GENDER DIFFERENTIALS IN THE ADOPTION OF RISK MANAGEMENT PRACTICES AMONG CASSAVA FARMERS: IMPLICATION FOR FOOD SECURITY AND POVERTY REDUCTION

  • 0 Review(s)

Product Category: Projects

Product Code: 00009202

No of Pages: 128

No of Chapters: 1-5

File Format: Microsoft Word

Price :

₦5000

  • $

                                                                    ABSTRACT

The broad objective of this study was to determine the implications of gender differentials in the adoption of risk management practices (RMP) on food security and poverty reduction in Abia state, Nigeria. Multi-stage sampling procedure was adopted in selecting 160 farmers (80 male and 80 female cassava farmers respectively). Primary data used for this study were collected using a structured questionnaire. Data analysis involved the use of descriptive and inferential statistics like mean, tables and frequencies, z-test, Foster-Greer and Thorbecke (FGT) and Tobit model. The result shows that the male and female farmers were in their productive age with a mean age of 55 and 49 years old respectively. Majority of them were married accounting for about 40% and 65% of male farmers (MF) and female farmers (FF) respectively. The finding shows that 53% and 55% of male and female-farmers completed their secondary education, and with a mean of farming experience of 18 and 15 years for both farmers.  Finding also shows that MF were high adopters of (RMP) than the FF accounting for the 56% and 50% respectively. The poverty status result shows that MF had higher Mean per capita expenditure (MPCE) of N3, 726.275 while FF had N2, 981.316. The result also shows that more MF were non-poor (40%) compared to the FF (34%). Using the recommended daily energy level (L) of 1800 Kcal, the food insecurity line (Z) was estimated at 271.19, 222.17 and 246.68 for the MF, FF and pooled farmers respectively. The Tobit result shows that level of RMP adoption, quantity of cassava output, access to credit, farming experience, annual non-farm income, farm size, and cooperative membership were positively related to poverty at 5%, 5%, 5%, 10%, 5%, 5%, 10%, 5%, 1%, and 1% significant levels for MF and FF. respectively. On the contrary, age, education and household size were negatively signed and significant at 1%, 5%, 5%, 10%, and 10% for Male and Female cassava farmers in the study area.  More so, education, asset ownership, farm size, livestock ownership, improved seeds, non-farm diversification, credit access, extension contact, and farming experience  were positively related to food security at 10%, 5% 5%,5%, 10%,1%, 1%, 1%, 1%, 5%, 10%, 1%,5%,1%, 5%,  and 10% significant levels for MF. and FF. respectively. While age, level of RMP. adoption, and household size were negatively related to food security at different rates or levels of significant for both male and female farmers respectively. The major constraints militating against the adoption of RMP in the study area were insufficient capital, non-availability of planting materials, low knowledge of the RMP lack of extension workshops and high cost of labour. There is the need that credit facilities with very minimal stringent conditions should be provided, diversification of enterprise is of paramount important for managing agricultural risks, and extension training should be organised  to enable farmers get access to  information as regards to modern  technologies. Investment in irrigation projects by the government should be given adequate attention to enable farmers produce optimally.








TABLE OF CONTENTS

Title                                                                                                                                i                                                                                                                                               

Declaration                                                                                                           ii                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                    

Certification                                                                                                                 iii                                                                                                                                   

Dedication                                                                                                                    iv                                                                                                                                   

Acknowledgement                                                                                                        v                                                                                                                       

Table of Content                                                                                                           vi                                                                                                                       

 

CHAPTER 1   INTRODUCTION                                                     

1.1 Background of Study                                                                                           1                     

1 .2 Problem Statement                                                                                            5                                               

1.3 Objectives of the Study                                                                                      7                                   

1.4 Hypotheses                                                                                                         8                                   

1.5 Justification of the Study                                                                                       8                                                                                                                                             

 

CHAPTER 2: REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE

                                   

2.1. Conceptual Literature                                                                                     10                       

2.1.1 Gender analysis                                                                                               10                                           

2.1.2 Gender and agriculture                                                                                     11                                                                                                                                           

2.1.3 Gender roles in cassava production                                                                   13                                                                   

2.1.4 Risk concept and analysis                                                                             13                                                                                                                                               

2.1.5 Risks in agriculture                                                                                       16                                               

2.1.6 Risk management in agriculture                                                                   21                                                                                                                                   

2.1.7 Different risk management practices                                                            22                                                                                                                                                                                                                 

2.1.8 Effects of risk on agricultural production                                                                  27                                                                                           

2.1.9 Poverty profile of farmer                                                                                       29                               

2.1.10 Measurement of poverty status                                                                                           30                                                                                                                                           

2.1.11 Food security                                                                                                                   31                   

2.1.12 Determinant of food security in Nigeria                                                                             31                                                                                                       

2.1.13 Measurement of food security                                                                                           31                                                                                                                   

2.1.14 Elements of food security                                                                                                32       

2.2 Theoretical Framework                                                                                                       35                                                                                                                   

2.2.1 Theory of risk and risk management                                                                       35                                                                                                                               

2.2.2 Theory on adoption                                                                                                 36                                                       

2.2.3 Theory of food security                                                                                            37                                                                             

 2.3 Empirical Review                                                                                                           38                                                                              

2.4 Analytical Framework                                                                                                42                                                                 

2.4.1 Tobit regression model                                                                                           42                                                                 

2.4.2 Z-Statistics                                                                                                             42                                                                                                        

 

CHAPTER 3 METHODOLOGY                                                                  

 

3.1 The Study Area                                                                                                         44                                                                                         

3.2 Sampling Procedure                                                                                                         45                                                                  

3.3 Data Collection                                                                                                         47                                                                              

3.4 Analytical Technique                                                                                                47                                                                  

3.5 Model Specification                                                                                                        47

 

CHAPTER 4

4.0 RESULTS AND DISCUSSION                                                                                     53

4.1 Socioeconomic Characteristics of Respondents                                                          53

4.2 Sources of Risk and Management Practices Adopted                                                        57

4.2.1 Sources of risk encountered in cassava production                                                         57

4.2.2     Risk management practices adopted by the farmers                                                 60

4.3 Level of Adoption of Risk Management Practices (RMP)                                               62

 4.4 Poverty Status and Food Security Status of the Farmers                                                   63

4.4.1 Poverty status of the respondents                                                                                  63

4.4.2 Food security status of the respondents                                                                     64

4.5 Influence of the RMP on the Poverty/ Food Security Status of Farmers by Gender

4.5.1 Influence of the RMP on the poverty status                                                               65

4.5.2 Influence of the RMP on the food security status                                                           72                                                                                                                              

4.6 Test of Significant Differences                                                                                  80

4.7 Constraints to Adoption of Risk Management Practices                                                   81

 

Chapter 5

 SUMMARY, CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS

5.1       Summary                                                                                                          83

5.2       Conclusion                                                                                                       85

5.3        Recommendations                                                                                            85

References                                                                                                      87

          Appendix                                                                                                    107

 

 


 



 

                                                          LIST OF TABLES


4.1   Socio-Economic Characteristic of Farmers                                                        54                                                                                                   

4.2   Sources of Risk encountered by Farmers in Cassava Production                    58                                                       

4.3 Risk Management Practices Adopted by Gender                                                 60                                       

4.4 Levels of adoption of RMP by Farmers                                                               62

4.5 Poverty Profile of Farmers based on Gender                                                       63

4.6 Summary Statistics of Farmers’ Food Insecurity Indices                                    64

 4.7 Influence of the RMP on the Poverty Status of Cassava Farmers by Gender 66                                                                                                                                          

4.8 Influence of the RMP on the Food Security Status of farmers by Gender            73                                                                                                                                         

4.9 Paired Samples Statistics                                                                                      80                                                                                                                   

4.10 Constraints to Adoption of RMP in Cassava Production by Gender                        81                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                          

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                   


 

                                          

 

LIST OF FIGURES


Fig 1. Schematic Diagram showing Sampling Technique                    47

                                                           

 

 

                                                                                                                                             


 

 

 

CHAPTER 1

INTRODUCTION

1.1    BACKGROUND OF STUDY

Agricultural production is subject to many risks. Farm production decision plans are typically associated with multiple potential outcomes with different probabilities. Agricultural producers face many risks in their economic activity due mainly to weather conditions, plant or animal diseases, price instability, and policies such as agricultural trade liberalization and restrictions on the use of crop protection products (World Bank, 2005). Farmers in sub-Saharan African countries face a multitude of risks of varying severity that originates from the natural, economic and socio-political environments (David, 2013).  Farmers live with risk and make decisions every day that affect their farming operations.  Many of the factors that affect the farmers’ decisions cannot be predicted with a hundred per cent accuracy.

Several risks confront farm households in developing countries and if unabated will lead to serious consequences. Warming temperatures, droughts, floods, increasing land degradation, loss of biodiversity, rising food prices, zooming energy demand and population explosion are creating extreme challenges to feed the world (Dercon, 2002; World Bank, 2009). In the views of Boko et al, (2007) and Case (2006), these risks will have profound impacts on key development sectors such as agriculture, water, energy, transport, and health.  Risk plays an important role in farmer decision making and therefore affects agricultural productivity and thus growth and development. Climatic risk is a particularly relevant concern in agricultural production. According to IFAD (2009) and FAO (2008), these risks have impacts on food security and livelihoods of smallholder farmers in developing nations primarily via crop, fodder and biomass losses. Boko et al, (2007) projected that by 2020 yields from Africa’s rain-fed agriculture could be reduced by up to 50% because of changes in climate variables. Risk is pervasive and complex, especially in agricultural production in Africa; farmers confront the incidence of pest and disease, excessive weed infestation, crop failure, drought, pilfering and incidence of human disease, unstable input prices and radical changes in production technology are inherent in their farming operations. These affect the fluctuation in farm profitability from season to season and from one year to another (Dismukes, 2005).

The sources of risk and level of its severity can vary according to the farming systems, geographic location, weather conditions, supporting government policies and farm types (World Bank, 2000). Risk is a major concern in developing countries where farmers have imperfect information to forecast things such as farm input prices, product prices, and weather conditions, that might impact the farms in the future (Isik, 2002). In West Africa, almost every rural household manages farmland and is exposed to the risk of unpredictable rainfall (Karlan, et al. 2014). In Nigeria the menace of flooding occasioned by heavy rainfall cannot be over emphasised. For instance, Nwaobiala and Nwosu (2014) opined that agriculture being one of the most weather-dependent human venture suffer due to its vulnerability to climate change. Watson and Robinson (2003) further observed that African countries are particularly vulnerable to the incidence of climate given their dependence on rain-fed agriculture.

FAO (2009) and Building Nigeria’s Response to Climate Change  (BNRCC) (2012) have all alluded to the positive and negative effects of climate to include extended growing season, enhanced livestock production, constraint to primary and secondary productivity and crop failure. Also, Gichere et al. (2013) noted that in sub- Saharan Africa, droughts and floods are two extreme climatic events that adversely affect the agricultural sector, and by extension affect the household food consumption. IPCC (2014) reported that for major crops in tropical and temperate regions, climate change without adaptation is projected to negatively impact on production. The report further hinted that climate-change impacts are expected to exacerbate poverty in most developing countries and create new poverty pockets in countries with increasing inequality in both developed and developing countries.

Gender issues ramify into virtually every aspect of human endeavour and agricultural production is not an exception. Even in developed countries where mechanised farming is greatly practiced, gender disparity manifests in the marketing, processing, and picking of fruits, nuts and seeds. Gender disparity is more extant in rural income generating activities in developing counties where culture appears to dictate every action taken by the individual in their development efforts.

Men and women have performed many and different gender roles in different farm enterprises either as planners, or owner, hired processors, or traders. However, within the farm household men and women are found to specialize in different tasks. Men worked predominantly on land clearing and ploughing while, women tend to concentrate their agricultural activities around the home-stead primarily because of their domestic and reproductive roles (Ekong, 2003). Women make a significant contribution to food production; they provide 60-80% of agricultural labour and are responsible for 80% of food production. Nearly all the tasks connected with food production and agro- industry activities are performed by rural women farmers (Mgbada, 2002; Nwaru, 2003; Osondu and Obike, 2015).  African women undertake about 80 per cent of the work in food storage and transportation, 90 per cent of the work of hoeing and weeding, and 60 per cent of the work in harvesting and marketing Quisumbing and Kumar (2010). In Nigeria women are very much involved in agricultural practices especially in the area of cassava production. Dionco (2000) and Nweke and Tollens (2002), reported that almost all food crops processing enterprises like cassava, yam, potatoes, and cash crops like palm oil, palm kernel oil processing are being operated by women in many rural areas in Nigeria and several developing countries, women play a crucial role in providing and improving household food security.

Nigeria is currently the largest producer of cassava in the world with an annual output of over 34 million tons of tuberous roots Miriam & Helen (2013).Cassava supplies the bulk of energy intake in Nigeria and can be processed into many different forms. Roots can be eaten raw or boiled, processed into granulated flour used to make “garri” or “fufu” pastes, or processed to produce vital raw materials such as adhesives, alcohol, and starch, which are useful in the livestock, feed, alcohol/ethanol, textile, confectionery, food and soft drinks industries (Philips et al., 2004). In addition to providing food for consumption and employment to rural youths, cassava products can be exported to generate more foreign earnings. Cassava is   once seen as the food for the poor, but due to its value addition it is therefore a food for all. These and other features endowed it with a special capacity to bridge the gap in food security, poverty alleviation and environmental protection (Clair and Etukudo, 2000). Among all the products of cassava, garri is the most popular derivative as it has a longer shelf-life. Cassava is also used as animal feed. About 10% of Nigeria’s industrial demand consists of high quality cassava flour (HQCF) used in biscuits and confectioneries, dextrin pre-gelled starch for adhesives, starch and chips, pellets are primary products which are obtained directly from raw cassava roots. Today, cassava ranks highly as a major staple food particularly for the low income earners and resource poor farm households in developing economies of sub-Saharan Africa (FAO, 2005). Ebukiba (2010) argued that the special features of cassava endowed it with a special capacity to bridge the gap in food security, poverty alleviation and environment protection.

Food security is when all people, at all times, have physical, social and economic access to sufficient, safe and nutritious food that meets their dietary needs and food preferences for an   active and healthy life; food security has four important dimensions: stability, availability, accessibility and actual consumption and use of food (FAO, 2011). The dimensions cover a broad range of factors that contribute to food security, from sufficient quantities and types of food to individuals’ or house- holds’ incomes and sustained ability to purchase or produce food in sufficient quantities and types and how it is stored, processed and consumed. People are considered well-fed and well-nourished when they can obtain safe food of sufficient quantity, variety and quality to sustain their lives (UNDP, 2012). The opposite of food security is food insecurity which according to USDA (2016) is a household-level economic and social condition of limited or uncertain access to adequate food. World Bank (2007) estimated that over 1.2 billion people globally were chronically food insecure. The report further explained that certain groups which included women were particularly vulnerable to food insecurity. The unmistakable factor driving food insecurity is poverty combined with other socioeconomic and political problems.

1.2       PROBLEM STATEMENT

Smallholder farmers in Nigeria face many risks in their farming activities. The country has recorded drought, crop and animal diseases and pests as well as fluctuations in prices of both farm produce and inputs. As a result, there has been variability in household income. Risk hinders farmers from pursuing farming as a business; risk situation is complicated by the fact that farmers operate in an environment with weak markets. They do not have access to sufficient support institutions (facilities) that can help them cope with risks (Luke, 2011). For several decades, agricultural production in Nigeria has faced many risks such as variability in yields, product-prices and cost of inputs (Okunmadewa, 2003). Nigeria farmers typically grow their crops in rain-fed conditions due to poor irrigation systems. The annual rainfall fluctuates widely each year, and pests, diseases, high cost of insurance, planting materials and poor soil fertility affect the yields of both food and cash crops in Nigeria. According to Kurukulasuriya (2006) and Seo  and Mendelsohn(2006), the events of climate change and variability lead to substantial losses of both crop and livestock causing agricultural activities to be at high risk, unattractive and unbeneficial to the majority of small-holder farmers.

In Africa, the combination of socio-political restrictions, land degradation and lack of adequate rainfall often causes crop failures and there is high vulnerability to vagaries of nature. The performance of the agricultural sector is poor and food production is low, farm output is driven by episodal biological and climatic events over which producers have little control (Belaineh, 2003). Food insecurity and poverty are still the global problem and are more critical in Sub-Saharan Africa (URT, 2005). It is estimated that at least one third of Africa’s population is food insecure and Undernourished (Rutatora et al., 2004; Massawe, 2007). Globally, the number of people suffering from hunger and poverty stood at 852 million from 2000 to 2002; out of these 815 million in the developing countries and 9 million in the industrialized countries. In 2008 the number increased to 925 million whereas in 2010 to 2012 the number decreased a bit to 870 Million and maternal and child under nutrition remain pervasive (FAO, 2005; FAO, 2010; FAO, 2012; Horton et al., 2009). About 95% of the food produced in Sub-Sahara Africa depends on rain-fed agriculture mainly undertaken in the dry-lands (Reilly et al., 2001). Farmers in Africa are exposed to several types of risks caused by climate change and variability which severely affect agriculture and eventually food security (Maddison, 2006).

Regardless of the pressure exerted by the climate change and variability in different areas of the world including Nigeria, cassava farmers have sustained their lives over the millennia particularly for food security and poverty reduction using different management adaptations strategies (Mbilinyi et al., 2005). Literally, there is a variety of documentations about adaptation strategies to climate change and variability in the developing countries (2004; Chibber and Laajaj, 2007). Most of the researches, for example (Enfors, 2008; Prabhakar and Shaw, 2008) concentrated on studying water deficit and farmland management strategies without empirical evaluation on gender role and risk reduction practices of farmers. Olawuyi and Olawuyi (2015 ) studied risk management strategies adoption of farming household in Kwara State Nigeria, Salimonu and Falusi (2009) studied sources of risk and management strategies, while Okunmadewa (2003) did a study on risk and vulnerability assessment and went ahead to identify some types of risk in farming in Nigeria. More so the many risk in agricultural production have been affirmed by many studies and scholars, and the different roles men and women play in the agricultural production value chain have equally been reported. However, there seems to be little knowledge of the various risk management practices adopted by the different gender to mitigate these risk, similarly much research have not been carried out in Abia state to assess gender roles and farmers’ management practices related to agricultural risk  and their implications on food security and poverty reduction. Also, the extents to which the risk management practices are adopted have not been evaluated. Therefore, the different ways male and female farmers’ perceive and deal with risk needs to be studied and properly understood. This study intends to fill this knowledge gap.

Against this backdrop, this study aimed at addressing the following research questions;

1.     What are the socio-economic characteristics of the cassava farmers by gender?

2.     What are the sources of risk in cassava production and management practices available to the farmers by gender?

3.      What are the level of risk management  adopted by farmers by gender

4.     What is the poverty and food security status of the cassava farmers by gender?

5.     Are there influence of RMP adoption on food security and poverty status?

6.     What constraints militate against the adoption of RMP by cassava farmers?


1.3       OBJECTIVES OFTHE STUDY

The broad objective of this study is to determine the implications of gender differentials in risk management practices on the food security and poverty status of cassava farmers in Abia State.

The specific objectives are to:

       1.         analyse the socio-economic characteristics of the cassava farmers by gender

       2.        identify the sources of risk in cassava production and management practices used       by farmers gender

       3.        estimate the level of adoption of risk management practices by cassava farmers by gender

       4.         ascertain the poverty and food security status of the cassava farmers by gender

       5.         estimate the influence  of the level of RMP adoption on food security and poverty status and

       6.         identify constraints militating against the adoption of risk management practices by cassava farmers.


1.4       HYPOTHESES

H1: There is no significant difference in the level of risk management practices adopted by cassava farmers by gender

H2: Poverty status of farmers is directly related to quantity of cassava output, level of RMP adoption, access to credit, farming experience, farm size, annual non-farm income, and cooperative membership and inversely related to farmers’ age, household size, level of education, and extension contact

H3: Food security is positively influenced by farmers’ level of education, access to credit, farming experience, extension contact, asset ownership, farm size, livestock ownership, use of improved seeds, and non-farm diversification, and negatively influenced by age of farmers, household size, level of adoption of RMP, and monthly income.

H4: There is no significant difference between the poverty and food security status of male and female cassava farmers.

 

1.5       JUSTIFICATION OF THE STUDY

Risk has important implications to agriculture in that it affects the types of investments that farmers make. Ultimately, it affects the level of farm output achieved and economic growth, especially in Nigeria where agriculture contributes up to 20.48% of Gross Domestic Product (GDP) (NBS, 2016). Information on the risk management practices of rural farmers represents important contributions to existing body of knowledge; good risk management practice could attract investments and increase agricultural production. The understanding of the individual smallholder’s risk perception and his/her reaction to risk and selection of risk management practices, may affect the functioning of the agricultural sector at local, regional and national levels. Thus, understanding the importance of risk, determining how different facets of risk and risk management interact to affect the agricultural sector and shape agricultural policy choices, is certainly a relevant research topic.

The understanding of the different risk management practices by the different gender might contribute to attempts to increase sustainable productivity of smallholder agriculture and to improve the risk mitigation ability by assisting farmers to better manage risk. Mores, the study will help to create awareness on the part of the farmers about the level of risks they are exposed to and help them to see the need for effective agricultural risk management practices. The outcome of the study would equip them with the needed risk management practices to manage their risks.

Findings from this study would provide empirical information on how to mitigate risks that affect cassava food production; it would also highlight the adaptation practices adopted by farmers for food security, poverty reduction, and adequacy of off-farm activities in ensuring household food security. These information can be used to enrich the existing and forthcoming policies and programmes on climate change and variability that imply on food security.

 

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.

Review


To Comment