The value added tax(VAT) came into force decree of 1993,which did not only introduce VAT also the sales tax decree of 1986.

This project is to highlight more on effect of value added tax (VAT) As a source of revenue for the federal government of Nigerian. In the course of achieving this purpose, initial problems encountered in the introduction of vat and the mode of collection and administration on the federal government.

Chapter one started with the general introduction and overview of the topic. It also highlighted the problems which the government sensed that VAT might not be accepted adequately, and of what impact or effect VAT  return to the federal government of Nigeria.

Chapter two reviews related literature covering VAT administration, registration, office, theories and models, current literature based on each of the relevant variable of the model and summary of the chapter.

Chapter three covered the finding, discussion of the theoretical frame work and methodology introduction, ration ate, for choice of variable, ditch selection and analysis etc.

Chapter four covers the s presentation and analysis of data, classification and calculation and the interpretation of the results.

Finally, a further research suggestion that needs to be conducted which are the impact of anti-corruption act on the effective implementation of VAT decree and the co-operative analysis of VAT and other forms of tax were also stated. Then the summary of every thing that has to do with effect of the value added tax as a source of revenue to the federal government.








Title page

Approval page




Table of content



  • Introduction
    • Background of the study
    • Statement of the problem
    • Objective of the study
    • Research questions
    • Significance of the study
    • Scope of the study
    • Limitation of the study
    • Definition of terms



  • Literature Review
    • Value added tax in Nigeria
    • Theories and models relevant to the research hypothesis
    • Current literature based on each of the variable of the model theory
    • Summary of the chapter


  • Research methodology
    • Population and sample size
    • Nature and sources of data
    • Data collection method
    • Data analysis techniques


  • Data Presentation and analysis
    • Presentation of data


  • Summary, Conclusion and Recommendations
    • Summary
    • Conclusion
    • Recommendations






Taxation is compulsory payment made by adult within a limited age to provide avenue of income for the government of a country.

As it implies, it can also be define as instrument for tools of any country to influence the level of economic activity of any country.further, taxation in other words is a liability imposed upon the tax payers who may be individuals, group or other legal entities. It is an amount paid on account of fact that the tax payers has as income of minimum amount from certain tangible property, so that he makes profit on economic activities which have been chosen for taxation.

A tax is an imposition that is generally created and regulated by law. In Nigeria such law includes the income tax management act of 1961, the capital gain tax  act of 1976, the abrogated and the newly introduced VAT (value added tax) decree No 102 of ).


VAT (Value added tax) is a general consumption tax assessed on the value added to goods and services as they pass through the supply chain.

Today, about 135 countries utilize and implement VAT and it is either the largest or second of the largest source of tax revenue.

VAT has purpose, a committee that was set up to carryout resistibility study on its implementation in januray,1993 the federal government agreed to introduced VAT. It was intensified to fist September 1993.

Apart from the general need for money to finance the administration of tax, security and social service for the citizens, taxes are impose for restraining or certainly consumption n and the transferring rescues from consumption to invest.

The revenue generated from VAT is shared among the three tiers of government, during the implementation of this 1994, the state government received 80% of the proceeds while 20% went to the federal government for covering its administration cost. In the subsequent years the distribution formula continues to change until now.


as a result of the unsuccessful nature of precious economic recovering policies such as the structured adjustment program (SAP) so many persons envisage VAT as another. Such government policies that would bring about waste of time and energy as it is bound to be failure in disguise, in the light of this prejudiced instance so many people have raised service of obligations against the introduction of VAT.

One of the problems  that  faces VAT is that some people see it as money machines  for the government, this means that government is bound to device much money from this system of taxation, that is revenue increased, them when this happens, government willing to provide the necessary social amenities for its citizens.

Secondly, VAT will bring about an increase in  goods and services as manufacturers would tend to transfer the burden of VAT to the cost of consumers who bears the cost of taxation on goods last resort of channel of distribution.

Thirdly, the public either directly or indirectly resist VAT or argue that VAT will lead to inflationary tendencies.

Finally, according to the Italian minister of economy and finance Mr. Domenico; smiscako, he has underlined thus ‘’to analysis of the pros and cons of VAT ‘’a tax that is bow largely applied at global level and a considerable sources of tax yield .

Although some problems contexts in which VAT imposed, there are certain issue that are common to all countries for example he put it as the coverage of the taxable base, which is necessary to ensure effectiveness and neutrality of the tax, clashes with problems in its application to the public sector ,financial sector as well as specific sector such as agriculture, the risks in applying differential in both administrative and compliance cost which would be borne, respectability by administrations and trades. He added the increasing international VAT fraud and evasion calls for prompt and effective measures in part of each country and above all for closer co-operation that at the national and internationals levels, which is currently based on instruments and systems for exchanging information that one still inappropriate and insufficient.


Its objectives are to ascertain the importance of its introduction unlike other system of taxation.

  1. VAT is a better source of government revenue now, this means that revenue reducing parts of tax reform lower tax rates, and repeal of the attentive minimum tax, also a shift from depreciations express must be financed by revenue increase.
  2. VAT certainly has helped finance the explosion of social welfare spending in Nigeria economy.
  3. VAT is alluring, it means that is a relatively non-destructive way to raise tax revenue like a flat tax, it is a single way that does not penalize savings and investment. Its understandable that officials would be tempted to enact a VAT that will bring about money to finance much needed reforms to the income tax.
  4. VAT facilitates higher tax rates on income service. A higher VAT must be accompanied by higher income tax burdens to ensure the tax burden was not being shifted to lower income tax payers.


This study is to be effectively tested the stated problems solved the following research questions are formulated. They are as follows

  1. Is VAT easier to administer than others forms of taxes?
  2. Does VAT yield more revenue than sales tax of tax?
  3. Does an agent represent the government very well in the process of VAT collection?

In the assumption of belief or feeling something or somebody is true will happen in the study that all the formation about  is true.


The study effectively covers Value added tax as it is being applied with respect to the Nigeria economics focuses. Thus, VAT is being implemented, managed and also the problems facing it as a system of taxation.

Further, the  study also aims at unveiling those goods and services that must be subjected to VAT, as well as persons, organizations etc that are excepted to register for VAT, their rights and obligations.

It also has a single low rate with 5% with a zero rate for exports. It is borne by the final consumer of goods and service because it is included in the price paid. it also gives guidelines for VAT collection and examines the collection agencies.

The study also reveals tax performance  directly and how it affects the country ability to meet the minimum development goals as well as public perception of the effectivness of government. It is therefore a key policy area for all concerned with revenue mobilization.

Finally the penalize for VAT defaulters and procecures to be followed for VAT refund in covered in the study.


There is an uncompromised attitude of some  agencies, which should have been a vital information on the subject matter, which is VAT.

The study of this course is limited by certain factors among which are as follows;

  1. The time constraint
  2. Lack of adequate data and information with respect to value added tax as it is being applied in Nigeria.
  3. lack of finance
  4. Lack of co-operation by some respondent.

*VAT: this means value added tax that is imposed and changed under section of decree 102 of 1993

* VATABLE PERSON : this is a person who trades on vatable goods and services these are goods and service for consideration.

* SUPPLIERS : This deals with transaction, whether it is the sale of goods or the performance of service to a consideration that is for money or payment.

*TAX PERIOD: this means one calendar month starting from the beginning of the month to when it ended.

*TAXABLE PERIOD: any person under that public authority acting in that capacity that his/her own carries out in any place in economic activity as produce, wholesales, supplier or services or persons exploiting tangle income by a way of trade or business.




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

Certification    –          –           –           –           –           –           –           –           ii

Dedication      –           –             –           –           –           –           –           –           iii

Acknowledgement      –           –   –           –           –           –           –           –           iv

Table of contents        –           –    –           –           –           –           –           –           v

List of tables   –           –           –           –           –           –           –           –           –           viii

List of figures –           –    –           –           –           –           –           –           –           ix

Abstract          –           –                 –           –           –           –           –           –           x


1.1       Background Information            –           –           –           –           –           1

1.2       Statement of Problem –           –          –           –           –           –           –           3

1.3       Objectives of the Study          –          –           –           –           –           –           5

1.4       Research Hypotheses  –           –             –           –           –           –           5

1.5       Justifications for the Study:    –        –           —          –                       –           6

1.6       Limitation of the Study          –           –           –           –           –           –           –           7

1.7       Plan of the Report       –           –           –           –           –           –           –           –           7


2.1       Introduction    –           –           –           –           —                 –           –           9

2.2       The Role of Women in Agriculture    –                  –           –           –           9

2.2.1    Role of Women in Rural Development                     –           –           12

2.2.2    Role of Women in Food Crop Production     –               –           –           16

2.2.3    Women in Forestry/Environment        –             –           –           –           19

2.2.4    Women in Livestock Production        –                   –           –           –           19

2.2.5    Women in Post harvest Activities       –                  –           –           –           20

2.3       Labour as a Factor of Agricultural Production             –           21

2.4       Sources of Agricultural Labour          –         –           –           –           22

2.4.1    Family Labour –           –           –           —          –    –           –           –           23

2.4.2    Hired or Wage Labour            –           –                –           –           –           23

2.4.3    Communal Labour      –           –           –           –           –           –           24

2.5       Women as Sources of Agricultural  Labour       –           –           –           25

2.6       Factors Affecting Agricultural Labour        –           –           –           29

2.7       Factors Affecting Agricultural Production and their Implications for Women Farmers           –           –           –           –           –                   –           31

2.8       Constraints to Women Agricultural Production Efforts            –       32

2.8.1    Land Tenure System   –                    –           –           –           –           33

2.8.2    Lack of Improved Technology           –           –           –           –           34

2.8.3    Lack of Credit            –           –   –           –           –           –           –           35

2.8.4    Lack of Time   –           –                –           –           –           –           –           36

2.8.5    Lack of Extension Services    –           –           –           –           –           36

2.9     Strategies Towards Enhancing the Performance of Women Farmers in Crop Production    –   –           37

2.10     Theoretical; Framework             –           –           42

2.10.1  The Concept of Participation in Agricultural Development Programmes      –           42

2.10.2  Participatory Models             –           –           –           –           –           43 The Transfer of Technology Model (TOT)   –           –           –           43  Ministry/Conventional General Extension (Colonial Model)    44  The Participatory Development Models               –           –           45

2.11     Analytical Framework                 –           –           –           –           46

2.11.1  Multiple Regression   Analysis            –           –           –           –           47

2.11.2  Multinomial Logit Models               –           –           –           –           48

2.11.3  The t-test         –             –           –           –           –           –           50

2.11.4  Likert Rating Scale Technique            –           –           –           –           50


3.1       The Study Area           –           –             –           –           –           –           51

3.2       Sampling Procedure          –           –           –           –           –           51

3.3       Data Collection –           –           –           –           –           –           52

3.4       Data Analysis                   –           –           –           –           –           53

3.5       Model Specification    –         –           –           –           –           –           53

3.5.1    Student t-test                  –           –           –           –           –           –           53

3.5.2    Multinomial logit model     –           –           –           –           –           53

3.5.3    Multiple Regression    –           –           —          –           –           –           57

3.5.4    Likert Scale Rating Technique           –           –           –           –           58


  •      Socio – economic Characteristics of Women Respondents  –           59

4.1.1    Age of Women Respondent   –       –           –           –           –           59

  • Marital Status of Women Respondents          –  –           –          
    • Primary and Secondary  Occupations of Respondents               60
    • Educational Attainment of Women Respondents           –             61
    • Farming experience of Women Farmers      –           –           62
    • Farm Size        –           –      –           –           –           62
    • Distance of Farm from Home –       –           –           –           63
    • Annual Income of the Women Respondents  –        –           63
    • Household Size           –                   –           –           –           6459
    •     Specific Crop Production Operations that Utilize Women Labour in the Study Area       –           –           –           65

4.3       Men and Women Labour at Different Levels of Crop Production Operations in the Study Area –     –           –           –           66

4.4       Factors Affecting Women Participation in Farm Operations –  68

4.4.1    Socio-economic Characteristics Affecting the Labour Utilization of Women in Different Farm Operations           –           –           –           68

4.5       Effects of Women Labour Utilization on Farmers’ Total Output/Revenue   –           70

4.6       Farm Constraints             –           –           –           –           –           –           73

4.7       Reasons why previous intervention measure did not achieve much success  –           75


  • Summary         —           –           –           –           –           –           78
    • Conclusion      –         –           –           –           –           –           –           79
    • Recommendations               –           –           –           –           80
    • Contribution to Knowledge          –           –           –           82
    • Suggestion for Further Research           –           –           –           82

References      –           –        –           –           –           –           –           83

Appendix – Questionnaire      –    –           –           –           –           –           94



2.1       Percentage of total labour in hours between men and women in Africa        –           –           –           –           19

2.2       Percentage contribution of African women to family Livelihood 27 

2.3       Gender daily hourly contribution on Agricultural and Non Agricultural Activity   –          –           –           –           –           28

4.1       The frequency distribution of women farmers by age            –           59

4.2       The frequency distribution of respondents according to marital status          –           60

4.3       The frequency distribution of respondent according to status in farming 60

4.4       The frequency distribution of respondents according to secondary occupation    =    –           –           –           –           61

4.5:      The frequency distribution of respondents according to formal education attained             –           –           –           61

4.6       The frequency distribution of respondents according to years of farming experience      –           –           –           –           –           62

4.7       The frequency distribution of respondents according to farm size 63

4.8       The frequency distribution of respondents according to farm distance         –           63

4.9       The frequency distribution of respondents according to annual income        –           63

4.10     The frequency distribution of respondents according to proportion of income derived from crop production             –           –           –           64

4.11     Percentage distribution of respondents according to household size 65

4.12     Percentage distribution of crop production operations and labour use  65

4.13     The mean values of hours spent by men and women respondents in different levels of crop production         –           –           –           66

4.14     Result of Multinomial Logit Model Analysis of Women Participation  in Different Crop Farm Operation                  –           –           –           68

4.15     Estimates of the determinants of output for women labour utilization    71

4.16     Distribution of respondents according to farm constraints identified  74

4.17     Distribution of respondents according to participation in extension  and rural development programmes    –          –           –           76

4.18     Reasons why previous strategy did not work –           –           –           77


Figure 1: The dualistic nature of women’s role in the economy in general and agriculture and food security in particular        –           –           14

Figure 2:  Transfer of Technology Model (TOT) –           –           –           44

Figure 3:  Participatory Development Model –      —          –           –           46


The main aim of the study was to analyze women labour utilization in crop production in Abia State. The specific objectives included (i) identify specific farming operations that utilize women  labour in the study area; (ii) compare the relative contribution of women and men to total labour utilization in different levels of farm operation in the study area; (iii) identify factors that affect the participation of women in different levels of farm operations; (iv) determine the effect of women labour utilization on the value of farm output ; and (v) identify  and analyze the constraints facing women farmers in crop production in the study area. Using multi-stage sampling technique, the study area was zoned into three using the existing zoning arrangement of the Abia State Agricultural Development Programme (ADP). Nine (9) rural Local Government Areas (LGA) were randomly selected from the Zones. From the LGAs, 18 communities were randomly selected and from the communities, 36 villages were randomly selected. From these villages, 108 households having women farmers were randomly selected. A set of structured questionnaire was administered on the relevant women and men farmers in the household to obtain required information. Data were analyzed using descriptive statistics, multiple regression analysis, t-test, likert rating scale and multinomial logit model. Results showed that among twelve crop production operations identified in 2010 farming season, greater proportion of all the operations were executed by the women farmers e.g. harvesting 70%, planting 63%, weeding 60% and transplanting 58%. The men and hired labour were used for tedious operations like ridging and bush clearing. The multinomial logit result showed that the participation of women belonging to large families were less in clearing and cultivation. Their level of income had a negative relationship with clearing. The multiple regression analysis showed that greater number of variables like age, farm experience and household size were significant and have positive effect on output at 5 % level of significance. The multiple regression analysis showed that the value of Coefficient of determination otherwise known as R-square (R2) was 0.67.  Despite the high level of participation of women farmers in crop production, they still face unique constraints which adversely affected their ability to increase food production. The identified problems included lack of finance, lack of improved inputs, lack of storage facilities among others. Poor implementation of agricultural projects and policies, lack of government commitment and intervention programmes not directed to the farmers needs were the major reasons why previous intervention measures did not achieve much success. The study therefore recommended that adequate finance should be provided by government to support women labour requirements. Government should ensure implementation of agricultural programmes by monitoring and evaluating them from the beginning to the end by independent consultants. The problem of illiteracy among rural women can be overcome if extension services extend their training to the rural women.




            Nigeria at the moment is witnessing an upward trend in the price of foodstuffs partly due to the inability of production to keep pace with increase in demand. Demand itself increases largely as a result of increase in population. The resulting effect of this imbalance between demand for and supply of food is malnutrition, poverty and deteriorating living conditions (Nnadozie and Ibe, 2000). This is mainly because agriculture is being neglected and, sometimes, down played in development strategies. 

            Agriculture is one of the main pillars of the Nigerian economy because it plays many roles.  It is a major source of food to the population, it provides employment for over 70 to 80 percent of the population and it is the only thriving economic activity in rural areas. It contributes foreign exchange as well as a source of industrial raw materials for the nation’s industries (Amanze, 2000).

            However, with the oil boom in the seventies, there was a sharp decline in agricultural production as people’s attention was diverted from agriculture to the oil sector of the economy. The “oil boom” also rendered many indigenous land owners landless and, in some cases, a reduction in the hectare farmed. There was rural-urban movement because of lack of social amenities in the rural areas. Many able bodied men moved to the urban centres in search of white-collar jobs because of the income disparity and availability of amenities in the urban areas. Women and their children were left behind to carry on agricultural production activities which resulted in many household economic activities championed by women. This situation placed on them the responsibility of taking decisions on issues on the farm (Lily, Feidman and Shert., 2001).

Attempts to restore agriculture to its former glory, national efforts to boost the production of food and cash crops have been made through a number of agricultural programmes like National Accelerated Food Production Programme (NAFPP), Operation Feed the Nation (OFN), Green Revolution Programmes, Go Back to Land, Directorate for Food, Roads and Rural Infrastructure (DFRRI) etc.  Despite these efforts the problem of food shortage continues. Food production strategies so far tried, appeared to have achieved limited success. One of the remote causes of the apparent failure was inability to develop and utilize the nation’s manpower resources effectively and efficiently especially in the rural sector (Okunade, 1998). 

The involvement of women in agriculture has attracted greater attention in recent years because women play very significant roles in Nigeria’s agricultural production, processing and utilization (Nnadozie and Ibe, 2000). Millions of women work as farmers, farm workers and resources managers (Olayide et al, 1990). In doing so, they contribute to national agricultural output, maintenance of environment and family food security (Brown et al., 2001). They dominate in almost all phases of food production such as production of food crops like maize, cassava, vegetables and yam. They have also undertaken the rearing of small farm animals and execution of certain intricate farm operations (Oluwesola 1998). Not only do women play significant roles in food production, they are now also mastering those aspects of agriculture that used to belong exclusively to men. For instance, women help with the strenuous jobs of cutting trees and clearing bushes (Onyibe, 2001). Nnoyelu and Gadzane (1991), revealed that women were found working all the year round producing food crops while men performed only pre-planting tasks that occupy small parts of the agricultural year.

            While men specialized in certain tasks like clearing bush or forest, cultivation, felling or pruning trees, ploughing or tiling the land, women, have been estimated to do 70 percent of hoeing and weeding, 60 percent of harvesting, 80 percent of transporting crops home and 90 percent of food processing (Steady, 2001). As men’s participation in agriculture declines, the role of women in agricultural production increases. In Mozambique, for example, for every 100 men working in agriculture there are now 153 women (Saito, 1994).

Though traditionally, women do not have land of their own, they do their farming on family plots and in any available piece of land no matter how small. Women contribute in areas of food preparation, processing and marketing. The involvement of women in agricultural food production has no limits. Through increased participation in agriculture, women have influenced family decisions on what to produce, how to produce, the sale of small food surpluses to meet their needs and labour-supply. Therefore, their involvement in agriculture is without doubt (Oluwasola, 1998).

            It is obvious that women are very active in food production. More emphatically, women are the backbone of African agriculture and Nigeria in particular. In the olden days, when agriculture was almost the only available profession, men used to marry as many wives as possible to assist in farm work.  Throughout the world, women constitute a greater part of the work force especially in the rural areas (Ufiem 2000).

            Women are, to a large extent the backbone of Africa rural economics (Adetenwa, 1998) and they play specific roles in the production and processing of food. Having seen that women’s effort cannot be neglected, the World Bank funded two consultancies in Nigeria to determine the extent of the participation of women in agriculture and recommend strategies for concretizing their findings in the form of project activities in 1986 (Nonyelu, 1996).

            FAOs (1995) report estimates showed that women contributed over 50 percent of the  labour force in 56 countries out of 82 developing countries  in the world. These figures show the importance of women in the agricultural development process. Furthermore, Mickewait (1999) observed that most African women are significantly engaged in subsistence agriculture; emphasizing Olayide’s (1993) classification of them as the backbones or pillars of small peasant farmers in Nigeria.




This study evaluated the impact of the extension services of Green River Project (GRP) on fish farmers in Niger Delta, Nigeria. Specifically, it sought to ascertain fishery technologies received by GRP fish farmers; determine adoption of fish farming technologies by fish farmers; determine impact of extension services of GRP on socioeconomic condition of the fish farmers as at the year 2012; ascertain farmers’ perceived constraints to adoption of GRP fish farming technologies; ascertain constraints to effective performance of extension services of GRP and determine perceived strategies to improve effectiveness of the extension services of GRP. The study was carried out in Niger Delta, Nigeria. Multi-stage sampling technique was used to select 120 fish farmers and 20 GRP personnel. Data were collected through the use of questionnaire and interview schedule. Descriptive statistics (frequency, mean statistic, percentage) were used to present data while t-test, regression, chi-square and factor analysis with varimax rotation were used to analyze the data. Mean age of GRP fish farmers and personnel were 50 and 41.70 years, respectively. Majority (76.7% of fish farmers and 65% of GRP personnel) of respondents were male. Also majority (77.5%) of the fish farmers and all (100%) the GRP personnel were married. The respondents were literates. Majority (70.0) of the fish farmers also engaged in other income generating activities. Average household size of the fish farmers and GRP personnel were 6.0 and 4.0 persons, respectively. Average years of participation in GRP for the fish farmers was 8.00 years while the mean years of working with GRP of the personnel was 12.65years. The farmers’ average number of contact with GRP was 4.0 times per month. GRP personnel used different types of teaching methods such as the use of contact group (100%), T&V system (90%) and SPAT (85.0%). Majority (86.7%) of the fish farmers belonged to social organisations. Majority of respondents received most of the technologies disseminated. Adoption index of fish farm management technologies, feeding techniques, fish culture management technique, water quantity and quality management techniques and liming techniques were 0.79, 0.77, 0.77, 0.88 and 0.52 respectively. Extension services of GRP had impact on quantity of fingerlings stocked (t=6.398; p≤ 0.05) and quantity of fishes harvested (t=6.279; p≤ 0.05); income from fishes produced (t=7.390; p≤ 0.05) among others. Constraints to adoption of GRP technologies were grouped into technology dissemination constraints; project implementation and sustainability constraints among others. Some socioeconomic characteristics of the respondents (age (years), years spent in formal education and years of participation in GRP) influenced the adoption of the fish farming technologies. Therefore, the null hypothesis was rejected for these variables. There was significant difference between the average quantities of fish stocked and average quantity of fish harvested by the fish farmers in Imo and Rivers States after participation in GRP hence the null hypothesis was rejected. The null hypothesis was rejected while the alternative hypothesis was accepted. It further revealed that there was no significant difference between the average income earned by the fish farmers in Imo and Rivers States after participation in GRP and the null hypothesis was accepted. Implementation constraints to effective performance of extension services of GRP according to GRP personnel included: climatic uncertainties and flooding (M= 1.55) and delay in input supply (M=1.20). It was recommended that there is need to increase youth involvement in the project (90.0%), increase farmers’ participation in decision making (90.0%) and increase the number of trained extension personnel (85.0%).


Title page                                                                                                                    i

Certification                                                                                                                ii

Dedication                                                                                                                  iii

Acknowledgement                                                                                                      iv

Abstract                                                                                                                      v

Table of contents                                                                                                        vi

List of Tables                                                                                                              vii

List of Figures                                                                                                            ix

List of Pictures                                                                                                            x


  1. Background information                                                                                 1
    1. Problem statement                                                             4
    1. Purpose of the study                                                          7
    1. Hypotheses of the study                                          7
    1. Significance of the study                                                     7


2.1.      Concept of agricultural projects                                       9

2.2.      Overview of fishery projects in Nigeria                                         11

2.3.      Improved fish farming activities and technologies 13

2.4.      Overview of agricultural extension services in Nigeria 19

2.5.      The Green River Project                                                                                 25

2.6.      Concept of adoption of innovations                       28

2.7.      Concept of evaluation                                                                                     35

2.8.      Theories/models of evaluation                           40

2.9.      Conceptual framework                                                   53


3.1       Study area                                                                                                       54

3.2       Population and sampling procedure    59

3.3       Instrument for data collection                    60

3.4       Measurement of variables                                              61

3.5       Data Analysis                                                                                                  63


4.1       Socio-economic characteristics of GRP fish farmers and GRP personnel                            65

4.2:      Fish farming technologies received by the GRP fish farmers   76

4.3:      Adoption of GRP fish farming technologies by fish farmers 80

4.4       Impact of extension services of GRP on socioeconomic condition of the fish farmers        85

4.5       Constraints to adoption of fish farming technologies disseminated by GRP         97

4.6       Implementation constraints to effective performance of extension services of GRP                      100

4.7:      Perceived strategies to enhancing the effectiveness of the extension services                            102

4.8       Testing of Hypothesis (Socio-economic characteristics of farmers influencing adoption of fish farming technologies)                           104

4.9       Testing of differences in socioeconomic conditions of GRP fish farmers in Rivers and Imo States                                                                    108

CHAPTER FIVE:    Summary, Conclusion and Recommendation

5.1       Summary                                                                                                         110

5.2       Conclusion                                                                                                      112

5.3       Recommendation                                                    114

REFERENCES                                                                                            115

APPENDIX                                                                                                   124


Table 1: Comparison of cost and nutritional values of different sources of  animal protein per 100 g serving                                                13

Table 2: Sampling frame                                          60

Table 3: Percentage distribution of respondents according to socioeconomic characteristics           73

Table 4: Method of extension teaching used by GRP personnel   75

Table 5:  Percentage distribution of respondents according to fish farming technologies benefitted from GRP                                                                        79

Table 6: Distribution of farmers according to their adoption of improved fish farming technologies                                                                              84

Table 7: Distribution of respondents according to impact of extension services of GRP on socioeconomic conditions                                            90

Table 8: Distribution of respondents according to impact of extension services of GRP                                                                                            96

Table 9: Constraints to adoption of GRP fish farming technologies by fish farmers                                                                                                          100

Table 10: Distribution of respondents according to implementation constraints to effective performance of the extension services of GRP                         102

Table 11: Percentage distribution of respondents according to their perceived  strategies to enhancing the effectiveness of the extension services   104

Table 12: Socio-economic characteristics of GRP fish farmers influencing adoption of GRP fish farming technologies                                               107

Table 13: Comparison of socio-economic conditions of Imo and Rivers State GRP fish farmers            109


Figure 1: Organogram of Green River Project             28

Figure 2:  A model of five stages in the innovation-decision process   30

Figure 3:  Sigmoid pattern of diffusion                                     31

Figure 4: Snyder evaluation model                                                  42

Figure 5: Advanced technology program evaluation logic model         44

Figure 6: Kirkpatrick-Phillips learning evaluation model     46

Figure 7:  Progamme action logic model                              49

Figure 8: Schema showing the impact of extension services of GRP on fish farmers in Niger Delta, Nigeria                                                                       53

Figure 9: Map of Niger delta, Nigeria showing the study area  56

Figure 10: Map of Rivers State showing the study area    57          

Figure 11: Map of Imo State showing the study area    58

Figure 12: Extension contact of GRP fish farmers   74

Figure 13: Impact of extension service of GRP on proportion of income saved by respondents before and after participation in GRP  97


Picture 1: A farmer in Obrikom, Rivers State displaying fish spunning and/or hatchery ponds                      90

Picture 2: A farmer in Omoku, Rivers State showing size of fish harvested       91



1.         Background information

The development of state ministry of agriculture in Nigeria changed in political structure after independence. The three regions structure in 1960 gave way to four regions in1963 and this equally gave way to states creation from 1967 up to 1996 (Ayoola, 2010).  The roles of the ministry of agriculture include the following: – Organizing of short duration seminars and workshops to farmers.  Providing farmers credit, subsidies and other incentives to boost total output in the various special programmes undertaken by the state government, Agricultural Development Programme (ADP), International Fund for Agricultural Development (IFAD), World Bank, Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) and other support programmes. Conduct market surveys to determine current prices of agricultural inputs and products. Carry out the technical implementation of all agricultural loan schemes. Pest control services. Overseeing the activities of all agriculture related Parastatals and Companies (

Agriculture in Nigeria has witnessed drastic changes in government programmes ranging from administration, funding, manpower and learning skills, and infrastructural facilities to creation of research institutes (Madukwe, 2008). The first post colonial development era of 1962-1968 period emphasized the introduction of more modern agricultural methods through farm settlements, co-operative plantations, supply of improved farm implements and a greatly expanded agricultural extension service. Some specialized development schemes initiated during this period include: the National Accelerated Food Production Programme (NAFPP), 1972; The World Bank-funded Agricultural Development Projects (ADP) 1975; River Basin and Rural Development Authorities (RBDA) 1976; Operation Feed the Nation, 1976; and Green Revolution Programme, 1980; among others (Jibowo & Ajayi, 2011).

Agricultural Development Programme (ADP) was a bilateral agreement between the World Bank and the Federal Government of Nigeria in 1975. ADP idea is an offshoot of the concept of integrated agricultural and rural development (Jibowo, 2005). The objective is to improve the levels of living and welfare of farmers. It started as an enclave in some states to a multi-stage ADP. The ADP is the implementation organ of the state ministries of agriculture and natural resources (Jibowo and Ajayi, 2011). ADP programmes consist of adaptive research, extension transfer, input supply and rural infrastructure.

Operation feed the Nation (OFN) (1975) was designed to mobilize the general public into participating in agricultural production using mass and individual extension methods (Iwuchukwu and Igbokwe, 2012). Some of these strategies included subsidized production inputs, increased bank credit to farmers, establishment of commodity boards and fixing of attractive prices for agricultural produce (Daneji, 2011). Its main aim was to greatly reduce the cost of living particularly in the urban areas with everybody being able to wholly or partly feed himself (Adebayo and Okuneye, 2011).

River Basin and Rural Development Authorities (RBDA) was launched in 1976. Primarily, the schemes were to harness the country’s water resources by providing employment opportunities through intensified crop, livestock and fisheries production with the hope of improving the standard of living of the rural population (Williams, 1981). Their functions were to facilitate land development and ensure efficient water resource management. Even though the project has succeeded several regimes, irrigated land in Nigeria stood at 0.7% (Adebayo and Okuneye, 2011)

The Directorate of Foods, Road and Rural Infrastructure (DFRRI) was established in 1987 with a mandate to open the rural areas through the construction of access roads, and provision of basic amenities of modern living but due to the following reasons, the programme was not sustainable: The programme was inevitable because it has long been realized according to Otubanjo (1992) that the economic future of Nigeria depends on the development of rural areas. Therefore, the potentials of rural areas were seen to be both immediate and long term (Daneji, 2011). The idea of opening up of rural areas with feeder roads and integrating it with other parts of the country provided basis for food that could be evacuated to enhance the quantity of food and raw materials consumption. During the period of 1980-1988, 30,000km roads were constructed from the targeted 60,000km estimated by DFFRI. The poor quality of infrastructures provided by the directorate probably due to mismanagement of fund made the impact of the programme almost insignificant. However, the directorate had been criticized in the past for lack of proper focus and programme accountability (Idachaba, 1988).

National Poverty Eradication Programme (NAPEP) (1999) mode of operation is tailored towards (subsidized) credit to farmers. The programme consists of four schemes namely, youth empowerment scheme which involves capacity acquisition, mandatory attachment, and credit delivery; Rural infrastructures development scheme which involves the provision of portable water, rural electrification, transportation and communication development; Social welfare Services Scheme which is involved with qualitative education, primary health care, farmers empowerment and provision of social services, provision of agricultural input and credit delivery to rural farmers; and Natural Resources Development and Conservation Scheme which contains programmes for environmental protection through conservation of land and space, development of agricultural resources, solid minerals and waters resources.

National Fadama Development programme (1999) is aimed at increasing income of beneficiaries by at least 20%. It is a major instrument for achieving the government’s poverty reduction objective in rural areas of Nigeria. The programme empowers the association with resources, training, and technical assistance support to properly manage and control the resources for their own development.

Apart from those initiated by federal government and implemented in the state, they were some programmes and projects initiated by Anambra state government which include; Grain Production Agency 1991; Poverty Alleviation Programme 2002; Volunteer Service Agency (VSA) 1991; Anambra State Tractor Hiring Company (ASTRAC) 1991; Small Holder Management Unit 1991; State Agricultural Credit Scheme (SACS) 1991; State Loan Implementation Committee (SIC) 2006; National Programme for Food Security (NPFS) 2007. However, the scope of activities in various programmes mentioned among others, are similarly implemented in areas of policies, funding, manpower training, recruitment and that forms the essence of the problem of this research.




The study evaluated the traditional and modern groundnut processing and marketing in North Central Nigeria. The focus was on groundnut oil processing and marketing systems; input use efficiency in production and factors that made for efficiency; profitability of the processing activity and factors that determined profitability; examination of value added by processing; integration of markets for the processed products and problems of the industry. A total of 175 traditional processors were selected and 17 small-Scale modern processors covered from Nasarawa, Benue and Niger States. Pre-tested, structured questionnaires and observations were used as instruments of data collection. Types of data collected were those on socio-economic characteristics of processors, groundnut procurement, processing, and ground nut oil (GNO) and groundnut cake (GNC) marketing. Weekly price series for GNO and GNC were also collected at various markets within the region. Data analyses were attained by use of descriptive and inferential statistics, stochastic frontier analysis (SFA), profit function analysis, t-test statistic and Johansen test for co-integration. Hypotheses were also tested appropriately. The average age of traditional processors in North Central Nigeria was 38 years and 41years for modern processors. Ninety-four percent of the traditional processors were women while 88% of modern processors were men. Majority of the processors did not participate in co-operative activities. Sixty percent of groundnut processed by traditional processors came from farmers while 94% of groundnut processed by modern processors was obtained from traders. The maximum likelihood result for traditional processors indicated the presence of inefficiency. Raw groundnut variable was significant at 1% level of significance (LOS) in Nasarawa and Niger States. Fuel-wood and salt were both significant at 1% LOS in Nasarawa and Benue States. In the inefficiency aspects, age and years of experience were significant at 1% LOS in all the states. For the zone, labour and salt were significant at 1% LOS; fuel-wood 5% and raw groundnut 10% LOS. In the inefficiency aspect for the zone, household size was significant at 5% LOS, while level of education was significant at 10% level of probability. Raw groundnut and labour were significant in modern processing, while education and experience at 10% in the inefficiency aspect. Most of the traditional processors had their efficiency scores above 0.80 and modern processors were from 0.47. In the profit function results for traditional processors, fuel-wood and packaging variables were significant at 1% LOS. Raw groundnut, procurement and maintenance were significant at 1% in modern processing. Value added was 41% for traditional processors and 44% for modern processors. There was significant difference in the value of groundnut before and value after processing. The Johansen trace test result indicated five co-integration vectors at 5% level of probability for GNO and two co-integration equations for GNC. The markets for GNO and GNC were not fully integrated. Administrative regulations affected market integration for GNO which was significant at 5% LOS. Constraints identified included inadequate finance, inadequate electricity, machine breakdown and transportation. Recommendations made included improved packaging, finance, electricity supply and co-operative education.


 Content                                                                                             Page

Cover page                                                                                                       

Title page                                                                                                      i

Certification                                                                                                    ii

Dedication                                                                                                                 iii

Acknowledgement                                                                                                   iv

Abstract                                                                                                             v

Table of contents                                                                                      vi

List of tables                                                                                                x

List of figures  xii                                                                                              

 CHAPTER ONE: INTRODUCTION                                                

   1.1 Background of the study                                                        1

   1.2 Statement of the problem                                                      6

   1.3 Objectives of the study                                                           9

   1.4 Hypotheses                                                       10 

   1.5 Justification                           10                                                                               

   1.6 Limitation of the Study                                                                              12


   2.1 Groundnut Processing Technologies and Systems            13

   2.1.1 The traditional and modern methods of groundnut oil extraction in Nigeria   15

   2.1.2 Capital ownership and organizational structures of agricultural processing                  17

   2.2 Marketing of Finished Products                                         18 

   2.2.1 Marketing strategies for agro-industrial products          21

   2.2.2 Market demand for agro-industrial products                22

   2.3 Profitability Measures and Value addition                 24

   2.3.1 Profitability analysis                                                                              26

   2.3.2 The value adding process in agriculture                                               27

   2.4 Input Use and Efficiency                                                    29

   2.4.1 Efficiency measurement                                                                         30

   2.5 Market Integration                                                                34

   2.5.1 Market integration and the law of one price (LOP)           35 Process and the Unit Root Problem              36 Co-integration                                              38 Co-integration and Error correction Mechanism (ECM)        39 The Johansen Trace test                                             39

  2.6 Problems of Agricultural Processing Industry                     40       

  2.7Theoretical Framework                                                41

  2.7.1 Value chain in Agricultural Processing and marketing                      44

  2.8 Analytical Framework                                              47

  2.8.1 Stochastic frontier production function                          47

  2.8.2 Profitability analysis                                                      51

  2.8.3 Measurement of co-integration and the law of one price (LOP)  52 The unit root problem                                                          53 Unit root test                                                         54 Co-integration: The Johansen test                         56           Determinants of co-integration                                58


   3.1 Study area                                                                        59

   3.2 Sampling technique                                                                                         60

   3.3 Data collection                                                           61

   3.4 Data Analysis                                                                                      62

   3.4.1. Stochastic Frontier Model                                                      62

   3.4.2 Profit Function Analysis                                                               65

   3.4.3 Value addition model                                                                66

   3.4.3 Johansen trace test                                                                 67 Determinants of co-integration                                    67


   4.1 Socio-economic Characteristics of Small-scale traditional and modern Groundnut Processors in Northern Central Nigeria  69                                 

   4.1.1 Age distribution of groundnut oil processors            69

   4.1.2 Gender distribution of the processors                       70

   4.1.3 Marital status                                                        71

   4.1.4 Household size                                                   71

   4.1.5 Educational level of processors                                   72

  4.1.6 Cooperative participation                                             72

  4.1.7 Years of experience                                                      73

  4.2 Groundnut Oil Production, Marketing, and the Value Chain in the Study Area    75

  4.2.1 Procurement                                                              77

  4.2.2 Traditional groundnut oil production method                             79

  4.2.3 Modern groundnut oil production method                                       80

  4.2.4 Marketing                                                                                       82

  4.3. Input Use Efficiency in Traditional and Modern Groundnut Oil Production in North Central Nigeria                                                   86           

  4.3.1Technical efficiency estimates for groundnut oil producers in North Central Nigeria     89

  4. 4. The Profitability Analysis of Traditional and Small-scale Modern Processing and Marketing of GNO and GNC                               94

  4.4.1 Gross margin results of groundnut processing                                       94

  4.4.2 Determinants of profitability of groundnut processing in North Central Nigeria            97

  4.5 Value Added by Processing Groundnut into GNC and GNC   100

  4.5.1Test of significance of value added                                                      102

  4.6 Level of Integration of Markets Groundnut oil (GNO) and Groundnut cake (GNC)         103

  4.6.1 Result of the unit root test                                                                   104

  4.6.2 Result of the Johansen test for co-integration                  105

  4.6.3 Determinants of market integration                                                   107

  4. 7 Constraints Facing the Groundnut Processing Industry  109

  4.7.1 Identified constraints                                                                                                        109


  5.1 Summary                                                       113

  5.2 Conclusion                                            118

  5.3 Recommendations         119                                                    

  5.4 Addition to knowledge                                                                    120

  5.5 Areas needing further research                                              121

REFERENCES                                                                              123

APPENDIX A                                                                                   131

APPENDIX B                                                                                      141


Table                                                                                                Page

     1.1 Categories of Agro-processing by level of transformation of raw materials   3

     1.2. Top ten world producers of peanuts – 2008/2009                  5

     3.1: Population and sample selection for the study                61

     4.1 Socio-economic characteristics of traditional small-scale modern processors in North Central Nigeria                                         73

     4.2 Statistical summary of selected activities of traditional and small-scale modern GNO processors in North Central Nigeria           77

     4.3 Marketing activities of processors in the States and North Central Nigeria 84

     4.4 Generalized log likelihood-ratio tests of the complete technical efficiency of groundnut oil processors in North Central Nigeria        86

     4.5 Maximum likelihood estimates (MLE) of the stochastic frontier production (processing) function for traditional GNO processors in Nasarawa and Benue States    90

     4.6 Maximum likelihood estimates (MLE) of the stochastic frontier production(processing) function for GNO processing in Niger state and North Central Nigeria     91

     4.7 Maximum likelihood estimation (MLE) of the stochastic frontier production (processing) function for modern GNO processors in North Central Nigeria                 92

     4.8 Distribution of technical efficiency estimates for traditional (small – scale) and modern GNO processors in the states and the North Central       93

     4.9 Gross Margin for Traditional and modern GNO processing the States and the Region   95

     4.10 Regression results of the determinants of profitability of traditional GNO processing in Nasrawa, Benue and Niger states                     98

     4.11 Regression results of the profit function of determinants of profitability of traditional and small-Scale modern GNO processing in North Central Nigeria                               99

     4.12 Value added by processing groundnut into oil and cake in North Central Nigeria       100

     4.13 Result of test of differences in value of groundnut seed before and after processing    102

     4.14 Augmented Dickey -Fuller (ADF) Unit root test for price series at level and at first difference                       103

     4.15 Result of the multivariate Johansen test for Co-integration for GNO price series        105

     4.16 Result of the multivariate Johansen test for Co-integration for GNC price series         105

     4.17 Result of factors that determine the level of integration of groundnut oil markets in North   Central Nigeria  107                   

     4.18 Result of factors that determine the level of integration of groundnut cake market in North   Central Nigeria                   107

     4.19 Constraints to groundnut oil processing in the selected states in North Central Zone   111


Figure                                                                                                                                     Page 1.1 Peanut (Arachis hypogea) plant                                                                                           4

 2.1 Illustration of production efficiency                               33

2.2: The generic value chain of Michael E Porter                    44

2.3 Flow chart of Agro-processing value chain             46

 4.1The Groundnut oil processing chain in North Central Nigeria 75



1.1 Background of the Study  

             Processing, storage and marketing of agricultural produce have become increasingly important to the economies of most developing countries, as they have been to industrialized nations at various stages of their development. Due to technical progress, marketable surpluses from agricultural production have grown significantly; while rapid growth in urban populations and rising per capita incomes have enlarged and diversified the demand for processed agricultural products, whether food or raw materials for industries. Perhaps Processing is one of the most important physical functions of agricultural marketing. Olayide & Heady (1982) opined that processing was an important component of agribusiness development, because a large portion of farm production underwent some degree of change between harvesting and final use. More so agro-processing is capable of strongly shaping farm production decisions. It enables quality enhancement, preservation and differentiation of farm production thereby enhancing its marketability. It has also been noted that Agricultural processing activities are small-scale and require low investment capital, hence can easily be undertaken by women (Fellows & Hampton, 1997; RMRDC, 2004; Kadurumba, Kadurumba & Umeh, 2009; FAO, 2011).

            Farm products’ processing play a significant role in the economies of developing countries, where it accounts for between 51% and 60% of value added by manufacturing and between 60% and 70% of total industrial development. Over half of the manufacturing activities in the developing countries of the world consist of agro-industries preserving and transforming agricultural raw materials (Olayide & Heady, 1982; Brown, 1986). FAO (2012) observed that increased urbanization, distance between home and work-place, working women and changes in family cohesion has increased demand for shelf-stable, convenience and value added food.

            Agricultural processing facilities have a strong impact of stimulating consumer demands backward to the farm sector, to keep pace with demand for raw materials supply for processing. Based on farm products, agricultural processing schemes can be sited in areas where other industries will not be viable, as they are more intensive users of domestic rather than imported raw materials due to their local availability (Brown, 1986; Austin, 1992; Brown, Deloitte & Touche, 1994). More importantly, the gains of increased agricultural production through technical progress will be lost if it is not consolidated through the development of economically viable processing sector. So also the skills developed through planning and implementation of agricultural processing and preservation will strengthen stakeholders’ entrepreneurial attributes, thereby enhancing their economic empowerment (FAO, 2011). As a means of mitigating problem of food shortage, FAO (2012) among other issues emphasized adding value or improving the food agro- processing for consumption and the market.

            An efficient marketing system connects producers and consumers, directs efficient allocation of resources in production and distribution of output, while ensuring maximum economic benefits to participants. Conceptually, agricultural processing which is a segment in agricultural marketing, involves the transformation of raw materials to the forms required by the consumer or for the next stage in a manufacturing and distribution chain (Olukosi & Isitor, 1990; Boland, 2009).This entails transforming and preserving agricultural output, through physical and/ or chemical alteration. FAO (2011) defined food processing and preservation as a set of physical, chemical and biological processes that are performed to prolong shelf-life of foods, and at the same time retain the features that determine the quality, such as colour, texture, flavour and especially its nutritional value. Austin (1992) also viewed agricultural processing industry as any enterprise that is involved in the processing of materials of plant or animal origin, which he also described as agro-industry. In the World Bank development activities, the term “agro-industry” covered agro-industrial processes such as grain milling, fruit and vegetable canning, oil seeds crushing, and meat packaging as well as the function of marketing(Brown,1986). Hence it was touted that starting a small rice mill or an oil press marked an early stage in the first steps on the road to industrialization. The nature of processing and level of transformation can vary tremendously ranging from cleaning, grading and boxing fruits and milling to oil extraction, mixing and chemical alteration(Austin,1992), (Table 1.1).

            Groundnut (Arachis hypogea) is known to the Hausas as ‘Gyadda’, to the Ibos as ‘Opapa’, the Yorubas as ‘Epa,’ the Americans as peanuts, and the French as arachides. It is a leguminous crop grown all over the world as an important oil seed crop native to South America. Groundnut is thought to have been introduced to West Africa early in the slave trade by the Portuguese, mainly to supplement the diet of slaves in transit. Its spread into the interior of West Africa was rapid in the eighteenth century. By 1850s it was common in parts of Hausa land of Nigeria and thought to be as important as potatoes in Europe by a British traveler (Hogendorn, 1978). Groundnut is a short herbaceous annual crop that produces its pods inside the soil, (figure 1.1).

            Historically, the Sudan and northern guinea savanna of Nigeria have been the high producing zones. However, the development of several varieties by the Institute for Agricultural Research (IAR), Ahmadu Bello University, Zaria, has led to even higher output in the southern guinea savannah zone, covering the North Central States of Nigeria (RMRDC, 2004). Nigeria was third among the world ten highest producers of groundnut with 3, 835,600 tonnes (unshelled) after China and India in 2007/2008 output year (USDA, 2010), but now fourth with 1.55million metric tonnes (shelled) in the 2008/2009 output season (USDA, 2010), ( Table 1. 2).

Table 1. 2: Top ten world producers of peanuts – 2008/2009
  Country   Production (Million Metric Tonnes)
   People’s Republic of China                                       14.30
 India                                    6.25
 United States                                    2.34
 Nigeria                                    1.55
 Indonesia                                    1.25
 Myanmar                                    1.00
 Sudan                                    0.85
 Senegal                                    0.71
 Argentina                                    0.58
 Vietnam                                     0.50
 World                                   34.43
Source: USDA Foreign Agricultural Service( 2010)

            A mature groundnut pod contains 2-4 kernels (nuts) per pod depending on the variety and is traded decorticated and unshelled. In Nigeria, it is eaten as whole nut, raw, boiled or roasted and also crushed to get the oil and the cake. The oil is known as groundnut oil (GNO) and the residue known as groundnut cake (GNC). Groundnut is rated the third major oil seed of the world after soya bean and cotton (USDA, 2010). Groundnut oil is used for cooking, as salad oil, for canning sardines, and margarine manufacturing (Sharma & Caralli, 2004).The residue after oil extraction is a source of protein for animal feed. In traditional oil extraction method, this residue is fried into a local delicacy known as groundnut cake (GNC) or ‘kulikuli’in Hausa. This is ground and consumed in composite with several local dishes. Elsewhere, groundnut is processed into peanut butter, peanut flour, peanut flakes and many other products.

 Bulk export of groundnuts from Nigeria started to decline in the 1960s in favour of local crushing by mills in and around Kano and else-where. In 1973/74 cropping season, only 35% of the 559,000 metric tonnes purchased by the marketing board was exported. By 1973/74 also a policy decision to discontinue export of groundnuts entirely was put in place to allow for local processing. Any export of groundnut after then was in form of groundnut oil (GNO) or cake (GNC) (Hogendorn, 1978).

            The petroleum oil boom and its consequence upon the agricultural sector saw Nigeria importing groundnut oil. In 1980, about 200,000 tonnes of groundnut products were imported in form of vegetable oil. The 1.95million tonnes output in 1974 dropped to 0.4million tonnes in 1983. Consequently many groundnut processing mills had to close down because of unavailability of the raw material (RMRDC, 2004). However, with the abolition of organized marketing of agricultural products in 1986, the processing and marketing of groundnuts and its products have been left to the private sector (Ingawa, 2004). A survey by RMRDC (2004) showed groundnut output to be 1.98million tonnes for 2003, with greater portion coming from Bauchi and Nasarawa States with 72,000 tonnes and 70,420 tonnes, respectively, and higher estimates for 2004. The rain fed output for Nasarawa State in 2008 was put at 92,450 metric tonnes (NADP, 2009). The soaring demand for groundnut oil in manufacturing and domestic need has kept the pressure on the groundnut crushing industry.

1.2 Statement of the Problem

            Agricultural development policies and programmes have tended to lay emphasis on improving farm productivity, but with less attention on the processing and storage of the resultant output. For instance, 95% of funding of the Consultative Group on International Agricultural Research (CGIAR) in about 20 to 30 years was devoted to production related research activities (Ferris, 1999). Agricultural credit disbursement in Nigeria has also been in favour of crop production with grain alone taking 67% (CBN, 1998). Consequently, the gains of increased agricultural productivity will not be fully realized if not sustained through the development of a viable processing and marketing sector to support the technical progress attained in production. Market forces have instigated greater opportunities for product differentiation and value addition in some respects (Boland, 2009). These include i) increased consumer demand regarding health, nutrition, and convenience food; ii) efforts by food processors to improve their productivity; and iii) technological advances that enable producers to produce what consumers and processors/manufacturers desire. Importantly, improvement of efficiency in the value chain fosters more equitable, transparent and sustainable distribution of benefits to the various stakeholders (FAO, 2011)

            Local processing of groundnut and other sources of oil have still not met the domestic demand for vegetable oil. This is shown in the importation of vegetable oil to supplement local production, with its attendant drain on foreign exchange. The short fall in demand has been estimated at between 300,000 tonnes and 400,000 tonnes per annum. Hence the Presidential Initiative on Vegetable Oil was put in place, to obtain three million tonnes of vegetable oil per annum from five million tonnes of groundnut and to start exportation by the year 2010 (Ojowu, 2004). Consequent upon the above, the challenge of achieving this target was on the groundnut processing industry. Hence this study focused on critical areas in groundnut processing and products marketing chain for appropriate intervention measures to achieve efficiency and increase products availability.

            In agricultural processing schemes as in production, several inputs are involved. Raw material that is the farm produce can constitute 90% of the entire inputs needed depending on the level of processing (Austin, 1992). The efficiencies involved in transforming inputs into desired output need be known (Olayide & Heady, 1982). One of the problems responsible for poor performance of developing countries especially in sub- Sahara Africa in international trade is attributed to low value addition. Consequently, products do not meet international standards, and do not compete favourably in the international trade. Optimization of groundnut oil (GNO) and groundnut cake) GNC processing and marketing, is therefore an ultimate desire.

            It is also understood from the foregoing that there are information and product gaps in the value chain with respect to groundnut oil, all pointing to inefficiency along the value chain. Most technical and economic efficiency studies have concentrated on primary production of crops and livestock with few on processing, for example Okoh, (1999) worked on cassava roots and its processed products. Kadurumba, Kadurumba & Umeh, (2009) also worked on allocative efficiency of traditional palm oil processing in Imo State. Analysis of technical and economic efficiency data from processing through marketing, with its positive effects in the chain, and integration of markets for processed products is crucial, but unavailable. Consequently, this research has addressed the inefficiencies in the value chain, as depicted in capacity under utilization of plants, poor quality products, low quantity of  output from given level of raw material, inadequate price and output information, unattractive profit incentives, and income fluctuations.   

            It has been established that initiating activities from the market – end of the commodity value chain, using improvements in processing and market expansion to provide “demand pull” that benefits raw material producers, especially small- holder farmers, is necessary for sustainable agricultural development (Ojowu, 2006). A survey by RMRDC (2004) revealed Nigerian’s groundnut output of 1.976million tonnes. With the entire crop consumed in Nigeria, examining the performance of the processing segment and hence the downstream segment of groundnut industry will improve efficiency in operations for processors, and entire value chain.

            The synchronous movement over time among prices in different markets has become an important index of efficiency in the markets. For a market system, domestic or foreign, efficient performances of its developmental functions depend on the ease with which price changes and responses are transmitted spatially and temporally within the system. Market integration modeled within the framework of the spatial price equilibrium (SPE) model of inter market linkages in the point space tradition, that is subject to production shocks and general price information is crucial for attainment of efficiency of the markets. The poor infrastructural development in developing countries as Nigeria leaves lots of doubts in the attainment of integration of the markets for agro-industrial products, such as groundnut oil and groundnut cake and hence the much desired efficiency in their marketing systems. Acquah & Owusu (2012) suggested further investigation into influence of external factors such as market infrastructure, government policy and self sufficient production, product characteristics and utilization towards market integration.




Title Page —   —         —         —         —         —         —         —         —         —         —         i

Certification —                      —         —         —         —         —         —         —         —         ii

Dedication — —         —         —         —         —         —         —         —         —         —       iii

Acknowledgement —            —         —         —         —         —         —        iv

Table of Contents — —         —         —         —         —         —         —         —         —         v

List of Tables —        —         —         —         —         —         —         —         —         —      vii

List of Figures —       —         —         —         —         —         —         —         —         —     viii

Abstract —     —         —         —         —         —         —         —         —         —         —        ix

CHAPTER ONE: INTRODUCTION      —         —         —         —         —         —         1

Background Information     –         —         —         —         —         —         1

Problem Statement   —             —         —         —         —         —         —         5

Objective of the Study        —         —         —         —         —         —         —         —         6

Research Hypotheses                  —         —         —         —         —         7      Justification of the Study  —        —         —         —         —         —         —         7  

CHAPTER TWO: LITERATURE REVIEW    —         —         —         —         —         9

Definitions ofRural areas and Urban Areas       —         —         —         —         9

Peri-urban Interface–       —            —         —         —         —         —         —         13

Rural –urban differences and Linkages   —         —         —         —         —         16

Rural-urban Social Interdependence      —         —         —         —         —         17

Rural-urban Environmental Interdependence       —         —         —         19

Rural-urban Economic Interdependence —            —         —         —         21

Constrains of Rural-Urban Interdependence            —         —         —         25

Components of Rural-Urban Interdependence  —         —         —         —         27

Theoretical Framework            —             —     —         —         —         —         33

Analytical Framework             —                  —         —         —         —         —         34

CHAPTER THREE: RESEARCH METHODOLOGY           —         —         —         39

The Study Area         —         —         —         —         —        —         —         39

Sampling Procedure             —      —         —         —         —         —         39

Method of Data Collection —         —    —         —         —         —         —         41

Method of Data Analysis    —         —         —         —         —         —         41

Model Specification            —         —-         —         —         —         —         —         41 

Multiple Regression Model            —         —         —         —         —         —         41

Exploratory Factor Analysis               —         —         —         —         —         42

Probit Model —         —         —           —         —         —         —         43

CHAPTER FOUR: RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONS   —         —         —         45

Socio-Economic Characteristics of the Respondents    —  —         —         45

Age of the Respondents      —         —         —         —                 —         —         45

Gender           —         —         —         —         —               —         —         —         46

Educational Qualification. —         —         —      —         —         —         —         46

Household Size.       —         —         —         —                —         —         —         47

Experience    —         —         —         —         —          —         —         —         —         48

Awareness of Importance of Forest Perceived by Respondents –   –  —     49

Socio-Economic Factors Influencing Income from Fuel wood —    –         52

Test of  Hypothesis 1.          —         —             —         —         —         55

Rural-Urban Interdependence in Terms of Flow of Forest Products 55          

Flow of Forest Related Benefits Between Rural and Urban Areas    57

Factor Constraints to Rural-Urban Flow of Fuel wood —        –         60

Socio-Economic Characteristics of the Respondents Influencing the Decisions to Invest in Forest Development   —           —         65


Summary       —     —         —         —         —         —         —         —         68

Conclusion    —         —         —         —         —         —         —         —         —         —         71

Recommendations   —         —               —         —         —         —         —         72

REFERENCES        —         —         —         —         —         —         —         —         —         74

Appendix A: Questionnaire          —         —         —         —         —         —         82


Table 3.1:  Summary of the Study Location & Sample Chosen — —         40

Table 4.1:  Frequency and Percentage Distribution of the Respondents by Age     —         —         —         —         —         —         —         45

Table 4.2: Frequency and Percentage Distribution of the Respondents by Gender                 —         —         —         —         46

Table 4.3: Frequency and Percentage Distribution of the Respondents by Years of Education   — —         —         —         —         47

Table 4.4: Frequency and Percentage Distribution of the Respondents by Household Population   —         —         —         —         48

Table 4.5: Frequency and Percentage Distribution of the Respondents by Years of Experience            —         —         —         —         49

Table 4.6: Awareness of the Importance of Forests  Perceived by the respondents —-      —         —         —         —         —         51

Table 4.7: Result of the Multiple Regression Analysis for  Socio-Economic Factors of the   Respondents Influencing their Income on Fuel wood     –  54

Table 4.8: Frequency and Percentage Description of Rural-Urban Interdependence in Terms of Flow of Fuel wood      —         —         —         57

Table 4.9: Frequency and Percentage Distribution of Flow of Forest Related Incentives between Rural and Urban Areas            —         —         58

Table 4.10: Varimax Rotated Factors / Constraints to Rural – Urban Flow of Fuel wood in the Study Area           —         —         —         —         64

Table 4.11: Probit Regression Analysis Result of Socio-economic Factors of the Respondents that Influence the Decision to Invest in Forest Development   – – – – – – 67


Fig. 1: Rural–Urban Interdependence on Forest Benefits              —         59


This study examined the rural-urban interdependence on fuel wood in Anambra State, Nigeria using cross-sectional data. The study used purposive and random sampling techniques for the selection of 120 gatherers that constituted respondents for the study. The study employed descriptive and relevant inferential statistics for data analysis. The findings of the study revealed that out of the 14 indicators of the importance of forest examined in the study, the respondents were aware of 11 as importance of forest to people in the study area. The linear regression analysis with an R2 of 0.702 showed that about 70% of the total variations in the income from fuel wood were caused by the specified independent variables in the model. On rural-urban interdependence on forest, (79%) of money and income related benefits flow from urban to rural areas; (88%) of benefits relating to innovative ideas on forestry management and conservation flow from urban to rural areas, about (68%) of forest related market information spread from urban areas to the people in rural areas while about (55%) of awareness of the importance of forest and its related products flow from the urban to rural. About (78%) of benefits in the form of forest related job opportunities spread from rural to urban areas. Using a factor loading of 0.30, the factors that constrain rural-urban flow of fuel wood in the area were:  socio-financial; infrastructural/institutional; and distributive factors. The result of the probit model with an R2 of 0.892 indicated that about (89%) of the total variations in the decision of the respondents to either invest in forest development or not were caused by the specified independent variables in the model. Based on the above findings, it was recommended that government should ensure the provision of good feeder and major road network between rural and urban areas in the state, that for smooth flow of fuel wood, marketing channels should be encouraged in order to hasten distribution of the fuel wood among others.



  1. Background Information

Majority of Nigeria’s poor live in the rural areas and depend directly or indirectly on agriculture and its related activities while owning or controlling few physical productive assets (Amaechina and Eboh, 2006). In other words, the above statement shows that Agriculture (farming, forestry, fishing etc), in Nigeria, is practiced mostly by the poor in the rural areas. Consequently, it is from the rural areas that the products of forest such as fuel wood are shifted to the urban areas, where they are highly demanded. In return, the urban areas, offer some developmental services to the rural areas, and this cooperation creates multipronged linkages between the two areas. For instance, Garrett (2005), stated that rural and urban areas share many degrees of interactions; rural areas provide critical consumption goods for urban consumers, such as food, energy, low-cost land and labour, and unique experiences. Urban areas constitute the end market for rural production; provide professional services; offer diverse job opportunities; and generate resources for public and private investment in rural areas.

It is now widely recognized that there exists various forms of complementarities between the urban and the rural areas in every country. The various ways these two areas complement each other’s activities have created several linkages between them and these linkages have now been known as the rural-urban interdependence (Okpala, 2003).

 The rural-urban interdependence especially on fuel wood portrays the linkages that exist between the two areas by critically considering the importance of fuel wood and the roles they play in supporting lives as well as regional development. Fuel wood, otherwise called firewood is simply wood cut for fuel. It is renewable energy source usually obtained from forest (FAO, 2010). According to World Energy Council (1999) fuel wood is primarily for cooking which accounts for about 60 percent of endorsed energy consumption of households in developing countries. For instance, in low income countries, the consumption of fuel wood energy by households is typically ten times the total consumption of commercial energies for other purposes (Denis, 1987).

Arnold (1998), noted that fuel wood is gotten from the forest. Forest includes all resources that can produce forest products. Products like timber, fuel wood, charcoal, food, fruits, nuts, pharmaceutics, etc; and forest products services like watershed, erosion control and prevention, soil stabilization etc. Forest, which include all resources that can produce forest products, namely, woodland, scrubland, bush fallow, farm-bush, and trees on farms, as well as ecosystem dominated by trees, provide household with income, ensure food security, reduce the vulnerability of shocks and adversities and increase their well being (Arnold, 1998).

Heltberg and Bacon (2003) noted that fetching fuel wood from forest for sales provide considerable amount of employment to people to meet both economic and energy needs of households in rural and urban areas. It allows quick returns on investments and is often practiced in conjunction with agricultural activities.

Fuel wood represents a major item in the energy budget of the people of developing countries especially the rural communities (Akujor, 1988). For instance, about 40 percent of the rural population of Anambra state is involved in profitable gathering of fuel wood for sustainable livelihood in the state. (Anambra State Government, 2007). The environmental and economic importance of fuel wood for household energy source initiate rural-urban cooperation, which create various complementary activities that support regional development.         

The various complementarities existing between rural and urban areas give rise to the development of rural–urban linkage, and the new perspective referred to as the rural–urban linkage development approach, is increasingly becoming the accepted approach (Okpala, 2003). Rural-urban linkage generally refers to the growing flow of public and private capital, people (migration and commuting) and goods (trade) between urban and rural areas. It is important to add to these the flow of ideas, information and diffusion of innovation on the management of the forest for sustainable provision of the resources and durable services for the benefit of both the rural and urban areas.         

The issues included in the summary of UN-HABITAT (2003) resolutions, show that the old orthodoxy of a discrete and dichotomous approach to urban development as distinct from rural development no longer accords with reality, considering the complementary functions and flows of people, capital, goods and services, employment, information and technology between the two areas. This means that the consideration of rural development as completely distinct from urban development is no longer valid because it is now widely recognized that there exists an economic, social, and environmental interdependence between two areas. There is, therefore, the need for a balanced and mutually supportive approach to the development of the two areas. Also, there is a need to promote rural-urban linkage development approach, which posits urban and rural areas as the two ends of the human settlements continuum (Okpala, 2003). Thus, current discussion on the rural dimension of sustainable urban development should emphasize policies that are supportive of urbanization while addressing the challenge of increasing investment in the physical, economic and social infrastructure that are necessary to improve rural productivity and access to market (Tacoli, 1998).

Urban areas are created and further developed by the process of urbanization (Kubisch, 2007). As rapid urbanization of developing countries is inevitable, particularly amidst the phenomenon of globalization, the capital of cities and towns should be strengthened to enable them productively absorb excess rural population and to better manage urban development, while rural development should be based on policies that improve economic and social conditions of rural population and the need for the rural areas to contribute to  national economic growth through increased agricultural and non-agricultural productivity (Holland, 1991).




Title page…………………………………………………………………………..             i

Certification………………………………………………………………………..              ii

Dedication…………………………………………………………………………….             iii

Acknowledgements…………………………………………………………………             iv

Table of contents……………………………………………………………………                        v

List of tables……………………………………………………………………………..                        vi

List of figures……………………………………………………………………..          vii

Abstract……………………………………………………………………………………….          viii


  1. Background of the study…………………………………………………        1
    1. Statement of the problem………………………………………….       4
    1. Objective of the study……………………………………………………….        5

1.4       Hypotheses………………………………………………………………        5

  1.5     Justification………………………………………………………………..         6


2.1       Theoretical Framework……………………………………………………….      7

2.2       The Significance of Fadama Farming in Nigeria…………..   9

2.3       Concept of Efficiency In Agriculture…………………………………     9

2.4       Measurement of Efficiency……………………………………………       10

2.5       Sources of Inefficiency………………………………………………..      11

2.5.1    Causes of Inefficiency…………………………………………………      12

2.6       Conceptual Framework…………………………………………….      12

2.7       Productive Resource…………………………………………………     14

2.8       Concept of Cost and Return……………………………………………..    15

2.9       Approaches to efficiency measurement………………………………………..    15

2.10     Farm Profitability Analysis…………………………………………………    16

2.11     Empirical studies of efficiency and Profitability………………………    17

2.12     Analytical Framework…………………………………………………….   20

2.13     Successes /Performance of the Fadama Program……………….      23


3.1       The Study Area………………………………………….……………      25

3.2       Sampling Procedure…………………………………………………………   26

3.3       Data Collection…………………………….……..……………….     .27

3.4       Data analysis……………………………………………..……………….     27

3.5       Model Specification………………………………………………………………   27

3.5.1    Chow test…………………………………………………………………………….. 27

3.5.2    Gross Margin Analysis…………………………………………………………………   29

3.5.3    Stochastic Frontier Production Function………………………………………   30

3.5.4    Inefficiency Model………………………………………………………….  31

3.6       Hypothesis of study…………………………………………………………   31


4.1       Crop Type And Socio-Economic Characteristics Of The Famers…33

4.1.1    Age of Respondents……………………………………………… 33

4.1.2    Gender of Respondent………………………………………………..  33

4.1.3    Marital Status of the Respondent………………………………………….     33

4.1.4    Household Size of Respondent………………………………………..    33

4.1.5    Educational Level of Respondent  ……………………………     33

4.1.6    Farm Size of Respondent……………………………………………..     35

4.1.7    Farming Experience of the Respondent………………………………..     36

4.1.8    Land Acquisition………………………………………………………..    39

4.1.9    Labour……………………………………………………………….     39

4.2       Chow Test……………………………………………………………….    41

4.2.1    Comparism of the Productivity Measure of Fadama And Nonfadama Farmers in the Study Area…………………………………  43

4.3       Gross Margin Analysis…………………………………………………..   44

4.4       Maximum Likelihood Estimates (MLE) For Parameters of Cobb-Douglas Model……………………………………………………..      46

4.4.1    Determinants of Technical Efficiency Among Fadama And Non Fadama Farmers…………………..         48

4.5       Technical Efficiency Estimate for Fadama And Non-Fadama farmers……  51

4.6       Constraints on Crop Production as Perceived by Farmers…….      53


5.1       Summary……………………………………………………………………….        .56

5.2       Conclusion……………………………………………………………………       58

5.3       Recommendation……………………………………………………………….       59

Reference……………………………………………………………………………………………….       60


Table 3.1:   Total population from Census of Fadama population from ADP register ofFadama Users Group in Oyo state………………..             26

Table 4.1:   Socio economic Characteristics of Farmers…………..            33

Table 4.2:   Socio economic Characteristics of farmers…………             34

Table 4.3:   Socio economic Characteristics of Farmers……………              35

Table 4.4:   Land Acquisition…………………………………………….                        39

Table 4.5:   Labour…………………………………………………            40

Table 4.6:   Chows Break Point Test: Fadama Vs Nonfadama (Soko)…………………..           41

Table 4.7:   Chows Break Point Test: Fadama Vs Nonfadama (Watermelon)………..            41

Table 4.8:   Chows Break Point Test: Fadama Vs Nonfadama ( Maize)………………….          41

Table4.9:  Comparism of the Productivity Measure Of Fadama and Nonfadama Farmers in the Study Area………………………           43

Table 4.10: Output Per Unit Input……………………………………………………………………..               43

Table 4.11: Gross Margin Analysis…………………….          45

Table 4.12: Maximum Likelihood Estimates(MLE) for Parameters of Cobb-Douglas Model………………….          49

Table4.13:  Inefficiency Model……………………………         50

Table 4.14: Technical Efficiency Estimate For Fadama And Nonfadama  Farmers              52

Table 4.15: Constraints………………………………………           54

Table 4.16: Hypothesis………………………………………………          55


Figure 2.1:Farrells Measure of Technical Efficiency………..13


The study investigated the resource use efficiency among Fadama crop farmers in Ibadan Ibarapa agricultural zone of Oyo state, Nigeria. Data were collected from 120 respondents who were randomly selected and interviewed using both interview schedule and questionnaire. The data collected were presented using percentage and means. The findings o revealed that there was no significant difference in the productivity between Fadama and non fadama (soko) farmers, while there was a significant difference between the productivity of Fadama and non fadama (watermelon) farmers as well as Fadama and non fadama maize farmers.The gross margin analysis of Fadama and non Fadama crop farmers revealed that Fadama soko farmers and Fadama maize farmers were more profitable than the non Fadama farmers in the area. For watermelon, the non fadama farmers were more profitable because they had higher output. The findings also revealed that labour, fertilizer, insecticides and seed influenced the technical efficiency of soko farmers. Herbicides and insecticides influenced the technical efficiency of watermelon farmers, while labour, insecticide and seed influenced the technical efficiency of maize farmers. The positive coefficient for age variable implies that the older farmers were more technically inefficient than theyounger ones. Also negative coefficient for education implies that the farmers level of technicalinefficiency declined with more education. With regards to farmer-specific factors, especially education, there is the need for policyto promote formal education as a means of enhancing efficiency in production over the long-term period. This is because it would enable farmers make better technical decision and also help in allocatingtheir production inputs effectively. In the short-term, informal extension education could beeffective, especially when targeted at farmers who have had limited formal educationalopportunities.The coefficient of farming experience was estimated to be negative as expected andstatistically significant at the 5-percent level. The implication is that farmers with more years offarming experience tend to be more efficient in crop production. It is possible that such farmers gained more years of farmingexperience through “learning by doing,” and thereby becoming more efficient.The study also found that farmers under Fadama harvested more per unit ofland of output of crop than nonfadama farmers for soko and maizeand this confirms the hypothesis that programme intervention has the capacity to succor farm production problems while accruing more income to farmers.

                                                               CHAPTER ONE


1.1       Background Information

Smallholder agriculture is the dominant occupation of rural Nigerians which is mainly rain-fed. Yet, Nigeria has a potential comparative advantage in the production of a variety of fresh and processed high value crops, especially vegetables during the dry season and livestock product (meat and milk) through out the year. This is because the country is endowed with underground and surface water reserves, rich pastures and favourable agro-ecological conditions in the country’s low-lying plains with alluvial deposit called fadama.

            Agriculture constitutes a significant sector of Nigeria’s economy. The sector is significant in terms of employment generation, contribution to Gross Domestic Product (GDP) and until early 1970, agricultural exports were the main sources of foreign exchange earnings (Amaza and Olayemi, 2002). During the 1960s, the growth of the Nigerian economy was derived mainly from the agricultural sector. However, in more recent years,there has been a marked decline in the performance of Nigeria’s agriculture. National Gross Domestic Product (GDP), declined from 62% in the 1960s to 47.9% in the 1970s, down to a low 19% in 1980’s, but following the SAP, this share was turned around in the 1990’s rising steadily to 38% in 1994, 39.2% in 1997 and 41.3% in 2000 (Ndubuizu, 2003). The agricultural sector’s changing share of GDP is partly a reflection of the relative productivity of the sector.

             Farm incomes are generally very low due to declining productivity(World Bank, 1996). The low farm income, resulting from declining productivity in the agricultural sector, could be attributed to the dependence on rainfall for production in some parts of the country, the scarcity of which becomes a critical limiting factor to all-year-round cultivation.In addition, increased agricultural production is necessary to meet the needs of the increasing population.Given this situation, it is quite important for resource to be used at their most efficient levels. Resource productivity is thus an important matter in determining the sustainability of agricultural production. This cannot be attained without recourse to supplementary irrigation for the major food production areas of the country (Adeolu and Taiwo, 2004), hence, the need for the initiation and implementation of the National Fadama Development Project (NFDP) in the country.

‘Fadama’ is a Hausa name for ‘wetlands’, and means ‘Akuro’ or ‘Abata’ in the Yoruba language. These are low-lying flood plains with easily accessible shallow ground water. Though the surfaces of these flood plains become dry during the dry seasons, appreciable amounts of water can be trapped from shallow aquifers that abound around the plains (leading to the development of tube wells by drilling). The water obtained from the tube wells is used for the development of small-scale irrigation schemes to boost dry season crops production (NFDO, 2007)

Fadama is an integrated approach which came into being as a result of the failure of agriculturalproductivity, to achieve rural development and food security objectives of government.Fadama farmers are those who utilize the resources provided by fadama on a sustatainable basis. They benefit under the project by Community Driven Development approach, through the preparation of Local Development Plan. The Community Driven Development (CDD) approach is a bottom-top approach for the development of agricultural enterprise, there is a high sense of belonging by the beneficiaries because the communities take responsibility for designing, implementing, operating and maintaining sub-projects prioritized in their Local Development Plans.

The National Fadama Development Project is a major instrument for achieving the Government’s poverty reduction objective in the rural areas of Nigeria. First National Fadama Development project (NFDP I) was designed in the early 1990s to promote simple and low-cost improved irrigation technology under the World Bank. The first phase of the National Fadama Development Project (NFDP1) was between 1993-1999.

The sector goal is to reduce poverty by improving the living conditions of the rural poor, contribute to food security and increase access to rural infrastructure. The project objective is to enhance agricultural production, productivity and value addition for smallholders and rural entrepreneurs in Fadama areas on a sustainable basis. The main features of the project are to support the provision of marketing infrastructure, empowering stakeholders, improving mechanism for conflict resolution, support establishment of rural and non- farm enterprises, support improved management and increase food production in the Fadama areas.

            The Project enables Fadama Resource Users to adopted output enhancing techniques and more effective marketing practices, it finances Fadama road improvement and rehabilitation, service centers, market infrastructure , drainages of boreholes and cold rooms. At the completion of the project’s first phasein 2001, the Nigerian government adopted new rural development strategies to address most of the discovered flaws and constraints. The new strategy, which was in line with the African Development Bank’s strategic plan, had as its focus a number of approaches to development. The plan stressed the need for consistency, sustainability, and greater equity in the access to benefits of the land resources in Fadama areas of the country. Consequently, the Bank found it necessary to agree to the Nigerian government’s request for funding phase II of the project, not only as a follow-up to Phase I but also to expand it in scope and size (NFDP Appraisal Report, 2003).

            The second National Fadama Development Project (NFDP II) is an improvement over the key lessons learnt from the first phase of Fadama Development Project. The project facilitates access to financial resources to support small scale producers and other fadama user groups to diversify their production and incomes.The components of the project are capacity building, rural infrastructure investment, pilot capital asset acquisition support, demand driven advisory service and project management. It is funded multilaterally by the World Bank, Federal Government of Nigeria, State Government, participating Local Government Councils and the Benefiting Communities.(  Review of report of Fadma II sub projects in Oyo state 2006)

One way peasant farmers can achieve sustainable agricultural development is to raise the productivity of their farm by improving efficiency within the limits of the existing resource base and available technology. Efficient use of various inputs is an important part of sustainability (Harwood, 1987) which implies either fewer inputs to produce the same level of output or higher output at the same level of inputs. An increase in efficiency in food crop production could lead to an improvement in the welfare of farmers and consequently a reduction in their poverty level and food insecurity.

            Over the years the production pattern of crop has been fluctuating due to government intervention and the environmental conditions under which production take place. This fluctuation in production output has had serious implications not only in farmers income but also in the ability to use available resource efficiently. It is therefore necessary to examine and establish a trend in the use of farm inputs so as to be able to evolve policies that would help in increasing the trend of production and also ensuring stability in the farmers income through an effective use of the limited farm resources.





Title Page                                                                                                   i

Certification                                                                                               ii

Dedication                                                                                                 iii

Acknowledgement                                                                                     iv

Table of Contents                                                                                      vi

List of Tables                                                                                             x

Abstract                                                                                                     xii     


  1. Introduction                                                                                    1
    1. Background Information                                                                1
    1. Problem Statement                                                                         4
    1. Objectives of the Study                                                                    6
    1. Research Hypotheses                                                                      6
    1. Justification of the Study                                                                6


  • Literature Review                                                                             9
    • Trend in Horticultural Plants Production in Nigeria                    9
    • Types of Ornamental Plants Produced in the Study Area      10
    • Contributions of Horticulture to Economies                                 11
    • Importance of Raising Horticultural Plants in Nursery         13
    • Starting a Commercial Nursery                                                     14
    • Production Systems and Schedules                                              15
    • Production Methods                                                                       16
    • The Concept of Efficiency in Agricultural Production              18
    • Sources of Inefficiency in Resource Use                                        20
    • The Concept of Production and Production Function              20
    • Productive Resources                                                                     21
    • The Concept of Costs and Returns                                                23
    • Methods for the Study of Production Activities                             24

2.13.1 Production Function Analysis                                                      24

2.13.2 Functional Funds                                                                          25

2.14  Gross Margin and Benefit Cost Analysis                              27

2.15  Review of Theoretical Framework of Productivity and Resource Use Efficiency                                      28

2.16  Empirical Studies in Resource Use Productivity                           30 Choice of Appropriate Econometric Technique                             32


3.0 Research Methodology                                                                       34

3.1 The Study Area                                                                                   34

3.2 Sampling Procedure                                                                           34

3.3 Data Collection                                                                                   35

3.4 Data Analysis                                                                                      35

3.5 Model Specification                                                                            36

  • Socio-Economic Characteristics                                                    36
    • Farm Budgeting Technique                                                            36
    • Production Function Analysis                                                        39
    • Marginal Value Productivity                                                           40


4.0 Results and Discussions                                                          42

4.1    Socio-Economic Characteristics of Ornamental Plants

Producers                                                                                        42

  • Gender of Respondents                                                                   42
    • Age of Respondents                                                                         42
    • Marital Status of Respondents                                                       43
    • Household Size of Respondents                                                     43
    • Education Status of Respondents                                                  44
    • Main Occupation of Respondents                                                  45
    • Experience in Ornamental Production                                          45
    • Land Acquisition                                                                             46
    • Source of Funding                                                                           46

4.1.10 Membership of Cooperatives                                                        47

4.1.11 Size of Nursery                                                                     48

4.2 Sales of Ornamental Plants                                                                48

4.3 Period of Sales of Ornamental Plants                                                49

4.4 Profitability of Ornamental Plants Production                                  50

  • Costs in Ornamental Plants Production                                        50
    • Revenue from Ornamental Plants Production                  52

4.5    Costs and Returns Analysis                                                           53

4.6    Production Function Analysis                                                        54

4.6.1 Regression Statistics for Ornamental Plant Production               54

4.6.2 Regression Analysis of Socio-Economic Factors                           58

  • Marginal Analysis And Resource Productivity Of Ornamental Plants                                               59
  • Tests of Hypotheses                                                                         62


  • Summary, Recommendations, Conclusion                                   66

5.1 Summary                                                                                            66

5.2 Recommendation                                                                                68

5.3 Conclusion                                                                                         69

     References                                                                                            70


Table                                                                                                           Page

4.1 Distribution of Respondent Based on Gender                                 42

4.2 Age Distribution of Respondents                                                       43

4.3 Marital Status of Respondents                                                 43

4.4 Household Size of Respondents                                                         44

4.5 Education Status of Respondents                                                     44

4.6 Main Occupation of Respondents                                                     45

4.7 Experience in ornamental plants production                                   46

4.8 Acquisition of Land by Respondents                                        46

4.9 Respondents Sources of Funding                                                     47

4.10 Distribution of Respondents According to                                      47

4.11 Size of Nursery of Respondents                                                       48

4.12 Order of Use of Ornamental Plants                                                 49

4.13 Period of Sales of Ornamental Plants                                              49

4.14 Variable and Fixed Costs of Ornamental Plants Production         51

4.15 Revenue from Ornamental Plants Production                                53

4.16 Summary of Regression Statistics for Ornamental Plants             56

4.17 Summary of Regression Statistics for Socio-economic Variables       58

4.18 Marginal Analysis of Inputs Used by Ornamental Plants Producers 62

4.19 Test of Hypotheses of Socio Economic Variables                           63

4.20 Test of Hypothesis of Independent Variables (Inputs)                   64


This study was undertaken to analyze resource productivity in ornamental plants production within Jos metropolis of Nigeria. The study covered Jos North and Jos South local government areas. The specific objectives include: identifying the effect of socio-economic factors on resource productivity, determining costs and returns, and resource productivity in ornamental plants production.

An extensive literature review was carried out to provide an in-depth knowledge of the study. The cluster sampling procedure was used because the nurseries are located in clusters. Data was collected from the nursery owners. Six respondents from each cluster and five clusters from each local government area were selected using the simple random sampling method at each sampling stage. Each of the two local government areas was administered the 30 questionnaires making a total of 60 respondents.

Results revealed that 60% of respondents were aged between 41 – 50, while 80% had some years of tertiary education. Also 60% of the respondents’ nurseries were less than a quarter of an acre. About 40% had horticulture as their primary occupation, while 40% and 20% had business and civil service respectively as their primary occupation. The ornamental plants producers made a net farm income of N351,196 per annum and a naira invested gave returns of N1.10.

The regression analysis gave positive coefficients for labour, cuttings, pesticides, water, top soil and polythenes which were significant (P<0.05). However, manure, fuel transportation and annual rent had negative coefficient. Also the regression coefficient of socio economic variables such as education, age, nursery size were positive and significant. Household size had a positive coefficient but was insignificant (P<0.05). Ornamental production experience had a negative coefficient and was insignificant

The ratio of marginal value product to marginal factor cost showed that cuttings, pesticides, water, top soil, and polythene was greater than one, while that of manure, labour, fuel, transportation and annual rent less than one. The implication is that the former inputs were used below the economic optimum while the latter were used above the economic optimum. Also, ornamental plants producers’ profit could be increased by increasing the use of labour, cuttings, pesticide, water, top soil, and polythenes while decreasing the use of fuel, manure transportation and annual rent.

The study showed that ornamental plants business is profitable. It could serve as supplemental source of income. The study showed that only 30% of ornamental plants producers belong to registered cooperatives. It is recommended that they organized themselves into cooperatives in order to access funds, inputs and information on current trends in ornamental plants production. Government on it its side should consider ornamental plants producers in the allocation of farm inputs. Also, special sites should be a assigned for ornamental plants production in new government layout. Ornamental plants production needs to be encourage and sustained as it is a profitable venture. Producers need to pay more attention towards efficient utilization of resources. Agricultural policies that favour this venture will be of great importance to ornamental plants producers.


            1.0    Background Information.

          Horticulture is the branch of plants agriculture concerned with intensively cultured plants used directly by man as fresh foods, esthetics and medicine (Uzo, 1997). Ornamental plants are plants grown either for colourful flowers or decorative leaves. They include a wide range of herbaceous annuals and perennials extensively employed in landscaping for esthetic purposes of colour, fragrance and enhancing serenity in and around the home, public places such as recreation areas, tourist sites and cities. Ornamental plants also modify the micro climate by providing shade, reducing wind speed, helping to increase humidity and absorbing carbon dioxide and releasing oxygen (Evans, 1999). Ornamental plants provide sanctuary for birds, insects and numerous other animals. Miscellaneous uses include the offer of cut flowers as gifts to people, friends sportsmen and women and national leaders. In Nigeria, flowers are used to beautify homes. In countries like India, flowers are used to adorn women’s hair and decorate pictures of gods, saints and deceased loved ones (National Horticulture Board, 1995).

The major facets of ornamental plants include production of flowers and potted plants, growing of flower bulbs and corms including subsequent arrangement and delivery. Each facet is highly specialized with definite requirements, facilities and technical knowledge (Edmond, 1997). This highly specialized industry involves the growers who produce flowers for wholesale marketers and retail florists who market to the public and contribute occasional services such as packaging and delivery. Current buyers of these plants include individuals who buy to beautify their houses, landscape architects who buy on behalf of institutions for landscaping purposes and hoteliers who buy cut flowers for their customers.

The practice of horticultural plants cultivation in Jos can be traced to as early as 1930s (David, 1999). This was as a result of the activities of tin miners that came to the area under the auspices of Amalgamated Tin Miners of Jos. These Europeans came mainly from British Isles with their wives and siblings. Their wives were quite keen on gardening as their favourite pastime in the absence of regular jobs. These women started gardens at home where they had varieties of imported flowers from their country side. Much later, these Europeans developed interest in some of the locally available fruits, shrubs and hedges. The Europeans started the horticultural society.

Later in the early 1970’s, Nigerians also became interested in the art of flower gardening, encouraged by the Horticultural society during their flowers shows. The government gardens soon took off with Bukuru and Naraguta gardens which were established to encourage gardening, tree planting, and afforestation culture (David, 1999). The Plateau Urban Development Board now known as the Jos Metropolitan Board encouraged the establishment of privately owned commercial gardens in the 1990’s. The idea was for these gardens to occupy vacant plots along the major roads within the city thereby holding the land in trust and also beautifying the environment (David, 1999).

Horticulture in Nigeria gained an impetus by a commitment of $43,433,260 to the National Horticultural Research Institute Ibadan in form of grant for research into the genetic improvement of the plants between 1995 and 1998. Hitherto, the federal government’s financial commitment to horticulture has been low to the tune of 1.2 percent of total allocations for food crop production (Babalola, 1996)

Commercially, there is very active and visible trade in horticultural products which engage and provide employment for some people. Although the actual volume and value of horticultural crops produced and traded are unknown, they are enormous, and contribute substantially to Gross Domestic Product (GDP). In 1995, the value of agricultural output, made up of crops, livestock, forestry, and fishing amounted to N39.88 billion and constituted 38.6 percent of GDP (Central Bank of Nigeria, 1995). The contributions of horticultural crops were estimated at N2 billion, which was much more than forestry (N1.34 billion) and fishing (N1.23 billion).

Nigerians are gradually becoming aware of the need for a beautiful, manageable and sustainable environment. The high intensity of a flourishing horticultural business in metropolitan centres attests to this fact. However, according to Fawusi (1996), the genetic base of our ornamental production is dangerously narrow, whereas, a lot of plants are awaiting collection and domestication in our forest. Kenya and Cote d’ Ivoire are major exporters of cut flowers into the French market, yet Nigeria has more potential than these countries. Horticultural crops require intensive care. It is therefore necessary to have information on cost of production and returns per naira invested to serve as a basis for motivating farmers to invest in horticultural crops production (Adekunle and Oladoja, 1996).




Title Page                                                                                                                    i

Certification                                                                                                                ii

Dedication                                                                                                                  iii

Acknowledgement                                                                                                      iv

Table of Contents                                                                                                       v

List of Tables                                                                                                              viii

List of Acronyms                                                                                                        ix

Abstract                                                                                                                      x 

CHAPTER ONE: INTRODUCTION                                                                    1

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

CHAPTER TWO: LITERATURE REVIEW                                                      9

2.1Deforestation in Nigeria                                                                                        9

2.2 Nigeria Forestry Policy                                                                                         11

2.3 Forest Management and Conservation in Nigeria                 13

2.4 Sustainable Forest Management in Nigeria                 16

2.5 The Concept of Participatory Forest Management        17

2.6 Rational For Participatory Forest Management                       18

2.7 Incentives for Local People in Participatory Forest Management      21

2.8 The Relevance of Indigenous Knowledge                                       23

2.9 Theoretical Framework                                                                 25

2.10 Analytical Framework                                                        27

CHAPTER THREE: METHODOLOGY                                                             31

3.1 Study Area                                                                                                            31

3.2 Sample Procedure                                                                                                 32

3.3 Method of Data Collection                                                                                   33

3.4 Method of Data Analysis                                                                                     33

3.5 Model Specification                                                                                              33

3.5.1 Probit Model                                                                                                      33

3.5.2 Likert Scale Rating Techniques                                                         35

3.5.3 Contingent Valuation Method                                                  35

CHAPTER FOUR: RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONS                                         37

4.0 Socio-economic Characteristics of the Respondents            37

4.1.1 Age Distribution of Respondents                                          37

4.1.2 Sex of Respondents                                                                                           38

4.1.3 Educational Level of Respondents                                38

4.1.4 Annual Income of Respondents                                             39

4.1.5 Occupation of Respondents                                                       39

4.1.6 Respondents Household Size                                            40

4.1.7 Respondent Usage of Forest                                                                             40

4.1.8 Environmental Problem                                                          41

4.1.9 Types of Forest                                                                                                  42

4.1.10 Deforestation Pattern                                                    43

4.1.11 Intensity of Forest Management Practices                 44

4.1.12 Factors Affecting Respondent Perception to the Use of PFMS   47

4.1.13 Probit Model Result on Perception                                     48

4.1.14 Probit Model Result for WTP (Variable Explanation)     50

4.1.15 Empirical Analysis for WTP                                                 51

4.1.16 Constraints to Establishment of PFMS                                52


5.1 Summary of Findings                                                                                           56

5.2 Conclusion                                                                                                            57

5.3 Recommendation                                                                                                  58

REFERENCES                                                                                                        60

Appendix I: Questionnaire                                             68


Table                                                                                                                          Page4.1Frequency distribution of respondent according to age   37

4.2 Frequency distribution of respondent with regard to sex      38

4.3 Frequency distribution of respondent according to educational status    38

4.4 Frequency distribution of respondents according to annual income level     39

4.5 Frequency distribution of respondents with regard to occupation     39

4.6 Frequency distribution of respondents according to household size     40

4.7 Frequency distribution of respondents with regard to forest usage   40

4.8 Frequency distribution of respondents by types of environmental problem  41

4.9 Distribution of respondents by type of forest               42

4.10 Frequency distribution of respondents by deforestation pattern 43

4.11 Result of Intensity of forest management practices                       46

4.12 Variable explanation for respondents perception                        47

4.13 Probit model result on perception of PFMS                    48

4.14 Variable explanation for WTP for PFMS                            50

4.15 Empirical analysis for WTP for PFMS                             51

4.16 Constraints to the use of PFMS                                                              53


PFMS        –                             Participatory forest management structure

NTFP        –                             Non Timber Forest Products

FAO         –                              Food and Agriculture organization

WTP        –                              Willingness to Pay

IK            –                              Indigenous Knowledge

CVM      –                               Contingent valuation model


Many forest reserves in the country were originally set up in recognition of the importance of forest. However, management of existing forest land is appalling. In recent years, there have been high rate of deforestation in Bayelsa state. There is therefore a need for proper management of forest and its resources. The study analysed the potential for the use of participatory forest management structure in the conservation of forest resources in Bayelsa state using a sample size 150 respondents that were obtained using a multistage sampling technique. Three out of the eight local government areas in Bayelsa state (Ogbia, Yenagoa and Ekeremor) each reflecting the three agricultural zones. Interviewed schedules and structured questionnaire were administered to elicit information from the respondents. Data gotten from both primary and secondary sources were analysed using descriptive and inferential statistics which include: frequencies, means, percentages, probit regression model and likert rating scale. As regard the socio economic characteristics of the respondent, the result shows that majority  (66.25%) were male while most(40.8%) of them were in the age bracket of 41 – 50 years, closely followed by 31 – 40 years (23.1%), Also, household size was majorly(40%) in the bracket of 5 – 8, with a mean household size of 7. Educationally, majority (47.0%) attended primary school, while 5.4% attended higher education. The results reveal that the fresh water swamp forest represent the highest concentration of forest in the locality. This was closely followed by mangrove forest (23.1%) and the riparian forest (15.4%). Most of the management practices were not observed, thus leaving the forest in a grave situation. However findings reveal that traditional oriented management was actively practiced although in a limited proportion. As regard the perception of the local people to the use of P.F.M.S for forest management, four out of the nine variables used in the probit regression showed positive and significant contribution to the variation in the perception of the use PFMS.  These include; educational status, occupation, benefit from forest and as mechanism for conflict resolution. These factors help in explaining the variability in the perception of the people in the use of PFMS. The other variable; environmental problem and annual income were positive but not significant. In terms of the willingness to pay, three of the eight variables tested showed positive coefficient and were significant. These were, age, forest benefit, and gender. The likert rating scale indicates that some constraints such as lack of funds, insufficient education/publicity, lack of political will, corruption, lack of well trained staffs came out top in the ranking of challenges or constraints to the establishment of PFMS. It was therefore recommended that traditional resources management should be promoted more so as it gives the local people the opportunity to partake in forest management and also the diversification of the economy so as to divert the attention of the rural dwellers on the excessive exploitation of the forest.  




            The term forest embraces a large variety of landscapes vegetation formation and ecosystem (Obot, 1997).  Forest contains a number of natural resources which develop their distinctive value, when wisely used and harnessed in a sustainable way or acquire environmental threat characteristic when over exploited. Nigeria forest, like elsewhere in the world are important for the ecosystem services they provide, including watershed protection, climate control, and animal species (Nigerian environmental analysis 2002). This forest also provides valuable commercial timber sources and other commercially harvested products such as resin, spices, rattan and many more. The rural populace also benefit largely from forest resources as a source for fuel wood and building materials and for a myriad of non tree forest products (NTFP) with various uses as food, flavouring, medicines, various domestic use and also in some case for their traditional values.

            Before independence, the available forest resources could adequately cater for the country’s requirement, both to meet the export and local consumption. However, after independence, there was pressure on the forest resources to generate income to support the young economy and meet the need of the ever increasing population (EC-FAO 2003). The bulk of the forest and forest resources that remained hitherto relatively undisturbed until the 1980, have been lost in the last two decades. In 1992, forest accounted for only 9.61% (8.874.225.ha) of Nigeria’s total land area measuring about 923,768,000ha. Okonta (1998) noted that during the period 1980, it was estimated that 43.48% of the total forest ecosystem had been converted to other uses as a result of human activities. Current estimates put the rate of forest depletion at 3.3% per year (FAO, 2005). Based on this, it has been estimated that the country will lose all her forest by the year 2020. FORMECU (1994) projected the yield from the forest estates between the year 2000 and 2010, putting it at a total of 8273m2 for 2000 and 7316m2 for 2010, implying that less wood resources would be available from the forest in the future if the current deforestation rate is sustained. Forest production has fallen, creating an imbalance between supply and demand. From its previous status as a significant exporter of forest products Nigeria has become a net importer (Status of tropical forest management, 2003). The continued loss of Nigeria’s tropical forest has taken its toll on the county’s biodiversity resources. Nigeria has a diverse collection of flora and fauna, including 274 species of mammals, 830 species of birds and 5,081 plant species out of which 0.14% of the animal species is threatened and 0.22% is endangered. Similarly, the estimated 70% of the rural poor are in great danger as it has been established that the poorest often suffer most from the consequence of environmental degradation as a result of their immediate dependence on the natural resource base for their necessities (Soussan, 1998).

In an attempt to bring to a halt, the deplorable state of forestry in Nigeria, forest reserves were constituted in the early twenties and communities in the past never tempered with the reserves as they obeyed and respected the law that forbade any form of encroachment into the reserves (Amika, 1993). This was partly due to low population density. But with increased local population, migration, land hunger, cash squeeze, food scarcity and awareness, people’s attention turned to the forest. Together, the national parks cover about 22,592 km2, which is about 2.5% of the country’s landmass. They are owned and managed exclusively by the federal government hence, leaving no room for local participation. However,  Ezealor (2002),  Aminukano and Marguba (2002),  stated that protection of habitats and species has long been practiced by various cultures in Nigeria through their preservation of groves and other distinctive habitats for religious, ceremonial and hunting purposes. Marguba (2002), further reported that Nigeria’s first modern forest reserves were created in 1887. The first forestry act enacted in 1937 established the forest reserve system under the state government. A more comprehensive forest law was latter established in 1956 – the law of preservation and control of eastern Nigeria. By 1950 forest reserves covered about 8% of the country’s land area and gradually rose to 11% by 1980. Thereafter, an apparent inability to formulate policies and implement led to the current situation whereby even protected areas are being de-reserved. Also these forest reserves have been seriously neglected and received little or no improvement in terms of investment and management.

            Failure of most conservation schemes necessitates scholars and policy makers’ reconsideration of the role of community in resource management, as there is a real danger of worsening social conflict and degradation fueled by over exploitation of natural resources. The tropical timber organization defines sustainable forest management as the process of managing forest land to achieve one or more clearly specified objectives of management with regards to the production of a continued flow of desired forest products and services without undue reduction in its inherent values and future productivity and without undue undesirable effects on the physical and social environment (Babier, 2005).

            Current discourse governing community based conservation policy emphasizes the role of community in bringing about decentralization, meaningful participation and effective conservation (Fisher, 1999). Hence there is need to evolve resource management mechanism that could arrest the decline in future of resources and for the mechanism to attained full objectives, they must be community based. Feyerabrand and Taronwski (2005), argued that participatory management is a partnership among social actors with legitimate interest, capacities and commitment regarding the natural resources of the state with term of partnership specifying management factors of all the component body.  

            In Nigeria, Enugu and Cross River States have taken giant steps to combat deforestation by establishing a forest management committee involving local communities in the management of reserve areas. Wily (2002), stated that the first initiative was the Ekuri community initiative which began in 1992 in Cross River State. Both reserved and unreserved forest is getting involved in community forest initiative.

Ogar (2008), asserted that the concept of participatory forest management committee in Cross River State is yielding significant results. However, the same cannot be said of Bayelsa State which bestrides much of Africa’s largest wetland, and Nigeria’s thriving petroleum business but has no formalized properly managed forest or wood industry (Azaki, 2003). The forests are extensive and are often regarded as inexhaustible with the result that little attention is given to conserving of these resources. Ogon (2006), states that natural resources found in the region presently suffers from the well known “tragedy of the Commons” as the right of access is collectively shared creating room for competition without rules of engagement. It has been estimated that about 50% of mangroves in Nigeria have been lost as a result of deforestation (World Resources, 1990).  Hence, there is need for government and other stakeholders to work together so as to salvage the forest from total extinction.



                                                    TABLE OF CONTENTS

         Title-  –  – –  –  –   –   –   –  –   –  –  –   –  –  –  –  –   –  –  –  –  —  –  –   –  –  –  –  –  –   –   –  – – i

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

         Dedication –  –  –  –  –  – –  –  –  –   –  –   –  —   –  –    –  –  –  –  –   –  –  –  –  -iii

         Acknowledgement –   —  –  –  –  –  –  –  –  –  –  –  – –  –  –  –  –  –  –  –  –  –  –  –  iv

         Abstract –  –  –  –  –  –  –  –  –  –  –   –  –  –  –  –  –  –  –  –  –  –  –  –  –  –  –  –  –  –  – –  –  – – – -v

         Table of Content –   —  –  –  –  –  –  –  –  –  –  –  –  –  –  –  –  – –  –  –  –   –  –  – –  –  -iv

         List of Tables

Chapter One: Introduction

1.0       Introduction    –             –           –           –           –           –           –           –        1

1.1       Background Information           –           –           —          –           –           –        1

1.2       Problem Statement      –                  –           –           –           –           –        4

1.3       Objectives of the Study          –        –           –           –           –           –        6

1.4       Research Hypotheses  –           –         –           –           –           –           –        6

1.5       Significance of the Study       –                  –           –           –           –        7

Chapter Two: Review of Related Literature

2.1       Forest Conservation and Management         –           –           –           –        9

2.2       Current Status of Forestry Policy and Practice in Nigeria —    –      10

2.2.1    Rational for Forest Conservation and Management   –      –     12

2.2.2    Concept of Participatory Forest Management            –                  13

2.2.3    Common Terms used in Community Forest Management         15

2.3       Community Based Participation and Management    –          17

2.3.1    Approaches to Community /Participatory Forest Management –   17

2.3.2    Property Right Regimes over Natural Resources          –           –      19

2.3.3    Community Based Forest Management and Conservation in Nigeria      20

2.4       Stake Holders Participation in Forest Management in Nigeria –    23

2.4.1    Community Forest Management Committees (FMCs) in Nigeria     24

2.4.2    Why Community Forest Management Committees   –            –  25

2.5       Theoretical Framework                    –           –           –      –  –    –  28

2.6       Analytical Framework            —           –           –           –           –      30

Chapter Three: Research Methodology

3.0       Research Methodology           –  

3.1       The Study Area           –           –         –           –           –           –           –      33

3.2       Sampling Procedure    –           –           –           –           –           –           –           –      34

3.3       Method of Data Collection     –                 –           –           –           –      34

3.4       Method of Data Analysis       –                   –           –           –           –      34

3.5       Model Specification    –           –         –           –           –           –           –      34

3.5.1    Likert Scale Technique ……      –           –           –           –           –      34

3.5.2    Probit Model –     –     –     –       –     –     –      –           –           –           –      35

3.5.3   Student t-test               –           –             –           –           –           –           –      36

3.5.4   Student t-test     –  –  –  –  –  –  – –  –  –  –  –   –   –   –   –   –   –   –  –   –   –   –  –    36

Chapter Four: Results and Discussion

4.1      Forest Management Committee Structure, Composition and Management –   –   -38

4.1.2   Nature of Activities of FMCs  –  –  –   –   –  –  –  –  –  –   –  –  –  –  –  –  –  – 40

4.1.3   Forest Administration  –  –  –  –  –  –  –  –  –  –  –  –   –   –  – –  –  –  –  –  –  –  –  –   41

4.1.4   Nature of Forest Management in the Study Area and Access to the Forest – – –  –  43

4.2      Intensity of Forest Management Practices in Communities with FMCs and Communities without FMCs ——- 44

4.3     Comparison of Household Income from Forestry between Communities with FMC and those without FMC 46

4.4     Factors Influencing the Perception of the Local People as Regard the use of FMCs for Forest Management 49

4.4.    Empirical Result –   –   –   –   –   –   –   –   –   –  –   –   –   –   –   –   –   –  –  –  –  50

4.5   Constraints Encountered by FMCs-  –   –  –  —   –   –   –   –  –  –   –   –  –   –  –   –  52

Chapter five: Summary, Conclusion and Recommendation

5.0   Summary, Conclusion and Recommendation –  –   –  –  –  –  –  –  –  –  – –   55

5.1   Summary  –   –   –  –   –    –    –    –   –  –  –   –     –   –   –   –   –   –   –  –  –   –   –   –    55

5.2   Conclusion – – – – – –   —   – – – – – – – – – –   –   –  –  –  –  –  –  –  –   –  –   –  –  56

5.3   Recommendation  – –  –  –  –   –  –   –   –   –  –   – – –   –   –  –  –  – 57



                                                             List of Tables                                                  

4.1    Characteristics of FMCs as given by the Leaders-  –  –  –   –   –   –   –     39

4.2    Activities of FMCs as given by the Leaders-   –   –   –  –  –   –  –   –       40

4.3    Responses of the Leaders on the Effectiveness of Forest Management Activities 42

4.4    Opinion of Respondents as Regard the Type of Forest Management, Access to the Forest and Membership of FMC in the Communities

4.5    Likert scale result on the intensity of forest management activities 45   

4.6    Student t-test Result on the Management Activities Practices in Communities with FMCs and those without FMCs — – -46

4.7   Responses relating to income derived from forestry/forest products 48

4.8   T-test Result on Comparing Household Income from Forestry in FMC and Non FMC Communities    – –  –  –  –  –   49

4.9:  Description of Explanatory Variables used in the Perception Model 50

 4.10  Result of Binary Probit Regression Analysis –  –   –  –  –  –  –  –  –    -52

4.11 Ranking of Constraints Encountered by FMCs.  —  –  –  –  –  –  –  – –  53

                                                      List of Appendices

Appendix 1.  Interview questions administered to the leaders.

Appendix 2. questionnaire  administered to the study respondents

Appendix 3. Likert Scale Result on the Intensity of Forest Management Activities In Communities Without FMCs

Appendix 3. Likert Scale Result on the Intensity of Forest Management Activities in Communities Without FMCs

Appendix 4   Likert Scale Result on the Constraints of FMCs

Appendix 5   E View Probit Result on the Perception of the Local People on the Use of FMC For Forest Management

Appendix 6   SPSS output on student t-test for the intensity of forest management activities in communities with and without FMCs appendix  7 SPSS oput result on student t- test for the income derived from forestry/forest products in communities with and without FMCs.


Out of all the forests and forest reserves in Nigeria that remained relatively undisturbed, significant portions of them have been lost in the last two decades. As these natural forest ecosystems disappear, so do many of the goods, which they provide. In a bid to incorporate local people into the management of community forest, Cross River State became the pioneer state in introducing forest management committees (FMCs) to co-manage the forest resources of the state alongside the states forestry department, hence the spring board for this research. It is aimed at examining the performance of FMCs in the management of forests in Cross River State. Information were obtained from 15 leaders of randomly selected FMCs through interview questions, and 90 other respondents using a set of structured questionnaire. The data were analysed using descriptive statistics, binary probit model, student t-test, and likert scaling techniques.  The intensity of forest management practices was higher in communities with FMCs than in those without FMCs. This showed significance different (t=4.234,p < 0.05) in the two communities. Average household income from forestry/forest products in communities with FMCs, and those without FMCs also indicated significant difference (t=1.972,P < 0.05). The income was significantly higher in communities without FMCs than in those with FMCs. Among the factors influencing the perception of the local people as regard the use of FMC for forest management, five were statistically significant, age P(0.0309), education P(0.0172), income P(0.0378), presence of erosion in the communities P(0.0445) and forest use P(0.0149) showed positive influence on the perception. The Likert scale rating of the constraints encountered by FMCs indicated lack of commitment of members, change in government policies, financial constraints, inter and intra-community conflicts, inadequate support from community leadership and negative attitude of community to forest conservation as the most challenging constraints to the FMCs. Finally, it was recommended that government should initiate policy to encourage communities to organize themselves into groups for involvement in forest management. The initiatives should be tailored towards policies and programs that cut across a review of the land use act, provision of finance, formation of cooperatives and substitution of wood usage among the rural households. This will be effective in the conservation and management of forest through FMCs.      

                                                                Chapter one


1.1         Background Information

Forest and tree resources are of extreme importance to mankind. They provide the resources for a multiple of products, which feature in peoples day to day lives (Falconer, 1990). The contributions of forests to sustainable livelihood cannot be over emphasized. Forest 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, provide household with income, ensures food security, reduce their vulnerability to shocks and adversities and increase their well being (Arnold, 1998).

Out of all the forests and forest reserves in Nigeria that remained relatively undisturbed until the 1980s, significant portions of them have been lost in the last two decades. As these natural forest ecosystem disappear, so do many of the goods and services, like timber, fuel wood, water shed, charcoal, pharmaceutics, erosion control and prevention, soil stabilization, food, fruits/nut etc, which they provide.

  Estimates of forest cover range from 9.7 million hectares to 13.5 million hectares in Nigeria (FAO 2005a). This extensive vegetation has over the years reduced as a result of the various human activities. According to FAO (2005a), forest area declined during the 1990s at an estimated annual rate of 2.6% or 398,000 hectares per year caused by agricultural expansion, encroachment, over harvesting, bush burning, illegal harvesting and de-reservation. As a consequence, the benefit which forest bestowed on the people is becoming more difficult and expensive to acquire. Nigeria’s total forest area in 1990 stood at 14,387,000 hectares. But in 1995, it stood at 13,780,000 hectares with a total change, (1990-1995), of -607,000 hectares at an annual change of -121,000 hectares (i.e-0.9%) (Eboh and Ujah, 2000).

Government of Nigeria (1997) noted at the fifth session of the United Nations Commission on Sustainable Development that the bulk of this forest cover is the Savannah woodland type. This is about 70% of the open natural forest, with the remaining 30% closed forest. The closed forest includes mangrove and coastal forest (22%), fresh water swamp (38%) and low land wet forest (40%). It also went further to state that the southern rainforest, the source of the country’s timber resource, covering only two percent of the total land area in Nigeria is divided into lowland rain forest in the south and mixed deciduous forest to the North.  These forest types, although heavily degraded, are the main remaining sources of hardwood timber- meliaceae and leguminosae species such as khaya ivorensis (Lagos mahogany), Entadrophragma spp, lovoa trichilioides (cedar) and Gosweilerodendron balsamiferum (agba) are characteristics of the rain forest area, whereas sterculiaceae, ulmaceae and moraceae species such as Nesogordonia papaveritera (otutu), triplochiton scleroxylon (obeche), celtis spp and clorophora excels (iroko) characterize the semi deciduous forest. These forest areas are being depleted at an annual rate of 3.5 percent. And if this continues the country’s forest reserve might disappear in future (Status of tropical forest management, 2005).

Ensuring that these forest wood trees are maintained requires both intra – and inter generational sustainability. In other words, a sustainable and productive forest reserve resource base can ensure enduring food and environmental security (FAO, 1997).

Forest conservation is defined as actions taken in management of a forest that result in maintenance of the possibilities for future forest related benefits (Wollenberg, Nawir, Uluk and Pramono, 2001). For Forest Wood Trees, conservation means the sustainable management of the species for the products it yields in order to ensure availability in the future. Conservation of forest wood tress and indeed biological resources can be in-situ or ex-situ. In situ conservation of biological resources involves conservation of ecosystem / species in their natural surroundings while ex-situ conservation involves the conservation of components of biological diversity outside of their natural habitat (domestication) (Laird, 2002). As stated in article 8 of the convention on biological diversity, in-situ conservation of forest resources can be achieved, among others, through the establishment of a system of protected areas. Ex-situ conservation can be achieved through the establishment of gene bank, cultivation of species in lots or in agro forestry systems, recovery and rehabilitation of threatened species and for their introduction into their natural habitats under appropriate conditions, among others.

 Conservation initiative will be more successful if the local / indigenous people participate. This is based on the advantages that can be gained by drawing on indigenous knowledge of the forests and forests products, and by building on the sustainable systems, of use that local people often seem to have created (Redford and Mansour, 1996).

            In principle, local people own the forest, but the management and control of forest reserves, which cover around three-quarter of forest area, is rested in the state governments (Status of tropical forest management, 2005). Participatory resource management is often seen as an appropriate solution to reducing resource degradation and it is generally assumed that granting property rights over local commons would ensure the equitable and sustainable use of environment resources. Through local participation, nearby communities would be engaged as stake holders in managing the resources, thus ensuring commitment to long term management goals (Chukwone, 2008)

             In Nigeria, management of forest resources, especially national parks and forest reserves are in the hand of the government and local participation is limited. The first forestry act enacted in 1937, established the forest reserve system under the state governments. A more comprehensive forest law was latter established in 1956- the law of preservation and control of Eastern Nigeria. There are also state forestry codes like the Cross River state forestry code of 1999. However, there is a draft for National forestry act still undergoing approval. Poor management often results, in a lack of control of resource and conflicts among resource users (Olaleye and Ameh, 1999). Some states have enacted specific regulations to monitor and control the reserves, but the continuing high rate of deforestation suggests that overall control has not been effective. Even in free forest communities, government forest commission approve the cutting of timber resources and collect permits even after the exploiter has obtained necessary permission from the community who are owners.

             Community forest as used in this study refers to free forest areas, which are not government reserves, owned and controlled by the communities although government may collect permits from external timber exploiters in these forests, a percentage of which is remitted to the communities. The forests may or may not be under any form of management.

In a bid to incorporate local people into the management of community forest, Cross River State became the pioneer state in introducing forest management committees to co-manage the forest resources of the state alongside the states forestry department in Nigeria. Some intervention agencies such as the Department for International Development (DFID) and Living Earth foundation created the initiative for the indigenous people to form forest management committees to co-manage their forest resources alongside the state forestry department,(Spencer, 2001). These intervention agencies also helped some communities in Cross River state to implement forest management plans. They aid in the training of some community members in cultivation techniques of rubber and Gmelina. Nurseries and micro credit programme to help local people in establishing forests based enterprises; workshops for registered forest management committees, and training on sustainable rattan investing craftsmanship were established under Cross River community forestry project. The first project in Cross River state was the Ekuri community initiative, which began in 1992 and assisted communities to bring 33,000 ha of rain forest under some degree of local management (Wily, 2002). Also, some communities like Ekong Anaku community have organized themselves in the collection and marketing of their forest resources (Enour, 1999). Presently, in Cross River State, there are about 43 registered FMCs (Forestry Association of Nigeria, 2003). In general, in Nigeria 60 communities, involving 10,000 hectares of forest, both reserved and unreserved areas are getting involved in community forest initiative (Wily, 2002). Promoting local participation through forest management committees will facilitate forest wood trees conservation. Furthermore, sustainable management of forest wood trees will help guarantee the needs of the present generation, without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs.




The main objective of this study was to evaluate the patterns and determinants of fruit and vegetable consumption in urban and rural areas of Enugu State, Nigeria. The study was articulated based on the fact that despite the relatively cheap and abundant sources of micro nutrients found in fruits and vegetables, there abound wide spread cases of micro nutrient deficiencies. The data was collected from primary sources through a set of questionnaire administered to 240 respondents. The study employed both purposive and random sampling technique in the selection of the respondents. The data collected were analysed using descriptive statistics, Working –Leser functional form of regression and z- test statistic. Citrus, mango, plantain/banana, pineapples, papaya, star apple were the major types of fruits consumed, while, telferia, tomatoes, onions, garden eggs, okra and oha were the major vegetables consumed by the households. The result also showed that the average monthly consumption of fruit per household during the dry season was 17.8kg and 9.8kg for urban and rural areas, respectively while the average monthly consumption per household of fruits during the rainy season was 15.32kg and 12.87kg for urban and rural areas, respectively. It was 8.68kg for urban and 23.29kg for rural areas for vegetables during the dry season while it was 6.98kg for urban areas and 28.43kg for rural areas per monthly per household during the rainy season. The average budget share was 0.0849 for vegetables for households in the urban areas and 0.0690 for those in the rural areas. When pooled together; it was 0.0828 for fruits and 0.0769 for vegetables. Household’s monthly expenditure, number of adult females, age of household head, educational attainment of the household head, price, season and sex were determinants of fruit consumption in the urban areas. Total monthly expenditure, number of children, number of adult females, age of household head, educational attainment of household head and sex were determinants of vegetable consumption in the urban areas. In the rural areas, number of children, age of the household head, educational attainment of the household head, price of fruits and season were determinants of fruits consumption, whereas, total expenditure, number of adult males, number of adult females, age of household head, educational  attainment of the household head and price of vegetables were determinants of vegetable consumption. All these variables were significant at various levels of probability ranging from one to ten percent with different signs. Income elasticities were below one; ranging from 0.47 to 0.70. The income elasticity for fruit in urban areas was 0.60 and 0.47 in the rural areas. It was 0.60 for vegetables in the urban areas and 0.49 in the rural areas. It is therefore recommended that there is need to put in place policies to promote and support fruit and vegetable consumption. Secondly, attention should focus on the processing of fruits and vegetables into forms that can be stored. This will reduce post – harvest losses as well as making fruits and vegetables available in all the seasons. Again, education and behaviour change programmes to promote fruit and vegetable consumption should be mounted. Fruit and vegetable production should be encouraged particularly in the rural areas. In the same vein, feeder roads should be built and already built ones maintained. This will help transport these produce to the urban areas. This will also promote availability and affordability of these products.


Title.. ..        ..        ..        ..        ..        ..        ..        ..        ..        ..        ..        i

Certification..       ..        ..        ..        ..        ..        .         ..        ..        ..        ii

Dedication..          ..        ..        .         ..        ..        ..        ..        ..        ..        ..        iii

Acknowledgement..       ..        ..        ..        ..        ..        ..        ..        ..        iv

Abstract..    ..        ..        .         ..        ..        ..        ..        ..        ..        ..        vi

Table of Contents..        ..        ..        ..        ..        ..        ..        ..        ..        ..        ix

List of Tables..     ..        ..        ..        ..        ..        ..        ..        ..        ..        x

CHAPTER ONE: INTRODUCTION..           1          

1.1     Background Information.        ..        ..        ..        ..        ..        ..        ..        1

1.2     Problem Statement…     ..        ..        ..        ..        ..        ..        ..        4

1.3     Objectives of the Study…        ..        ..        ..        ..        ..        ..        ..        6

1.4     Hypotheses…       ..        ..        ..        ..        ..        ..        ..        ..        7

1.5     Justification…       ..        ..        ..        ..        ..        ..        ..        ..        7

1.6     Limitations of the Study..  ..      ..         ..        ..        ..         .. ..        9


2.1.1 The Meaning of Fruits and vegetables..  ..   ..   ..     ..              ..        ..        12

2.1.2 Importance of Vegetables.. .. .. .. .. ..   ..  ..   ..   ..     ..     ..      ..        13

2.1.3 Importance of Fruits..  ..    ..     ..    ..   ..    ..      ..    ..     ..       ..        ..        15

2.1.4 Demand and Consumption Theory..  ..    ..      ..     ..     .. ..     ..        ..        18

2.1.5 Household Fruit and Vegetable Consumption Pattern.. .. ..        20

2.1.6 Expenditure Elasticity of Food.. ..    ..     ..     ..       ..     ..   ..  ..        22

2.1.7 Household Budget Share..   ..   ..      ..     ..      ..      ..      .. ..   ..        25

2.1.8 Household Income..       ..      ..       ..      ..      ..      ..      .. ..    ..        ..        28

2.1.9  Market Supply for Fruits and Vegetables ..         ..       ..        31

2.2.0 Prices and Availability of Fruits and Vegetables..  ..     ..  ..    ..        36

2.2.1 Consumer Preferences..   ..    ..   ..    ..    ..    ..       ..    ..   ..      ..        ..        38

2.2.2 Costs and Feasibility of On-Farm Production..  ..  ..    ..   ..    ..        ..        41

2.2.3 Intra household Decision –Making Process..  ..   ..   ..    .. ..    ..        43

2.2.4 Theoretical and Conceptual Framework..  ..  ..  ..   ..       ..        44

2.2.5 Analytical Framework …         ..        ..        ..        ..        .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. ..48

CHAPTER THREE: METHODOLOGY…        ..        ..        ..        ..        ..        50

3.1     Study Area…        ..        ..        ..        ..        ..        ..        ..        ..        51

3.2     Sampling Procedure…    ..        ..        ..        ..        ..        ..        ..        53

3.3     Data Collection… ..        ..        ..        ..        ..        ..        ..        ..        53

3.4     Data Analysis…   ..        ..        ..        ..        ..        ..        ..        ..        53

3.5     Model Specification…    ..        ..        ..        ..        ..        ..        .         54

CHAPTER FOUR: RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONS..         ..        ..        ..        57

4.1     Households Socio-economic Characteristics…     ..        ..        ..        57

4.2     Types and Quantities of Fruits and Vegetables Consumed by the Households..       ..        59

4.3     Consumption Patterns in Urban and Rural Households….        61

4.4     Paired Sample Test of the Differences between the consumption of Fruits and Vegetables in Urban and Rural areas of Enugu State..  .           62

4.5     Budget Shares of Fruits and Vegetables in Urban and Rural Households…    ..        63

4.6     Determinants of Fruits and Vegetables Consumption among Urban and Rural Households in Enugu State…   ..        ..        ..        64

4.7     Demand Elasticities for Fruits and Vegetables in Enugu State..       75


          RECOMMENDATION…       ..        ..        ..         ..        ..               78

5.1     Summary… ..        ..        ..        ..        ..        ..        ..        ..        ..        78

5.2     Conclusion…        ..        ..        ..        ..        ..        ..        ..        ..        80

5.3     Recommendation…        ..        ..        .         ..        ..        ..        ..        80

REFERENCES   …      ..        .         ..        ..        ..        ..        ..        ..        82     

                                           LIST OF TABLES           

Table 4.1: Socio-Economic Characteristics of the Urban   Respondents 58

Table 4.2: Socio-Economic Characteristics of the Rural Respondents    59

Table 4.3: Types and Quantities of Fruit and Vegetable Consumption.. among the Respondents ..          ..        ..        ..        ..        ..        ..  .. …60

Table 4.4: Consumption Patterns of Fruits and Vegetables in Urban and Rural Areas of Enugu State… ..   ..    ..   ..    ..    ..    ..    ..        .. ..  61

Table 4.5:Paired Sample Test of between the consumption of Fruits and Vegetables in Urban and the Differences Rural areas of Enugu State..  63

Table 4.6: Estimated Budget share of Fruits and Vegetables among

Households in Urban and Rural Areas. ..   ..   ..   ..   ..   ..   ..           64

Table 4.7: Estimates of the Determinants of Fruits Consumption among Urban Households in Enugu State. = ..    .     69

Table 4.8: Determinants of Vegetables Consumption among Urban Households in Enugu State.       ..   ..   ..  ..   ..    ..   ..   ..    ..     ..       ..     ..   ..  70

Table 4.9: Determinants of Fruits Consumption among Rural Households in Enugu State. ..  ..  . ..     ..      ..     ..      ..    ..          74 

Table 4.10: Determinants of Vegetables Consumption among Rural Households in Enugu State. ..   ..    ..    ..    ..    ..   ..     ..     ..        .  75

Table 4.11: Expenditure (income) Elasticities for Fruits and Vegetables.77


Figure 1: Conceptual framework of determinants of fruit and vegetable   Consumption. .. .. … …. ….. ……. ……….. ……… ……… …47

Figure 2: Map of Enugu state of Nigeria. .. … ..  . …. ….. …..  …….  ……..  55

                                            CHAPTER ONE

1.0                                      INTRODUCTION

1.1              Background Information

Low fruit and vegetable intake is the main contributor of micronutrient deficiencies in the developing world especially in population with low intake of animal protein foods such as meat and dairy products. World Health Organization (WHO) (2003) estimated that low intake of fruits and vegetables caused about 19% gastro- intestinal cancers, about 31% of ischemic heart disease and 11% of stroke. Of the global burden attributable to low fruit and vegetable consumption, about 85% was from Cardiovascular Diseases (CVD) and 15% from cancers. It estimated that about 2.7 million deaths were recorded yearly arising from these chronic diseases.

The implication of the emerging scenario is that 2.7 million lives could be saved each year with sufficient global fruit and vegetable consumption. According to the WHO/FAO (2003), the set population nutrient goals and recommended intake was put at a minimum of 400g for fruits and vegetables per day for the prevention of chronic heart diseases, cancer, diabetes and obesity. The report also stated that there was convincing evidence that fruits and vegetables decreased the risk of obesity and evidence abound also that they probably decreased the risk of diabetes. Furthermore, there is convincing evidence that fruits and vegetables lower the risk of CVD.

Micro-nutrient deficiency resulting from low fruit and vegetable intake has been associated with various economic consequences. This is exemplified in a study in Ethiopia, (Croppenstedt and Muller, 2000). The result showed that nutritional status affected agricultural productivity and elasticities of labour productivity. Thus proving that there is a significant link between health and nutritional status and agricultural productivity.

However, in spite of this growing body of evidence highlighting the protective effects of fruits and vegetables, their intakes are still grossly inadequate both in developed and developing countries (IARC, 2003).

Analyses of family budgets suggest that the poorer the family, the greater is the proportion of the total expenditure on food thus obeying Engel’s law (Blissard et al, 2003). Engel’s Law states that as income rises, percentage of income spent on consumption rises slower as compared to rise in income. According to (Blissard et al, 2003), many analyses of family budgets conclude that the proportions of income devoted to various groups of commodities not only change with increasing income as stated in Engel’s law but also vary systematically.

Fruits and vegetables have been known to exhibit substantial heterogeneity with regard to demand, supply and trade characteristics (Damianos and Demoussis, 1992).  On the demand characteristics, most fruits and vegetables exhibit higher income elasticities than that for overall food consumption.  This implies that as income rises, the share of fruits and vegetables within the food budget also rises. The overall demand for fruits and vegetables are income elastic despite the relatively high share of fruits and vegetables in the food budget.

Fruit and vegetable production are characterized by a strong seasonal dimension, leading to substantial price fluctuation and income instability during the marketing period.  This is basically because as horticultural plants, they exhibit price elasticity supply responses.  A small increase in price can result in huge production increases (Damianos and Demoussis, 1992).  If prices were allowed to fall to accommodate the increased supply, fruits and vegetables that exhibit inelastic demand would record a reduction in income.  If, on the other hand, the demand is elastic, a drop in prices caused by increased supply will be followed by a more than proportional increase in the quantity demanded (Bergman, 1984).  Low income households are more responsive to price changes for vegetables, but less responsive to fruits (Dong and Lin, 2009).  On the other hand, it is estimated that most countries in the sub- Saharan Africa have income elasticities for fruits greater than the elasticities for vegetables (Ruel et al, 2004).




Title Page                                                                                                    i

Certification                                                                                        ii

Dedication                                                                                           iii

Acknowledgement                                                                              iv

Table of Content                                                                                  v

List of Tables                                                                                     viii

Abstract                                                                                                 x

Chapter One:   INTRODUCTION                                                         

1.1            Background Information                                                                 1

1.2            Problem Statement                                                                              6

1.3            Objectives of the Study                                                                      9

1.4            Hypotheses of the Study                                                                    9

1.5            Significance of the Study                                                           10

Chapter Two:      LITERATURE REVIEW                                          

2.1            Theoretical/Conceptual Framework                                               11

2.1.1.  Agricultural Resource Use Productivity                                            11

2.1.2  Productivity Measurement                                                                12

2.1.3  Determinants of Agricultural Productivity                              13

2.2            Types and Measures of Efficiency                                           14

2.2.1    Technical Efficiency                                                                14

2.2.2    Allocative or pricing efficiency                                                15

2.2.3    Economic efficiency                                                                            15

2.3            Poultry Production                                                                           17

2.4            Evidence of Resource Productivity Studies                                       20

2.5            Evidence of Relative Efficiency Studies                                   22

2.6            Analytical Framework                                                                      25

2.6.1  The Profit Function Technique                                                         25

2.6.2  Derivation of profit function from the production function             26

2.6.3  Normalized profit function                                                               27

2.6.4  Additive Mutiplicative Dummy Variable Approach                        28

2.6.5  Allocative Efficiency Indices                                                             29

CHAPTER THREE:  METHODOLOGY                                    

3.1     The Study Area                                                                                31

3.2     Sampling Technique                                                                         31

3.3     Data Collection                                                                                 32

3.4     Data Analysis                                                                                   32

3.4.1  Model Specifications                                                                        33


4.1     Average Characteristics of Brooding and Rearing Farmers     38

4.2     Costs and Returns Analysis                                                    39

4.2.1    Costs and returns of broiler brooding and rearing enterprises 39

4.2.2    Costs and returns of average large-scale and small-scale brooding enterprise    40

4.2.3                Costs and returns of average small-scale and large-scale rearing enterprise                                   41

4.2.4                Costs and returns of average small-scale and brooding enterprise and small-scale rearing enterprise                                43

4.2.5                Costs and returns of average large-scale brooding and large-scale rearing enterprises                                                      44

4.3     Technical Efficiency                                                                          45

4.3.1    Technical efficiency of brooding and rearing groups                      47

4.3.2     Technical efficiency of large-scale and small-scale rearing enterprise                                      49

4.3.3.              Technical efficiency of large-scale and small-scale brooding enterprise                                                                           50

4.4     Allocative Efficiency                                                               50

4.4.1  Allocative efficiency of brooding and rearing enterprises                 50

4.4.2      Allocative efficiency of large-scale and small-scale brooding enterprise                                                                      54

4.4.3                Allocative efficiency of large-scale and small-scale rearing enterprise                                                                  58

4.4.4                Economic Efficiency                                                           61

4.5.1                Economic efficiency of brooding enterprise                       61

4.5.2                Economic efficiency of rearing enterprise                       63

4.6                 Returns to Scale                                                                           65

4.6.1                Elasticity of production for brooding and rearing enterprises  65

4.6.2                Elasticity of production of small-scale and large-scale brooding enterprise                                       66

4.6.3                Elasticity of production for small-scale and large-scale rearing enterprise                                                                         67


5.1            Summary                                                                                          68

5.2            Conclusion                                                                                        71

5.3            Recommendation s                                                                           71

5.4            Areas Needing Further Research                                                      72

References                 73

Appendices                                                                                                 83


Table                                                                                                                    Page

4.1:        Average Characteristics of Broiler Brooding and Rearing Farmers   39

4.2         Costs and returns of Broiler Brooding Rearing Enterprises         40

4.3:    Cost and Returns of Small-scale and Large-scale Brooding Enterprise                          41

 4.4:   Cost and Returns of Small-scale and large-scale Rearing Enterprise                                        42

4.5:    Cost and Returns of small-scale Brooding and Small-scale rearing Enterprises                                                         43

4.6:    Costs and Returns of large-scale Brooding and Large-scale Rearing                                                                              44

4.7:    Estimated Pooled Production Function for Brooding and Rearing Enterprise                                                                      46

 4.8:   Estimated Production Function for Large-scale and Small-scale Rearing Enterprise                                                        48

4.9:    Estimated Production Function for Large-scale and Small-scale Brooding Enterprise                                                        50

4.10:  Estimated Production Function for Brooding Enterprises                  51

4.11:  Estimated Production Function for Rearing Enterprise                      52

4.12:  Allocative Efficiency Indices for the Brooding and

Rearing Enterprises                                                 54

4.13:  Estimated Production Function for Large-scale Brooding Enterprise  55

4.14:  Estimated Production Function for Small-scale Brooding Enterprise    56

4.15:  Allocative Efficiency Indices for large-scale and Small-scale Brooding Farmers             57

4.16:  Estimated Production Function for Large-Scale Rearing Enterprise              58

4.17:  Estimated Production Function for Small-scale Rearing Enterprise                                                                          59

4.18:  Allocative Efficiency Indices of Large-scale and Small-scale Rearing Farms                                                                60

4.19:  Estimated Zellner’s Seemingly Unrelated Regression of Systems of Normalized Restricted Profit Function and Factor Share Equations for Brooding enterprise                   62

4.20:  Statistical Test of Hypothesis on Economic Efficiency in Brooding and between Lager-scale and Small-scale                                          63

4.21:  Estimated Zellner’s seemingly unrelated regression (SUR) of systems of normalized restricted profit function and factor share equations for rearing enterprise                     64

4.22:  Statistical Test of Hypothesis on economic efficiency in Rearing and Between Lager-scale and Small-scale                                      65

4.23:  Elasticity of Production for Brooding and Rearing Enterprises  66

4.24:  Elasticity of Production for Small-scale and Large-scale Brooding Enterprise                            67

 4.25:     Elasticities of Production of Large-scale and Small-scale Rearing Farmer Groups                                                 67


The study focused on market age, enterprise size and relative efficiency in broiler production in Imo State . The main aim was to determine resource use efficiencies in broiler brooding and rearing enterprises as well as large-scale and small-scale outfits in the two enterprises. Using multi-stage sampling technique, the study area was zoned into three using the existing zoning arrangement of the Imo State Agricultural Development Programme (ADP). A total of nine L.G.As were randomly selected and a total of 180 broiler farmers (made up of 90 brooders and 90 rearers) were selected. A set of structured questionnaire was administered on the farmers to obtain required information. Data were analysed using simple statistical tools, regression models, additive multiplicative dummy variable models, profit function technique and enterprise analysis. Results showed that broiler production was profitable but rearing birds to maturity was more profitable than brooding birds and selling at four weeks old.  Large-scale rearing of birds was more profitable than small-scale outfit. In brooding enterprise, no remarkable difference in profit margin existed between large-scale and small-scale. Broiler rearing farmers were found to be more technically efficient than the brooding farmers and small-scale rearers were more technically efficient than large-scale ones. The implication is that technical efficiency may not increase by increasing size of operation in rearing broiler. In brooding, large-scale outfit was more technically efficient than small-scale. Technical efficiency may be increased by increasing size of operation in broiler brooding business. None of the farmer groups achieved absolute allocative efficiency. They therefore did not maximize profit.  However brooding farmers were more allocatively efficient than the rearing farmers.  Large-scale rearers were more allocatively efficient while small-scale brooders were more allocatively efficient in brooding enterprise. The implication is that in broiler rearing business, allocative efficiency may be increased by increasing size of operation. Brooding farmers were found to be more economically efficient than rearing farmers.  Small-scale brooders were more economically efficient than large-scale counterpart. Allocative efficiency may not be increased by increasing size of operation in broiler brooding. None of the farmer groups operated at constant returns to scale.  Brooding farmers operated at increasing returns to scale while rearing farmers operated at decreasing returns to scale. Brooding farmers by operating at increasing returns to scale means that they grossly under-utilized resources, they had opportunity to increase output by increasing input use. The rearing farmers over-utilized some resources. It was recommended that farmers should brood and rear their stock to maturity to avail themselves the opportunity of allocative and economic efficiencies of brooding and technical efficiency and high profit margin of rearing.



1.1     Background Information

Nigeria, one of the developing countries of the world with rapid population growth, is faced with the task of providing adequate food for her citizenry.  While food production increased at the rate of 2.5%, food demand increased at the rate of more than 3.5% due to the high rate of population growth of 2.83% (F.O. S, 1996).The scenario induced increase in the country’s food import bills from about #8b in 1996 to over #183b in 2005 (CBN,2005).  Apart from this problem, there is inadequate animal protein in the diets of a large proportion of the population especially in the rural areas (Ojo, 2003).  Animal protein is essential in human nutrition because of its biological significance.

          In realization of the importance of animal protein, various governments in Nigeria have inaugurated programmes at the national, state or community levels to encourage mass production of livestock.  Such programmes included the micro-credit scheme for livestock production and establishment of livestock parent/foundation stock at the community level by the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP).

          Poultry is an example of such community level livestock.  Poultry is a general name for several kinds of birds that are useful, mainly as food to man which include domestic fowl, duck, turkey, guinea fowl, and goose (Ayivor and Hellins, 1986) and they are reared for other useful purposes such as meat, eggs and feather (Walter, 1976; Eze, 1991).  Poultry is widely grown in Africa, Nigeria and Imo State.  Sonaiya (2000) pointed out that there were 82.4 million chickens in Nigeria, 11% (i.e. 10m) of which were for commercial purposes.  Livestock statistics by RIM (1992) showed that there were 13.8m cattle, 34.4m goats, 22m sheep, 3.4m pigs, 104.3m local poultry, 20m exotic poultry, and 1.7m domesticated rabbits in Nigeria.  Also, Imo State Ministry of Agriculture and Natural Resource (MANR, 2004) showed that there were 6.35m poultry, 1.1m cattle, 1.5m sheep, 2.85m goats, 3.32m pigs and 54,000 rabbits in the state.

          Poultry has some advantages of being good converters of feed into usable protein in meat and eggs; low production cost per unit relative to other livestock; meat which is tender, palatable and acceptable; short production cycle and the egg which has a biological value of 1.0, is one of the most nutritious and complete food for man (Orji , Igbodi and Oyeke, 1981).

          In the recent time, there has been recorded improvement in poultry production in Nigeria in that poultry eggs’ and meat’s contribution to the livestock share of the Gross Domestic Product (GDP) increased from 26% in 1995 to 27% in 1999 (CBN, 1999).  This improvement can further be enhanced by proper analysis of resource use productivity and efficiencies in broiler production. 

Broiler is a meat type chicken bred for marketing at early age and matures faster than other types of chickens (Williamson and Payne, 1977).  In the livestock market today, broilers are offered for sale at different ages and sizes depending on circumstances and purposes.  The market age in broiler production is the age at which producers target to offer their stock for sale.   Most outstanding among them are:

  1. four weeks brooded (brood and sale);
  2. seven to 12 weeks reared (mature types); and
  3. above 12 weeks reared (over-aged).

Broiler producers show their interests in the production of one or a combination of any of these three.  On this, Oluyemi and Roberts (1979) pointed out that the exact time for marketing broilers depended on different marketing situations involving the relative costs of chicks and feeds and market preferences.  The broiler producers also operate at various scales and use various techniques and available resources to achieve their production goals. Anthony (2001) considered those farmers producing not more than 500 birds as small-scale farmers; those producing between 501 and 1000 birds as medium-scale and those producing from 1001 and above as large-scale; farmers.   The definition of farm size or scale of operation has varied in efficiency literature, as what is considered large or small-scale is relative depending on the agricultural system setting (Ohajianya, 2002).  However, the most useful economic definition of small-scale business, for example, is the one that emphasized those characteristics which might be expected to make their performance and their problem different from large-scale businesses (Adebusuyi, 1977).  In addition, Nicholas (1977) described a small-scale business as one that had relatively small share of its market and is managed by its owners in a personalized way and not through formalized structure of management.

          Lawal (1979) and Akison (1982) defined small-scale industry or enterprise as one with total capital investment less than N1m or one that employed less than 15 workers. The National Directorate of Employment in 1989, defined small-scale businesses to accommodate projects with capital investment as low as N5,000.00 and employing as few as three persons. To Albert (1973), small-scale enterprises were those which had relatively little capital investment, produced in small quantities and as a result controlled a small share of the market and employed not more than 50 workers and had management, marketing and entrepreneurial functions vested in their proprietors.  The definition according to Okafor (2000) is contextual as each country or public agency tends to adopt a definition criterion which accommodates the peculiar needs of public policy or which most appropriate for the intended policy objective or the agency concerned. Important operational variables like capital investment, turnover, employment level and relative size of a firm within any industry are common features in most definitions.  For example, in most developed economies like the U.S.A., UK and Canada, the definition criterion adopted is a mixture of annual turnover and employment level (Okafor, 2000).

          In Nigeria, enterprise-size classification is based on a composite criterion of sales volume, capital or asset base and employment level.  The official definition of various scales of enterprise has undergone many revisions from 1973 to date.  At the 13th council meeting of the National Council on Industry in July 2001, micro, small and medium enterprises (MSMEs) were defined by the council as follows:

  1. micro/cottage industry:  an industry with labour size of not more than 10 workers or total cost of not more than N1.5m excluding cost of land;
  2. small-scale industry:  an industry with labour size of 11-100 workers or total cost of not more than N50m but excluding cost of land;
  3. medium-scale industry: an industry with labour size of between 101 and 300 workers or a total cost of over N50m but not more than N200m, excluding cost of land; and
  4. large-scale industry: an industry with a labour size of over 300 workers or a total cost of over N200m, excluding cost of land (Udechukwu, 2002).

Large-scale business, therefore is one that is beyond the scope of small-scale business, having a formalized management structure with relatively large capital investment and personnels.

          But for the purpose of this study, the definition assumed a different dimension.  It was difficult to come across a reasonable number of broiler producers with stock up to 500 birds at the time in the study area.  Because of this, a small-scale outfit in the enterprise is taken to be one with less than 300 birds per production period, mainly managed by the owner and sometimes employing one or two regular labourers.  The practice is that family labour is used for production.  Average investment is not more than N200,000 in most cases.  Therefore a large-scale outfit is one that has 300 birds and above in a production period.  Use of paid labour rather than family labour is rampant.  This type is formalized in its management structure.  Average investment is above N200,000.

          Efficiency is concerned with relative performance of the processes used in transforming given inputs into outputs.  It is the use of resources in achieving organizational objectives (James and Freeman, 1992).  The aim of resource use efficiency is to find ways of increasing output per unit of input and attaining desirable inter-firm, intra-firm and inter-sector transfer of production resources in order to provide the means of raising our economic level (Awoke, 2003).  Efficiency can be measured in a number of ways, but each has in common the notion that the value of output in the long-run must exceed, or at least be equal to the cost of inputs plus work flow activities.  On this, Farrel (1957) and Carlson (1972) had earlier distinguished between two types of efficiency, technical and allocative.  Technical efficiency is borne out of the techniques used.  It is the ability of farmers to use the “best practice” in the production processes so that not more than the required or necessary inputs are used to produce “best” level of output (Timmer, 1970; Carlson, 1972).  It can be defined as the maximization of the ratio of physical output to physical input without taking into consideration factor input and product output prices (Bishop and Toussaint, 1958; Arene and Okpukpara, 2006).  Therefore a production method that uses more of physical resources than the alternative in the production of a unit output is technically   inefficient (Chukwuji, Inoni, Ogisi and Oyaide, 2006). The  measurement of firm’s specific technical efficiency is based on observed output from the best production (Okoruwa and ogundele,2008). Allocative or price efficiency, on the other hand, deals with the choice of optimum combination of inputs consistent with relative factor prices.  A farmer, therefore is considered allocatively efficient in the use of a resource if he is capable of equating marginal value product (MVP) to its factor price. Onyenwuaku (1994) contended that allocative efficiency of any two groups of farms required that they were characterized by constant returns to scale, production function of similar slopes and the same configuration of input and output prices.

          Economic efficiency is the product of technical and price efficiencies (Ohand and Kim, 1978) and it indicates the cost per unit of output for a farm which perfectly attains both efficiencies.  It is the ability to maximize profit. In order to attain economic efficiency there must be necessary and sufficient conditions (Arene and Okpukpara, 2006).  Necessary condition involves the attainment of the technical efficiency.  Sufficient condition is attained when price relationship of the factors and outputs are considered. An economically efficient input-output combination would be on both the frontier function and expansion path (Ogundari and Ojo,2006).  The level of technical efficiency is influenced by managerial characteristics such as technical knowledge and skills, education and extension contacts as well as institutional factors such as, farm size, tenancy, access to credit and supply of inputs (Ali and Byerlee, 1991). 

1.2     Statement of Problem

Nigeria is faced with the problem of malnutrition particularly in terms of protein intake (Shaib, 1984).  The minimum protein intake per day of 65g, as recommended by the World Health Organization (WHO), is yet to be attained, instead, the per capita consumption per day is about 6.5g representing 10% (Oluyemi and Roberts, 1979; Ibe, 2000).  The issue is that of protein availability and its configuration.  It is recommended that more than one third of the minimum protein intake for an adult per day should be of animal origin.  This is because animal protein contains the essential amino-acids which are more balanced and readily available to meet nutritional needs than plant protein (Onyenuga, 1971; Ojo, 2003).

Regrettably, animal products contribute only about 15-20% of the protein intake of the nation (FRN, 1997).  Irrespective of the fact that Nigeria is endowed with abundant livestock production facilities, she has remained a net importer of livestock products (Abubakar, 1998).  Developing the poultry industry, especially the broiler sub-sector, is observed to be the fastest way of bridging the protein deficiency gap in Nigeria (Ikpi, 1979; Akinwumi, 1997). Though there have been some sincere efforts to increase the local production of poultry in general, the demand still far exceeds the supply.  One may start to wonder whether broiler farmers employ their production resources well or not? In an answer to this question, Branckaert and Gueye (2000) had asserted that most of the conditions required by the industrial poultry sub-sector are not met in poor countries, including Nigeria. There are inability to purchase most improved birds, drugs, vaccines, equipment, non-availability of highly skilled manpower, inability to control diseases and non-existence of national domestic market to absorb poultry products at attractive prices by consumers. Infact Gueye (2003) admitted that before commercial or industrial poultry production can be developed to medium or large-scale units, either for broiler or egg production, it is important to achieve either self-sufficiency in cereal production or to generate the necessary hard currencies that may be needed to purchase necessary but expensive inputs. This is because, the need to produce high quality and quick maturing broilers has been militated against by high competition between man and livestock over relatively lesser source of protein concentrate and basal energy feedstuff (Okeke, Usman and Anamayi, 2004). These problems can influence resource use efficiency in broiler production.

Equally, there are controversies over enterprise size and relative efficiency in agricultural policy formulation and implementation. For example, the implementation of agricultural policies most often favour large scale farmers under the presumption that they are more economically efficient than small-scale farmers (Dorner, 1972; Khan and Maki, 1979; Kydd and Christiansen, 1982; Lele and Agarwal, 1989; Deininger and Binswanger, 1995). However, some previous studies in Asia and Nigeria on farm sizes and relative efficiency have shown some conflicting results. Lau and YotoPoulos had shown that small-scale wheat farms in Indian Punjab were more economically efficient than large farms. In Nigeria Trosper (1979) and Awoke (2003) found that small-scale farms were economically more efficient than large farms.

Some research results showed that large farms were more economically efficient than small farms (Khan and Maki, 1979; Nehring et al., 1989; Bravo-ureta and Rieger, 1990; and Kumbhakar, 1993). Okon (2005) blamed the inefficiency of resource use in small-holder farms on dominance of elderly men and women in agriculture.  There is, however, no evidence of differences in the relative economic efficiency or its technical and price efficiency components between large and small farms (Sidhu, 1974; Bagi, 1982; Bagi and Huang, 1983; Bravo-ureta, 1986; Moussa and Jones, 1991; Dittoh,1991; Ohajianya and Onyenwuaku,2002).

    Awoke and Okorji (2004) observed that resource use in developing countries such as Nigeria is faced with the problem of under utilization of capacity which is associated with low returns.  For instance, problem of demand and supply militated against efficient use of land resources.  

          However, such information are lacking on farm size and enterprise type (i.e. broiler brooding and broiler rearing) in broiler production in Imo state of Nigeria. Literature was lacking in resource use efficiency in broiler brooding and rearing as well as relative efficiency in sizes of operation in them. A comparative analysis of efficiency of resource-use among broiler farmers in Imo state would therefore provide empirical evidence of gaps that may exist in the farmer’s current level of technology.  These gaps would serve as intervention points for relevant stakeholders for arresting any difference that may precipitate animal protein crisis in Imo state and Nigeria in general, as inefficiency directly translates to low productivity and profitability.  Hence, the study sets to discover resource use efficiencies among the market ages in production, otherwise called broiler brooding and rearing enterprises as well as large-scale and small-scale outfits in the two broiler enterprises.  It will identify and provide better information about the variables of variations in efficiency of resources use among the groups of farms.  It will try to formulate policy measures that will reduce the difference if any.




Title page                                                                                          i

Certification                                                                                                 ii Dedication                                                                                                    iii

Acknowledgement                                                                                               iv

Table of Contents                                                                        v

List of Tables                                                                                            ix

List of Figures                                                                                          x



1.0       INTRODUCTION                                                                                                    1

1.1       Background information                                                            1

1.2       Problem statement                                                                  5

1.3       Objectives of the study                                                8

1.4       Research hypothesis                                                                        9

1.5       Justification of the study                                                                           9

1.6       Limitations of the study                                                                  11


2.0      LITERATURE REVIEW                                                                    12

2.1       Definition of concepts                                                                                 12

2.1.1    Gender                                                                                         12

2.1.2    Forest                                                                                                        13

2.1.3    Sustainability                                                                                                   13

2.1.4    Sustainable Forest Management                                                             15

2.1.5   Forest conservation                                                                            16

2.2       Forest resource classification                                                             17

2.3       Benefits derivable from forest resources                                         18

2.3.1    Economic value                                                                                     19

2.3.2    Social benefits                                                                            19

2.3.3    Environmental value                                                                            20

2.4       Gender and forest resource management                          20

2.5       Factors of forest resource management and sustainability     27

2.5.1    Monitoring, enforcement and forest resource sustainability   27

2.5.2    Property rights, security and resource sustainability               28

2.5.3    Biophysical factors and forest resource sustainability            29 2.6  Theoretical framework of the study                            30

2.7       Conceptual framework of the study            33

2.8       Analytical framework of the study                               35        CHAPTER THREE

3.0       RESEARCH METHODOLOGY                                                          39

3.1       Study area                                                                                           39

3.2       Sampling procedure                                                                                     41

3.3       Data collection                                                                                          41

3.4       Data analysis/Analytical techniques                                                         42

3.4.1    Empirical model specification                                                                   42

3.4.2    A priori expectation of the model                                                         43

3.4.3    Likert scale rating                                                                                  46

3.4.4     Hypotheses testing                                                                               47


4.0       RESULTS AND DISCUSSION                                              48

4.1       Forest Ownership and Conservation                                        48

4.1.1    Forest Ownership, Access and Topography                                48

4.1.2    Forest Nature and Ownership Pattern                                 49

4.1.3    Gender and Forest Resource Conservation                            53

4.1.4    Gender and Forest Resource Conservation Strategies             54

4.2       Gender and Forest Resource Management                       55

4.2.1    Gender and Forest Resource Management Practices              55

4.2.2    Rationale for Selecting Management Practices                       57

4.3       Socio-economic and Environmental Attributes of Respondents   58

4.3.1    Age of Respondents                                                                  59

4.3.2    Educational Attainment                                                        59

4.3.3    Marital Status of Respondents                                              61

4.3.4    Farming Experience of Respondents                      61

4.3.5    Occupations of Respondents                                              62

4.3.6    Household Size of Respondents                                            63

4.3.7    Extension Access and Membership of Rural Institutions               64

4.3.8    Gender Barrier in Forest Resource Use                                       65

4.4       Factors Influencing the Adoption of Improved Forest Resources     Conservation Measures                                                         66

4.4.1    Identification of Significant Differences by Gender in their Level of Adoption of Conservation Strategies                                     71

4.5       Gender and Forest Resource Benefit                        77

4.6       Scale Analysis of Perceived Importance of Forest Resource Conservation Factors                            79

4.7       Forest Resource Use and their Constraints                             81

4.7.1    Forest Resources and their Uses                                    81

4.7.2    Gender and Constraints of Forest Resource Use       84



5.1       Summary                                                                             87

5.2       Conclusion                                                                               91

5.3       Recommendations                                                                 91

5.4       Major Contributions to Knowledge                               95

5.4       Areas for Further Research                                              95

            References                                                                                 96       


4.1       Opinion of Respondents as Regards Forest Ownership and Topography    48

4.2       Response of Respondents According to Forest Nature and Ownership Pattern                 49

4.3       Gender Role in Forest Resource Conservation and Management     53

4.4       Frequency Distribution of Respondents According Forest Conservation Strategies                                        54

4.5       Forest Management Practices of Respondents Disaggregated by Gender  55

4.6       Gender Distribution of Reasons for Selecting Management Strategies   58

4.7       Age Distribution of Respondents by Gender       59

4.8       Educational Status of Respondents by Gender        60

4.9       Marital Status of Respondents Disaggregated by Gender       61

4.10     Farming Experience of Respondents by Gender          62

4.11     Occupations of Respondents                             62

4.12     Distribution of Gender According to Household Size            63

4.13     Distribution of Respondents According to Extension Access  Membership of Rural Institution                                                   64

4.14     Respondents Opinion Regarding Gender Barriers in Forest Resource Exploitation                                               65

4.15     Tobit Model Estimate for the Male Farmers                 67

4.16     Tobit Model Estimate for the Female Farmers                  69

4.17     Comparison of the Tobit Estimates for Male and Female Farmers 71

4.18     Tobit Model Estimate for the Male and Female Farmers (Pooled Result) 75

4.19     Z-test Analysis of Level of Adoption Between Male and Female Farmers  77

4.20     Forest Resource Benefit-Sharing (in Naira) Disaggregated by Gender  78

4.21     Likert Scale Result on Scale Analysis of Perceived Importance of Forest Resource Conservation Factors                         80
4.22     Opinions of Respondents Regarding the Use of Forest Resource/Products   81

4.23     Household Energy Sources                                 83

4.24     Response of Gender with Regards to Constraints Encountered in the Exploitation of Forest Resources/Products                           86


Fig. 1   Conceptual Framework of the Study                                               34       

Fig. 2   Forest Nature and Ownership Pattern                                          51

Fig. 3a Forest Management Practices of the Respondents by Gender      56

Fig. 3b Forest Management Practices of the Respondents (Pooled)     57

Fig. 4   Gender and Forest Resource Benefit-Sharing                 79

Fig. 5   Uses of Forest Resources/Products                                           82

Fig. 6a Household Energy Sources (for household Cooking)   84

Fig. 6b Household Energy Sources (for Pressing Clothes)    84

Fig.7    Constraints of Forest Resource Exploitation          85


Forest, which is a major source of resources in Nigeria, is currently facing accelerated degradation and depletion. The growing demand for ecosystem services from forests has led to over-exploitation of the resources, resulting in the extinction of some valuable species. This has continued to impact negatively on the capacity of the forests to mitigate climate change, conserve biodiversity, safeguard wildlife, and protect land and watershed. Approaches to forest management in Nigeria have not involved women in their desired perspective, irrespective of their dominant role in collection of forest produce. The influence of gender relationships on access to forests and forest resource management and sustainability has remained a concern to scholars and practitioners. This concern informed the need for this study. The broad objective of this study was to examine the effects of gender on sustainable management of forest resources in Abia State, Nigeria. The specific objectives of the study were to: identify and examine the participation of male and female farmers in the ownership and conservation of forest resources; identify and describe the various forest management practices and to examine the factors influencing the decision of men and women in the adoption of improved forest resource conservation measures. Others include; examine, the level of adoption of forest resource conservation strategies between the male and female farmers; analyze gender distribution of benefits from forest resource exploitation, analyze perceived importance of forest conservation factors among male and female farmers and examine the major constraints militating against forest resource conservation and management. Relevant data for the study were generated mainly through the administration of structured questionnaire to farmers, randomly selected from 6 LGAs. A total of 240 respondents comprising 120 male and 120 female farmers was drawn from the 410,435 farm families in the state. Information collected include socio-economic characteristics of the farmers, environmental and institutional factors, gender access to forest resource benefits and forest resource conservation factors. Data generated were analyzed using percentages, frequencies, likert rating scale and Tobit regression model.The major findings were that: use of improved forest management practices was almost non-existent as against the traditional management practices that were common; female farmers in the study area adopted more improved forest conservation measures than their male counterparts. Tobit regression analysis showed that the coefficient of gender, land ownership, and dependence on forest for income were negative and  significantly (p < 0.05) affected the adoption of improved forest resource conservation practices of the farmers, while credit access and gender discrimination in forest resource exploitation were positive and significant (p < 0.05). The analysis also indicated that forest resource management and conservation is driven by household size, land ownership, credit access, gender discrimination and dependence on forest for income and energy. The study, among others, recommended the pursuit of forestry management plan with emphasis on gender mainstreaming in forest conservation and management; improved extension outreach to forest dependent communities; pursuance of community based training programmes on forest management and conservation, with emphasis on those resources that are facing the risk of depletion/extinction; and the orientation of village heads on their role as custodians of natural resources in their communities.



1.1       Background Information

The contribution of forest to the sustainability of livelihood and environmental quality cannot be overemphasized. Forest resources, namely woodland, shrubland, 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 promote their wellbeing. Indeed, forest environment and the diversity of life, which they harbour, represent an irreplaceable asset to the biosphere and mankind. Ecologically, their function is unquestionable as they provide two-thirds of the net primary productivity of all terrestrial ecosystems, of which our priceless tropical forest account for about sixty percent (Adegboye, 1992). The rich flora and fauna found in the forest meet the subsistence need of the numerous communities especially those living in the vicinity of the forest (Kailsha, 1993).

Globally, forest resources have been a source of subsistence to millions of people throughout the evolutionary history of our species. Different parts of the forest plants, such as leaf, flower, fruit, seed, twig, pod, stem, root, tuber, bark and exudates and whole plant are used for various purposes. Forests not only provide food, fibre and fuelwood but also supply household articles, construction materials and ornamentals to mankind (Adegboye, 1992, Adger and Brown, 1994; Louis, 1993; Kailsha, 1993; Odoemena, 2006). Forest hard wood has been a source of hard currencies, fuel wood and security for the poor. In fact, research on non-farm rural employment and income shows that small scale production and trading activities in forest products constitute one of the largest parts of rural non-farm enterprise employment (Liedholm and Mead, 1993). It is in acknowledgement of the importance of forest resources for livelihood and environmental stability that its conservation and hence sustainable management has been 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 forest for livelihood and economic survival (United Nations, 2002; Chukwuone, 2008).

Again, forests play a profound role in the maintenance of soil fertility. Forest leaves and branches of trees cover the top soil, thereby intercepting heavy down pours of rainfall and high velocity moving wind which would have eroded the soil, thereby rendering it less fertile and unproductive. Similarly, dead and decaying portions of forest trees improve the soil texture and structure thus increasing the water infiltration capacity of the soil and thereby enhancing nutrient recycling.

However, for man to continue to derive these benefits, forests and their abundant resources must be well protected against over exploitation. Unfortunately, this is not so. The over – exploitation of forest resources by both genders represents one of the greatest forces in global environmental degradation (Cock and Kock, 1991; GEO, 2000). Although the net loss of forest is slowing down, deforestation and forest degradation remains an on-going phenomenon, especially in tropical regions.

Forest resources have continued to provide off-farm employment to a large segment of the rural populace and account for enormous share of household income. For instance, in 1996 in Southeastern Nigeria, 35.7% of the rural population collected non timber forest products (NTFPs) daily and it accounted for 94% of total income from minor sources (Nweze and Igbokwe, 2000). Similarly, Bisong and Ajake (2001) discovered that women in southern Nigeria depend heavily on non-wood forest products (NWFPs). In fact, many Nigerians depend on forest resources for food, fibre and herbal medicines (Chukwuone, 2008).

 The growing demand for ecosystem services from forests, calls for a strategic approach to optimize the capacity of forests to mitigate climate change, conserve biodiversity, safeguard wildlife and protect land and watershed (FAO, 2005). This has to do with the adoption of sustainable forest management. The forest principle states that to achieve sustainable forest management forest resources and forest lands should be managed to meet the social, economic, ecological, cultural and spiritual human needs of the present and future generation (FAO, 2005).

Sustainable management of these resources will help guarantee the needs of the present generation without compromising the ability of future generation to meet their own needs. One of the cardinal means of ensuring sustainability in forest resources is the application of FAO strategy for sustainable management of forests and trees. This calls for   increase involvement of forest stakeholders particularly women in policy- making and legislation, to enhance the contribution of forests to livelihoods, and to make forestry, a more economically viable land-use option. Indigenous knowledge of the local people, both male and female gender, especially as it pertains to the use of the forest resources is a key issue in resource conservation and sustainability (Osemeobo and Ujor, 1999).

Women are critical actors in the management of forest resources. Their participation in sustainable forestry management is conditioned by their levels of forest dependence, the biophysical quality of the forest, their age, wealth levels, caste, or ethnicity (Davidson-Hunt,1996; Nuggehalli and Prokopy, (2009). As the main and most frequent collectors of forest products, women are more familiar with the forest than men (Agarwal, 1997). Moreover, they are more burdened than men by deteriorating forest conditions and have a tendency to conserve and to reduce pressure on forest resources in order to mitigate hardship. Men are largely involved in timber extraction unlike women who use products such as firewood, non-timber forest products (NTFP),that demand more frequent interaction with the forests (Pandofelli, Meinzen-Dick and Dohrn, 2009). Women adopt environmentally friendly farming system practices such as terracing and taungya cultivation of fodder trees and campaign against free grazing in community forests, practices which lower pressures on forests (Gbadegesin, 1996; Acharya and Gentle, 2006).

However, Jackson (1993) and Mackenzie (1995) cautioned against assuming a necessary and complementary relationship between women and sustainability because they may be constrained by the existing structure of disincentives such as limited control over land, labour and technology. Also, women under some settings may prefer not to engage in forest management activities either because of wealth or because they view land-based activities as backward (Jewitt, 2000; and Reurreccion, 2006).  

Similarly, Chukwuone (2008) submits that conservation initiative, which is an aspect of sustainable management, will be more successful if the indigenous people assume active roles. This is based on the advantages that can be gained by drawing on their indigenous knowledge of the forest resources and by building on the sustainable systems of use that the local people, especially the male and female categories seem to have created (Redford and Mansour, 1996). Participatory forest resource management is often seen as an appropriate solution to reducing resource degradation and it is generally assumed that granting property rights over to local commons would ensure the equitable and sustainable use and management of environmental resources. Through local participation, nearby communities would be engaged as stakeholders in managing the resources thus ensuring their commitment to long-term management goals (FAO, 1995).

However, the management of forest resources in Nigeria, especially national parks and forest reserves are in the hands of government and local participation is limited. (Forest reserves are areas set aside by state governments for the protection of timber, NWFPs, fuel wood and other forest resources in their domains). In principle, local people own forests but the management and control of forest resources are vested in the state governments. In fact, the first Forestry Act enacted in 1937, established the forest reserve system under the state government.




The study examined income, savings and investment patterns of small-scale agro-based entrepreneurs in Anambra State. The study utilized primary data to achieve this objective. The data were collected through multi-stage random sampling technique from 160 respondents. These data were analyzed with descriptive statistics including 4-point Likert rating scale, and multiple regressions. Tests of significant effects and differences were carried out with t-test and analysis of variance (ANOVA) techniques. Research results indicated that the average age of the small-scale agro-based entrepreneurs were 40years, while majority (33.8%) of them fell within the age range of 31-40 years. Also, majority (57.5%) of the small-scale agro-based entrepreneurs were males, while 43.8% of them were married. Household size of six to ten persons was the highest at 41.3% with an average of 9 persons per household, while twenty five percent of the agro-based entrepreneurs had completed their primary school education. Furthermore, majority (26.9%) of the entrepreneurs were engaged in groundnut processing, while the average experience of the entrepreneurs was 9 years and majority (38.1%) of them had 6 – 10 years of experience. Further results showed that the average monthly income of the small-scale agro-based entrepreneurs was N12,031.25 while their average monthly savings was N4,550.00. Majority (58.3%) of the small-scale agro-based entrepreneurs saved with esusu. Further results showed that majority (46.3%) of the entrepreneurs invested within N21,000 – N30,000 in their businesses while 46.3% of them also sourced their investment capital through personal savings with only 2.5% of them receiving loans from bank to finance their investments. There were no significant (p>0.1) differences in investment pattern of the agro-based entrepreneurs across the agricultural zones. Furthermore, the results showed that the socio-economic characteristics were significant (p<0.1) in explaining the changes in income, savings and investment patterns of the agro-based entrepreneurs. Age, educational level, savings level, asset level and level of skill acquired were positive and significant (p<0.05) in affecting the income pattern of the agro-based entrepreneurs. Also, the savings level of the entrepreneurs were positively and significantly (p<0.01) affected by their income and asset levels, and level of skill acquired, while the effects of household size and educational level were negative and significant (p<0.05). Furthermore, educational level, level of skill acquired, savings level and amount of money borrowed by the entrepreneurs had positive and significant (p<0.05) relationship with their investment pattern while the effects of household size and amount of interest paid on borrowed money were negative and significant (p<0.05). Further results showed that the challenges facing small-scale agro-industry were at an average of 2.85 on a 4-point Likert rating scale. These challenges included erratic power supply, lack of accessibility to their business areas, multiple government taxation and low patronage. The study recommended policies that will enhance the income, savings and investment levels of small-scale agro-based entrepreneurs in Anambra State.  

                                                                  TABLE OF CONTENTS

Title Page                                                                                                                    i

Certification                                                                                                                ii

Dedication                                                                                                                  iii

Acknowledgement                                                                                                      iv

Abstract                                                                                                                      v

Table of Contents                                                                                                       vi

List of Tables                                                                                                              x

List of Figures                                                                                                             xi

Chapter One:                                     Introduction

1.1       Background of the Study                                                                               1

1.2       Problem Statement                                                                                          4

1.3       Objectives of the Study                                                          6

1.4       Hypotheses of the Study                                                                    7

1.5       Justification of the Study                                                                                7 

Chapter Two:                                    Review of Related Literature

2.1       Concept of Small-Scale Agro Based Entrepreneurs   9

2.1.1    Meaning of Small Scale Industries/Enterprises            11          

2.1.2    Roles of Small-Scale Agro-Based Entrepreneurs in Economic Development            12

2.2       Socio-Economic Characteristics of Small-Scale Agro-Based Entrepreneurs 13          

2.2.1    Gender of Small-Scale Agro-Based Entrepreneurs      14

2.2.2    Age of Small-Scale Agro-Based Entrepreneurs                      14                                                      

2.2.3    Education Level of Small-Scale Agro-Based Entrepreneurs          14

2.2.4    Marital Status of Small-Scale Agro-Based Entrepreneurs                15

2.2.5    Occupational Categories of Small-Scale Agro-Based Entrepreneurs 15         

2.2.5    Income Level of Small-Scale Agro-Based Entrepreneurs  16         

2.3       Sources of Capital/Funds for Investment by Small-Scale Agro-Based Entrepreneurs                                         16   

2.4       Patterns of Investment and Savings of Small-Scale Agro-Based Entrepreneurs 18           

2.4.1    Patterns of Investment of Small-Scale Agro-Based Entrepreneurs  18          

2.4.2    Patterns of Savings of Small-Scale Agro-Based Entrepreneurs 19

2.5       Factors Affecting Income, Savings and Investment Patterns of Agro-Based Entrepreneurs                                                    20        

2.6       Factors Affecting the Income of Small-Scale Agro-Based Industry 22     

2.7       Theoretical Framework                                                           27

2.7.1    Life Cycle Hypothesis                                                                 27

2.7.2    Permanent Income Hypothesis                                            28

2.7.3    Keynesian and Accelerator Theories                                              30

2.8       Analytical Framework                                                                                    30

2.8.1    Likert Scale                 31

2.8.2    Multiple Regression                                                                            31

2.8.3    Analysis of Variance (ANOVA)                                                                    32

2.8.4    T- Test                                                                         32

Chapter Three:                                 Research Methodology

3.1       Area of Study                                                                                                 33

3.2       Sampling Technique                                                                                        34

3.3       Data Collection                                                                                               34

3.4       Analytical Technique                                                                                      35

Chapter Four:                                   Results and Discussions

4.1       Socio-Economic Characteristics of Small Scale Agro Based Entrepreneurs  39

4.1.1    Age of Small-Scale Agro-Based Entrepreneurs         39

4.1.2    Sex of Small-Scale Agro-Based Entrepreneurs           40

4.1.3    Marital Status of Small-Scale Agro-Based Entrepreneurs   40

4.1.4    Household Size of Small-Scale Agro-Based Entrepreneurs 41

4.1.5    Educational Level of Small-Scale Agro-Based Entrepreneurs 42

4.1.6    Type of Agro-Based Activity Engaged by Small-Scale Agro-Based Entrepreneurs                                                                             43

4.1.7    Nature of Business of Small-Scale Agro-Based Entrepreneurs44

4.1.8    Years of Experience of Small-Scale Agro-Based Entrepreneurs 44

4.1.9    Possession of Requisite Skills by Small-Scale Agro-Based Entrepreneurs    45

4.2       Income and Savings Status and Patterns of Small-Scale Agro-Based Entrepreneurs                                                                             46       

4.2.1    Income Status of Agro Based Entrepreneurs        46

4.2.2    Income Sources of Small-Scale Agro-Based Entrepreneurs  47

4.2.3    Savings Status of Small-Scale Agro-Based Entrepreneurs   48

4.2.4    Savings Patterns of Small-Scale Agro-Based Entrepreneurs      49

4.3       Investment Patterns of Small-Scale Agro-Based Entrepreneurs    50

4.4       Sources of Capital for Investment by Small-Scale Agro-Based entrepreneurs 51

4.4.1    Sources of Capital                                                                                           51

4.5       Factors Affecting Income, Savings and Investment Patterns of Small-Scale

Agro-Based Entrepreneurs in Anambra State                                                52

4.5.1    Factors Affecting Income Pattern of Small-Scale Agro-Based Entrepreneurs 52

4.5.2    Factors Affecting Savings Pattern of Small-Scale Agro-Based Entrepreneurs 54

4.5.3    Factors Affecting Investment Pattern of Small-Scale Agro-Based Entrepreneurs 55

4.6       Factors Affecting the Income of Small-Scale Agro-Based Industry 57

Chapter Five:                                    Summary, Conclusion and Recommendations      

5.1       Summary                                                                                                         60

5.2       Conclusion                                                                                                      62

5.3       Recommendations                                                                                          63

References                                                                                          65       

Appendices                                                                                    72                   

                                                                  LIST OF TABLES


1:         Age distribution of small-scale agro-based entrepreneurs in Anambra State 39

2:         Distribution of small-scale Agro-based Entrepreneurs according to marital status 41

3:         Frequency distribution of small-scale agro-based entrepreneurs according to Household size                       41

4:         Frequency distribution of small-scale agro-based entrepreneurs according to level of education                                42

5:         Frequency distribution of small-scale entrepreneurs according to their type of agro-based activities                        43

6:         Frequency distribution of small-scale agro-based entrepreneurs according to their level of experience                            45

7:         Frequency distribution of small-scale agro-based entrepreneurs according to Their level of income                                    46

8:         Distribution of small-scale agro-based entrepreneurs according to their sources of income                                                                                           48

9:         Frequency distribution of small-scale agro-based entrepreneurs according to their monthly savings                             48

10:       Pattern of Investment of agro-based entrepreneurs      51

11:       Regression result on the factors affecting the income of small-scale agro-based entrepreneurs                                                                                53

12:       Regression result on the factors affecting the savings of small-scale agro-based entrepreneurs                        55

13:       Regression result on the factors affecting the investment pattern of small-scale agro-based entrepreneurs                           57

14:       Likert rating scale of factors affecting income of small-scale agro-based industry                                                                                        58

                                                                  LIST OF FIGURES


1:         Sex distribution of small-scale agro-based entrepreneurs in Anambra State  40

2:         Nature of business of small-scale agro-based entrepreneurs 44

3:         Possession of requisite skills by small-scale agro-based entrepreneurs 46

4:         Distribution of small-scale agro-based entrepreneurs according to their pattern of savings                                 49

5:         Sources of capital for agro-based entrepreneurs       52                     



1.1       Background of the Study

The role of agriculture and agro-based industries in Nigeria cannot be over emphasized. Agriculture is a source of food for consumption by man, feeds for animals and raw material for the agro-based industries (Edoumiekumo&Audu, 2009). Agriculture contributes to the growth of the economy and also provides employment opportunities for the teeming population and eradicates poverty in the economy, serves as means of income and livelihood, helps in wealth creation and generation of foreign exchange earnings for the country (Nigerian Investment Promotion Commission, 2004). This dominance of agriculture places great premium on the activities of agro-based industries and entrepreneurs in the growth and development of such economies. According to KarandMishra (2004), agro-based enterprises are involved in the production, processing, preservation, manufacturing of agricultural inputs and marketing of agricultural products,and the individuals involved in these activities are the entrepreneurs. An entrepreneur, according to Amuseghan (2008), recognizes opportunities and utilizes them. The entrepreneur starts a business, arranges business ideas and takes risks in order to make profit.

In Nigeria, just like other developing economies the activities of agro-based entrepreneurs are on small-scale bases not exceeding annual turnover of N500,000 (CBN, 2005). Onyebinama (2004) reported that agriculture and agro-based activities in Nigeria are largely on small-scale involving land holding between one (1) and five (5) hectares. In this context therefore, small-scale agro-based entrepreneurs refers to entrepreneurs that are involved in the processing of agricultural products and whose annual turnover are less than N500, 000. As such, this study will concentrate on entrepreneurs that are involved in the processing of agricultural products on small-scale level. Therefore, entrepreneurs involved in the processing of agricultural products add value to them by elongating their shelf life, reducing their bulkiness and creating different varieties and forms. Such agricultural products include cassava, palm nuts, palm kernel, groundnut, plantain, rice, soybean and maize. This has become very imperative in view of the high post-harvest losses associated with agricultural products due to their ease of perishability (Mehta, 2012).

Income, savings and investment are very important parameters that define the wellbeing and performance of small-scale agro-based entrepreneurs. This is because Nigeria, like other developing economiesfaces the herculean task of finding sufficient capital to pursue her developmental efforts (CBN, 2005). As such, the activities of the dominant sector in the economy (i.e. small-scale agro-based entrepreneurs) are affected by their income, savings and investment patterns. Several surveys have shown that Nigerians are trapped in the vicious circle of poverty−low income, low savings and low investments (Obayelu, 2012). The country, therefore, needs very high rates of savings and investments to make a leap forward in her efforts of attaining high levels of growth (CBN, 2005).

Successive administrations in the country have placed emphasis on savings and capital formation as the primary instruments of economic growth in order to increase national income (CBN, 2005).In other words, capital formation plays a vital role in continuous increased production of goods and services, and as such, capital formation has to be supported by appropriate volume of savings. A growth in economic activities stimulates investment, and increased investment in turn enhances economic growth, income and savings levels (Mishra, Das & Mishra, 2010). As noted by Obayelu (2012), increase in savings, use of increased savings for increased capital formation, use of increased capital formation for increased savings for a further increase in capital formation constituted the strategy behind economic growth. This process of increased capital formation leading to increased savings and increased savings leading to increased capital formation will continue till savings, capital formation and income reach desired levels after which savings and capital formation gets stabilized and there would be a steady and self-sustaining increase in national income (Obayelu, 2012).

According to The Macmillan English dictionary (2007), income refers to money that someone gets from working or from investing money. The investment of money is the pre-occupation of entrepreneurs. In the view of Keynes (1936) the income of the agro-based entrepreneurs is the excess of the value of entrepreneurs’ finished output over his prime cost.In other words, it is taken as being equal to the quantity of the output, depending on his scale of production which he endeavors to maximize.The level of income of small-scale agro-based entrepreneurs is central to their savings and investment patterns as almost all models of economic development incorporate a critical role for savings and capital formulation (Morokolo, 2001). Morokolo (2001) reported the view of Gersovitz (1995) that several theorists of the low-level-equilibrium trap adopt the simplification that all income is consumed until a critical level is reached, while a fixed proportion of income above this level is saved. The level of income of the small-scale agro-based entrepreneurs depends upon certain independent factors like family size, number of earners, age, educational level, asset level, savings and investment (Adetunji, 2002). Yusuf and Peters (1984) had argued that Keynesian economists regard the level of current income as the very first rung in a theory of savings. How much an individual, a family, a region and a nation might save depends, quite appropriately on total earnings.

Savings according to Amu and Amu (2012) refers to an amount of money put aside for future use. It is the sacrifice of current consumption to allow for capital accumulation, and is very imperative for supporting and developing rural industries (Obayelu, 2012). Savings provide numerous benefits to small-scale agro-based entrepreneurs directly for investment and indirectly as indication for repayment ability, increase in credit rating and as collateral in a credit market (Brata, 1999).

Investment on its part is the process of injecting capital into a business with the view to generate further capital (Arene, 2008). It leads to increased production which later enhances more consumption and income. The income-expenditure model holds that it is at the point where investment equals savings that the economy attains equilibrium. Adam and Agba (2006) view savings as an important macroeconomic variable that impact significantly on the rate of capital accumulation, productivity, and the independence of a nation in terms of capital and ownership of domestic assets. Alade (2006) succinctly hints that a farmer who consumes the seedlings meant for the next planting season does not expect any harvest. It follows therefore, that high level of domestic savings will facilitate investment, increase in productivity and finally growth in the economy.




Dedication ————————————————————————– i

Acknowledgement —————————————————————– ii

Table of contents——————————————————————- iii

List of tables———————————————————————— v

Abstract—————————————————————————– vi


1.1Background Information————————————————– —- 1

1.2 Problem Statement————————————————————- 4

1.3 Objective of the Study——————————————————— 5

1.4 Research Hypotheses———————————————————- 6

1.5 Justification—————————————————————- —- 6


2.1 Fertilizer Procurement, Distribution and Subsidy——————— —- 7

2.2 Constraints to Fertilizer Supply and Use——————————- —- 11

2.3 Policy Performance Criteria——————————————— —- 13

2.4 Environmental Issues on the Use of Fertilizer————————- —- 14

2.5 Economic Regulation—————————————————– —- 16

2.6 Economic Deregulation————————————————– —- 16

2.7 Theoretical Framework————————————————— —- 17

2.8 Analytical Framework—————————————————- —- 20

2.9 Time Series Features of the Variables———————————- —- 23

2.10 Relationship between the explanatory and explained variables—23

2.11 Residual test for Cointegration—————————————– —- 24       

2.12 The Error Correction Model——————————————– —- 24


3.1 Study Area—————————————————————– —- 25

3.2 Period of Study—————————————————————– 26

3.3 Data Collection———————————————————— —- 26

3.4 Data Analysis————————————————————– —- 27

3.5 Model Specification—————————————————— —- 27


4.1 Distribution of fertilizer between 1986 -1996 and 1997-2006———– 30

4.2 Usage-rate of Fertilizer between ‘86/’96 and ‘97/’06——————— 33

4.3 Yield of selected Fertilizer Dependent Crops for the two periods ——- 36

4.4 Determinants of Time Series Properties————————————- 37


5.1 Summary———————————————————————— 44

5.2 Recommendation————————————————————– 44

5.3 Conclusion ——————————————————————— 45

References——————————————————————— —- 46


Table 1: Total Fertilizer Production, Importation, Exports and Use in Nigeria——————————————————————— 10       

Table 2: Nigeria Fertilizer Use, Procurement, Subsidy, Price and Tariffs 11       

Table 3:  Distribution of Fertilizer between 1986/1996 and 1997/2006—– 30

Table 4: Price of Fertilizer between 1986/1996 and 1997/2006————– 31

Table 5: Subsidy Cost of Fertilizer between 1986/2006 and 1997/2006- 32

Table 5.1: Nigerian National and Agric Budgets  & Fertilizer Subsidy Costs——————————– 33

Table 6: Fertilizer Usage-rate for the periods———————————– 34

Table 7: Yield of Maize, Millet, Rice and Sorghum for the two Eras——— 36

Table 8: ADF Root values at Order (1)—————————————— 37

Table 9: Augmented Engel-Granger Test for Co-integration at Order 1(0)38

Table 10: Maize yields Response to price and other factors of Fertilizer 39

Table 11: Rice yield response to price and other factors of Fertilizer -40

Table 12: Millet yield response to price and other factors of Fertilizer -41

Table 13: Sorghum yield response to price and other factors of Fertilizer-42


This study examined the impact of fertilizer policy on crop production.  The various trends in fertilizer policy reform were explored.  Specifically, the fertilizer policy was studied under two policy regimes: the pre-liberalization and the liberalization periods.  The first period is between 1986 and 1996, which otherwise constituted the pre-liberalization era while the years between 1997 and 2006 make up the second period, otherwise called the liberalization era.  Secondary data on the distribution of fertilizer, usage-rate, fertilizer cost, yield of selected cereals, as well as the time series features of the variables, test for cointegration and the error correction mechanism were used in this research.  The descriptive analysis, students’ t-test and the regression model were used to analyze the data.  It was discovered that there was an increase in the distribution of fertilizer in the second period.  There was also an increase in the yield of the selected cereals.  Among the selected crops, rice had the highest yield in the first era.  The quantity of fertilizer distributed, the usage-rate of fertilizer, the price and the policy periods of the variables were found to have significant effect on agricultural production.  The quantity of fertilizer distributed and the price of fertilizer were found to have positive effect on agricultural production.  In order to increase agricultural production in Nigeria through an effective fertilizer policy: the distribution of fertilizer to farmers has to be timely.  Farmers should be educated on the dangers of excessive use of fertilizer in order to prevent environmental pollution.  Complementary use of inorganic and organic fertilizer should be encouraged so as toensure eco-balance and food security.



  1. Background of the Study

Fertilizer is one of the major farm inputs for achieving the green revolution objective in the world. According to Dada (2006), during the Africa Fertilizer Summit, it is generally believed that not less than 50% of incremental crop output in the past five decades is attributable to fertilizer use.

Owing to fertilizer use, along with other inputs such as seeds and agro chemicals, many countries of the world with high population densities have been able to achieve, relatively, food self-sufficiency in the past decades (World Bank, 2004).

Unfortunately, the benefits of green revolution did not accrue significantly to sub-Saharan Africa to any perceptible extent due, among other reasons, to inadequate use of fertilizer (FGN, 2005).

            The Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) estimates of fertilizer need in Africa concomitant to yield and area expansions for meeting the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) amount to an increase in total nutrients of 47% or 26% average annual growth rate (UN, 2000).

This is why members of New Partnership for African Development (NEPAD) of the African Union (AU) had formulated the Comprehensive Africa Agriculture Development Plan (CAADP) predicated on increased and efficient use of fertilizer. The components of CAADP are consistent with the global objectives set in the MDGs as well as the national objectives of Nigeria contained in the National Economic Empowerment and Development Strategy (NEEDS) document (NEEDS, 2004). The critical aspect of the MDGs in relation to the fertilizer sector is the goal to reduce poverty by half by 2015, taking cognizance of the role of agriculture in the economy wherein about 70% of the people are employed or engaged (Dada, 2006).

            The role of fertilizer is well established all over the world; crop output of countries correlate strongly and positively with fertilizer consumption: World average = 91kg/ha; North America = 93kg/ha; Western Europe = 186kg/ha; South Asia = 96kg/ha; East Asia = 201kg/ha; All Asia = 141kg/ha; Africa = 19kg/ha; Nigeria = 8kg/ha (IFDC, 2003; Idachaba, 2006). But the FAO recommended 200kg/ha; therefore, the need for Nigeria to redouble fertilizer use, improve agricultural production and productivity and raise rural income in the face of a rapidly growing population and worsening poverty incidence has become obvious (Idachaba, 2006).

            Okolo (2004) described the fertilizer supply in Nigeria as still inadequate. This accounts to some extent for its low usage. One major impetus to fertilizer usage is an improvement of the fertilizer market. Olomola (2005) stated that there is need to improve the agribusiness market structure and performance.

            Since the establishment of a ministry for agriculture at the Federal level in 1967 followed by the creation of the first professional department (Federal Department of Agriculture (FDA), in the ministry in 1970, the promotion of fertilizer and other green revolution technologies has become a deliberate government policy (Bello, 2006). The institutional policy on fertilizer involved the subsequent establishment of the erstwhile Fertilizer Procurement and Distribution Division (FPDD), which was established in the FDA in an effort to co-ordinate the activities of the states in the importation of fertilizer (Dada, 2006).

For many years, the FPDD served as the central agency for fertilizer importation and its delivery to designated points in the country till the liberalization of the sub-sector began in 1995 following which the division was re-designated as Federal Fertilizer Department in 2001. During this period (1976-1995), the main statute in force was the National Fertilizer Board Act of 1977 which provided for the establishment of “a body corporate to be charged with the responsibility for purchasing and distributing fertilizer to state government at such subsidized prices as may be determined by the Federal Government” (FFD, 2006b).

            Generally “Fertilizer” means any substance containing one or more recognized plant nutrient(s) that is used for its plant nutrient content and is designed for use or claimed to have value in promoting plant growth (FFD, 2006a)

Specifically, “mineral fertilizer” means fertilizer produced by mineral processes or mined and derived from an organic substance or synthetic organic substance; while “organic fertilizer” means fertilizer derived from non-synthetic organic material, including sewage sludge, animal manures and plant residues produced through the process of drying, cooking, composting, chopping, grinding, fermenting or other methods and makes a declaration of nutrient value on the label (FFD, 2006a).

          Cereals are those members of the grass family, Poeceace grown for their characteristic fruit, the caryopsis, which have been the most important sources of world’s food for the last 10,000 years ( Onwueme and Sinha, 1991). Wheat and barley are the oldest cultivated cereals. Their cultivation started in the fertile crescent of Mesopotamia some 10,000 years ago, this region now include parts of Turkey, Syria, Irag and Iran ( Onwueme and Sinha, 1991).

            The major cereal crops in Nigeria are rice, maize, sorghum, millet, wheat, pearl, sugar cane and fonio millet with rice ranking as the sixth major crop in terms of the land area while sorghum account for 50% of the total cereal production and occupies about 45% of the total land area devoted to cereal production in Nigeria ( NEARLS, 1996 ).

            The role of cereals to modern society is related to its importance as food crop throughout the world. In most parts of Asia and Africa, cereals products comprises 80% or more of the average diet, in the United State, between 20-25% ( Onwueme and Sinha, 1991). Cereals are the major dietary energy suppliers and provide significant amount of protein, minerals (potassium and calcium) and vitamins ( vitamin A and C) ( Idem and Showemimo, 2004). Cereals are consumed in a variety of forms, including pastes, noodles, cakes, breads, drinks etc. depending on the ethnic or religious affiliation. The bran, husk, plant parts and other residues( after processing) are useful as animal feeds and in the culture of micro-organism. Wax syrup and gum are extracted from cereals for industrial purposes ( Ismaila, Gana, Tswanya and Dogara, 2010).

Agriculture is the economic heart of most countries and most likely source of significant economic growth (DFID, 2003). It has been observed as the major and certain path to economic growth and sustainability. In spite of the dominant role of the petroleum sector as the major foreign exchange earner in Nigeria, agriculture remains the mainstay of the economy (NEEDS, 2004). Apart from contributing the largest share of gross domestic product (GDP), it is the largest non-oil export earner, the largest employer of labour and a key contributor to wealth and poverty alleviation, as a large percentage of the population derive their income from agriculture and related activities (Ayinde, Adewumi and Omotosho, 2009).

            Moreover, in order to increase productivity, Nigeria’s agriculture needs to embrace science-based technology and the use of fertilizer, improved seed and crop protection products. Since land expansion is limited, without science based agricultural inputs, agricultural production will decline and fall (Ayinde et al, 2009). Despite the laudable efforts of the nation to improve crop production, Nigeria’s agricultural sector is still characterized by low yields attributable to the use of crude implements, a low level of input and limited area under cultivation among others.

Hence, Nigeria has to adopt policies that will encourage an agricultural sector that has a high investment rate. A key element of this strategy is an efficient and well functioning policy on agricultural inputs market, making use of the following complements, among which are: Fertilizer, improved seed variety and crop protection product. Thompson, Vander-Meer, Alex and Kane (2004) saw the need to invest in policy and regulatory reforms in the fertilizer sector as well as establishment of government and regulatory capacity.




This study examined groundnut oil production and marketing in Kaduna State, Nigeria. The specific objectives were to: examine the socio economic factors that influenced the production of groundnut oil; examine the socioeconomic factors that influenced marketing of groundnut oil; describe gender roles in the production and marketing of groundnut oil in the study area; describe the marketing channels employed in the distribution of groundnut oil; analyse margins of groundnut oil production and marketing; and identify constraints militating against the production and marketing of groundnut oil. Multi-stage random sampling technique was used to stratify the state into northern (mostly Moslems) and southern (mostly Christians) areas. A total of 100 respondents (50 producers and 50 marketers) were randomly selected. Data were collected from producers and marketers based on the list from the extension agents using two sets of structured and pre-tested questionnaires. Multiple regression model, descriptive statistics and marketing margin analysis were used to achieve the objectives. Socioeconomic factor such as sex, education, occupation, and years of experience were significant at 1% level for production with an R- square of about 70%, while for marketing, age and education were highly significant at 1% level with an R-square of about 90%. Production of groundnut oil was dominated by females, while both sexes had almost equal percentage in the marketing of the product. More retailers (76%) bought groundnut oil directly from the producers at more frequent intervals because they had low capital base. But the wholesalers (24%) bought less frequently at larger quantities because of larger capital. The producer’s margin was 36%, with a Net Income of N43, 925.04 per annum. The wholesaler’s margin was 28% with a Net Income of N 615, 960.00 per annum, while the retailer’s margin was 36% with a Net Income of N 201,636.00 per annum. The total marketing margin was 100. The constraints of notable importance that affected production were lack of capital (92%), high cost of groundnut (82%), poor variety (50%), and crude processing method (70%). For marketing, high cost of groundnut oil (92%), high interest rate on borrowed money (80%) and fluctuation in price of groundnut oil (70%) and competition from other vegetable oils (50%).  The production and marketing of groundnut oil if given a favourable environment by reducing the problems facing the industry to its barest minimum would thrive better. So, by way of recommendation, research institutes should be encouraged through adequate funding to produce high oil yielding varieties of groundnut. Loans should be made accessible and at reasonable and affordable interest rate to producers and marketers. The indigenous manufacturers should fabricate groundnut oil extractors and groundnut oil producers encouraged to use them so that larger quantities of oil would be produced to meet market demand at a relatively lower price. Proper market information should be disseminated   so that all the market players would be in the picture and finally policies should be put in place to discourage unlawful importation of the vegetable oils into the country to avoid unnecessary competition in the market.


 Title page    –        –        –        –        –        –        –        –        –        i

Certification page                   –           –           –           –           –           –           –           ii

Dedication      –           –           –           –           –           –           –           –           –           iii

Acknowledgement      –           –           –           –           –           –           –           –           iv

Abstract          –           –           –           –           –           –           –           –           –           v

Table of Contents       –           –           –           –           –           –           –           –           vi

List of Tables  –           –           –           –           –           –           –           –           –           ix

List of Figures             –           –          –           –           –          –          –           –            x

CHAPTER ONE: INTRODUCTION –     –           –           –           –           –           1

  1. Background of the Study    –        –        –        –        –        –        1
    1. Statement of the Problem –         –        –        –        –        –        –        3
    1. Objective of the Study       –        –        –        –        –        –        6
    1. Hypotheses of  the Study   –        –        –        –        –        –        6
    1. Justification of the Study   –        –        –        –        –        –        7

1.6       Definition of Terms                 –          –           –          –           –           –           8

CHAPTER TWO: LITERATURE REVIEW –    –           –           –           –           9

2.1       Concept of Agricultural Marketing     –          —                       9

2.2     Agricultural Markets in Developing Countries    –        –        –        10

2.3     The Role of Gender in Agricultural Marketing    –        –        –        13

2.3.1    Causes and consequences of the ‘gendered’ nature of agricultural marketing system         –      –              –          –           –          –           – 15

2.4     Changes in Marketing Activity and System        –        –        –        –        16

2.5     Problems Facing Agricultural Marketing   –        –        –        –        18

2.5.1   Marketing Problems                 –       –          –           –           –                    18

2.6     Stages in Groundnut Processing   –        –        –        –        –        21

2.7     Marketing Channel –        –        –        –        –        –        –        22

2.8     Hausa Purdah Women in the Groundnut Processing Enterprise   25

2.9     Profitability-  –        –        –        –        –        –        –        –        25

2.9.1  Gross Profit Margin Ratio – –        –        –        –        –        –        27

2.9.2  Gross Profit as a Percentage of Sales      –        –        –        –        –        28

2.10   Analytical Framework –      –        –        –        –        –        –        28

2.10.1 Concept of Marketing Margin –     –        –        –        –        –        28

2.10.2 Marketing Margin Analysis –        –        –        –        –        –        30

2.10.3 Empirical Studies of Marketing Margins – –        –        –        –        32

2.10.4 Marketing Cost –     –        –        –        –        –        –        –        33

2.10.5 Regression Analysis –        –        –        –        –        –        –           35

2.11   Theoretical Framework      –        –        –        –        –        –        35

CHAPTER THREE: METHODOLOGY – –        –        –        –        37

  • Study Area    –        –        –        –        –        –        –        –        37
    • Sampling Procedure –        –        –        –        –        –        –        38
    •  Data Collection      –        –        –        –        –        –        –           38
    • Data Analysis          –        –        –        –        –        –        –        –        39
    • Test of Hypothesis  –        –        –        –        –        –        –        39
    • Model Specification  –        –        –        –        –        –        –        39

3.6.1  Multiple Regression Model  –        –        –        –        –        –           39

3.6.2  Marketing Margin Analysis –        –        –        –        –        –        41

3.6.3  Producer’s Margin             –        –        –        –        –        –        41     

CHAPTER FOUR: RESULTS AND DISCUSSION       –           –           –           43

  • Effects of Socioeconomic Characteristics on the Production of Groundnut oil –        –           –           –           –           43

4.1.1    Socioeconomic Characteristics of Groundnut Oil Producers   43       

4.1.2    Effects of Socioeconomic Characteristics on Production of Groundnut oil            –           –           –           –           –           –           –           45

  • Effects of the Socioeconomic Characteristics on the Marketing of Groundnut oil         –           –           –           –           –           –           –           46

4.2.1    Socioeconomic Characteristics of Groundnut oil Marketers 46       

4.2.2    Effects of Socioeconomic Characteristics on Groundnut Oil Marketing –           –           –           –           –           –           –           –           49

4.3       Gender Roles in the Production and Marketing of Groundnut Oil 50       

4.3.1    Role of Gender in the Production of Groundnut Oil –     –           50

4.3.2    Role of Gender in the Marketing of Groundnut Oil –    –           51

4.4       Marketing Channels Employed in the Distribution of Groundnut Oil- –           52

4.5       Margins of Groundnut Oil Produced and Marketed –         –           52

4.5.1    Producer’s Income and Margin –        –       –           –           –           52

4.5.2    Wholesaler’s Income and Margin –     –             –           –           –           55

4.5.3    Retailer’s Income and Margin –          –          –           –           –           56

4.6       Constraints Militating Against the Production and Marketing of Groundnut Oil –      –           –           –           –           –           –           –           47

4.6.1    Constraints militating Against the Production of Groundnut Oil–  57

4.6.2    Constraints militating Against the Marketing of Groundnut Oil-  58


5.1       Summary         –          –           –           –           –           –           –           60       

5.2       Conclusion      –                   –           –           –           –           –           62       

5.3       Recommendations          –           –           –           –           –           62       

REFRENCES           –           –           –           –           –           –           –           –           64

APPENDICES          –           –           –           –           –           –           –           –           69


Table 2.1         Gendered Nature of Rural Commodity Marketers   –           15

Table 4.1         Socioeconomic Characteristics of Groundnut Oil Producers –           44

Table 4.2      Results of the Multiple Regression Analysis of the Socioeconomic                                            

   Factors Affecting the Production of Groundnut Oil –        –        47

Table 4.3         Socioeconomic Characteristics of Groundnut Oil Marketers — -48

Table 4.4      Result of Multiple Regression Analysis of the Socioeconomic Characteristics Affecting the Marketing of Groundnut Oil –          –        49

Table 4.5      Gender Role in the Production of Groundnut Oil –     –        51

Table 4.6      Gender Role in the Marketing of Ground nut Oil –      51

Table 4.7      Enterprise Budget (Net Income) – –        –        –        –        53

Table 4.8      Wholesaler’s Income and Margin –          –        –        –        –        55

Table 4.9         Retailer’s Income and Margin    –        –        –        –        56

 Table 4.10   Constraints militating against the Production of Groundnut Oil –      57

 Table 4.11       Constraints militating against the Marketing of Groundnut Oil –  


Figure 2.1 Illustration of Concept of marketing Margin.———————-30

Figure 4.1 Marketing Channels employed in the distribution groundnut oil ———-52



1.1       Background Information

            Groundnut (Arachis hypogaea L.) originated from South America (Wiess, 2000). It is one of the most popular and universal crops cultivated in more than 100 countries in six continents; Asia, Africa, Oceania, North and South America and Europe (Nwokolo, 1996; ICRISAT, 1999).

            Major groundnut producing countries are China (40 percent), India (23 percent) and Nigeria (8.4 percent) (World Bank, 2003). Developing countries account for over 95 percent of total world groundnut area and about 94 percent of total world production. Production is concentrated in Asia and Africa, with Africa accounting for 35 percent of global area and 21 percent of total output mainly in Nigeria, Senegal and Sudan (RMRDC, 2005). In Nigeria, groundnut is cultivated mainly in the northern parts especially Kano, North Central, North West and North Eastern states (RMRDC, 2005). World production of groundnut was 35.9 million tonnes. Asia remained the largest producer with 20.5 million tonnes, India 10.9 million tonnes, and Africa, 4.5 million tonnes. According to RMRDC (2005) report, the total output of groundnut for Nigeria as at 2002 was 1,976,490.80 tonnes with a range of 47.00 – 73,000 tonness for the States. Bauchi State had the largest output (73,000 tonnes) followed by Nasarawa (70,420 tonnes) and Edo State had the least with 47.00 tonnes. The mean groundnut output from farmer’s field for all the States was 15.72 tonnes. Sokoto State had the highest mean output of 57.00 tonnes, followed by Benue with 52.0 tonnes, Jigawa 27.33 tonnes, Kano, 26.29 tonnes, Yobe, 25.70 tonnes, Zamfara, 25.55 tonnes and Kaduna, 22.67 tonnes. Abuja had the least with 2.25 tonnes. Annual average production figure for Nigeria was 456 metric tonnes of groundnut oil, 713 metric tonnes of groundnut cake and 2,652 metric tonnes of unshelled groundnut (FAO, 2002).

            Groundnut oil production is actually a post-harvest operation which is referred to as processing. Processing may be regarded as a way of converting harvested agricultural produce into other forms of products that can be preserved over a long period of time. In this case it is converting groundnut seeds into groundnut oil and groundnut cake commonly called “kuli-kuli” in the North. Processing of agricultural products serves as a source of additional income to the processor as well as boost household food security especially among the rural poor. In the process of transforming this product from subsistence to commercial, socio-economic changes of the processor is vital as he occupies key position in production, processing and marketing of agricultural product (NAERLS, 2000).

            The extraction of oil from groundnut constitutes an important agricultural processing activity for women in Nigeria especially in the northern States. The process involves a number of steps that include cleaning, roasting, de-skinning, kneading and frying and the extraction of oil. The oil extraction process is mainly traditional, characterized by drudgery and time consuming.

            In Nigeria, groundnut oil accounts for as much as 17 percent of the total agricultural export earnings because it does not meet domestic demand. The shortfall in domestic demand is 300,000 to 400,000 metric tones (Ojowo, 2004). Its husk (shell) is used as fuel, roughage, and litter for livestock, mulch, and manure and as soil conditioner (Misari, 1980).Groundnut seed contains 40-50 percent protein and 10-20 percent carbohydrate. Groundnut seeds are nutritional sources of vitamin E, niacin, flavin, calcium, phosphorous, magnesium, zinc, iron, riboflavin, thiamine and potassium.

It is also used as animal feed, raw material for oil, cake and fertilizers. The multiple uses of groundnut plant make it an excellent cash crop for domestic markets as well as for foreign trade in several developing and developed countries (Stigter,2006).Refined groundnut oil could be used in a variety of manufactured food products such as biscuits, cakes, crisps and ready meals. The unique property of stability and long shelf life can makes it a preferred choice for frying. As stable oil, it is often used as a base for some pharmaceutical products and minor food ingredients such as colours and flavours. Groundnut oil is also used in the preparation of skin cream, for instance, eczema cream though they could be problematic to those with a history of allergy due to the presence of groundnut protein (Warner, 1997). Groundnut oil is used extensively for massaging polio patients. It is also used as a carrier in the treatment of asthma and other ailments (Asiedu, 1990).



Title page……………………………………………………………………………… i
Approval page………………………………………………………………………… ii
Certification…………………………………………………………………………… iii
Dedication……………………………………………………………………………… iv
Acknowledgements………………………………….…………………………………. v
Table of Contents……………………………………………………………………… vi
List of Tables…..………………………………………………………………………. viii
Abstract………………………………………………………………………………… ix

CHAPTER ONE: INTRODUCTION ……………………………………………… 1
1.1 Background Information ……………………………………………………… 1
1.2 Problem Statement ……………………………………………………………… 3
1.3 Objectives of the Study ………………………………………………………… 4
1.4 Hypotheses of the Study ………………………………………………………. 5
1.5 Justification of the Study ……………………………………………….……… 5

2.1 Utilization of Cocoyam ………………………………………………………… 6
2.2 Potentials of Cocoyam …………………………………………………………. 7
2.2.1 Nutritive Values of Cocoyam……………………………………… 7
2.2.2 Economic Values of Cocoyam…………………………..……….. 8
2.2.3 Agronomic Values of Cocoyam…………………………..………… 9
2.3 Gender Issues in Agriculture …………………………………..…… 9
2.4 Gender and Farm Input Delivery System, Supply and Productivity……. 12
2.5 Cost and Returns ………………………………………………………………. 13
2.6 Resource Problems and Resource Allocation of Rural Economies……………. 14
2.6.1 Resource Problems ………………………………………….……. 14
2.6.2 Rural Resource Allocation ………………………………….……… 15
2.7 Evidence of Resource Productivity and Efficiency Studies ………… 17
2.8 Theoretical Framework …………………………………………………..…… 19
2.9 Analytical Framework ……………………………………………….………… 23
CHAPTER THREE: METHODOLOGY ………………………………………… 25
3.1 Study Area ………………………………………………………………………… 25
3.2 Sampling Procedure ……………………………………………………………… 26
3.3 Data Collection. ………………………………………………………… 26
3.4 Data Analysis …………………………………………………………………….. 27
3.5 Hypotheses Testing …………………………………………..………… 30

4.1 Socio-Economic Characteristics of the Respondents ……….…………… 31
4.2 Comparison of Mean Output of Male and Female Cocoyam Farmers……………. 35
4.3 Estimation of Technical and Allocative Efficiency in Cocoyam Production……….. 36
4.4 Comparison of Technical and Return to Scale of the Male and Female Farmers…………………………………………… 43
4.5 Cost and Returns of Male and Female Cocoyam Farmers …..… 44
4.6 Problems Encountered by Cocoyam Farmers Based on Gender ……. 46

5.1 Summary …………………………………………………………….………….… 48
5.2 Conclusion ………………………………………………………………….…….. 49
5.3 Recommendation ………………………………………………….……. 49
REFERENCE ……………………………………………………………….… 51
Appendix 1: Estimated outputs of major agric commodities (000 tons)…61


Table 3.1: Selection of Cocoyam Farmers in the Study Areas ………….. 26

Table 4.1: Distribution of Male and Female Cocoyam Farmers According to Socio-economic Characteristics …………. 34

Table 4.2: Two sample T-test of cocoyam output by gender ………… 35

Table 4.3: Maximum Likelihood Estimates of the Cobb-Douglas Stochastic Production function for male and female farmers in Anambra State. … 37

Table 4.4: Results of Multiple Regression Analysis of Male Cocoyam Farmers …………………………………….. 40

Table 4.5: Results of Multiple Regression Analysis of Female Cocoyam farmers …………………………………….. 40

Table 4.6: Estimation of Allocative Efficiency for Male Cocoyam Farmers ……… 41

Table 4.7: Estimation of Allocative Efficiency for Female Cocoyam Farmers……………………….. 42

Table 4.8: Elasticities of Production for Male and Female Cocoyam Farmers ……………………………… 44

Table 4.9: Costs and Returns of Male and Female Cocoyam Farmers 45

Table 4.10: Distribution of male and female respondents according to constraints in cocoyam production …………… 47

The study was carried out to investigate the gender and resource use efficiency in cocoyam production in Anambra State, Nigeria. The study presents the results of analysis of data collected on 160 male and female cocoyam farmers across two Agricultural zones in the state. A multi-stage random sampling technique was used to select the zones. Descriptive statistics such as percentages, frequencies, means and tables were used in analyzing farmer’s socio-economic characteristics and production problems. The result showed that women constituted a greater percentage (68.75%) of those involved in cocoyam production in the state with age range of 41 to 50 years. The Maximum Likelihood Estimation (MLE) technique was used in estimating the technical efficiency and determinants of efficiency of male and female farmers with the Cobb-Douglas production function as the lead model. The result of estimation of technical efficiency using the Cobb- Douglas stochastic function showed that the coefficients of male and female farmers for the production variables used were all positive. Cocoyam setts, labour and fertilizer use were significant while capital inputs were not significant for female cocoyam farmers. The result indicated that socio-economic conditions influenced technical efficiency of both categories of farmers. The coefficients of determinants of efficiency used were all positive except farm size that was negative and significant for both male and female cocoyam farmers while age, level of education, extension contact, knowledge index were all positive and significant for male farmers while other variables were not significant. Test of allocative efficiency revealed that none of defined farmer groups achieved absolute allocative efficiency. Male farmers underutilized fertilizer and over utilized other inputs in production while female farmers over utilized all the inputs. This result suggests that there exists the possibility of increasing output under existing level of technology through the use of lower levels of all inputs by male and female farmers except fertilizer for males. There is also scope to use higher levels of fertilizer for the male farmers. The result shows the mean output/kg of 2,450.20kg and 2,519.09kg with an average net profit of N62, 592.87 and N88, 378.12 and BCR of N1.85 and N2.16 for the male and female farmers respectively. This implies that cocoyam production was profitable in the study area. The results also showed that the elasticities of productions of male farmers is 0.43246 and that of female farmers is 1.1987. This shows a decreasing return to scale for male cocoyam farmers and increasing return for female cocoyam farmers. Finally, the study revealed that most of the farmers (male and female) encountered problems of root rot diseases at 90% and 90.91% respectively.

1.1: Background Information
In Nigeria of about 140 million people, men constitute about 50.4% and women 49.6%(N.P.C, 2006).Both gender are responsible for producing the nation’s food and one of the major problems confronting mankind in recent times is food crisis (Ndukwu et al 2010).Gender has often been misunderstood as being about the promotion of women only, but it focuses on the relationship between men and women, their roles, access to and control over resources, division of labour and needs. Men and women are affected differently in their operation in factors like markets and socio-economics environments. Women are more constrained than their men counterparts in terms of access to credits, agricultural inputs, information technology and so on. Some crop production are even classified as men’s, like yam production, while others like sweet potatoes and cocoyam production are regarded as women’s especially in the southeastern Nigeria(Ndukwu et al 2010).Dimelu et al (2009) reported that women are involved in crop production generally and cocoyam production in particular.
Agriculture is the largest sector in the Nigeria economy, providing food, income and employment for sustainable livelihood of both the rural and urban population (CBN,2003). FGN(2001), Agriculture is the largest non oil export earner and largest employer of labour accounting for 88% of the non oil foreign exchange earnings and 70% of the active labour force of the population. Food crops constitute the largest component of the crops sub sector of Nigeria’s agriculture(CBN 2003).Roots tubers are major sources of dietary carbohydrates and provide food for over 60 million people in Nigeria(Abubakar,2003).Increase in the output of cassava, yam, potatoes as well as cocoyam will significantly increase the GDP of Nigeria(Anyanwu et al 2010). The contribution of the food crop sector of Nigerian Agriculture is significant and well documented in literature (Olomola, 2006).
Cocoyam originates from Asia and about forty (40) species are grown in West Africa (Asumugha and Mbanasor, 2002). Cocoyam, both Xanthosoma species and Colocasia species belongs to the family (Aracea). The cocoyam specie colocasia esculata in subSahara Africa was introduced to this continent one thousand or more years ago from South East Asia while cocoyam specie Xanthosoma Mafafa was introduced more recently from tropical America (11TA 1992, FAO, 2005).
Nigeria is the largest producer of cocoyam in the world, accounting for about 47% of the total world output (FAO, 2007, NRCRI, 2009). From 0.73 million metric tones in 1990, cocoyam production in Nigeria rose to 3.89million metric tones in 2000 (Ojiako et al, 2007) and further by 30.30% to 5.068 million metric tones in 2007 (FAO, 2007). Further estimate in Nigeria, showed a figure of 5.387 million metric tones out of 11.77 million metric tones of world output of cocoyam per annum since 2008 (FAO , 2010).
Cocoyam ranks third in importance after cassava and yam among the root and tuber crops cultivated in Nigeria (see Appendix 1)(FAO, 2005, National Bureau of Statistics, 2006, Okoye et al, 2008). Cocoyam is an important staple food in the plant family, cultivated in South Eastern and South Western part of Nigeria (Onyenweaku et al, 2005, Ojiakor et al, 2007, Chukwu et al, 2009). It is a food security crop variously grown by resource poor farmers especially women who often intercrop it with yam, maize, plantain, banana, vegetable (Ikwelle et al, 2003).
Cocoyam to an extent is medicinal for diabetic patients because it has low starch content, is easily digestible and contains protein more than the other root tubers. The leaves of colocosia esculenta have been shown to be a rich source of folic acid, ribo flavin, vitamin A and C, calcium and phosphate (Arene and Ene, 1987). The leaves are consumed because they are rich in protein and vitamins, while the root is rich in carbohydrates and minerals (Duru and Uma, 2002). Cocoyam is a useful cover crop and the corms are ready to harvest in 8 – 12 months (Uguru, 1996). The corms and cormels are boiled, baked and tubers are sometimes ground to produce paste for use in stews and soups. Also in Southeast Asia, cocoyam leaves are consumed as a green or dry vegetables and the stem is either cooked or eaten on its own or together with other dietary staples or pounded into flour (Serem et al, 2008).The dried peeled corms are grinded to produce flour which is considered to be as palatable as cassava flour but more nutritious (Igbokwe, 2004).
In the traditional farming system women “own” and plant cocoyam after the men have planted their yam, hence it is regarded as a women’s crop (Igbokwe, 2004). As a result of male migration into urban and semi urban areas, certain task that were traditionally done by men (e.g. ridging) are now being done by the women folk. Thus, the gender based differentiation of farm tasks appears to be disappearing. Some scholars believe and argue that majority of the small scale farmers who produce the bulk of Nigeria’s agricultural output especially cocoyam are women. It is still their contention that women also play key roles in storage, processing, utilization and local marketing of agricultural produce (Dixon, 1983, Ekumankama and Ekumankama, 1996). Females constitute the greater percentage of the Nigerian population in the rural areas (Musa 1987, Fed. Rep. of Nig 1997, 2006).
Given the importance of cocoyam and the fact that its cultivation is receeding, it becomes compelling to examine the production methods, practices and resource inputs for its production in other to identify opportunities for improvements in terms of cultivation and efficient use of available resources.
Government research effort under cocoyam expansion programme had led to the development of several technologies aimed at adding value to cocoyam production (NRCRI, 1999). Also, dissemination of the improved technologies as well as advocacy supports for overall development of cocoyam are effective strategies for optimizing utilization of the abundant potentials associated with cocoyam in Nigeria.




The study analysed off-farm income and farm capital accumulation among small-scale farmers at farm level in North Central Nigeria. Multistage sampling technique was used to select 360 respondents, comprising participants and non-participants in off-farm work. The participants were disaggregated into three main typology namely, agricultural wage, non-agricultural wage, and self-employments. Data for the study were obtained from primary source with the aid of standard questionnaire and analysed using descriptive and inferential statistics. Self-employment was the dominant (42.78%) off-farm work. Full-time participants were mainly (38.50%) in non-agricultural wage employment. Participants with off-farm work experience of 14–19 years were mostly (55.20%) in self-employment, while 61.50% of the farmers with off-farm work experience of 26–33 years were in agricultural wage employment. Off-farm income constituted 50.28% of total household income. The strongest and weakest predictors of enterprise diversification were funds for farm investment (0.65) and crop failure (0.36), respectively. The mean entropy of diversification was 0.67. Farm income (p < 0.01, t = –10.237) and off-farm income (p < 0.01, t = 2.536) significantly affected market labour supply. Self-employed participants had the highest average off-farm income (N266,680.78). Farm capital differed significantly (p < 0.05) among off-farm work typology. Farm capital was unequally distributed among the respondents (G = 0.56). Causality ran from farm capital to off-farm income. Participants had significantly (p < 0.01) less total farm liabilities, debt-asset-ratio, and loan for farm production than non-participants. Participants significantly (p < 0.01) incurred more yam production costs and total variable costs than non-participants. Participants had significantly (p < 0.01) higher average technical efficiency estimates in yam and cowpea enterprises but less average profit efficiency estimates than non-participants. It was concluded that small-scale farmers had average reliance on off-farm income for the purposes of generating funds for farm investment and increasing farm capital. Although, self-employment generated higher off-farm income, farm capital was highest among farmers in agricultural wage employment. Thus, off-farm income was diverted to non-farm enterprises, signaling a gradual drift from core farm production. It was recommended that small-scale farm households should increase off-farm income’s share invested in farming so as to raise production level, farm capital and obtain higher returns so that they could take full part in agribusiness; that IFAD and other stakeholders in rural development should encourage farmers in non-agricultural and self-employments to re-invest off-farm income in farming; and the Federal Government and IFAD should train farmers on the management of additional income from off-farm work. These measures would facilitate the development of the agribusiness sector and forestall dual farm structure from adversely affecting food production by small-scale farmers.


Title Page i
Approval Page ii
Dedication iii
Acknowledgement iv
Abstract vi
Table of Content vii
List of Tables xii
List of Appendix xv
List of Figure xvi
1.1 Background of the Study 1
1.2 Problem Statement 6
1.3 Objectives of the Study 10
1.4 Hypotheses for the Study 11
1.5 Justification of the Study 12
1.6 Limitations of the Study 14
2.1 Characteristics of Off-farm Work 15
2.2 Off-farm Income and Household Incomes 17
2.3 Enterprise Diversification 21
2.4 Farm and Off-farm Income and Market Labour Supply 27
2.5 Farm Capital 31
2.6 Off-farm Income and Farm Capital Accumulation 33
2.7 Farm Financial Characteristics 39
2.8 Off-farm Income and Farm Efficiency 41
2.9 Theoretical Framework 43
2.9.1 Labour supply theory 43
2.9.2 Theory of wage determination 45
2.9.3 Human capital theory 47
2.9.4 Theory of optimal time allocation 49
2.10 Analytical Framework 52
2.10.1 Heckman’s two-stage selection model 52
2.10.2 Econometric representation of human capital model 55
2.10.3 Discriminant function analysis 56
2.10.4 Entropy measure of diversification 57
2.10.5 One-way analysis of variance 58
2.10.6 Multiple regression 59
2.10.7 Kruskal-Wallis (H) 59
2.10.8 The Gini index 60
2.10.9 Farm efficiency 62
2.10.10 Simultaneous equation 67
3.1 Study Area 68
3.2 Sampling Technique and Sample Size 69
3.3 Data Collection 69
3.3.1 Validity and reliability of instrument 71
3.4 Data Analysis 71
3.4.1 Descriptive statistics 71
3.4.2 Multiple discriminant function analysis 71
3.4.3 Entropy measure 73
3.4.4 Multiple regression 74
3.4.5 One-way analysis of variance 74
3.4.6 Gini coefficient 75
3.4.7 Causality test 75
3.4.8 Test of means’ difference 76
3.4.9 Financial measures and ratios 76
3.4.10 Stochastic frontier analysis 77
3.4.11 Heckman’s two-stage selection model 80
3.4.12 F-statistic 82
3.4.13 One-way analysis of variance 83
3.4.14 Pearson’s product moment correlation 83
3.4.15 Kruskal-Wallis (H) 84
3.4.16 Test of means’ difference 84
4.1 Characteristics of Off-farm Work in relation to Off-farm Work Typology 86
4.2 Off-farm Income’s Share and Household Income 89
4.3 Factors affecting Enterprise Diversification among Small-scale Farmers 90
4.4 Degree of Off-farm Diversification 96
4.5 Effect of Farm and Off-farm Income on Market Labour Supply 97
4.6 Disaggregation of Farm Income into main Typology 99
4.7 Level of Farm Capital among Off-farm Work Typology 101
4.8 Inequality of Farm Capital 102
4.9 Causality between Off-farm Income and Farm Capital 104
4.10 Difference in Farm Capital between Participants and Non-participants 106
4.11 Farm Financial Characteristics of Respondents 107
4.12 Farm Efficiency of Small-scale Farmers 109
4.13 Participation in Off-farm Work and amount of Off-farm Income’s Share invested in Farming 137
4.14 Effect of Socioeconomic Characteristics on Off-farm Diversification 142
4.15 Difference in Farm Capital among categories of Off-farm Work 147
4.16 Relationship between Off-farm Income’s Share of Household Income and Farm Capital 148
4.17 Difference in the Decision to Participate in Off-farm Work 149
4.18 Difference in Farm Capital between Male and Female-headed Farm households 150
4.19 Difference in Farm Efficiency Estimates between Participants and Non-participants 150
5.1 Summary 152
5.2 Conclusion 154
5.3 Recommendations 155
5.4 Contributions to Knowledge 157
5.5 Suggestions for Further Research 157

REFERENCES        159


Table No. Title Page
3.1 Sampling Plan and Sample Size 70
4.1 Characteristics of Off-farm Work according to main Typology 87
4.2 Off-farm Income’s Share and Household Income 90
4.3 Group Statistics of Factors affecting Enterprise Diversification 91
4.4 Tests of Equality of Group Means 92
4.5 Log Determinants of off-farm work typology 93
4.6 Box’s M test results table 93
4.7 Eigenvalues 94
4.8 Wilks’ Lambda 94
4.9 Structure Matrix 95
4.10 Off-farm Work Typology Classification 96
4.11 Degree of Off-farm Diversification 97
4.12 Effect of Farm and Off-farm Income on Market Labour Supply 98
4.13 Descriptive Statistics of Off-farm Income by Main Categories 100
4.14 Difference in Off-farm Income among Off-farm Work Categories 100
4.15 Duncan Multiple Range Test of Off-farm Income 101
4.16 Descriptive Statistics of Farm Capital by Off-farm Work Typology 101
4.17 Inequality of Farm Capital 102
4.18 Inequality of Farm Capital for Participants 103
4.19 Inequality of Farm Capital for Non-participants 104
4.20 Farm Capital Model 105
4.21 Off-farm Income Model 106
4.22 Difference in Farm Capital between Participants and Non-participants 107
4.23 Farm Financial Characteristics of Respondents 108
4.24 Summary Statistics of the Descriptive variables for Yam 111
4.25 Summary Statistics of the Descriptive variables for Cowpea 112
4.26 Summary Statistics of the Descriptive variables for Rice 113
4.27 Summary statistics of the Descriptive variables for Cost Efficiency 114
4.28 Summary Statistics of the Descriptive variables for Profit Efficiency 115
4.29 Maximum Likelihood Estimates of the Stochastic Frontier Yam Production Function 116
4.30 Maximum Likelihood Estimates of the Stochastic Frontier Cowpea Production Function 121
4.31 Maximum Likelihood Estimates of the Stochastic Frontier Rice Production Function 124
4.32 Maximum Likelihood Estimates of the Stochastic Frontier Cost Function 128
4.33 Maximum Likelihood Estimates of the Stochastic Frontier Profit Function 131
4.34 Frequency Distribution of Yam Farmer Specific Efficiency Estimates 134
4.35 Frequency Distribution of Cowpea Farmer Specific Efficiency Estimates 135
4.36 Frequency Distribution of Rice Farmer Specific Efficiency Estimates 135
4.37 Frequency Distribution of Farmer Specific Cost Efficiency Estimates 136
4.38 Frequency Distribution of Farmer Specific Profit Efficiency Estimates 137
4.39 Participation in Off-farm Work and amount of Off-farm Income’s Share invested in Farming 138
4.40 Effect of Socioeconomic Characteristics on Farm Diversification 144
4.41 Difference in Farm Capital among Categories of Off-farm Work 147
4.42 Least Square Difference in Farm Capital among Off-Farm Work Categories 147
4.43 Duncan multiple range test of mean capital among off-farm work categories 148
4.44 Relationship between Off-farm Income’s Share of Household Income and Farm Capital 149
4.45 Difference in the Decision to Participate in Off-farm Work 149
4.46 Difference in Farm Capital between Male and Female-headed Households 150
4.47 Difference in Farm Efficiency Estimates between Participants and Non-participants 151


Appendix No.                                    Title Page
1                           Questionnaire Used 180



     TABLE OF CONTENTS                           Page

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

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

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

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

Table of Contents  –   –  –   –   –   –   –   –   –   –   –     –   –   –   –   –   –  –  –     –   –   –   –  –  – v List of Tables    –   –   –   –   –   —   –   –   –   –     –   –   –  –  –     –   –   –   –  –  – –   –    –  –  ix List of Figures-    –   –   –   –   –   –   –     –   –   –   –   –   –  –  –     –   –   –  –   –   –   –  –  – –   x Abstract   –   –   –   –  –   –  –   –  –   –   –   –   –   –   –   –   –   –   –   –     –   –   –   –   – xi


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

        References      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.                                                                                  4

 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.

1.2       Problem Statement

The need for increased vigor in striving to achieve food security became very prominent with the incessant food crisis, especially in the developing countries. World Bank (1986) defines food security as access by all people at all times to sufficient food for an active and healthy life.

Conceptually, food security is broken down into four different components – availability, access, utilization and vulnerability – each capturing different, but overlapping dimension of the phenomenon (Migotto, Davis, Carletto, & Beegle, 2007).  To date, a lot of people in the developing world are still suffering from malnutrition despite the efforts made and inclusion of food security as part of the Millennium Development Goals (MDG). Worldwide, approximately 840 million people are undernourished or chronically food insecure and as many as 2.8 million children and 300,000 women die needlessly every year because of malnutrition in developing countries (Guha-Khasnobis, Acharya, &, Davis, 2007).

In Nigeria, 65% of households in the Core Welfare Indicators Questionnaire (CWIQ) survey (NBS, 2006) had problems meeting food needs. In fact, the greatest percentage (25.27%) of the households indicated that the primary coping mechanism for poverty was reducing the number of meal, and 37% of the populations (47 million people) were unable to meet the 2,900 kcal food requirement in 2004 (NBS, 2004). Access to adequate and nutritious food is limited by low income and poverty especially as nutritious foods are sometimes expensive. Therefore promoting alternative sources and safety nets of food for the households is germane, although very little or no attention is being paid to Non-Wood Forest Products (NWFPs) by policy makers and analysts in Nigeria’s quest for food security, NWFPs have been an important source of food in Nigeria. NWFPs are exploited mostly by the rural poor who often fall back to or rely largely on the products in meeting their food needs. They are also very critical in forest and biodiversity conservation.

Despite the importance of NWFPs in household consumption and forest and biodiversity conservation in Nigeria, they have hitherto been given very little recognition especially by planners and natural resource managers in Nigeria (Adedoyin, 1995). Even in most forest sector policies, for instance in the Nigerian Environmental Policy, NWFPs is not mentioned. Wherever they exist, NWFPs get a mention in passing but without clear objectives, targets and strategies for development and conservation. National statistics hardly offer any reliable data to document their economic role. They are not taken into account in GDP calculations (Osemeobo & Ujor, 1999). It is important to note that indigenous knowledge of local use of species is a key issue in forest and NWFPs conservation and sustainable management (Nair & Merry, 1995).

In Nigeria this is of utmost importance as 70% of Nigerians live below poverty line and the majority depend on forest resources especially NWFPs for their survival. Neglecting the resource may deepen poverty. Neglecting to adequately recognize non-wood values of forests often denies the socioeconomic benefits of forests to those who depend on them. Therefore, development of appropriate management and conservation of NWFP resource, either in natural forests or in plantations are of importance as part of strategies to meet the economic needs of people while maintaining biological diversity (Reis, 1995). Furthermore information on production and local domestic consumption is strikingly lacking for most NWFPs (Reis, 1995). Preliminary investigation showed that with few exceptions, the NWFPs have never been studied in depth, neither in aspect of quantities produced nor their socioeconomic importance to the people. There is considerable ignorance in many quarters concerning the optimal utilization of this resource base to uplift the rural poor, while at the same time protecting biodiversity and ensuring sustainability (Taylor, Butterworth & Matoke, 1996).

There are several positive developments, which have been attained including the work by Chukwuone and Okeke (2012) Can non-wood forest products be used in promoting household food security: Evidence from savannah and rainforest regions of Southern Nigeria. Nzeh, Eboh, and Nweze(2015) Status and trends of deforestation: An insight and lessons from Enugu State. Despite that, there is still scanty information existing on the contributions of animal and plant species of NWFPs towards farm household income and food security and the perceived impediments to this role. Due to this knowledge gap, this research examines the contributions of NWFPs towards household income and food security and the limitations to this role in the study area. The research was therefore anchored on some questions; what are the Socio-economic characteristics that drive their collection of NWFPs? What are the NWFPs that drive the interest of the respondents? What is the contribution of NWFPs to household income? What is the contribution of NWFPs to household food security? And the extent to which certain factors impedes the development of NWFPs in the study area.

The findings of this study will provide the benchmark information for the initiation of appropriate and sound strategies and policy issues on NWFPs towards farm household income and food security of non-wood forest resources.




 This study presents the empirical analysis of the effects of oil exploitation on the efficiency of artisanal fishing households in the Niger Delta region, Nigeria. The selection of respondents was multi-staged and involved purposive sampling as well as random sampling methods. A structured questionnaire and interview schedule were used to elicit information from a randomly selected sample of 160 artisanal households from Delta and Bayelsa States, Nigeria. Descriptive statistics, stochastic frontier production and cost function models, inefficiency effects model and multiple regression analysis were used in analyzing the data. Among the major findings were that 84% of the respondents were male-headed households. Fifty percent were between 41-50 years. Sixty three percent were illiterates while 87% were married. The average household size was 7 persons. About 49% of the respondents had fishing experience of above 16 years with a mean experience of approximately 15 years. The average annual income per household was N96, 386.00. About 85%, 6%, 6% and 4% used different fishing gears such as nets, trap, longline and hooks, and fence fishing, respectively. The mean technical efficiency was 73%. The Cobb-Douglas stochastic frontier model showed that labour, quantity of bait used and capital inputs had positive signs and were highly   significant at 1% level of probability. Age, access to credit and gender had significant inverse relationship with technical inefficiency while fishing distance, membership of co-operative society, fishing experience, number of trips and oil spill had significant positive relationship with technical inefficiency.  Model showed that wage rate, price of baits and output adjusted for statistical noise had direct relationship with the total cost of production and were significant at 1% level of probability. The mean economic efficiency was 68%. The factors influencing economic efficiency showed that Age and household size had a negative relationship with economic inefficiency while access to credit, membership of co-operative society, number of trips and oil spill had significant positive relationship with economic inefficiency. Ninety seven percent of the households confirmed that oil exploitation activities had serious effect on their socio-economic life.  Variables such as fishing equipment, non-fishing income and household size were significant at 1%, fishing experience was significant at 5% while micro-credit and compensation received were significant at 10% probability levels. The overall regression result was statistically significant at 5% level of probability as 86% of the total variation was explained by the socio-economic variables. Therefore, the study calls for policies that could reduce the level of oil pollution and increase their technical and economic efficiency.


Title page …………………………………………………………………………………………………… i

Certification………………………………………………………………………………………………… ii

Dedication………………………………………………………………………………………………….. iii

Acknowledgement……………………………………………………………………………………….. iv

Abstract……………………………………………………………………………………………………… v

Table of contents…………………………………………………………………………………………. vi

List of tables……………………………………………………………………       ix

List of figures……………………………………………………………………      x



1.1 Background of the Study ……………………………………………………………………….. 1

1.2 Problem Statement………………………………………………………………………………….. 8

1.3 Objectives of the Study…………………………………………………………………………… 11

1.4 Research Hypothesis……………………………………………………………………………….. 11

1.5 Justification of the Study………………………………………………………………………… 12

1.6 Limitations………………………………………………………………  ……… 13



2.1     Crude Oil Exploitation and Nigerian Economy……………………… 14

2.2      Degradation due to Oil Exploration and Production in Nigeria….14

2.3      Effects of Crude Oil Exploitation on the Environment and agriculture.     17

2.4       Production Efficiency……………………………………………        18

2.4.1    Technical Efficiency……………………………………………………       18

2.4.2    Allocative or price efficiency…………………………………………..        19

2.4.3    Economic Efficiency …………………………………………………..       20

2.5       Efficiency Measurement Techniques ……………………….        21

  • Deterministic Frontiers …………………………………………………       22 Non-parametric programming……………………………….       22 Parametric Programming…………………………………………………….. 23 Statistical Approach……………………………………………………        24

2.6       Review of Theory………………………………………………………       25

2.7       Review of Empirical Studies……………………………………………      26

2.7.1    Production Function Analytical Model……………………      26

2.7.2.   Stochastic Frontier Production Function………………………….       28

  •       Theoretical framework………………………………………….       33

2.8.1    Theory of production……………………………………………………      33

2.8.2    Theory of the firm………………………………………………………       35

  •   Analytical Framework………………………………………………….       37

2.9.1.   Production Function Analytical model………………………       37

2.9.2    Stochastic Frontier Production Model…………………….       39

2.9.3    Inefficiency Frontier Model………………………………………………    42



3.1     The Study Area……………………………………………………..             45

3.2     Sampling Procedure…………………………………………………………………………….. 45

3.3     Data Collection…………………………………………………………………………………… 47

3.4     Analysis of Data……………………………………………………………   48

3.4.1 Model Specification…………………………………………………………   49 Stochastic Frontier Production Function Model………………    49 Technical and Economic Inefficiency Models………………………   51 Multiple Regression Analysis……………………………………………..   52

3.5  Likert Scale Analysis…………………………………………………………   54

3.6 Testing of Hypotheses…………………………………………………………. 55



4.1     Socio-Economic Characteristics of the Respondents…………………   56

4.2    Artisanal Households Fishing Systems……………………………………… 59

4.3 Technical and Economic Efficiencies of Artisanal Fishing Households……     60

4.3.1 Estimated Production Function………………………………………………     60

4.3.2 Sources of Technical Efficiency……………………………………………    61

4.3.3   Estimated…Cost Function…………………………………  …………….   63

4.3.4 Sources of Economic Inefficiency……………………………………………65

4.4 Estimating the Technical Efficiencies of the Artisanal Fishing Households……. 67

4.4.1   Technical Efficiency…..Estimates……………………………………………..   67

4.4.2   Estimation of Economic Efficiency………………………………………… 68

4.4.3 Allocative Efficiency among Artisanal Households in the Niger Delta Region, Nigeria………………………………………………..69

4.5       Environmental, Economic and Social Effects of Oil Exploitation……….    71

4.6 Effects of Relief Programmes on Household Income and Socioeconomic Characteristics of Household Heads ………………………………76      

4.7    Test of Hypothesis…………………………………………………………..   78



5.1    Summary ……………………………………………………………….          80

5.2    Conclusion……………………………………………………………………  82

5.3    Recommendations…………………………………………………………… 83

5.4    Contribution to knowledge………………………………………………….   84

5.5    Areas for Future Research……………………………………………………  85

REFERENCES………………………………………………………………….     86 

APPENDIX I            ……………………………………………………………….           96


Table                                                                                                                     Page

Table 1.1: Domestic fish production in Nigeria by sectors (metric tonnes)  4

Table 1.2: Oil Spill Data…………………………………………………………..   16

Table 4.1: Distribution of the Respondents by selected Socio-Economic Characteristics………………………………………………………….   57

Table 4.2 Distribution of Respondents by Fishing Systems………   60

Table 4.3: Estimated Cobb-Douglas Stochastic Frontier Production Function for  Artisanal fishing Households in the Niger Delta Region, Nigeria……… 61

Table 4.4  Estimated Stochastic Frontier Cost Function for Artisanal Households in the Niger Delta Region, Nigeria… …..……………..65

Table 4.5  Frequency Distribution of Technical Efficiency among Artisanal Households in the Niger Delta Region, Nigeria………………………..  68

Table 4.6:  Frequency Distribution of Economic Efficiency Indices…  69

Table 4.7 Allocative Efficiency among the Artisanal Households in the Niger Delta Region, Nigeria………………………………………………70

Table 4.8: Opinion of Respondents on Environmental, Social and Economic Effects of Oil Exploitation………………………………      72

Table 4.9: Regression Results of the Effect of Relief Programs on  Household Income and Socioeconomic Characteristics of Household Heads in Oil Producing Communities…………………………….. 76

Table 4.10: Generalized likelihood ratio test of hypothesis for the parameters of   The stochastic frontier production for artisanal fishing households……  79


Figure                                                                                                                     Page

Figure 1: Effects of Oil Spillage on Artisanal Fishing Households……    34



1.1       Background of the Study

The search for oil in Nigeria started in 1906 when the Nigerian Bitumen Corporation (NBC) drilled fourteen wells in Lagos area (Pearson, 1970).  This move was however called off due to the outbreak of World War I.  Pearson (1970) stated that Shell made Nigeria’s first commercial oil discovery in 1956 at Oloibiri located in Bayelsa State.  This according to Pearson (1970) and Ozobia (1998) led to the discovery of numerous other oil fields and subsequently to the development of various terminals. Oil spillage and pollution are some of the negative by-products of the petroleum industry and its effect on socio-economic life of the artisanal households is a source of major concern.  The exploration and exploitation have had impacts on the environment through frequent spills, pipe explosions, pollution, sabotage, gas flaring and effluent emission.  Other sources of oil pollution to the environment include transportation, effluent water from oil refineries, lubrication oils and other wastes in the form of sludge, bitumen, slops and oil sand/sediment present in large amount within oil flow stations, storage terminals and tanks (Ogri, 2001;  Nwilo  &  Badejo, 2005).

Oil production and consumption has probably brought both the best and worst of modern civilization in Nigeria.  It has contributed enormously to the country’s economic growth and on the other hand, has left profound adverse impact on the natural environment. Nigeria is currently the largest producer of crude petroleum in Africa and sixth largest in the World. Estimates of Nigeria’s oil reserve range from 16 billion to 22 billion barrels, mostly found in small fields in the coastal areas of the Niger Delta (Chindah & Braide, 2000). Agriculture is however the major economic activity in the Niger Delta region. The Federal Office of Statistics (F.O.S, 1995) stated that crop farming and fishing account for about 90% of all forms of activities in the areas.  However, the level of agricultural production in the Niger Delta is somewhat low given the abundant resource endowment. In the 1960s, Nigeria relied heavily on the agricultural sector for economic development, contributing over 70% of the Gross Domestic Product (GDP). Nevertheless, with the oil boom of the 1970s, the contribution of agricultural sector fell drastically to the extent that the nation became an importer of fish for instance. 

 Fish production makes immense contribution to agricultural development as recognized in Bada (2005); Bene and Heck (2005). In terms of Gross Domestic product (GDP), the fishery sub-sector has recorded the fastest growth rate in agriculture. The contribution of the fishery sub-sector to GDP at 2001 factor cost rose from N76.76 billion to N162.61 billion in 2005 (CBN 2006).Fish is an important source of protein to a large number of fishing households in Nigeria. It is consumed in a variety of forms, including smoked, dried, fried or steamed. Fish provides 40-50% of the dietary intake of animal protein of the average household in Nigeria (FDF, 2007).  According to Adekoya and Miller (2004), fish and fish products constitute more than 60% of the total protein intake in adults especially in rural areas of Nigeria. Amiengheme (2005) enumerated the importance of fish in households Nutrition as follows.

  a. Fish has a nutrient profile superior to all terrestrial meats (beef, pork and chicken, etc) being an excellent source of high quality animal protein and highly digestible energy;   

 b. Fish is a good source of sulphur and essential amino acids such as lysine, leucine, valine and arginine.  It is therefore suitable for supplementing diets of high carbohydrates contents,

 c.  Fish is also a good source of thiamine as well as an extremely rich source of omega-3polyunsaturated fatty acids, fat soluble vitamins (A, D and E) and water soluble vitamins (B complex) and minerals (calcium, phosphorus, iron, iodine and selenium);

d. It has a high content of polyunsaturated (Omega III) fatty acids, which are important in lowering blood cholesterol level and high blood pressure.  It is able to mitigate or alleviate platelet (cholesterol) aggregation and various arteriosclerosis conditions in adult populations;

Nigerians are large consumers of fish with demand estimated at 1.4 million metric tonnes per annum. Moreover, the recent concern is that the demand is out- stripping the supply as explained in Kapadia (2002).  The annual state of economic report by sector published by Central Bank of Nigeria shows that, Nigeria imports over US$ 200 million worth of frozen fish per annum to offset the gap in the domestic demand in the country (CBN, 2006). Food and Agricultural Organization (FAO) categorized fishing types as artisanal fishing, aquaculture and industrial fishing (FAO, 2004). It is worthy of note that the artisanal fishing households supply the greatest percentage of Nigeria’s annual fish output as shown in Table 1.1. The table shows that the relative contribution of artisanal households to domestic fish production ranged between 83.0% in 1985 to 81.7% in 2007 with an annual average of 86.1% (FDF, 2007).