CHAPTER ONE

INTRODUCTION

1.1      BACKGROUND TO THE STUDY

Right from time, Fulani herdsmen (pastoralists) and farmers in northern and southern Nigeria have been living symbiotically together in communities. But over time, the mutual relationship between the pastoralists and farmers deteriorated, leading to incessant conflicts over land for livestock and agricultural crops respectively. Though, these conflicts have been an old age problem, but it has escalated in the last decade and has assumed a very deadly dimension. These clashes between the two parties has often led to loss of lives and property in affected communities. These conflicts can be said to be embedded in and aggravated by the increasing competition for land as a result of population growth, land scarcity, and a new solvency due to income earned outside agriculture (Gefu and Gilles, 1990; Fraser, 1997). Many factors have contributed in one way or the other over time to severe the peaceful coexistence that once existed between Fulani pastoralists and the farming communities.

Tenuche and Ifatimehin (2009) noted that according to other literatures, the incessant resource conflicts between farmers and herdsmen witnessed in the tropics have usually resulted in loss of lives, property and environmental degradation as also witnessed in some developed countries such as Balkans (Hellstrom, 2001; Niemella et al., 2005). The Fulani herdsmen have borne a large proportion of the blame for most conflict and environmental degradation in policy statements in the Guinea Savannah region of West African states (Thebaud and Batterburry, 2001). The production potential of grassland and livestock in the arid and semi-arid region of Africa is constrained by low and variable rainfall (Thebaud and Batterbury, 2001; Ifatimehin, 2008). Therefore, there is a need for grazing lands so as to enable accessibility of pasture resources across regions by pastoralists and their livestock in order to ensure food security for the herds.

Of important note is the fact that in the past, cattle rearing was mainly prevalent in the Sudan and Sahel savanna belts where crop production by the farmers was carried out only during the short rainy season on a small scale. This gave the herdsmen access to a vast area of grass land for their livestock. But as time went on, and with the introduction of irrigated farming in the savanna belt of Nigeria, and the increased withering of pasture during the dry season, less pasture was available to the livestock. The herdsmen had to move southward from the Sahel regions to sub-humid zones like Kaduna and Niger, where the rainy season is longer, the temperature is moderate and the soil retains moisture for long, in search of pasture and water – a movement called transhumance (Ofuoku and Isife, 2009). They found more comfort in croplands and thus encroaching into the farmlands and thus, displeasing the farmers who retaliate.

Furthermore, Tonah (2006) opined that factors that account for the increasing farmer-herder conflict over time include the southward movement of pastoral herds into the humid and sub-humid zones, promoted by the successful control of animal diseases in these areas, the widespread availability of veterinary medicine and the expansion of farming activities into areas that hitherto served as pastureland. Also, the growth in population and its density has led to urbanization with an increased demand for land and pressure on land meant for farming and grazing in the past. This gave rise to an increased pressure on natural resources and a stiff competition for available resources between farmers and herders (Adebayo, 1997; Breuser et al. 1998).

Other factors that have contributed to the breakdown of the peaceful coexistence of farmers and pastoralists in Nigeria include: inadequacy of grazing resources, as increasing crop cultivation (and increasing commercialization of the crop-residues) and poor management of the existing grazing reserves have resulted in a significant reduction in available livestock feed resources, in particular in the northern states. Moreover the high-yield crops introduced by agricultural research institutions (e.g. tomatoes and onions) produce almost no crop-residues for livestock feeding. Also, the regulation that twenty percent of the fadama (irrigated farmlands) would need to be set aside for grazing (National Agricultural Policy, 1988) has not been adhered to; and then, the decline in internal discipline and social cohesion, as the adherence to the traditional rules regarding grazing periods, and the authority of the traditional rulers is breaking down (Adisa, 2012).

According to Ajuwon (2004), other factors that have contributed in the long-term to this farmers-pastoralists strife include:

1. Inappropriate Land tenure and land use practices whereby traditional access rights to communal grazing and water resources are being obstructed by the individual tenureship of arable farmers.
2. Non-observation of rules and regulations regarding dry season farming and grazing

• Inadequacy and the poor state of the existing grazing reserves as they have been encroached for farming activities.

1. Blockage and use of stock routes by farmers and individuals due to its fertility, leading to reduction in the size of these routes.
2. Poor land and soil conservation measures, limiting the areas available for operations by the farmers and pastoralists. Whatever the causes of farmer-herdsmen conflicts are, it is evident that the conflicts have been of great negative effects. These range from economic effects such as loss of income/resources/yield, to physical effects such as home/farm destruction, bodily injury or death of family members and socio-psychological effects such as emotional exhaustion and job dissatisfaction.

In order to curb all of the aforementioned problems which have jointly been responsible for deadly clashes between the farmers and herdsmen, there is a need to settle pastoralists permanently on government-assigned and delineated lands called grazing reserves. Ismail (2013) rightly noted that grazing reserves and stock routes top the list of Fulani pastoralists‟ demands from the Nigerian government. It is believed that the creation, development and expansion of grazing reserves and the proper mapping of stock routes will boost livestock population, will lessen the difficulty of herding, will reduce seasonal migration, and will enhance symbiotic interaction among farmers, pastoralists, and rural dwellers. In creating and developing grazing reserves across conflict-ridden zones in Nigeria, it is important to establish them at sites with optimum comfort for the herders, their livestock and the surrounding communities. Here, suitability mapping using Multicriteria Evaluation (MCE) technique in GIS environment comes into play to ensure that the most suitable sites are set aside for these grazing reserves taking into consideration various biophysical, socioeconomic and environmental factors.

Grazing reserves are areas of land dedicated or set aside for pastoral use and they are considered as proven self-sustaining solution for pastoralists. A grazing reserve can also be said to be a piece of land that the government acquires, develops, and releases to the pastoral Fulani. It is a tract of land specially set aside by governments for use by herders or pastoralists to hold and graze their cattle. Ingawa et al. (1989) defined grazing reserves in Nigeria as areas set aside for the use of pastoralists and are intended to be the foci of livestock development. Grazing reserves resemble group ranches in that both of them consist of clearly defined areas of rangeland which provides grazing for determined herds of livestock. On group ranches in Kenya, pastoralists have a right to land under national law. In Nigeria, they have not in the past had such rights and grazing reserves more closely resemble what Oxby (l982a) termed ‘grazing blocks’. There are now plans for issuing 30 year leases for parcels of land within the grazing reserves in order to encourage them to invest in land improvement.

Some state and local governments in Nigeria have gazetted and obtained grazing land varying in size. The federal government shoulders seventy percent (70%) of the burden of developing the grazing reserves, the state governments shoulder twenty percent (20%) while the local governments carry 10% of the responsibilities and gives each settler on the reserve a piece of land. Depending on the herd size and the carrying capacity of the land, the settler pays an annual rent to the government (Suleiman, 1986).

Suleiman (1986) also noted that the stated purpose of Grazing Reserves is the settlement of nomadic pastoralists; they offer security of tenure as an inducement to sedenterization through the provision of land for grazing and permanent water. Large parcels of land have been demarcated, some legally sanctioned by order in the Official Gazette and basic infrastructure such as dams and boreholes have been constructed on these lands. Potential settlers are recruited through the livestock extension service.

1.2      STATEMENT OF RESEARCH PROBLEM

In recent years, Nigeria has witnessed series of violent communal clashes arising from the activities of the nomads who move about on a daily basis with their cattle in search of water and green pastures.

According to Ismail (2013), these pastoralists and their livestock are on the streets in most of our cities and could also be found operating in the remotest villages in various states of the country. Roaming cows, sheep, and goats scavenging around school play grounds, golf courses, government residential areas, street shoulders, and railway sidings are a common sight in the cities due to pasture scarcity. These beasts obstruct traffic flow, endanger street users, amplify urban congestion and often have their excrement littering the ground. What has informed the couching of the idea of establishing grazing reserves is the incessant clashes between Fulani herdsmen and farmers in many parts of the country especially in states such as Kogi, Plateau, Benue, Niger, Nasarawa, the southern half of Kaduna and Bauchi.

There has been growing concern in various parts of the country about the increased conflicts between farmers and pastoralists. Tenuche and Ifatimehin (2009) in their research: “Resource Conflict among Farmers and Fulani Herdsmen: Implications for Resource Sustainability” describe the traditional relationship between farmers and Fulani herdsmen and the incessant resource conflict witnessed in Kogi State and how it affects livelihood and security of those involved and resource sustainability for the communities. They noted that these conflicts are most responsible for the unsustainable utilization of land and water resources as the trampling by the hooves of herds of cattle compacts the soil of farm land, destroy farm crops by the herdsmen, places restraint on effective utilization of arable farmland among other destruction of available resources. The scenario witnessed in Kogi state is a replication of what is happening in Kaduna, Niger states and other parts of the country. As grazing pasture shrinks, disputes have increased, particularly in the far north during the May to September rainy season, when herds invade farmland and eat crops. Therefore, the development of the grazing reserves and livestock routes has become imperative to avoid conflicts between pastoralists and farmers.

Two days of fighting between farmers and nomads in June, 2009 left three dead and a number of pastoralists‟ settlements burned in Plateau state. Local authorities expelled 700 pastoralists from Borno state in the northeast to stop clashes between settling nomads and indigenous farmers. The nomads had travelled 1,000km eastwards from Zamfara state in search of grazing land. Moreover, the livelihood of over 15 million pastoralists in northern Nigeria are threatened by decreasing access to water and pasture shortages linked to climate change.

The required change in perspective and problems described above requires new technical tools and planning strategies, grazing sites suitability mapping in GIS being one of the techniques for this change. The problem currently at hand include the resolution of conflicts between the multiple and diverse potential users of resources and the expectations to conserve resources that have been transformed and developed in the past.

Awogbade‟s (1987) opinion is that, there can be no solution to the intractable strife between pastoralists and farmers so long as the problems of grazing land use are not addressed. The issue of settling nomadic cattle rearers is a problem which for many years now has generated considerable discussion in Nigeria‟s public and government circles.

In Mediterranean regions for example, grazing activities frequently involve protected areas, either because they are permanently settled there or because they exploit pasture resources seasonally. The latter occurs owing to the presence of numerous extensive cattle and sheep farms that, following a very old and deep-rooted tradition, still today practice transhumance and migration to mountain pasture, with significant movements both in terms of the distances undertaken (at times even some hundreds of kilometers) aswell as changes in altitude. It is high time this plan is also adopted efficiently in Nigeria. Most often, the grazing of domestic animals within protected areas is not conducted in an appropriate fashion and comes into conflict with the other activities present there such as farming. Thus, usually treating with levity the aim and actions of protection pursued by the managing organization. This is manifested with the use of soils with poor or no suitability, with impractical methods of grazing and the systematic recourse to fire to clear pastureland. Improper ways of carrying out grazing and incorrect practices, besides causing irreversible environmental damage at times, it can also end up backfiring negatively on the growing of animals, bringing the possibility of their survival into jeopardy.

1.3      AIM AND OBJECTIVES

The aim of this research is on  the socio economic effects of grazing reserve in Nigeria

1.4       RESEARCH QUESTIONS

This research seeks to answer the following questions:

1. What are the Evolution of Grazing Reserves in Nigeria?
2. To what extend has grazing reserve impacted positively on the lives of pastorialist in Nigeria?
3. What are the Nature of the problems facing grazing reserve system in Nigeria

1.5      JUSTIFICATION OF THE STUDY

This study is justified in the sense that, with the problems noted as regards to the various conflicts that have ensued between Fulani herdsmen and farmers across the country which arose from the destruction of farm lands by herds of cattle, and with the governments‟ willingness and strategies to curb these problems, there is a strong need for pastoralists to be given rights to land furnished with basic amenities for the settlement of their herds and their families.

Academically, the study will act as references materials and guide to future researchers who embark on similar study

1.6      SCOPE AND LIMITATIONS OF THE STUDY

This research covers the grazing reserve in Nigeria

ABSTRACT

The overall purpose of the study was to evaluate the impact of rural finance institution building programme on the socio-economic life of beneficiaries in Anambra State, Nigeria. Specifically, the study determined the food security status of the beneficiaries and non-beneficiaries; the impact of RUFIN on beneficiaries’ socio-economic life; ascertained the perceived problems of beneficiaries in utilising RUFIN services; and identified possible strategies for improving performance of RUFIN. The study was carried out in Awka North, Orumba North and Ayamelum LGAs of Anambra State, Nigeria. Reflexive and matching method of quasi-experimental design was used. About 60 RUFIN beneficiaries and 60 non RUFIN beneficiaries constituted the population. Multistage sampling technique was used in selecting respondents. Data were collected using interview schedule. Descriptive and inferential statistics were used in data analysis. The findings revealed that the majorities of RB and NRB were female. The mean age of RB and NRB were 42.7years and 40.3years, respectively. Also, the majorities of RB and NRB were married. About 95% and 98%of RB and NRB, respectively were literate. The average household size of 6 was obtained among RB and RNB. About 55% and 57% of RB and NRB, respectively were into farming as major occupation. The average years of farming experience for RB and NRB were 17.3 and 15.9, respectively. Average amount of loan obtained by beneficiaries was N67, 266.70 at an average payback period of one year. On the average, RB obtained loan once since programme inception. The findings revealed that sex and years of farming experience significantly influenced the amount of loan obtained while age, significantly influenced the numbers of loan obtained by beneficiaries. The result revealed that the majority relied on friends/neighbour as source of information on RUFIN. Friends/neighbour was also the most used source of information on agricultural activities by non-beneficiaries. The results show that the majority of RB and NRB were food insecure. The findings show that RB significantly differed from NRB in the nature of food eaten in the household. The result reveals that RB were better-off than NRB; though insignificantly, in the following areas: total farm size owned in hectares, total annual income from trade, number of motorcycle owned, number of radio set owned, number of mobile set owned, number of generator owned, number of fan owned, number of personal house, number of rooms occupied, number of mattress owned, number of furnished chair owned, number of association belonged, number of rabbit owned, number of pig owned, and number of livelihood means. The findings also show that non-beneficiaries were significantly better than beneficiaries in the number of poultry owned and total annual income from farm. The result further shows that there were significant differences in favour of RB in the following items: access to financial institutions for loan, level of living when compared to others in the community, access to extension services, ease in marketing farm produce, access to modern farm inputs, access to tractor services, and access to education. The findings show that small in size of loanable amount, high interest rate, unavailability of loan when needed, short period of payback, and high initial deposit were major constraints to utilisation of RUFIN services. Also, the responses of the farmers on the constraints were extracted and named loan term constraints, managerial constraints and system embedded constraints. The major possible strategies to enhancing utilisation of RUFIN services among farmers were giving farmers loan at subsidised rate, strengthening the legal backings of group activities, exposing farmers to financial literacy trainings, trainings on possible areas of income diversification, increasing the volume of loanable amount, promotion of policy on the establishment of commercial banks in rural areas, access to loan from financial institutions on a personal basis,  making loan interest free, and increase in length of payback.

CHAPTER ONE

INTRODUCTION

1.1 Background information

Rural finance encompasses the full range of financial services such as loans, savings, insurance, payment and money transfer services, offered by formal and informal financial institutions and used in rural areas by households and enterprises as a means of improving or sustaining their livelihood choices (Making Finance Work for Africa, 2008). It includes agricultural finance, which refers to financial services ranging from short, medium, and long-term loans, leasing, to crop and livestock insurance and covering the entire agricultural value chain. Agricultural finance is dedicated to financing agriculture related activities such as input supply, production, distribution, wholesale, processing and marketing (FAO, 2016).

Absence of efficiently operating rural financial institution is a serious constraint on sustainable rural economic growth in Africa (International Bank for Reconstruction and Development, 2003). This is because two thirds of Africa’s populations are resident in rural areas and requires adequate finance for their economic activities which are mostly agriculture based (International Labour Organization, 2014). The Food and Agricultural Organization (FAO) (2004) points out that lack of access to finance in rural areas and in the agricultural value chain could be linked to slow and uneven entry of formal financial institutions into rural areas. The FAO added that, factors such as poor infrastructure and widely dispersed populations in rural areas raise transaction and information costs, thus further hindering the spread of financial services. In addition, title and property rights can be difficult to verify in rural areas, posing problems in the use of collateral to obtain fund. Subsidized lending programmes for rural recipients, seasonal nature of farmers’ income, long maturation period of farm produce, and high risk factor associated with farming have also contributed to obstructing the development of a sustainable rural banking sector (FAO, 2004).

Despite these difficulties, formal rural and agricultural finance have been making advances in Africa, with innovative financial services and improved risk management on both the client and institution sides with the sole aim of bringing buoyancy and stability to rural economy. The most promising approaches include flexible credit schemes, value-chain finance, insurance products, promotion of financial literacy and the use of new technologies like GPS mapping (FAO, 2004). Prominent examples are the introduction of index-based weather insurance schemes in Malawi, financial literacy campaigns in Ghana, the spread of mobile banking in Kenya (FAO, 2004) and the Rural Finance Institution Building Programme (RUFIN) in Nigeria (IFAD, 2008).

While it is well understood in Nigeria that financial exclusion of the rural population stunts development, fewer than 2% of rural households in Nigeria are estimated to have access to any sort of institutional finance (World Bank, 2008). A study by Obanasa and Maduekwe (2013) cites the improvement of financial systems as a key growth pillar for the agricultural sector. Lack of rural access to financial services in Nigeria not only retards rural economic growth, but also increases poverty and inequality (World Bank, 2008).  Financial access increases incomes through productive investment, helps create employment opportunities, facilitates investments in health and education, and reduces the vulnerability of the poor by helping them to smooth their income patterns over time (World Bank, 2008).

Aside from the launching of Federal Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Development (FMARD) in 1966, to cater for rural development projects and programmes in Nigeria, the following are efforts by Nigerian government in achieving sustainable rural finance: establishment of the Nigerian Agricultural and Cooperative Bank (NACB) in 1973, Rural Banking Programme (RBP) in 1977, People’s Bank of Nigeria (PBN) in 1989, Community Banking System (CBS) in 1990, Self-Help Groups (SHG) Linkage Programme in 1991, Family Economic Advancement Programme (FEAP) in 1994. Efforts made after 1990’s include: establishment of Nigerian Agricultural Cooperative and Rural Development Bank (NACRDB) in 2000 now known as Bank of Agriculture (BoA), Trust Fund Model (TFM) in 2001, National Poverty Eradication Programme (NAPEP) in 2001, Small and Medium Enterprises Equity Investment Scheme (SMEEIS) in 2001, Agricultural Credit Support Scheme (ACSS) in 2006 (World Bank, 2008), and RUFIN in 2006 (IFAD, 2008). Some of these programmes ended without achieving the core objective for which the programmes were launched. This is evident in the current level of poverty in the rural areas which stood at 80% as at 2012 (IFAD, 2012) as against 41% in 1985, 49% in 1992, and 51% in 1996 (Aigbokhan, 2000). The failures could be linked to incoherence and/or default in implementation of programmes policy documents. It could also be associated with lack of clarity on the extent to which evaluation have informed evidence based policy.

Evaluation refers to objective assessments of a planned, ongoing, or completed project, programme, or policy. It is the systematic review and assessment of the benefits, quality and value of a programme or activity (Ajayi, 2005). According to FAO (2003), evaluation is purposely done to determine achievements of development programmes vis-a-vis the set aims / objectives. Food and Agricultural Organization (2003) also pointed out that evaluation techniques can serve to improve implementation and efficiency of programmes after interventions have begun, provide evidence as to the cost efficiency and impact of a specific intervention within and between policy sectors. Evaluation especially continuous / on-going and stage by stage evaluation are important because they expose lapses associated with achievement of programme objectives thereby affording opportunities for adjustment.

Impact evaluation on the other hand, assesses the intended and unintended changes that can be attributed to a particular intervention after about 5 to 10 years of existence (World Bank Group, 2012). Impact evaluation is structured to answer the question: how would outcomes such as participants’ well-being could have changed if the intervention had not been undertaken? It seeks to answer cause-and-effect questions. In other words, impact evaluation looks for the changes in outcome that are directly attributable to a programme (Gertler, Martinez, Premand, Rawlings and Vermeersch, 2011).

Rural Finance Institution Building Programme which was initiated in 2006 and became effective in 2010 is currently in its impact year (RUFIN, 2011). The programme is a strategic means by which the rural micro financing sector will be developed and strengthened in order to deliver adequate, efficient and sustainable financial services to the rural poor. The objective of the programme is to develop and strengthen the performance of member-based non-bank rural finance institutions to enable them develop to sustainable Rural Microfinance Institutions (RMFIs) and establish linkages between them and formal financial institutions in Nigeria. Rural Finance Institution Building Programme lays the foundation for the long-term development of a sustainable rural financial system that will eventually operate throughout the country (FMARD, 2015; Nigerian Investment Promotion Commission [NIPC], 2015; RUFIN, 2011).

It is being financed by the International Fund for Agricultural Development (IFAD), the Ford Foundation, the Federal Government of Nigeria, state governments of Nigeria, Central Bank of Nigeria (CBN), participating banks and micro finance institutions (MFIs) in Nigeria (IFAD, 2015; RUFIN, 2010). Under the programme, the following categories of non-bank micro finance institutions i.e. cooperative societies, unions and cooperative finance agencies, neo micro finance institutions and grassroots/informal finance institutions, would be supported in the needed areas of capacity building and access to loanable funds with appropriate linkages to micro finance banks/institutions and commercial banks for credit delivery to the rural populace (FMARD, 2015; RUFIN, 2010).

Rural Finance Institution Building Programme is currently operational in 12 Nigerian states with 3 LGA from each of the states in participation (36 LGA are involved in the federation). Participating states in the north-west / north-east zone are Adamawa, Bauchi, Katsina, and Zamfara State, while Benue, Nasarawa, Lagos, and Oyo States are participating in south-west / north-central zone and Anambra, Imo, Edo, and Akwa-Ibom States are in the south-east/ south-south zone (NIPC, 2015; RUFIN, 2011).

The programme is coordinated by a central programme unit based in Abuja and is assisted by three zonal programme management units (ZPMU), which are; ZPMU in Owerri, Imo State covering south-south and south-east Zones, ZPMU in Ibadan, Oyo State covering north-central and south-west zones, and ZPMU in Bauchi State covering north-east and north-west zones. Each participating state has a programme support office and is headed by an assistant micro finance officer and assisted by a data management officer (NIPC, 2015). Rural Finance Institution Building Programme with the structure elucidated in a manner that will allow for efficiency, demands an assessment in line with the programme goal of enhancing rural livelihood in which finance is a key component.

1.2 Problem statement

The problem of rural financing programmes had been recognized and several attempts made to redress them, but success is yet to be attained (IFAD, 2009). The same source indicates that in most rural communities of Nigeria; Anambra State inclusive, access to affordable and timely financial services is extremely difficult because of high risk associated with lending to rural people. It is risky because members of the communities are scattered in many isolated rural locations, and are mainly illiterate and not conversant with the language and technicalities of existing financial institutions (IFAD, 2009; FAO, 2004).

Access to finance had also been established to be directly linked to food security. According to Ezeama, Ibeh, Adinma, Emelumadu and Adogu (2015) food insecurity is a major problem among households in Anambra State. The authors associated the food insecurity to recent financial crisis which had contributed to increase in food prices and reduction in the purchasing power of household incomes.

In effort to address these obvious difficulties and problems, RUFIN was introduced with the goal; to improve the income, food security and general living conditions of poor rural households. The programme intends to reach out to an estimated population of 345,000 families, of which 138,000 (40%) will be women-headed households, with financial services that will be improved in terms of quality, quantity and access to deposit, loan and transfer services. These families include smallholder farmers and rural entrepreneurs such as craftsmen and petty traders. This is to enable them invest in improving productivity in agriculture and small business.

It is expected that the intervention of RUFIN on the beneficiaries’ initial conditions should result to changes in their socio-economic status (such as changes in production practices, productivity, living conditions, livelihood assets etc.) and food security status. After about five years (2010- 2015) of RUFIN’s existence in Anambra State, some socio-economic impact questions become pertinent: What impact does this programme have on socio-economic life of beneficiaries? What is the food security status of beneficiaries? What are perceived problems of beneficiaries in utilizing RUFIN services? And what are the perceived constraints to the implementation of RUFIN programme? The need to provide answers to the above question forms the basis of impact evaluation in the proposed study.

1.3 Purpose of the study

The general purpose of the study was to evaluate the impact of Rural Finance Institution Building Programme in Anambra State, Nigeria.

Specifically, the study sought to:

1. determine the food security status of beneficiaries and non-beneficiaries;
2. determine the impact of the programme on beneficiaries’ socio-economic life (production, social status etc.);
3. ascertain perceived constraints to beneficiaries in utilizing RUFIN services; and
4. identify possible strategies for improving performance of RUFIN.

1.4 Hypothesis

1. Socio-economic characteristics of beneficiaries have no significant influence on the amount of loan obtained.
2. Socio-economic characteristics of beneficiaries have no significant influence on the numbers of loan obtained.
3. There is no significant difference between the socio-economic life of beneficiaries and non-beneficiaries as of 2015.
4. There is no significant difference between the food security status of beneficiaries and non-beneficiaries in Anambra State.

1.5 Significance of the study

Impact results of the programme will guide programme planners and executors on possible areas to improve in the programme. It could also service them with information to either halt, re-strategize or launch into other states that are not currently participating in RUFIN. The identified constraints to programme implementation and possible strategies to resolving them will serve as a guide in planning and executing subsequent intervention programmes.

Policy makers, donor agencies, and intervention programme planners will be furnished with relevant and necessary information on programme impact with which they can use as working tool in initiating, sponsoring and executing better policy for the development of mankind.

The findings will be published in journals and serve as reference materials for future researchers. The study will stimulate further studies in the area.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Title page i
Certification ii
Dedication iii
Acknowledgement iv
Table of contents vi
List of tables viii
List of figures ix
Abstract x
CHAPTER ONE: INTRODUCTION
1.1 Background information 1
1.2 Problem statement 5
1.3 Purpose of the study 7
1.4 Hypothesis 7
1.5 Significance of the study 7
CHAPTER TWO: LITERATURE REVIEW
2.1 Concept of rural finance 9
2.2 Financial interventions in rural areas of Nigeria 10
2.3 Paradigm shift in agricultural financing 21
2.4 Rural Finance Institution Building Programme 22
2.5 Concept of food security 25
2.6 Constraints to utilizing rural finance services 35
2.7 Strategies for improving rural finance services 39
2.8 Concept of impact evaluation 44
2.9 Theoretical framework 47
2.10 Conceptual framework 56

CHAPTER THREE: METHODOLOGY
3.1 Study area 59
3.2 Research design 60
3.3 Population and sampling procedure 60
3.4 Instruments for data collection 62
3.5 Measurement of variables 62
3.6 Data analysis 66
CHAPTER FOUR: RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
4.1 Socio economic characteristics of the respondents 68
4.2 Food security status of beneficiaries and non-beneficiaries 79
4.3 Impact of RUFIN on beneficiaries’ socioeconomic possessions 83
4.4 Perceived constraints to utilisation of RUFIN services 88
4.5 Possible strategies to improve RUFIN programme 93
CHAPTER FIVE: SUMMARY, CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS
5.1 Summary 95
5.2 Conclusion 99
5.3 Recommendations 99
Reference 101
Appendix A 109
Appendix B 115

ABSTRACT

The study identified strategies for ensuring food security in Taraba State. Specifically, the study was designed to identify the determinants of food security; examine the production patterns of food by farmers, identify the factors responsible for food insecurity: and determine the strategies of ensuring food security. The study was carried out in Taraba State of Nigeria in the year 2011. The population of the study comprises all heads of households in Taraba State. A multi stage sampling technique was used in the selection of respondents. Two agricultural zones were selected using a simple random technique. These were Zing and Bali zones and they were selected using simple random sampling techniques and the process gave rise to the selection of four communities/cells per zone bringing the total number of communities/cells sampled to eight (8). From each sampled cell, a list of farmers was obtained from the farmers’ association and from the list of farmers’ households. Fifteen (15) heads of households were sampled using simple random selection techniques. The total number of respondents for the study summed up to one hundred and twenty (120). A set of interview schedule and questionnaire were used for data collection out of which 117 were found analysable. Frequency, percentage scores, mean scores, and standard deviations were used to analysed the data collected. Results from the study showed that majority (79.5%) of the respondents were males. The age limit of respondents shows that 56% were between the range of 20-29 years and the mean age was 32 years. The educational level of the respondents reveals that the farmers have enjoyed one form of education or the other with about 53.0% having OND/NCE as their highest educational qualification. Further results show that 65.8% of the respondents were single while 31.6% were married. The mean household size of farmers was 7 persons. The mean years of farming experience of the farmers was 8.4 years. The majority (59.0%) of the farmers had 1-5 years of farming experience. Majority (62.4%) of the farmers engage in trading and their main source of information was through extension agents with 47.9%. Majority (84.6%) of the farmers grew maize grains and some crops like rice, yam, guinea corn, and cassava. The monthly income of the respondents revealed that majority (58.8%) have an estimated monthly income of below N20,000. The food security analysis of the farmers revealed that the availability of food items for the respondents were as follows: maize (X = 3.09) cassava flour (X = 3.09), and rice (X = 2.90) depicting availability of the respondents to a large extent while food items from proteins were perceived to be available to a great extent. The means scores show that most of these food items are available Taraba State. On the accessibility of food in Taraba State, majority (76.9%) of the respondents accessed their food items from both farm and market while 18% of the respondents got their food items from farms only. Most (57.3%) of the respondents purchased their food items with money. The prices of the items were moderate (63.2%). The access to food by the respondents as a determinant of food security is not a problem in the entire State. The study also identified some barriers to food access in the state. It revealed that religion (59.8%), culture (64.1%), poor government policies (64.1%), geographical location (60.1%), inadequate market information (61.7%), all have more than half of the respondents agreeing to them as various barriers to their food access. In the utilization of food, carbohydrate food items were not eaten in a higher proportion during the last one day of the interview, while in the case of proteins such as beans, fish, eggs, and milk, they were eaten by the respondents on a 12 – 24 hours basis. The study also showed that the farming pattern which is mostly being practiced among respondents is mixed farming (93.2%) and mixed cropping (82.0%). This could be one of the reasons for high availability of many food items across the various respondents in the state. It is therefore recommended that subsidies should be provided on agricultural inputs by the state government, local government, and other private organizations. Also, opportunities should be provided for farmers to participate in planning and decision making in agricultural programmes and policies in the state.