TABLE OF CONTENTS                           Page

Title Page   –   –     –  –   –   –  –   –     –   –  –   –   –   –   –   –   –   –   –   –   –   –     –   –   –   –   –  i

Certification –   –   –   –   –   –   –   –   –   –   –   –   –   –   –   –   –   –    –   –   –   –   –   –   –   –   –  ii

Dedication –   –   –   –   –   –   –   –   –   –   –   –   –   –   –   –   –    –   –   –   –   –   –   –   –   –  – iii

Acknowledgement  –   –  –   –   –     –   –   –   –   –   –  –  –     –   –   –   –   –    –  – –  –   iv

Table of Contents  –   –  –   –      –   –     –   –   –   –   –   –  –  –     –   –   –   –  –  – –   –    –  –  v List of Tables  –   –  –  –   –   –   –   –   –     –   –   –   –   –   –  –  –     –   –   –  –   –   –   –  –  – –   x Abstract  –   –   –     –  –   –   –  –   –  –   –  –   –   –   –   –   –   –   –   –   –   –   –     –   –   –   –   – xi


1.1 Background Information   –   –  –       –   –  –   –  –   –   –   –   –   –   –   –   –   –   – 1

1.2 Statement of the problem – –   –   –   –  –   –   –   –   –  –   –  –   –   –   –   –   –   –  3

1.3 Objective of the study  –   –     –   –   –   –    –  –   –   –   –   –   –     –   –   –   –   –   – 6

1.4 Hypothesis of the study     –   –     –   –   –   –   –    –   –    –   –   –   –      –   –   –   –   –  – 6

1.5 Justification of the study  –   –   –   –   –   –   –   –   –   –   –   –   –   –   –   –    –  –  – 7

1.6 Limitation of the study  –  –   –   –   –   –   –   –   –   –   –   –   –   –   –   –   –   –   –   –   8


2.1 The Concept of Participatory Community Water Delivery –   –   – —   – – 9

2.1.1 Participatory Bottom-up Community Management Project Delivery 9

2.1.2 Difference Among Self Mobilization, Passive Participation and Others   -9

2.2 Projects to Address the Problem of Water Scarcity and Waste of Rural Labour Time in Community Support Programme     –   –   –   –   –   –   –  –  -12

2.2.1 Poverty Condition in Rural Nigeria as a Limiting Factor to Rural Development –   –   –   -13

2.2.2 Poverty Reduction in CDD Project Cycle –  –   –    –    –   –   –   –   –   –    –  – 14

2.3 Least Cost Alternatives for Poverty Reduction in Community Water Delivery-   –  –   –  –  – 15

2.3.1 Rural Support Community Water Investment as a Strategy for National Economic Growth and Poverty Reduction  –   –   –   –   –  –  –  – 16

2.3.2 Funding Support in CDD Project Water Delivery for Rural Agricultural Productivity – – 17

2.4 Community Contributions in CDD Rural Support Programme – –   —   18

2.5 Improvement in Rural Income with Demand and Supply of Agricultural Credit  –   –   –   – 20

 2.6 Community Driven Development (CDD) Goals, Processes and Weaknesses livelihood Programme for Economic Growth  –   –   –   – – 21

2.7 Approaches and Features of Participatory Rural Appraisal (PRA) in CDD Rural Support Programmes –  –   –   –   –   –   –   –   –   –  22

2.8 Age and Education in Self Driven-Management of Rural Elements of Cooperation –   –   -24

2.9 Some Illustration of PRA Tools –   –   –   –   –   –   –   –   –   –   –   –   –   –   25

2.10 Focus Group Discussions –   –    –   –   –   –   –   –   –   –   –   –   –   –   –   30

2.11 The Role of State, Local Government and Communities in CDD Project Support for Poverty Reduction – –  –   –   –   –   –  –   –   –  –   –   –   –   –   –   31

2.12 Social Inclusion and Mainstreaming of the Vulnerable in Community Support Water Delivery  –   –   –  –  –    –   –   –  –   –   –   –   –   –   –   –   –   –   –  33

2.13 Independent Service Providers in LEEMP CDD Project Communities –   –   –   –   –   –   – 34

2.14 LEEMP Communities of Southeast Nigeria –   –   –   –   –   –   –   –   –  – 34

2.15 Theoretical Framework-   –   –   –   –   –     –   –   –   –   –   –   –   –   –  –   – – 35

2.16 Analytical Framework   –  –   —   –   –   –  –   –  –  –  –   –  –   –     –  –   –   –  41

2.16.1 Multiple Regression Function (Model)  –   –   –   –   –   –   –   –   –   –  – 40

2.16.2 M.arginal Analysis Model by Least Cost Option for Use in Poverty Reduction    –   – 42

2,16.3 Efficiency of Capital    –  –   –   –   –   –  –   –   –   –   –   –   –   –    –   – – .  43

2.16.4 Cost and Value Addition of Water Vendor Delivery   – –   –  – 43

2.16.5 Chi-square Test    –   –   –   –  –  –   –   –   –   –   –   –  –   –  –  –   –   –  –  –  44

2.16.6 Test of Significance      –   –   –   –   –   –   –   –   –   –   –  –   –   –   –   –   – 44


3.1 Study Area    –   –   –   –   –   –   –   –   –   –   –   –   –   –   –   –   –   –    –   –   –  45

3.2 Sample Procedure     –   –   –  – –   –   –   –   –   –   –   –   –   –   –   –   –  –  –   –  46

3.3 Method of Date Collection –   –   –   –   –   –   –   –   –   –   –   –   –   –   –   47

3.4 Method of Data Analysis    – –   –     –  –   –   –   –   –   –   –   –   –   –   –   –   –   –  47

  3.4.1 Model Specification –  –   – –   –   –   –  –  –    –   –   –   –   –   –   –   –   –  –  – 47


4.1 Description ofthe socio-economic characteristics influencing the community CDD Livelihood demand for water and credit support for investment in fishery and poultry. 53

4.1.1 Educational Level of the Respondent Farmers –   –   –   –   –   –   53

4.1.2 Composition of Household Size of the Respondent Farmers-  –   –    54

4.1.3 Marital Status of the Household Farmers  –  –   –   –   –   –  54

4.1.4 Scores Assigned to the Socio-economic Factors for Purposes of Regression Analysis

4.2 Distance and Duration of Water Delivery Man-hours to Farm Households  –   –   –   –   –   –  56

4.2.1 Cost Implication of Water-gate Price, Vendor Intensity and Transportation  –   –   –   –   –  56

4.2.2 Efficiency of Water Vendor Production   –  –  –   –   –   –   –   –   –   –   –  -57

4.2.3 Effects of  LEEMP water support on  timeliness of farm operation and  on poverty   57

4.3 Assessment of CPMC Credit  Programme of LEEMP Agricultural Water Users  with a View To Ascertaining Outreach and Effectiveness  –   — 59

 4.4 Evaluation of the Effect of LEEMP Water support on Two Homestead Dry Season Farm Production and Income That Make Better Use of Land and Water (fishery and poultry) – 61

4.4.1 Influencing Factors of Farm Credit, Expenditures, Household Size, Age Marital Status,Education, Religion Number of Children and Position among Leadership –   –   –   –   –   – 62

4.4.2 Application of Multiple Regression Model on the Livestock Income- 63

4.4.3 Application of Multiple Regression Model on the Livestock Credit -65


5.1 Summary –   –   –   – –   –   –   –   –   –   –   –   –   –   –   –   –   –   –   –   –   –   –   –   –   –  67

5.2 Conclusion-   –   –   –   –   –   –   –   –   –   –   –   –   –   –   –   –   –   –   –   –   –   – – 68

5.3  Recommendation –  –      –   –   –   –   –   –   –   –   –   –   –   –   –   –   –  –   – –  – 69

5.4 Contribution to Knowledge –   – –   –   –   –   –   –   –   –   –   –   –   –   –   –   –  –  – 69

5.5 Areas of Future Research-   –      –   –   –   –   –   –   –   –   –   –   –   –  –  – 70


Table 2.9.1 Trend analysis of problem of water, land and forest  —  – –   –  -26

Table 2.9.2 Analysis of Problems and Priority Records-   –   –   –   –   –   –   –   – 27

Table3.1.  Sample by  Senatorial Zones,  LGA and Communities  –     –   –   48 

Table4.1: Distribution of Respondent water Users According to Educational Levels  –   –  – –    54

Table4.2: Distribution of Household Size According to Age Brackets – –54

Table 4.3: Distribution of Marital Status According Age Bracket –   –    – –  55

Table 4.4 Distribution of Socio-economic Influencing Factors of Livelihood Demand For water and credit Support for Fishery and Poultry . . . .55

Table 45:Distribution of Farmers According to Distance, Duration and Level of Water Use-  -56

Table 4.6: Distribution of Cost of Water Delivery –   –   –   —   –   –   –   –   –   –   -56

Table 4.7: Distribution of Water Delivery Marginal Cost and Marginal Revenue   –   –   –  – –  – 57

Table 4.8:Distribution of Time Saved, Marginal Product and Marginal Cost of Water Delivery 58

Table 4.9: Distribution of Poultry Credit Outreach among the Respondent Farmers –   –   –  –  –  60

Table 4. 10: Distribution of Fishery Credit Outreach among the Respondent Farmers          –  –  60

Table 4.11: Distribution of Poultry Credit Repayment among the Respondent Farmers –  –  –  – 60

Table 4.12: Distribution of Fishery Credit Repayment among the Respondent Farmers- –  –  60

Table 4.13: Distribution of Chi Square Statistics of Credit Outreach and Repayment-   –  –   –  -61

Table 4.14 Distribution of Level of Water Used, Output Product, Expenditure and Income –  – 62

Table 4. 15: Distribution of Factors of Credit, Interest, Savings and Expenditure on Farm Size 63

 Table 4.16: Parameter Estimate of Multiple Regression Models by Ordinary Least Square Method Used in Evaluating Dry Season Poultry Income-   –  –   –  –   –   –   –   –  –   -63

Table 4.17: Parameter Estimate of Multiple Regression Models by Ordinary Least Square Method Used in Evaluating Dry Season Fishery Income –   –   –   –   –   –   –   –   –   –   – 64

Table 4.18: Parameter Estimate of Multiple Regression Models by Ordinary Least Square Method Used in Assessing the CPMC Credit Programme of LEEMP for Poultry – –  65


Figure 2.9, Joharis window analysis   –     –   –   –   –   –   –   –   –    –   – 25

Figure 2.9.1 Trend analysis of changes and productivity (fertility of land) –   — – 26

Figure 2.9.2 Timeline analysis  –   –   –   –   –   –   –   –   –   –   –   –   –   –   –   –   –   27

Figure 2.9.3 Illustration on analysis of seasonal problems and prospect  28

Figure 2.9.4 Spider’s web Analysis to compare the time opportunities —  28

Figure 2.9.5 Spider’s web Analysis comparing levels of activities of men and women  –      –  – 29


 This study was conducted to evaluate Participatory Poverty Reduction by Utilization of Water Delivery of Local Empowerment and Environmental Management Project (LEEMP) in Southeast Nigeria as a contribution towards finding water panacea to poverty associated with Livestock Fattening (poultry and fishery), especially during dry season in water stress communities. Also, it was meant to create awareness for Community Driven Development (CDD) Participation. Primary data were obtained from water benefitting communities in LEEMP delivery support. Data were analyzed using regression analysis, marginal analysis model and chi-square test. Result showed that the farmers were composed of 43% females and 57% males. About 31% of the farmer had tertiary educational; 29% of the them had secondary school education; 27% had only primary education while 13% had no formal education. Most of the farmers were within 36-49 years. Large scale poultry farmers (16%) and fish farmers (55%) used on the average 81% CDD water delivery volume and generated 72% livestock income. The small scale poultry farmers (60%) and fish farmers (31%) used on the average 6% of the water volume and generated 10% of the livestock income. The daily timeliness per unit of LEEMP water delivery was 42 minutes on the average. LEEMP reduced poverty through water utilization by 67%. The amount of poultry credit demanded significantly (p < 0.05) influenced the product size (farm output size). Credit for fishery activities was significantly (p < 0.05) low. Other factors that significantly (p < 0.05) influenced Poultry credit were the number of children, leadership position and religion. The volume of water used and the man-days of LEEMP water use significantly (p < 0.05) increased income from poultry. Household size and age significantly (p < 0.05) influenced income from fishery. The 6% score on water volume used by small scale farmers as against 81% for Large scale farmers indicated differential participation by the two categories of livestock farmers. The study recommends opening up virile CDD credit line for fishery and supply of improved stocks to support poultry and fishery production. The study also recommends supportive mobilization of participation through the use of agricultural extension education for the educationally less privileged farmers as well as rotating the CDD leadership of benefitting micro-project communities, at least bi-ennially. Besides, doors should be opened for greater number of water stress communities to benefit from LEEMP/CSDP water delivery support, with greater community contributions made in kind rather than cash

                                                                  CHAPTER ONE


1.1 Background Information          

           Participatory Poverty Reduction through Water Delivery Support is a rural support programme to address problems of rural household chore water scarcity and to enhance community agricultural productivity (income). It is relatively new in Nigeria. Water scarcity is caused by water stress. Water is a renewable resource and water stress begins when withdrawals of fresh water rise above 10% of renewable resources (UNDP, 1997).

         Water delivery for agricultural use in most Nigerian rural communities requires capital investment. Many communities stressed by frequently occurring dry season drought chose water delivery from the micro-project rural support of Local Empowerment and Environmental Management Project (LEEMP) for poverty reduction in southeastern Nigeria.

        Water stress denies most rural communities access to livelihoods water delivery (Enugu State SEEDS (2004). The dry season water stress causes environmental dryness and frustrates effective use of rural man-hours/-days input to agriculture (Okwor, 2001). It also, frustrates income earnings for all seasons’ animal fattening:  poultry and fishery

            Availability of safe water supply can support sustainable livelihoods (UNICEF Nigeria, 2012). Okwor (2001) pointed that fishery and poultry make better use of land and water in the environment. So, supportive agricultural water use can sustain production, prevent water borne diseases and save lives from unnecessary accidents. Also, effective use of man-hours is possible when water is easily accessible. Further, sustainable livelihoods in agricultural production is able to facilitate improved income which in turn can facilitate access to social needs: access to credit facilities, education for children, access to communication facilities, access to health facilities and enablement to pay for counterpart funds contributions on new investment (s).  

      LEEMP started the first phase field operation in Nigeria in 2004 and had project support units at federal and state levels, with only participating southeastern states as Enugu and Imo. LEEMP is an agency of International Development Association (IDA) in development partnership with Nigerian government. Since March 2009, LEEMP has acquired a new name, in its second phase, as Community and Social Development Project (CSDP), but the micro-project target is still on Local Empowerment and Environmental Management. The broad objective of LEEMP/CSDP is double-barreled. The first part is in strengthening the institutional framework at the federal, state and local government levels to support environmentally sustainable and community socially inclusive participatory development. The second is in assisting beneficiary communities of LEEMP to have planned, co-financed and implement-able  micro-project(s) (Ugwuoke, 2006).

          LEEMP/CSDP as a project support organization for participatory poverty reduction has the following specific objectives namely: (i) Raising the standard of living. (ii) Reduction of poverty through five components as follow: education through social inclusiveness to bring better method  and increase in the income of the people; increasing the number of man-hours and man- days of business engagement; reduction of risk and, provision of security and safety of project through provision for operations and maintenance committee for each project; reduction  of cost of production; mobilizing communities to invest in livestock fattening, fishery, agricultural processing activities and provision of safety net credit to communities’ organized needy and vulnerable groups, with a view to reducing consumption expenditure (FPSU and MacMatts Consultants, 2006). So, the objectives of LEEMP are to obviate problems of project imposition, top-down development implementation and to improve the lot of rural communities (Papka, 2004). 

         LEEMP operates with CDD strategy through the promotion of participatory decision making, integrated multi-sectoral planning and sustainable environmental impact control among micro-project communities. According to the Federal Support Unit (FPSU) and MacMatts consultants (2006), Community Driven Development (CDD) is broadly defined as a process of control of decision and resources by community-based groups for participatory improvement of natural, physical and social infrastructure.  CDD is also referred to as qualitative participation.

        CDD strategy emphasizes participatory socially inclusive decision making and bottom-up management to micro-project delivery. Consequently, the concept of CDD enables the communities and local governments to collaboratively plan, design, execute and sustain their development projects. The concepts of CDD are functional transparency, accountability, participation by socially inclusive bottom-up management, and focus on rural people, sustainability of project, and Local Government Assessment for Governance (Papka, 2004).

           Methods of quality participation need relationships, attitude and behavior to influence changes at personal and institutional levels. Both changes in the attitudinal and behavioral levels bring about improvement at personal level, while changes in relationships are reflected in the institutional changes. Changes at all these three levels are prerequisites for the CDD approaches (Chambers, 2002).

          LEEMP uses IDA funds to finance micro-project supports for rural communities that chose investments in water delivery. Water borehole support of LEEMP, as in other public goods, necessitates technical and mobilization support for preparation of Community Development Plan (CDP) on project(s). Some communities receive supports in borehole(s) and sometimes with reticulation. It is expected that a community borehole project would receive N6.5 million worth of support from LEEMP (Eze, 2005). On entry activities, LEEMP is intervening with micro-project support in states such as Adamawa, Bauchi, Bayelsa, Benue, Enugu, Imo, Katsina, Niger and Oyo (FPSU, 2006).

            LEEMP financing for projects implementation has a procedure for releasing funds in tranches of 50%, 30%, and 20% to communities through the Chairman of the Community Project Management Committee (CPMC). The CPMC membership constitution is usually by election organized by MFT (Multi-disciplinary Facilitating Team) members. Also, LEEMP responsive support demand includes facilitation for mobilization which might be inadequate in some rural communities for such election purposes and for joint community development efforts. Among the elected nine CPMC members, the chairman, the secretary, the financial secretary and the treasurer man the accounting process of the receipt and use of the micro-project(s) funds and also negotiate with other CBOs (Community Based Organisations) such as supporting rural banks. Moreover, the members of CPMC would be accountable /answerable to the town union and to the leader (Chief, Emir, or Igwe). As a necessity, the beneficiary community is required to appoint a maintenance committee that would see to the collection of a token amount from the users of the borehole(s) against management cost.    

        According to FPSU (2006), LEEMP started community entry point activities for CDD project phase one, with 3 local government areas in each LEEMP participating state of the federation but increased to 18 in 2006. So, Enugu and Imo, the southeast LEEMP phase one participating states had a total of 18 LEEMP local government areas (LGAs) each with 194 LEEMP benefitting communities (Enugu 92; Imo 102). The population size of each LEEMP benefiting community is about 1500 to 3000 (FPSU, 2004). According to Enugu State MOA (2013); and Imo State MOA (2013) the population of fish farmers is 825 for Enugu; and 939 for Imo state. Also, the population of poultry farmers for Enugu State is 1583; and Imo State is 1577 (Avian Influenza Project, 2008); However, there are dynamic yearly entry and exit from this population.

          Therefore it becomes necessary to find out the extent and where the participatory support of LEEMP has helped to reduce poverty by utilization of water delivery for increased dry season agricultural output. It is also necessary to assess the effectiveness and the efficiency of participatory water delivery by impact evaluation of its utilization for homestead dry season agricultural livestock fattening, income generation and effective use of farmers’ man-hours. Too, it is most likely that the utilization of participatory water delivery of LEEMP may impact significantly on the flow of rural agricultural credit.




The study analyzed the contributions of plant and animal species of Non-Wood Forest Products (NWFPs) to farm household’s income and food security. Three agricultural zones, Nsukka zone, Enugu Ezike zone and Udi zone, were purposively selected for the study. One hundred and twenty (120) respondents were selected through multistage sampling technique. Descriptive statistics, and Probit model were used for the analysis. The results indicated that majority (63.33 %) were males, with a mean age of about 56 years. Most (53.3%) of the respondents were farmers. The average household size was about 5 persons. The respondent’s mean years spent in school was about 7 years (at least completed primary school) and belonged majorly (50.83%) to the medium wealth category. The most commonly collected plant species of NWFPs were bitter kola (Garcina kola), breadfruit (Treculia africana), bush mango (Irvingia gabonenesis and wombulu), kola nut (Cola nitida), cashew (Anacardium occidentale), Icheku (Dalium guinese), African star apple (Chrysophylum albidium), Avocado pear (Persea americana), African bush mango (Dacryodes edulis) and Oil bean (Pentaclethra macrophylla) while the most commonly collected animal species of NWFPs were bee products (Apis mellifera linneaeus 1758), flying termites (Reticulitermes flavipes) and fish (Ictalurus punctatus). Wealth category (p < 0.01) and occupation (p<0.01) positively and significantly increase the contributions of NWFPs to household food security. Educational level (p < 0.05) had negative and significant effect on the contributions of NWFPs to household food security. On the daily inclusion of NWFPs in respondent’s meals, NWFPs appeared in the meals of the households for a total of 2,150 times (78.5%). The result of the proportion of household food from NWFPs shows that 53.33% indicated that species of NWFPs constituted over 50% of their household food. Based on the food security analysis results, derived using the USDA (2000) approach, few of the urban farmers’ households (47.5%) were food secure, while most of them (52.5%) were food insecure at different levels of food insecurity. The result shows that 25.83% of farm households were food insecure without hunger, 25% were moderately food insecure with hunger and 1.67% was severely food insecure with hunger.  Household size and occupation positively and significantly (p < 0.01) increased the contributions of NWFPs to household income. On the market wares inclusion of NWFPs by households, NWFPs appeared in the market wares of the households for a total of 381 times (79.4%). The result of the proportion of household income from NWFPs shows that 54.43% indicated that species of NWFPs constituted over 50% of their household income. The extent of perceived impediments to the continuing use of NWFPs in the area was identified as underdeveloped market (3.44), lack of capital (3.26), lack of storage facility (3.33), poor transportation system (3.38), lack of adequate information (3.13), poor harvesting technique (3.56) and inefficient processing facility (3.2). Remedial measures such as the incorporation of NWFPs in national accounting systems in order to attract the deserved attention from policy makers, public enlightenment campaign on the economic and health benefits of NWFPs by the national orientation agencies and the provision of infrastructural amenities by the government and humanitarian organizations.



Title page                                                                                                                                i

Certification                                                                                                                           ii

Dedication                                                                                                                             iii

Acknowledgement                                                                                                                iv

Abstract                                                                                                                                 v

Table of Contents                                                                                                                  vi

List of Tables                                                                                                                         ix

CHAPTER ONE: INTRODUCTION                                                                            

  1. Background of the Study                                                                                           1
    1. Problem Statement      –           –           –           –           –           –           –                       4
    1. Objectives of the Study          –           –           –           –           –           –                       6
    1. Research Hypotheses  –           –           –           –           –           –           –                       6         
    1. Justification of the Study       –           –           –           –           –           –                       7


2.1       Conceptual Framework           –           –           –           –           –           –                       9

2.1.1    Non Wood Forest Products in Rural Livelihood and Economy        –                       9

2.1.2    Nigeria Forest Resources and Management   –           –           –           –                       18

2.2       Theoretical Framework                                                                                               21

2.2.1    Theories of Household Production Choices   –           –           –           –                       21

2.3       Analytical Framework                                                                                                26

2.3.1    Probit Model   –           –           –           –           –           –           –           –                       27

2.3.2    Likert Scale Rating Technique ……………………………………………                28

2.3.3   Food security status using the USDA approach                                                          29



3.1   The Study Area   –           –           –           –           –           –           ……                            30

3.2   Sampling Procedure        –           –           –           –           –           –           ……                31


3.3   Validity and Reliability of instrument………………………………….      .                31-3

3.4    Data Collection –           –           –           –           –           –           –                                   31

3.5    Data Analysis……………………………………………………………….                32


  •  Socioeconomic Attributes of the Respondents                                                               40
  •   Gender of the respondents                                                                                       40
  •   Age of Household heads                                                                                          40
  •   Occupation of household heads                                                                               41

4.1.4    Household size                                                                                                            42

  • Years spent in school                                                                                                  42
  •    Wealth category                                                                                                       43

4.1.7    Average income realized from spp of NWFPs                                                           44

  •  Commonly collected NWFPs                                                                                        45
  • Plant species of NWFPs                                                                                             45
  • Animal species of NWFPs                                                                                          `47
  • Perception of  the respondents on the extent of certain impediments to the continuing use of NWFPs                                                                                                                           47
  • Contributions of NWFPs to household food security                                                    49
  •  Contributions of NWFPs to farm household income                                                    52


5.1 Summary                                                                                                                           55

5.2 Conclusion                                                                                                                        57

5.3 Recommendation                                                                                                              58

5.4 Suggestion for further Research                                                                                       59


            …5555555555556656…56……………………………………………………………  56  38383333336666





Table 2.1:        Nigeria Forest Land Statistics            –           –           –           –           –           –             18

Table 3.5:        Wealth Definition of Households…………………………………………     34

Table 3.6:    Structured survey questions on food security of the household                           37

Table   3.7      USDA food security scale                                                                                 39

Table 4.1:        Distribution of the respondents according to gender                                                   40

Table 4.2:        Frequency distribution of the respondents according to their age                    41     

Table 4.3:         Frequency distribution of the respondents based on their occupation.            41

 Table 4.4:       Frequency distribution of the respondents according to their

                          Size of households.                                                                                         42

 Table 4.5:       Frequency distribution of the respondents based on the number of

                          years spent in school                                                                                       43

 Table 4.6:       Frequency distribution of the respondents based on the size of their

                           wealth category                                                                                              43

 Table 4.7:       Average income realized from species of NWFPs.                                           44

 Table 4.8:       Plant species of NWFPs often used, part used, form of use, and

                           method of  acquisition.                                                                                  46

 Table 4.9:       Animal species of NWFPs often used, and method of acquisition                  47

 Table 4.10:     Perception of the respondents on the extent of impediments to the

                       continuing use of NWFPs.                                                                                 48

 Table 4.11:     Result of the contributions of NWFPs to Farm household food security.       50

Table 4.12:    Result of the distribution of the respondents according to their inclusion of                                    NWFPs in their breakfast, lunch and supper.                                                   51

Table 4.13:     Result of the distribution of the respondents on their proportion of food and                                   income from NWFPs.                                                                                       51

Table 4.14:   Result of the food security status of the respondents                                         52

Table 4.15:   Result of the contributions of NWFPs to Farm household income.                    53     

Table 4.16: Result of the distribution of the respondents in their inclusion of NWFPs in                                     their market wares.                                                                                                    54          

                                                        CHAPTER ONE


1.1 Background of the Study

A forest, also referred to as a wood or the woods, is an area with a high density of trees. Depending on various cultural definitions, what is considered a forest may vary significantly in size and have different classifications according to how and of what the forest is composed (Lund, 2006). Forests can be classified in different ways and to different degrees of specificity. One such way is in terms of the “biome” in which they exist, combined with leaf longevity of the dominant species (whether they are evergreen or deciduous). Another distinction is whether the forests are composed predominantly of broadleaf trees, coniferous (needle-leaved) trees, or mixed. 

The contribution of forests to sustainable livelihood of the rural farmers around the world is immeasurable including the wood and non-wood forest resources. Forests which include all resources that can produce forest products namely woodland, scrubland, bush fallow and farm bush and trees on farms, as well as ecosystem dominated by trees (Arnold,1998), provide households with income, ensure food security, reduce their vulnerability to shocks and adversities and increase their well being. Research on non-farm rural employment and income as a whole has shown that small scale production and trading activities in forest products constitute one of the largest parts of rural non-farm enterprise employment (Liedholm & Mead 1993). It is in acknowledgement of the importance of forests for livelihood and environmental stability that its conservation is included in the Millennium Development Goals of the United Nations. In Nigeria, poverty has led to the dependence of over 90% of the rural population on forests for some livelihoods and economic survival (UN, 2002).

Among the products obtained from forests are those classified as wood forest products and non-wood forests products (NWFPs). Non-wood forests products consist of goods of biological origin other than wood, derived from forests, other wooden land and trees outside forests (FAO, 1999). The United Kingdom’s Forestry Commission defines non-wood forest product (NTFPs) as “any biological resource found in woodlands except wood (timber and other forms of wood), United Kingdom Forest Research (UFR, 2013). Part of the reforesting Scotland project, defines them as “materials supplied by woodlands – except the conventional harvest of wood, Scotland Forest Harvest (SFH, 2013). These definitions include wild and managed game, fish and insects, Center for International Forestry Research (CIFOR, 2013). When wood other than timber is included it is referred to as non- timber forests products (NTFPs). Generally NWFPs are grouped into: sponges, chewing sticks, tooth cleaners, fibers, bast fibers, jute, cloth, foodstuffs, water, beverage, wine, medicinal plants, latex, rubbers, gums and resins, and decorative beads (Wyatt, 1991). Furthermore, a large portion of NWFPs have medicinal properties. For at least three quarters of the world’s population, traditional medicine is the only source of medicinal treatment (70-80% in Africa) (Van Rijsoort & De pater, 2000). On the use of NWFPs in meals, observation of household in Western Burkina Faso identified that some thirty NWFPs were used, raw or cooked, and that they came from17 tree species of the savanna or traditional forestry parklands (Lamien &  Bayala, 1996). This study will focus on flora(plant) and fauna(animal) species of non-wood forest products. Some of the plant species of NWFPs found in Nigeria, according to Osemeobo and Ujor(1999) include Gnetum africanum , Gongronema latifolium, pterocarpus soyauxii, Ocimum gratisimum, Treculia Africana, Irvingia gabonensis, Dennettia tripetala, chrysophyllum albidium (white straw apple), piper guineense, Afromomum spp and Garcinia kola. Fauna species include snails, bee product (honey), grass cutter etc.

Non-wood forest products have attracted considerable global interest in recent years because of increasing recognition of their contribution to household economies and food security to some national economies and to environmental objectives such as the conservation of biological diversity. Some 80 percent of the population of the developing world use NWFPs to satisfy health and nutritional needs (UN, 2002). Indigenous population in Nigeria have benefited historically from natural ecosystems through the use of NWFPs. Although NWFPs typically lack statistics on official commerce, they provide a wide range of raw materials and inputs for a diverse array of rural enterprise. Non-wood forest products provide off-farm employment to a large segment of the rural population and account for an enormous share of household income. For example, in 1996 in southeastern Nigeria, 35.7% of the rural population collected NWFPs daily and it accounted for 94% of total income from minor sources (Nweze & Igbokwe, 2000).

Bisong and Ajake (2001) found out that women in southern Nigeria depend heavily on NWFPs. In fact, many Nigerians depend on NWFPs for food, fiber and herbal medicines. In recent times, there has been a reasonable and noticeable shift from the earlier bias in favor of orthodox medicine to greater acceptance of traditional(herbal) medicines in Nigeria as in many other countries worldwide(Akunyili,2003). Over 90% of Nigerians in rural areas and over 40%  in urban areas depend partly or wholly on traditional medicine(Osemeobo & Ujor,1999). NWFPs also provide raw materials for large-scale industrial processing including processing of internationally traded commodities such as foods and beverages, confectionery, flavorings, perfumes, medicines, paints and polishes. At present at least 150 NWFPs are significant in terms of international trade; they include honey, gum arabic, rattan and bamboo, cork, forest nuts and mushrooms, essential oils, plant and animal parts for pharmaceutical products. Thus promotion of NWFPs can complement the objectives of rural development and appropriate forest management (Hammet, 1993). Since the early 1990s, the role of Non-Wood Forest Products for sustainable forest management and poverty reduction has received increased attention (Sheil & Wunder, 2002). They play an important part in supporting household livelihoods and therefore can be used to raise the perceived value of forest resources. In developing countries, including Nigeria, majority of rural household and a large proportion of urban household depend on NWFPs to meet some parts of their nutritional, health, construction material and income from selling these products. Elsewhere, NWFPs are the only source of income for the local communities (Wollenberg & Septianinawir 1998). Therefore, NWFPs form an integral part of the rural economy where the majority of the rural populations live especially around the forest resource base. In this perspective, sustainable forest management will be achieved through encouraging participatory management of forest and woodland resources.

FAO, (2002) defined food security as a situation that exist when all people, at all times, have physical, social, and economic access to sufficient, safe, and nutritious food that meets their dietary needs and food preferences for an active and healthy life. Conceptually, food security is broken down into four different components – availability, access, utilization and vulnerability – each capturing different, but overlapping dimension of the phenomenon (Migotto, Davis, Carletto, & Beegle, 2007).  To date, a lot of people in the developing world are still suffering from malnutrition despite the efforts made and inclusion of food security as part of the Millennium Development Goals (MDG). Worldwide, approximately 840 million people are undernourished or chronically food insecure and as many as 2.8 million children and 300,000 women die needlessly every year because of malnutrition in developing countries (Guha-Khasnobis, Acharya, &, Davis, 2007).

The Thrust of this research is to evaluate the contributions of Non-Wood Forest Products (NWFPs) to farm household income and food security in Enugu state. This is with a view to gain better insight into farm household’s income and food security and an attempt to strengthen the link between development policies and food security.




 1.0      INTRODUCTION  

 1.1      Background of the Study

     Livestock are animals that are reared in the farms (homes) for their economic importance. They are reared for the purposes of consumption, savings and as capital assets. Livestock production can be practised as a small or large scale enterprise. It can also be practised as a full or pastime business.  Examples of conventional livestock are cattle, goat, sheep, pig, and poultry. There are also micro-livestock or mini-livestock. According to Madubuike (2004), micro-livestock or mini-livestock are the small sized animals, vertebrates and invertebrates, aquatic or terrestrial, of weight usually lower than 20kg and usually gathered from the wild.  It includes fish, snail, grass cutter, giant rat, quails and guinea pigs. 

   Generally, livestock are important because of their products (meat). Livestock products provide animal protein which is very necessary for a healthy human life. Animal protein significantly contributes to the total supply of nutrients in food intake and increases the productivity of human labour (Mahmood, Khalid and Kouser 2009).

   The contribution of livestock production to the national objective of providing sufficient animal protein at affordable prices, generating income and providing employment to some of the populace makes imperative the need for assistance in terms of credit to boost production (Okogie, 1999). Also, the principles of Economics and Finance have shown that by using other people’s funds along with his own, an entrepreneur is most likely to improve his business substantially than if he had depended solely on his equity (Lot, 1998). 

    Credit is the back bone for any business activity including agriculture. Agriculture, as a sector, depends more on credit than any other sector of the economy because of the seasonal variations in the farmer’s returns and a changing trend from subsistence to commercial farming (Mahmood, Khalid, Kouser, 2009). This is, in view of the fact that credit plays an important role in enhancing agricultural productivity, especially in developing countries (Iqbal, Munir, Abbas, 2003). The unpredictable and risky nature of agricultural production, the importance of agriculture to our national economy, the urge to provide additional incentives to further enhance the demand by lending institutions for appropriate risk aversion measures in agricultural lending provided justifications for the establishment of the Agricultural Credit Guarantee Scheme Fund (ACGSF) by the Federal Government of Nigeria in 1977 (Mafimisebi, Oguntade, Mafimisebi, 2008). 

    The scheme was established to facilitate the flow of institutional credit from commercial and other deposit banks to farmers in order to stabilize their farm productivity, increase their output, income and loan repayment capacity. The fund is under the management of a board while the Central Bank of Nigeria is the managing agent for the administration of the scheme. In September 2003, the Central Bank management and Board of the Agricultural Credit Guarantee Scheme Fund approved the participation of licensed community banks (now Microfinance banks) in the Agricultural Credit Guarantee Scheme with effect from January. 2004. The agricultural purposes for which loans can be guaranteed under the scheme are:

 a. establishment or management of plantations for the production of rubber, oil    palm, cocoa, tea and similar crops;

 b. cultivation or production of cereal crops, tubers, fruits of all kinds, cotton, beans, groundnuts, sheanuts, beniseed, vegetables, pineapples, banana and  plantains,

 c. animal husbandry including poultry, pig, cattle rearing, fish farming, rabbitry, snailery, grass-cutter farming, honey production. (CBN,  1978).

   The scope of (c) above was expanded in the Amendment Decree of 1988 to include fish culture, fish captures and storage. As at now, bank loans under the scheme are guaranteed up to 75% against default in payment, subject, in the case of loan to an individual to a maximum of one million naira and in the case of loan to a co-operative society or a corporate body to a maximum of five million naira (CBN, 2005).

 1.2   Statement of Problem

    Animal protein is usually used as a criterion to measure food quality but this is recognized as a limiting factor in the diets of many people in developing countries. Nigeria is rated as an animal protein deficient country (Ohajianya, Onyeagocha and Ibekwe, 2006).  Okorie (2002) reported that per capita protein intake in Nigeria averages 51.7 grams daily of which 8.6 grams came from animal sources. This is far below the minimum of 65 grams of animal protein intake level recommended by the Food and Agriculture Organization (Madubuike, 1992). It is also a known fact that Nigeria imports most of the livestock and its products such as poultry products, fish and beef that are consumed by her citizens.  This situation is attributable to low livestock production and its consequence is low consumption of the products because of high prices.

    Though credit has been established as a very important component in agriculture, most farmers especially those engaged in livestock production are constrained in obtaining required credit from formal lending institutions which are accepted as the cheapest source of credit facility (Ikhatua, 2000).  This scenario creates direct and indirect effects on their farm production. Directly, it affects the purchasing power of the farmers to procure farm implements that could lead to enhanced output. Indirectly, it affects the risk behaviour of the farmers (Guirkinger and Boucher,2005).

     Credit constraint condition of farmers have been attributed to some socio-economic factors like educational level, farmers’ income, inadequate collateral (Freeman, Simeon, Jabbar, 1998) and rationing factors used by financial institutions to discriminate potential borrowers (Striglitz and Weiss, 1981).The rationing of credit by lending institutions as a result of imperfect information put borrowers into a situation where the full amount of credit applied for is not received and in some cases  turned down. 

    Credit constraint has been shown to be the major cause of low agricultural output of farmers (Iqbal, 1986), which manifests into low farm income. Inadequate credit supply to farmers is a key problem upon which other production factors exert negative influence on their output. The inability of most farmers to have access to adequate fund because of constraints is believed to have heightened the problem of low farm production in South-east states.  Increase in livestock products can be achieved from adequate and guaranteed flow of credit into livestock production (Jabbar, Ehui, Von-Kaufman, 2002). The amount of resources that a farmer controls, the terms and conditions under which they are obtained, and the way and manner that they are utilized determine to a good extent the farm output and consequently income. It is also believed that for farmers that are fortunate enough to have access to credit, a wide gap exists between the amount of credit requested and the amount obtained from the lending institutions.

     It is in recognition of the above that the Agricultural Credit Guarantee Scheme Fund (ACGSF) was established in 1977 to encourage commercial and other deposit banks to participate in increasing the productive capacity of farmers through a credit lending program that will meet the farmers’ needs. However, there is a growing concern that credit flow from financial institutions under the scheme to the farmers especially the livestock farmers in South-east states is poor leading to inadequate production and consequently high prices of livestock products in the market. It is common knowledge that most of the livestock products consumed in the South east states are either imported or brought in from other states of the Federation. The consequence is high prices of meat in the area. Available statistics indicate that the average price of a kilogramme of meat in the Southeast is N1000.00. This is high in view of the income level of majority of the population. It becomes plausible therefore, for an investigation into the relationship between the livestock farmers’ circumstances and their receipts or otherwise of loan from financial institutions under the scheme. This will assist in determining how the lending institutions respond to the borrowing demands of the farmers in the study area.

    Farmers’ accessibility and enhanced borrowing capacity to adequate credit have been accepted to be a key to improved farm output.  It is believed that access to agricultural credit from banks is an issue of segregation along social strata, as the banks are apprehensive of the farmers’ creditworthiness.  This study is therefore, designed to determine how credit under guarantee by the Agricultural Credit Guarantee Scheme Fund (ACGSF) is assessed by livestock farmers in South-east, Nigeria. It will also examine the effect of the credit obtained on the output of the farmers as well as the factors influencing the amount of credit obtained under the scheme by the farmers.

    Agricultural lending involves giving out of credit to farmers for agricultural purposes. Lending for agriculture is a risky business because its repayment can hardly be fully obtained (Kohansal and Mansori, 2009). It is reported that agricultural loan repayment is poor especially among formal institutions in Nigeria (Ukoha and Agwamba, 2002; Njoku and Obasi, 1991), as farmers are believed to use credit obtained for farming activities for other uses. This raises the question of creditworthiness or otherwise of the beneficiaries and their characteristics. According to Von-Pischke (1991), poor agricultural loan repayment in most developing countries has made formal institutions to meticulously screen farmers’ applications. This is to determine who is more likely to repay as and at when due. Also, loan beneficiaries are closely monitored on their use of lent funds to ensure that they are used majorly for the purpose for which it was lent so as to increase the likelihood of repayment. The inability of the borrower to repay the borrowed fund in accordance with the loan terms constitutes a major problem in credit administration. According to Arene (1993), losses in both principal and interest to banks can result in loan shrinkage, liquidation, and ineffectiveness. Formal lending institutions concerned with losses from untimely repayment and default seek to minimize these by choosing carefully the distribution of credit among the loan applicants.  It becomes plausible therefore, to assess the credit receipts, its effect on farm output and the repayment performance of the   farmers who obtained loans for livestock production under guarantee by the ACGSF and also empirically determine factors influencing their loan repayment.