributed about 32 per cent of GDP. AfDB (2006) further revealed that Nigeria ranked 125th in the 2005 Human Development Index, with basic indicators that placed the country among the 26 poorest countries in the world. The Bank further affirmed that two out of every three Nigerians (66 percent) lived in extreme poverty as measured by the International Standard of one dollar a day as of 2004. Poverty in Nigeria was also observed to be concentrated in rural areas, where about 64 per cent lived below the poverty line compared to 35 per cent in the urban areas.
Against this backdrop, this research raised pertinent questions such as:
What had been Nigeria’s history of government expenditure on agriculture?
What type of government or philosophical orientation affected the share of annual budgets allocated to agriculture?
What factors had determined the amount of government expenditures on Nigeria’s agricultural sector over the study period?
What were the effects of government expenditure on Nigeria’s agricultural output?
1.3 Objectives of study
The broad objective of this study was to assess the trend, structure, composition, determinants and effectiveness of Federal Government expenditure policies and the implications of these policies to agriculture from 1960 – 1998.
In line with the above broad objective, the study specifically:
examined the trend, structure and composition of Federal Government expenditure on agriculture in Nigeria;
compared agricultural expenditures during civilian and military regimes and along philosophical era;
compared Federal Government expenditure on agriculture with those of selected sectors of the economy;
determined the causes of public agricultural spending in Nigeria;
assessed the effectiveness of Federal Government expenditure policy on Agriculture in Nigeria; and
drew policy recommendations based on research findings.
1.4 Research Hypotheses
The null hypotheses tested were:
growth rates of real public federal expenditure on agriculture under military regimes and civilian administrations were not different;
federal government expenditure on selected sectors of the economy had no relationship with government agricultural expenditure;
determinants of agricultural expenditures had no relationship and effect on agricultural spending; and
agricultural expenditure policies relating to Federal Government direct spending had not been effective in achieving increased agricultural productivity.
1.5 Justification of Study
Over the years, financial resources flowing into the agricultural sector had been increasing. Specifically, Ukpong and Malgwi (1991) revealed that Government’s allocation for capital expenditure on agriculture rose from N5.6 million in 1970 to N267.1 million in 1991. Ironically however, growth in agricultural output had lagged behind financial and other inputs in the sector.
Inspite of the seriousness of the aforementioned development to the ultimate policy objective of attaining sustainable food security in Nigeria, this research suffers from inadequate information and shortage of relevant studies in the country.
Generally, most of the available studies have focused on Federal Government policies in respect of agricultural finance. Others, such as Ojukwu (1984) and Okorie (1985) concentrated mainly on the implications of government budgetary allocations and economic growth. Elias (1981) on the other hand, observed that existing studies on government expenditure policy tended to focus on macro economy rather than the agricultural sector. Though, Fosu (1994) worked on public agricultural expenditure policy in Ghana, very limited studies on this subject may have been undertaken in Nigeria. Mbanefo (1993) for instance, concentrated on the policy orientation of SAP to the achievement of fiscal balance criteria for public expenditure allocation and public investment debt servicing.
Regrettably, too, researchers who have narrowed their studies to these aspects have been faced with numerous problems. Schuh (1981) and Rausser (1982) argued that the determinants of agricultural policy decisions were largely unknown, while attempt by Elias (1985) to exogenise government agricultural expenditure was thwarted by collinearity problems inherent in his model.
Fosu (1994) further noted that researches relating to the economic policies affecting agriculture had centered on normative or prescriptive issues rather than positive analysis; expenditures were to be understood and future expenditure trends predicted.
It is therefore hoped that this study will provide an insight into the determinants and effectiveness of government expenditure policy in agriculture in Nigeria, with a view to ensuring logical basis for government expenditure on agriculture and improving the effectiveness of policy efforts on agriculture.
1.6 Limitation of Study
Generally, access to detailed agricultural sector expenditure data was problematic. Breakdowns of expenditures by function and components were also not easy to come by, while information on the impact of agricultural expenditure was inadequate. It was also difficult to assess the huge amount of agricultural expenditures that arose from extra budgetary spending.
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
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, 08137701720
WHATSAPP US ON: 08137701720
EVALUATION OF PARTICIPATORY POVERTY REDUCTION THROUGH WATER DELIVERY SUPPORT OF LOCAL EMPOWERMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT PROJECT (LEEMP) IN RURAL SOUTHEAST NIGERIA
ABSTRACT
This study was conducted to evaluate Participatory Poverty Reduction by Utilization of Water Delivery of Local Empowerment and Environmental Management Project (LEEMP) in Southeast Nigeria as a contribution towards finding water panacea to poverty associated with Livestock Fattening (poultry and fishery), especially during dry season in water stress communities. Also, it was meant to create awareness for Community Driven Development (CDD) Participation. Primary data were obtained from water benefitting communities in LEEMP delivery support. Data were analyzed using regression analysis, marginal analysis model and chi-square test. Result showed that the farmers were composed of 43% females and 57% males. About 31% of the farmer had tertiary educational; 29% of the them had secondary school education; 27% had only primary education while 13% had no formal education. Most of the farmers were within 36-49 years. Large scale poultry farmers (16%) and fish farmers (55%) used on the average 81% CDD water delivery volume and generated 72% livestock income. The small scale poultry farmers (60%) and fish farmers (31%) used on the average 6% of the water volume and generated 10% of the livestock income. The daily timeliness per unit of LEEMP water delivery was 42 minutes on the average. LEEMP reduced poverty through water utilization by 67%. The amount of poultry credit demanded significantly (p < 0.05) influenced the product size (farm output size). Credit for fishery activities was significantly (p < 0.05) low. Other factors that significantly (p < 0.05) influenced Poultry credit were the number of children, leadership position and religion. The volume of water used and the man-days of LEEMP water use significantly (p < 0.05) increased income from poultry. Household size and age significantly (p < 0.05) influenced income from fishery. The 6% score on water volume used by small scale farmers as against 81% for Large scale farmers indicated differential participation by the two categories of livestock farmers. The study recommends opening up virile CDD credit line for fishery and supply of improved stocks to support poultry and fishery production. The study also recommends supportive mobilization of participation through the use of agricultural extension education for the educationally less privileged farmers as well as rotating the CDD leadership of benefitting micro-project communities, at least bi-ennially. Besides, doors should be opened for greater number of water stress communities to benefit from LEEMP/CSDP water delivery support, with greater community contributions made in kind rather than cash
TABLE OF CONTENTS Page
Title Page – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – i
Certification – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – ii
Dedication – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – iii
Acknowledgement – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – iv
Table of Contents – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – v List of Tables – – – – – – – – – – — – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – ix List of Figures- – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – x Abstract – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – xi
CHAPTER ONE: INTRODUCTION
1.1 Background Information – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – 1
1.2 Statement of the problem – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – 3
1.3 Objective of the study – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – 6
1.4 Hypothesis of the study – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – 6
1.5 Justification of the study – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – 7
1.6 Limitation of the study – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – 8
CHAPTER TWO: REVIEW OF THE RELATED LITERATURE REVIEW
2.1 The Concept of Participatory Community Water Delivery – – – – – – – – – – – – – 9
2.1.1 Participatory Bottom-up Community Management Project Delivery – – – – – – – 9
2.1.2 Difference Among Self Mobilization, Passive Participation and Others – – – – – – – 9
2.2 Projects to Address the Problem of Water Scarcity and Waste of Rural Labour Time in
Community Support Programme – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – -12
2.2.1 Poverty Condition in Rural Nigeria as a Limiting Factor to Rural Development – – – -13
2.2.2 Poverty Reduction in CDD Project Cycle – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – 14
2.3 Least Cost Alternatives for Poverty Reduction in Community Water Delivery- – – – – – 15
2.3.1 Rural Support Community Water Investment as a Strategy for National Economic Growth
and Poverty Reduction – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – 16
2.3.2 Funding Support in CDD Project Water Delivery for Rural Agricultural Productivity – – 17
2.4 Community Contributions in CDD Rural Support Programme – – – – – – – – – – – 18
2.5 Improvement in Rural Income with Demand and Supply of Agricultural Credit – – – – 20
2.6 Community Driven Development (CDD) Goals, Processes and Weaknesses livelihood
Programme for Economic Growth – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – 21
2.7 Approaches and Features of Participatory Rural Appraisal (PRA) in CDD Rural Support
Programmes – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – 22
2.8 Age and Education in Self Driven-Management of Rural Elements of Cooperation – – -24
2.9 Some Illustration of PRA Tools – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – 25
2.10 Focus Group Discussions – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – 30
2.11 The Role of State, Local Government and Communities in CDD Project Support for
Poverty Reduction – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – 31
2.12 Social Inclusion and Mainstreaming of the Vulnerable in Community Support Water
Delivery – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – 33
2.13 Independent Service Providers in LEEMP CDD Project Communities – – – – – – – 34
2.14 LEEMP Communities of Southeast Nigeria – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – 34
2.15 Theoretical Framework- – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – 35
2.16 Analytical Framework – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – 41
2.16.1 Multiple Regression Function (Model) – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – 40
2.16.2 M.arginal Analysis Model by Least Cost Option for Use in Poverty Reduction – – 42
2,16.3 Efficiency of Capital – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – . 43
2.16.4 Cost and Value Addition of Water Vendor Delivery – – – – – – – – – – – – – 43
2.16.5 Chi-square Test – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – 44
2.16.6 Test of Significance – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – 44
CHAPTER THREE: RESEARCH METHODOLOGY
3.1 Study Area – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – 45
3.2 Sample Procedure – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – 46
3.3 Method of Date Collection – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – 47
3.4 Method of Data Analysis – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – 47
3.4.1 Model Specification – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – 47
CHAPTER FOUR : RESULT AND DISCUSSION
4.1 Description of the socio-economic characteristics influencing the community CDD
Livelihood demand for water and credit support for investment in fishery and poultry. 53
4.1.1 Educational Level of the Respondent Farmers – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – 53
4.1.2 Composition of Household Size of the Respondent Farmers- – – – – – – – – – 54
4.1.3 Marital Status of the Household Farmers – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – 54
4.1.4 Scores Assigned to the Socio-economic Factors for Purposes of Regression Analysis
4.2 Distance and Duration of Water Delivery Man-hours to Farm Households – – – – – – 56
4.2.1 Cost Implication of Water-gate Price, Vendor Intensity and Transportation – – – – – 56
4.2.2 Efficiency of Water Vendor Production – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – -57
4.2.3 Effects of LEEMP water support on timeliness of farm operation and on poverty 57
4.3 Assessment of CPMC Credit Programme of LEEMP Agricultural Water Users with a View
To Ascertaining Outreach and Effectiveness – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – 59
4.4 Evaluation of the Effect of LEEMP Water support on Two Homestead Dry Season Farm
Production and Income That Make Better Use of Land and Water (fishery and poultry) – 61
4.4.1 Influencing Factors of Farm Credit, Expenditures, Household Size, Age Marital Status,
Education, Religion Number of Children and Position among Leadership – – – – – – 62
4.4.2 Application of Multiple Regression Model on the Livestock Income – – – – – – – – 63
4.4.3 Application of Multiple Regression Model on the Livestock Credit – – – – – – – – – 65
CHAPTER FIVE:SUMMARY, CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS
5.1 Summary – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – 67
5.2 Conclusion- – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – 68
5.3 Recommendation – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – 69
5.4 Contribution to Knowledge – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – 69
5.5 Areas of Future Research- – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – 70
CHAPTER ONE
INTRODUCTION
1.1 Background Information
Participatory Poverty Reduction through Water Delivery Support is a rural support programme to address problems of rural household chore water scarcity and to enhance community agricultural productivity (income). It is relatively new in Nigeria. Water scarcity is caused by water stress. Water is a renewable resource and water stress begins when withdrawals of fresh water rise above 10% of renewable resources (UNDP, 1997).
Water delivery for agricultural use in most Nigerian rural communities requires capital investment. Many communities stressed by frequently occurring dry season drought chose water delivery from the micro-project rural support of Local Empowerment and Environmental Management Project (LEEMP) for poverty reduction in southeastern Nigeria.
Water stress denies most rural communities access to livelihoods water delivery (Enugu State SEEDS (2004). The dry season water stress causes environmental dryness and frustrates effective use of rural man-hours/-days input to agriculture (Okwor, 2001). It also, frustrates income earnings for all seasons’ animal fattening: poultry and fishery
Availability of safe water supply can support sustainable livelihoods (UNICEF Nigeria, 2012). Okwor (2001) pointed that fishery and poultry make better use of land and water in the environment. So, supportive agricultural water use can sustain production, prevent water borne diseases and save lives from unnecessary accidents. Also, effective use of man-hours is possible when water is easily accessible. Further, sustainable livelihoods in agricultural production is able to facilitate improved income which in turn can facilitate access to social needs: access to credit facilities, education for children, access to communication facilities, access to health facilities and enablement to pay for counterpart funds contributions on new investment (s).
LEEMP started the first phase field operation in Nigeria in 2004 and had project support units at federal and state levels, with only participating southeastern states as Enugu and Imo. LEEMP is an agency of International Development Association (IDA) in development partnership with Nigerian government. Since March 2009, LEEMP has acquired a new name, in its second phase, as Community and Social Development Project (CSDP), but the micro-project target is still on Local Empowerment and Environmental Management. The broad objective of LEEMP/CSDP is double-barreled. The first part is in strengthening the institutional framework at the federal, state and local government levels to support environmentally sustainable and community socially inclusive participatory development. The second is in assisting beneficiary communities of LEEMP to have planned, co-financed and implement-able micro-project(s) (Ugwuoke, 2006).
LEEMP/CSDP as a project support organization for participatory poverty reduction has the following specific objectives namely: (i) Raising the standard of living. (ii) Reduction of poverty through five components as follow: education through social inclusiveness to bring better method and increase in the income of the people; increasing the number of man-hours and man- days of business engagement; reduction of risk and, provision of security and safety of project through provision for operations and maintenance committee for each project; reduction of cost of production; mobilizing communities to invest in livestock fattening, fishery, agricultural processing activities and provision of safety net credit to communities’ organized needy and vulnerable groups, with a view to reducing consumption expenditure (FPSU and MacMatts Consultants, 2006). So, the objectives of LEEMP are to obviate problems of project imposition, top-down development implementation and to improve the lot of rural communities (Papka, 2004).
LEEMP operates with CDD strategy through the promotion of participatory decision making, integrated multi-sectoral planning and sustainable environmental impact control among micro-project communities. According to the Federal Support Unit (FPSU) and MacMatts consultants (2006), Community Driven Development (CDD) is broadly defined as a process of control of decision and resources by community-based groups for participatory improvement of natural, physical and social infrastructure. CDD is also referred to as qualitative participation.
CDD strategy emphasizes participatory socially inclusive decision making and bottom-up management to micro-project delivery. Consequently, the concept of CDD enables the communities and local governments to collaboratively plan, design, execute and sustain their development projects. The concepts of CDD are functional transparency, accountability, participation by socially inclusive bottom-up management, and focus on rural people, sustainability of project, and Local Government Assessment for Governance (Papka, 2004).
Methods of quality participation need relationships, attitude and behavior to influence changes at personal and institutional levels. Both changes in the attitudinal and behavioral levels bring about improvement at personal level, while changes in relationships are reflected in the institutional changes. Changes at all these three levels are prerequisites for the CDD approaches (Chambers, 2002).
LEEMP uses IDA funds to finance micro-project supports for rural communities that chose investments in water delivery. Water borehole support of LEEMP, as in other public goods, necessitates technical and mobilization support for preparation of Community Development Plan (CDP) on project(s). Some communities receive supports in borehole(s) and sometimes with reticulation. It is expected that a community borehole project would receive N6.5 million worth of support from LEEMP (Eze, 2005). On entry activities, LEEMP is intervening with micro-project support in states such as Adamawa, Bauchi, Bayelsa, Benue, Enugu, Imo, Katsina, Niger and Oyo (FPSU, 2006).
LEEMP financing for projects implementation has a procedure for releasing funds in tranches of 50%, 30%, and 20% to communities through the Chairman of the Community Project Management Committee (CPMC). The CPMC membership constitution is usually by election organized by MFT (Multi-disciplinary Facilitating Team) members. Also, LEEMP responsive support demand includes facilitation for mobilization which might be inadequate in some rural communities for such election purposes and for joint community development efforts. Among the elected nine CPMC members, the chairman, the secretary, the financial secretary and the treasurer man the accounting process of the receipt and use of the micro-project(s) funds and also negotiate with other CBOs (Community Based Organisations) such as supporting rural banks. Moreover, the members of CPMC would be accountable /answerable to the town union and to the leader (Chief, Emir, or Igwe). As a necessity, the beneficiary community is required to appoint a maintenance committee that would see to the collection of a token amount from the users of the borehole(s) against management cost.
According to FPSU (2006), LEEMP started community entry point activities for CDD project phase one, with 3 local government areas in each LEEMP participating state of the federation but increased to 18 in 2006. So, Enugu and Imo, the southeast LEEMP phase one participating states had a total of 18 LEEMP local government areas (LGAs) each with 194 LEEMP benefitting communities (Enugu 92; Imo 102). The population size of each LEEMP benefiting community is about 1500 to 3000 (FPSU, 2004). According to Enugu State MOA (2013); and Imo State MOA (2013) the population of fish farmers is 825 for Enugu; and 939 for Imo state. Also, the population of poultry farmers for Enugu State is 1583; and Imo State is 1577 (Avian Influenza Project, 2008); However, there are dynamic yearly entry and exit from this population.
Therefore it becomes necessary to find out the extent and where the participatory support of LEEMP has helped to reduce poverty by utilization of water delivery for increased dry season agricultural output. It is also necessary to assess the effectiveness and the efficiency of participatory water delivery by impact evaluation of its utilization for homestead dry season agricultural livestock fattening, income generation and effective use of farmers’ man-hours. Too, it is most likely that the utilization of participatory water delivery of LEEMP may impact significantly on the flow of rural agricultural credit.
1.2 Statement of the Problem
The frequently occurring and scourging dry season in most water stress communities of Southeast Nigeria is associated with long break in rainfall (Mustapha, 2007). In effect, the dry spell denies community members access to water and frustrates the use of man-hours and man-days input for agriculture, frustrates crop and animal viability, discouraging investments in all season’s vegetable crops, poultry and fishery. This necessitated the government intervention using LEEMP water support but the support is yet scanty since greater number of communities have not benefitted. Also, inadequate participatory capabilities creates a great gap among the farmers in the use of the water support.
Further, unsafe water supply for household, livestock farm drinking and hygiene is a major costly concern to water stress rural communities. Unsafe water supply is responsible for water borne diseases for man and animals and translates to huge expenditures on family and farm medical bills. Moreover, the huge expenditure on commercial water supply in those water needy communities during the dry spell period denies the farmers opportunity of enough savings and frustrates investments in cost saving facilities of boreholes for all season’s agricultural production. Then, agricultural productivity declines drastically implying high food prices: the impact usually is more on vegetables, fish products, chicken, mutton and goat meat.
Moreover, during the dry spell period of the water stress communities, rural man-hours are wasted in search of water afar, less capital is accumulated and so, lending and interest rates become costly in agriculture. Thus, the prospects of borrowing to support agricultural production are greatly reduced. Even, when farmers borrow to support agricultural operations, the frustrating dry spell often engender delay in most income generating activities, delaying the farmers payback period, and in turn suggesting credit unworthiness for the community farmers.
Again, very far sources of water supply disturb the academic training-careers of farmers’ children. Very often some of these school children would miss their class or end up in hospitals when they are knocked down by some fast moving vehicles while they would be searching afar to fetch water(Eze, 2007)
Inability to raise counterpart funds sometimes delays or denies project implementation of participatory water delivery to indigent communities. Sometimes the supporting demand responsive organizations might require counterpart funds contributions of the benefiting communities in boreholes, and very often most indigent communities disappoint these supportive agencies. Some local governments’ councils do not help out with counterpart funds.
Ezenwaji & Ezenwaji (2010) have undertaken a study aimed at assessing the impact of urban water quality and sanitation strategies on urban areas of Southeast Nigeria. They found that in the urban areas of Southeast States, poor management of urban water supply infrastructure have resulted in highly irregular and intermittent water supply. Also, they found that apart from Enugu and Abakaliki urban areas, other urban areas in the region hardly receive any water supply from the municipal source. Thus, they found that water supply is so serious in Anambra state which for the past 10 years, no consumer in any of the urban areas in the state has received water from the public water supply source because the State Water Agency (SWA) has not been functioning for the period of years.
Konyebagu (2010), showed that the Federal Government of Nigeria has had a framework
for water and water sector development but there is a problem of continuity. Previously, there had been blue prints for National State and even Urban Water Supply Development in different parts of the country. However, never had any blue print been followed to a logical conclusion; for example there was 11 (Eleven) River Basin Development Authority (RBDA) meant to develop the nations water resources; there was the UNICEF mandated International Drinking Water Supply and Sanitation Decade (1981 – 1990), with a lot done, but the water goal was not achieved due to top-down project management (Konyebagu, 2011). Other researchers on water are concerned with Surface and Groundwater Quality of Enugu Urban Areas; Residential Water Demand and Supply in Nsukka Urban Area of Enugu State, Nigeria; Comparative Quality Evaluation of Sources of Domestic Water Supply in Enugu Urban Area, Environmental Review; Urban Water pollution in Aba, Nigeria (Ezemonye, 2009; Ibeziako, 1985; Mong, 1984; Nnodu & Ilo, 2000; Udeze, 1988). However, none of the research studies addressed rural water delivery nor bottom-up management process of water delivery.
Thus, a research gap is spotted in the need for evaluation of participatory poverty reduction by utilization of rural water delivery support since other researches have centred on urban water supply. Specifically, LEEMP phase 1 has transited to CSDP and it has become necessary that an impact or post evaluation study be conducted to assess the effectiveness and efficiency of utilization of rural water delivery of LEEMP for dry season homestead agriculture.
In summary, agricultural productivity in most water stress rural communities are threatened by frequently occurring and scourging dry season with an enforcement of long break from rain-fed agriculture: occasioning costly water supply from commercial water vendors, frustrating savings. It occasions wastage of man-hours in search of water afar and helpless periods of decline in farm productivity, and it is a threat to timeliness of agricultural engagements. In succession, it results in high food prices, frustrates capital accumulation and farm income generating activities needed for economic growth of individuals, and implicates credit unworthiness for rural farmers. It is eroding farmers’ ability to raise counterpart contributions needed for ownership responsibilities as required by the principles of CDD; and there are incidences of accidents and loss of lives in search of water in some far away places.
So, the rural community water problems and the activities of LEEMP for rural water support programme call for some certain research questions, namely: (i) do the farmers have the peer group cementing factor and levels of educational training required for collaboration in CDD pursuit and for Choice Decision of micro-project?; (ii) does CDD water delivery make water supply nearer, reduce labour time and economically reduce cost of production for any dry season agricultural enterprise(s)?; (iii) are there significant flow of agricultural credit support sequel to the CDD water delivery? (iv) what is the influence of CDD water delivery on the income level of a given agricultural enterprise(s)?; (v) what is the influence of CDD water delivery on some homestead agricultural enterprises ? (vi) what are the constraints to the use of CDD water delivery for domestic and agricultural production in the study area ?
1.3 Objectives of the Study
The broad objective of the study is to evaluate participatory poverty reduction through water delivery support of Local Empowerment and Environmental Management Project (LEEMP) in Southeast Nigeria.
Specific objectives of the study are to:
describe the socio-economic characteristics influencing the community CDD Livelihood
demand for water and credit support for investment in fishery and poultry.
ascertain the effects of LEEMP water support on daily timeliness of farm operation and
on poverty.
iii. assess the CPMC coordinated livelihood credit programme of LEEMP agricultural water
users with a view to ascertaining outreach and effectiveness.
evaluate the effect of LEEMP water support on fishery and poultry homestead dry season
farm production.
identify the constraints to the use of CDD water delivery in the study area
1.4 Hypotheses of the Study
Based on the above specific objectives, this study would be guided by the following
null hypotheses:
(i) Utilization of CDD water delivery of LEEMP does not significantly enhance livestock dry
season agricultural income.
(ii) LEEMP livestock water users do not significantly borrow/demand for credit to enhance
farmers’ Incremental – Output Ratio.
(iii) Dry season livestock farm expenditure is not significantly influenced by the demand of
Credit for dry season livestock fattening (poultry and fishery).
.
(iv) LEEMP water users do not significantly differ in their utilization of water delivery for
dry season livestock fattening (poultry and fishery)
1.5 Justification of the Study
The need for natural resource integration management in rural economic growth necessitates the rural support programme in water delivery. A component of the second specific objective of LEEMP is on mobilizing communities to invest in livestock fattening, fishery, vegetable garden, agricultural processing activities, and provision of safety net credit to communities’ organized vulnerable groups (FPSU and MacMatts Consultants,2006)
Investment in all season’s animal fattening: poultry and fishery need access to supportive water delivery. Water availability in the face of frequently occurring and scourging dry season in water stress communities is very important to agricultural health, sanitation and for effective use of community man-hours and man-days. Moreover, the poverty reduction strategy adopted in 1999 enjoins donor agencies to continue to support governments in development countries in participatory manner for effective management of critical Natural Resources, including water (Mustapha, 2007).
The Nigerian policy thrust on control of rural-urban migration (drift) emphases on orienting youths to rural agricultural employment. Then, farmers’ children are also involved in agricultural helping hands. Therefore, the nation cannot afford continued loss and waste of rural man-hours in search of needed dry season agricultural water for animal fattening: animal health and hygiene. Thus, the study aims to examine the significance of CDD demand in relationships, LEEMP responsive support for rural water delivery for utilization in agricultural livestock fattening: poultry and fishery health and hygiene.
The ordeals some communities undergo sequel to scarcity and search of water supply for household chores culminating in accidents and sometimes loss of lives of school children have further propelled enquiries into participatory project in water delivery. However, very few statistics is available on CDD water delivery, supply and reticulation in the rural communities. This problem should be a thing of concern for national policy makers and researchers.
Furthermore, some communities find it very difficult to raise enough capital as to pay for their counterpart funds contributions. This kind of disappointment in CDD arrangements call for a way forward as how to help out indigent communities in water delivery.
The finding of this study will bring to light the understanding of CDD mechanism. It will also throw light on implemented projects in water delivery, use of water to achieve efficiency of production, marginal efficiency of capital, earnings in participatory project boreholes enhanced agriculture, access to agricultural credit and control of loss of man-hours.
In anticipation, the study will also contribute to literature in participatory project delivery studies and provide a basis for reference and further research.
1.6 Limitation of the Study
The study experienced some certain limitations ranging from supply of incomplete information due to the suspicion of the rural community farmers. Also, livestock fattening was not commercially well distributed among the study communities. For example, only very few farmers operated fishery enterprise. Moreover, there were very scanty poultry farmers at Okutu in Nsukka local government area.
Also, the researcher restricted himself in two major limited agricultural enterprises since the farmers were not commercially engaged in other dry season water supportive enterprises and since fishery and poultry make better use of land and water in the environment.
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