CLIMATE SMART AGRICULTURE, RISK AND PERFORMANCE OF AGRIPRENEURS IN THE ROOT AND TUBER VALUE CHAIN IN SOUTHEAST NIGERIA

  • 0 Review(s)

Product Category: Projects

Product Code: 00009167

No of Pages: 210

No of Chapters: 1-5

File Format: Microsoft Word

Price :

₦10000

  • $

ABSTRACT

Climate Smart Agriculture (CSA) has undoubtedly assumed a critical position in addressing the complex issue of how to achieve sustainable agricultural growth for food security under climate change. This dissertation is an attempt to evaluate the objectives of climate smart agriculture, taking into account the obvious peculiarities of the Nigerian farming economy. Abia, Imo and Ebonyi states were selected for the study. Each of the state comprises of three agricultural zones and 30 respondents were purposively selected along root and tuber value chain line per Agricultural zone giving a total of 90 respondents per state and a grand total of 270 respondents for the study. Descriptive statistics, Heckman’s two-stage selection model, Cost and returns, OLS and ANOVA were used to analyze the data. The participation in agribusiness subsectors by the agri-preneurs showed clear overlapping of activities as no single agripreneur specialized. With little or no specialization, the respondents are exposed to a whole lot of risks and expenses which could be avoided if they specialize. The awareness of the use of CSA was created by extension workers (in Abia state) and by cooperatives (in Ebonyi and Imo states). The result showed that reduction of soil cover, application of manure, use of cover-crops and green manure, run-off water harvesting, use of pest and disease resistant varieties and early planting techniques were the most-adopted CSA practices. The Heckman model result for Abiaagripreneurs showed that in hurdles 1 and 2 (decision to adopt CSA and number of CSA adopted), farming experience, level of education and extension visit were positive while household size and risk index were negative. In Imo state, household size, farming experience, education and income were positive while risk index was negative. In Ebonyi state, household size, education and extension visit were positive while risk index was negative.The cost and returns analyses across the states showed all indicators – gross profit, net profit, expense-structure ratio and benefit-cost ratio (BCR) were positive, an indication of the viability and profitability of tuber subsector. With reference to net profit, BCR and returns per naira invested, the processing subsector was the most viable in Abia state; marketing was the highest in Imo state while production was higher for BCR and returns per naira invested in Ebonyistate.For the factors affecting the performance of root and tuber crop agripreneurs in South-east Nigeria, education, credit, household size and income showed expected signs.Risks relating to high collateral demands/interest rates, menace of herdsmen, floods/erosion, thefts and on-time deliveries of supplies were most prominent among input agripreneurs. Generally, agripreneurs were exposed to risks relating to their areas of specialization. Risk exposure in Abia state was highest for services, marketing and production agripreneurs; it was production, marketing and inputs subsector agripreneurs that were most exposed to risk in Imo state while risk exposure in Ebonyi was highest among inputs, services and processing agripreneurs. Actions geared towards specialization of the value chain without undermining the importance of vertical integration should be vigorously pursued.








TABLE OF CONTENTS

Title Page                                                                                                                                i

Declaration                                                                                                                             ii

Certification                                                                                                                           iii

Dedication                                                                                                                              iv

Acknowledgements                                                                                                                v

Table of Contents                                                                                                                   vi

List of Tables                                                                                                                          ix

List of Figures                                                                                                                         x

Abstract                                                                                                                                  xi

CHAPTER 1 

1.0       INTRODUCTION                                                                                                      1

1.1       BACKGROUND INFORMATION                                                                           1

1.2       PROBLEM STATEMENT                                                                                        7

1.3       OBJECTIVES OF THE STUDY                                                                               10

1.4       HYPOTHESES                                                                                                           11

1.5       JUSTIFICATION OF THE STUDY                                                                          11

 

CHAPTER 2 

2.0       LITERATURE REVIEW                                                                                           15

2.1       Conceptual Literature                                                                                                 15

2.1.1    Concept of Value Chain                                                                                             15

2.1.2    Concept of Productivity                                                                                             18

2.1.3    Concept of Climate Change and Climate Smart Agriculture (CSA)                          20

2.1.4    Value Chain Development Approaches (VCDA)                                                      23

2.1.5    Cassava Production and Consumption in West Africa                                              24

2.1.6    Cassava Production, Processing and Marketing Profile in Western and

Central Africa                                                                                                             26

2.1.7    Cassava Value Chain Actors and their Functions                                                      27

2.1.7.1 Input Provision                                                                                                           27

2.1.7.2 Production                                                                                                                  28

2.1.7.3 Processing                                                                                                                   29

2.1.7.4 Distribution and Marketing                                                                                        30

2.1.8    Yam Value Chain Overview and Actors                                                                    31

2.1.8.1 Farmers                                                                                                                       33

2.1.8.2 Middlemen                                                                                                                 34

2.1.8.3 Processors                                                                                                                   34

2.1.8.4 Consumers                                                                                                                  34

2.1.8.5 Exporters                                                                                                                    35

2.1.9    Potato Value Chain Analysis                                                                                      35

2.1.9.1 Producers                                                                                                                    35

2.1.9.2 Marketers/ Suppliers                                                                                                   36

2.1.9.3 Processors                                                                                                                   36

2.1.10  Economics of Climate Change                                                                                   37

2.1.11  Impact of Climate Change on Agriculture and the Implications                                    45

2.1.12  Innovations for Climate Smart Agriculture                                                                47

2.1.12.1 Technological Innovations                                                                                       48

2.1.12.2 Farm System Approaches                                                                                         49

2.2       THEORETICAL REVIEW                                                                                        50

2.2.1    Theory of Social Capital                                                                                            50

2.2.2    Theory of production                                                                                                  52

2.2.3    Theory of productivity                                                                                               55

2.2.3    Risk Theories                                                                                                              58

2.2.3.1 Modigliani and Miller’s capital structure theory of risk                                            58

2.2.3.2 Credit, Economic and Political Risks Theory                                                            58

2.2.3.3 The Economic Utility Theory of Risk                                                                        59

2.3       EMPIRICAL REVIEW                                                                                              60

2.3.1    Trend of Climate Parameters and Cash Crop Variability                                         60

2.3.2    The Impacts of Climate Change on Agricultural Sectors                                          61

2.3.3    Value Chain                                                                                                                63

2.4       ANALYTICAL FRAMEWORK                                                                               64

2.4.1    Descriptive statistics                                                                                                   64

2.4.2    FAO’s VCA-Tool                                                                                                       65

2.4.3    Regression Analysis:                                                                                                  66

2.4.4    Heckman’s two-stage Selection Model                                                                      66

 

CHAPTER 3

3.0       RESEARCH METHODOLOGY                                                                                69

3.1       The Study Area                                                                                                           69

3.2       Sampling Technique                                                                                                   70

3.3       Method of Data Collection                                                                                         71

3.4       Method of Data Analysis                                                                                            71

3.4.1    Model Specification                                                                                                   72

 

CHAPTER FOUR

4.0       RESULTS AND DISCUSSION                                                                                 77

4.1       Socio-Economic Profile of the Respondents                                                              77

4.2       Level of Awareness, Source of Awareness and Usage of Climate Smart Agriculture

byAgripreneurs                                                                                                           92

4.3       Determinants of the climate smart agriculture use by agripreneurs in the

south eastern Nigeria                                                                                                  102

4.4       Value Chain Map for the Selected Root and Tuber Crops in the Area                105

4.5       Performance of Agripreneurs along the Selected Root and Tuber Crops Value

Chain Line in the Study Area                                                                                     122

4.6       Factors affecting the performance of the selected root and tuber crops in selected

states in eastern Nigeria                                                                                              137

4.6.1    Factors affecting the performance of the selected root and tuber crops in

Abia state                                                                                                                    137

4.6.2    Factors affecting the performance of the selected root and tuber crops in

Imo state                                                                                                                     143

4.6.3    Factors affecting the performance of the selected root and tuber crops in

Ebonyi state                                                                                                                148

4.7       Types of risk of concern and risk exposure of the selected root and tuber crops value

chain in Eastern Nigeria                                                                                             153

4.7.1    The risk exposure of the agribusinesses in Abia State, Nigeria                                    169

4.7.2.   The risk exposure of the agribusinesses in Imo State, Nigeria                                    170

4.7.3.   The risk exposure of the agribusinesses in Ebonyi State, Nigeria                                    173

 

CHAPTER 5

5.0       SUMMARY, CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS                                    175

5.1       Summary                                                                                                                    175

5.2       Conclusion                                                                                                                  181

5.3       Recommendations                                                                                                      181

REFERENCES

APPENDIX

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

LIST OF TABLES

Table 4.1         Socio-Economic Profile of Respondents in the three south east states        77

Table 4.2         Socio-Economic Profile of Respondents in three south east states

(Continued)                                                                                                     81

Table 4.3         Distribution of Respondents According to Areas of Agribusiness Investment

in the study areas                                                                                            88

Table 4.4         Distribution of the agripreneurs according to level of awareness and sources

of CSA awareness in the three eastern states                                                 92

Table 4.5         Usage of Climate Smart Agricultural Practices by Agripreneurs in the three

eastern states                                                                                                   95

Table 4.6         Determinants of adoption of CSA practices and number of CSA practices used

in Abia state                                                                                                    103

Table 4.7         Determinants of adoption of CSA practices and number of CSA practices used

in Imo state                                                                                                     104

Table 4.8         Determinants of adoption of CSA practices and number of CSA practices

used in Ebonyi state                                                                                        106

Table 4.9         cost and returns of agripreneurs under the input value chain in in the three 

South East states                                                                                             123

Table 4.10       Cost and returns of agripreneurs under the production value chain in the three 

South East states                                                                                             126

Table 4.11       Cost and returns of agripreneurs under the processing value chain in the three 

South East states                                                                                             128

Table 4.12       Cost and returns of agripreneurs under the marketing value chain in the three

South East states                                                                                             130

Table 4.13       Cost and returns of agripreneurs under the service value chain in the three

South East states                                                                                             132

Table 4.14       Cost and Returns of Value Chain Actors in Root and Tuber Crops in Abia

State                                                                                                                134

Table 4.15       Cost and Returns of Value Chain Actors in Root and Tuber Crops in

Imo state                                                                                                         135

Table 4.16       Cost and Returns of Value Chain Actors in Root and Tuber Crops in

Ebonyi state                                                                                                    136

Table 4.17       Factors affecting the performance of the selected root and tuber crops

farmers in Abia state                                                                                      138

Table 4.18       Factors affecting the performance of the selected root and tuber crops

farmers in Imo state                                                                                        144

Table 4.19       Factors affecting the performance of the selected root and tuber crops

farmers in Ebonyi state                                                                                   149

Table 4.20       Analysis of the input agripreneurs types of risk                                             154

Table 4.21       Analysis of the production agripreneurs types of risk                                    158

Table 4.22       Analysis of the processing agripreneurs types of risk                                    161

Table 4.23       Analysis of the Marketing agripreneurs types of risk                                     164

Table 4.24       Analysis of the Support agripreneurs types of risk                                        167

Table 4.25       Risk exposure of the agribusinesses in Abia State                                         169

Table 4.26       The risk exposure of the agribusinesses in Imo State                                     171

Table 4.27       Risk exposure of the agribusinesses in Ebonyi State                                     173









LIST OF FIGURES


Figure 1: value chain map for cassava, yam and potato                                                        70

Figure 2: value chain map for value added cassava product Garri                                        111

Figure 3: value chain map for value added cassava product Fufu                                         112

Figure 4: value chain map for value added cassava product Flour                                        113

Figure 5: value chain map for value added cassava product Starch                                       114

Figure 6: value chain map for value added cassava product Feed Pellets                                    115

Figure 7: value chain map for value added cassava product Ethanol                                     116

Figure 8: value chain map for value added yam product Yam flour                                      117

Figure 9: value chain map for value added yam product Yam flakes                                    118

Figure 10: value chain map for value added yam product Yam Chips                                    119

Figure 11: value chain map for value added potato product Potato Chips                                    120

Figure 12: value chain map for value added yam product Yam flour                                    121

Figure 13: value chain map for value added yam product Yam puree                                    122

 

 

 

 



CHAPTER 1        

               

1.0      INTRODUCTION

1.1       Background Information

The effect of climate change is felt all over Nigeria. The duration and intensity of rainfall have increased causing rise in sea level and flooding in most southern parts of the country while rising heat and less rain has hastened desert encroachment, with loss of the wetlands, and fast reduction in the amount of surface water in the northern Nigeria. (Elisha et al., 2017; Ebele and Emodi, 2016; Ogbuabor and Egwuchukwu, 2017). These climate change has affected agriculture which is rain fed. The economy is not spared with many of its working population engaged direct or indirectly in agriculture and reduce yields and productivity of farm produce affects the income and standard of living in the country.

The staggering truth is that climate change has come to stay and will grossly affect humanity – directly and indirectly. Directly through the increased scorching heat of the sun, ice-melts in the arctic regions and indirectly through agricultural productivity declines.

The agricultural sector has the potential to be the industrial and economic springboard from which a country’s development can take off (Stewart, 2000; Onwutuebe, 2019). This sector remains the main source of livelihood for most rural communities in developing countries in general. In Africa, agriculture provides a source of employment for more than 60 percent of the population and contributes about 30 per cent of Gross Domestic Product. In South East Nigeria and Nigeria, agriculture is the main source of food and employer of labour employing about 60-70 per cent of the working population  (Bernard & Adenuga, 2017) and contributing about 27.5% of the nation’s 2018 GDP  (The Nigerian Economic Summit Group, 2019). It is a significant sector of the economy and the source of raw materials used in the processing industries as well as a source of foreign exchange earnings for the country (Mohammed-Lawal and Atte 2006). Since agriculture in Nigeria is mostly rain-fed, it follows therefore that any change in climate is bound to affect its productivity in particular and other socio-economic activities in the country. The impact could, however, be measured in terms of effects on crop growth, availability of soil water, soil erosion, incident of pest and diseases, sea level rises and decrease in soil fertility (Adejuwon, 2004).

The agricultural sector is one of the most vulnerable to the effect of climate change. In light of the Third Assessment Report of global climate change prediction by IPCC, there is concern about the consequences of climate change on the agricultural sector. Local farm communities in parts of the developing world have already experienced food security and traditional livelihood problems due to climate variability (Food and Agriculture Organization, 2002; 2006; IPCC, 2007).

The growing population have made it an uphill task for agriculture to meet the food requirement and the problem is compounded by climate change. Extreme weather conditions, high temperatures, water shortages, ecosystem disruption among others have significant effects on the different dimensions and determinants of food security by affecting the productivity of rain fed crops and forage, reducing water availability and changing the severity and distribution of crop and livestock diseases. According to IPCC (2014) fifth assessment reports, it was observed that that climate change effects are already being felt on agriculture and food security, and the negative impacts are most likely in tropical zones where most of the world’s poor agricultural dependent populations are located. Through its impacts on agriculture, climate change will make it more difficult to meet the key Sustainable Development Goal of ending hunger, achieving year-round food security, and ensuring sustainable food production systems by 2030.

The magnitude and speed of climate change, and the effectiveness of adaptation and mitigation efforts in agriculture, will be critical to the future of large segments of the world’s population. Integrating the effects of climate change into agricultural development planning is a major challenge.  Effective adaptation requires technology and policy measures to reduce vulnerability and increase the capacity of producers, particularly smallholders. In addition, given agriculture’s role as a major source of greenhouse gas emissions and the high rate of emissions growth experienced with recent conventional intensification strategies, there is a need to look for low emissions growth opportunities and adequate policies (IPCC, 2014). In the bid to address the stated objective, climate smart agriculture (CSA) concept was developed in order to address the complex issue of how to achieve sustainable agricultural growth for food security under climate change (FAO 2009, 2010; Lipper et al. 2014). According to Fanen and Adekola (2014), Agriculture is said to be climate smart when it achieves three main goals: these are (1) sustainably increasing agricultural productivity to support equitable increases in incomes, food security and development; (2) adapting and building resilience to climate change from the farm to national levels; and (3) developing opportunities to reduce GHG emissions from agriculture compared with past trends. It is pertinent to note that the tripartite objective of climate smart agriculture may not be met at once; importance of each objective differs across locations and situations.  According to Nwajiuba, Tambi, and Bangali, (2015) Climate Smart Agriculture practiced in  South East Nigeria can be grouped into six categeories which are a) Conservation Agriculture (CA) which aims to conserve, improve and make more efficient use of natural resources through integrated management of soil, water and biological resources combined with external input. b) Integrated Crop Management (ICM) can be understood as a compromise between organic production and conventional production. c) Organic Agriculture which includes practices like crop rotation and the use of cover crops, nitrogen management and fertilisation regimes. d) Agricultural Water Management (AWM) in which case water from different sources (rainwater, surface, and groundwater) can be used for crop and livestock production. e) Indigenous Knowledge (IK) also known as local knowledge refers to knowledge held by the local people, outside the formal scientific domain. and f) Adapted Crop Varieties provide benefits primarily in terms of adaptation to the effects of climate change. 

Developing countries, and in the south-eastern Nigeria where agricultural growth and adaptation for food security and economic growth are a priority, and where poor farmers are the most affected by – but have contributed least to – climate change. Mitigation can often be a significant co-benefit of actions to improve food security and adaptation (Lipper et al. 2014).

Available evidence shows that climate effect is felt more by developing countries due to their low level coping capabilities and rain fed nature of agricultural production which root and tuber crops is chief. Roots and tuber crops that are widely grown in Africa have shared in the climate variability effect. According to Sanginga & Mbabu (2015) root and tuber crops, including cassava, sweet potato, potato and yam are the most essential food crops for direct human consumption in Africa. They are grown in varied agro ecologies and production systems contributing to more than 240 million tons annually, covering around 23 million hectares. The production of these root and tuber crops exceed cereal crop production in Africa which stands at an average 169 million tons on 108 million ha of land. It is widely believed that roots and tuber crops has the potential of alleviating poverty and ensuring food security more than any other staple crops produced in Africa. Sanginga and Mbabu (2015) believes root and tuber crops can lead to sustainable food production because they are versatile staples to address food and nutrition security and produce more food per unit area of land, compared to many other crops. Potato and sweet potato have a short production cycle which can allow the farmer to produce 2 to 3 times annually; root and tuber crops command high demand in local and international markets respectively among others.

Among all the African countries producing root and tuber crops, Nigeria is the highest producing country of roots and tuber.  Nigeria is the highest producing country for cassava, yam and second highest for potatoe after China (Oishimaya, 2017). The major root and tuber crops produced in  Nigeria include cassava, yam, potato, sweet potato among others.

Cassava production in Nigeria is the highest in the world at 47,406,770 tons, followed by Thailand at 30,227,542 tons, Indonesia (23,936,920) and Brazil (21,484,218) rank third and fourth in the world in cassava production (Oishimaya, 2017). Cassava is grown in all parts of Nigeria because of its resistant to drought and ability to survive in a variety of soils.  Yam is another root and tuber crop Nigeria top the chart in its production. Yam as a crop is seen as food and cash crop in the country. Although yam production seems tedious and expensive, its returns outweigh these challenges (International Institute of Tropical Agriculture, 2013). In eastern Nigeria, yam is seen as a prestigious crop and those who cultivate it are given titles “Eze ji” in the region. Furthermore, Nigeria is the highest producer of sweet potato in Africa with annual output of 3.46 million metric tons, and globally the second largest producer after China (Oishimaya, 2017). However, only about one percent of its production enters world trade with Canada, United Kingdom, France and the Netherlands being the major importing countries. These have left agripreneurs with an uphill task on how to improve the root and tuber market.

Agripreneurship is simply entrepreneurship in the agriculture sector (Aswale, 2015). They seek out opportunities in agribusiness within the extended food system that can include activities as diverse as processing, packaging, logistics, services, cooking and recycling waste. An agripreneur sees agriculture as a business and seek out gaps and opportunities which he can exploit and take advantage of and earn a profit in the process.

One can argue that the abysmal performance root and tuber crops in South East Nigeria could be attributed to the lack of positive interplay between the actors and players in the root and tuber value chain line. This lack of synergy has led to increased agricultural loss, wastage, fluctuation in price and output underutilization.

Value Chain is a strategic corporation among inter-dependent players that work in partnership to create value for the final consumer resulting in a collective competitive advantage. It is an alliance of enterprises collaborating vertically to achieve a more rewarding position in the marketplace (Splawinski, 2002). According to Kaplinsky and Morris (2000) Value chain includes all actors from production, transportations, transformation, processing, marketing, trading retailing and consumption of a given product or service. These players include producers, processors, marketers, food service companies, retailers and support groups such government, donor agencies, research groups and suppliers. The basics of the agricultural value chain concept is the differentiation of the total agro system and the specialization of each element to optimize the entire system.

In Nigeria especially South East Nigeria, farmers produce the stems and propagative parts needed for the planting season, plant and grow the crops, harvest and process the farm output. They also engage in the marketing of the farm produce to the final consumer and in most cases, they are final consumer. This shows the farmer playing the role of all the actors in the value chain; this increases his operating cost, the risk associated with agriculture, timing consuming and no specialization. The study dives into the climate smart agriculture, risk and performance of agriprenurs in the root and tuber crops value chain in southeastern Nigeria.


1.2       Problem Statement  

In South East Nigeria, most farmers in the rural area notice the change in climatic condition but do not attributed these changes to climate change. This affects the farmers responds and ability to cope with the changes. Due to their poor knowledge and awareness of climate change, most rural farmers still engage in non- environmental friendly farming activities like bush burning, falling of trees, excessive use of chemical on the farm among others. Farmers lack of awareness and poor perception on climate change have contributed to the problem as their activities contribute to anthropogenic (human induced) climate change.

Tubiello, et al. (2013) and Smith, et al (2014) pontificated that Agriculture is also a principal contributor to planetary warming. Total non‐carbon dioxide (CO2) greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions from agriculture in 2010 are estimated at 5.2─5.8 Gt CO2 eq/year, comprising about 10─12% of global anthropogenic emissions. The highest-emitting agricultural categories are enteric fermentation, manure deposited on pasture, synthetic fertilizer, paddy rice cultivation, and biomass burning. The growth of emissions from land-use change is declining, although these still comprise about 12% of the total. Given the need for agricultural growth for food security, agricultural emissions are projected to increase. The main sources of projected emission growth, based on assumptions of conventional agricultural growth paths, can also have severe consequences for biodiversity and ecosystem services such as water quality and soil protection. In the developing countries, farmers still carry out practices like bush burning, excessive use inorganic manure, excessive tillage among are practices which are not climate smart and contribute to climate change.  

Furthermore, attention is mostly focused on primary production, huge crop turnover/harvest, large flock management, enormous plantations etc. Nigerians pride themselves in being the world’s largest producer of cassava and yam and the third largest producer of potato, yet the enigmatic question here is despite our seemingly agricultural feats, why is the agricultural industry not regarded as developed? Production efficiency that could have been realized from the processing of our massively harvested crops is lost; most of our agricultural export are in its raw state. This is a result of a weakened the value chain process in the country.

A typical farmer in the South East Nigerian will produce the seeds he needs for his plantings, grow and harvest the crops on his field, process the harvested crops, market the processed product and even be the final consumer himself, promoting thus the saying “Jack of all Trades, Master of None”. No differentiation of farming activities, which as a result shields the benefits that could have accrued from specializations. The sustained efficiency in the agricultural industry of the developed nations hinged on the principle of specialized diversification through the value chain. Here, each of the producers, processors, marketers and researchers focuses on his enterprise as one’s output is another’s input, ensuring quality delivery of resources to the next link without encroaching into other production niches.

Agripreneurs face high and varied risk and uncertainties (Julie and Hendrick, 2010) collaborating with the assertion, Njavro (2009); NIPC (2006); Dercon (2002) and Milchaylova (2005) added that risk sources to agribusiness enterprises can be grouped into social, market, political, economic/financial, production, environmental and foreign exchange risks. These risks and uncertainties easily trigger food shortages, deterioration in nutritional status, destitution and agro-business failure (Pinstrup-Anderson, 2002).

According to Mbanasor & Nto (2017), Nigeria is a major stakeholder and a force to reckon with in terms of root and tuber crops. This is evidenced in the country’s rank as the number one and highest producer of cassava and yam in the world and third in the production of potatoes. Yet, her export of these products are abysmally low and insignificant.

Government intervention and funding in root and tuber research and development have been very low and far paced among intervention. The amount of money released for root and tuber research in the country is highly deficient and only fraction of the allocation to root and tuber  research and development by the government are been remitted (Mbanasor & Nto, 2017). This begs  the  question: how are these shortfalls  expected to stimulate research in value addition technologies of the root and tuber crops which are highly exportable products.

Performance of the actors along the root and tuber crops value chain have been very poor; this is verified  by the country’s inability to be a leading exporter of root and tuber crops and its value added products, high perishability recorded, poor research and development, fluctuation between market glut and scarcity of the product. This low performance has discouraged  the  youths and able bodied men and women from seeing the root and tuber value chain as a means of livelihood.

Furthermore, value addition to agricultural production in Nigeria has been an uphill task. Most farmers prefer to sell their produce at its raw state and others who wish to transform the product from its raw state are handicapped by inadequate finance, lack of technical know-how, unavailability of the needed machine for such change among others.

Nigeria is among the highest producers of root and tuber crops world over, yet the country makes little from these products in terms of foreign exchange. In addition, the value chain channel is not robust, this has affected the performance and increased the risk associated with root and tuber crops. In other to understand these problems and proffer solutions, the following research questions were raised;

      i.         What are the level of awareness and usage of climate smart agriculture by agripreneurs in the area?

     ii.         What are the determinants of the climate smart agriculture use by agripreneurs in the south eastern Nigeria?

   iii.         How does the value chain map look like for the selected root and tuber crops in the study area?

   iv.         How has the selected root and tuber crops held up in terms of performance in the study area?

     v.         What are the factors having varying effects on the performance of the selected root and tuber crops in the study area?

   vi.         What are the risk concerns and the risk exposure an of the selected root and tuber crops value chain in the study area?


             1.3       Objectives of the Study

The broad objective of the study was to analyze Climate Smart Agriculture, risk and performance of agripreneurs in the root and tuber value chain in southeast Nigeria. The specific objectives include to:

      i.         examine the level of awareness and usage of agripreneurs to climate smart agriculture in the area;

     ii.         estimate the determinants of the climate smart agriculture practices by agripreneurs in the south eastern Nigeria;

   iii.         develop a value chain map for the selected root and tuber crops in the area;

   iv.         determine the performance of agripreneurs along the selected root and tuber crops value chain line in the study area;

     v.         estimate factors affecting the performance of the selected root and tuber crops in the study area and;

   vi.         examine the risk concerns and estimate the risk exposure of the selected root and tuber crops value chain crops in the study area.


             1.4       Hypotheses

The following hypotheses were tested in order to achieve the specific objectives of the study:

Ho1: There is no significant change on the performance of the selected root and tuber crops in the study area;

Ho2: there is no risk exposure within the selected root and tuber crops value chain;

Ho3: education, household size, labour size, income are not significant determinants of climate smart practices in the study;

Ho4: education, household size positively has no effect on performance while risk orientation, credit used and number of extension contact influence performance negatively in the study area.


1.5       Justification of the Study

The negative effects of climate are here to stay, factoring climate change adaptation and mitigation into agricultural development is therefore not elective for African countries who are heavily reliant on agriculture. Climate Smart Agriculture equip farmers, government and other stakeholders with reducing the risk of becoming food-insecure and increasing the adaptive capacity to cope with risks and respond to the changing climate. The study will in addition prepare the government against climate shocks; improved market governance to reduce price volatility, and expanded insurance and safe landing for farmers. This have been reported to increase the prospect of making agriculture lucrative and attractive to the youths.

Root crops are well known for as ‘insurance’ crops and safety shields in time of drought and other disturbances, but in recent years, root crops have also become important economic drivers. This new role of root crops is the outcome of having reached the ‘take-off’ point into commercialization of its products and by-products. The production capacity and markets are such that root crops have moved into being industrial cash crops. This development calls for more investment into basic research, food processing and to better understand of food and labor trends in the larger urban markets of Africa and beyond. (Hartmann, 2007)

There is a growing program of research in Africa on yam, cassava, potato and sweet potato addressing genetic enhancement, seed systems, production, marketing and nutrition impacts supported by a number of national and international programs funded by the Africa Development Bank, African Union Regional Economic fora (e.g. ASARECA, CORAF, SADC, COMESA), BMGF, USAID, DFID, EU, GTZ, and others. (Sanginga & Mbabu, 2015). This makes the study paramount as root and tuber crops are seen to have the capacity to help the masses and the economy of African nations, Nigerian inclusive.

Innovations to enhance the commercialization of root and tuber crops have not achieved their anticipated impact. This could be a result of no clear-cut definition of roles of actors in its value chain. Therefore, the study will help spell out the roles and role specification of the players in the value chain of the selected root and tuber crops.

Conducting this study would help identify the key bottlenecks along the selected root and tuber value chain and ways to resolve them. The ripple effects would be the tendency to equip the rural poor to improve their productivity and hence their incomes, by negotiating a fair share of the value-added generated by their produce along the chain.  In this way, farmers and processors would be better integrated in their chain and the management and development. This will also help spread the risk associated with the product among players in the value chain.

In Nigeria, only a limited amount of empirical research has been conducted concerning the root and tuber value chains, this study will help contribute to knowledge and it will also help trigger more research by scholars in the root and tuber value chain.

Furthermore, the study will help in assisting policymakers to design better intervention strategies that are capable to stabilize the incomes of the poor and decrease vulnerability, it is mandatory to have a good understanding of the livelihoods of rural populations, and the risks they are facing. Although macro-level studies on climate risk and nation-wide yield forecasts are an important instrument to raise awareness of the coming risks, there is a need for higher-resolution system studies, which can suggest development interventions adapted to local needs and conditions. Thornton et al. (2008) argue strongly “against large ‘magic bullet’ approaches, and in favor of smaller, better targeted local approaches and interventions”. Reidsma et al. (2009) point out that in order to project impacts of future climate change on agriculture, current farm management strategies as well as their influence on current production need to be considered.

 

Click “DOWNLOAD NOW” below to get the complete Projects

FOR QUICK HELP CHAT WITH US NOW!

+(234) 0814 780 1594

Buyers has the right to create dispute within seven (7) days of purchase for 100% refund request when you experience issue with the file received. 

Dispute can only be created when you receive a corrupt file, a wrong file or irregularities in the table of contents and content of the file you received. 

ProjectShelve.com shall either provide the appropriate file within 48hrs or send refund excluding your bank transaction charges. Term and Conditions are applied.

Buyers are expected to confirm that the material you are paying for is available on our website ProjectShelve.com and you have selected the right material, you have also gone through the preliminary pages and it interests you before payment. DO NOT MAKE BANK PAYMENT IF YOUR TOPIC IS NOT ON THE WEBSITE.

In case of payment for a material not available on ProjectShelve.com, the management of ProjectShelve.com has the right to keep your money until you send a topic that is available on our website within 48 hours.

You cannot change topic after receiving material of the topic you ordered and paid for.

Ratings & Reviews

0.0

No Review Found.


To Review


To Comment