ABSTRACT
This study examined the effectiveness of Growth Enhancement Support Scheme (GESS) in Abia and Imo States, Nigeria. Specifically, the study described the socioeconomic profile of the respondents, identified the conditions for accessing GESS input, level of acquisition of GESS input, ascertained the respondents’ perception of the scheme, the perceived effectiveness of GESS and identified the constraints of GESS in the study area. The study made use of multi-stage random sampling techniques in selecting one hundred and ninety two (192) respondents in the study area (96 in Abia and 96 in Imo States). Data for the study were collected using structured questionnaire and analysed using both descriptive and inferential statistics. The major findings showed that 75.0% of the respondents in Abia and 71.9% in Imo were males, 53.1% in Imo and 35.4% in Abia had tertiary education, 91.7% in Abia and 84.4% in Imo were married, had mean age of 51 years in Abia and 49.4 years in Imo, mean household size of 6.7 persons in Imo and 5.2 persons in Abia, mean farming experience of 20.5 years in Imo and 18.5years in Abia, mean farm size of 2.2 hectares in Imo and 1.9 hectares in Abia, 84.4% in Imo and 42.7% in Abia were members of co-operative societies, and about 81.3% in Imo and 63.5% in Abia had contacts with extension agents. The grand mean of 3.82 in Imo and 3.50 in Abia indicated the respondents had positive perception of GESS in the study area. Again, the grand mean of 2.78 in Imo and 2.59 in Abia showed that the respondents perceived that GESS was effective in the study area. The result further revealed that 100% of the respondents in Abia and Imo States registered for GESS and had identity cards for accessing inputs. The result equally showed that 77.1% in Imo and 71.9% in Abia acquired fertilizers, 83.3% in Abia and 78.1% in Imo acquired bags of rice, and 56.3% in Abia and 41.0% in Imo acquired bags of maize. The major constraints faced by GESS farmers were late arrival of inputs, inadequate quantity, inability to activate pin, poor network, non-receipt of pin and unpleasant attitude of Agro dealers. The results of Z-test analysis revealed that there were no significant difference in the effectiveness of GESS in Abia and Imo States. Again, Z – test analysis showed that there were a significant difference in the income of GESS participants in Imo and Abia at 1% alpha level. Logit regression result showed that age (5%), education (1%), farm size (1%), income (1%) and farming experience (5%) influenced access to GESS inputs in Abia and Imo states. The study concluded that GESS was effective in the study area due to timely distribution of inputs, availability of inputs, affordability, quantity and quality of inputs and accessibility of inputs. It is therefore recommended that the Federal Ministry of Agriculture should work towards increasing the quantity of inputs supplied and distributed to farmers since 2 bags of fertilizers were barely enough for large scale farmers.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Cover page i
Title page ii
Declaration iii
Certification iv
Dedication v
Acknowledgements vi
Table of contents viii
List of tables xii
List of figures xiii
Abstract xiv
CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION
1.1 Background Information 1
1.2 Problem Statement 6
1.3 Research Questions 8
1.4 Objectives of the Study 9
1.5 Hypothesis 9
1.6 Justification of the Study 10
1.7 Scope of the Study 11
CHAPTER 2: LITERATURE
REVIEW
2.1 Agricultural
Transformation Agenda (ATA) 12
2.2 Growth Enhancement
Support Scheme (GESS) 14
2.2.1 E-wallet system of GESS 16
2.2.2 Goals of the growth
enhancement support scheme (GESS) 16
2.2.3 The
objectives of the GES Scheme 17
2.2.4 Importance of GESS 18
2.2.5 Constraints of GESS 18
2.2.6 Voucher –based approach to
subsidy programme 20
2.3 Policies before GESS on
Agricultural Development for Food Security 21
2.3.1 The 1985 to 1990 era
(Structural Adjustment Programme (SAP) and post
SAP period) 21
2.3.2 The new millennium
agricultural policies (1999 TO 2014) 22
2.4 Fertilizer Subsidy in
Nigeria 24
2.5 Fertilizer Supply and
Distribution in Nigeria 28
2.5.1 Fertilizer supply and distribution
situations in Nigeria 29
2.5.2 Some key issues and constraints to
fertilizer supply and distribution 31
2.5.3 Need for public – private sector
partnerships 32
2.6 National Fertilizer
Policy for Nigeria 33
2.6.1 Policy directions 35
2.6.1.1 Research and development policy 35
2.6.1.2 Fertilizer production Policy 36
2.6.1.3 Domestic marketing policy 37
2.6.1.4International trade policy (imports and
exports) 37
2.6.1.5 Quality control policy 38
2.6.1.6 Environmental policy 39
2.6.1.7 Farm use policy (extension services and
education) 40
2.6.1.8 Governance and institutional policy 40
2.6.1.9 Policy review 40
2.7
Access to Growth Enhancement Support
Scheme Inputs 41
2.8 Effectiveness of Growth Enhancement Support
Scheme (GESS) 42
2.9 Food Security Status of Nigeria 45
2.10 Analysis of Nigerian Government
Intervention against Food Insecurity 47
2.11
Challenges and Future Prospects of
Food Security in Nigeria 50
2.12
The Prospects of the Growth Enhancement
Support Scheme 52
2.13 Review of Relevant
Theories 53
2.13.1 Programme
theory or logic model 53
2.13.2 Needs
assessment theory 55
2.13.3 Theory-
based participatory evaluation model 57
2.13.4 Theory of change 58
2.14 Theoretical Framework 59
2.15 Empirical Framework
61
2.16 Conceptual Framework 62
2.16.1 Independent variables 64
2.16.2 Intervening variables 64
2.16.3 Dependent variable 65
2.16.4 Outcome 65
CHAPTER 3: METHODOLOGY
3.1 Study
Area 66
3.1.1 Abia
State 66
3.1.2 Imo
State 67
3.2 Population
of the study 68
3.3 Sampling
Procedure 68
3.4 Method Data Collection 69
3.5 Test
of Validity of Instruments 69
3.6 Reliability
of Instruments 69
3.7 Data
Analysis 70
3.7.1 Measurement of variables 73
CHAPTER
4: RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONS
4.1 Socio-Economic
Characteristics of the Respondents 76
4.2 Conditions for Access to GESS 83
4.3 Acquisition of GESS Inputs 84
4.4 Farmer’s Perception on GESS Programme 86
4.5 Effectiveness of GESS 88
4.6 Constraints Faced by Farmers in GESS 90
4.7 Hypotheses
Testing 92
CHAPTER
5: SUMMARY, CONCLUSION AND
RECOMMENDATION
5.1 Summary 95
5.2 Conclusions 97
5.3 Recommendations 98
REFERENCES 99
LIST OF TABLES
1: Fertilizer imports by private sector
(1997 – 2006) 30
4.1: Distribution of respondents
according to their socioeconomic
Characteristics 77
4.2: Distribution
of respondents based on the conditions for accessing
the GESS inputs 83
4.3: Distribution
of respondents based on their acquisition of inputs in
the GESS 84
4.4: Distribution
of respondents based on their perception on GESS 86
4.5: Distribution
of respondents based on their perception of effectiveness
of GESS 88
4.6: Distribution
of respondents based on the constraints encountered
in GESS 90
4.7: Z-Test
analysis of the difference in the effectiveness of GESS
programme in Abia and Imo States 92
4.8: Z-test comparative
analysis of the difference in income
of GESS participants in Abia
and Imo State 93
4.9: Logit regression estimates of influence of
selected
socio-economic
characteristics influencing access to GESS
inputs
in Abia and Imo State 94
LIST OF FIGURES
1: A conceptual framework for
the study 63
CHAPTER 1
INTRODUCTION
1.1
BACKGROUND
INFORMATION
Nigeria
is an agrarian country with about 70% of her over 140 million people engaged in
agricultural production (NBS/CBN, 2006) and provides subsistence for two-thirds
(2/3) of Nigerians who are low-income earners (Usman, 2006). While the Northern
part can guarantee the production of cereals such as sorghum, maize, millet,
groundnut, cowpea and cotton, the Middle Belt and the South have the potentials
to produce root tubers such as cassava, yam, cocoyam and other crops like
plantain as well as maize (Abdullahi, 2003). In addition to crops, the country
is also involved in the production of livestock, fisheries, forestry and wildlife.
Nigeria is generally endowed with abundant natural resources, numerous
all-season rivers and a favourable tropical climate. Rainfall is generally
adequate and fairly well distributed throughout the country (Nwafor, 2008). Out
of the 98.321 million ha of land available in Nigeria, about 75.30% may be
regarded as arable land, which 10% is under forest reserves and the remaining
14.70% is assumed to be made up of permanent pasture, built up areas and
uncultivable waste (Olomola, 1998). In the light of the foregoing, agriculture
is still a major sector as well as remains the corner stone of the Nigerian
economy (Igboeli, 2000). Agriculture employed about 70 to 80% of the country’s
labour force (Falusi and Olayide, 1980) and contributed 60% of the nation’s gross
domestic product (GDP) and foreign exchange earnings (CBN, 1985).
In the
oil boom era (1966 to 1977) the oil sector came to a prominent position as an
important source of the national revenue. The oil sector which used to
contribute a meager 2.6% of the GDP in 1960 contributed 57.6% to the GDP in
1970 and up to 99.7% in 1972 (Keke, 1992). Agriculture, on the other hand,
contributed only 12% to the GDP in 1970 which culminated in rising food import
bill leading to the persistent huge deficit in the balance of payments over the
years (Ugwu, 2007).
In the
post oil boom era (1977 to 2002), the price of crude oil started falling and/or
fluctuating and there has been a growing concern to revitalize the agricultural
sector as well as diversify the economy. In order to revamp the agricultural
sector, the federal government had embarked on and implemented several
agricultural policies and programmes some of which are defunct or abandoned,
and some restructured while others are still in place. These include the farm
settlement scheme, National Accelerated Food Production (NAFPP), Agricultural
Development Projects (ADPs), River Basin Development Authorities (RBDAs),
National Seed Service (NSS), National Centre for Agricultural Mechanisation
(NCAM), Agricultural and Rural Management Training Institute (ARMTI) and
Agricultural Credit Guarantee Scheme Fund (ACGSF). Others were the Nigerian
Agricultural Cooperative And Rural Development Bank (NACRDB)/agricultural bank,
Operation Feed the Nation (OFN), Green Revolution Programme, Directorate Of
Foods, Roads And Rural Infrastructure (DFFRI), Nigerian agricultural insurance
company (NAIC), National Agricultural Land Development Authority (NALDA),
Specialised Universities for Agriculture, Root and Tuber Expansion Programme (RTEP)
and rural banking scheme, etc. (Salami, 2007).
Furthermore,
the Federal Government in 2004 launched another economic reform called National
Economic Empowerment and Development Strategy (NEEDS) programme to encourage
private sector participation in the development of the economy. It was also
aimed at promoting growth and poverty reduction through a participatory process
involving civil society and development partners. In the agricultural sector,
NEEDS were directed to influence improvement in the production, processing and
distribution of agricultural commodities. NEEDS was short-lived for only one
year and therefore could not transform or make significant impact on the
agricultural sector.
Agriculture
in Nigeria is predominantly practiced in the rural areas; hence, there is the
need to ensure that farmers in the rural areas get access to farm input such as
fertilizers, seeds and information to enhance their productivity. In recent
years, majority of the governments and donor agencies operating in the region
have shown a renewed interest in improving the livelihoods, living conditions
and the economic wellbeing of the rural communities (Jamaet al., 2007). The small scale farmer bears the burden of feeding
the Nigerian population, providing foreign exchange earnings and providing raw
materials for agro industrialization in textiles, food and beverages (Idachaba,
2000); yet, he has to make do with limited inputs. Agricultural productivity is often held back
by insufficient plant nutrients and inadequate use of modern input hence the need for adequate
provision of fertilizers and improved seedlings for these rural farmers.
According
to the Federal Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Development (FMARD undated),
fertilizer generally means any substance containing one or more recognised
plant nutrients and is designed for use
or claimed to have value in promoting plant growth. Fertilizers are important
inputs in agricultural development due to their crucial role in maintaining
soil productivity for attainment of food security. They supply nutrients
needed by crops thereby helping to
produce more crops with better quality
and improve the low fertility of soils which have been over-exploited
(FAO,2000). Land management practices like shifting cultivation, crop rotation
and bush fallowing are gradually fading away because of the pressure on land
for alternative uses and the consequences of population explosion which bears
roots on more people to be fed. This underscores the essence of fertilizer for
continued cultivation of arable lands in Nigerian agriculture.
Inorganic
fertilizer is a technology that can be used at all stages of agricultural
production to enhance productivity, unfortunately, poor farmers face high
prices of these products in association with financial constraints in
purchasing them (Akin-Olagunju et al,
2013). Fertilizer procurement has been a major problem to the farmers owing to
non –availability and poor economic access. Government has always tried to make
it available and affordable to poor rural farmers through different
intervention schemes. One of such schemes is the Growth Enhancement Support
Scheme of the Agricultural Transformation Agenda of President Goodluck Ebele
Jonathan.
The Growth Enhancement Support Scheme (GESS) was designed as a
component of the Agricultural Transformation Agenda of the Federal Government
(ATA). The ATA is the current Government’s response to the crisis that has
riddled the agricultural sector in the past and seeks to put agricultural
growth at the centre of the Government’s development objective given its
critical role for food security and economic diversification. At inception, the
broad objective of the GESS was to achieve food security for the nation at the
macro level, and increase household income for the farmers at the micro level.
The scheme was designed to encourage the stakeholders in the fertilizer value
chain to work together to improve productivity, household food security and
raise the income of the farmer by providing direct subsidy through the supply
of discounted fertilizers and seeds. In the past, fertilizer procurement and
distribution in the country has been fraught with fraud, discrepancies and
inefficiencies. Governments at the Federal and State levels were spending a lot
of money on farm inputs which were not reaching the intended beneficiaries
(small holder farmers) and thus, had no impact on the national food output. The
Federal Government was involved in the direct procurement and distribution of
fertilizers and this weakened the ability of private companies to participate
in the sector and compete efficiently for market share. As with most subsidy
regimes, the sector was grossly under developed and the opportunities for fraud
and diversion were rampant. With the GESS, Government sought to withdraw from
direct fertilizer purchase and distribution and introduce an alternative system
of distribution built on the voucher system which had been developed by
International Fertilizer Development Centre (IFDC) and successfully implemented
in 4 States. The scheme has so far registered about 14 million
farmers throughout the federation for direct redemption of farm inputs through
the e-wallet system (communicating with rural farmers through mobile phone,
precisely SMS) (Okaforet al., 2013).
Under
the scheme, registered farmers receives 50 per cent subsidy on their farms
inputs from the federal government with the support of the state government.
The
Scheme's approach is to target beneficiaries through the use of electronic
system and by encouraging the engagement of the private sector in the
distribution and delivery of fertilizers and other critical inputs directly to farmers.
GES Scheme has some of its objectives as to
provide affordable agricultural inputs such as fertilizers and hybrid seeds,
removal of complexities associated with fertilizer distribution, improvement of
farmer’s income and promotion of food security, encouragement of key players in
fertilizer value chain for productivity improvement and finally, to shift
provision of subsidized fertilizer away from general public to genuine small
holder farmers.
The
target beneficiaries are the small scale farmers. The Federal Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Development, as part
of its mandate is monitoring the implementation of the GES Scheme. Despite
all the aforementioned reform policies and programmes, the performance of the
sector had not fared better than it was before independence. It is against this
background that this research was designed and considered imperative at this
time in the nation’s history.
1.2 STATEMENT OF THE PROBLEM
Nigeria
is the most populous country in Africa, with an urban population growing at an
exponential rate. The government’s objective of food sufficiency is a major
challenge. Despite Nigeria’s rich agricultural resource endowments, the
agricultural sector has been growing at a very low rate. Less than 50% of the
country’s cultivable agricultural land is under cultivation. Even then,
smallholder and traditional farmers who use rudimentary production techniques,
with resultant low yields, cultivate most of this land (Faleyeet al., 2012).
Before
the inception of GES Scheme, the smallholder farmers were constrained by many
problems of which poor access to modern inputs like fertilizer and hybrid
seedlings were paramount, and is the major focus of this work. The Hon. Minister
of Agriculture and Rural Development – Dr. Akinwumi Adesina in his keynote
address on the occasion of the Annual Conference of the Southern African
Confederation of Agricultural Union (SACAU) said that before the scheme came to
be; “No more than 11% of small-holder farmers got subsidized fertilizer
(affordability of inputs) by the government despite the billions of naira spent
successively over the years. The corruption in the system was massive due to
government direct procurement and distribution of fertilizer. The system
disempowered small farmers as the political elites and power brokers siphoned
off fertilizers meant for the poor farmers. The private sector was displaced
and as a result never built fertilizer chains to reach farmers”. (Adesina,
2013).
Consequently,
the bulk of fertilizers supplied in the past was badly adulterated that farmers
complained that a bag of fertilizer supplied was half sand and half fertilizer
when seen because subsidized fertilizers were sold off in the open market at a
price highly unaffordable and the rest exported to other neighbouring
countries. Farm productivity continued to decline, food security worsened and
income of farmers declined, despite massive increases in fertilizer subsidies
for decades.
In
addition, the hybrid seeds were not left out of these mal-practices as direct
procurement of seeds led to entrenched corruption and rent seeking, as
government officials gave away contracts to cronies, who supplied grains
instead of high quality seeds to farmers. (Adesina, 2013).
In a
nutshell, there were complains of diversion, exorbitant cost and adulteration
of various inputs to farmers, which ultimately led to low productivity,
increased poverty, unemployment and lack of interest in farming. Also, since
farming is time bound, fertilizer distribution in the country reaches the
farmer when not necessarily needed and when supplied late, crop production is
inevitably affected.
Idachaba, (2006b), posited that other problems associated with bringing
innovations to small-scale farmers include the inputs supply chain, which is
dominated by government and heavily distorted to the extent that inputs are not
easily accessible. Also, farmers are usually dissuaded from adopting innovation
because of the ‘learning processes’ that they undergo and the cost associated
with adjustment to the new situation. The needs assessments of the farmers most
times are not considered. In other words, the type, quality and quantity of
what the farmers actually want, do not count because the products are being
supplied by contractors who are profit oriented and not farmers’ desire
oriented.
Furthermore, massive abuse in terms of diversion of benefits to
unintended beneficiaries, fiscal burden on the government, rent-seeking
activities, and wrong estimation of input demand, distribution inefficiencies
and political interference are still some of the identified problems
(Akin-Olagunju et al., 2013 as stated
by Idachaba, 2006a and b). The Federal Ministry of Agriculture and Rural
Development introduced the Growth Enhancement Support Scheme in 2012 to provide
subsidized inputs, including fertilizer and improved seeds to farmers. The
scheme is to reform the fertilizer distribution system which is riddled with
corruption. Overall, the GES Scheme seeks to make inputs such as fertilizers
and improved seeds closer and directly accessible to all small scale farmers
who are the target beneficiaries.
Before now, no much study has been done to evaluate the effectiveness of
the scheme in the study area and to ascertain whether the goals and the
objectives of establishing the GES Scheme have been achieved.
1.2
RESEARCH
QUESTIONS
The
study therefore sought answers to the following research questions:
1.
What are the socio-economic
characteristics of the beneficiaries of GES Scheme in the study area?
2.
What are the respondents’ conditions to
access to inputs under the GES Scheme?
3.
What is the level of acquisition of
inputs made by the respondents?
4.
What is the perception of respondents
on GESS in the study area?
5.
What is the level of effectiveness of
the GESS in the study area?
6.
What is the constraints associated to
GES Scheme in the study area?
1.4 OBJECTIVES
OF THE STUDY
The broad objective of the study was to assess the effectiveness of the
Growth Enhancement Support Scheme of the Federal Government’s Agricultural Transformation
Agenda in Abia and Imo States, Nigeria.
The specific objectives include to:
1.
describe the socio-economic
characteristics of the respondents in the study area.
2.
ascertain the respondents’ conditions
to access inputs under the GES Scheme;
3.
ascertain the level of acquisition of
inputs made by the respondents;
4.
ascertain the perception of respondents
on GESS;
5.
ascertain the level of effectiveness of the GESS; and
6.
identify the constraints associated to
GES Scheme in the study area
1.5 HYPOTHESES OF THE STUDY
H01:
There is no significant difference between the effectiveness of GESS programme
in Abia and Imo States
H02:
There is no significant difference in the income of farm income of the
participant in GESS in Imo and Abia states
H03:
There is no relationship between the socioeconomic characteristics of GESS farmers
and their access to GESS inputs in the study area.
1.6 JUSTIFICATION
OF THE STUDY
The
Growth Enhancement Support Scheme (GESS) is the nerve center of the on-going
agricultural revolution in Nigeria. This initiative, if well implemented, can
be used to help solve the perennial problem of subsidized fertilizers not
getting to the farmers. Also, it can help further the initiative of the Central
Bank of Nigeria to bring about financial inclusion of farmers in the rural
areas to the formal sector through e – Wallet (communicating with the rural
farmers via mobile phones , precisely SMS), whereby individual farmers can make
use of their phones for financial transactions.
The
initiative would also be instrumental in reducing bureaucracy and the role of
middlemen in fertilizer distribution, which has been marred with corruption and
inefficiencies. This direct access to government by farmers will ensure that
progress by the farmers is monitored directly by the government. GES Scheme
will ensure food security; the realization that securing the access to cheap
food for Nigerians would ensure social stability and reduce reliance on food
importation which supply can be cut off at any time depending on prevailing
global political and economic condition or similar conditions in the exporting
countries. Foreign exchange earnings from agricultural exports and favourable
balance of payment will be promoted. The study is considered expedient for
several reasons.
First,
at least, to the knowledge of the researcher, little or no studies have been
carried out in this area in Abia and Imo States. The study will serve as an
avenue to educate, inform and communicate with farmers in rural areas across
the State on the strategies and operation of the stakeholders of GES in their
catchment area, Local Government Area and even the State. In addition, the
Nigerian government recognized the importance of the agricultural sector to the
populace hence established an initiative that would remove the
difficulties usually associated with the distribution of fertilizers and hybrid
seeds in the Country with the aim of achieving the country’s
developmental goals. Finally, socio-economic issues, such as poverty reduction,
employment generation, reduction in rural-urban migration and food price
stability will be enhanced.
1.7 SCOPE OF THE STUDY
The
study was restricted to where you had beneficiaries of Growth Enhancement
Support scheme in Abia and Imo States. It is concerned with the assessment of
the impact of this scheme on the beneficiaries and how the initiative has helped
in the intervention of providing affordable agricultural inputs like
fertilizers and hybrid seeds to farmers in order to increase their yields per
hectare and make it comparable to world standard. Consequently, the scope of
this study will be limited to the fulfilment of its stated specific objectives
only.
Login To Comment