IMPACT OF ROOT AND TUBER EXPANSION PROGRAMME TECHNOLOGY ADOPTION ON POVERTY AND FOOD SECURITY STATUS OF CASSAVA- FARMING HOUSEHOLDS IN SOUTHWESTERN NIGERIA

ATTENTION:

BEFORE YOU READ THE ABSTRACT OR CHAPTER ONE OF THE PROJECT TOPICS BELOW, PLEASE READ THE INFORMATION BELOW.THANK YOU!

INFORMATION:

YOU CAN GET THE COMPLETE PROJECT OF THE TOPIC BELOW. THE FULL PROJECT COST N5,000 ONLY. THE FULL INFORMATION ON HOW TO PAY AND GET THE COMPLETE PROJECT IS AT THE BOTTOM OF THIS PAGE. OR

YOU CAN CALL: 08068231953, 08137701720

WHATSAPP US ON: 08137701720

IMPACT OF ROOT AND TUBER EXPANSION PROGRAMME TECHNOLOGY ADOPTION ON POVERTY AND FOOD SECURITY STATUS OF CASSAVA- FARMING HOUSEHOLDS IN SOUTHWESTERN NIGERIA

ABSTRACT

Adoption of yield increasing technologies among farming households is one way of reducing poverty and food insecurity. In Nigeria, Root and Tuber Expansion Programme (RTEP) was implemented to develop improved technology of root and tuber crops. However, the impact of RTEP technology on poverty and food security has not been fully established. Therefore, the effect of RTEP technology on poverty and food security status of cassava-farming households in southwestern Nigeria was investigated.

Ondo and Ogun states were randomly selected from the six states in southwestern Nigeria. Two RTEP participating and two Non-RTEP participating Local Government Areas (LGAs) were randomly chosen from each state. Three communities were randomly selected from each of the LGAs. In each RTEP community, 30 households were randomly selected (beneficiaries and non-beneficiaries) while 15 households were randomly selected from each Non-RTEP community making 540 respondents. Data were collected on age, gender, Household Size (HS), Land Area Cultivated (LAC), technology adoption, Credit Accessibility (CA), Educational Level (EL), Off-farm Activities Participation (OAP), Cassava Yield (CY), Distance to Input Market (DIM) and Household Consumption Expenditure (HCE) using structured questionnaire. The HCE was used to estimate Poverty Incidence (PI) and Food Insecurity Incidence (FII) while other variables were hypothesized to influence Adoption Level (AL) of RTEP technology. Data were analyzed using propensity score matching, descriptive statistics, Foster-Greer-Thorbecke and Tobit regression model at p = 0.05.

There were 387 RTEP and Non-RTEP households with similar characteristics. Age (44.3 ± 10.1 years), HS (6.0 ± 2.0) and LAC (1.0 ± 0.4 hectares) of the beneficiaries were not significantly different from those of the non-beneficiaries. The AL of RTEP technology was 76.01%. Cassava yield of RTEP Beneficiaries (RTEPB) was 14.56 ± 1.27 tons/ha. Gender, OAP, CA and EL significantly increased AL by 13.8%, 15.8%, 4.7% and 17.6% respectively while DIM decreased AL by 1.8%. At poverty and food insecurity lines of ₦34,473.00 and ₦20,132.20 respectively per annum, 55.0% RTEPB were poor while 51.3% were food insecure. The RTEP technology adoption reduced PI of RTEPB by 11.2%. The PI of the male beneficiaries reduced by 12.6% compared with 5.6% for female. The PI of RTEPB with CA reduced by 11.8% compared with 5.2% for those without CA. The PI decreased by 14.1% for RTEPB with OAP while the reduction was 8.2% for those without off-farm activity. The FII decreased by 16.3% with male RTEPB having higher reduction of 17.8% compared with female of 8.0%. The FII of the beneficiaries with CA decreased by 20.9% while the reduction was 9.8% for those without CA. The decrease in FII was 17.45% for RTEPB with OAP compared to 9.4% for those not participating.

Root and Tuber Expansion Programme technology alleviated both poverty and food insecurity status of beneficiaries especially among males, those with credit accessibility and offfarm activity participation in southwestern Nigeria.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Abstract…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………. ii

Dedication…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….. iv

Acknowledgement…………………………………………………………………………………………………………… v

Certification………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….. vii

Table of Contents…………………………………………………………………………………………………………. viii

List of Tables………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… xii

List of Figures……………………………………………………………………………………………………………… xiv

CHAPTER ONE: INTRODUCTION

1.1 Background to the Study………………………………………………….. 1

1.2 Cassava in Nigerian Economy…………………………………………. 5

1.3 Problem Statement……………………………………………………… 7

1.4 Objectives of the Study…………………………………………………. 10

1.5 Justification of the Study………………………………………………… 10

1.6 Plan of the Report………………………………………………………… 12

CHAPTER TWO: THEORETICAL/ CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK AND LITERATURE REVIEW

2.1 Theoretical/ Conceptual Framework…………………………………… 13

2.1.1 Theoretical Foundations and Basic Concepts of Agricultural Technology Adoption.. 13

2.1.1.1 Speed of Technology Adoption……………………………………………………… 15

2.1.1.2 Mode and Sequence of Agricultural Technology Adoption…………………………. 16

2.1.1.3 Adoption Determinants Models………………………………………………………. 16

2.1.2 Technology and its Contribution to Pro-poor Agricultural Development………… 17

2.1.2.1 Technology’s Role in Poverty Reduction…………………………………………. 19

2.1.2.2 The Adoption of New Technology by Farmers…………………………………… 20

2.1.2.3 Benefits of Agricultural Technology to the poor…………………………………… 21

2.1.3 Concepts of Food Security and Poverty…………………………………………… 24

2.1.4 Approaches to Poverty Alleviation and Food Security …………………………… 29

2.1.4.1 Economic Growth Approach……………………………………………………… 30

2.1.4.2 Basic Needs Approach………………………………………………………………. 30

2.1.4.3 Rural Development Approach………………………………………………………… 30

2.1.4.4 The employment- oriented approach…………………………………………………. 31

2.1.4.5 Target Approach …………………………………………………………………….. 31

2.1.4.5.1 Community Driven Development approach……………………………………….. 31

2.1.5 Poverty Alleviation / Food Security Programmes and Strategies in Nigeria………… 33

2.1.5.1 Pre-SAP Era………………………………………………………………………….. 33

2.1.5.2 SAP Era……………………………………………………………………………… 35

2.1.5.3 Democratic Era………………………………………………………………………. 37

2.1.5.4 Community-Driven Development Programmes in Nigeria ………………………………….. 42

2.1.5.4.1 Local Empowerment and Environmental Management Project (LEEMP)……… 42

2.1.5.4.2 Community –Based Poverty Reduction Project (CPRP)…………………………. 42

2.1.5.4.3 Community and Social Development Project (CSDP)……………………………… 43

2.1.5.4.4 National Fadama Development Project (NFDP)…………………………………… 44

2.1.5.4.5 Root and Tuber Expansion Programme (RTEP)…………………………………. 44

2.2 Methodological Review……………………………………………………………… 47

2.2.1 Impact Assessment……………………………………………………………………. 47

2.2.1.1 Experimental Approach …………………………………………………………… 50

2.2.1.2 Non-Experimental/Quasi–Experimental Approach………………………………… 51

2.2.2 Counterfactual Framework……………………………………………………… .. 56

2.2.3 Measurement of Poverty………………………………………………………………………………… 59

2.2.4 Measurement of Food Security…………………………………………………….. 60

2.3 Literature Review……………………………………………………………………. 62

2.3.1 Empirical Review on Determinants of Adoption of Improved Production Technology….. 62

2.3.2 Empirical Review on the Impact of Agricultural Technology Adoption on

Poverty and Food Security………………………………………………………… 69

2.3.3 Empirical Review on Root and Tuber Expansion Programme……………………… 73

2.4 Conceptual Framework…………………………………………………………………… 76

CHAPTER THREE: METHODOLOGY

3.1 Area of Study……………………………………………………………………………. 79

3.2 Sources of Data…………………………………………………………………… 79

3.3 Sampling Procedure……………………………………………………………… 79

3.4 Data Analysis………………………………………………………………. 83

3.4.1 Application of Statistical Matching To Impact Evaluation……………………… 83

3.4.1.1 Estimating the Propensity Score (PS)………………………………………….. 84

3.4.1.2 Matching the unit using the Propensity Score…………………………………. 86

3.4.1.3 Assessing the Quality of the Match…………………………………………….. 86

3.4.1.4 Estimating the Impact……………………………………………………………… 86

3.4.2 Descriptive Statistics………………………………………………………………. 87

3.4.3 Examining the Determinants of Adoption Level………………………………… 89

3.4.4 Measurement of Income …………………………………………………… 92

3.4.5 Measurement of Poverty……………………………………………………………. 92 3.4.6 Measurement of Food Security……………………………………………………. 93

CHAPTER FOUR: RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONS

4.1 Statistical Matching of Respondents…………………………………………………. 93

4.2 Socio-economic Characteristics of Respondents………………………………. 99

4.2.2 The Adoption level of RTEP Improved Production Technology ………………… 101

4.3 Determinants of Adoption Level of RTEP Improved Production Technology …. 105

4.4 Level of Income of RTEP and Non-RTEP Households………………………… 108

4.4.1 Level of Income by Type of Respondents……………………………………… 108

4.4.2 Level of Income of Respondents by Gender……………………………………… 110

4.4.3 Level of Income of Respondents by Credit Accessibility………………………… 110

4.4.4 Level of Income of Respondents by Participation in Off-farm Activity………… 113

4.5 Poverty Status of RTEP and Non-RTEP Households……………………………… 115

4.5.1 Poverty Status by Type of Respondents…………………………………………… 115

4.5.2 Poverty Status of Respondents by Gender………………………………………… 118

4.5.3 Poverty Status of Respondents by Credit Accessibility…………………………… 120

4.5.4 Poverty Status of Respondents by Participation in off-farm Activity……………… 122

4.6 Food Insecurity Status of RTEP and Non-RTEP Households……………………… 124

4.6.1 Food Insecurity Status by Type of Respondents…………………………………….. 124

4.6.2 Food Insecurity Status of Respondents by Gender…………………………………. 126

4.6.3 Food Insecurity Status of Respondents by Credit Accessibility…………………….. 128

4.6.4 Food Insecurity Status of Respondents by Participation in Off-farm Activity…….. 130

CHAPTER FIVE SUMMARY, CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATION

5.1 Summary of Major Findings……………………………………………..………. 132

5.2 Conclusion of the Study…………………………………………………………… 135

5.3 Policy Implications and Recommendation……………………………………… 135

5.4 Suggestion for Further Studies……………………………………………………….. 136

REFERENCES ……………………………………………………………………………. 137

APPENDIX ………………………………………………………………………………. 149

CHAPTER ONE INTRODUCTION 1.1 BACKGROUND TO THE STUDY

Eradicating extreme poverty and hunger is the first target of the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs), and this has made poverty reduction and food security the undisputed overriding goals of development (Deaton, 2004; United Nations Millennium Project, 2005). Despite this declaration, the world still faces a serious food crisis which is perilous and life threatening for millions of poor people. Although, there is a variation in the estimate of the food-insecure people all over the world, available statistics shows that more than 800 million people still remain food- insecure while about 1.4 billion people live on less than US$1.25 a day (Weibe, 2003; FAO, 2005; IFAD, 2011).

Poverty in Africa has been described as a rural phenomenon (World Bank, 2000; IFAD, 2001). This has also been attested to by the World Development Report (WDR, 2008) which stated that more than half of the population in the countries in this region live in rural areas where poverty is most extreme (World Bank, 2007). By this, it is acknowledged that rural communities are the worst hit by poverty. In Africa, the share of rural areas in overall poverty is around 90.0% in many countries. Rural poverty results from lack of assets, limited economic opportunities, poor education and capabilities, as well as disadvantages rooted in social and political inequalities (IFAD, 2011).

In Sub-Saharan Africa (SSA), poverty rates and food insecurity remains high while other developing regions of the world are making significant progress in achieving the first MDG. Though the global hunger index (GHI) score fell by 18.0% compared with the 1990 score, the 2011 GHI score of 20.5 indicates an alarming situation in the region. In the same vein, Sub-

Saharan Africa‟s rural poverty decline is also slow, where more than 60.0% of the rural population lives on less than US$1.25 a day, and almost 90.0% lives on less than US$2/day (IFAD, 2011). Many reasons have been attributed to the rise in absolute numbers of poor people and the proportion of people living in extreme hunger in sub-Saharan Africa. These reasons range from inequality due to the trends of globalization, violent civil conflict, governance failures and institutional gaps. However, since the majority of the people living on less than US$1 a day in SSA live in rural areas where agriculture is their predominant source of livelihood, the prominent explanatory factor attributed to the rise in regional poverty and food insecurity rates is the reduction in absolute value of aid volumes and government expenditures to agriculture and rural infrastructure (Lipton, 2000; IFAD, 2001; Booth and Mosley, 2003; IFPRI, 2006).

Moreover, it is now generally believed that investment in agricultural technology must be prioritised in sub-Saharan Africa in order to achieve the core MDG of halving the proportion of people living in extreme poverty and hunger by 2015. This is because the massive investments in agricultural technology in some of the Asian economies in the past five decades have been successful in achieving food self-sufficiency, poverty reduction, agricultural and rural development as well as boosting employment generation (Saleth, 2002; IFPRI, 2006).

Paradoxically, despite Nigeria‟s rich endowment of resources and human capacity, the country has not yet managed to resolve its rural food insecurity and poverty problems. The level of poverty has increased since the implementation of the Structural Adjustment Programme in the 1980s (World Bank, 1999). Statistics on poverty profile in Nigeria indicates that poverty increased from affecting 17.1 million people in 1980 to 34.7, 39.2, 67.1 and 68.7 million people in 1985, 1992, 1996, and 2004 respectively. At present, 112.5 million people are classified poor in the country (NBS, 2010).

Furthermore, the proportion of the core poor increased from 6.2% in 1980 to 29.3% in 1996, came down to 22.0% in 2004, and rose to 38.7% in 2010. For the moderately poor, the picture was quite different as the proportion recorded an increase between 1980 and 1985 from 21.0 to 34.2% but went down between 1996 and 2010, from 36.3 to 30.3%. On the other hand, the proportion of non-poor was much higher in the country in 1980 (72.8%) compared to 1992

(57.3%) and 1996 (34.4 %). Although, it rose to 43.3% in 2004, it dropped to 31% in 2010 (NBS, 2010). In 2010, across the different geopolitical zones in the country, the North West was the poorest with 77.7% poverty incidence. This was closely followed by the North East (76.3%);

North Central (67.5%); South East (67%); South South (63.8%) and South West (59.1%). The poverty situation in the South West geopolitical zone is as follows: Ogun state (69%), Oyo (60.7%), Lagos (59.2%), Ekiti (59.1%), Ondo (57%), and Osun (47.5%) (NBS, 2010).

Moreover, national food poverty incidence increased from 33.6% in 2004 to 41% in 2010, while the urban and rural food poverty incidence stood at 26.7% and 48.3% respectively. North West had the highest food poverty incidence (51.8%) followed by North East (51.5%), South East (41%), North Central (38.6%), South South (35.5%) and South West (25.4%). Across the six states in the South West geopolitical zone, Ogun state had the highest food poverty incidence of 41.8% followed by Ondo (36.1%), Ekiti (35.8%), Oyo (24.6%), Osun (19.5%) and Lagos (14.6%) (NBS, 2010).

However, Nigeria focuses on sustainable agriculture and rural development as a means of reducing rural food insecurity and poverty. Some of the policies and programmes that have been designed at one time or another to reach the poor and food-insecured include: the establishment of the National Accelerated Food Production Project (NAFPP), Operation Feed the Nation (OFN), Green Revolution, Agricultural Development Programme (ADP), National Directorate of

Employment (NDE), People‟s Bank, Community Bank and Small-scale Industries Credit Scheme, the Family Support Programme (FSP), the strategic grain reserve programs, the liberalization of different agricultural input delivery systems, introduction of measures to involve the private sector in the agricultural sector, NFDP (flood plain development) Programme. Others include: Presidential Initiatives on cocoa, cassava, rice, livestock, fisheries and vegetables, the National Agricultural Land Development Agency (NALDA), National Special Programme on Food Security (NSPSF), Directorate of Food, Roads, and Rural Infrastructure (DFRRI), Family Economic Advancement Programme (FEAP), National Poverty Eradication Programme (NAPEP), National Economic Empowerment and Development Scheme (NEEDS), Cassava Multiplication Programme (CMP), Root and Tuber Expansion Programme (RTEP) (Nuhu, 2007; Federal Ministry of Agriculture and Water Resources , 2008).

Root and Tuber Expansion Programme (RTEP) was designed to consolidate the gains made under the Cassava Multiplication Programme (CMP) and to address the problem arising from its implementation. Consequently, earlier coverage by the Cassava Multiplication Programme (CMP) of the nine States of Akwa Ibom, Anambra, Benue, Delta, Ebonyi, Edo, Enugu, Imo and Ogun was extended by the RTEP to include almost the entire central and southern parts of the country, bringing the total number of states covered to 26, of which most are in the south (IFAD, 2009). The implementation of RTEP commenced in July, 2001. The main goal of RTEP was to increase income, alleviate poverty and improve food security status of the small holder farming households with less than 2 hectares of land categorised as the poorest of the poor, growing and processing cassava, yam, cocoyam, Irish and sweet potato in the project areas.

In order to facilitate the attainment of the objectives of the programme, three components were identified namely: improved production technology, processing and marketing, monitoring and evaluation. Based on the initial design of RTEP, the implementation of activities during the first tri-term (2001-2004) was largely state-wide, thinly spread and supply-driven, thus naturally limiting the possibilities of innovations, successes and sustainability. However, following the first tri-term implementation review in 2004/05, the use of Community Driven Development (CDD) approach was adopted to enhance stronger programme ownership and beneficiary empowerment.

CDD approach has been successfully adopted in some countries such as : India, Pakistan, Argentina and Kenya (World Bank, 2003). Since targeting the poor has been one of the challenges of development and emergency response programmes (Farrington and Salter, 2006), it is argued that using CDD could improve targeting because CDD programmes use better local knowledge to define and identify the targeted groups (Mansuri and Rao, 2004).

Community-Driven Development recognises that poor people are prime actors in the development process, not targets of externally designed poverty reduction efforts. In CDD, control of decisions and resources rests with community groups, who may often work in partnership with demand-responsive support organisations and service providers, including elected local governments, the private sector, Non-Governmental Organisations (NGOs), and central government agencies. Experience has shown that, given clear rules of the game, access to information, and appropriate support, poor men and women can effectively organise to provide goods and services that meet their immediate priorities. Not only do poor communities have greater capacity than generally recognised, they also have the most to gain from making good use of resources targeted at poverty reduction (Alkire et al, 2001). The CDD‟s potential is increasingly recognised as individual studies have shown that CDD can increase the effectiveness, efficiency, and sustainability of projects or programmes, making them more propoor and responsive to local priorities. Other objectives include developing capacity, building social and human capital, facilitating community and individual empowerment, deepening democracy, improving governance, and strengthening human rights (Mansuri and Rao 2004).

Therefore, considering the fact that eradicating poverty and hunger is the first target of the MDGs, and were widely viewed as a relevant measure to evaluating the progress of a country in terms of wellbeing (Vasco, 2006), this study assesses the impact of RTEP technology adoption on poverty and food security status of cassava-farming households in Southwest Nigeria.

1.2 CASSAVA IN NIGERIAN ECONOMY

Cassava is a major source of calories for roughly two out of every five Africans. It serves as an important food source for an estimated 200 million people or about one-third of the population of sub-Saharan Africa (IITA et al, 2003). Cassava has the potential to increase farm income, reduce rural and urban poverty, as well as help close the food gap between the rural and urban communities. It is a low-risk crop for poor farmers, available to low-income rural households in the form of simple food products (for example, dried roots and leaves) which are significantly cheaper than grains such as rice, maize and wheat. Similarly, urban households in many parts of West Africa consume cassava in the form of gari (Nweke et al., 2001). Its drought tolerance makes it the most suitable food crop during periods of drought and famine (Nweke et al., 2001).

Nigeria is known to be the leading producer of cassava globally with a production of about 52 million tonnes in 2011 which was 20% higher than its production in 2004. The increase in production came about as a result of the interventions of the Nigerian Government and some developmental agencies. The Nigerian Government facilitated the development of new diseaseresistant cassava varieties by the joint efforts of IITA, National Root Crops Research Institute (NRCRI), RTEP, and the Federal Ministry of Agriculture, in conjunction with Agricultural

Development Programmes and cassava farmers. In 2002, cassava suddenly gained prominence following the pronouncement of a presidential initiative on the crop which was aimed at using cassava production as an engine of economic growth in Nigeria.

Cassava is mainly produced by small holder farmers, cultivating less than two hectares of land, and plays a dominant role in the rural economy of the southern agro-ecological zones though it is increasingly gaining importance in other parts of Nigeria. The southern states account for 64% of the cassava produced in Nigeria with the Southwest contributing about 20% of the total production. It provides the livelihood for over 30 million farmers, countless processors and traders (FMARD, 2002). Cassava is important not only as a food crop but also as a major source of cash income for producing households. As a cash crop, it generates cash income for the largest number of households, contributing positively to poverty alleviation. As a food crop, cassava fits well into the farming systems of the small-holder farmers in Nigeria because it is available all year round, thus providing household food security. Cassava performs five main roles namely: famine reserve crop, rural food staple, cash crop for urban consumption, industrial raw material, and earner of foreign exchange (Nweke et al, 2002).

In Nigeria, cassava is primarily produced for food, especially in the form of gari, lafun and fufu with little or no use in the agribusiness sector as an industrial raw material. However, the crop can be processed into several secondary products of industrial market value. These products include chips, pellets, flour, adhesives, alcohol, and starch, which are vital raw materials in the livestock feed, alcohol/ethanol, textile, confectionery, wood, food and beverage industries (Ezedinma et al, 2002). According to Nweke et al (2002), Nigeria is the most advanced of the African countries poised to diversify the use of cassava as a primary industrial raw material and livestock feed. Two factors put Nigeria to this comparative advantage in Africa: one is the rapid adoption of improved cassava varieties, and the second is the development of small scale processing technologies including the cassava grater. Also, among the crops widely cultivated in southern Nigeria, research efforts have made the greatest impact on cassava (Nweke et al, 2002).

Furthermore, in 2002, the President of Nigeria announced an initiative to use cassava as an export commodity to generate five billion Naira annually in export revenues. To achieve this goal, there was a need to develop the domestic market, diversify the use of cassava, and create national policies that will leverage cassava development in the country (Ezedinma et al, 2002). Recently, cassava was listed as one of the six crops to receive increased attention under the recently launched Agricultural Transformation Agenda (ATA) with the objective of the Federal

Government‟s cassava initiative as to increase commercial cassava production, prevent or eradicate the problem of cassava glut through marketing, and use the crop which the country is known for to boost industrial development (David, 2012).

Moreover, the Nigerian government has recently announced plans to cut wheat imports by revisiting policy compelling the inclusion of 10% cassava flour into wheat flour. This policy was first attempted in 2002 but was not sustained due to inadequate domestic capacity to process industry grade cassava flour. However, with the present government, the inclusion rate is expected to increase steadily to 40% by 2015. As part of the plan, the government will implement a 65% levy on wheat flour importation to bring the effective duty to 100% while wheat grain will attract a 15% levy which will bring the effective duty to 20%. Bakeries that attain 40% blending will benefit from a corporate tax incentive of 12% rebate. In addition, all equipment for processing high quality cassava flour will enjoy a free duty regime as an incentive for bakers for composite flour utilization. This policy direction could greatly reduce wheat exports to Nigeria (USDA, 2012). Therefore, the development of the cassava subsector is emerging a key component of strong and diversified economy, able to generate employment, contribute to food security, alleviate poverty, and sustain inome for the Nigerian populace.

1.3 PROBLEM STATEMENT

Poverty and food insecurity are among the topmost challenges facing developing countries (Deaton, 2004). However, despite massive progress in reducing poverty and food insecurity in some parts of the world over the past couple of decades, there are still about 1.4 billion people living on less than US$1.25 a day, and close to 1 billion people suffering from hunger (IFAD, 2011). Poverty remains a massive and predominantly rural phenomenon with at least 70% of the world‟s very poor being rural. Sub-Saharan Africa (SSA) is the region worst affected by poverty and hunger. In SSA, poverty is increasing and food security situation is deteriorating (Hazell and Haddad, 2001), over 50% of the population in this region live on less than $1.25 a day with 239 million suffering from hunger (FAO, 2011).

In Nigeria, projects, programmes and policies targeted at reducing the problem of food insecurity and poverty notwithstanding, the country ranked 156 out of 187 countries and territories on the Human Development Index (HDI) and 40th on the Global Hunger Index (GHI) of 81countries with a GHI score of 15.5 indicating a serious hunger situation (IFPRI, 2011;

UNDP, 2011). In 2004, Nigeria‟s poverty incidence stood at 54.4%, implying that approximately 69 million Nigerians lived in poverty but increased to 69% (or 112.5 million Nigerians) in 2010 (NBS, 2012). Also, poverty in the south-western geopolitical zone increased to 59.1% in 2010 from 43% which translates to about 16.5 million people living in poverty. It therefore remains a paradox, however, that despite the fact that the Nigerian economy is growing, the proportion of Nigerians living in poverty increases every year, although it declined between 1985 and 1992 from 46.3% to 42.7%, and between 1996 and 2004 from 66.6% to 54.4% (NBS, 2012). In the same vein, the level of food insecurity continued to rise steadily since the 1980‟s. It rose from 18.0% in 1986 to 41.0% in 2004 and stood at 65.0% in 2009 (Sanusi et al, 2006; Davies, 2009).

Poverty is endemic to rural areas where the main occupation is farming (Fields, 2000; World Bank, 2008). According to the Nigerian Living Standard Survey (NLSS) Report (2012), 73.2% of the rural population are poor compared to 61.8% in the urban area. The predominance of rural poverty over urban has been consistent between 1996 and 2010. Incidentally, the rural sector is the predominant sector in the nation‟s economy as it plays some fundamental roles such as serving as a base for food and fibre production; the major source of capital formation for the country; a principal market for domestic manufacturers; job creation at relatively low unit costs and in general, engages in primary activities that form the foundation of any economic development, and thus, remains the most important growth priority of the country (Stewart, 2000).

Furthermore, farming population comprises primarily of resource-poor peasants, cultivating tiny plots of land with low and declining productivity (IFAD, 2007). There are evidences that the farming households are poorer among the rural poor. For instance, NBS (2004) revealed that the incidence of poverty was 72.3 and 64.4% in 1996 and 2004, respectively for Nigerian farming households while it was 58.0 and 59.2% for their non-farming counterparts, respectively. Moreover, escaping poverty traps in many developing countries depends on the growth and development of the agricultural sector (World Bank, 2008). Agricultural growth and development is not possible without yield-enhancing technological options because merely expanding the area under cultivation, except in a few places, to meet the increasing food needs of growing populations is no longer sufficient. Research and adoption of technological improvement are thus crucial to increasing agricultural productivity, alleviating poverty and food insecurity.

Agricultural productivity, particularly in poor countries, is the key to global food security and fight against poverty (Braun et al, 2008). Low agricultural productivity resulting from soil fertility depletion, heavy reliance on basic indigenous technology including the use of unimproved and low yielding planting materials, lack of good crop protection methods among others have been alleged to be the critical factors accounting for rural poverty (Uganda,1998; Omonona et al, 2005), pointing to the fact that agriculture plays a unique role in reducing poverty. Therefore, the resulting gains in poverty eradication and greater food security will depend in part on an integrated set of research outputs which include high yielding and pest resistant varieties, improved crop management, processing equipment and procedures, as well as improved policies that facilitate the development and adoption of these innovations (Nweke, 1992).

Furthermore, the introduction of, access to and use of improved agricultural technologies are tools needed to improve agricultural productivity. This serves as the key to global food security and fight against poverty. But it remains a challenge for agricultural researchers to understand the extent to which these technologies are used and with what impacts (McCalla, 2001; Braun et al, 2008). To this end, it then becomes imperative to study the adoption of improved technology and its impact on food security and poverty reduction.

It is interesting to note that many of the developing world‟s poorest and most food insecure households depend on root and tuber crops as a contributing if not the principal sources of food, nutrition and income (Alexandratos, 1995). Moreover, the importance of roots and tubers in Africa notwithstanding, African food policy over the last half a century has focused on achieving growth and self-sufficiency in cereals such as wheat, rice and maize, with growth rates in roots and tubers over this period largely driven by area expansion as opposed to yields (resulting from technological innovations such as improved varieties and production techniques) (Scott et al, 2000; Nweke, 2004; Hartmann, 2007). However, the degree of impact these crops will have on problems of food insecurity, poverty and development will depend, among other factors, on research innovations scientists make, the use of these innovations by farmers and resource allocation decisions by governments and International donors on these crops.

Among such resource allocation decisions was the Root and Tuber Expansion Programme (RTEP) whose improved production technology adoption was assessed in this study. RTEP improved production technology which is one of the components of the programme comprised of improved varieties, recommended spacing, timely maintenance, fertilizer, herbicide and pesticide application. For the periods of implementation of the RTEP, very little was known about the adoption level of its production technology package and its impact on the poverty and food security status of the farming households in Nigeria. Therefore, the following research questions were answered by this study:

What is the adoption level of the RTEP production technology among cassava-farming households in Southwest Nigeria?

What are the determinants of their adoption level in the study area?

What is the level of income, food security and poverty status of the RTEP and the NonRTEP cassava-farming households?

What is the impact of the RTEP technology adoption on the income, food security and poverty status of cassava-farming households in the study area?

1.4 OBJECTIVES OF THE STUDY

The main objective of the study is to evaluate the impact of the Root and Tuber Expansion Programme (RTEP) technology adoption on poverty and food security status of cassava-farming households in Southwest, Nigeria. The specific objectives are to:

Determine the adoption level of the RTEP production technology among cassava-farming households in Southwest Nigeria.

Examine factors influencing the adoption level of the RTEP production technology by cassava-farming households in the study area.

Compare the level of income of the RTEP and the Non-RTEP cassava-farming households in the study area.

Evaluate the impact of the RTEP technology adoption on cassava-farming households‟ poverty and food security status in the study area.

1.5 JUSTIFICATION OF THE STUDY

The estimates of adoption level of the RTEP production technology and the influencing factors will inform the federal government and other stakeholders on the extent to which the whole package have been adopted, where to devote the available resources in order to remove constraints and increase research efficiency as well as designing policy, programmes and institutional reforms to enhance technology adoption. It is imperative to provide good and reliable estimates of the RTEP technology adoption level and impact in order to reveal the suitability of the technology in terms of increased income, food security and poverty reduction of the targeted population. This study is further justified in that its findings will provide relevant information concerning the level of achievement of the RTEP as well as the gaps noticed in the achievement capacity of the programme which will be helpful in reorganising the project to enhance performance in the second phase.

Moreover, this study will contribute to the scanty and flawed literature that exists on the impact of the RTEP in Nigeria. The few studies on the RTEP (Ater et al, 2006; Ibrahim and Onuk, 2010; Tijani and Thomas, 2010 Olujide and Leoto, 2010) were on the impact of the programme on productivity except Ater et al (2006) that was on poverty. However, these studies have assessed the outcomes of the programme using only data from participants, and by employing descriptive and inferential statistics which prevented them from getting the counterfactual outcomes, that is, the outcomes of the participant if he had not participated in the project. This study used propensity score matching (PSM) to address the evaluation problem and employed the counterfactual outcome framework to show the impact of the outcome defined in the modern policy evaluation literature as the average effect of the treatment on the treated (ATT) which helps to reduce biased estimates. It pursues a targeted evaluation of whether adopting the RTEP improved technology causes resource-poor farmers to improve their income and decrease the propensity to fall below the food insecurity and poverty line (Mendola, 2007).

Furthermore, this study is significant in that it informs on the adoption of improved technology and the impact on food security and poverty alleviation; it helps to know the level of income among cassava farmers in the south west zone, as this will be useful in formulating policy in line with improving rural income and also assist in understanding the food security and poverty change caused by the RTEP in the zone which are important for effective targeting of the programme in the states where this type of project will be extended to. Finally, this study will be helpful in the implementation of the second phase of the programme and serves as a guide to policy makers, donor agencies and Non-Governmental Organisations on how to enhance adoption of new agricultural technology and alleviate poverty in Nigeria. It also adds to the existing literature in the field, which is recently receiving utmost attention from the academia, administrators and the general public.

1.6 PLAN OF THE REPORT

The rest of the report comprises of four chapters. Chapter two entails the theoretical, conceptual framework and literature review. This addresses the theoretical perspectives of technology adoption, concepts of poverty and food security, general approaches to poverty reduction, past efforts on food security and poverty alleviation in Nigeria, and conceptual framework for the study. Analytical/methodological framework comprises the impact assessment, counterfactual framework, measurement of poverty and food security. In the subsection on literature review, studies on poverty and agricultural technology adoption as well as studies on RTEP are discussed. In chapter three, the focus is on the methodology adopted for the study. This chapter comprises of areas of study, nature of data and data analysis. Chapter four is devoted to the presentation and discussion of the analysis. Chapter four addresses distribution of socio-economic characteristics of respondents, adoption level and the determinants, level of income and poverty status of respondents and the impact of RTEP. The last chapter contains the summary, conclusions and policy recommendations emanating from this study.

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.