ABSTRACT
The study ascertained the effect of rural insecurity on livelihood activities of households in Southeast Nigeria. Specifically, the study described the socioeconomic characteristics of the respondents, identified various forms of insecurity prevalent in the study area, ascertained the perceived causes of rural insecurity, ascertained the level of insecurity, identified the livelihood activities in the study area, ascertained the perceived effects of rural insecurity on the respondents’ livelihood activities, ascertained the coping strategies adopted by respondents and examined challenges limiting efforts to curb rural insecurity. Multi-stage, purposive and random sampling techniques were used to select 324 respondents from nine local government areas in the study area. Data were collected using structured questionnaire and were analyzed using descriptive and inferential statistics such as frequency counts, percentages, mean, ANOVA, and multiple regression. Four null hypotheses were tested at 5% level of significance. The findings showed that respondents had a mean age of 49 years, 55.2% of the respondents were females, while 44.8% were males. Money laundering (66.7%), bribery (64.5%), destruction of crops (63.9%), kidnapping (56.2%), armed robbery (56.1%), theft (54.6%), and communal fight (52.8%) were the major forms of insecurity. The study further shows that rural poverty ( = 3.3), feeling of marginalization ( = 3.2), high level of rural unemployment ( = 3.2), corruption ( = 3.2), poor road network ( = 3.1), poor security system ( = 3.1), were immediate causes of rural insecurity. Destruction of crops ( = 2.91), theft ( = 2.82), cultism ( = 2.76), armed robbery ( = 2.76), communal fight ( = 2.72) were recorded as having high levels. Cassava production (74.4%), poultry (66.3%), small retail shops (64.5%) and petty business (62.7%) were the major livelihood activities of households. The study also shows that loss of wealth ( = 3.5), prevention of farming activities ( = 3.4), loss of livelihoods/income ( = 3.4), loss of land ( = 3.4), disruption of supply and distribution of agricultural inputs and outputs ( = 3.4), destruction of crops ( = 3.4), and increase in rural poverty ( = 3.4) were significant effect of rural insecurity on respondents’ livelihood activities in South-east Nigeria. Control of light arms and small weapons ( = 3.1), reporting criminal activities to security agencies ( = 3.1), formation of peace committee ( = 3.1), vigilantes/night watcher volunteers ( = 3.0), were the major coping strategies adopted by respondents. The study further shows that lack of adequate training on safety tips (70.1%), delay in response of security agents (68.0%) and shortage of security personnel (66.0%) were the major challenges to curbing rural insecurity. The ordinary least square regression analysis with linear function as the lead equation revealed that armed robbery (2.578**), theft (2.641**) and destruction of crops (2.519**) had significant effect on respondents’ livelihood activities at 5% level of significance. The ANOVA result showed that there was no significant difference in the perceived effect of rural insecurity on livelihood activities as well as no significant difference in the level of rural insecurity across the States at 5% level of significance respectively. The ANOVA result also revealed that there was significant difference in the coping strategies adopted in curbing the menace of rural insecurity at 5% level of significance. From the findings, it was concluded that rural insecurity had negative effect on livelihood activities of households in the study area. Hence, it recommends that government and security agents should be proactive in tracing and addressing the remote and immediate causes of insecurity.
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: INTRODUCTION
1.1 Background of the Study 1
1.2 Problem Statement 3
1.3 Research
Questions 6
1.4 Objectives of the Study 7
1.5 Hypotheses of the Study 7
1.6 Justification for the Study 8
1.7 Scope of the Study 9
1.8 Limitation of the Study 9
1.9 Definition of Terms 10
CHAPTER 2:
LITERATURE REVIEW
2.1 Conceptual Review 12
2.1.1 The concept of crime 12
2.1.2 Crime in Nigeria 13
2.1.3 The concept of insecurity 14
2.1.4 The concept of conflict 17
2.1.4.1 Types of conflict 18
2.1.4.2 Causes of conflict and violence in Africa 19
2.1.4.3 Farmers-herdsmen conflict in Nigeria 23
2.1.4.4 Causes of farmers-herdsmen conflict in Nigeria 24
2.1.4.5 Crop farmers-herdsmen land use 28
2.1.4.6 Social and economic consequences of Fulani
herdsmen
and crop farmers conflict 28
2.1.4.7 Conflict resolution 30
2.1.4.7.1Conflict
resolution approaches/strategies 31
2.1.4.8
Measure taken to manage herdsmen/crop
farmers conflict by community development committee 33
2.1.4.9The
nature of Government response over herdsmen-crop
farmers conflicts 36
2.1.5 Culture and the competition 37
2.1.6 Overview of nature and causes of armed
robbery in Nigeria 39
2.1.6.1 Classification and typology of armed robbery 41
2.1.6.2 Prevalence of armed robbery in Nigeria 43
2.1.7 Causes of Insecurity in Nigeria 48
2.1.8
Insecurity
situation and socio-economic development in Nigeria 55
2.1.9
Contemporary
social problems in Nigeria and its
implication on national development 56
2.1.10 The concept of livelihood 67
2.1.10.1Strategies
of livelihood 69
2.1.10.2Sustainable
livelihood 71
2.1.10.3
Rural livelihood and their nature 71
2.1.11 Effect of insecurity on household livelihoods 73
2.2 Review of Empirical Studies 75
2.3 Theoretical Framework 111
2.4 Conceptual Framework 117
CHAPTER 3: METHODOLOGY
3.1 Study
Area 120
3.2 Population
of the Study 123
3.3 Sample
and Sampling Procedure 123
3.4 Data
Collection 125
3.5 Validity
of Instrument 125
3.6 Test
of Reliability of Instrument 125
3.7 Measurement
of Variables 126
3.7.1 Independent
variables 126
3.7.2 Dependent
variables 126
3.7.3 Intervening
variables 126
3.7.4 Mean
rating scale analysis 128
3.8 Data
Analysis 129
3.9 Test
of Hypotheses 130
CHAPTER 4: RESULTS
AND DISCUSSION
4.1 Socio-Economic Characteristics of
Respondents 133
4.1.1 Age 133
4.1.2 Sex 134
4.1.3 Marital status 135
4.1.4 Household size 136
4.1.5 Educational Qualification 137
4.1.6 Farm size 138
4.1.7 Farming experience 139
4.1.8 Major Occupation 140
4.1.9 Social Participation 140
4.1.10 Access to extension service delivery 141
4.1.11 Estimated annual income of respondents 142
4.2 Forms of Insecurity Prevalent in the
Study Area 144
4.3 Perceived
Causes of Rural Insecurity in the Study Area 148
4.4 Level
of Rural Insecurity in the Study Area 153
4.5 Respondents’
Livelihood Activities in the Study Area 155
4.6 Perceived
Effect of Rural Insecurity on Respondents’ Livelihood
Activities 158
4.7 Coping Strategies Adopted by Respondents
in Curbing
The Menace of Rural Insecurity 162
4.8 Challenges
to Curbing Rural Insecurity in the Study Area 166
4.9 Results of Hypotheses Tests 170
CHAPTER 5:
SUMMARY, CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS
5.1 Summary 178
5.2 Conclusion 181
5.3 Recommendations 182
References 184
Appendix 199
LIST
OF TABLES
2.1: Types of armed robbery 42
2.2: Incidence of armed robbery in Nigeria
44
2.3: Incidence of kidnapping in Nigeria
45
2.4: Traditional vs Revisionist notions of
national security
133
3.1: Population of the rural households in
South-east Nigeria 123
3.2: Sampling
and sampling procedure 124
4.1: Distribution
of respondents according to their socio-economic
characteristics 143
4.2: Distribution according to forms of
insecurity prevalent in the study area. 147
4.3: Distribution according to perceived causes
of rural
insecurity in the study area 151
4.4: Distribution according to level of rural
insecurity in the study area 154
4.5: Distribution according to respondents’
livelihood activities
in South-East Nigeria 157
4.6: Distribution according to the effect of
rural insecurity
on respondents’ livelihood activities in South-east Nigeria 161
4.7: Distribution according to the coping
strategies adopted by
respondents in curbing the menace of rural insecurity
in South-east Nigeria 165
4.8: Distribution according to the challenges
to curbing rural
insecurity in South-east, Nigeria 169
4.9.1: Effect of rural insecurity on respondents’
livelihood activities 172
4.9.2: Analysis of variance result showing
difference in the level
of rural insecurity in the study area 173
4.9.3: Analysis of variance result showing
difference in the perceived
effect of rural insecurity on livelihood
activities of households
in South-east Nigeria 175
4.9.4: Analysis of variance result showing
difference in the coping
Strategies adopted in
curbing the menace of rural insecurity across
the studied states in South-east Nigeria 176
4.9.5: Result of ANOVA post hoc test of significant
difference in the
mean ratings of the respondents
in Abia, Anambra and Enugu States
on the coping Strategies
adopted in curbing the menace of rural insecurity 177
LIST OF
FIGURES
2.1: Conceptual Framework of the study 118
3.1: Map of Nigeria Showing the Study Area 122
CHAPTER 1
INTRODUCTION
1.1 BACKGROUND
INFORMATION
The prevalence of insecurity
in Nigeria appears to have been high and rising over the years. According to
Abdullahi (2019), ‘‘crime against persons, including murder, rape, and robbery,
has grown in scale and viciousness in Nigeria”. This has been demonstrated by
the pervasive trend of insecurity in the country, which in effect mirrors the
Africa-wide experience. In this regard, Onimode (2011) reported that rape,
abduction, cultism, theft; including car snatching, robbery of farms, homes and
offices, waylaying of travelers (high-way robbery) are common forms of
insecurity in African countries. Their incidence has been rising since the
African crises started in the 1980s.
Crime is often perceived to be
threatening the fabric of society or as a symptom of a breakdown of the social
order. It is dysfunctional as it threatens the stability of society and is,
therefore, a social problem that requires a concerted effort towards finding a
lasting solution to. It undermines the social fabric by eroding the sense of
safety and security (Onoge, 2018). The alarming level of insecurity in Nigeria
has fuelled the crime rate and terrorists attacks in different parts of the
country, leaving unpalatable consequences for the
nation’s economy and its growth. (Ewetan, 2013).
In Africa, various studies
have shown that, while most rural households are involved in agricultural
activities such as livestock, crop or fish production as their main source of
livelihood, they also engage in other income-generating activities to augment
their main source of income. Majority of rural producers have historically
diversified their productive activities to encompass a range of other productive
areas. Very few of them collect all their income from only one source, hold all
their wealth in the form of any single asset, or use their resources in just
one activity (Senadza,
2011).
In Nigeria, the agricultural
sector is plagued with problems which include soil infertility, infrastructural
inadequacy, risk and uncertainty and seasonality, among others. Thus, rural
households are forced to develop strategies to cope with increasing
vulnerability associated with agricultural production through diversification,
intensification and migration or moving out of farming (Albore, 2018). In other words, the
situation in the rural areas has negative welfare implications and predisposes
the rural populace to various risks which threaten their livelihood and
existence. As a result of this, they struggle to survive and in order to
improve their welfare, off-farm and non-farm activities have become an
important component of livelihood strategies among rural households in Nigeria.
Nigeria has a great potential
to increase her agricultural and non-farm production. However, the country has
experienced severe episodes of insecurities, which have negatively influenced
agricultural productivity and investment. Insecurity can adversely affect
agriculture in several ways. For example, insecurity can disrupt the supply and
distribution of inputs and outputs, create price shocks and cause massive
displacement of labour. These compounding challenges make agricultural and
non-agricultural investments difficult to maintain in politically volatile
environments (Ewetan, 2013).
The media (both print and electronic) is awash daily with reports
of crimes committed and the seeming helplessness of the law enforcement agents,
especially the police, in curbing the ugly and disturbing trend. This has made
it more worrisome. Crime is a universal phenomenon and differs only in degree
among the various nations of the world.
The Nigerian crime–problem is multidimensional and is capable of
undermining its corporate existence, as well as efforts towards sustainable
development. The Nigeria corporate existence and development can be undermined by
a number of factors among which is an escalating and uncontrolled crime problem
(Tanimu, 2016). Security and crime have been deeply rooted in the political
history of this country, particularly in recent time, which has emerged as a key
concept in Nigeria’s struggle for good governance, sustainable democracy and
development. To address the threat to national security and
combat the increasing waves of crime the Federal Government of Nigeria in the 2013 budget made a huge allocation to security,
and the national assembly passed the
Anti-Terrorism Act in 2011 (Ewetan, 2013). Despite these efforts, the level of insecurity in the country is still high, and a
confirmation of this is the low ranking of Nigeria in
the Global Peace Index (GPI, 2020). Despite the plethora of security measures
taken to address the daunting challenges of insecurity in Nigeria, government
efforts have not produced the desired positive result. This has compelled the
Nigerian government in recent times to request for foreign assistance from countries such as USA, Israel, and EU countries to
combat the rising waves of terrorism and insecurity (Ewetan, 2013).
1.2 PROBLEM STATEMENT
The loss of lives, properties
and environmental degradation in Nigeria have been attributed to the incessant
resource conflict noticed in the tropics; and many cases of the conflicts have
been recorded (Okoroafor, 2019). Rural insecurity and other forms of conflict
have recently come to constitute a subject of great concern in Nigeria. In the
first quarter of 2014 alone, 262 persons lost their lives in 15 separate
attacks in Benue State, and the clashes have continued overtime. In one
instance, bandits brazenly attacked the State Governors’ convoy. Similarly, 16
separate attacks were reported in Plateau and Kaduna States in the same period.
They led to the loss of 139 lives, with scores of people injured (Achumba et. al., 2013).
Zamfara State seems to be the
epicenter of rural insecurity in Nigeria. In early April 2015, over 120 people
were massacred in Yar Galadima village, Zamfara State, by bandits who have, for
at least the last ten years, been terrorizing rural communities, as well as
highway commuters.
They have been robbing people
on highways, rustling cattle, looting, laying siege on rural markets and
killing innocent people. In June 2020, according to Premium times (2020),
gunmen attacked and killed 48 people in Kizara village of Chafe L.G.A Zamfara State.
The neigbouring States of Sokoto, Kebbi and Kaduna have not been spared to
these attacks earlier. For example, in March 2014 attack on Angwan-Sakwai of
Kaura L.G.A, Kaduna State led to the death of 57 people, with several others
injured. In the North-eastern States of Adamawa, Bauchi, Borno, Gombe, Taraba
and Yobe, as well as in the remaining central States of Kogi, Kwara and
Nasarawa, there also have been regular reports of insecurity and violence.
Actually, in 2013, a local militia ambushed and killed 46 police officers in
the village of Alakyo in Nasarawa State. Some other reports also indicate
occurrence of such attacks in South-east States of Nigeria (Okoroafor, 2019). According
to Premium times (2020) 1,416 lives were reported to have been lost to
insecurity in the first quarter of 2020 in Nigeria. Sources of this violent
death range from attacks from insurgency, banditry, cult clashes, herdsmen
attack, communal clashes, mob action and rape.
According to Chiemelie (2021), the growing security threats
from Nigeria's South-east region gives cause for concern. But it was not always
so. Until recently, the South-east region was arguably the most peaceful part
of the country, but now, it has evolved into a hotbed of violence targeting
state security institutions by armed men popularly referred to as unknown
gunmen.
In fact, between January and April 19, 2021, over 17 police
stations, in addition to a correctional facility, have been targeted by the
gunmen, leaving in their trail dead officers, charred police stations, freed
prison inmates, and empty armoury (Chiemelie 2021).
In the last five months, 55 attacks were recorded in the
South-east, ranging from communal clashes to farmer herders. The attacks have
led to the death of over 155 persons. The new wave of insecurity indicates that
the Nigeria Police Force expected to maintain law and order during the polls
are as vulnerable as citizens. The increased deployment of soldiers to the
region rather than quell violence has led to human rights violations and
growing violence," they added. Chiemelie (2021) lamented that for the attacks on
police formations, they have continued unabated in the South-east.
Regrettably, previous and present governments have failed to
guarantee these rights and thus the onus is on individuals to seek for means to
provide the basic necessities of life for him and his family. The inability of
government to provide a secure and safe environment for lives, properties and
the conduct of business and economic activities has led to resentment and
disaffection among ethnic groups. This has resulted in ethnic violence,
communal clashes, and religious violence in different parts of the country that
has destroyed lives and properties, disrupted businesses and economic
activities, and retarded economic growth and development of Nigeria. There is
no investor whether local or foreign that will be motivated to invest in an
unsafe and insecure environment. In a globalized world, investors are not only
looking for high returns on their investments but also safe haven for their
investments. Thus, the alarming level of insecurity in Nigeria has made the
economy unattractive to foreign investors, and this has impacted negatively on
economic growth and development (Ali, 2013).
Despite the fact that many
African countries have been affected by civil conflict and also depend on
agriculture for the livelihood of the majority of their citizens, few
peer-reviewed studies have examined the effects of conflict on different actors
across the agricultural value chain. This work aims to fill this gap by
combining the guidelines for conflict –sensitive analysis (Gunduz and Klein,
2008) with an assessment of the components of risk faced by various actors in
the value chain- that is, the likelihood and the severity of conflict.
It is expected that frequent
occurrence of conflicts and rural insecurity in South-east Nigeria would
influence livelihood activities negatively. But the extent this has happened in
South-east Nigeria is not yet known. This work is, therefore, conceptualized to
investigate the effect of rural insecurity on livelihood activities of
households in South-east, Nigeria. In
order to achieve this, answers to certain research questions were sought for.
1.3 RESEARCH QUESTIONS
The study sought to provide answers to the
following research questions
1. What are the socio-economic characteristics of the respondents?
2. What are the various forms of insecurity prevalent in the study
area?
3. What are the perceived causes of rural insecurity?
4. What is the level of insecurity in the study area?
5. What are the livelihood activities in the study area?
6. What are the perceived effect of rural insecurity on rural
households in the study area?
7. What are the coping strategies adopted by the respondents in
curbing the menace of rural insecurity?, and
8. What are the challenges limiting efforts to curb rural insecurity
in the study area?
1.4 OBJECTIVES OF THE STUDY
The broad objective of this
study was to ascertain the effect of rural insecurity on livelihood activities
of households in South-east Nigeria. The specific objectives were to:
i.
describe the
socio-economic characteristics of the respondents;
ii.
identify
various forms of insecurity prevalent in the study area;
iii.
ascertain the
perceived causes of rural insecurity;
iv.
ascertain the
level of rural insecurity in the study area;
v.
identify the
livelihood activities in the study area;
vi.
ascertain the
perceived effect of rural insecurity on livelihood activities of households in
the study area;
vii.
ascertain the
coping strategies adopted by respondents in curbing the menace of rural
insecurity; and
viii.
examine
challenges limiting efforts to curb rural insecurity in the study area.
1.5 HYPOTHESES OF THE STUDY
The following null hypotheses were tested in the study
Ho1: Rural insecurity has no significant effect on households’
livelihood activities in the study area.
Ho2: There is
no significant difference in the level of rural insecurity across the States in
the study area.
Ho3: There is
no significant difference in the perceived effect of rural insecurity on
livelihood activities of households across the States in the study area.
Ho4: There is
no significant difference in strategies adopted by respondents in curbing rural
insecurity across the States in the study area.
1.6 JUSTIFICATION
FOR THE STUDY
This study would serve as a
source of information/data for identifying the various forms of insecurity, its
perceived causes and its implication on livelihood activities of rural
households. Its outcome will assist stakeholders, donors and policy makers
alike in supporting resilient value chains where insecurity exist and
determining how to maintain investments during periods of instability.
The study would ascertain
efforts made in curbing rural insecurity, as well as factors limiting this
efforts in the study area. The outcome would serve as a useful material for
stakeholders, both Government and private, to intensify efforts at curbing the menace
of insecurity and also ensue for peace keeping among rival groups as it would
provide or recommend measures for settling conflict. Both Federal, States and
Local Government Areas will derive maximum benefits from the outcome of the
study as it would reduce the huge amount of money spent by government in
managing insecurities in rural areas.
The research would be useful
to the environmentalists, natural resource conservation agencies, extension
agency, non-governmental organizations (NGOs), policy makers and the interested
members of the public. The outcome of this study will be very useful to
students and researchers who may tend to carry out further research on the
subject matter or related area.
Government at all levels can
use the outcome of this study as a vital tool for conflict resolution. The
outcome of this study will also assist stakeholders such as politicians,
traditional rulers etc in taking decisions that will lead to reducing conflicts
and rural insecurity among the community members; and means of avoiding further
occurrence.
1.7 SCOPE OF THE STUDY
The
study was limited to South-east Nigeria due to the available finance and
material resources to the researcher. The study is limited to the effect of
rural insecurity on livelihood activities of households in South-east Nigeria.
1.8 LIMITATIONS OF THE STUDY
The
study was limited by time within which the programme was to elapse as well as
funds for the study otherwise this study would have covered the six
geo-political zones in Nigeria. However, the study was limited to only the
South-East Geopolitical Zone of Nigeria.
Moreso,
the uncooperative attitude of the respondents resulted to the extension of
enumeration time as well as resources as most respondents were reluctant in
attending to the enumerator, demanding to be paid before attempting to answer
the questions or fill the questionnaires.
1.9 DEFINITION OF TERMS
i. Insecurity: Insecurity
means occurrence or prevalence of violence or crime. It involves the use of
force, or threat to that effect, to intimidate a person with the intent to rob,
rape or kill. Insecurity is a crime against persons. It has been a common genre
of crime, as well as cause violence in contemporary societies (Nigeria Watch,
2016).
ii. Rural insecurity: Rural insecurity means occurrence or prevalence of violent crimes
in rural areas.
iii. Rural: The word
rural according to this study connote an area where agricultural activities is
their major source of livelihood.
iv. Rural areas: These
are areas occupied by rural people or people predominantly involved in
agriculture as their main source of livelihood.
v. Crime: An offence which goes beyond the personal and
into the public sphere, breaking prohibitory rules or laws, to which legitimate
punishments or sanctions are attached, and which requires the intervention of a
public authority.
vi. Conflict: It is a
breakdown of normal activities of an organization in such a manner that the
individual or group involved experience disharmony in working together.
vii. Livelihood : Livelihood
is a set of economic activities involving self-employment, and or wage
employment by using one’s endowments (both human and material) to generate
adequate resources for meeting the requirements of self and the household on a
sustainable basis with dignity (Albore,
2018).
Login To Comment