ABSTRACT
This study analyzed the effect of participation in USAID/MARKETS II Programme on the food security status of cassava farmers in Akwa Ibom State, Nigeria. Specifically, it described the socio-economic characteristics of USAID and non-USAID farmers, assessed perceptions of farmers towards the programme activities, ascertained the extent of farmers’ participating in the programme support services, ascertained extent of farmers participation in the stages of programme development, examine the desired outcomes gained by participating farmers from the programme, estimated the output and income levels of USAID and non-USAID farmers from cassava farming, determined the food security status of USAID and non-USAID farmers and examined constraints faced by farmers participating in the programme activities in the study area. Multi-stage random sampling procedure was used to select one hundred and eighty (180) respondents (90 USAID farmers and 90 non-USAID farmers). Data were collected with a structured questionnaire and analyzed using descriptive statistics and inferential statistics (Tobit regression, Probit regression and Z-test analyses). The result indicates that USAID farmers had favourable perception ( =3.2), high participation ( =2.3) in the programme support services and high participation ( =2.6) in the stages of proramme development and participation outcomes ( =3.4). The result showed that mean cassava output of USAID farmers (58,405.56kg/ha) were higher than the non-USAID farmers (34,038.89kg/ha) as against mean cassava income of USAID farmers (N233, 855.6) and non-USAID farmers (N192, 986.7). Food security status result showed that mean per capita household expenditure per month (N21120.46) for USAID farmers and non- USAID farmers (N5474.41), while food security index, showed that a moderate proportion of USAID farmers were more food secured (43.33%) than non-USAID farmers (33.33%). Multiple regression estimates showed that coefficients for reduced risk taking, enterprise diversification, household employment and increased productivity influenced participation outcomes gained by farmers from the programme. Tobit regression showed that coefficients for age, education, farming experience, farm size, farm income, amount of credit received, farm output and membership of cooperatives influenced farmers’ extent of participation in the stages of programme development in the study area. Probit regression estimates showed that coefficients for technical support, value chain and agribusiness support services influenced food security status of participating farmers in the study area. The marginal effects result of probit regression shows the probability that USAID farmers were food secure as a result of the programmes technical, value chain and agribusiness support services. Z–test result revealed a significant difference in mean food security status of USAID and non–USAID famers at P≤ 0.5 and a significant difference in mean cassava output and income of USAID farmers at P≤ 0.5 level of probability respectively. Untimely supply of farm inputs, bureaucratic bottle necks and poor counterpart support funding were major constraints affecting participation of farmers in the programme. The study concluded that USAID farmers had highly participated in the programme as it increased their food security status. Policies aimed at empowerment, diversification of enterprise, improvement of farming skills, reduced risk in farming and promotion of agribusiness activities were advocated for effective participation of cassava farmers in the programme.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Title Page i
Declaration ii
Certification iii
Dedication v
Acknowledgements vi
Table of
Contents vi
List of Tables ix
List of Figures x
Abstract xi
CHAPTER
1: INTRODUCTION
1.1 Background of the Study 1
1.2 Problem Statement 6
1.3 Research Questions 7
1.4 Objectives of the Study 8
1.5 Hypotheses of the Study 8
1.6 Justification of the Study 9
1.7 Definition of Terms 10
CHAPTER
2: LITERATURE REVIEW
2.1
Farmers’ Participation in Donor-Sponsored Agricultural Programmes
13
2.1.1 Types of
farmers participation 16
2.1.2 Types of
farmers’ participation in research 17
2.2 Concept
Agriculture and Rural Development in Nigeria 19
2.3
Overview of Agricultural and Rural Development Programmes in Nigeria
21
2.4 The
Cassava Sector Today 31
2.5 Constraints
to Cassava Production 33
2.6 Government
Policies on Cassava Production 37
2.7 USAID
MARKET II Programme in Nigeria 39
2.7.1 USAID
/market II cassava production 41
2.8 The
Concept of Food Security 42
2.8.1 Definition
of food security 45
2.8.2 Characteristics of household food security 46
2.8.3 Dimensions of food security 46
2.9 Empirical Study 47
2.10 Theoretical Framework 50
2.10.1 The modernization theory 51
2.10.2 The trickle-down theory 53
2.10.3 Dependency theory 53
2.10.4 The basic needs approach 54
2.10.5 Sherry
Arnstein’s ladder of participation 56
2.10.6 Wilcox
participation theory 57
2.10.7 Locality participation theory 58
2.11: Conceptual Framework 59
CHAPTER
3: METHODOLGY
3.1 Study Area 62
3.2 Population of Study 64
3.3 Sampling and Sampling Procedure 64
3.4 Data Collection 65
3.5 Validity of Instrument 65
3.6 Test of Reliability of Instrument 66
3.7 Data Analysis 66
3.8 Measurement of Variables 66
3.9 Model Specifications 70
CHAPTER
4: RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
4.1 Socio-Economic
Characteristics of Respondents 76
4.1.1 Gender 77
4.1.2 Age 77
4.1.3 Education 78
4.1.4 Marital status 79
4.1.5 Household size 79
4.1.6 Farming experience 80
4.1.7 Occupation 80
4.1.8 Farm size
81
4.1.9 Amount of credit 81
4.1.10 Cooperative membership 82
4.2 Perception of USAID/MARKET II Cassava
Farmers about the Programme Support
Services 83
4.3 Extent of Participation of Farmers in the
Programme Support Services 85
4.4 USAID/MARKET II Farmers’ Participation in
Stages of Programme Development 86
4.5 Desired Outcomes Gained by USAID/MARKET
II Farmers from the Programme 87
4.6
Estimates of Cassava Output and
Income of USAID/MARKET II Farmers
and Non- Farmers
88
4.7: Food Security Status and Index of
USAID/MARKET II Farmers and Non-Farmers in the
Programme 90
4.8 Constraints to USAID/MARKET II Cassava
Farmers’ Participation
in the
Programme Activities 92
4.9 Regression Estimates of Desired Outcomes
Gained by Participating Farmers
from USAID MARKETS/II Programme 93
4.10 Tobit Regression Analysis of USAID/MARKETS
II Farmers’ Participation
in the Stages of Programme Development 98
4.11.1 Probit regression estimates of the determinants
of programme support
services on the food security status of USAID/MARKETS II farmers
102
4.11.2 Marginal effects of each variable
on the predicted probability of determinants of programme support services on the
food security status of the USAID/MARKETS II farmers 104
4.12 Test
of Significant Differences between Incomes and Output among USAID/MARKETS II
Cassava Farmers and Non-Participating Farmers 106
4.13: Test of Significant Difference between Food
Security Status of USAID/MARKETS
II Cassava Farmers and Non- Farmers 103
CHAPTER 5:
SUMMARY, CONCLUSION AND RECPMMENDATIONS
5.1: Summary 108
5.2: Conclusion 112
5.3: Recommendations 113
References
116
Appendices
132
LIST OF TABLES
4.1a: Selected socio-economic characteristics of
respondents in the Study Area 76
4.2: Mean Frequency distribution of respondents
according to their perception
about
the programme support services 83
4.3: Mean frequency distribution of respondents
according to their extent of
participation in programme support services 85
4.4: Mean frequency distribution of
USAID/MARKET farmers participation in
stages
of programme development 86
4.5: Mean
frequency distribution of desired outcomes gained by participating
farmers
from the programme 87
4.6a: Mean frequency distribution of cassava
output among USAID/MARKET II
farmers and
non-farmers in the study area 88
4.6b: Mean frequency distribution of cassava income
among USAID/MARKET II
farmers and non-farmers in the study area 89
4.7.a: Frequency
distribution of food security status of USIAD/MARKET II
farmers and non-farmers 90
4.7.b: Frequency
distribution of food security index of USIAD/MARKET II
farmers and non-farmers 91
4.8: Mean frequency distribution of constraints
to USAID/MARKET II
farmers’
participation in the programme 92
4.9: Regression estimates of desired outcomes
gained by participating farmers
from
USAID/MARKETS II programme in the study area 94
4.10: Tobit regression estimates of the
determinants of selected socio-economic
characteristics
of farmers’ participation in USAID/MARKETS II stages of
programme
development in Akwa Ibom State, Nigeria 98
4.11a: Probit regression estimates for determinants
of programme support services
on the food security status of
participating USAID/MARKETS II farmers 102
4.11b: Marginal effects for continuous
determinants 104
4.12: Z-test of significant differences between
cassava output and income
among
USAID/MARKETS II farmers and non-farmers in the study area
105
4.13: Z-test of significant differences between
food security status of USAID/MARKETS
II farmers and non-farmers in the study area 106
LIST OF FIGURES
2.1: Map showing
areas of intervention by states where the USAID MARKET II
Programme
was implemented 41
2.2:
Conceptual Framework for Farmers’ Participation in USAID MARKETII
61
3.0:
Map Showing the Local Government Areas of Akwa-Ibom State, Nigeria 64
CHAPTER
1
INTRODUCTION
1.1
BACKGROUND
OF THE STUDY
Farmers’ participation in donor sponsored
agricultural programmes is a significant factor to sustainable food production
in rural areas. Farmers’ participation issues are the areas of concern at
national and local levels. Participation encourages partnerships, developments,
poverty reduction and food security requirements of the rural poor (Abdullahi, Atala, Ikani and Ahmed, 2018;
Nwaobiala
and Mbah, 2016). Lack of participation in the decision to implement any
agricultural policy can lead to failure in agricultural development. In the
same vein, International Fund for Agricultural Development (IFAD) (2018)
affirmed that the Rural Development Strategy (RDS) gives special attention to
food security and its thrust is to encourage more involvement in rural improvement
programmes and thereby building a greater sense of ownership among the poor in
the community. Tijani
and Sanusi, (2019) affirmed that the essence of
maintaining effective involvement of target groups depends on ensuring that
rural improvement and agricultural based initiatives are responsive to the
priorities and needs of the local communities and beneficiaries. Akerele,
Mormoh, Aromlara, Oguntona and Shittu, (2013) also opined that participation is
anticipated to lead to improvements in designed projects, well targeted groups
or beneficiaries, more economical and prompt delivery of project inputs, more rightly
distributed project benefits also less corruption as well as additional
rent-seeking activity. Community
participation, wherein beneficiaries are involved in critical stages of the
development interventions is increasingly gaining attention in global
development discourse. According to Aga, Noorderhaven and Vallejo (2017)
community participation is referred to as a procedure which involves active
involvement in development projects of precise groups, with shared needs existing
in a defined geographic area. Community participation empowers the intended
beneficiaries to participate in key administration of the project and gives
opportunity for indigenes to have control of the project (Obar, Adekoya and
Nkwocha, 2017). Local participation has been suggested as a method to achieve a
variety of goals, including sharpening food security, poverty targeting, improving
service delivery, expanding livelihood opportunities, and strengthening demand
for good governance (Yusuf, Adekunmi
and Ayanda, 2020).
The Federal Government of Nigeria has made a few strides over the
course of the years to utilize agribusiness as a vehicle to alleviate poverty
and accomplish food security. There is low and declining productivity of
Nigeria’s cassava sector due to poorly developed, non - access to funds
inadequate infrastructure, ineffective agricultural research and extension
systems, non - availability and poor distribution of key inputs (Fertilizers,
chemicals, machinery and improved seeds) (Nwaobiala and Ubeh, 2019a). Ukpe,
Nweze and Arene, (2016) asserted that food security has been a topical subject
of discussion in recent time. It is one of the significant components of
improvement and poverty alleviation by numerous worldwide and public
associations. Food security is a significant determinant for a population to be
healthy and well nourished (Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) 2018). The
National Bureau of Statistics, NBS, said over 82.9 million Nigerians lived
beneath its poverty line of N137,430 each year, as indicated by its 2019
poverty and disparity report delivered on Monday. The National Bureau of
Statistics, accordingly, said 40.1 percent of the country's populaces live in
poverty (National Bureau of Statistics (NBS) 2020).
Food security is said to exist when individuals consistently have
physical and financial admittance to adequate, protected and nutritious food to
meet their dietary requirements and inclination for a functioning and solid
life. Food security is the availability and affordability of food that ensure adequate
nutrition to people. Food security is the primary goal of agricultural
development policy in most developing countries (Asawalam,
2019). In
Nigeria, in particular, foreign agencies and international associations like
the World Bank, International Fund for Agricultural Development (IFAD), United
States Agency for International Development (USAID), International Institute of
Tropical Agriculture (IITA) among others, in collaboration with the Federal and
State governments of Nigeria have played a remarkable role of developing
agricultural technologies, through the various research institutes in the
country. This resulted to remarkable increase in the production of various
commodities that had positive impacts on the food security and livelihoods of
rural farmers in the country (Abubakar, Atala, Abdullahi, and Musa, (2018).
Danladi and Ojo, (2018) reported that the concept of household food security is
multidimensional. It integrates food stability, access, and availability of
nutritionally adequate food for utilization. Most of the world food insecure
countries are in Africa and many of these countries face severe poverty and
hunger, as it reflects uncertain access to enough and
appropriate food. Even
in the continent, sub-Saharan African countries had highest prevalence in
hunger, malnutrition and famine due to subsistence nature of agriculture,
economic and political instability, and high population growth rate among
others (Fadipe, lori, Akinlade, Gbelemoge, 2019).
Though Nigeria prides herself as the largest economy in Africa, the food
insecurity rate in the country is alarming. Not less than 70% of the Nigerian
populations are food insecure surviving on less than a dollar per day
(Omorogiuwa, Zivkovic and Ademoh, 2014; Matemilola and Elegbede, 2017). The
United States Agency for International Development (USAID) (2017) defines it as
a situation when everyone has physical, social, and economic access to sufficient
food to meet their dietary needs, produce, and stay healthy. In the same vein,
World Bank (2019) is of the view that it as a condition where everyone has
access to sufficient food to live a healthy and productive life.
Nigeria is the World’s largest cassava producer; annual
cassava production in Nigeria is estimated at over 50 million metric tons from
a cultivated area of about 3.7 million hectares (Food and Agriculture
Organisation Statistics (FAOSTAT), 2015, FAO, 2019). Production has been growing
at an average of 4% per year over the last 10 years (2010 – 2018). Nigeria’s
production accounts for approximately 21% of the total global output of
cassava, 34% of Africa and about 46% of West Africa (FAO, 2019; Adebayo,
Nicholas, Roger, Monde, Ivor, Steffen, Bachwenkizi and Nicolaus, 2013; Iloegbu,
2019). An estimated 30 million farmers are involved in the cultivation of
cassava (Foundation
for Partnership Initiatives in the Niger Delta, (PIND), 2014). The
National average yield of cassava is estimated at about 13.63 Metric Tons per
hectare. About two-third of the total production is from the southern part of
the country, about 30% is produced in the north central, while only about 4% is
produced in other parts of the north. In Nigeria, apart from being a unique
energy supplier, cassava production in large scale will have a multiplier
effect on Nigeria economy in many fronts. Nigeria will not only be guaranteed
food security for her teeming population, but will also generate cash income
for the largest number of household (Kouassi, Mahyao, N’zue, Koffi and Koff, 2018; Department
of Agriculture, 2013).
In spite of
the financial significance of cassava, the public normal yield of cassava is
still low at about 13.63 metric tons per hectare mirroring a setback of 65.9%
away from the potential yield put at about 40.0 metric tons per hectare (FAO,
2017; Kassa, Kassa and Aregawi, 2017). Hence, a huge positive advance pointed
toward expanding the real yield near the expected yield at both the
smallholders' and public levels would be a monster step. With expanded yield
and yield, consideration would move to handling and worth expansion, just as
making supportable advertising methodologies that are likewise essential to
augmenting the increases from the cassava business in Nigeria (Ojiako,
Tarawali, Okechukwu, Chianu, Ezedinma, Edet, 2018).
As a component
of the push to address this worry, The Maximizing Agricultural Revenue and Key
Enterprise in Targeted Sites (MARKETS II) USAID/Nigeria's lead project under
their Feed the Future (FTF) Agricultural Transformation Program (ATP), which is
a replacement to the past seven years of the MARKETS was set up to connect this
food hole. For the five years following its creation in April 2012, MARKETS II
expects to reasonably improve the exhibition, livelihoods, sustenance and food
security of Nigerian poor provincial ranchers or smallholders in an earth
fitting way through demonstrated private sector request driven market
intercessions, zeroing in explicitly on the support services; Technical support services (Provision
of farming/harvesting tools, fertilizers and agronomic practices), Financial
support services (loan disbursement and credit), Market support services
(marketing, market access for both existing and new products), Training support
services (Group formation and Leadership roles) and Value chain business
support services (cassava production, processing and packaging techniques).
This initiative has helped about 3.6 million farmers gain access to new tools
or technologies and was implemented in selected states in Nigeria, which Akwa
Ibom State benefited (United States Agency for International Development,
(USAID), (2019)..
1.2 PROBLEM STATEMENT
Despite the potentials of cassava production and its products in
Nigeria, the country still faces the problem involvement of farmers in
production, processing and marketing. However, to fully exploit cassava immerse
potentials, especially as supplement for imported raw materials and an export
commodity, there is need to change the production technologies and trading
pattern in the country through donor-sponsored development programmes (Eguono,
2015). Majority of the cassava produced in the country are being produced by
farmers who are poor in resources, most of the farmers have only minimum access
to production inputs and improved credit facilities for their purchase (Food
Security Department, 2004). Many studies have shown that cassava can contribute
to enhancement of food security status of farming households (Muhammad-Lawal,
Omotesho and Oyedemi, 2013; Widyanti et al., 2014, Ibok, Idiong, Brown,
Okon and Okon, 2014; Saediman, Limi, Rosmawaty, Arimbawa, and Indarsyih, 2016;
Reincke et al., 2018). However, studies that particularly focus on food
security of poor cassava-growing households are lacking. Finding out food
insecurity status of poor households is especially important as there might
always be vulnerable households regardless of food security status at national
level.
Over the
years, various agricultural programmes and policies that are both public and
private sector driven has been developed, most of these agricultural programmes
and policies focused more on increasing output production with little or no
emphasis on income and food security status of farmers. To improve farmer’s
food security, there is need to improve the income of the farmers which
obviously will come as a result of improved marketing interventions. One of
such marketing based interventions is USAID/MARKETS II programme whose approach
begins with identifying a target market, followed by developing strategic
partnerships with agribusiness firms that service this market and are committed
to local production through backward integration (USAID/MARKETS, 2009).
USAID/MARKETS II programme on cassava production commenced since 2012. However,
information on the effects of this programme on the participating cassava
farmers in the study area seems to be inadequate. Though USAID/MARKETS II have carried
out impact assessment study in Cross River State, there seems to be paucity of
empirical information on the food security status of farmers; hence this study
was undertaken to fill the research gap that emanated from USAID/MARKETS II
prorramme in the State.
1.3:
RESEARCH QUESTIONS
Based on the
foregoing the study was guided by the following research questions;
i. What
are the socio-economic characteristics of USAID and non-USAID farmers?
ii. How
do USAID farmers perceive support services of the programme?
iii. To
what extent do USAID farmers participate in the support services of the
programme?
iv. At
what stages do USAID farmers participate in the development of the programme?
v. What
are the desired outcomes gained by USAID farmers from participating in the
programme?
vi. What
are the output and income of cassava farming among USAID and non-USAID farmers?
vii. What
is the food security status of USAID and non–USAID farmers?
viii.
What are the constraints
encountered by USAID farmers’ participation in the progamme activities in the study
area?
1.4 OBJECTIVES OF THE STUDY
The
broad objective is to determine the effect of participation in USAID/MARKETS II
Programme on the food security status of cassava farmers in Akwa Ibom State,
Nigeria
Specific
Objectives were to;
i. describe
socio-economic characteristics of USAID and non-USAID farmers;
ii. assess
perceptions of USAID farmers towards the programme activities;
iii. ascertain
the extent of USAID farmers’ participation in the programme support services;
iv. ascertain
extent of USAID farmers’ participation in the stages of programme development;
v. examine
the desired outcomes gained by USAID farmers by participating in the programme;
vi. estimate
the output and income levels of USAID and non-USAID farmers from cassava
farming;
vii. determine
the food security status of USAID and non-USAID farmers in the programme and
viii.
identify constraints
faced by USAID farmers’ participation in the programme activities in the study
area.
1.5
: HYPOTHESES OF THE STUDY
The
following hypotheses guided the study;
H01: Participation of
farmers is not influenced by the desired outcomes derived in the programme
H02: There is no
significant relationship between selected socio-economic characteristics of the
farmers and their extent of participation in the stages of programme development
H03: The programme support services have no influence on
the food security status of USAID farmers.
H04:
There is no significant difference between cassava output and income of USAID
and non- USAID farmers in the study area.
H05: There is no significant
difference between food security status of USAID and non-USAID farmers.
1.6 JUSTIFICATION OF THE
STUDY
The study has helped to determine the dimensions or indicators that
influence the participants and non-participants’ food security status. It also
determined the participation outcomes derived as they participate in the
programme. It helped reveal the comparative effects of the programme on the
food security status, income and output of beneficiary and non-beneficiary
farmers in the study area. It is hoped that result from the study has provided
basis for replication to other areas with the view to ensuring food security
and reduction in poverty. The outcome of this research has enabled management
of USAID and policy makers in Nigeria to know the factors that constrain
farmers’ participation in the programme with a view to making adjustment to
future programme. The findings of the work were useful to management of the
programme and agricultural policy makers in Nigeria, as it will serve as basis
for understanding farmers’ perception of entire programme and its usefulness.
The findings from this study have crucial policy implications for the
government and other development agencies for improving farmer’s food security
status in Akwa-Ibom State and beyond.
The study furnished policy makers, development planners
and extension workers with relevant data and insight for making successful and
sustainable policies and programme that brought about improvement in efficiency
of agricultural research, technology transfer and productivity. Researchers who
may want to keep abreast with current trend on the programme support services
and specifically on USAID MARKETS II cassava programme in Akwa-Ibom State.
Lastly, the research served as a reference material to many researchers in the
field of agricultural extension and related discipline thereby contributing to
the existing body of knowledge globally.
1.7 DEFINITION
OF TERMS
Agribusiness Support
Services: This is the sum total of all operations
involved in the manufacture and distribution of farm supplies; production
operations on the farm;
Farm Income: This refers to income
generated from one’s own farming activities, whether on owner-occupied
land or leased land.
Financial Support
Services: These are services provided by the
programme through loan disbursement and trainings for capacity building.
Food Security:
food security exists when all individuals, consistently, have physical and
monetary admittance to sufficient protected and nutritious food that meets
their dietary requirements and food inclinations for a functioning and solid
life.
Market Support Services: These
are services provided by the programme through cassava production, processing, marketing and packaging techniques
for both existing and new products.
Output: Output
terms relate to the worth of creation or yield (like grub) of a particular
farming enterprise sold or utilized on the farm. Now and again, this may
incorporate various farm income.
Participation: Participation is a
mental and passionate involvement of people in the group situations that raise
them up to help each other to achieve group goals. It is also the act of working with others in making value
judgments and determining course of action within a social situation and
structure. It can be described as the degree to which the benefactors of a
programme or project are involve/engaged in the activities of the
programme/project.
Perception: This is the interpretation or views of
sensory information in order to represent and understand the environment.
Support Services:
These are assistance provided by the agency to the farmers to enable them
increase their output and improve their food security status.
Technical Support
Services: These are services provided by the
programme through provision of farming tools, fertilizers and market access.
USAID/MARKET II:
These Acronym stands for United States Agency for International Development
Maximizing Agricultural Revenue and Key Enterprise in Targeted Sites
Value Chain Development
Support Services: This is market dynamics
and relationships between the different entertainers in the chain with the
target of strengthening the entire market framework - enterprises, business
relationships, monetary organizations, supporting capacities, rules and
standards, and the business environment.
Login To Comment