Abstract
The study assessed the capacity building
needs of rice value chain actors in Benue and Nasarawa States. The population
of the study comprised of all rice value chain actors in both states. Specific
objectives were, examining available critical facilities, ascertain local
practices and determine the use of improved practices. Structured
questionnaires were used to collect data from 320 respondents using multi-stage
sampling techniques. The data collected were analysed using both descriptive
and inferential statistics. The highest (52.7%) pooled for both states of
respondents fall within the age bracket of 21 – 40 years and 41- 60 years.
Majority (78.9%) and (67.8%) of the rice value chain actors were married.
Highest (83.3%) Pooled input suppliers possessed post-secondary school
qualification (OND, HND, NCE and B.Sc). It was found that majority (71.1%) of
the respondents had farm size of 1.1 hectares and (61.1%) of the actors had
household sizes of < 5 persons. The result obtained showed an estimated annual
income of less than one hundred thousand naira (N100, 000). Some (22.5%) pooled
of the rice value chain actors where engaged in the use of traditional hoe for
cultivation, while about (21.2%) pooled respondents were involved in the use of
cutlers and machetes for land clearing. The result also indicated that the
local seeds were replaced by improved varieties like ITA. 150, Faro 55 and type
56. All the rice value chain actors required capacity building. Three
categories of factors affecting capacity building needs of rice value chain
actors, socio-political, economic, managerial and environment and climatic
factors were identified. The level of use of improved practices was higher
(x=241) in Nasarawa than in Benue State (Z=1.89) for producers, processors and
marketers. The z-test of no different show a significant difference in the use
of improved practices by rice processors between Nasarawa and Benue State with
z-value of 2.579. The result of multiple regression estimates revealed a
significant relationship between sex, occupation, farm size (socio-economic
factors) of both producers and input suppliers, implying the rejection of null
hypothesis and accepting the alternative, while occupation and experience were
significant at 5% level in explaining the capacity building of rice processors.
Rice marketer’s capacity building were significantly explained by all the socio
economic factors with the exception of age, marital status, experience and size
of rice farm. Base on the findings of the study concludes that capacity
building should be provided for all the actors within the two states in order
to achieve self-reliance through strengthening of human and institutional
capabilities in rice economic. In view of this findings, it was recommended
therefore government, non-governmental organization should be involved in the
provision of critical infrastructural facilities like electricity,
transportation and water to enhance rice value chain activities and reduce rice
importation.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Title Page i
Certification iii
Declaration iv
Dedication v
Acknowledgement vi
Table of contents vii
List of tables xi
List of figures xii
Abstract iv
1.0 CHAPTER
ONE: INTRODUCTION 1
1.1
Background of the Study 1
1.2
Statement of the Problem 7
1.3
Objectives of the Study 13
1.4
Hypotheses 13
1.5
Significance of the Study 14
1.6 Scope of the Study 16
1.7 Definition of Terms 16
2.0
CHAPTER TWO: LITERATURE REVIEW 19
2.1 Socio-Economic
Characteristics of Rice Value Chain Actors 20
2.2 Capacity
Building Needs of Rice Value Chain Actors 23
2.3 Participation
of Value Chain Actors In Rice Value Chain Activities 25
2.4 Rice
Value Chain Processing Infrastructure Facilities 26
2.5 Extension Worker 34
2.6 Concept
of Agricultural Commodity Value Chain 35
2.7 Rice Value Chain in
Nigeria 45
2.8 Trends in Rice Production In Nigeria 45
2.9 Effect
of The Agricultural Transformation Agenda (Ata) On Rice value Chain 48
2.10
Interaction of Stakeholders along Value Chain 53
2.11 The
Agricultural Development Programme and
Extension System in Nigeria 55
2.12 Packaging
under Rice Value Chain 57
2.13 Capacity
Building in Agricultural Development Programme 57
2.14 Government
Capacity Building Strategy 58
2.15 Need
for Farmers Integration into Rice Value Chain 60
2.16 Commodity
Value Chain Platform 60
2.17 Rice Production
Ecology in Nigeria 62
2.18 Constraints to Capacity Building Needs of
Value Chain Actors
63
2. 19 Theoretical Framework 65
2.20 Conceptual Framework 73
3.0
CHAPTER THREE: METHODOLOGY 76
3.1 Study Area 76
3.2 Population 81
3.3 Sample and Sampling Procedure 81
3.4 Instrument for Data Collection 84
3.5 Data Collection 84
3.6 Validation of Research Instrument 84
3.7 Reliability of Instrument 85
3.8 Data Analysis 85
3.9 Hypothesis Testing 86
3.10 Measurement of variables 88
4.0 CHAPTER FOUR: RESULTS AND DISCUSSION 90
4.1 Socio-Economic
Characteristics of Rice Value Chain Actors in Benue and
Nasarawa
States 90
4.2 Critical Facilities for Rice Value Chain
Actors in Benue and Nasarawa States 97
4.3 Local Practices of Rice Value Chain Actors
in Nasarawa and Benue States 101
4.4 Awareness
Level of Improved Practices of Rice Value Chain Actors In Nasarwa
and
Benue States 104
4.5 Capacity
Building Needs Of Rice Value Chain Actors In Nasarawa And Benue States 108
4.6 Level of Use of Improved Practices by Rice
Value Chain Actors in Nasarawa
and Benue States 111
4.7 Constraints
to Capacity Building Needs of Rice Value Chain Actors 113
4.8.1 Multiple
Regression Estimate Of Socio-Economic Factors Affecting Capacity Building Needs
Of Rice Producers Value Chain Actors In Benue And Nasarawa States 116
4.8.2 Multiple
Regression Result showing Socio-Economic Characteristics between Rice input
suppliers in Benue and Nasarawa State 119
4.8.3 Multiple
Regression Result showing Socio-Economic Characteristics between Rice
Processors in Benue and Nasarawa State 122
4.8.4 Multiple
Regression Result showing Socio-Economic Characteristics between Rice Marketers
in Benue and Nasarawa State 125
4.9 Z-Test
of Difference In Capacity building needs of Rice Value Chain Actors between
Benue and Nasarawa State
128
4.10 Z-Test
of Difference In the use of improved practices by Rice Value Chain Actors in
Benue and Nasarawa State
130
5.0 CHAPTER FIVE: SUMMARY, CONCLUSION AND
RECOMMENDATIONS 132
5.1 Summary 132
5.2 Conclusion 133
5.2 Recommendations 134
5.3 Suggestion for
Further Studies 135
References 136
Appendix 147
LIST OF TABLES
Table 2.1 Nigerian Rice Importation from1960-2012 28
Table 2.2 Impact of lack of Access to Finance 42
Table 2.3 Trade Facilitation of regional
groupings 44
Table 3.1: Distribution of Benue and Nasarawa
Agricultural Zones,
Extension Blocks and
Cells 82
Table
3.2: Distribution of Functional and
Sampled Blocks and Cells 83
Table 4.1: Distribution
of Socio-Economic Characteristics of Price Value Chain
Actors
in Nasarawaand Benue States 96
Table 4.2: Distribution
of Critical Facilities for Rice Value Chain Actors inNasarawa
and
Benue States. 100
Table 4.3: Local Practices
Of Rice Value Chain Actors in Nasarawa and Benue States 103
Table 4.4: Distribution
of Respondents Based on Awareness level of Improved Practices 107
Table 4.5: Capacity
Building Needs of Rice Value Chain Actors in Nasarawa
and
Benue States 110
Table 4.6: Constraints
of Capacity Building Needs Of Rice Value Chain Actors
in the
Study Area 112
Table 4.7: Distribution
of Respondent according to Level of use Of Improved Practices
By Rice
Value Chain Actors in Nasarawa and Benue States (Study Area) 105
Table 4.8.1 Capacity
Building Needs Of Producers in Benue and Nasarawa State 118
Table 4.8.2 Capacity
Building Needs Of Input Suppliers in Benue and Nasarawa State 121
Table 4.8.3 Capacity Building Needs Of Processors in Benue
and Nasarawa State 124
Table 4.8.4 Capacity
Building Needs Of Marketers in Benue and Nasarawa State 127
Table 4.9: Z-Test of
Difference in the Capacity Building Needs of Rice Value
Chain Actors between
Nasarawa and Benue State 129
Table 4.10: Z-Test of
Difference in the Use Of Improved Practices by Rice Value Chain Actors Between Nasarawa and Benue States 131
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 2.1 Finance Flow within the Value Chain 39
Figure 2.2 Rice Value Chain Actors Map 50
Figure 2.3 Typical Rice Value Chain 52
Figure 2.4 Interaction of Rice Value Chain Actors along the Value Chain 54
Figure 2.5 Conceptual Frame Work 75
Figure 3.1 Map of Benue and Nasarawa States showing the Study Areas 80
CHAPTER 1
1.0 INTRODUCTION
1.1 Background of the Study
Rice is an annual crop Oryza-sativa
(Asian rice) or Oryza glaberrima
(African Rice). It is the seed of monocot species of poaceae family (Kuldeep,
2006). It is an ancient grain consumed as healthy staple food by more than half
the world’s population, (Onjewu, Jolaoso, Oladele and Maduegbunan, 2013).
It is a strategic crop to Africa and has become the fastest-growing
food source to both rich and poor households, (Nwanze, Mohapatra, Kormawa,
Shellemiah and Bruce-Oliver, 2006). Factors affecting the increased consumption
of rice have been identified to include rising income, trade liberalisation,
extensive promotion and effective marketing strategies of rice importers and
ease of cooking among others. Rice has been selected by the United Nations (UN)
as a primary crop to enhance global food security.
According to Ukwungwu and Abo (2013), rice is a region-wide
strategic commodity as highlighted in the resolution of the Abuja Food Summit
organized by the African Development Bank in 2006. This makes it a priority
crop in the implementation of the New Partnership for Africans Development
(NEPAD).There is a growing realization that small holder farmers can increase
their incomes and improve living standard substantially if they process and add
value to rice. Value chain concepts in agriculture refers to all activities and
services which brings produce or service from conception (production through
the different phases of production, delivery) to the final consumers and final
disposal after use (Kaplinsky and Morris, 2000).
Apart from the primary producers, several other players drive the
agricultural value chain and play important roles, here actors include input
suppliers, processors, marketers and consumers. The producers are farmers who
are very important actors and the key driver to determine the sustainability of
the entire rice value chain. Majority of farmers in Africa are simple cash crop
farmers supported by food production.
There are other chain actors who are able to produce quality cash
crops for the value chain, others may be multi activity chain farmers who are
not only micro wed in production process but also in other activities of the
chain like grading processing, marketing and transportation (Central Bank of
Sudan, 2011). For the purpose of this research efforts are directed to the
following rice value chain actors, producers, input suppliers, processors and
marketers.
Part of the reason why farmers do not engage in value addition in
many sub-Saharan African countries such as Nigeria is that, historically the
Extension Service Delivery has been focused on improving production and
productivity and abandonment the farmer after harvest, (Berhanu, Hoekstra and
Azage, 2006). However, there is also the idea that the capacity of extension
services to provide market related services delivery is limited (Illu, 2009).
Given the crucial role of extension as the main institutional arm of government
in driving the agricultural modernization process, it is relevant that the
extension service has competency to advise farmers adequately along the entire
agricultural value chain.
Nigeria is the largest producer of rice in West Africa sub-region
and third in Africa after Egypt and Madagascar. The trend has made Nigeria to
attain 2.103 and 3.46 million tons of milled rice production in 2005 and 2008
National Rice Development Strategy (NRDS, 2010). The increased production
figure has been attributed to expansion in area under rice cultivation,
adoption of high yielding, diseases resistant and fertilizer responsive
varieties such as FARO 43 (ITA, 128), FARO 46 (ITA 150) for upland ecology, and
FARO 44, FARO 51, and FARO 57 for lowland swamp rice. Nigeria produces about
2.21 million tonnes of milled rice per annum from about 2.0 million hectares of
land, with an average unit land area yield of 1.5tonnes per hectare. The
national rice demand and supply gap is bridged through importation and the
estimated cost of which was about N356billion
in 2011(Ukwungwu and Abo, 2014).
According to Nwilene (2014), rice is no longer a luxury food to
millions of Nigerians but has become the cereal that constitutes a major source
of calories for the rural and urban population with demand growing at an annual
rate of 5%. He, however, pointed out that urbanisation, changes in employment
patterns, income levels and rapid population growth have significantly contributed
to widening the gap between rice demand and supply in Nigeria. The rate of
population increase demands a marching increase in food production at levels
that must meet demands.
Rice is one cropping which Nigeria can easily become self-sufficient
given the huge potentials that exist in the country. The potential land area
for rice production in Nigeria is 5million hectares and out of this, only about
2million hectares or 40% of the available land is presently cropped for rice
(Nwilene, 2014). Similarly, the system of rice production in Nigeria is mainly
through traditional methods, which have been in practice for many years.
Imolehin (2000) observed that the average rice yield on farmers’ field had been
described as generally lower (1.8 – 2.0 tonnes/ha) than commonly obtained on
experimental plots in lowland ecology (3.5 – 5.4 tones/ha).
The cultivation of rice is among the most important development in
human history because the grain has fed more people in the world over a longer
period of time than any other agricultural product. Thus, rice has been usually
discussed in relation to its significance to agricultural production and
consumption and how these are intertwined with the economy, food system and
cultures of various countries (Negedu, 2013).
However, Rice is an important food crop and its popularity and
consumption has been on the increase. Thus, it is high in carbohydrate (75.5%),
low in fat (0.8%), and protein (8.6%), (Abo, Maji, Ukwangwu and Bright, 2012).
The grain contains considerable amount of vitamin E as well as some amount of
fat-soluble Vitamins A and D. Rice bran is a valuable livestock feed, domestic
fuel and organic manure. The bran oil is used for cooking, soap making, carrier
for insecticides and anti-corrosive as well as rust resistant oils. It is also
used for malting in the brewing industries, the straw is used as a source of
fuel in the manufacture of straw board, thatching and for making hats and mats
(Abo et al., 2012).
More so, Rice remains one staple crop consumed in Nigeria in a large
volume per annum and the estimated consumption stands at 5 million metric
tonnes of milled rice while annual consumption per capita stands at 29 kg and
this has continued to rise at 11% per annum due to population growth. Out of
this figure about 2.8 million tonnes are produced locally leaving a deficit of
2.2 million metric tonnes, which is imported from other countries including
Thailand and India. Nigeria therefore spends over N365 billion annually to import rice, thereby placing the country
as the highest importer of rice in the world (FMARD, 2013).
Rice is a typical cereal crop that has moved from ceremonial to a
staple food in Nigerian homes. Statistics from the European Association of
Agricultural Economics (EAAE) indicate that Nigeria is by far the largest rice
importer in West Africa with an average yearly import of over 2million metric
tonnes since the year 2000 (USAID Markets, 2010).
Nigeria has the capacity to produce or be a major exporter of rice
in a very short time but this is only possible if the country will produce a
product that competes favourably with those coming from any other part of the
world (Ibrahim, 2013). Meanwhile, Fashola, Oladele, Aliyu and Takatsuki (2006) reported that training farmers
for development is one of the numerous activities that need to be carried out
to sustain production of food and to enhance self-sufficiency in food
production in the developing world. He further added that training is mostly directed
at improving the ability of individuals to make their vocation more effectively
and efficiently. He also pointed out that it involves acquiring information and
developing abilities or attitudes, which will result in greater competence in
the performance of work.
Farmers have produced crops over the years by inheriting the
production technologies from their ancestors and these olden day technologies
cannot meet up with the demand of the present. Research scientists are also
endeavouring to develop new technologies that will increase the production and
productivity of various crops such as rice at the farm level.
Fashola et al, (2006)
observed that the recent production technology developed by the research has
not been fully harnessed because most of the farmers lack the capacity to
utilize them. According to Mengistu (2009), the contribution of training to
agricultural development has been highlighted as thus: providing farmers with
the basic skills, improving rationality and increasing inquisitiveness and
thereby improving receptivity to new ideas and strengthening the willingness to
economize and facilitate the adoption of new techniques.
Consequently, on the importance of training and active participation
for success in any rural development programme, Bari (1987) agreed that for an
effective rural development process to take place, participation of rural
people in the development process is very essential. In other words, it is the
involvement of rice farmers in the capacity-building programme that is designed
for them that will determine their output level if the acquired skill is put to
use. In addition, Isiaku (2013) reported that it is training that will help
farmers to boost rice production with a view to attaining the objective of
government to stop rice importation.
Furthermore, Agbamu (2011) observed that in Nigeria’s agricultural
development process, agricultural extension workers are expected to help
farmers to identify and analyse their production problems and make them become
aware of the opportunities for improvement in farm yields in order to obtain a
better standard of living. The role of an agricultural extension worker
involves disseminating information on agricultural techniques and improved
practices to farm families and ensuring farmers’ capacity building through the
use of a variety of communication methods and training programmes.
Agbamu (2011) reported further that it is through education and
communication that agricultural extension workers are able to bring about
changes in farmers’ knowledge, attitude and skills which help to put farmers in
a frame of mind that is conducive for adopting proven agricultural innovations.
Van den Ban and Hawkins (1998) stated that the major role of agricultural
extension in many countries of the world in the past was seen to be transfered
of new technologies from researchers to farmers. Now it is seen more as a
process of helping farmers to make their own decisions by providing them a
range of options in a given innovation from which they can choose, and by
helping farmers to develop insight into the consequences of each option taken.
In addition, there are problems facing the extension workers in Nigeria, these
problems in most parts are associated with the peculiarities of developing
countries which include among others subjecting agricultural extension worker
to intensive political control, inadequacy and instability of funding, lack of
professional development activities, training, motivation and the subjection of
extension workers to a wide range of non-extension duties that include
regulatory functions or enforcement of government rules and supply service
(Boone, 1989).
Extension work can contribute to the reduction of the productivity
differential by increasing the speed of technology transfer and by increasing
farmers’ knowledge and assisting them in improving farm management practices
(Omobolanle, 2008). According to Akpabio (2000), many agriculture development
activities in Nigeria go by the name “Agriculture Extension.” These activities
may be called programmes, projects, schemes, or extension services. In view of
the importance of extension in rural development, economic growth and poverty
reduction, over the years various Nigerian governments introduced and
implemented a number of developmental programmes with strong extension
background. Some of the programmes include the following:
i.
Conventional Ministry of
Agriculture of the bureaucratic nature of the system, with basic extension
messages transmitted, since the scope included general education of the farmers
on a wide variety of subjects.
ii.
Operation Feed the Nation;
introduced in 1976.
iii.
Green Revolution Programme
was brought on board in 1990 with the plan to make Nigeria self-sufficient in
basic food productivity within five years and rehabilitate export economy
within seven years (Akpabio, 2000).
iv.
National Accelerated Food
Production Programme (NAFPP) was launched in 1972.
v.
River Basin Development
Authority (RBDA) was established between 1976 and 1979.
vi.
Agricultural Development
Programmes (ADPs) (1975).
vii.
The Directorate of Food,
Roads and Rural Infrastructure (DFRRI) was established by decree N0 4 of 6th
February 1986.
viii.
National Special Programme
for Food Security (NSPFS) May 2000.
1.7
Statement of the Problem
Rice production in Nigeria is dominated by smallholder resource poor
farmers who practice subsistence farming with traditional and obsolete equipment’s
using traditional low yielding varieties with low market value. This
development has led to low productivity and income and preference of foreign
rice to locally processed rice Ukwungu, and Abo,. (2012).
Rice sector in Nigeria is dominated by weak and inefficient product
market linkage due to poor infrastructure, low productivity, poor harvest,
storage, poor access to inputs (seeds, fertilizer and agro chemicals),
inadequate information, lack of quality standard and branding, as well as
limited distribution network (Ukwungu et
al., 2012). Rice production faces many challenges including poor rural
communication, weak services and large institutional gap between research,
extension, and farmers (IRRA, 2015).
There is lack of focus on where training can add value in the many
stages of the rice value chain from production to consumption which include
input accessibility or supply, services, harvesting, processing, marketing
requirements and consumer preferences, packaging, branding, transportation,
government regulations and policy determination. The chain has various
components as well as actors such as farmers, processors, input suppliers,
marketers and extension whose unique preferences require differentiated
services at the different channels across the value chain.
Rice is one of the most important cash crops produced in various
Local Government Areas of Benue and Nasarawa States. Farmers are often faced
with high cost of production due to increasing cost of labour, fertilizers, and
other inputs such as agro-chemicals and disease resistant varieties. The need
for improvement in the production, processing, marketing, storage, and
utilisation of rice in the rural areas of the two states remains a paramount
issue that calls for attention. Rice grown in some rural areas have
traditionally suffered from drought and infertile soils, weak and plant
diseases (Okelola et al., 2013).
Nigeria spends over three hundred and sixty five billion naira
annually 5 million naira every day to import rice into the country, thereby
placing her as the highest importer of rice in the world (FMARD, 2014). The
bulk of the production still remains in the hands of small holder farmers who
are limited by funds, poor commodity market development and farm management
skills to give higher yield.
In the area of processing,
the country is dominated by small-scale millers whose capacities are small and
could not compete favourably with imported rice in terms of quality of grains
and value addition. Poor access to mechanisation like tractors, reapers,
planters, harvesters, threshers, destoners, also make rice production cost high
since human labour is expensive.
According to FAO (1997), Nigeria is one of the 43 nations in Africa
that have been classified as “low income food-deficit countries (FDCs). Hence,
the country thrives on international assistance in terms of food aids and
programmes. Nigeria agriculture, particularly Benue and Nasarawa States is
dominated by smallholder farmers who are still responsible for reasonable
proportion of total production. According to Olubanjo (1996), there is
currently a low level use of modern and appropriate technology dissemination on
rice value chain with attendant high level dependent on conservative procties.
Manual labour, simple farm tools and local planting materials among others are
still being extensively utilised. Again, most farmers have limited access to
credit, due to lack of collateral security, agricultural extension services are
grossly inadequate with a ratio of 1:200 farmers compared to the best practice
of 1:500 – 1,000. Post-harvest losses of 1.5% – 40% are sustained due to
inability to process agricultural products such as rice (Unamma et al., 2004).
Furthermore, operations of the training and visit system which is an
extension teaching outfit under the agricultural development programme has
shown that farmers scarcely have timely access to farm inputs such as
fertilizers and improved seeds (Madukwe, 2011). According to Chikwendu (2009) Nigeria has the largest
National Agricultural Research and Extension System (NARES) in sub-Saharan
Africa (SSA) today, made up of 17 commodity-based research institutes, a
specialised National Agricultural Extension and Research Liaison Services
(AERLS), Agricultural Development Programmes (ADPs) in all the states of the
federation, 18 faculties of Agriculture in the Federal Conventional
Universities; 3 specialised Agricultural Universities, 19 Federal Colleges of
Agriculture, 8 Faculties of Veterinary Medicine and 4 International
Agricultural Research Centres (IARCs). However, there is no significant and
sustainable agricultural development that would ensure optimum national and
household food security and improved rural living standard.
This calls for the need to assess and strengthen the agricultural
capacity building needs of rice value chain actors in Benue and Nasarawa States
for a sustainable rice development programme in order to reduce poverty through
income generation, wealth creation, and improved living standard.
National rice consumption currently exceeds 5.0 million tonnes per
annum of milled rice or more than 30.0 kg per person per annum. This figure is
significantly higher in urban areas exceeding annual per capita consumption of
about 47.0 kg per capita (Ukwungu etal.
2013). However, the national rice demand and supply gap is therefore bridged
through importation, and the estimated cost of which was about N356 billion in
2011 alone. According to Food and Agriculture Organisation (FAO) 60% of the
world population depends heavily on rice (Onwualu, 2012). Rice is the fourth
major cereal in Nigeria after sorghum, millet and maize. The demand for rice
has assumed a consistent rise in the last three decades. This has led to rice
importation which has placed Nigeria to be second largest importer of rice in
the world mostly from China and Thailand (Onwualu, 2012).
Poverty, food insecurity, rapid population growth, environmental
degradation are problems seriously hampering the developing countries of the
world like Nigeria today (Reddy, 2013). These are most felt in semi-arid tropic
homes to one sixth of the world population. Developing countries such as
Nigeria is characterized by extreme poverty, lingering drought, infertile soil
growing desertification and environmental degradation (Reddy, 2013). About 6.5
million square kilimetres in over 55 countries is classified as dry land
tropics more than 2 billion people currently hire in the dry land, with
600million considered to be poor. Hence strengthening value chains in semi-arid
tropics regions will help in reducing poverty through upgrading along the value
chain shifts from inefficient to efficient value added products (ICRISAT
strategic plan, 2020).Benue and Nasarawa States of Nigeria play key role in
rice value chain development. This is because rice is a major source of food
cash crop among farmers. It is also a source of livelihood and contributes to
the volume of the production and employment for teaming population. It is
needful to assess the agricultural capacity building needs of rice value chain
actors in order to develop strategies that will reduce poverty through income
generation, wealth creation and improved livelihood.
In view of this, therefore, the study will look at some capacity
building needs of rice value chain actors which can provide services beyond
production. Most of the experienced rice scientists in the NARS programmes are
aging; while majority of the people engaged in agriculture have limited access
to training. Most agricultural graduates are not in the Ministry of
Agriculture, research institutions or on the farms. Most policies of Government
are inappropriate and inconsistent.
Previous research works have been carried out by different
researchers on capacity building needs of farmers and value chain development.
For instance, Alese (2014) researched on capacity building for mitigating
environmental degradation, an example of Akoko Women Entrepreneurs in Ondo
State. Umar et al. (2015) researched on capacity building needs of farmers for
sustainable poverty alleviation in Niger State.
Mutimba (2010) researched on value chain training needs assessment
in Ethiopia and suggested that smallholder farmers can increase their income
substantially if they process and add value to their produce. Obaniyi et al. (2014) worked on participation of
rice farmers in capacity building programme of agricultural development
programme in Kwara State. However in recent times, no research work has been
undertaken to assess the capacity building needs of rice value chain in Benue
and Nasarawa states.
Benue and Nasarawa state were considered for the study because of
their contribution to rice production in the country. Also rice value chain
activities will provide employment for farmers in the two states because,
farming is a major occupation of the rural population. Rice production is also
a livelihood and source of income for farmers in the research areas.
However, the study focused mainly on the assessment of capacity
building needs of rice value chain actors (Producers, processors, input
suppliers and marketers. There has been pursity of researches that address such
situation in other states in Nigeria like Ondo, Kwara, Niger and other
countries like Ethopia. But in Benue and Nasarawa states little or no research
has been carried out to fill the research gap with the view to assess the
capacity building needs of rice value chain actors. These two states share
common administrative boundary and it has, thus become necessary to use it as a
basis for comparism. Rice production,
processing, input supply, marketing and consumption have been an assumption and
not empirical research. It is based on this premise that this study seeks to
assess the capacity building need of rice value chain actors in Benue and
Nasarawa states.
Accordingly, the study provided answers to the following questions:
1.
What are the
socio-economic characteristics of rice value chain actors in Benue and Nasarawa
States?
2.
What are the available
critical facilities required by the value chain actors in the study area?
3.
What are the local
practices of rice value chain actors in Benue and Nasarawa States?
4.
What are the level of
awareness of rice value chain actors in the study area?
5.
What is the level of use
improved practices of rice value chain actors in rice value chain actors in the
study area?
6.
What are the capacity
building needs of rice value chain actors in the study areas?
7.
What are the constraints
to meeting the capacity building needs of rice value chain actor in the study
areas?
1.8
Objectives of the Study
The broad objective of this work was to assess the capacity building
needs of Rice Value Chain Actors in Benue and Nasarawa States.
The specific objectives were to:
i.
describe
the socio-economic characteristics of selected rice value chain actors
(producers, input suppliers, processors
and marketers) in the study area,
ii. ascertain
the available critical facilities required by the various rice value chain
actors,
iii.
examine local practices
of rice value chain actors,
iv.
ascertain actors’
awareness level of improved practices along rice value chain,
v.
determine the level of
use of the improved practices along rice value chain,
vi.
determine capacity
building needs of various rice value chain actors, and
vii.
examine the constraints
to capacity building needs of rice value chain actors in the study areas.
1.9
Hypotheses
- There is no significant relationship between socio-economic
characteristics of the respondents and the capacity building needs in
Benue and Nasarawa States.
- There is no significant difference between capacity building needs
of various rice value chain actors in Benue and Nasarawa States.
3. There is no significant difference
in the level of use of improved practices of value chain actors in the two
states.
1.10
Significance of the Study
Agriculture plays a vital role in employment and income generation
as well as in the provision of raw materials for industrial development and
foreign exchange earnings. Therefore, agriculture farmers and extension workers
merit to support rice value chain programmes, for instance Thirtle et al. (2005) and de Janrry and Sadaulet
(2010) stated that farmers have great capacity to reduce poverty if they are
given the necessary services and support. FAO (2007) reported that Ghana
reduced poverty among farmers by 24% between 1990 and 2005, mainly through
capacity building in the form of empowerment. Thus, the task of reducing
poverty among farmers requires capacity building whereby relevant stakeholders
and organisations can strengthen, create, adapt, and maintain capacity over
time, with the aim of assuring growth and improving the lives of the
stakeholders (Eremie, 2006; Isa et al.
2010). While lending credence to this assertion, Illiyasu (2010) argued that
capacity building strengthens institutions and improves access of farmers to
services. A clear understanding through the findings of this study would create
awareness in rice value chain actors about the improved practices available for
rice development programme.
The outcome of this research would also guide rice value chain
actors on more realistic infrastructural facilities for rice production, input
supply, processing and marketing for enhanced rice business enterprise.
To rice value chain actors,
it will also avail them of the critical infrastructural facilities needed for
the rice industry and market information channels. Many actors are not aware of
improved seed varieties such as faro 44, faro 55, ITN 150, and other processing
packages for rice development programmes. This research would spur rice value
chain actors in the study area to improve on the perceived constraints such as
high paddy pricing, lack of access to credit poor maintenance of equipment,
record keeping and unfavorable government policies that are associated with
capacity building needs and try to help them employ coping strategies.
Moreover, the result of this research work would reveal to the
general public the local practices in use amongst rice value chain actors in
Benue and Nasarawa State with view to funding and attracting partnership from
government and private organizations towards improvement and enhanced living
standard.
Rice is the staple food for more than half of the world population.
Rice is the world most consumed cereal after wheat. It is the most rapidly
growing source of food in Africa and Nigeria in particular. Rice is of
significant importance to food security in an increasing number of Food-Deficit
countries such as Nigeria (FAO, 2003).
Previous studies on capacity building programmes such as Alese
(2014) and Umar et al, (2015) have
been carried out to consider farmers’ decision to engage in such empowerment
programmes, however, this work is significant because for a sustainable rice
production, we the research would identify variables that influence rice value
chain actors to improve their welfare through income generation and see rice
farming as a business in which they can make profit by way of value addition.
Furthermore, this study would be carried out to provide empirical
research information on capacity building needs of rice value chain actors for
the rice development programme in Benue and Nasarawa States. It is intended
that this research would provide results into formidable policy foundation
block for reducing poverty through rice value chain programmes in Benue and
Nasarawa states. The usage and benefits will be to students, researchers,
policy makers in the area of knowledge development and design of relevant
capacity building strategy based on the need and use of value chain
stakeholders.
The outcomes of this study would stimulate further researchers on
how to improve on some of the constraints associated with capacity building
needs of rice value chain actors as this will expose some of the challenges and
will make recommendations for further research.
The data generated particularly on socio economic characteristics of
respondents will enhance adequate preparation by both researchers and students
carryout further research.
The study established that managerial and economic factors
identified as constraints for capacity building needs of rice value chain
actors in this research will aid Government and Non- Governmental Organizations
in policy making.
Knowledge of facilities identified in the study as being critical
will help government and other relevant stakeholders in the provision of needed
infrastructures in the study area.
1.6 Scope of the Study
The study basically centered on the capacity building needs of rice
value chain actors in Benue and Nasarawa states. Due to shortages of resources,
time, and energy, the study was limited to four (4) agricultural zones, twenty
(20) blocks and forty (40) cells from the two States. Motorcycle was used to
access the hinterland with difficult terrain, which motor vehicle cannot
operate and also avoid crisis-prone areas for the required information.
1.7 Definition of Terms
1. Value Chain: The sequential linkages through which raw materials and resources
are converted into product for market.
2. Rice: Rice is a monocot plant (Oryza sativa). It is a cereal grain and one
of the most staple foods for a large part of the world’s human population. It
is the second highest worldwide produced grain after maize.
3. Rice Processing: This is the centre point between production and consumption levels
in the rice value chain.
4. Value Chain Stakeholders: These are suppliers, grain producers,
processors, warehouse providers, handlers, transport providers, and marketers.
5. Farmer: A farmer is a producer, processor, and a marketer.
6. Rice
Straw: First by product of rice which is
separated during the process of threshing
7. Extension Worker: An extension worker is the primary
force for the transfer of technology and skills needed for the enhancement of
rice value chain.
8. Awareness: Having knowledge or perception of a situation or fact.
9. Agricultural Development Programme (ADP): This is the implementation organ of the
State Ministry of Agriculture and Natural Resources. It is semi-autonomous and
focuses on smallholder farmers as well as adapts integrated rural development
strategies in its operations.
10. Agricultural Transformation Agenda (ATA): This is a programme designed by the Federal Government to make the
agricultural sector a business project as against development programmes and to
promote private-partnership in agriculture.
11. Agricultural Value Chain: This is the full-range of agricultural
activities required to bring a product or service from the beginning, through
the different stages of production involving a combination of physical transportation
of inputs, services, delivery to consumers and final disposal after use.
12. Livelihood: This refers to the daily activities of people to perform roles that
earn them a living in communities to enhance better living standards.
13. Poverty Alleviation: These are attempts made at curtailing
the effect of hopelessness and deprivation on individuals and the nation in
general in order to promote sense of belonging and encourage better use of
talents.
14. Parboiling: is the process of soaking briefly and drying up paddy before it is
milled. It swells the drain loosens the hulls and toughens the grain.
15. Milling:
This is the process to remove the hull and bran that produces the final
polished rice consumer product.
16. Winnowing:
Is a process of pouring the paddy from some convenient height and allowing the
wind to blow the light materials award.
17. Capacity building: a process of developing competencies and capabilities in
individuals, groups, organizational sectors
or countries which will lead to sustained and self-generating
performance.
Login To Comment