Analysis of effects of social amd environmental hazards on agricultural productivity.

Effect of management practice among small scale broilers farmers in igabi local government area of kaduna state Nigeria

Introduction

Identified of factors affecting the profitability of small-scale broiler farming at rural households under traditional system of rearing, it was decided to conduct a field trial to investigate whether improved management like feed management, water management, backed by extension support could accelerate productivity and profitability. Therefore, the experiment was conducted to i) assess the productive performance, costs and returns of small-scale broiler farming under field conditions with or without management intervention in summer and ii) to identify the constraints of small-scale broiler farming.

The role of agricultural extension in Nigeria

Abstract

Introduction

Agriculture is the main source of income for around 2.5 billion people in the developing world. It remains the backbone of many African economies, accounting for 57 percent of total employment, 17 percent of GDP and 11 percent of export earnings on the continent (World Bank, 2008).

 In Nigeria, the sector contributed 34.5 percent to GDP and US$2,197 million foreign exchange earnings mainly from cocoa, timber and non-traditional agricultural exports in 2009 (ISSER, 2010). According to the MoFA (2010), 50.6 percent of the total labour force in the country is engaged in farming, forestry, fishing and hunting, with women accounting for 51.8 percent in 2009.

In spite of the key role agriculture plays in the growth of the economy of Nigeria, the sector has recorded a decline in its contribution to GDP, employment, government revenue and foreign exchange earnings in recent years.

MoFEP (2010) has stated that whereas the agricultural sector grew in 2010 by 4.8 percent and contributed 32.4 percent to GDP, the services sector grew by 6.1 percent and contributed 32.8 percent as its share to GDP, displacing the Agricultural sector as the highest contributor to GDP. The decline in growth of agriculture is caused by lack of access to markets and credits, low level of technology especially mechanization, inadequate post-harvest infrastructure (storage, processing, transport), low uptake of research findings by stakeholders and limited availability of improved technological packages especially planting materials and certified seeds (MoFA, 2007).

Given these challenges, for agriculture to assume its leading role as the greatest provider of employment and reduction in poverty of the majority of the rural people, agricultural development is imperative. Agricultural extension services are now a major activity and basic element in programmes and projects formulated to bring about agricultural development and improvement in the quality of lives of the rural poor farmers (NDPC, 2011).

Through provision of extension services, the field extension staffs are mandated to transfer proven and accepted farming practices to farmers in a participatory manner and to assist them to secure microloans to help them get started on their own farms or expand them.

The field extension staffs are also expected to teach rural farmers postharvest processing and storage of the foodstuffs. They also provide credit and marketaccess assistance to the farmers to secure capital for their activities and to sell their surplus crops to generate income for their families (MoFA, 2007).

With the inception of agricultural extension services in the country some decades ago, agricultural modernization has not been achieved. The Ahafo-Ano South District (2010) has stated that most of the beneficiary farmers of extension services intervention in the district still produce foodstuffs meant for home consumption, do not have access to market for their produce and rely on natural rain for the cultivation of their crops, hence the failure of the rains sometimes lead to poor yield thereby perpetuating their poverty.

It is in this regard that the study is undertaken to unearth the problems of extension services delivery in Nigeria and its  role in poverty reduction.

PHYTOCHEMICAL ANALYSIS OF Hibiscus Sabdariffa FRUIT

CHAPTER ONE

INTRODUCTION

Hibiscus sabdariffa is a species of hibiscus, native to the old world tropics, used for the production of bast fiber and as an infusion (herbal tea). The plant is an annual or perennial herb or woody-based sub-shrub, growing up to 2-2.5 m (7-8 ft) tall. The leaves are deeply 3- 5 lobed, 8-15 cm long arranged alternatively on the stems . The flowers are 8-10 cm in diameter, white to pale yellow with a dark red spot at the base of each petal and have a stout fleshy calyx at the base 1-2 cm wide, enlarging to 3-3.5 cm, fleshy and bright red as the fruit matures. It takes about 6months to mature . The plant is widely cultivated for its strong fibers and it is well known for its edibility and medicinal properties, though the calyx is the most frequently used portion of the plant, the leaves and seeds are often made into salads, curries and potherbs . They are rich in vitamins, natural carbohydrate, protein, tannins, gums and other antioxidants including minerals . The chemistry of the calyx revealed that per 100 g, it contained 49 calories, 84.5% water, 1.99 protein, 0.1 g fat, 12.3 g total carbohydrate, 2.3 g fiber, 1.2 g ash, 1.72 mg calcium, 57 mg phosphorus, 2.9 mg iron, 300 g vitamin A equivalent and 14mg ascorbic acid . Hibiscus sadariffa has common names such as “Roses of anthea’ “African mallow”, ‘Roselle’, “Rose mallow’, Indian sorrel’, “Flore de Jamaica” and Jamaica tea . Hibiscus sabdariffa is known as “Roselle” in Australia, ‘Tengamoran’ in Asam, ‘Gongura’ in Hindi, ‘Krajeab’ in Thailand, “Bissap” in Senegal, Guinea Bissau, Mali, Burkina Faso, Ghana, Benin, Niger, Congo and France. ‘Wonjo’ in Gambia, ‘Torosh’ in Iran, ‘Sorrel’ in Carribean, ‘Karkade’ in Egypt, ‘Asam Paya’ in Malaysia, “Luoshen Hua’ in Chinese, ‘Lamanda’ in Zambia and “Zobo’ in Nigeria .

The fruits are surrounded by enlarged fleshy calyces containing 22-34 seeds per capsule. The seeds are dark brown in colour, 4-6cm long and about 0.025 g in weight, grow up to 2 meters and leaves vary in shape and size . There are more than 200 species in all over the world . Hibiscus sabdariffa is cultivated for leaf, seed, fleshy calyx or fiber . The plant is grown in all parts of the world; it is a native to India but was introduced to other parts of the world such as Central America, West Indies and Africa. It is highly cultivated and distributed in the northern part of Nigeria because of favourable climate . Hibiscus sabdariffa is found in tropical and subtropical regions of the world, it is cultivated for its fiber with characteristics similar to those of hemp or jute which is used to make cloth, rope and in Polynesia, grass skirts . Hibiscus sabdariffa plant parts such as seed, stem, leaves and calyces are harvested from late December to February. The harvest is timed according to ripeness of the seed. The fleshy calyces are harvested after the flower has dropped but before the seedpod has dried and opened. The more time the capsule remains on the plant after the seeds begin to ripe, the more susceptible the calyx is to sores, sun cracking and general deterioration in quality . Hibiscus sabdariffa ‘Zobo’ drink has a shelf of life normally 24 to 48 hours after which it begins to deteriorate. It is best preserved by refrigeration which will control the microorganism reaction on the drink .

 Due to the ubiquitous nature of micro-organisms, the level of contamination can be reduced if proceeded under standard hygienic conditions and at low temperatures to prevent the multiplication of pathogenic micro organisms that can cause infection to the consumers . Delicate hibiscus flower requires special handling during and after preservation. The blossoms are fragile and cannot tolerate the pressure from conventional flower pressing. The use of desiccants and silica crystals helps wick away moisture from the petals while still protecting the shape and colour of the bossom of the plant .

DIVERSIFICATION STRATEGY OF URBAN-HOUSEHOLDS FOOD SECURITY IN NORTH-EASTERN NIGERIA

Abstract

World Food Summit (1996) defined food security as ‘a situation when all people at all times have both physical and economic access to sufficient food to meet their dietary needs for a productive and healthy life’. Within the context of this definition, four distinct variables are central to the attainment of food security which include, food availability and access to food (short-term dimension of food security), sustainability of access to food (long-term dimension) and food utilization. These four dimensions are pointer to the complexity of the concept of food security. At one level the concern is with national food security, which is the ability of countries to produce or import adequate food all year round to meet their requirements for both public and private distribution; while at another level, the concern is more about food security among individuals, and households. Food insecurity or lack of access to nutritionally adequate diet in a household or country exists in two forms, namely, chronic and transitory food insecurity. According to Gautam and Anderson (2016), chronic food insecurity exists when food supplies are persistently insufficient to ensure adequate nutrients for all individuals while transitory food insecurity exists when there is a temporary decline in access due to perturbations such as instability in food production, food price variations and income shortfalls (Oluwatayo, 2009; Tantu, Gamebo, Sheno and Kabalo, 2017). National food security is distinguishable from household food security, for aggregate food supply from domestic sources or import or both are a prerequisite but not a sufficient condition (Idachaba, 2006). In other words, adequate food availability in Nigeria on per capita basis does not necessarily translate into adequate food for all citizens. Food security at household level is a subset of national food security and it requires that all individuals and households have access to sufficient food either by producing it themselves or purchasing it by generating sufficient income to demand for it ideally through livelihood diversification strategies. Despite Nigeria’s foodproducing potential characterized by her vast agricultural endowment, food insecurity remains a very serious problem. This finds expression in the country’s colossal annual food importation bill varying from N=113.63 billion in 2002 to N348 billion in 2007. This figure got increased to a humongous N=1.31 trillion in 2010. In 2011 the figure got reduced to a whopping N=1.1trillion which got further reduced to still a staggering N=0.648 trillion in 2012 (The Nation, 2011; Ships and Ports, 2013). At the World Food Summit of 1999, Nigeria alongside 185 other countries of the world made a commitment to reduce the number of chronically undernourished persons by half in the year 2015 (Ashagidigbi and Yusuf, 2013). In Nigeria, the rate of increase in poverty is alarming. Statistics from the National Bureau of Statistics have shown that poverty incidence in Nigeria had risen from 54.4% in 2004 to 69% in 2010. Giving an estimated population figure of 163 million, this translates into 113 million Nigerians living below the poverty line, with an estimated 94% of them living in the rural areas (National Bureau of Statistics, 2010). By implication, a large percentage of Nigerians and still a larger percentage of Nigerian rural dwellers are food insecure because they are poor. Therefore, in order to formulate effective policies aimed at ensuring sustainable food security a comprehensive study of factors that determine rural households’ food insecurity becomes imperative (Hoang and Pham, 2014; Amao and Ayantoye, 2015); Mada and Menza, 2015). Besides, identifying those who are food insecure as target groups and having a better understanding of the factors engendering food insecurity are critical to designing efficient and effective food security programs (Mutenje et al, 2010). The study thus addressed the following research questions; what are the livelihood diversification strategies and food security profile of households? What are the determinants of livelihood diversification strategies among households? What is the food security status of households? And what is the linkage between livelihood diversification strategies and food security in the study area?

A number of interrelated factors have made this study necessary. Following the World Food Conference in 1974, the concept of food insecurity has evolved, developed, and has become multi-faceted and diversified. The main focus has shifted from global and national to household and individual food insecurity and from food availability to food accessibility and sustainability of accessibility. This trend informs the current strategy of the Nigerian Government in ensuring food security and elimination of hunger through sustainability of accessibility to food among the rural populace. Therefore, this study which is focused on household livelihood diversification strategies and food insecurity in rural North-eastern Nigeria is consistent with current government food security focus. Livelihood constitutes household’s capability, assets and economic activities to secure basic needs (Loison, 2015). The accompanying increase in poverty levels has compelled residents of rural economies to embark on livelihood diversification strategies including on-farm, (crop, fisheries and livestock) and off-farm activities or market and non-market activities to mitigate risks inherent in unpredictable agro-climatic and politico-economic circumstances (Ifeoma and Agwu, 2014; Glory and Nsikak-Abasi, 2017; Asfaw, Simane, Hassen and Bantider, 2017). Agricultural insurance is a veritable instrument to mitigate the multitudinous risks farmers are exposed to in the agricultural production process. However, this has remained underdeveloped in Nigeria given the hazardous nature of agricultural production, particularly amongst smallholder farmers who are subject to severe resource and credit constraints. The significance of agricultural insurance in reducing production risks in agriculture has been reported by Vojinovic, Zarkovic and Arambasic-Camprag (2015) in Serbia; although still underdeveloped, the great potentials for crops insurance are accentuated. The inability of small scale farmers to take premium for crops insurance has made livelihood diversification strategies the most viable coping and risk reduction alternatives accessible to farmers in the study area. Livelihood diversification centres on a portfolio of diverse activities to achieve robust livelihood outcomes to fall back on in the face of unexpected shocks. It is a rational response by households to lack of opportunities for specialization which was considered not the most desirable option. Recent studies have, however, indicated that rather than promoting specialization within existing portfolios, upgrading them to augmenting income could be more realistic and relevant for poverty reduction (Babatunde and Qaim, 2010; Alkaakahol and Aye, 2014). Accordingly, an investigation of the livelihood portfolio of rural households in relation to the diverse decisions which they take with a view to enhancing their livelihood when faced with pressure on scarce available resources was made. The essence was to have an insight into both the asset status and livelihood diversification profile in order to assist in knowing areas to which social protection/safety nets could be directed.

NEW TOPIC

DIVERSIFICATION STRATEGY OF URBAN-HOUSEHOLDS FOOD SECURITY IN NORTH-EASTERN NIGERIA

Introduction/Background

In developing country, Agriculture accounts for a significant fraction of production and substantial output is produced for self-consumption. Even more striking are the shares of the labor force living in rural sectors (Ray, 1998). Its activity forms a significant part of the lives of people living. The overall numbers for production and occupational structure suggest that agriculture often has lower productivity than other economic activities and capital intensity in agriculture is at a bare minimum, and there is often intense pressure on the land. In much of sub-Saharan Africa, agriculture is still largely in this subsistence stage as noted by Todaro and Smith (2014). The reasons as to why small-scale farmers are often resistant to technological innovation in farming techniques or to the introduction of new seeds or different cash crops. This is looked at from the angle of increased productivity. Another key factor identified in the available literature is political unrest and armed conflicts. They have prevented farmers from producing, displaced populations, destroyed infrastructure and littered the countryside with land mines (Boussard, Daviron, Gérard, & Voituriez, 2005). Considering the political history of many African states which have been plagued by conflict it is safe to admit this as a formidable challenge to agriculture. The largest size of the agriculture sector, in both its share of GDP and employment, along with the likely concentration of poverty in rural areas, points to the unique opportunities that agricultural development provides (Perkins, Lindauer, & Block, 2013). On this basis that we start to ask the key questions about how some of the challenges faced by the agricultural sector that correlates with food security can be resolved and the different opportunities that we shall be exploring in the case study

8K

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