TITLE PAGE
Assessment Of Local Government Agricultural Activities In Rivers State, Nigeria
BY
ALBERT CAROLINE OBINEDO PG/Ph.D/08/48442
A THESIS SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE AWARD OF THE DEGREE OF DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY Ph.D IN AGRICULTURAL EXTENSION (RURAL SOCIOLOGY AND DEVELOPMENT)
DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURAL EXTENSION, UNIVERSITY OF NIGERIA, NSUKKA
MAY, 2015
i CERTIFICATION Albert Caroline Obinedo, a postgraduate student in the Department of Agricultural
Extension, Faculty of Agriculture, University of Nigeria, Nsukka, with registration number
PG/Ph.D/08/48442, has satisfactorily completed the requirements for research work for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy (Ph.D) in Agricultural Extension (Rural Sociology and Development).
The report embodied in this thesis is original and has not been submitted in part or full for any diploma or degree of this university or any other university. We accept it as conforming to the required standard.
PROF. E.M. IGBOKWE DR (MRS) M. U. DIMELU (Supervisor) (Head of Department)
DATE DATE
ii DEDICATION
This work is dedicated to God Almighty for His loving kindness, faithfulness and mercy and to my late mother who desired to see me through my education but death never allowed her.
iii
iv ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
My immense appreciation goes to my supervisor, Prof E.M. Igbokwe, who meticulously read through my work and ensured its completion. His meaningful suggestions and enduring patience have made this work a reality.
Special thanks also go to Prof. M. C. Madukwe, Prof. A. E. Agwu, Prof. (Mrs) E. A.
Onwubuya, Dr (Mrs) M. U. Dimelu, Rev. (Dr) I. A. Enwelu, Dr (Mrs) A.N. Asadu, Dr (Mrs) Chah,
Dr (Mrs) J.C. Iwuchukwu, Mrs C.E. Nwobodo, Miss I.J. Irohibe, Mrs C. Ayogu and Miss O. I.
Ogbonna. I will also not hesitate to appreciate Mrs T. Adeogun, and other members of the non academic staff.
My most sincere love goes to my beloved husband, brother, friend and mentor, Deacon
Obinedo Albert for all his patience and contributions. Also, to my children: Praise, Jeremy,
Chukumela and Odioka, I say thank you for being there for me.
This work will not be complete without the mention of Prof (Mrs) M. N. Koko, Dr B.I.Isife,
Mrs Pricilla E. Nwokoma, and Mrs Linda Ufot. They were so concerned about its completion.
Finally, I give thanks to God Almighty from whom all blessings and knowledge flow. His profound wisdom bestowed on me has aided the completion of this work.
v TABLE OF CONTENTS
Title page i
Certification ii
Dedication iii
Acknowledgements iv
Table of contents v
List of tables viii
List of figures ix
Abstract x
CHAPTER ONE: INTRODUCTION
1.1 Background information 1
1.2 State of the problem 5
1.3 Purpose of the study 7
1.4 Hypotheses of the study 7
1.5 Significance of the study 8
CHAPTER TWO: LITERARURE REVIEW
2.1 Concept of local government 10
2.2 Agricultural activities in Nigeria 17
2.3 Funding for agricultural activities 27
2.4 Linkages between LGC and other agricultural activities 30
2.5 Determinants of agricultural activities implementation 32
2.6 Benefits of agricultural activities 33
2.7 Condition of farmers/rural dwellers 35
2.8 Agricultural production in Nigeria 37
vi
2.9 Problem of oil exploration on agricultural production 39
2.10 Local participation in programme implementation 42
2.11 Challenges of local government agricultural activities 52
2.12 Conceptual framework 54
2.13 Summary of literature 58
CHAPTER THREE: METHODOLOGY
3.1 Study area 59
3.2 Population and sampling procedure 62
3.3 Data collection 64
3.4 Validity and Reliability of instrument 65
3.4 Measurement of variables 65
3.5 Data analysis 69
CHAPTER FOUR: RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
4.1 Respondents’ personal characteristics 70
4.2 Status and Types of local government agricultural activities 80
4.3 Level of local participation in agricultural activities 89
4.4 Perception of benefits of local government agricultural activities 93
4.5 Status of funding of local government agricultural activities 97
4.6 Extent of linkages between local government other agricultural activities 101
4.7 Factors inhibiting local government agricultural activities 106
CHAPTER FIVE: SUMMARY, CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS
5.1 Summary 115
vii 5.2 Conclusion 119
5.3 Recommendations 121
REFERENCES
APPENDIX
viii LIST OF TABLES
Table 1: Review of IFAD projects in Rivers State 24
Table2: Budgetary allocations to agriculture in
Rivers state (1999-2010) 28
Table 3: Relationship between budgetary allocations to agricultural
sector and agricultural output 29
Table 4: Average total monthly allocation to Rivers state's 23 LGAs 30
Table 5: Nigerian Food Production and Food Demand (1995-2001) 38
Table 6: Output of selected food crops in Rivers State (1999-2010) 39
Table 7: Ranking Of major environmental problems, social issues and priorities 42
Table 8: Chart used to assess level of local participation 46
Table 9: Stages/Levels of participation in a project cycle 49
Table 10: Sampling procedure for sample size 63
Table 11: Selected sample size 64
Table 12: Percentage distribution of personal characteristics of LG staff 72
Table 13: Percentage distribution of personal characteristics of households 76
Table 14: Result of semi log of households’ socio economic attributes 78
Table 15: Result of binary logit of households’ socio economic attributes 80
Table 16: Types of local government agricultural activities 81
Table 17.1: Status of local government agricultural activities 84
Table 17.2: Percentage distribution of Household perception on status of
local government agricultural activities in the study area 86
Table 18: Agencies collaborating with LG to fund agricultural activities 88
ix Table 19.1: Rural households level of participation in LG agricultural activities 90
Table 19.2: Percentage distribution of stages and levels of rural
households level of participation in LG agricultural activities 93
Table 20: Perception of LG staff on benefits of agricultural activities 95
Table 21: Perception of households on benefits of agricultural activities 97
Table 22: Mean score on status of funding of LG agriculture 100
Table 23: Percentage distribution of LG staff perception on linkages between
LG and other agricultural agencies 104
Table 24: Perception of households on factors inhibiting LG agricultural activities 108
Table 25: Perception of LG staff on factors inhibiting LG agricultural activities 111
Table 26: Rotated component matrix based on LG staff and households 114
x LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1: Schema on assessment of LG agricultural activities 57
Figure 2: Map of Rivers State 61
Figure 3: Types of Local Government agricultural activities 82
Figure 4: Extent of funding allocation as percentage from 2005-2010 101
Figure 5: Linkages between LG and other agricultural agencies 105
xi ABSTRACT The study assessed Local Government agricultural activities in Rivers State, Nigeria. Specifically, the study was designed to: identify the types of agricultural activities implemented; ascertain level of local participation in agricultural activities; ascertain perceived benefits of agricultural activities; assess status of agricultural funding for agricultural development; identify areas of linkages between LG and agricultural agencies and ascertain factors inhibiting LG executing agricultural activities. Eighteen communities from nine Local Government Areas (LGAs) were selected by multi-stage sampling technique from the twenty three LGAs in the state. A total of two hundred and seven (207) respondents made up the sample size for the study. Questionnaire and interview schedule were the instrument used for data collection. Data collected were analyzed using frequency, percentage, chart, mean statistics and factor analysis. Socio economic attributes (age, sex, educational level, occupation, income, etc) on participation was ascertained using multiple regression.. The hypothesis was tested at 5% level of significance Findings revealed that 37.1% of the LG staff, 30.6% of households’ heads were within the age range of 40-49 years, majority (74.1% and 66.7%) of the LG staff and households heads, respectively were married. All (100%) of the LG staff were educated while 81.4% of the households were educated and the main occupation of LG staff was civil service while half (50.3%) of the households heads depended mainly on farming. Building of market ranked first (1st) as the dominant agricultural activity followed by fisheries sub-sector and establishment of poultry farms that ranked second and third, respectively. Local people participated at the implementation (50.0%) stage of agricultural activities, 10% participated at the planning stage and 3.3% participated at the diagnostic stage. Poverty reduction (M=3.17), reduced rural-urban migration (M= 3.06), increased employment opportunities (M=3.14), provision of raw materials for local industries (M=3.02), increase food supply (M= 3.10) and increased interest in agriculture (M=3.13) were perceived benefits of agricultural activities. Khana was the LGA that spent the highest (6.37%) (N600000) on agriculture from a mean annual allocation of N6.9m. Linkages existed between LG and Agricultural Development Project (ADP) (M=2.62), International Fund for Agricultural Development (M=2.55), and FADAMA III (M=2.62) in the areas of joint use of farmers, joint use of staff and joint funding of project. Corruption (M=2.58), non- continuity of projects (M=2.54), politicizing of selection of participants (M=2.37), poor interest of the community people (M=2.23) and low budgetary allocation (M=2.78) were seen as inhibiting factors to LG administration implementing agricultural activities. There was a significant (p<0.05) influence of socio economic attributes (education, occupation and income) of households on participation.
xii CHAPTER ONE
1.0 INTRODUCTION
1.1 Background information
Local Government (LG) administration brings government closer to the people; it takes governance to the door steps of the people. It is a sub-unit of government controlled by a Local
Council which is authorized by the central government to pass ordinances having local application, levy taxes or exact labour within limits specified by the LG edict (Ola, 1984; Ugwu, 2000).
According to the 1976 Guidelines, LG is defined as a legally established representative council empowered to initiate and direct the provision -of services and to determine and implement projects so as to compliment the activities of the State and Federal Governments. Adamolekun (1983) reaffirms that LG is a subordinate system of government that has both legal and constitutional power to perform certain legislative, administrative and quasi-judicial functions. It is the smallest unit of governance and the aim is to serve the people in rural areas (Akpan, 1988; Agbakoba &
Ogbonna, 2004). Its closeness to the local populace enables it to perform special functions and services, which bother on the interests and aspirations of people in rural areas (Adamolekun, 1979;
Olanipekum, 1988).
The history of LG system in Nigeria dates back to the colonial days. The Colonial
Administration that was established was based on indirect rule. This requires that the administration should be carried out through traditional rulers and institutions. This led to the establishment of native authorities in their most rudimentary forms from the 1890s to the 1930s (Orewa & Adewumi,
1983). The main function of the native authorities was to maintain law and order. This was easily done in Northern Nigeria but there was a problem in identifying who those authorities were in
Southern Nigeria. This necessitated the first reforms in the 1930s and the 1940s culminating in the
1 establishment of Chiefs-In-Council and Chiefs-And-Council in place of sole native authorities (Ola,
1984; Lawal, 2000). In the years 1950-55, the first largely elected local government council based on the British Whitehall model emerged in Lagos and the former Eastern and Western regions.
However, in Northern Nigeria, the changes were more gradual (Igbuzor, 2002). . The legal framework for local government at this period was provided by the Eastern region LG ordinance of
1950, the Western region LG law of 1952 and the 1954 Native Authority law in Northern Nigeria.
By this time, the Councils were given wider range of functions including primary education, health, police, and judiciary among others. It could be said that the 1950s was the era of pupilage for
Councils in modern local government throughout Nigeria (Igbuzor, 2002).
The 1999 Constitution reform provided for a democratically elected local government council in section 7 of the Constitution. The 1999 Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria provides in Part 11, Section 7(1)-(6) for the establishment of the LG system as the third tier of government in Nigeria. The section goes further to provide for powers, functions, composition and finances of the LG council to be established thereof. . It is meant to undertake functions like the provision, establishment and maintenance of slaughter houses/ slab, markets, gardens, parks as well as participation in the development of agriculture and natural resources as contained in the fourth schedule section 7, of the 1999 Constitution of the Federal Republic Nigeria. Apparently, the three levels of government exist as partners, working in synergy for accelerated development of the nation. With a predominantly rural population, agriculture apparently should be the major focus of a majority of the LGs.
Agriculture contributes 41.5% to the nation’s gross domestic product (GDP). It remains significant in the exercise of economic development, providing employment to about 70% of the nation’s labour force and also raw materials for some factories and industries (Ekpo & Olaniyi,
1995; Arowolo, 2008; Ibe, 2011). From 1970 to about 2005, agriculture declined in its importance
2 because of the diversification into oil prospecting. As agriculture was neglected, rural people could not do much to boost production and increase economic earning; hence poverty level increased culminating in lower standard of living. Food importation increased at unprecedented rate (Ibe,
2011). Global economic recession and oil glut of the eighties; fluctuating oil prices which resulted sometime in lower earnings and increased food imports bills with diminished foreign reserve catalyzed government action in rediscovery of the importance of agriculture in national development. These include food security, employment generation, economic empowerment, poverty alleviation and industrialization as well as rural development and national development.
However, there are many signs that agriculture is regaining its past glorious importance (Manyong,
Ikpi, Olayemi & Yusuf, 2005). The country is now the largest producer of cassava roots and yam tubers and a major producer of livestock and soyabeans products in Africa. The share of agriculture in real GDP has been increasing since 1995 and the annual growth of the sector has surpassed population growth in recent years (Manyong, Ikpi, Olayemi & Yusuf, 2005). More importantly, the agricultural sector is receiving the expected attention from policy makers, which is manifested in several new presidential initiatives, for example in the area of cassava and rice production From that point, government formulated various agricultural policies, created some programmes and institutions to enhance agricultural development and production. A typical example is the
Agricultural Transformation Agenda (ATA) initiative of the Federal Government under the leadership of President Goodluck Ebele Jonathan and Professor- as Minister of Agriculture. ATA was established to curb unemployment and poverty by harnessing the enormous opportunities and potentials in agriculture to create employment opportunities, increase rural income ensure sustainable economic growth and development and increase foreign reserve for the nation.
The three tiers (Federal, State and LG) of government were expected to drive government policies and programmes in agricultural and rural development. Some of such programmes include;
3 Operation Feed the Nation (OPN), Green Revolution (GR), and Directorate for Food and Rural
Infrastructure (DFFRI), including the Agricultural Development Programme (ADP) in which the
Federal, State and Local Governments are stakeholders. However, LG were also expected to initiate and develop their models, programmes and activities and execute them in their domain. As would be expected, some LG in Rivers State took up the gauntlet of carrying out various agricultural activities such as agricultural credit scheme, establishment of poultry, fishery and cassava farms and building of markets towards the development of agriculture while others were yet to invest in agricultural development. However the content, quality or scope, as well as the types of agricultural activities carried out would have be determined by age of the LG administration. Some of the agricultural activities initiated by LG administration could have direct bearing on the life of the rural populace to the extent of uplifting their standard of living.
However, there is the need for rural dwellers to participate in agricultural development. Rural dwellers participation in development is the involvement of the broad mass of the population in the choice, execution and evaluation of programmes/ projects designed to bring about a significant upward movement in their levels of living (Lisk, 1985 cited in Nwachukwu, 2008). In the past, and in some obvious cases, development projects have been planned and executed without involving the intended beneficiaries (Gajanajake, 1993; Nwachukwu, 2005). It has been recognized that when the people are involved in identifying their problems, planning for the solution and executing the project, satisfaction is usually achieved and the sustainability of the project is ensured. Nwachukwu
(2008) identified seven types of participation namely; passive, self- mobilized, interactive, and consultative. Including material incentive induced, manipulation and functional. Among these, interactive participation allows beneficiaries of project to actively interact with the project providers. There is a joint analysis of the situation which leads to the identification of problem and
4 the action plans to resolve the problem. People are allowed to determine what their problems were, what they want and how the problems will be solved.
1.2 Problem statement
Local government has the highest interaction in governance of local communities and the people. It provides the platform through which the people are represented in government at the
State and Federal levels. It is created to meet the peculiar needs of the people at the grassroots. This is very important because every community has its peculiar characteristics, culture, needs and value system that differentiate it from another community. This is true even in Rivers State.
The development of agriculture and natural resources is one of the functions of LG administration. Therefore the development and sustainability of the sector (agriculture), which is the main source of income to the rural people, should be of utmost priority to the LG. Any effort the
LGs put in the sector, will not only improve the lives of the people in their domain, but will increase the revenue base of the LG and also ensure food security in Nigeria and Rivers State in particular. Worst still, food production has dwindled as population is increasing, pressure on land is increasing and some farm hands have migrated to the cities for greener pasture which has affected the yield of agriculture and the rural areas (Ibe, 2011).
To this effect, in the annual budgetary proposal in the State, agricultural development usually features prominently. The budget proposal forms the basis for implementation of programmes, projects and activities. Implementation of agricultural development activities is usually tied to the budget and availability of funds from anticipated sources in the budget. It is therefore the amount of money allocated to the agricultural sector that would be spent to carry out agricultural development programmes and activities by the LGCs. For instance, the total budgetary allocation made for
5 agricultural development by the Rivers State Government from 2005 to 2010 was about Eighteen
Billion (N18b) Naira only, which was approximated to Two Billion Eight Hundred Million (N2.8b)
Naira only each year. In 2005, the State Government allocated N9,250,896,251 for agricultural development which resulted to a plantain output index of 44. In 2010, N2,703,750,000 was allocated and the index of plantain output decreased to 41. There was a deficit of 3 (Rivers State
Ministry of Agriculture, 2010). This implies that the more funds are allocated to the agricultural sector, the greater the output. The amount allocated was also used to implement various agricultural activities such as building of markets to serve as access route where agricultural produce will be sold and provision of improved planting materials to help farmers increase their yields. Other activities include the training of youths in agriculture, giving of credits to farmers, encouraging cooperatives among farmers, engaging in establishment of poultry, fishery, and cassava farms.
The purpose of Federal, State and LGAs implementing these agricultural activities is to develop the agricultural sector. In order to reduce the cost of food and ensure food security, provide employment for its rural populace especially the teeming youths and to reduce poverty among its rural populace. However, the cost of food is increasing every the day. The State still depends on the eastern and northern part of the country for the supply of major food crops like yam, rice, and even cassava (garri). The unemployment rate in the state is very high (National Directorate of
Employment (NDE), 2013), youths have not developed interest in agriculture. They still prefer white color jobs to farming and poverty is prevalent at the rural areas. This has necessitated the need to undertake the study to assess why the expected results from agricultural development have not been achieved in the State.
It is therefore the purpose of the study to assess the impact of the LG agricultural activities on their catchment areas and to establish whether the objectives set out by them in carrying out were
6 achieved. The following questions may therefore be raised. What are the status of agricultural
activities executed by LGC, their content and quality? Were the people for whom the agricultural
activities intended for part of it, in planning and implementation and at what level? What are the
benefits of the agricultural activities on the lives of the local people? Has agricultural development
been in the annual budget of the LGAs? If yes, what is the budgetary allocation for the past five
years and what percentage? Was the fund allocated fully applied? Are there any linkages with
external bodies and in what areas? What are the factors militating against execution and
implementation of agricultural activities by LGCs?
1.3 Purpose of the study
The general objective of the study was to assess Local Government agricultural activities in
Rivers State, Nigeria.
Specifically, the study was designed to:
1. determine status of agricultural activities implemented by LGAs in the state;
2. ascertain level of participation of rural households in agricultural activities implemented;
3. ascertain perceived benefits of agricultural activities on rural dwellers;
4. assess status of funding (budgetary allocation and actual) for agricultural sector by LGAs from
2005 to 2010;
5. identify linkages that exist between LGs and the State, international agencies, NGOs and other
agricultural agencies; and
6. ascertain factors inhibiting LG administration in executing agricultural activities in the state.
7 1.4 Hypotheses of the study
One null hypothesis was formulated to guide the study. They include:
Ho1: Households’ participation in agricultural development programmes/projects is not
significantly influenced by socioeconomic attributes of farmers (such as income, age,
educational attainment, occupation and marital status).
1.5 Significance of the study
Local government is the closest level of government that should bring development to the masses as well as educate, socialize and to carry out some services in health, agricultural development, among others. The assumption that agriculture is an occupation where over 70% of the rural populace is engaged as a source of livelihood should propel the LG administrators to be more involved in its promotion and development.
The result of this study would help researchers, Federal, State governments and all stakeholders to know the level of commitment shown by the LGs in discharging their responsibilities in agricultural development. It would also assist the Local Government to identify weaknesses, problems, loopholes, including evaluation of approaches and types of agricultural activities that should be implemented for maximum output and benefit of the people. The study would enlighten stakeholders on LG effort towards agricultural development and would present a raw score card for assessment of local government effort in agricultural development. The importance of local people participation and benefits from agricultural activities should be foremost consideration of any government agency or NGOs before initiating, planning and implementation of their activities.
Result of the study will assist the government and other stakeholders in formulating policies that will bring about sustainable development of agriculture. Also, all stakeholders shall be able to
8 evaluate the success of and achievement of the agricultural activities vis-a- vis participation or mass mobilization and benefits to the people. Finally, it will help LGs keep abreast of challenges in the development of the agricultural sector and how to surmount them.
9 CHAPTER TWO
2.0 Literature Review
The relevant literature were reviewed under the following sub-headings
2.1 Concept of Local Government
2.2 Agricultural activities in Nigeria
2.3 Funding for agricultural activities
2.4 Linkages between LGC and agricultural agencies
2.5 Determinants of agricultural activities implementation
2.6 Benefits of agricultural activities on local people
2.7 Condition of farmers/rural dwellers
2.8 Agricultural production in Nigeria
2.9 Problem of oil exploration on agricultural production
2.10 Concept of participation
2.11 Challenges to local government agricultural activities
2.12 Conceptual framework.
2.13 Review of literature
2.1 Concept of local government
The concept of local government involves a philosophical commitment to democratic participation in the government process at the grassroots level (Ola, 1984; Odoh, 1990). This implies legal and administrative decentralization of authority, power and personnel by a higher level of government to a community with a will of its own, performing specific functions as within the wider national framework. A LG is a government at the grassroots level of administration meant
10 for meeting peculiar grassroots need of the people (Agagu, 1997; Imuetinyan, 2002). It is defined as government by the popularly elected bodies charged with administrative and executive duties in matters concerning the inhabitants of a particular district or place (Barber, 1974).
Looking at the existence, performance and relevance of LG, Laski (1982) opines that we cannot realize the full benefit of democratic government unless we begin by the admission that all problems are not central problems and that the result of problems not central in their incidence requires decision at the place, and by the person, where and whom the incidence is most deeply felt.
LG came into existence in the bit of finding ways of how to development the rural areas. According to Ojo (2009) LG is a political sub-division, which is created within a state for the exercise of duties and responsibilities granted by constitutional provisions or legislative enactments. Like other units of government, LG possess a defined area, a population, an organization, also the authority to undertake, and the power to perform public activities (Federal Government of Nigeria (FGN),
1976). It is also the smallest unit of administration in any political system, the lowest level of government in a modern state structure that is legally distinct with powers to raise its own revenue and to undertake delegated responsibilities as provided for by the constitution (Oyediran, 1988).
2.1.1 Historical background of local government system in Nigeria
Regardless of nomenclature, LG is a creation of British Colonial rule in Nigeria (Lockard,
1968; Igbuzor, 2002). It has overtime experienced change in name, structure and composition.
From 1930 to 1940s, for instance, LG was known as Chief-In-Council and Chief-And-Council, where traditional rulers were given pride of place in the scheme of things (Wralth, 1964; Igbuzor,
2004). In the years 1950-55, the first largely elected LGC based on the British Whitehall model emerged in Lagos and the former Eastern and Western regions. Traditional rulers constituted not more than 25 percent of most council in the then Western region and Lagos. However, in Northern
11 Nigeria, the changes were more gradual. In the 1950s, election was introduced according to the
British model in the Western and Eastern parts of the country with some degree of autonomy in personnel, financial and general administration (Nwabueze, 1982; Igbuzor, 2002). It was on this premise that the rising tide of progress, growth and development experienced in the LG in these areas was based. The pace of this development was more noticeable in the south than in the north.
In the years 1960-1966, there was a decline in the prestige and responsibilities of local authorities. In the former Western region, the Local Government (Amendment) law 1960 abolished the powers of councils to levy education and general rates on the basis of need. In Lagos, there was a high rate of default in the payment of property rates including government institutions, which reduced the revenue of the local councils. The situation in Eastern Nigeria was similar to the West before the outbreak of the civil war in 1967. In Northern Nigeria, there were gradual changes in the structure of the councils with increasing numbers of elected or appointed non-traditional office holders becoming members of local authorities. The result was that the local authorities had a stable administration, which enabled them to assume responsibility, with some degree of success for more complex services like primary education. Between 1969/71, some State Government introduced some changes in the structure of their councils.
In 1976, the Federal Government in collaboration with the State Government embarked on extensive reforms of LG. For the first time in the history of LG in Nigeria, a uniform system was developed for the whole country. In embarking on these reforms, the Federal Military Government was essentially motivated by the necessity to stabilize and rationalize government at the local level.
This must of necessity entail the decentralization of some significant functions of state governments to local levels in order to harness local resources for rapid development (Federal Republic of
Nigeria (FRN), 2002). Unlike previous reform measures, which were highly restricted in scope and range, the 1976 reforms conceptualized Local Government as the third tier of government operating
12 within a common institutional framework with defined functions and responsibilities. As the third tier of government, the LG gets statutory grants from federal and state governments, and is expected to serve as agent of development especially in rural areas. According to the 1976 reform,
75 percent of members of the council are to be elected through the secret ballot on a no-party basis under the direct and indirect systems of election. The remaining 25 percent are to be nominated by the state government. Following the reform, the Federal Government in 1977, allocated 5 percent of federally collected revenue to LG.
The intentions of the 1976 reform were debated by the constitution drafting committee and the constituent assembly in 1978. The result is that the 1979 constitution reaffirmed the development function as provide for in Section 7, Subsection 3. It shall be the duty of a LGC within the state to participate in economic planning and development of the area referred to in Subsection 2 of this section and to this end an economic planning board shall be established by a law enacted by the
House of Assembly of the state (The Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1979). The introduction of 1976 reforms by military administration of General Obasanjo brought about uniformity in the administration structure of the system. The reforms introduced a multi-purpose single-tier Local Government system (Ajayi, 2000). The reforms also introduced population criterion under which a local government could be created. Consequently, a population of within
150,000 to 800,000 was considered feasible for a Local Government. This was done to avoid the creation of non-viable local council and for easy accessibility. There was provision for creative positions having the chairman as executive head of Local Government with supervisory councilors constituting the cabinet. This was complemented by the bureaucrats and professionals like the doctors and engineers who were charged with the responsibility of implementing policies (FGN,
1976).
13 2.1.2 Functions of local government
The LG is the third tier of the administrative structure in Nigeria. The functions of LG as spelt out in the constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria are as follows:-
- consideration and making of recommendations to the state commission on economic planning or any similar body on economic development of the state, particularly in areas where the of authority of the council and of the state are affected;
- collection of rates and radio and television licenses;
- establishment and maintenance of cemeteries, burial grounds and homes for the destitute;
- licensing of bicycles, trucks, canoes, wheel barrows and carts;
- establishment, maintenance and regulation of markets, motor parks and public conveniences;
- construction and maintenance of roads, streets, drains and other public highways, parks, open spaces or such public facilities as may be prescribed from time to time by the House of Assembly of the state;
- naming of roads and streets and numbering of houses;
- provision and maintenance of public conveniences and refuse disposal;
- registration of births, deaths and marriages;
- assessment of privately-owned houses or tenements for the purpose of levying such rates as may be prescribed by the House of Assembly of a state;
- control and regulation of
- out-door advertising and hoarding
- movement and keeping of pets of all descriptions
- shops and kiosks,
-restaurants and other places for sale of food to the public and
- laundries.
14 The LG also works hand-in-hand with state government on issues such as:
- provision and maintenance of primary education;
- the development of agriculture and natural resources, other than the exploitation of
minerals; and
- the provision and maintenance of health services (FGN, 2002; http://guide.onlineNigeria.com)
According to Oviasuyi; Idad and Isiraojie (2010); Aghayere, (1997) the functions of LG include:
i. inspection of meat and abattoirs;
ii. provision of nursery, primary and adult education;
iii. provision of scholarship and bursaries;
iv. provision of public libraries and reading;
v. agricultural and animal health extension services and veterinary clinics, fire services;
vi. lighting and drainage;
vii. support for arts and culture;
viii. control of pollution;
ix. control of beggars and prostitution;
x. homes for destitute, the insane and orphans;
xi. public housing programmes;
xii. regulation and control of buildings;
xiii. town and country planning;
xiv. operations of commercial undertakings;
xv. control of traffic and parking;
xvi. pipe sewage systems.
15 2.1.3 Reasons for the establishment of Local Government
A lot of reasons have been given for the evolution and creation of LGs in Nigeria. These range from political, social and economic reasons. Over the years, there has not been a general consensus as to the precise role LG should play, this singular factor makes the problem regarding the objectives of LGs most important. The following are seen as the purpose for the creation of LGs in Nigeria:
(1) To bring governance closer to the people: LG functions to bring democracy to the local citizens as well as to educate and socialize them politically; participation of the citizens in governance is one of the underlying perception of democracy. Due to the vast nature of the country
(Nigeria), the presence of governments whether at the federal or state levels was not well felt by the people, and this led to neglect and distrust of government by the people. In a bid to bring the activities of government closer to the people, LGs were created to serve as conduits through which government’s policies are communicated to the people (Agbakoba and Ogbonna, 2004).
(2) For administrative convenience: LG serves as a channel through which policies and programmes from the state and federal government are communicated and implemented. This is because there are many functions that will be cumbersome for the state and federal governments to perform because of the distance separating them and the people for example (a) Collection of rates, radio and television licenses, among others.
(3) To ensure that resources are effectively mobilized: This is to arouse in the citizens the zeal or willingness to contribute financially, materially and morally to the management of local affairs.
LGs are created to bring about meaningful development in the rural areas through the effective mobilization of resources. Local government use the funds made available to it by both federal and state governments and their internally generated revenue to improve on the lives of the people within their areas of operations (Aghayere, 1997).
16 (4)To preserve heritage and common interest of the people: In Nigeria today over 364 ethnic groups, there are with diverse cultures and tongues. These ethnic groups are further divided into communities. These communities form the constituents/areas of LGs in Nigeria. By carving out
LGs from amongst people of the same community, government is preserving such long traditional associations and using same to foster the interest of the people concerned. The creation of LG is intended to bring people of common heritage or ancestry together as apolitical unit to further their interests and increase their participation in government business (Omotoso, 2001).
2.2 Agricultural activities in Nigeria
Agricultural activity means a condition or activity which occurs on a farm in connection with the commercial production of farm products and includes, but is not limited to, marketed produce at roadside stands or farm markets; noise; operation of machinery and irrigation pumps and movement. Including, but not limited to, use of streams, rivers, canals, and drains, and use of water for agricultural activities. Ground and aerial application of seed, fertilizers, conditioners, and plant protection products; keeping of bees for production of agricultural products; and conversion from one agricultural activity to another, including a change in the type of plant-related farm product being produced. The term includes use of new practices and equipment consistent with technological development within the agricultural industry (WSL, apps.leg.wa.gov/rcw/default
Retrieved on 01/08/20).
2.2.1 Overview of Rivers State agricultural activities and programmes
The Rivers State government in its bid to increase food production and employment opportunities for its teeming youths had implemented several agricultural projects and programmes in the state. They include:
17 -School to land programme: The school-to-land programme was established in Rivers State in
1985 by the then State Government under the Oyakhilome administration. The programme,
(sometimes called back-to-land programme) started with an initial intake of 800 young boys and girls who had just finished secondary school. The State funded programme aims at mobilizing young secondary school leavers of Rivers State origin to enable them direct their youthful vigor and intellectual capabilities into productive agriculture, thus making a positive contribution to the situation of the twin national problems of food production and unemployment. The general objectives of SLA are to:
- gainfully employ young secondary school leavers of Rivers State origin;
- give birth to a new generation of farmers, who with the vigor of youth and armed with some basic education will eventually succeed the ageing, present and retiring subsistence farmers;
- forestall any possible unrest that may otherwise occur as a result of a large and increasing number of unemployed persons in the state.
The programmes were executed with sole funding from the State Government. Farm inputs like seeds, fertilizers were made available for the participating youths and they were also provided with monthly stipends which were regarded as long term loans payable from first harvest. The organizational framework of the programme is the school-to-land authority established outside the
Ministry of Agriculture and Natural Resources to enable it operate independently, devoid of government bureaucracy. Unfortunately the rate with which it started has reduced greatly.
(Adesope, 2003).
After Govenor Oyakhilome who conceived the idea and set up the programme, the drive and vigor with which successive government pursued the programme dwindled considerably. Although the government of Governor Odili tried to revival the programme and even enlarged the size of the programme but the result was abysmal because the programme was politicized. Although the
18 government after Governor Odili pursued the programme, it cumulated in setting up of the plantain plantation farm and Songhai farm. Yet not much was achieved with regard to fulfilling the aspiration of the programme by the founder which was to reduce unemployment by training young school leavers to become future entrepreneurs.
-Rivers State Sustainable Development Agency (RSSDA) is a strategic intervention initiative of the Rivers State government set up under a legal framework to re-focus development effort in the areas of poverty alleviation, rural-grass root and youth empowerment in the state. RSSDA activities are divided into two core areas namely: human capital development and agro-allied and business development.
The organization handles Agro-Allied and Business Development designs, plans and executes sustainable programmes and projects in the areas of agriculture, agro-allied services, small and medium scale enterprises (SMEs) which is geared at achieving socially and economic viable state.
Within the 12 months of operation -2008-2009, RSSDA has set a record in the agricultural sector as the agency supports the production of catfish and fingerlings in Rivers State producing over a million fingerlings every 6 weeks for fish multiplication. It also supports the production of commercial quantities of cassava (http://www.RiversState online). Other agricultural projects/programmes executed by the agency include:
Rivers Songhai Farm- The Songhai farm was established in 2010 by the Rivers State Government through the Rivers State Sustainable Development Agency (RSSDA) at Bunu Tai, in Ogoni land, of
Tai local government area. Economic activities including crops, livestock, fish farming, poultry and the exotic grass cutters strive in the farm. The farm harvested 400 crates of egg every day from over
900 layers. Also, the farm has fish hatchery and feed mill (http://www.RiversState online).
The farm is still functioning up-to-date as economic activities are striving well. Traders on poultry and poultry products go there every day to buy eggs, old layers and broilers to sell. Also, it
19 serves as site visit for pupils in primary and secondary schools on excursions. However, in the area of training youths to be self entrepreneurs, it needs some improvement.
Aquaculture centres- The agency established regional integrated aquaculture centers in the state-
Rivers aquaculture tertiary farms at Adoni, Eleme and Okirika. Also, aquaculture expansion upgrade for training and commercialization partnership project was established at Buguma. The first sets of fish have been harvested at Ekporo in Eleme and Kalio-Ama in Okirika LG areas
(http://www.RiversState online). The fish farm at Buguma is functioning very well and some of the cat fish sold in our markets today are from the farm.
Cassava production- The agency acquired massive land at Ogoni land for the production of commercial quantities of cassava. Over 600 hectares of cassava have been cultivated for stem multiplication and distribution to rural farmers in the state (http://www.RiversState online).
Scholarships- The agency gives scholarship to some students studying agriculture in Rivers State
University of Science and Technology. Some departments in the Faculty of Agriculture were selected. They include: Animal Science, Crop/Soil Science, Fisheries and Forestry. Scholarships were given to students who had CGPA of 3.50 and above after the first semester examination. This is done to encourage youths go into agriculture. Also, outstanding students with CGPA of 3.50 and above from the Faculty of agriculture were invited by the agency to carry out their Students
Industrial Work Experience (SIWE) at the Songhai Farm at a monthly allowance of ₦15,000. This will enable the students in agriculture have the practical experience of their study
(http://www.RiversState online). Although, after the payment made to the first set of the students
(2010/2011) session, the subsequent ones have not been paid and also not allowed to undergo their
SIWES at the organization. However, the initiative has succeeded in attracting more students into the benefiting departments of institution.
20 2.2.2 Overview of Local Government agricultural activities in Rivers State
Out of the twenty-three (23) LGAs in Rivers State, only a small percentage of them have performed their statutory role in agricultural development by way of carrying out or executing agricultural projects and programmes in their areas of authority. These LGAs are Obio/Akpor,
Khana, Akuku-Toru, Ecthe, among others. The projects and programmes carried out include:
Fish farm- Obio/Akpor LGA established fish farm at Rumuekini in Obio. The project also serves as training centre for youths in the LG who wants to take up fish farming as a source of livelihood.
Also Asari-Toru LGA has fish farm in collaboration with the State Government through the
RSSDA. They are all on-going projects.
Poultry- Bonny, Asari-Toru, Eleme, Khana and Ogba/Egbema-Ndoni LGAs had poultry farm established by the LGC s. Eleme and Ogba/Egbema-Ndoni projects have long ago gone moribund.
The project when it was executed sold broilers, eggs and old layers to people in their domain.
Eleme poultry farm was vandalized and burnt by community boys while Ogba/Egbema-Ndoni farm collapsed when the Chairman ended his tenure. It was a different story for Bonny and Asari-Toru
LGA. The poultry farms were established in 2007 and they had done fairly well as they have consistently sold broilers to the public at every festive period. They are still in operation and people are benefiting from them.
Cassava farm- Eleme, Ikwerre and Ogba/Egbema-Ndoni LGCs had cassava farm established by their past LGC. Both have long gone moribund. Eleme cassava farm was burnt by angry youths in the area while the one at Ogba/Egbema-Ndoni farm terminated with the initiator of the programme
(the Chairman).
Palm oil mill / oil palm plantation- Omuma LGC established palm oil mill at Umuowa and oil palm plantation at Odiehia. The oil palms harvested at the plantation were transported to the oil mill for processing. The finished product (palm oil) is sold at the urban areas (Port Harcourt, Okehi) and
21 to the neighboring states. It is an on-going project. Other roles performed by LG to the development of agriculture in their LGAs include: the occasional procurement and sale of fertilizer, maintenance of flowers at the LG secretariats and sometimes meat inspection at various markets in the LGAs.
2.2.3 Overview of Non-Governmental Organizations (NGOs) in agricultural activities in
Rivers State
Non-Governmental Organizations (NGOs) are association of individuals or groups of individuals who on their own embark on activities that promote human development and devoid of the frustrating government bureaucracy. NGOs have been categorized into donor NGOs, foreign development NGOs, NGO grassroots participatory movement, which are also called community- based organizations (CBOs) among others. Agricultural projects / programmes established by
NGOs include:
International Fund for Agricultural Development (IFAD)
The International Fund for Agricultural Development (IFAD) is a specialized agency of the United Nations (UN) dedicated to eradicating rural poverty in developing countries. It was established as an international financial Institution in 1977 as one of the major outcomes of the 1974 World Food Conference (IFAD, 2006). Membership in IFAD is opened to any nation that is a member of the United Nations, and Nigeria is one of the 163 UN members. IFAD’s support to Nigerian government’s poverty reduction programme in rural areas targeted large numbers of smallholder farmers and is essentially people-centered. IFAD supports programmes and projects work with smallholder farmers in communities as the key players. International Fund for Agricultural Development (IFAD) in partnership with Federal Government of Nigeria is implementing Community Based Natural Resource Management Programme (CBNRMP) in the nine states of the Niger Delta region. The programme is in response to a request by the Federal Government of Nigeria for assistance to alleviate rural poverty in the Niger Delta region and it is in line with IFAD’s Country Strategic Opportunity Paper (COSOP) for
22 Nigeria (IFAD, 2010). The programme goal is to improve the livelihood and living condition of at least 400,000 rural families of the Niger Delta states; with strong emphasis on women and youths. According to Sam (2012), before the Mid Term Review held on May 2010, the participating local government councils were nine (9) and twenty-seven communities (27) but after the Mid Term Review of CBNRMP jointly undertaken by the Federal Government of Nigeria, IFAD, NDDC and representatives of the nine Niger Delta states in May 2012, the team observed that the none payment of counterpart fund by some states and Local Government Councils was hindering the smooth and effective implementation of the projects and decided to scale down the number of Local Governments that were not making up their counterpart fund commitment which Rivers State was one but have also reversed the decision due to appeals made by states governments and so the nine Local Governments and twenty-seven communities still stands. The Local Governments that have signed Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) and made part-payment of their counterpart fund are Ikwerre, Ogu/Bolo and Bonny LGAs. Ahoada East and Opobo/Nkoro LGA’s have signed MOU but have not made any payment. Tai, Ogba/Egbema/Ndoni, Khana and Etche have not signed the MOU and have not made payment but have been sensitized severally. The communities and local government areas in Rivers State presently benefiting from the IFAD agricultural projects are Jumbo-Isheliogono, Burukiri and Kuruama in Bonny LGA, Apani, Ozuaha and Ubima in Ikwerre LGA and Iwoma Nkoro, Epellema and Kalabiama in Opobo-Nkoro LGA. According to Sam (2012), IFAD is involved in the following projects, development of fish processing and marketing, agriculture and cage culture, improved processing and marketing of roots and tuber crops, inter community transport and micro enterprise development. The table below specifically mentioned some projects undertaken by IFAD in some Local Government Area of Rivers State with their participating member communities.
23 Table 1: Review of IFAD projects in Rivers State LGA Community Projects Ikwere Ozuaha Renovated a six classroom block. Taught the community how to produce seed yam through mini-sett technique. Constructed a six classroom block for the secondary school (ongoing) Trained women and youths in life skills. Empowered a piggery farmer and farm serves as farmer field school. Trained 25 youths in various trades. Established fish farm for Chimdi Fish Farmers Group (2000 fingerlings). Established 1.6 Hectares Cassava Farm for United Ladies of Ozuaha. Ubima Trained 25 youths in various trades. Trained women and youths in life skills. Renovated the administrative block of the secondary school. Constructed water borehole in the school with overhead tank. Renovated the administrative block toilet for the school. Established 1 Hectare Cassava Farm for Chibuike Farmers Group of Ubima. Established 1 Hectare Cassava Farm for Udodiri Farmers Group of Ubima. Established 1 Hectare Cassava Farm for Ndibu-Ugugu Farmers Farmers Group of Ubima. Established Cassava Process Centre at Ubima. Apani Renovated a six classroom block. Developed a one hectre plantain farm for Oganihu women group. Established 1 Hectare Cassava Farm for Umuorji Farmers Group of Apani. Established 63 Hectares Cassava Farm for Oganihu Women Group of Apani. Ahoada Idoke Train 25 youths in various agricultural trades. East Install a water borehole with overhead tanks and taps. Opobo/N Iwoma Nkoro Train 25 youths in various agricultural trades. koro Empowered a community youth with communication gadgets (GSM phones and generator set). Renovated a twin-two bedroom teachers quarters. Embarked on a construction of town hall (ongoing). Source: IFAD Achievements 2006-2012
Nigerian Agip Oil Company (NAOC) Green River Project. A feasibility study commissioned by
Nigeria Agip Oil Company (NAOC) on an agricultural development project in the Niger Delta areas was completed in September, 1986. The survey revealed that improvement of the traditional arable farming systems could be achieved by an integrated extension services. The project is designed to;
24 - help farmers produce more food in their given environmental condition;
- achieve a demonstrable raised standard of living;
- stimulate team work or co-operative effort in solving common problems and
- have result capable of promoting mutual co-operation and understanding between the
company and its host communities.
The Green Rivers Project (GRP) activities and extension methods include:
- technical advice and inputs are given to farmers free-of-charge;
- agro-chemicals and other inputs are supplied directly to the target farmers by the project;
- help number of extension workers (males) introduce new technologies to local farmers while the female extension workers teach rural women to improve their personnel and community hygiene, food nutrition, education;
- demonstration and trial plots are established in all the locations to show the rural farmers
the excellent result which may be obtained with appropriate improvement techniques;
- field days are organized across the location as a means of establishing direct contact
with farmers and also to showcase result of the demonstration plots for farmers adoption;
- the projects help to promote cooperatives and women association, to enhance easy
circulation of information and
- young farmers club was formed in primary and secondary schools in the operation
areas to arouse the interest of farming in the youths (NAOC, 2004).
The Green River Project has helped farmers in their host communities in the area of training farmers in new agricultural technologies and innovations and distribution of improved planting materials to farmers. This has encouraged many to go into farming in the LGA where it was located. However, the commitment with which it started, has reduced greatly as lesser funds are now located to the project
25 FADAMA III: The World Bank implemented Fadama I and II projects in Nigeria. The Fadama I project focused basically on crops production through supplementary water supply which resulted in conflict amongst common resource users. Fadama II project was implemented to address the problems identified in Fadama I. Fadama III project is a follow up to the Fadama II which is now implemented in 35 states and FCT. The project has a national coverage that is intended to operate with I 7,400 FCAs-out of 774 LGAs to be covered in 36 states and the FCT. The aim is to:
- increase incomes of Fadama user groups by directly delivering resources to the
beneficiary rural communities;
- reducing poverty to the barest minimum among the beneficiaries in the entire 36 states;
- enhance agricultural production, productivity and value addition for small holders and
rural entrepreneurs in Fadama (Rivers State Fadama Development Office, 2012).
The stakeholders in FADAMA III project, which include the Federal, State and LG and the beneficiaries, are expected to make payments to enable the project managers to acquire the necessary tools in form of assets, infrastructure, capacity building to staff, etc, for the implementation of the projects. Chukuigwe (2010) stated that one of the requirements for the participation in FADAMA III project was the payment of counterpart funds by the participating
States and LGs. This have made 33% of the FADAMA III LGAs not to commence their target projects as a result of lack of counterpart fund payments (Nyienakuma, 2010). FADAMA III has helped in the development of agriculture in the LGAs that contributed their counterpart funding.
The State Government paid N361,266,619.00 out of the expected amount of
N80,000,000.00(75%), outstanding amount to be paid by the state is N118,733,381.00. The LGAs paid N328,880,000.00 out of the expected amount of N480,000,000.00(69%) leaving an outstanding of N151,120,000.00 (Rivers State Fadama Development Office, 2012). This has slowed
26 the activities of FADAMA III in the State. A total of 7,592 Fadama User’s Groups (FUGs) have been form and registered above the appraisal target of 2075.
2.3 Funding for agricultural activities
Table 2 revealed that about N 2.9 trillion was budgeted by the state within the period of 12 years; out-off this amount about N 21 billion was allocated to the agricultural sector within the period of 12 years. A breakdown of this shows that government made determined effort to increase allocation to the agricultural sector. For instance in 2000 agriculture received an allocation of
N133,051,350 representing 1.9%. The amount rose to N135,551,641 million in 2001 representing
2.9% . This shows only 1.0% increase. In 2002 and 2003, allocation to the agricultural sector was about N1.330billion and N1.378billion representing 2.1% and 2.0%, respectively indicating a very low remarkable increase in the amount allocated which transcended to a decrease in percentage. In
2010, about 2 .7 billion naira was allocated to the agricultural sector while the entire budget for the state stood at 154.534 billion. Allocation to the sector was above one billion naira except the year
2000, 2001, 2004 and 2009 when allocation to the agricultural sector was less than a billion naira.
In 2010, the allocation was N2.7 representing 1.85% indicating that the amount allocated to the sector was small compared to the amount allocated to the state. (Okidim & Albert, 2012).
27 Table 2: Budgetary allocations to agriculture in Rivers state (1999-2010) Year Rivers State Ministry Percentage of Rate of appropriations Agriculture allocation Allocation 1999 6,998,819,875 50,751,000 7.3 0.73 2000 29,822,509,102 133,051,350 1.9 0.19 2001 46,854,000,000 135,551,641 2.9 0.29 2002 63,931,135,583 1,330,337,996 2.1 0.21 2003 69,124,299,624 1,378,635,897 2.0 0.19 2004 79,369,776,180 865,807,592 0.1 1.09 2005 96,750,000,000 9,250,896,251 9.6 0.95 2006 160,000,000,000 1,857,446,457 1.0 0.010 2007 142,717,681,034 1,955,940,662 1.3 0.0104 2008 142,208,134,096 1,264,392,080 8.9 0.09 2009 146,458,951,772 472,500,000 3.2 0.032 2010 154,534,327,119 2,703,750,000 1.8 0.018 Total 2,908,556,613,285 21,507,020,471 3.5 0.35 Source: Ministry of Agriculture, Rivers State, Nigeria.
Table 3 revealed that in 2002 about N1.3billion was allocated for agricultural development. A breakdown of the output shows that oil palm decreased in output from 94 tons in 2001 to 84 tons in
2002 (10 tons decreased) even though the amount allocated in 2001 was less (N135,551,641).
Plantain, cassava and yam show some abysmal output. This very poor output was not a true reflection in the whooping N1.378 billion allocated to the sector in 2003 and from 2006 to 2008.
There were visible increases in agricultural output. This analysis shows that there was a positive relationship between budgetary allocation to agricultural sector and agricultural output. In 2006,
N1.8 billion was allocated to agriculture and cassava output was 11.22 tons, oil palm output was 97 tons, plantain 11.76 tons and yam 10.40 tons. In 2008, the amount allocated to agriculture decreased to N1.2 billion and the output of cassava, oil palm, plantain and yam was 12.10 tons, 90 tons, 11.84 tons and 10.37 tons, respectively. However, cassava and plantain recorded an increase of 0.88 tons and 0.08. Within the period of 11 years (1999 - 2010) the sum of 2.9 trillion naira had been allocated to Rivers State, by the Federal Government, but only 21.507 billion was allocated to the agricultural sector.
28 Table 3: Relationship between budgetary allocation to agricultural sector and agricultural output
Ministry of Rivers State Cassava Index Oil Index Plantain Index Yam Index agriculture appropriations output palm output output output 1999 50,751,000 6,998,819,875 11.36 116 25 27 9.25 39 8.21 43 2000 133,061,350 29,822,509,102 14.30 126 60 33 10.11 34 9.32 14 2001 135,551.641 46,854,000,000 12.29 137 94 39 11.20 35 9.75 32 2002 1,330,337,996 63,931,135,583 14.30 142 84 45 9.30 38 10.18 39 2003 1,378,635,897 69,124,299,624 15.32 145 94.4 38 10.52 39 10.23 57 2004 865,805,807,592 79,369,776,180 16.35 147 87 39 11.02 36 9.92 57 2005 9,250,896,251 96,750,000,000 11.28 148 96 36 12.54 44 9.90 45 2006 1,857,446,457 160,000,000,000 11.22 234 97 46 11.76 84 10.4 47 2007 1,955,940,662 142,717,681,034 11.28 236 89 29 11.87 37 10.31 46 2008 1,264,392,080 142,208,134,096 12.10 239 90 30 11.84 40 10.37 58 2009 472,500,000 146,458,951,772 11.87 149 93 32 11.54 43 10.91 59 2010 2,703,750,000 154,534,327,119 11.22 152 95 47 10.83 41 10.98 44 Total 21,507,020,471 2,908,556,613,285 130.30 1004.4 131.76 120.68 Source: Ministry of Agriculture, Rivers State, Nigeria
2.3.1 Local government funding in Nigeria
Allocation of funds in Nigeria is decided by the National Revenue Mobilization Fiscal and
Allocation Commission (NRMFAC) based on criteria to ensure that there is equity in allocation,
both vertically among tiers of government and horizontally across Nigeria (Amakom, 2009). The
funds serve to provide general revenue to all tiers of government to fund basic operations where
their own revenue would not be sufficient to fulfill such responsibilities. The Federal Government
controls all the major sources of revenue like import and excise duties, petroleum profit tax,
companies income tax, petroleum sales tax among others, while LGs generate funds from property
rates, flat rates and other forms of taxes within their territories. Even though there is statutory
provision for generation of revenue by LG from internal sources within their domain, it seems most
LG in the state were not able to generate enough revenue from these internal sources adequately.
On the other hand, some that even utilized this constitutional provision do not seem to have
judiciously applied the revenue so generated, otherwise, the status of such LGs would have
29 significantly appreciated considering the seeming sources of revenue available to them. Rivers
State’s 23 LGCs have been allocated more than N82.7 billion through the Federation Account since
1999, and their average monthly allocation have increased more than fourfold over that same period
(see Table 2). Rivers’ LGCs received just under N15 billion in federal allocations during the first eight months of 2006, as against some N3.95billion during the whole of the year 2000. These trends largely reflected the improved financial situation of LGCs throughout Nigeria due to increased federal government revenues. Table 4 summaries average total monthly allocation to Rivers state from the period May 1999 to August 2006.
Table 4: Average total monthly allocation to Rivers state's 23 LGAs Year Amount Allocated May-Dec 1999 N72,000,000.00 2000 N3,951,200,000.00 2001 N663,000,000.00 2002 N911,700,000.00 2003 N12,706,950,000.00 2004 N16,329,876,000.00 2005 N18,600,040,520,.00 Jan-Aug 2006 N15,000,000,000.00 Source: Human Rights Watch, 2007
2.4 Linkages between LGC and agricultural agencies
Linkages are the mechanisms that maintain the co-ordination or hold the elements together.
Linkages refer to communication and working relationship established between two or more organizations pursuing community shared objectives in order to have regular contact and improve the productivity of either clientele (Nwalieji; Igbokwe & Nsoanya (2012). Nwalieji and Igbokwe
(2012) study on linkages between LG and other agricultural agencies observed linkages in the area of; joint use of staff that was established by ADP and LGA. Madukwe and Ndukwo (1999) study on linkages between extension and private agricultural input support agencies (PAISA), identified the types of linkages that exist between extension and PAISA in Abia state to include client referrals,
30 information sharing and joint use of clients. Onyeocha (2010) in her work on linkages among organizations involved in agricultural and rural development of Ogba/Egbema/Ndoni area in Rivers
State observed that the major focus of the relationship of the agricultural agencies is to help raise the standard of living of farmers by their own efforts using their own resources and teaching the farmers improved practices to aid processing of agricultural produce. Isife (2001) advanced that inter-agency linkages are the major avenue for exchange of technologies, materials and knowledge needed for effective work of any extension organization.
2.4.1 Linkages between LGC and state government (RSADP)
LGAs are not currently engaged in agricultural research even at the adaptive level and are not linked to any research institute; hence they may obtain information from ADPs or Ministry of
Agriculture (MOA) through agricultural department of the LGAs. In the study on linkages among organizations involved in agricultural and rural development of Ogba/Egbema/Ndoni Local
Government Area in Rivers State, Isife and Onyeocha (2014) observed linkages between ADP and
LG in joint use of staff, when the two agencies occasionally organized training workshops and seminars for their farmers. The study further indicated that the agents met with subject matter specialists occasionally to exchange ideas and experiences, and embarked on joint diagnosis of field problems and sharing of ideas for solution and record keeping. Also the management of the two organizations might choose to jointly fund technology reviews meetings (TRMs) or workshops for extension agents (EAs) and staff.
31 2.4.2 Linkages between LGC and International Organization (FADAMA III)
The third National Fadama Development Project (NFDP) is multi-disciplinary in nature, involving capacity building, communication and information support; asset acquisition and market system development; small scale community owned infrastructure. It is using trained facilitators who work with various Economic Interest Groups (EIGs) and Fadama Community Associations
(FCAs) in order to guide beneficiaries properly. It is co-financed with loan from the African
Development Fund (ADF). Adeniyi (2008) observed under institutional arrangement at LG, the establishment of Local Fadama Development Committee (LFDC) and Local Fadama Desk (LFD) among the participating states by the project. According to him, the LDFDC and its secretariat and
LFD will be responsible for local level review and approval of the local development plans (LDPs) and associated subprojects.
2.5 Determinants of agricultural activities implementation
According to Adesope (2007), before agricultural activity should be initiated, certain things have to be considered. They are:
-The levels of the people should be considered: This is in terms of starting where the people are.
The agricultural activity must begin at the existing or present level of the people before moving to a higher level. This will not only allow for adoption but it will also allow for a sequential movement of well thought ideas. The people’s knowledge, skills, time, experience etc should be borne in mine.
- Identification of local needs: This is a broad look at the situation and problems of the people observing a need for change (Nwachukwu, 2008). It is the difference between what is and what ought to be in status quo (Adesope, 2007). Before any activity is implemented, it is necessary for the government to carry out studies and analyze the situation of the people (areas where they have needs or problems) and plan ahead. For example, reduction in agricultural produce in a state, the
32 government or the NGOs should not just give money to communities to share. They should analyze the cause of the reduction, what can be done to restructure the agricultural system? Who are the people to use? Problems are permanently solved when such problems are identified through need identification or feasibility studies. Needs of the people are identified through research studies, market surveys, community dialogue, political considerations, development plans, feasibility studies, donor agencies, participatory rural appraisals among others. The needs should be listed, ranked or scored in order of preference or importance as this will allow the local people chose projects most appropriate to them.
- involvement of potential people: Ani, 2013 stated that local people should be encouraged to participate and be involved in progamme implementation. The concept of involvement and participation is important to all project implementation particularly in agriculture. It has been discovered that in programme implementation, when the target beneficiaries are involved, better results are always achieved (Ani, 2013).
- level of social development of the people: For an effective programme implementation, the programme developer must understand and provide for differences in the social or educational background experience of the people. It is necessary for the service providers to the individual differences exist in people. These differences have significant implication for programma development (Ani, 2013).
- information sources – For a programme to be effective, the sources of information should be adequately analysed. The sources of information in this regard include the farmers themselves, a contemporary society or social and economic environment of the learners. Each of these sources provides necessary information for proper planning and implementation of programmes
33 2.6 Benefits of agricultural activities
Agricultural development is development that ensures sustained improvement in the productivity of the agricultural sector (Ibe, 2011). It is the improvement of people’s lifestyle through agriculture (Nwachukwu and Kanu, 2011). The sustainable development of the rural areas relies mainly on the development of the agricultural sector. Therefore the benefits derived from the execution of agricultural activities, projects and programmes by LGCs in their domain are enormous. These benefits include:
- provision of food for our increasing population: The number of the hungry and under- nourished in the rural areas are already estimated at about 69.8% in 1996 (Ibe, 2011) and 63.8% in
2004 (IFAD, 2004). Majority of the developing countries could not feed their own population and are becoming increasingly dependent on the industrial countries for food supply. For this reason, the intensification on agricultural production will provide enough food for the people.
- creation of employment: Agriculture has a major function of solving unemployment problems (Nwachukwu & Kanu, 2011). The right economic and monetary policies and the provision of suitable technology will enable intensified agricultural production to take place and this will in addition result in increased employment opportunities. In addition to the direct creation of employment through agriculture, there are secondary and tertiary benefits in terms of employment through the expansion of trade and rural industry, of transport systems, administration and other services.
- basis for development of trade and industry: Increased agricultural production enables the nation, state and LG to develop their trade and industry. The products of which can be readily marketed in the home countries and in some cases processed, thus generating additional value.
Plants and industries developed on this basis are usually not only less capital intensive and easier to plan, but also technically and economically easier to manage than large industrial complexes.
34 Increased purchasing power leads to an increase in demand for production inputs, consumer goods and services in agriculture, which in turn leads to the further build-up of small business and industries (Ndirika, 2011).
- diversification of the economy: Through intensification and expansion of production, agriculture contributes to the necessary diversification of the national economy.
- basis for foreign trade: Although the nation is using a significant part of her foreign exchange reserve for the importation of foodstuffs like rice, fish among others. Agriculture still remains one of the most important sector in foreign exchange earnings. Cassava, pepper, soyabeans, hardwoods, corn and other products are produced in almost all the states of the nation but they are non-the-less important for the balance of payments and trade of the nation.
- environmental planning by reducing rural-urban migration: The rural exodus has led to the growth of huge cities, with slum areas springing up almost overnight: public authorities are not in a financial or administrative position to develop suitable infrastructure or socio-economic systems to deal with such uncontrolled invasions which create social and environment problems on a frightening scale. The current need is to stem the tide of such urban invasions by appropriate action in rural areas and to provide a breathing space in which urban authorities can correct past mistakes and eventually reach a situation where urban based industrialization can offer real employment opportunities. Only through the creation of employment opportunities on the land can this process be halted. Ending the rural exodus is a central problem for the nation (Onuekwusi, 2011).
2.8 Condition of farmers/rural dwellers
Rural people constitute the overwhelming majority of the population in Nigeria as in other developing countries. They do not only command the majority of the population, they engage in economic activities as well as contribute greatly to national economy. Economic activity is one of
35 the processes of life in the quest for existence. Economic activities evolved from the need to provide for the daily needs of man. Human economic life or economic development dates back to the evolution of human society. The quest of men in society or community to provide for their daily needs culminates in livelihood (Albert, 2012).
The oil producing communities are predominantly rural areas in Rivers State. Rural living conditions are the extent to which man-made features of rural development affect economic growth and food production of the rural settlements as well as other living conditions. Rural living conditions apart from being considerably influenced by the types of settlements are to a large extent motivated by socio-cultural and traditional modes. Also, extended family system has its impact on rural economic development. It is assumed to have a considerable effect on promoting or retarding rural economies (Olayide et al, 1981cited in Albert, 2012). In most rural economies, the standards of living of the people are low not in terms of not having anything to eat or drink but relatively in terms of all-year-round quantity and quality. Poverty which varies from one rural community to another has different faces. It may be lack of health facilities, poor and crude tools, and smallness of the scale of operations and poor output that is incapable of meeting the needs of the rural communities (Olayide et al, 1981cited in Albert, 2012).
Rural inhabitants have livelihoods such as farming, fishing, food processing, commerce, lumbering, pottery, mining and art work. Although agriculture is mainly subsistence in nature, yet majority of the surplus produce is sold in the cities. The national food production and supplies come mainly from the rural areas through the efforts of rural dwellers. Rural dwellers therefore supply food and industrial raw materials needed for economic development. According to Ekpo (2004) and
Ibe (2011), rural inhabitants produce 90 percent of food marketed and consumed in Nigeria and 2.4 percent of official exports. That lends credence to the study of Williams (1993) and Nwachukwu
(2011) that the rural population of Nigeria forms the most important sector of the economy and
36 therefore the economic development of the rural sector would be a critical factor in the development of the national economy. Besides agriculture, processing, manufacturing and mining thrive in some rural communities. There is some form of creativity; art work, designing, weaving, carving and even fabrication including pottery works in some rural communities. Evidently, commerce thrives among communities unhindered.
In spite of the fact that farmers/rural dwellers form the vital sector of the nation’s economy, poverty is more among them. International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI) (2004) reported that about 45% of the rural dwellers/farmers are living with less than USS1 per day and African
Multiple Indicator Scorecard on Hunger and Food Security (2014) rated Nigeria top list out of the
11 Economic Communities of West African States (ECOWAS) countries. These rural dwellers are characterized by poverty, poor infrastructure, high illiteracy rate, poor health conditions and primitive technology (Ibe, 2011). The critical factor responsible for increase in poverty in Nigeria is rapid population growth (Albert, 2010).
2.8 Agricultural production in Nigeria
Food production in Nigeria in 1995 was 89.25 million metric tonnes and the demand for food was
85.55. In 2001, food production increased to 103.86 million metric tonnes, also the demand for food in the country increased to 110.37 indicating a shortfall of 6.51 in demand while food importation increased from 0.67 to 6.91. This was as a result of the effect of oil boom which led a significant increase in rural-urban migration, resulting in steady decrease of labour force in the rural areas, leaving the aged, very young and disabled to farm (Ibe, 20011). Thereby, farming became less attractive and agricultural productivity decreased. Table 5 presents food production and demand
(1995-2001).
37 Table 5: Nigerian Food Production and Food Demand (1995-2001) Description 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001
Production (Million 89.25 93.35 95.64 98.74 100.41 102.12 103.86 metric tonnes) Food Demand 85.55 96.26 99.03 101.87 104.63 107.46 110.37 Shortfall (0.30) (2.91) (3.43) (3.13) (4.22) (5.34) (6.57) Food Import 0.58 2.95 3.47 3.24 4.48 5.59 6.91 Source: Federal Office of Statistics (FOS), Review of the Nigerian Economy
2.8.1 Agricultural production in Rivers State
Table 6 below revealed there was no significant increased in the output of the selected of food items. The output of cassava in 1999-2010 revolved around 11 and 16, in 1999, the out of cassva was 11.36 million metric tonnes, twelve years later (2010), output of cassava was 11.22 mmt., indicating a shortfall of 0.14. The output of cassava increased a little remarkable in 2002, 2003 and
2004 with 14.30, 15.32 and 16.35 metric tonnes, respectively. For oil palm, there was an increase between 1999 and 2000. Oil palm output increased from 25 tons in 1999 to 60 tons in 2000, and dwindled between 94 tons in 2001 to 95 tons in 2010. This shows that the output of oil palm was very poor within the period under review (12years). The same goes to plantain with a stagnated growth of 9 to 11 tons, respectively. The entire outputs of the selected food items studied (cassava, yam, plantain and oil palm) were abysmally poor between 1999-2010 (Okidim and Albert, 2012).
38 Table 6: Output of selected food crops in Rivers State (1999-2010) Year Cassava Index Oil palm Index Plantain Index Yam Index Output output output output 1999 11.36 116 25 27 9.25 39 8.21 43 2000 14.30 126 60 33 10.11 34 9.32 14 2001 12.29 137 94 39 11.20 35 9.75 32 2002 14.30 142 84 45 9.30 38 10.18 39 2003 15.32 145 94.4 38 10.52 39 10.23 57 2004 16.35 147 87 39 11.02 36 9.92 57 2005 11.28 148 96 36 12.54 44 9.90 45 2006 11.22 234 97 46 11.76 84 10.4 47 2007 11.28 236 89 29 11.87 37 10.31 46 2008 12.10 239 90 30 11.84 40 10.37 58 2009 11.87 149 93 32 11.54 43 10.91 59 2010 11.22 152 95 47 10.83 41 10.98 44 Total 130.30 1004.4 131.76 120.68 Source: Ministry of Agriculture, Rivers State, Nigeria
2.9 Problem of oil exploration on agricultural production
Before petroleum exploitation began, the traditional economic base of the people of Rivers
State was agriculture. Farmlands, forests, streams and rivers were predominant extractive sources of livelihood of the people. It was a state where majority of the population in the rural areas depended on crop farming and fishing for their livelihood (Albert and Igbokwe, 2014). The incursion of multinational oil companies into the rural areas of Rivers State changed the economic life pattern of the people. As prospecting for oil impacted directly on farmlands, residential areas, streams and rivers; overtime, the local economy of the affected communities changed dramatically to an urban industrial economy (Obuzor, 1998). The prospecting of petroleum usually involves seismic operations which employ the use of explosives (dynamites).The acquisition of massive land for oil fields, oil wells, access ways, flare and waste pit for effluent discharges have resulted in massive loss of arable land and ponds, and fishing grounds among others.
In some communities a network of pipelines criss-cross a great part of arable land, resulting in loss of land. Another problem is gas flaring in the communities which destroy their farm land and
39 pollute the environment. Ugorji (2000) reported that gas flaring does not only destroy the land but also destroys the economy of the affected communities. Gas flaring causes air pollution, evaporation, production of heat, loss of vegetation, suppresses the growth and flowering of some plants, reduces agricultural production, aesthetic devaluation, produce acid rain and also dislodge the ecosystem. Oil spillage which is also associated with oil exploitation has caused untold hardship to some of these communities (Albert and Igbokwe, 2014). This phenomenon results from oil blow out, rupture of high pressure pipeline or wear and tear resulting from ageing or poor maintenance of the pipeline. Oil spillage has caused several damages to strip of mangrove vegetation, loss of fish and other aquatic animals, loss of drinking water and other forms of ecological damages. For instance, Rivers State with its very delicate environment, swampy aquatic and mangrove ecology suitable habitat for species of periwinkle (Tympanotonue fuscatus), oysters (Crassostrea gasar), swimming crab (Ikoli)(Callinectes spp), cockles (Anadara, senilie), whelk (Thais coronata) and clams (Tagelus adansornia) and various fish species had colossal record of oil spills and pollution problems. This has distorted the livelihoods of communities whose primary occupations include fishing, crop farming, forest and marine product exploitation (Albert and Igbokwe, 2014).
In recent times ,there had been sporadic armed insurgence by youths in the oil producing areas against oil multinational companies and the federal government agitating for control of resources produced from their areas, that is, holding on to a fair share of the resources produced from their areas. The militant youths also resort to frequent vandalization of pipelines and blowing up of oil installations in order to force the multinational companies and the federal government to recognize their problems. There had been serious diplomatic moves by the international community imploring the federal government to renew developmental efforts toward achieving results and to improve the living conditions of the people. Human rights organizations and environmental protection agencies have all lent their voices to drumming up support for agitation against economic impoverishment
40 and environmental degradation of the region. Even though the federal government had conceived plans to engage in infrastructural development of these areas, not much attention had been paid over the years to the livelihood of the people
Oil exploitation in these communities has polluted creeks and destroyed aquatic life. During oil spillage, losses could be unquantifiable, even though attempts are made by oil companies to pay compensations. David-West (1985) in a keynote address noted that if proper attention is not paid to petroleum exploitation and exploration, it could enhance the onset of erosion, and oil spillages could render farmland and water bodies usable. Gas flares, refineries and petrochemical plants could also make the air around such areas of operations unsafe for humans. Chemicals and other substances used in the industry, could pose environmental hazards. Uchegbu (1998) indicated in his book on environmental protection, that in Nigeria the discovery of oil and other mineral resources cum natural resources resulting into exploitation of these resources especially during the 1970s oil boom in Nigeria paved way for environmental hazards in the country. Recent research example clearly indicates that the country would suffer large ecological and economic losses if the environmental problems continue unchecked.
Ekpo (2004) stressed the problem of acid rain, which destroys the roofing sheets of people living within the vicinity of oil exploitation and production activities, that in developed and developing countries, the inability of man to develop the petroleum industry in an environmentally sustainable manner has resulted in severe environmental degradation and devastating ecological damage of different magnitudes due to multifarious causes, from Alaska in USA to Mexico, North
Sea to France, Morocco to Nigeria and to the Arabian Gulf. Environmental problems social issues and priorities were ranked and elaborated in Table 7 as indicated by UNDP, 1992.
41 Table 7: Ranking Of major environmental problems, social issues and priorities Problem type Problem subset Priority Ranking Natural environmental Coastal Moderate River bank / erosion High Flooding Moderate Sedimentation/siltation Low Subsidence Low Exotics (water hyacinth) High Development related Land degradation/soil fertility loss High Agricultural decline/shortened fallow High Delta forest loss (mangroves, etc) High Biodiversity depletion High Fishers decline High Oil Spillage Moderate Gas Flaring Moderate Sewage and waste water High Other chemicals Moderates Socio-economic problems Poverty High Unemployment High community –oil company conflict High Inter-community conflict High Intra-community conflict Moderate Conflict over land High Inadequate compensation High Displacement Moderate Decay in societal values High Poor transportation/high cost of fuel High Housing pressure and infrastructure decay High Crime High Source: Niger Delta Environmental Survey
2.10 Local participation in programme implementation
The participation of the citizen in development projects can be traced as far back as Plato’s republic. Plato’s concepts of freedom of speech, assembly, voting, equal representation and citizens participation in community development have evolved through the years to form basic pillars upon which contemporary states were established (Dukeshire & Thurlow, 2002). It is assumed that the
42 participation of the rural dwellers is a necessary part of development activities. Ekong (2003) postulated that the active involvement of the people at the grassroots in community development programmes is to the sustainability of the project. He emphasized that the common bond and interrelationship between the change agent and the participants being their realization that the project belongs to them and therefore have to be sustained and protected. Participation simply means a process of taking part in different spheres of societal life: political, economic, social, cultural and others (Rifkin & Pridimore, 2001).
Participation can take different forms. It can be: direct, representational- by selecting representatives from membership-based groups and associations; political- through elected representatives; and information-based with data aggregated and reported directly or through intermediaries to local and national decision makers. This form of participation directly echoes the central mechanism of the bottom up participatory approach to the review and appraisal of agricultural projects/programmes executed by Local Government Areas in Rivers State on the level of participation of the rural people. According to Kolawole (1982), grassroots’ participation is used to refer to the need for local involvement in the planning and implementation process. He stated that participation means different things to different people. For example, to the elected official it connotes controlling the affairs of their fellow human beings, to the public administrator, it means an access to the decision-making process while to the ordinary people, and it is the right to select their representatives (Mohammad, 2010).
2.10.1 Types of participation in rural development projects
According to Nwachukwu (2008), there are different types of participation in rural agricultural development projects which affect the sustainability of such projects. They include:
43 Manipulative participation: This is where people are coerced into participating in a project which they did not know anything about. The people are given the impression that participating is for their own good. This is usually practiced in a dictatorial administration or socialist/communist government. To ensure participation, force and sanction are employed. This practice only lasts within the tenure of the dictator. Such project was only sustained by publicity.
Passive participation: People are only invited to participate when project has already been planned or the executors already have what they want to propose. The project providers are not interested in the opinion of the participants. Example is the classical top-down planning where projects are planned by government agencies and such projects are thought to be good for the people. The projects are usually planned with secondary data obtained from government ministries, library and archives. The end result of such project is that it will fail.
Consultative participation: In this type of participation, the people are consulted to know their opinion about a particular problem that is being planned for. This is done through social and diagnoses surveys, where participants are interviewed to obtain data on their socio-economic characteristics. However, all that is required from the participant is information; no attempt is made to dialogue with them. The people do not participate in decision making.
Material incentive Induced participation: This is where people participate in a project because of the incentives given to them. They may be in form of cash or input. The reason why we have wide population gap between research results and farmers results is usually because of the incentives provides in the farmer production practice. This kind of participation can be seen in World Bank development projects where the bank provided the money and asks communities for the project they want.
Interactive participation: This is when the beneficiaries of the project actively interact with the project providers. There is a joint analysis of the situation which leads to the identification of
44 problem and the action plans to resolve the problem. People are allowed to determine what their problems are, what they want and how the problems will be solved.
Self-mobilized participation: This is when people participate by taking initiatives to identify a project and embark on its actualization independent of external organizations. However, external organizations can be contracted for financial, material and technical support. This is very common among local people. As the people develop the project themselves, they are well mobilized and participation is total.
Functional participation: This is when project providers want to ensure and prove that the people actually participated in the project. Usually, participation is more in documentation than actual participation on the field. Example is when a certain amount of money was budgeted to be utilized by a certain number of people. This can be seen with Agricultural banks and poverty alleviation schemes. The government or project providers look at the long list of expected beneficiaries and declare the project a success while most of the names on the list are fake names. However, Hart
(1992) showed the level of local people participation in a tabular form in Table 8:
45 Table 8: Chart used to assess level of local people participation in project Types of participation Meanings Manipulation: local people are - local people do not understand the issues with which manipulated they are confronted. - local people are not given feedback on actions taken - problem analysis is not shared with local people Decoration: local people are used - local people are not involve with the root of the as needed problems: their participation is incidental - external providers use local members to support their case a relatively: indirect manners. Tokenism: local people are used in - communities appear to have been given a voice, but in a merely symbolic way to give reality have no choice about the subject matter. appearance of real participation - local people have little or no opportunity to formulate their own opinions. Local people are assigned but - local people are given complete, accurate information informed about their actions why their participation is needed. - They know who made the decisions concerning their involvement and why? - Thy have meaningful role to play to the development of a project - they volunteer for a project after having been given all the necessary information. Local people are consulted and - projects run done and designed by external agencies informed but local people understood the process and their opinions are treated seriously. Local people participate in project - Decision are initiated extremely implementation - local people have a high degree of responsibility and are involved in the production and design aspects of projects Local people initiate and direct - external agencies do not interfere or direct community decisions – non projects Local people initiate, plan, direct - local people develop decisions and projects and implement decisions - actions are implemented by the community Source: Adapted from Hart (1992)
2. 10.2 Stages/levels of local people participation in agricultural activities/projects
Participation is a rich concept that means different things to different people in different settings. This study uses the definition adopted by the World Bank’s Learning Group on
46 Participatory Development which defined participation as “a process through which stakeholders influence and share control over development initiatives and the decisions and resources which affect them” (World Bank, 1996). The broad aim of participation in development is to actively involve people and communities in identifying problems, formulating plans and implementing decisions over their own lives (DFID, 2002; Guijt and Shah, 1998).
Participation is a term that is notoriously broadly interpreted. It may even be interpreted differently by different stakeholders in the same agricultural planning process. An FAO study of multi-level planning for agricultural development in Asia and the Pacific (FAO, 1997) reviewed the various ways local people participate in developmental projects as follows:
1) participation limited to elites only (mostly elected representatives);
2) participation in which people are asked to legitimatize or ratify projects identified and formulated by government, but do not participate in the detailed planning and management of the project;
3) participation in which people are consulted from the very start and also actively participate in planning and management of projects;
4) participation in which representatives from different strata of society/occupation groups find their places in all planning/coordination/evaluation mechanisms devised at the various levels including the highest policy-making level; and
5) participation in which representatives in (4) actually control the decisions at all levels.
Development agencies and authors distinguish different dimensions, spaces, degrees and levels of participation. Bretty (2003) conceptualized these levels in terms of ‘weak and strong participation’. According to his views, weak participation involves “informing and consulting” while strong participation means “partnership and control”. However Masanyiwa and Kinyashi,
(2008) distinguished participation into: identification, planning, implementation and evaluation and monitoring.
47 Identification- A lot of work must be done to identify the true problem of the people that needs to
be solved. Problems are identified through research studies, market surveys, community dialogue,
participatory rural appraisals, political considerations and development plans (Nwachukwu, 2008).
Planning- This is where the actual planning commences and it is most critical step. The success of
the project depends largely on the planning. At this stage, the target of the project is stated, the
objectives are defined, resources are identified, budget is made and plan of work is established
(Nwachukwu, 2008).
Implementation- This stage involves mobilization to site for work using a work plan as a guide.
The work plan is divided into activity, time, executor, expected outcome, and budget. It also
involves contribution in terms of labour, locally available construction materials and cash.
Evaluation and Monitoring- This is to ensure the efficiency of the project. It is to provide
systematic, reliable and valid information on the project and impact effectiveness of the project
(Freeman et al., 1979).
Table 9 shows a summary of the different stages/levels of local participation.
48
Table 9: Stages/Levels of participation in a project cycle
Identification Planning Implementation Monitoring and Evaluation Stakeholders Community • Attend village meetings • Represented by LG committees, • Contribution in terms • Receive reports from village members • Participation in PRA exercises village councils, WDCs and of labour, locally available leaders and LG committee (men, women, • Respondents in baseline surveys other committees. construction materials and cash. representatives during village meetings boys and girls) • Being consulted in identifying • Recipients of • Respondents in project • locations to build community services provided by the LG reviews and evaluations. • service structures like water • Participants of different • wells or bore holes training programs organised by the LG.
Village leaders • Organise and participate in village • Prepare village plans to be • Supervise implementation of • Report back to community meetings to identify priority needs. submitted to LG committee and projects’ implementation in members on implementation • Consulted by project staff and LG other NGOs in the area for their villages in collaboration progress during village meetings committee representatives. assistance. with LG staff and LG • Consulted during project • Sit in decision making forums at committee members reviews and evaluations. the village and ward. • Collect contributions • Identify and mobilise resources from community members. to implement development • Institute penalties to interventions in their villages. community members who fail to pay their contributions as agreed upon.
* M-Men, W-Women, B-Boys, G-Girls, Y-Youth Source: Adapted from Masanyiwa and Kinyashi, (2008)
49 2.10.3 Advantages of local people participation in agricultural programmes/projects
There are benefits/advantages when local people are allowed to participate in agricultural programmes/projects executed in their community by local government. They include:
- Motivates people to participate: Because the people were involved in the planning of the project, they see their roles and contributions outlined in the project and they see it as their own. They will be very willing to participate in the project without forcing or cajoling them. Arouse of Interest:
According to Maunder (1973), participation helps to arouse the interest and involvement of people and results in better programmes
- Provides local ownership of projects: The people see the project as their own and they have the sense of fulfillment that their resource base is increasing (Igbokwe and Ajala, 1995; Ani, 2011).
- Ensures sustainability of projects: Due to the pride of ownership, the people will do everything to ensure that the project is sustainable. One often wonders how some of our customary practices have been sustained for generations. The reason is that it is the people who developed the custom
(Nwachukwu, 2008: Ani, 2011).
- Develops local experts: The involvement of the people ensures that people are given tasks to carryout, some of which they do not have any experience on. By participating, they develop expertise. Also, leaders are appointed to lead others. From that, leadership qualities are developed.
- Facilitates social cohesion: Development projects often provide a rallying point for communities.
It binds them together as they have a task ahead to accomplish. The need for each village to provide the stipulated contribution provides healthy competition for them (Dukeshire & Thurlow,
2002; Ani, 2011).
50
- Enhances group dynamics among stakeholders through the accommodation of diverse opinion: it brings better understanding between the government and the people as they relate closely
(Nwachukwu, 2008: Ani, 2011).
- Ensures loyalty to the government: when the government provides what the people actually want and helps them to actualize it, the people remain loyal to the government in terms of votes during election true and payment of tax.
- Empowers the people: Projects that the people are involved in are most likely to be successful.
This brings economic and social benefits to the people. These benefits empower the people
(Nwachukwu, 2008: Ani, 2011).
- Ensures gender equality: The principle of participation ensures that all gender groups (male, female, youth) must be involved. In this way, the women who are usually neglected in decision making are involved in the planning and execution of the project. (Ibe, 2011: Ani, 2011).
- Successful programmes: Successful programmes take into action local knowledge, habits, materials and experience in addition to the technical subject matter. Participatory research methodologies have proved to be powerful approaches for focusing on realities and complexities in rural and urban communities (Igbokwe & Enwere, 2001).
- By recognizing that participation involves more than consultation, rural people are increasingly becoming actors rather than instruments in development processes, thus, reflecting the changing roles of the stakeholders, researchers, extension workers and community members (Chizea &
Ubhenin, 2009).
51
2.11 Challenges to Local Government agricultural activities
Local Government is said to be the best institution that can facilitate the efficient and effective service delivery at the grassroots level, the fact remains that:
(1) The third-tier of government lacks the financial and human capacity to deliver on the statutory and shared responsibilities between it and the other tiers of government (Oviasuyi,
Idada & Isiraojie, 2010) ;
(2) Local Governments make minimal input into the decisions on resource allocations at both the
Federal and State levels (Oviasuyi, Idada & Isiraojie, 2010) ;
(3) Another issue militating against governments’ performance has to do with corruption. As in all levels and institutions government in Nigeria, corruption is predominantly wide spread, undiluted and unambiguous in the LGC ( Oviasuyi, Idada & Isiraojie, 2010). According to
Oviasuyi, Idada & Isiraojie (2010), it was a statement of fact that in the local government system, corruption has become all pervading, unabashed, uncontrolled and persistent. This perhaps explains the inefficiency and ineffectiveness in Local Government administration in
Nigeria. The system has virtually become superfluous and redundant. Some of the areas where corruption thrives in LGAs include the following: (a) Inflation of prices of bought items (b) Over-estimation of cost of projects (c) The ghost workers syndrome (d)
Award of contracts and subsequent abandonment and (e) Outright payment of huge sums of money to political godfathers and friends. It is important to note at this point that the high rate of corrupt practices in the LGC cannot be overemphasized, as it has over the years rendered the
LG administration inactive and devoid of concrete developmental activities (Aghayere, 1997;
Oviasuyi, Idada & Isiraojie, 2010).
52
(4) Another factor militating against LGs’ performance has to do with the recruitment of persons who do not possess the requisite leadership and managerial skills to deliver the gains of governance to the people. The Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria makes provision that the qualification for election into offices of the Chairman and the Councilors shall be the same as that of the election into the House of Assembly of a State. Section 106 of the
Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria puts the minimum educational qualification for election into the House of Assembly of a State post primary school certificate. This entails that the average political office holder in the LG is not expected to be a technocrat or one vested in any discipline. The above scenario has made the LGCs dumping ground for semi-literates or a starting point for political toddlers (Omokore, 2009);
(5) Another major problem in LG agricultural activities in Nigeria is the lack of continuity by succeeding governments. This has become a major problem plaguing LG activities toward the development of agriculture in Nigeria, as succeeding government fails to continue with the programmes and projects that are left behind by a past administration. This has over the years led to economic and financial wastage as well as the retrogression of agricultural development;
(6) There is also the problem of constitutional inadequacies, confusion and complexities, such as that which statutorily see local authorities as an appendage of the state and further that of the federal government (Oviasuyi, Idada & Isiraojie, 2010; Aghayere, 1997).
(7) Climate Change: Climate change according to IAC (2012) is a change in the average weather, experienced over a long time. The distribution, pattern of rainfall, temperature and wind occur in an unusual manner. According to Smith and Skinnes (2002) climate plays dominant role in agriculture, having a direct impact on the productivity of physical production factors, for example,
53 the soil moisture and fertility. Butt et al, (2005) assert that farmers predict future economic loosed and increased risk of hunger due to climate change. It seems clear that the combination of high climate viability, poor infrastructures, economic poverty, drought, excess rainfall, reduced crop yields, low productivity.
2.12 Conceptual framework
Agriculture is the principal source of livelihood in Nigeria and the sector that employs nearly three quarter of the nation’s workforce (Philip, Nkonya, Pender and Oni, 2008). In spite of the vast arable land, conducive climate and different agricultural programmes, the hope of Nigeria attaining self-sufficiency in food production has not been realized (FAO, 2006). One of the failures of the agricultural sector in Nigeria and in Rivers State in particular, is the non- commitment of the LG administrative system. The reason for creating LG is to employ it to take responsibility for the development of the rural areas directly and also contribute indirectly to the development of the nation. Development is a continuous process of change in societies which is geared towards improving the living conditions of human beings and their environment. It is almost synonymous with improvement. Development of the rural areas is, therefore a sine-qua- non for uplifting the lives of the large proportion of rural dwellers.
In an attempt to improve the agricultural sector, Federal, States’ and LGAs had established different types of agricultural projects and programmes. Some of these projects/programmes have failed, while some are on-going or at the verge of collapsing. The various tiers of government have also collaborated with other local/international agencies with the intention of improving the agricultural sector.
54
The conceptual framework shows the agricultural activities implemented by LGAs, the benefits of agricultural activities on rural households, state and nation and the constraints to the implementation of these agricultural activities. See Figure 1
LGC have implemented many agricultural activities in their domain. These agricultural
activities included: building of markets, establishment of poultry farms, cassava farm and
fishery, giving of credit to farms, training of youths in agriculture, distribution of fishing nets to
fishermen and distribution of improved planting materials to farmer. Including provision of
fertilizers at subsidized price, distribution of fingerlings to encourage fish farming, establishment
of oil mill and oil palm plantation and mobilizing farmers to form cooperatives for easy access to
credit and gain more bargaining power to sell their farm produce.
The implementation of these agricultural activities when properly managed and funded will lead to an accelerated development of the agricultural sector in our LGAs .The benefits are: (1) the provision of food for our exploding population; (2) create employment for the teeming youths who are seeking for jobs (3) create avenue for foreign trade (4) diversify the nation’s economy (5) reduction of poverty rate (6) Provision of raw materials for the nations industry (7) reduced rural-urban migration among others. The benefits that accrued from the development of the agricultural sector are enormous. Local Government has linkages with some agricultural agencies such as Agricultural Development Project (ADP), International Fund for Agricultural
Development (IFAD) and FADAMA III towards the development of the agricultural sector.
On the other hand, the neglect of the agricultural sector will cause the rural people to be handicap and this will increase the rate of unemployment in the country, food insecurity, youth restiveness, migration from the rural areas to the urban centres, importation of food with diminishing foreign reserve including low industrialization, slow pace of rural development and
55 poverty. However, the few LGAs that embraced agricultural development are faced with some inhibiting factors. These factors include: corruption, inconsistent government policies, low budgetary provision for agriculture; none specialized heading the agricultural sector among others.
.
56
F B Local people Allocation of participating in Funds to Agricultural agricultural Activities development
A
Local Government E Agricultural Linka ges between Activities L.G and other Agricultural SECTIONAgencies A
D C Challenges to Agric. Activities Benefits of agricultural projects / programmes - Inconsistent government policies - Increased rural infrastructure - Low budgetary provision for agriculture - Reduce income disparities - Lack of adequate incentives - Increased employment opportunities - Inadequate needs assessment -non professional management - Adoption of agricultural innovation - Urbanization resulting to - Low unemployment deforestation - Corruption - Development of the rural areas - Non-continuity of projects - Reduction in poverty - Poor and dilapidating infrastructures in the rural areas -Reduced rural-urban migration - Non participation of the people the - Encourage rural people to farm and projects are intended for. - Land degradation and soil erosion contribute to both rural and national - Pollution resulting from oil pollution development - youth restiveness in the rural areas - effects of climate change - Provision of raw materials for the nations
industry - Increase in export of cash crops
Figure 1: Schema on assessment of local government agricultural activities in Rivers State
57
2.13 Summary of literature
Federal, State and Local Government Council have implemented some agricultural activities/programmes/projects. Some of the activities /programmes are on-going while some have gone moribund. A lot of researches have been done on agricultural development, policy, and benefits of agricultural development. However no researches have been done on Local
Government involvement in agricultural development and constraints to the development of agriculture by Local Government administration. The studies of this work on Local Government involvement on agricultural development will increase the literature for future researchers.
58
CHAPTER THREE
3.0 METHODOLOGY
3.1 Area of study
The research was carried out in Rivers State which is one of the thirty-six states in the federal republic of Nigeria. Rivers State is situated in the south-south geo-political region. It is one of the states that make up the Niger Delta Region. The state is located between latitude
4"300N and 5"450N approximately longitude 6"300E and 7"300E. It is in the tropical mangrove swamp and rain forest zone of the nation (Orubo, 2005).
Rivers State is made up of twenty-three Local Government Areas (LGAs). It is divided into two geographical settings namely upland and coastland. Sixteen of the Local Government areas are predominantly upland areas while seven are predominantly coastal areas. The people of the upland are those situated within the plain land of the alluvial deposit of the Niger Delta. This covers the Ikwerre, Ogoni, Etche, Ahoada and Ogba ethnic groups. The coastland covers the old
Ijaw ethnic groups namely, the Kalabari, Okirika, Bonny, Opobo and Nkoro (Orubo, 2005). The people of the upland are predominantly farmers because the alluvial rich soil has a good texture for the root crops and cereals hence they produce yam, potato, cocoyam, three leaf yam, pepper, vegetable, cucumber etc. The massive lands in the upland areas have made both state and LG to carry out some agricultural activities such as the establishment of oil mill, oil palm plantation and cassava farm. Including building of markets to enable the people sell their produce and distribution of improved planting materials. While distribution of fingerlings to fishermen; distribution of fishing nets and establishment of fish farms were implemented at the coastal areas. The people of the coastal area are predominantly fishermen and traders. Some of the aquatic life that inhabit this area beside fishes include periwinkle (Tympanotonus fuscatus ),
59 oysters (Crassostrea gasar ) among others. The predominant aquatic resources harnessed by the fishermen and traded in include periwinkle, oysters and shrimps.
The people of Rivers State have lived up to their traditional agriculture especially fishing and farming. This has motivated the state government, LG and International Agencies (World Bank) to implement some agricultural programmes and projects in the state. The state has established
School-to-Land programme for secondary school leavers, Rivers Songhai Farm, aquaculture centres among others. Also, non- governmental organizations (NGOs) like FADAMA III, Total
E & P Nigeria Limited, International Fund for Agricultural Development (IFAD), among others have implemented and executed agricultural activities that have led to the development of agriculture in the state.
The State is divided into three senatorial zones. They include: Rivers-South East – this is made up of seven LGAs, namely Eleme, Khana, Gokana, Andoni, Opobo/Nkoro, Oyigbo and
Tai. Rivers- South West which consists of Abua/Odua, Ahoada-East, Ahoada-West, Akuku-
Toru, Asari-Toru, Bonny, Degema and Ogba/Egbema/Ndoni (8) LGAs and Rivers East which is made up of eight LGAs namely Emuoha, Etche, Ikwerre, Obio/Akpor, Ogu/Bolo, Okirika,
Omuma and Port Harcourt. The National Population Commission (NPC), estimate the population of Rivers State at 5,185, 1 20 (National Population Commission, NPC, 2006).
60
Fig 2: Map of Rivers State showing study area
61
3.2 Population and sampling technique
The population of the study consisted of local leaders (traditional rulers, and officials of the Community Development Committee (CDC)), staff of LGC and households heads in Rivers
State. The 23 LGAs in Rivers State are divided into three senatorial districts-Rivers South-East
(7 LGAs); South-West (8 LGAs) and Rivers-West (8 LGAs).
Multi-stage sampling technique was employed in the study. The first stage involved the purposive sampling of three LGAs from each senatorial district based on the presence of LG agricultural activities, thus giving a total of nine (9) LGAs for the study. The second stage involved selection of two (2) town communities from each of the selected LGAs using simple random sampling technique and giving a total of eighteen (18) town communities. In the third stage, one traditional ruler was purposively selected from town community giving a total of eighteen (18) traditional rulers. Also, two officials (president and any other official) from CDC were purposively selected from the 18 town communities to give 36 CDC officials making a total of 54 local leaders that were selected. The fourth stage involved the proportionate selection of 7 households’ heads from each of the selected communities using simple random sampling technique to give 126 households. Finally, three (3) LG staff (HOD/director agriculture department, and two other staff in the department of agriculture) from each of the selected LGAs were selected, with resultant sum of 27 LG staff. A total of 207 respondents were surveyed for the study (See Tables 10 and 11).
62
Table 10: Sampling procedure for sample size Senatorial district/LGA Selected LGA Selected communities Rivers -South East Eleme (10) Agbonchia Eleme Akpajo Khana Opobo Opobo/Nkoro(12) Nkoro Gokana Andoni
Opobo/Nkoro Khana (15) , Bori Oyigbo Wiiyakara Tai Rivers- South West Abua/Odua Ahoada – East Asari-Toru (12) Buguma Ahoada – West Abalama Akuku-Toru Asari-Toru Bonny Ahoada-West(16) Akinima Ubarama Degema Ogba/Egbema/Ndoni Bonny (10) Bonny Finima Rivers East Emuoha Obio/Akpor (23) Rumuodomaya Etche Rumuekini Ikwerre Obio/Akpor Ogu/Bolo Port Harcourt Ikwerre(12) Isiokpo Okirika Ubima
Omuma Etche (18 ) Okehi Umuechem
23 9 18 Source: Field data, 2013
63
Table 11: Selected sample size Selected Population Traditional CDCs Selected LGAs/LG Communities ruler/chief Officials Households staff
Agbonchia 7,012 1 2 7 Eleme- 3 Akpajo 12,747 1 2 7 Khana- 3 Opobo 3,129 1 2 7 Opobo/Nkoro- 3 Nkoro 2,865 1 2 7 Asari-Toru- 3 Bori 3,939 1 2 7 Ahoada-West- 3 Wiiyakara 5,794 1 2 7 Bonny- 3 Buguma 11,324 1 2 7 Obio/Akpor- 3 Sama 3,438 1 2 7 Ikwerre- 3 Akinnima 5,420 1 2 7 Etche- 3 Ubarama 3,164 1 2 7 27 Bonny 16,216 1 2 7 Finima 6,164 1 2 7 Rumuodomaya 8,686 1 2 7 Rumuekini 6,277 1 2 7 Isiokpo 3,554 1 2 7 Ubima 2,364 1 2 7 Okehi 3,420 1 2 7 Umuechem 2,765 1 2 7
Total 129801 18 36 126 27 = 207
Source: Field data, 2013
3.3 Data collection
Data for the study were obtained from both primary and secondary sources. Primary data were obtained through the use of questionnaire and interview schedule. Copies of questionnaire were administered to LG staff and the literate respondents while interview schedule was used for illiterate respondents. The instrument was divided into 7 sections as follows: Section A captured the personal characteristics. Section B elicited information on the types of agricultural activities implemented by LGC in the state. The level of local people participation in agricultural activities was elicited in Section C. Section D elicited information on perceived benefits of agricultural activities. Sections E, F and G elicited information on status of funding agricultural activities; extent of linkages between LG and other agricultural agencies; and factors inhibiting the
64 implementation of agricultural activities in the study area, respectively. Secondary data were collected from LG annual budgets and the Nigerian Tide publications of monthly allocations in
Rivers State.
3.4 Validity and Reliability of instrument
The questionnaire and interview were subjected to content and face validity to ensure that the instrument capture the data they were meant to collect. Lecturers in the Department of
Agricultural Extension, University of Nigeria, Nsukka were given copies of the instrument to validate before they were administered to the respondents
A pilot study was carried out in Rivers State to ascertain the appropriateness of the instrument in some LGAs having agricultural activities. It was carried out adopting the test-retest approach. Alternate form which involves administering two different questionnaire of the same test to the respondents at two different points in time was used to assess its reliability. The reliability coefficient using cronbach alpha was 0.73. The percentage and mean considered appropriate for taking decision are 70% and 2.0 respectively.
Measurement of variables
Section A was designed to get information on the personal characteristics of the respondents. This was measured and executed as follows:
Age: The respondents were asked to indicate their actual age in years. The responses were grouped into: less than 20; 20-29 years; 30-39years; 40-49 years; 50-59 years and 60-69 years;
70-79 years and 80 and above. However, continuous variable for age, i.e. actual age was also used.
65
Marital status: The respondents were asked to indicate whether they were married, single, widows or divorcees.
Gender: The sex of the respondents was determined by asking them to indicate their gender status, male or female.
Educational level: This was obtained by asking respondents to indicate the total number of years spent in each formal education. Their responses were grouped into: no formal education=1, first school leaving certificate (FSLC) =2, SSCE/GCE/WASC =3, OND/NCE/HND =4,
B.SC/Bed =5, MSc/MBA=6.
Source of livelihood: The occupation of the respondents was ascertained by asking them to indicate their main (primary) and secondary source of livelihood. Responses were grouped into farming (fishing/cropping/marine sea food/animal husbandry/poultry) =1, artisan work
(carpentry, technician, welding, woodwork, brick laying/mason) =2, civil/public service=3 and business/contracting/petty trading/transporter =4.
Income per Month: Respondents were asked to state the amount of money in naira (#) accruing to the household per month. Thereafter, it was categorized into less 20,000; 21,000-40,000;
11,000-60,000; 61,000-80,000; 81,000-100,000 and 101,000 and above.
Status of agricultural activities executed by LGAs: Secondary data list of agricultural activities were presented to local leaders and household heads to indicate types of agricultural activities executed, status (whether it was an on-going project or it had been completed and the year it was executed by the LGC) and the collaborating agencies in funding. The agricultural activities was later grouped and nominal value assigned thus: fisheries-1, poultry=2, oil palm plantation/palm oil mill=3, crop farming (cassava, maize)=4, cooperatives (credit)=5, and purchase of agricultural equipment/inputs (tractors, seedlings, fertilizer)=6.
66
Level of local participation in LGAs’ agricultural activities: Different types of agricultural activities were listed and respondents were asked to indicate the activity executed and the level at which they participated at each activity/ programme. They were later subjected to seven types of participation (manipulative, passive, consultative, material incentive induced, interactive, self- mobilized and functional) to indicate the stage at which they participated or were involved in the
LG agricultural activities. Nominal valves were assigned to the different types of participation thus: manipulative=1, passive=2, consultative=3, material incentive induced=4, interactive=5, self-mobilized=6 and functional =7.
Benefits of agricultural activities on the rural households: The different types of agricultural activities executed were listed and respondents were asked to indicate the benefits accruing from each project. Also, respondents were subjected to eighteen (18) possible variables to react, such as reduction of poverty rate, increased employment opportunities, and ensured food sufficiency, development of the rural areas among others. A four (4) point Likert – type scale with option of
“Strongly Agreed” (4), “Agreed” (3), “Disagree” (2) and “Strongly Disagree” (1) was used to identify benefits. The values were added to give 10 and divided by 4 to get a mean score of 2.50.
Responses to the four-point scales were later categorized according to their mean scores using the methodology of Agwu and Adeniran (2009). In terms of judgment, mean scores above 2.50 were classified as beneficial while those with mean scores below 2.50 were regarded as not beneficial.
Status of funding (budgetary allocation and actual) for agricultural sector by LGAs from
2005 to 2010: Out of the total statutory allocations to LGCs in Rivers State, the percentage allocated to agriculture was calculated from secondary data of five years’ series. Also, the relationship between statutory allocation to LGCs and expenditure on agricultural activities, that
67 is, the amount spent on agricultural activities like fisheries, poultry, forestry, purchase of equipment and materials (tractors, harvesters, seedlings, fertilizer) among others was assessed.
Linkages that exist between LGs and the state, international agencies, NGOs and other agricultural agencies: Staff of LGC were asked to indicate the type of linkages that exist between LGs and development agencies. They were asked to indicate types of linkages that existed between LGs, Agricultural Development Project (ADP), FADAMA III, I international
Fund for Agricultural Development (IFAD), Niger Delta Development Authority (NDDC) and
Rivers State Sustainable Development Authority (RSSDA). Their opinions’ were sought on a four point Likert - type scale to measure extent of LGs participation in various linkage activities with farmers, ADP, IFAD, FADAMA III, SPDC, NAOC, RSSDA, NDDC and other agricultural agencies with options of to a great extent (4), to some extent (3), to a very little extent (2) and to no extent (1). The values were added to obtain 10, which was further divided by 4 to obtain 2.50 which is the mean score. The mean score was used to examine the extent of linkage. In terms of efficacy of linkage, mean scores above 2.50 were regarded strong linkage, mean scores equal
2.50 was considered as moderate linkage while those with mean scores below 2.50 were regarded as weak linkage.
Factors inhibiting LG administration in executing agricultural activities: These were challenges LG administrations encountered when executing agricultural activities in their domain. Respondents were allowed to react to twenty possible variables that could inhibit project and activity execution. These included inconsistent government policies, low budgetary provision for agriculture, corruption, non-continuity of leadership vision/direction among others.
Their opinions were measured on a three point Likert-type scale with options of very serious factor, serious factor and not a serious factor. The options were scaled 2 to 0, respectively. The
68 values were added to give 3 and further divided by 3 to get a mean score of 1.00. Responses were later categorized according to their mean scores using the methodology of Ozor and
Madukwe (2005). In terms of judgment for factors inhibiting agricultural projects, mean scores equal to 1.00 and above were classified as inhibiting factors while those with mean scores below
1.00 were not inhibiting factors.
3.5 Data analysis
Objective 1 was presented using descriptive statistics and pair-wise ranking. Objective 2 and 4 were presented using frequency tables and bar chart (objective 5). Objectives 3, 5 and 6 were analyzed using mean score and standard deviation. Objective 8 was also subjected to factor analysis with varimax rotation. Only variables with factor loadings of 0.30 and above at 10% overlapping variance were used in identifying the inhibiting factors (Madukwe, 2004). Variables that had factor loading of less than 0.30 were not used while variables that loaded in more than one inhibiting factors were also discarded. Objective 4 was analyzed using Paired T-test.
In testing hypothesis 1, which states that there was no significant effect of participants’ socio-economic attributes as well as participation, multiple regression OLS model with 4 functional forms, that is linear, double log, semi-log and exponential functions and binary logit model was used. The model that gave the best fitting or has the highest R squared, based on model selection criteria of high R Squared, higher F-ratio (but significant at 5%) and conformity of slope coefficients’ signs theoretical expectations was used for discussion using the methodology of (Gujarati, 2006; Greene, 2008). All hypotheses were tested at 5% level of significance. The statistical package for the social sciences (SPSS) and EViews were the software used for the analyses.
69
CHAPTER FOUR
4.0 RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
4.1 Personal characteristics of the respondents
4.1.1 Personal characteristics of local government staff
Age (years)
The results in Table 12 shows that 37.1% of the LG staff population were within the age bracket of 40-49 years, while 25.9% were between 50 to 59 years of age. This implies that 63% of the respondents were between 40 to 59 years of age with mean age of 45.1 years. This also means that LG staff in the study area was in their middle ages, although approaching the peak of their productive years; they were about retiring from service. This finding agrees with Nwalieji and Igbokwe (2012) study on age of LG staff in Anambra State which revealed that majority of the staff were between 41 to 50 years of age.
Sex
Entries in Table 12 show that more than half (55.6%) of the respondents were male while
44.4% were females, implying that males dominate the agricultural department of LG offices in
Rivers State. However, this is contrary to Nwalieji, Igbokwe and Okeke (2013), who reported that there were more female staff in Agriculture/Vertinary Department in Anambra State.
Marital status
Majority (74.1%) of the LG staff was married and 18.5% were single (Table 12). While a lesser proportion (7.4%) were widows/widowers. This implies that the LG staffs were responsible men and women who have the task of providing food and money to meet the needs of their families and therefore could report activities of their employer correctly. Ekong (2003) stated that marriage imposes a sense of responsibility on someone.
70
Educational Level
All the LG staff had some form of education: less than half (37.1%) of the respondents had B.Sc/HND, 25.9% had OND/NCE while 18.5% had M.Sc. The remaining 18.5% stopped at
SSC/GCE/WASC. A greater percentage (81.5%) of the LG staff was degree holders (specialist) in different fields of agriculture while 18.5% were the clerks and clerical officers in the department of agriculture in the LGAs (Table 12). Since all the respondents are educated, it implies that they could keep records and give account of agricultural activities implemented or carried out by their employer (LGC). Education is expected to positively influence one’s ability to source and decipher information including information on available agricultural activities.
Education according to Gordon and Crang (2001), increases the skill level which is required in analyzing and adoption of agricultural activities available.
Number of years in service (Years)
The results on the number of years in service in Table 12 show that a greater proportion
(40.7%) of the LG staff has spent 20 to 29 years in service, implying LG staff that had longer number of years in service dominated the agricultural department. They are probably the directors and head of departments of agriculture in the LGCs. The average working experience is
19 years. This implies the LG staffs have spent enough number of years in the LG councils that would enable them give a good account of agricultural activities implemented by past and present LG chairmen in the study areas.
71
Table 12: Percentage distribution of personal characteristics of LG staff Variables Percentage Mean Standard (n=27) Score deviation( SD) Age (years) 20-39 11.1 30-39 18.5 40-49 37.1 45.1 years 12.3 50-59 25.9 60-69 7.4
Sex Male 55.6 Female 44.4
Marital status Married 74.1 Single 18.5 Divorced/separated 7.4
Educational level SSC/GCE/WASC 18.5 OND/NCE 25.9 B.Sc 37.1 M.Sc/MBA 18.5
No. of years in service 1 – 9 14.8 10 – 19 37.1 18.6 years 9.2 20-29 40.7 30-39 7.4 Source: Field Survey, 2013
4.1.2 Personal characteristics of local leaders/households
Age (years)
Entries in Table 13 show the personal characteristics of the respondents. The results show that 30.6% were between the age category of 40 and 49 years; 28.3% and 18.3% were between the age bracket of 30-39 and 50-59 years, respectively with a mean age of 44.3 years. Only
9.4%, 6.1%, 5.6% and 1.7% were within age bracket of 20-29, 60-69, 70-79 and 80 and above years, respectively. This implies that majority of the respondents were in their middle age, which is an indication that active able bodied people who are still in their productive age were actively
72 involved in agricultural activities which according to Zhang and Huxham (2001), age determines the level of involvement of famers in agriculture. A younger farmer is likely to participate in an agricultural project because younger farmers are usually innovative, risk loving and may want to try new concepts. Alternatively, older farmers are usually more experienced and endowed hence they may have either experienced or observed the benefits of participating in an agricultural activities. Oladele (2013) observed a positive relationship between age and participation in agricultural activities. Also, it implies that the respondents are matured enough to participate and give account of agricultural activities implemented in their environment.
Sex
Table 13 shows that a little above half (53.4%) of the respondents were male while 46.6% were females. This indicates that women were less involved in agricultural activities and programmes in the study area thereby allowing male to be dominant. Males are able bodied and could have the courage to participate in new agricultural activities that would take off in their environment which Adedoyin, Fapojumo and Torimiro (1999) stated that males dominate in agricultural sector in Africa. Also, in Africa, men are seen as heads of households and most often occupy leadership position in the rural areas.
Marital Status
Majority (66.7%) of the respondents were married while 31.1% were single. Only 2.2% were widows/widowers (Table 13). This implies that the respondents were people who have responsibilities to accomplish such as to provide food and money to meet the needs of their families. Ekong (2003) stated that marriage imposes a sense of responsibility on someone. A married farmer may have access to information and resources of the spouse and may therefore be more likely to participate in agricultural activities as compared to a farmer who is not married.
73
Nnadi and Akwiwu (2008) noted that marriage increases a farmer’s concern for household welfare and food security which is therefore likely to have a positive effect on their decision to participate in agricultural activity.
Educational Level
A higher percentage (34.4%) of the respondents had secondary education
(WASC/SSC/GCE), 32.7% had primary education (FSLC), 7.7% had OND/NCE certificates, and 6.1% of the respondents had tertiary education while 18.6% had no formal education. Only
0.5% read above degree certificate (Table 13). This implies that majority of the respondents had some level of formal education which is an advantage as education is generally considered as an important factor that enhances the participation of famers in agricultural programmes and activities. Education is expected to positively influence a farmer’s ability to source and use information including information on available agricultural activities and the benefits of participating in such activities. According to Nnadi and Akwiwu (2008), educated farmers are more likely to participate in agricultural projects in order to put into practice the knowledge they may have acquired in school. Farid et al., (2009) and Kahn et al., (2012), however, observed a negative relationship between education and women’s participation in agricultural activities.
Also, respondents (households) been educated means they could have enough knowledge of agricultural activities or give account of agricultural activities implemented in their areas and assess the impact of these agricultural activities on their social and economic wellbeing.
Primary Occupation
Table 13 shows that half (50.3%) of the respondents were into farming and fishing as their main occupation, 24.1% were civil/public servants while 10.1% and 15.5% were artisans
74 and traders, respectively. This implies that the respondents depended on fishing, farming and civil/public service work as their main source of livelihood. This is in agreement with Ugorji
(2000) and Albert (2013) studies on livelihood of rural people in Rivers State, which revealed that 50% - 53.2% of the rural people depend on farming and fishing as sources of livelihood.
Secondary Occupation
Table 13 shows that a higher percentage (34.9%) of the respondents had trading as secondary occupation. This implies that, in addition to farming, the respondents rely on trading as source of income to meet household demand. The farmers and fishermen have to sell their produce at the market. Also the civil/public servants engage in petty trading in order to increase their income. However 30.4% had no secondary occupation. This implies that some of the respondents depended solely on their main occupation either as a farmer, artisan, civil/public servant, businessmen or women.
Income level (₦)
A greater number (28.3%) of the household heads earn between N21000 and N400000 per month, followed by the group that earn between N41000 and N60000. Only 10.7% earn above
N100000 while 16.6% earn less than N20000 (Table 13). A mean monthly income of N52.08 per month indicates that the respondents earn more than the Federal Government minimum wage of
N18000 for workers in the nation.
75
Table 13: Percentage distribution of personal characteristics of households Variables N= 180 Mean Standard Percentage Score deviation (SD) Age (years) 20-29 9.1 30-39 28.3 40-49 30.5 44.3 years 12.8 50-59 18.3 60-69 5.6 70-79 6.1 80 and above 1.7 Sex Male 53.6 Female 46.4 Marital status Married 31.1 Widow/widower 2.2 Educational level No formal education 18.6 FSLC 32.7 SSC/GCE/WASC 34.4 OND/NCE 7.7 B.SC/BED/HND 6.1 M.SC/MBA 0.5 Primary Occupation Farming 50.3 Artisan 10.2 Civil/Public Servant 24.7 Business/Trading 18.5 Secondary Occupation Business 12.1 Trading 34.9 Farming 13.5 Teaching 9.1 No secondary occupation 30.4 Income level (₦) Less than 20,000 16.6 21,000-40,000 28.3 41,000-60,000 18.3 52.08 per month 61,000-80,000 13.9 81,000-100,000 12.2 101,000 and above 10.7 Source: Field data,2013
76
Hypothesis 1
From the results in Table 14, the semi-log model which have an F-ratio of 42.88
(p<0.05), R2 of 0.55 and tolerant multicollinearity whose VIF was on the average was 1.29 (a very low value compared with the critical value of 10 suggested by Gujarati (2006). The R2 of
0.55 implies that 55 percent of the variation in the values of the dependent variables is brought about by the variations of the included explanatory variables of the model. The significant value of the F-ratio indicated that the joint effects of the independent variables included in the model were significant at 5 percent. It was indicated from the regression results that the slope coefficients of participation in agricultural development activities (0.872) was significant (p ≤
0.05); years of formal education of household heads (0.017) was significant (p ≤ 0.05) (t- cal=12.52> t-tab=1.96)
This means that education encourages participation in agricultural activities. Education often influences household heads adoption rate of technology/skill positively. Hoag, Ascough and Frasier (1999) observed that households’ heads with more years of schooling would be expected to better visualize the benefits of skills, knowing that participating in agricultural activities would increase their income. However, it was expected that more educated households’ heads would have a higher opportunity cost of labour, hence this variable (education) would be negatively related to participation. The educated ones are aware that participating in agricultural projects will increase their income level. The finding is in line with Daniel, Denford and James
(2003) who observed that education enhances participation. However, it is contrary to Botlhoko and Oladele (2013) who did not observe any significant relationship between education and the decision to participate in an agricultural project. Also, occupational status of household head
(0.090) and income (0.075) were significant (p ≤ 0.05). This was expected because majority of
77 the households’ heads had farming as their main occupation. Therefore the execution of agricultural projects will attract mostly farmers who are already in the occupation and this will increase their income.. This means that these variables (education, income and occupation) all influence households participation in agricultural projects positively and significantly; more so as the signs of their slope coefficients were positive.
Therefore the first null hypothesis of the study which held that there is no significant effect of households’ socio-economic attributes as well as participation index was rejected at the respective significant levels. The alternative hypothesis is hereby accepted which states that participants’ socio-economic attributes exerted significant effects on participation in the study.
Table 14: Result of semi log model of households’ socio economic attributes on participation in agricultural activities Variable Coefficient Std. Error t-Statistic Probability C 9.293824 0.172991 53.72444 0.0000 Participation 0.871716 0.069622 12.52072 0.0000 Age -3.14E-05 0.003193 -0.009828 0.9922 Marital status -0.035528 0.090993 -0.390452 0.6967 Education 0.017* 0.005781 2.902573 0.0042 Occupation 0.090* 0.021358 4.222169 0.0000 Income 0.075* 0.006271 2.693122 0.0000 R-squared 0.55 Adjusted R- squared 0.539188 Sum squared resid 36.01864 Log likelihood -110.6061 F-statistic 42.88887 Prob(F-statistic) 0.000000 Source: Field data, 2013 * p ≤ 0.05
Also, the binary logit model used to test households participation in the agricultural development activities is not significantly influenced by socio-economic attributes of farmers
(such as income, age, educational attainment, occupation and marital status).
Table 15 shows that educational level was significant (p≤ 0.05) with a coefficient of -
0.1126 and income (0.0010) was significant (p≤ 0.05). This indicates that the probability of rural
78 households participating in agricultural projects is influenced by educational level and income.
Farmers who are educated and have the money to pay the required initial counterpart fund participated in FADAMA and IFAD projects in the state. Education is expected to positively influence a farmer’s ability to source and decode information including information on available agricultural projects and the benefits of participating in such projects. However, Botlhoko &
Oladele (2013) did not observe any significant relationship between education and the decision to participate in an agricultural project, Weinberger and Jutting (Online) observed that participation is highest with a middle income; followed by individuals with a lower income and conversely individuals with a higher income tend to participate less. Rural people who have no occupation, participated in order to earn a living, which Daniel et al., (2003) in their study on determinants of households’ participation in rural development, observed that households with lower income are more likely to participate in agricultural activities than households with higher income.
The null hypothesis which held that: Households participation in agricultural development activities is not significantly influenced by socio-economic attributes of farmers (such as income, age, educational attainment, occupation and marital status) is hereby rejected. The alternative hypothesis was upheld which states that households’ participation in agricultural activities is influenced by the socio-economic attribute of farmers such as income and education.
Both the semi-log and binary logit analyasis in Tables 14 and 15 established that participation was significantly influenced by educational level, occupation and income.
79
Table 15: Result of binary logit of households’ socio economic attributes on participation in agricultural activities Variable Coefficient Std. Error z-Statistic Prob. Intercept -3.0032* 1.242 -2.417 0.016 Age -0.010 0.023 -0.415 0.678 Marital Status -0.166 0.660 -0.252 0.801 Years of Education -0.1126* 0.045 -2.514 0.012 Occupation -0.319 0.199 -1.605 0.109 Income 0.0010* 0.000 6.742 0.000
R-squared 0.546 Mean dependent variable 0.472 S.D. dependent variable 0.501 S.E. of regression 0.310 Akaike info criterion 0.695 Sum squared residual 16.732 Schwarz criterion 0.801 Log likelihood -56.537 Hannan-Quinn criter. 0.738 Deviance 113.075 LR statistic 135.901 Avg. log likelihood -0.3140 Prob(LR statistic) 0.000 Source: Field data, 2013. *p≤ 0.05
4.2 Status and Types of agricultural activities implemented by LGAs
4.2.1 Types of agricultural activities implemented by LGAs
Table 16 established that building of markets ranked first (1st) as the dominant agricultural activity implemented by LG in the state and out of the nine LGs studied only two (Ahoada West and Ikwerre LGAs) did no construct or built markets for agricultural produce The second ranked agricultural activity in the state is the establishment of fish farms while establishment of poultry farms follows as the third ranked agricultural activity implemented. Other activities executed include credit to famers, provision of fertilizers and cassava farm project which ranked fourth, fifth and sixth, respectively. Building of markets ranked first because it was an activity that would increase the revenue of the LGCs in the State. The stalls in the market were allocated to rural populace who pay rents on monthly bases although it also serves as an access market for farmers to sell their agricultural produce from the farm, poultry and fisheries. The LG was able to accomplish one of its roles which included provision of markets as was identified by Nwalieji,
Igbokwe and Nsoanya (2012) as one of the perceived roles of LG that was accomplished to a
80 great extent. Also, poultry and fisheries farms were established by LGAs because of the monetary gains attached to them. The birds, eggs and fish were sold to the public which increased the revenue of the LGCs. The result implies that LG implemented agricultural activities such as building of markets, establishment of poultry, fisheries and cassava farms.
Table 16: Types of agricultural activities implemented in the State Agriculture O/A ELE ASARI KHANA BONNY ETCHE AWES IKL ONLG % Rank Activities LGA ME TORU LGA LGA LGA T GA A (n=180) LGA LGA LGA Building of 4 4 9 8 10 7 NO NO 9 51(24.6) 1st markets Fishery 7 5 10 - 7 - 8 - 8 43(20.8) 2nd Giving of 1 9 - 7 - 7 - 8 - 32(15.5) 4th loans to farmers Poultry farms - 5 12 4 9 - - - 8 38(18.4) 3rd Provision of - - 10 2 2 - 10 - 24(11.6) 78h fertilizers to farmers Cassava farms - 8 - - - - - 10 - 18(8.7) 8th Distribution of - - 7 - 8 - - 5 7 27(13.0) 6th fishing nets to fishermen Provision of ------9 - 9(4.3) 12th tractors Provision of ------9 - 9(4.3) 12th seedlings, improved cutting species Oil mill - - - - - 10 - - - 10(4.8) 10th project Oil palm - - - - - 10 - - - 10(4.8) 10th plantation Training of 10 - 10 - 9 29(14.1) 5th youths in agriculture Encouraging - 7 - - - 5 5 - - 17(8.2) 9th of farmers to form cooperatives • OALGA- Obio/Akpor LGA *ELGA- Eleme LGA *AWEST – Ahoada- West • IKLGA – Ikwerre LGA * ONLGA – Opobo /Nkoro LGA Source: Field data, 2013
Some of the agricultural activities are shown fig 3
81
ALETO MARKET, ELEME LGA POULTRY FARM, ASARI-TORU LGA
FISH FARM, ASARI-TORU LGA RUMUEME MARKET, OBIO/AKPOR LGA
BUGUMA MARKET, ASARI-TORU LGA RUMUEKINI FISH FARM, OBIO/AKPOR LGA
Fig 3: Types of agricultural activities
82
4.2.2 Status of LG agricultural activities in the study area
4.2.2.1 Status of agricultural activities implemented in the State
Entries in Table 17.1 revealed all the markets built by the seven LGs have been completed and farmers have started selling their agricultural produce in the markets. Fishery farms are on- going in three LGAs (Asari-Toru, Obio/Akpor and Opobo/Nkoro) while the ones in Bonny and
Eleme LGAs have stopped probably because the initiator and executor of the projects have left.
Other projects that are on-going include: poultry farms in Asari-Toru, training of youths in agriculture Obio/Akpor, Asari-Toru, and Bonny. Distributions of fertilizer to farmers are now moribund. It was there before but has stopped in all the LGAs that implemented it. Also, provisions of seedlings, distribution of fishing nets to fishermen and cultivation of cassava have stopped in all the LGAS that implemented them.
83
Table 17.1: Status of agricultural activities implemented in the State Agriculture activities O/A ELGA ASARI KHANA BONNY ETCHE AWEST IKLGA ONLGA (n=180) LGA TORU LGA LGA LGA LGA LGA Building of markets COM COM COM COM COM COM - - COM Fishery On- COM On- COM - On-going going going Giving of loans to - MB On- On- - On- - On-going - farmers going going going Poultry farms MB On- MB MB - - MB Going Provision of MB - - MB - MB - MB MB fertilizers to farmers Cassava farms - MB - - - - - MB - Distribution of - - MB - MB - - MB MB fishing nets to fishermen Provision of tractors ------MB - Provision of MB - - MB - - - MB - seedlings, improved cutting spp Oil mill project - - - - - On- - MB - Going Oil palm plantation - - - - - On- - MB - Going Training of youths in On- - On- - On- - - - - agriculture Going Going going Encouraging of MB On- - On- - On- On- MB - farmers to form going going going going cooperatives *COM-Completed *MB- Moribund Source: Field data, 2013
4.2.2.2: Household heads perception on Status of LG agricultural activities in the state
Table 17.2 shows the view of household heads on the status of agricultural activities implemented by LGs in the State. A higher percentage (46%) of the respondents affirmed that building of markets had been completed and rural dwellers have started renting stalls to sell their agricultural/produce/goods from farm. This indicates that the markets had been built for rural people to use. Also, 22% of the respondents agreed that fishery farms were established at
Obio/Akpor, Eleme and Bonny LGAs by past Chairmen but were no more today- they are
84 moribund. This implies that fish farms were established in Obio/Akpor, Bonny and Eleme LGAs.
The farms existed and fish were harvested and sold to the rural populace and 19.5% affirmed that fishery farm established at Asari-Toru and Opobo/Nkoro LGAs are on-going. The LGAs are still harvesting and selling fish to rural populace. Also,17.7% of the respondents said poultry farms were established by past LG chairmen in Bonny, Eleme, Khana and Opobo/Nkoro LGAs which are no longer in existence while 6.7% affirmed the poultry farm established by Asari-Toru LG is on-going. It was established by the present LG.
Other agricultural activities that the respondents affirmed their existence were establishment of cassava farm (9.1%) in Ikwerre LGA, distribution of fishing nets (5.3%) in
Ikwerre, Asari-Toru, Bonny and Opbo/Nkoro LGs, distribution of tractors (4.7%) in Ikwerre LG, provision of fertilizers (9.6%) in Obio/Akpor, Khana, Etche, and Ikwerre LGs and provision of seedlings/planting materials (2.8%) in Ikwerre, Khana and Obio/Akpor LGs. They were agricultural activities that were carried out by past LG Chairmen in their domains and at present are no more in existence – they have gone moribund. This indicate that provision of fertilizers, distribution of fishing nets to fishermen, fingerlings, tractors and cassava farm were in existence in some of the LGs of the State but at present, were no longer fashionable today.
However, agricultural activities such as training of youths in agriculture, encouraging farmers to form co-operatives and giving of credits to farmers were on-going in Etche, Khana,
Eleme, Ahoada-West and Ikwerre LGs with 2.4%, 4.8% and 8.7%, respectively. This implies that these LGs have performed some roles such as mobilizing farmers to form cooperatives, training youths in agriculture and giving credits to farmers.
85
Table 17.2: Percentage distribution of household perception on status of LG agricultural activities in the study area Agricultural On-going Completed Moribund Activities (n=180) % % % Building of markets - 46.0 - Fishery 19.5 22.0 22.0 Poultry farms 6.7 17.7 17.7 Giving of loans to farmers 8.7 7.7 4.3 (agricultural loan scheme) Provision of fertilizer 0.2 9.6 9.6 to farmers Cassava farms - 9.1 9.1 Distribution of fishing nets - 5.3 5.3 to fishermen Provision of tractors - 5.7 5.7 Oil mill project 14.2 - - Provision of seedlings/ 0.2 2.8 2.8 Improved planting materials Encouraging farmers 4.8 4.3 3.3 to form cooperatives Distribution of fingerlings 0.2 4.0 4.0 Training of youths 2.4 0.9 - in agriculture/capacity building Oil palm plantation 2.4 4.4 4.4 Source: Field data, 2013
4.2.3 Agencies collaborating with LG in funding agricultural activities/projects
Table 18 shows agencies that collaborated with LGs to fund agricultural activities/projects in the State. They included International Fund for Agricultural Development (IFAD) and
FADAMA. These two organizations which are international agencies collaborated with LG to fund agricultural activities/projects in the state.
Majority (80.39%) of the LG staff agreed that FADAMA collaborated with the LG to fund fishery projects. Also, 3.3% and 80.4% of the LG staff said IFAD and FADAMA, respectively collaborated with the LG to fund the establishment of poultry farms. This is
86 significant as the efforts of funding, fishery and poultry farms through this collaboration would result in expansion and increased production. Furthermore, 61.2% of the LG staff affirmed that
FADAMA collaborated with the LG in giving of credits to farmers and encouraging farmers to form cooperatives (60.3%). While 28.4% of the LG staff agreed that IFAD collaborated with the
LG to fund the distribution of fishing nets to fishermen. It is significant because real farmers received credits directly to fund their projects and it also encouraged those that benefited to sustain agricultural production. IFAD and FADAMA are World Bank agricultural agencies aimed to develop the rural areas by developing the agricultural sector. It is a joint funding of the
World Bank, federal, state, LG and the beneficiary. World Bank contributes 55.5%, Federal
Government 5.2 %, state 17.1%, LGA 8.9% and the beneficiary 13.3% (Rivers State Fadama
Development Office, 2012). This implies that agricultural activities such as the establishment of fishery, poultry farms, mobilization of farmers to form cooperatives and credit to farmers were jointly funded by IFAD, FADAMA, federal, state and LG. However, IFAD and FADAMA 111 have been able to achieve one of its strategic goals which are to enhance growth in agricultural sectors other than oil, in order to achieve increased food security (Rivers State Fadama
Development Office, 2012).
87
Table 18: Agencies collaborating with LG in funding agricultural activities in the state Agricultural IFAD FADAMA NEPAD RSSDA NDDC Activities YES NO YES NO YES NO YES NO YES NO Building of markets 7.4* - - 55.5 - 29.6 - 22.2 - 18.5 Fishery - - 53.3* - - 7.4 - 3.3 - 7.4 Poultry farms 3.3* - 40.4* - - 3.3 - 2.8 - 3.3 Giving of loans 2.8* - 61.2* - - 2.8 - 2.8 - 22.2 to farmers (agric. Credit scheme) Provision of fertilizers - 29.6 - 40.4 - 18.5 - 7.4 - 7.4 to farmers Cassava farms - 2.8 - 18.5 - 3.3 - 3.3 - 29.6 Distribution of 28.4* - - 7.4 - 7.4 - 2.8 - 18.5 nets to fishermen Provision of tractors - 7.4 - 18.5 - 22.2 - 12.1 - 22.2 Oil mill project - 18.5 - 18.5 - 7.4 - 12.1 - 7.4 Provision of improved - 12.1 - 18.5 - 29.6 - 0.7 - 33.3 planting seeds Encouraging cooperative - 1.3 60.3* - - 7.7 - 0.7 - 17.2 Distribution of fertilizers - 44.2 - 32.3 - 10.4 - 3;3 - 12.1 Training of youths in - 18.5 - 25.9 - 40.7 - 51.8 - 33.3 agriculture/capacity building Oil palm plantation - 22.2 - 55.5 - 7.4 - 29.6 - 37.0 *Areas of collaboration *IFAD – International fund for Agricultural Development *RSSDA- Rivers State Sustainable Development *NDDC- Niger Delta Development Authority Source: Field data, 2013
88
4. 3 Level of participation of rural households in LG agricultural activities
Table 19.1 revealed that a high percent (23.3%) of the respondents participated in LG agricultural activities as labourers. These were the rural people who were employed by LG to watch over the poultry, fish farm and other LG projects either as watch night and day guards.
These were closely followed by 29.4% of the respondents who participated but do not know anything about the project. They were given the impression that the project was good for them.
These are the rural people who were given tractors to farm, fishing nets to fish and fertilizer to use because the LG knew it will help their yield. Also, 19.3% of the respondents were consulted and informed but the project was then designed by external agencies.
The other respondents who participated were the youths, about 10.4% of the youths participated at the fish farm and aqua center training established by Obio/Akpor and Asari-Toru
LGs in order to make them self entrepreneurs in fish farming while 10.0% of the leaders participated at the period when LG needed plots of land to execute their projects. The traditional leaders were consulted to donate some plots of land. None of the respondents took the initiative to identify a project and embarked on its actualization independent of external bodies.
89
Table 19.1: Rural households’ level of participation in LG agricultural activities Agricultural Activities (n=180)
Buildi Fish Poultr Giving of Provision Provisio Oil Distribu Cassav Oil palm Provision Trainin Oil Encou Level of Local ng of Far y loans to of n of mill tion of a farms plantatio of g of mill raging Participation mar m farms farmers fertilizers tractor projec nets to n improved youths projec coope % ket To t fisherme planting in agric t rative farmers n seeds
Participated as a Labourer 32 12 9 0 0 0 6 0 4 14 0 0 10 0 23.3
Participated in training at 0 26 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 21 0 0 10.4 the project Participated as a leader in 4 5 6 0 0 0 4 0 3 4 0 0 4 0 10.0 land allocation Participated at the 0 0 0 5 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 4 10 11.7 planning Participated in monitoring the 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 2 0 0 1 0 0 0 3.3 execution of the project Consulted to know my 7 2 2 0 0 0 2 4 2 1 0 0 0 8 5.6 opinion about a problem that is being planned Participated but did not 3 5 0 5 7 3 0 3 0 0 1 8 3 5 29.4 know anything about the project but was given the impression that it was good Consulted, informed and 7 9 0 3 7 3 0 12 0 0 11 7 0 8 19.3 participated, but the project was then designed by external agencies Participated by actively 0 0 2 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 2.8 interacting with the project providers Took the initiative to 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 identify a project and embarked on its actualization independent of external bodies Participated on paper/ 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 0 2 4.4 document than in actuality Source: Field Survey, 1013 Multiple Responses
90
4.3.1 Stages and types of participation by rural populace in LG agricultural activities
Entries in Table 19.2 show that majority (54.0%) of the local leaders and households participated in the implementation stage of agricultural activities carried out by LGs in the state.
Out of this percentage, 23.3% participated because of the incentives involved (which is Material
Incentive Induced Participation), 19.3% of the respondents were consulted and informed to participate when the activity/project has already been diagnosed, planned and designed by external agency (which is Passive Participation) and 4.4% participated on paper/document than in actuality (which is Tokenism participation), while 7% participated in LG agricultural project because they were given the impression that participating in the project will be good for them
(which is Manipulative Participation).
The table further revealed that 11.7% of the respondents participated at the planning stage.
They participated by actively interacting with the project providers to identify the problems and the action plans taken which is Interactive Participation. Only 3.3% of the respondents participated at the diagnostic stage. They were consulted to know their opinion about the project that was being planned for, while none of the respondents took their initiatives to identify the project and embarked on its actualization independent of external bodies that is Self Mobilization
Participation.
The result of the findings implies that rural people are willing to participate in agricultural activities that would improve their standard of living especially when incentives in the form of cash and materials are attached. This kind of participation could be seen in World Bank development projects such as FADAMA and IFAD where the bank provided the money and ask individual to determine the project. They participate when the project had already been diagnosed, planned and designed by the Bank. Self mobilization type of participation is that
91 which gives rural people room to initiate and analyze project and embark on its actualization.
This must have hampered the total participation of the rural people. The findings agreed with
Chabeuf, Toledano, Bouarfa, and Neighbor (2004) who revealed that when beneficiaries of agricultural development projects are allowed to be responsible for agricultural activities selection, implementation and supervision, participants gain discretion.
Also, traditional rulers, and CDC members participated on paper/document than in actuality. They were informed about the agricultural activity when the project had already been planned and designed by the executors. This is an indication that leaders were not actually involved in the identification and planning in the execution of agricultural activities. The involvement of local people in project implementation starts with the identification of the problems in their domain and the action plan for the problem as designed by Rifkin and Kangere
(1988) in their model on participation identified needs assessment as one of the indicators for measuring participation.
92
Table 19.2: Percentage distribution of stages and types of rural households’ level of participation in LG agricultural activities Percentage Types of Stage of Level of participation participation participation (n=180) Participated in the project because of the 23.3 Material Implementation incentives (money, inputs) involved Incentive Induced Participated but did not know anything about the 29.4 Manipulative Implementation project but was given the impression that it was good Participated on paper/ document than in actuality 4.4 Tokenism Implementation Participated by actively interacting with the 10.0 Interactive Planning project providers to identify the projects in the community and the action plans for the project Took the initiative to identify a project and 0.0 Self Identification/ embarked on its actualization independent of Mobilization Planning/ external bodies Implementation Consulted, informed and participated, but the 19.3 Passive Implementation project was then designed by external agencies Monitoring stage 3.3 - Monitoring and evaluation Source: Field data, 2013.
4.4 Perception of LG staff on benefits of LG agricultural activities
All the variables listed in Table 20 were considered as perceived benefits of LG agricultural activities by LG staff except for increased rural infrastructure, and reduced crime and social vices that was seen as not benefits of LG implementing agricultural projects. The development of the agricultural sector has enormous benefits to the rural people. This include: lower unemployment (M=3.18), reduced poverty rate (M=3.17), increased employment opportunities
93
(M=3.14), increased interest on agriculture (M=3.13), low cost of food (M=3.11), reduction of youth restiveness (M=3.11), encouraged more rural people to go into farming (M=3.10), increased food supply (M=3.10), reduced rural-urban migration (M=3.06), adoption of agricultural innovation (M=3.06), provision of raw materials for the nations industry (M=3.02), development of the rural areas (M=2.99), ensured food sufficiency and food security (M=2.91), increased agro business in the area (M=2.78) and reduced income disparities (M=2.63). The results indicate that development of the agricultural sector will lead to the provision of employment for the teeming youths in the state. When youths are employed, youth restiveness and migration from the rural to urban centres will be reduced. The finding is in agreement with
Nwachukwu & Kanu (2011) who opine that the right economic and monetary policies and the provision of suitable technology will enable intensified agricultural production to take place, and this will, in addition, result in increased employment opportunities in our nation.
The promotion of agriculture will encourage more people into agriculture, thereby leading to poverty reduction among the people. Poverty is a major cause of food insecurity (ODI,
1997), it is a situation where people do not have access to food, education, and basic things of life. It is characterized by inadequate income and wealth, and thus inadequate access to available food (World Food Programme, 2005). Encouraging more people into agriculture, would make agriculture to be a source of livelihood to them thereby promoting households to have access to food needed to maintain nutritional balance. Increased food supply will lead to ensured food security in the state. Food security is when all the people in the state at all times have both physical and economic access to basic food and need (World Food Programme, 2005), and also provide raw materials for local industries.
94
Table 20: Perception of LG staff on benefits of LG agricultural activities Benefits Mean Std. Deviation M Increased Rural Infrastructure 1.99* 1.35 Reduce Income Disparities 2.63** 0.52 Adoption of Agricultural 3.06** 0.51 Innovation Increased Employment 3.14** 0.48 Opportunities Low unemployment 3.18** 0.54 Development of the rural areas 2.99** 0.64 Reduction in Poverty 3.17** 0.59 Reduced rural-urban migration 3.06** 0.53 Encourage rural people to farm 3.10** 0.66 and contribute to both rural development Provision of raw materials for the 3.02** 0.53 nations industry Reduction of youth restiveness 3.11** 0.54 Increased food supply 3.10** 0.54 Low cost of food 3.11** 0.43 Ensured food sufficiency and 2.91** 0.67 food security Reduced crime and social vices 2.33* 1.02 Increased interest on agriculture 3.13** 0.51 Increased agro business in the 2.78** 0.39 area *Not beneficial ** Beneficial Source: Field data, 2013
4.4.1 Perception of household heads on benefits of LG agricultural activities
Table 21 shows the perception of local leaders and household heads on benefits of LG agricultural activities in Rivers state. Out of the variables listed, all were considered benefits of
LG implementing agricultural activities except for increased rural infrastructure and reduced income disparities that were seen as not benefits of LG implementing agricultural projects. The development of the agricultural sector has enormous benefits to the rural people. This include: increased employment opportunities (M=3.16), lower unemployment (M=3.14), reduced
95 poverty rate (M=3.12), increased interest on agriculture (M=3.10), encourage more rural people to go into farming (M=3.04), low cost of food (M=3.04), reduced rural-urban migration
(M=3.02), provision of raw materials for the nations industry (M=3.02), increased food supply
(M=3.02), development of the rural areas (M=2.99), ensured food sufficiency and food security
(M=2.81), adoption of agricultural innovation (M=2.76), reduction of youth restiveness
(M=2.88), increased agro business in the area (M=2.68) and increased crime and social vices
(M=2.63). The results indicate that development of the agricultural sector will provide employment opportunities for youths and people who are unemployed in the state. The best way to create employment is to develop the agricultural sector. Joblessness or unemployment has forced people into poverty, robbery, and other kinds of social vices, as observed by Scarpitti and
Anderson (1998) study on joblessness, that joblessness forces people into lack of child care, poverty, drunkenness and drugs.
The development of agriculture will also reduce migration from the rural areas to the city in search of job. The trend has been youths in the rural areas moving to the urban areas in search of job opportunities. The city is over populated which have led to congestion and pollution; over population has created a class of people who are vulnerable to crime and illicit means of livelihood (Albert, Emah and Ezeano, 2009). Increased agricultural production enables the nation, state and LG to develop their trade and industry. When agricultural products are readily marketed in the form of processed food and drinks, it will develop the agro- business sector and reduce losses in agricultural produce through post-harvest losses from vegetables, roots and tubers and grains (Ndirika, 2011).
96
Table 21: Perception of households on benefits of LG agricultural activities Benefits Mean (M) Std. Deviation
Increased Rural Infrastructure 1.89* 1.35 Reduce Income Disparities 2.03* 1.22 Adoption of Agricultural 2.76** 0.51 Innovation Increased Employment 3.16** 0.48 Opportunities Low unemployment 3.14** 0.54 Development of the rural areas 2.89** 0.64 Reduction in Poverty 3.16** 0.59 Reduced rural-urban migration 3.02** 0.53 Encourage rural people to go 3.04** 0.66 into farming Provision of raw materials for 3.02** 0.53 the nations industry Reduction of youth 2.88** 0.54 restiveness Increased food supply 3.02** 0.54 Low cost of food 3.04** 0.43 Ensured food sufficiency and 2.81** 0.67 food security Reduced crime and social 2.63** 0.52 vices Increased interest on 3.10** 0.51 agriculture Increased agro business in the 2.68** 0.39 area *Not beneficial ** Beneficial Source: Field data, 2013
4.5 Status of funding (budgetary allocation and actual receipt) for agriculture sector by
LGAs from 2005 to 2010
Table 22 shows the mean annual financial allocation to the LGAs studied and the amount budgeted and spent on agricultural development. The table shows that a mean annual amount of N119,508,600.00 was allocated to Ahoada-West LGA within the period of 5 years.
Out of this amount, N1,233,333.33.00, representing 1.1% was the actual amount spent on agriculture sector within the period of 5 years while N5,666,000.00 (4.7%) was the amount
97 budgeted for the sector within the period. It implies that the LG spent less than the actual amount budgeted for agriculture within the period under review. In Eleme LGA, N121,383,333.33 was the annual average allocation received within the period and N2,871,666.67 representing 2.4% was the amount spent on agricultural development from N9,658,765, representing 7.5% that was budgeted for agricultural development within the period under review, indicating that the LG did not spend the actual amount budgeted for agriculture within the period under review. Also,
Obio/Akpor LGA received an annual mean allocation of N182,578,933.33, budgeted N9,500,000
(5.2%) for agricultural development within the period under review but spent N2,000,000.00
(1.09%) on agriculture, indicating the LG spent far less than what it actually budgeted. Etche
LGA received an annual mean allocation of N162,578,933.33, out of which N8,000,000.00 representing 4.9% was budgeted for agriculture. However, N1,900,000.00 (1.2%) was the amount spent on agricultural development. Ikwerre LGA received a mean annual amount of
N118,705,666.67 allocated to it and spent N1,266,666.67 representing 1.1% for agricultural development while N7,000,000 representing 6.5% was the amount budgeted for agriculture.
Khana LGA spent 6.4% (N6,883,333.33) on agriculture from a mean annual amount of
N108,022,266.67 allocated to it while N8,500,000 (7.8%) was the amount budgeted .
The three coastal LGAs surveyed, funded the agricultural sector thus: Bonny LGA received an annual mean allocation of N125,296,666.67 and spent N4,727,500.00 representing 3.8% on agriculture while N4,480,000 (3.6%) was the amount budgeted. This implies that the LG spent more than the actual amount that was budgeted for agriculture during the period under review.
Opobo/Nkoro LGA spent N1,516,666.67 (1.4%) on agriculture from its mean annual allocation of N111,935,600.00, where as N5,540,000 representing 4.9% was the amount budgeted for agriculture and Asari-Toru LGA budgeted N6,000,000.00 (4.2%) for agriculture but spent
98
N683,333.33 (0.6%) from the mean annual allocation of N119,635,266.67 received within the period of 5 years.
The LG that budgeted and spent the highest amount on agricultural development out of the
6 upland LGAs surveyed was Khana LGA. It budgeted 7.8% and spent 6.4%, followed by
Bonny LGA who budgeted 3.6% but spent 3.8% and Eleme, budgeted 7.5% but spent 2.4%.
Opobo/Nkoro, Etche, Ikwerre, Obio/Akpor and Ahoada-West spent 1.4%, 1.2%, 1.1%, 1.1% and 1.03%, respectively on agricultural development. The LGA that allocated the lowest fund was Asari-Toru with 0.6% while Bonny LGA exceeded the amount budgeted for agricultural development. It budgeted 3.6% and spent 3.8%. None of the LGAs actually spent up to 10% on agriculture. This implies that funding for agriculture is very small to bring about any meaningful development in that sector. The result agrees with Okidim and Albert (2012) finding that the amount allocated to the agricultural sector was not adequate. Asari-Toru LGA have the presence of Federal Ministry of Agriculture that established oil palm plantation and Rivers State
Government project on fishery. This probably might have caused their neglect for agiculture.
Also, eight out of the nine LGAs studied did not spend all the amount budgeted for agrigultural development in the state. This implies that the amount budgeted by LGCs on agricultural activities was not actually spent.
99
Table 22: Percentage status of funding (budgetary allocation and actual) for agriculture by LGAs from 2005 to 2010 LGA Mean of Overall Amount % of Actual amount % of Donations Amount Allocated allocated for allocation spent amount from donor agriculture to spent agencies agriculture
Etche LGA N162,578,933.33 N8,000,000.00 4.9 N1900000.00 1.2 N730,000
Ahoada-West N119,508,600.00 N5,666,000.00 4.7 N1,233,333.33 1.03 N2,000,000
Obio/Akpor N182,578,933.33 N9,500,000 5.2 N2000000.00 1.1 N2,500,000
Eleme LGA N121,383,333. 33 N9,658,765 7.5 N2,871,666.67 2.4 NA
Khana LGA N108,022,266.67 N8,500,000 7.8 N6,883,333.33 6.4 N730,000
Ikwerre LGA N118,705,666.67 N7,000,000 6.5 N1,266,666.67 1.1 N2,500,000
Asari-Toru N119,635,266.67 N8,000,000.00 6.7 N683333.33 0.6 N2,500,000
Opobo/Nkoro N111,935,600.00 N5,540,000 4.9 N1516666.67 1.2 N2,000,000
Bonny LGA N125,296,666.67 N4,480,000 3.6 N4727500.00 3.8 N730,000 Source: Computed by Author, 2013 based on data from Human Right Watch, 2007 & Nigerian Tide, 2008
The percentage of funding agricultural activities is presented in bar chart. See figure 4 below:
100
Figure 4: Extent of Fund allocation as percentage of budget from 2005-2010 in Rivers State LGAs
4.6 Extent of linkage between LGs and other agricultural development agencies
4.6.1 Level of Linkage between LG and Agricultural Development Project (ADP)
The extent of linkages that exist between LG and ADP as shown in Table 23 and figure 5 shows that a strong linkage exists between LG and Agricultural Development Project (ADP) in information sharing (M=3.12), joint use of farmers/clients (M=2.75), joint use of staff
(M=2.55), and keeping of records (M=2.62). The table and figure further show that there was a weak linkage between LG and ADP in funding, budgeting, planning of a programme, evaluation of programme/project, staff on locations, staff out stationing/outreach and transfer of service.
The strong linkage between LG and ADP in staff and farmers/clients was expected as one of the
101 strategies of ADP was aimed to boost the productivity of the present farmers by establishing an effective linkage between farmers and credit institutions (ADP). So the farmers were their main targets and LG staffs were there to assist them.
4.6.2 Level of Linkage between LG and International Fund for Agricultural Development
(IFAD)
Entries in Table 23 Shows a strong linkage between LG and IFAD in the areas of information sharing (M=2.75), funding of projects (M=2.55) and use of farmers/clients
(M=2.65). While a weak linkage existed between LG and IFAD in diagnosis of problems, budgeting, planning of programme, evaluation of a programme, staff on locations, staff out stationing/outreach, staff transfer, record keeping and transfer of service. There is a strong linkage in funding because IFAD is a World Bank projects but jointly funded by World Bank,
State, and LG.
4.6.3 Level of Linkage between LG and FADAMA III
A strong linkage existed in information sharing (M=3.12), funding of projects (M=2.60), use of staff (M=2.52), use of farmers/clients (M=2.75), diagnosis of problems (M=2.55)) and keeping of records (M=2.62) between LG and Fadama III. The table and figure further show that there was a weak linkage between LG and ADP in budgeting, planning of a programme, evaluation of programme/project, staff on locations staff out stationing/outreach and transfer of service.
4.6.4 Level of Linkage between LG and Niger Delta Development Commission (NDDC)
There was no linkage that existed between LG and NDDC except in information sharing (Table 23). A strong linkage exists between LG and NDDC in information share
(M=2.68). This implies that NDDC use LG to disseminate information to the rural people.
102
Weak linkages existed in joint use of farmers/clients, joint use of staff, keeping of records, funding, budgeting, and planning of a programme. Areas were weak linkage also exists include evaluation of programme/project, staff on locations, staff out stationing/outreach and transfer of service.
4.6.5 Level of Linkage between LG and Rivers State Sustainable Development Authority
(RSSDA)
LG had a strong linkage with RSSDA in information sharing (M=2.65) while in joint use of farmers/clients, joint use of staff, keeping of records, funding, budgeting, planning of a programme, evaluation of programme/project, staff on locations, staff out stationing/outreach and transfer of service weak linkages existed (Table 23).
This implies that there is a strong linkage in information sharing between LG and agricultural development agencies in the state. This has further boosted the development of agriculture in the State as the agencies used LG to disseminate information to the rural populace.
Also, LG had strong linkages with the three international agencies (IFAD, ADP and FADAMA) in locating and reaching farmers and joint use of staff. There is a link in accessing the farmers between LGs and other agricultural development agencies. LGs staff are already in contact with the farmers in their domain, the agencies used the LG staff to link them up to genuine farmers in the LGAs. The findings is in line with Madukwe and Ndukwo (1999) who observed information sharing and joint use of clients as the types of linkages existing between LGs and private agricultural agencies. In joint funding of project, linkage exists between LG and IFAD and
FADAMA lll. IFAD and FADAMA lll are World Bank projects but jointly funded by World
Bank, State, and LG. The areas of need of the farmers were jointly diagnosed by LG and the agencies. There is a moderate linkage between LGs and ADP (2.50) and FADAMA (2.50) in
103 joint evaluation of programmes and projects (M=2.50), while a strong linkage exists in record keeping between LGs and ADP (2.62) and FADAMA (2.62). There are no linkages in the areas of: joint budget for projects, transfer of service, secondment of staff, joint planning of a programme, staff on locations, staff out stationing/outreach and staff transfer. The existing linkages are fairly weak. International agencies involved in agriculture such as FADAMA, ADP and IFAD operating in the state have staff in LG offices as desk officers.
Table 23: Percentage distribution of LG staff perception of linkages that exist between LGs and state, international agricultural development agencies Types of linkages ADP IFAD FADAMA NDDC RSSDA III n=27 Information sharing 3.12* 2.75* 3.12* 2.68* 2.65* Joint diagnosis of problems 2.55* 2.35 2.55* 1.73 1.80 Joint use of farmers/clients 2.75* 2.65* 2.75* 1.80 1.82 Joint use of staff 2.55* 2.51* 2.52* 1.64 1.73 Join funding of project 2.45 2.55* 2.60* 1.50 1.55 Joint budgeting 1.70 1.65 1.65 1.40 1.55 Secondment of staff 1.56 1.45 1.56 1.48 1.51 Joint planning of a 2.18 1.90 1.60 1.35 1.30 programme Joint evaluation of a 2.45 2.40 2.50 1.48 1.60 prograame/project Staff on locations 1.82 1.93 1.93 1.72 1.50 Staff out stationing/outreach 1.75 1.79 1.33 1.43 1.49 Staff transfer 1.60 1.82 1.87 1.69 1.72 Record keeping 2.62* 1.53 2.62* 0.43 0.76 Transfer of service 2.17 0.43 2.17 0.34 0.34 • Strong Linkage ADP- Agricultural Development Project IFAD- International Fund for Agricultural Development NNDC- Niger Delta Development Commission RSSDA- Rivers State Sustainable Development Authority Source: Field data, 2013
104
Agricultural Development
Project (ADP) ) Staff Farmers Funding Admin RSSDA Information Information Funding Staff Farmers/clients
Administration Rivers State Sustainable Development ( Information Local Government Funding Information
Staff Funding Farmers/clients Staff Farmers/clients
Admin
(NDDC) Administration Fund Admin
ormation Staff Farmers f FADAMA III n I /clients International Fund for Agricultural Development (IFAD) Niger Delta Development Commission
105
4.7.1 Factors inhibiting LG administration in executing agricultural activities as perceived
by households
The result of the responses of rural households on inhibiting factors to executing agricultural activities is shown in Table 24. Using a mean score of 1.0 as a decision rule, almost all the listed variables were perceived as inhibiting factors to effective execution of agricultural activities in the state. These variables included: corruption (M=2.58), non-continuity of projects administration (M = 2.54), politicizing of selection of participants (M=2.37), urbanization resulting to deforestation (M = 2.24), poor interest of the community people (M=2.23), lack of adequate incentive (M = 2.23), none participation of the people the projects are intended for
(M=2.15), non needs identification before project implementation (M= 1.28), not siting the appropriate project required by the local people (M= 1.22), and youth restiveness in the rural areas (M=1.18). Pollution resulting from oil pollution (M=0.92), poor and dilapidating infrastructure in the rural areas (0.90), riskiness of the venture project without insurance provision (M=0.86), land degradation and soil erosion (M=0.82); and climate change (M=0.79) were not considered an inhibiting factor to agricultural activities implementation in the state.
Poor interest of the community people in agricultural activities militate against the implementation of agricultural activities in the state. Rivers state has a peculiar terrain and suffers from oil exploitation fall out and socio-economic impact of oil exploitation. Even when an agricultural project is sited for training of the masses or a segment of the population, the limiting factor had been that youths do not show much interest in agriculture as was the case of the Songhai farm training of the state government at Port Novo, Republic of Benin in 2008.
Although it was later politicized, the politicizing of the selection of participants for agricultural venture has frustrated the goal of the scheme with the attendant backlash on agricultural
106 development and negative sectoral growth. Most often, youths who were selected for agricultural training show either little or no interest in the activity, but rather are interested in the allowances to be paid during the training. They would rather believe that the allowances paid should have been their settlements for support and work done for the politicians, during the period of election. The politicians use such schemes to settle their youth wings while leaving out the genuinely interested masses that must have participated and benefited to make a difference.
LG not siting the appropriate project required by the local people and intended beneficiaries not participating in such activities have led to projects failure. The siting of some projects without connecting with the masses by some LG have led to non sustainability and dismal failure of such projects like the siting of oil palm at the coastal area of the state.
Successful activities/programmes take into action local knowledge, habits, culture materials and experience. In addition, to the technical subject matter which Igbokwe and Enwere (2001) observed that participatory research methodologies have proved to be powerful approaches for focusing on realities in rural and urban community’s agricultural development. Establishing agricultural activities without a proper understanding of the needs and aspirations of the people for whom the activities are planned for, results to rejection and lack of interest by the people
(Nwachukwu, 2008).
107
Table 24: Perception of households on factors inhibiting the execution of LG agricultural activities Inhibiting factor Mean Standard Dev n=180 Lack of adequate incentives 2.23** 0.633 Urbanization resulting to 2.24** 0.543 deforestation Corruption 2.58** 0.612 Non-continuity of projects 2.54** 0.583 administration Poor and dilapidating 0.90* 1.173 infrastructures in the rural areas None participation of the 2.15** 0.697 people the projects are intended for Land degradation and soil 0.82* 1.133 erosion Pollution resulting from oil 0.92* 1.164 pollution Youth restiveness in the 1.18** 0.713 rural areas Effects of climate change 0.79* 1.135 Not siting the appropriate 1.22** 0.628 project required by the local people Non needs identification 1 .28** 0.575 before project implementation Poor interest of the 2.23** 0.508 community Politicizing of selected 2.37** 0.517 participants Riskiness of the project 0.86* 1.166 without insurance provision **Inhibiting factors *Not Inhibiting factors Source: Field data, 2013
108
4.7..2 Factors inhibiting LG administration in executing agricultural activities as perceived
by LG staff
LG staff perception of factors inhibiting execution of agricultural activities is shown in
Table 25. Using a mean score of 1.0, all the listed variables were perceived as inhibiting factors to effective execution of agricultural activities in the state. Except effects of climate change
(m=0.89), pollution resulting from oil (M=0.72), riskiness of the venture without insurance provision (m=0.66), youth restiveness (m=0.58) and land degradation and soil erosion (m=0.42).
The inhibiting variables include: corruption (m= 2.68), low budgetary provision for agriculture
(m = 2.43); politicization of selection of participants (m=2.27), poor interest of the community
(m=2.13), poor monitoring and evaluation (m=1.78), lack of adequate incentive (m= 1.60), inconsistent government policies (m=1.40), non professional management (m = 1.24), not identifying the needs of the people before implementing projects (M=1.18), none participation of the people the projects are intended for (M=1.15), non-continuity of past leaders projects (m =
1.12), urbanization resulting to deforestation (M = 1.12), not siting the appropriate project required by the local people (M= 1.12), poor conception and planning of project (M= 1.04) and poor land dilapidating infrastructures in the rural areas (m=1.04). The result indicates that low budgetary allocation, corruption, lack of interest of the community people on agriculture, among others, have inhibited the growth of the sector in the state. Agriculture is the economic mainstay of the rural populace. It provides employment, food, raw materials for industries and help in the growth of the nation’s Gross Domestic Product (GDP). However, the budgetary allocation to the sector is low. Out-off of NGN2.9 trillion allocated to the state; NGN 21 billion was allocated to the agricultural sector within a period of 12 years representing 3.5% as was observed by Okidim
109 and Albert (2012) in their study on budgetary allocations to agriculture in Rivers state from 2000 to 2010.
Among the factors inhibiting agricultural activities implementation in the state, the mean of corruption ranked highest (2.68 and 2.58) in both LG staff and heads of households. Corruption is predominantly wide spread, undiluted and unambiguous in LGC as was reported by Aghayere,
(1997) and Oviasuyi; Idada and Isiraojie (2010) in their study on constraints to LG administration. Areas where corruption thrives in LGCs include the following: over- estimation of cost of projects and in award of contracts, diversion of fertilizers and money meant for farmers to personal use.
110
Table 25: Perception of LG staff on factors inhibiting the execution of LG agricultural activities Inhibiting factor Mean Standard Dev n=27 Low budgetary provision for 2.43** 0.539 agric Inconsistent government policies 1.40** 0.510 Lack of adequate incentives 1.60** 0.633 Non professional managing 1.24** 0.522 agric sector Urbanization resulting to 1.12** 0.543 deforestation Corruption 2.68** 0.612 Non-continuity of projects 1.12** 0.583 Poor and dilapidating 1.04** 0.673 infrastructures in the rural areas None participation of the 1.15** 0.697 people the projects are intended for Land degradation and soil 0.42* 1.33 erosion Pollution resulting from oil 0.72* 1.24 pollution Youth restiveness in the rural 0.58* 0.523 areas Effects of climate change 0.89* 1.135 Not siting the appropriate 1.12** 0.628 project required by the local people Non needs identification 1 .18** 0.575 before project implementation Poor interest of the 2.13** 0.508 community Politicizing selection of 2.27** 0.517 participants Poor conception and planning 1.04** 0.505 of project Riskiness of the venture 0.66* 1.166 without insurance provision Poor monitoring and 1.78** 0.651 evaluation **Inhibiting factors *Not Inhibiting factors Source: Field data, 2013
Table 26 shows the results of extracted factors of the rotated component matrix based on the responses of LG staff and heads of households on the possible factors inhibiting LG agricultural 111 activities. Four inhibiting factors were extracted based on the responses of the respondents namely economic (factor 1), institutional (factor 2), technical (factor 3) and environmental
(factor 4).
Loaded high under economic factor are: low budgetary provision for agriculture (0.556) and corruption (0.707). The budget allocation to the agricultural sector is small and not all the amount allocated is actually spent on the sector. Sometimes the money could end up in the pockets of corrupt officials. Corruption has inhibited the success of some of the agricultural activities implemented in the state. Tractors, fertilizers and fishing nets meant to be distributed to farmers were sold to farmers in other parts of the country which Oviasuyi; Idada and Isiraojie
(2010) observed that corruption have led to the inefficiency and ineffectiveness of in LG developing the agricultural sector in Nigeria.
Loadings under institutional factors (factor 2) include inconsistent government policies
(0.457), non professional managing the agricultural sector (0.516), non-continuity of past projects (0.621), and politicizing of selection of participants (0.523). Inconsistent government policies have hampered agricultural activities. Government policy should provide conducive and enabling environment to stimulate agricultural activities. This is often not the case, successive administration seem to have their own independent choices, ideas and course of action in agricultural development. This trend could only precipitate contradiction and project abandonment as it had been observed in some LG. There was a situation, where previous chairmen of some LGA distributed fertilizer, planting materials and fishing nets to farmers, today these LG have stopped such programmes.. Furthermore, non-continuity of agricultural projects/activities of previous regimes or administration has slowed the development of the agricultural sector. Projects and activities started by previous administration were hardly
112 continued by successive or subsequent administration, example was cassava farm and poultry farm implemented by previous Eleme and Ogba/Egbema/Ndoni LG chairmen the LGAs which according to Oviasuyi; Idada and Isiraojie (2010), non continuity of past leaders project has led to slow development of LGAs.
Factor 3 (technical factors) were: lack of adequate incentives (0.484), urbanization resulting to deforestation (0.447), non participation of the people in the projects (0.498), lack of needs assessment or inadequate needs assessment (0.461), system disconnect or not siting the appropriate project required by the local people (0.501), poor interest of the community (0.477), poor conception and planning of project (0.417), poor monitoring and evaluation (0.433), and youth restiveness in the rural areas (0.451). When the needs of rural people were not identified before siting a project, it makes leaders to implement inappropriate projects and activities that are not required by the local people which will ultimately make the people to have no interest in the project. When local people are allowed to participate in the choice of projects, diagnoses, planning and in the implementation, motivation is engendered for full participation. Since the people were involved in the planning of the project, they appreciate their roles and contributions outlined in the project and they see it as their own. They spontaneously participate in the project willingly with little external drive or advocacy. Arouse of interest, according to Maunder (1973) in participation helps to arouse the interest and involvement of people and results in better programmes. There was no loading under factor 4 (environmental factors).
113
Table 26: Rotated component matrix based on the responses of LG staff and rural households on inhibiting factors in executing LG agricultural projects/programmes Factor 1 Factor 2 Factor 3 Factor 4 Inhibiting Factors (Economic (Instituti onal (Technical (Environmental Factors) Factors) Factors) Factors) Inconsistent government 0.301 0.457 0.289 0.399 polices Low budgetary provision for 0.556 0.283 0.201 0.296 agric Lack of adequate incentives 0.239 0.387 0.484 0.391 Non professional managing 0.217 0.516 0.344 0.378 agric sector Urbanization resulting to 0.201 0.321 0.447 0.248 deforestation Corruption 0.707 0.306 0.243 0.251 Non-continuity of past leaders 0.252 0.621 0.201 0.192 Projects Poor and dilapidating 0.203 0.431 0.322 0.259 infrastructures in the rural areas None participation of the 0.185 0.209 0.498 0.204 people the projects are intended for land degradation and soil 0.210 0.231 0.221 0.319 erosion Pollution resulting from oil -0.132 0.047 0.270 0.241 pollution Youth restiveness in the rural 0.189 0.211 0.451 0.047 areas Effects of climate change 0. 219 0.147 0.229 0.355 Not siting the appropriate 0. 222 0.156 0.501 0.041 project required by the local people Non needs identification 0.224 0.159 0.461 0.182 before project implementation Poor interest of the community 0.334 0.121 0.477 0.041 Politicizing of selected 0.372 0.523 0.210 0.312 participants Poor conception and planning 0.223 0.319 0.417 0.159 of project Riskiness of the venture 0.188 0.102 0.032 - 0.015 project without insurance provision Poor monitoring and 0.218 0.306 0.433 0.038 evaluation Extraction Method: Principal Component Analysis. Rotation Method: Varimax with Kaiser Normalization. Rotation converged in 7 iteration Source: Field Data, 2013
114
CHAPTER FIVE
5.0 Summary, Conclusion and Recommendations
5.1 Summary
The overall purpose of the study was to assess local government agricultural activities in
Rivers State, Nigeria. Specifically, the study was designed to: identify types of agricultural activities implemented by LGs in the state; ascertain level of participation of rural households in agricultural activities; ascertain perceived benefits of agricultural activities on rural dwellers; ascertain change in welfare of beneficiaries of LG agricultural activities before and after participation; assess status of funding (budgetary allocation and actual) for agricultural activities by LGAs from 2005 to 2010; identify linkages that exist between LGs and the state, international agencies and other agricultural agencies; and ascertain factors inhibiting LG administration in executing agricultural activities in the state.
The population of the study was made up of all local leaders (traditional rulers, and officials of the Community Development Committee (CDC)), staff of LGC and household heads in Rivers State. Multi-stage sampling technique was employed to select 18 town communities from nine (9) LGAs. A total sample size of 207 respondents made up of 18 traditional rulers, 36
CDC officials, 126 households’ heads and 27 LG staff (3 from each LGA) were used for the survey. Data for the study were collected from respondents using questionnaire and interview schedule. Two sets of instrument were used for data collection. Frequency, percentage, pie charts, paired- wise ranking, mean scores, standard deviation, paired t-test, multiple regression, exploratory factor analysis, and binary logit were used to analyze the data collected.
Results of the study revealed that 37.1% of the LG staff, 30.6% of households’ heads were within the age range of 40-49 years. The mean ages of the LG staff and households heads
115 were 45.1 and 44.3 years, respectively indicating that the respondents were in their productive stage. Most (55.6% and 66.7%) of the LG staff and household heads, respectively were males indicating that males dominated the study. Also, majority (74.1% and 66.7%) of the LG staff and households heads, respectively were married. This implies that the respondents were people who had the responsibility of caring and providing for their families. Furthermore, all (100%) the LG staff were educated, out of which 81.5% are degree holders while 81.4% of the households were educated out of which 34.4% have WASC/GGC/SSC. This implies that LG staff read beyond secondary level while majority of the households’ heads stopped at secondary level. The main occupation of LG staff is civil service while half (50.3%) of the households heads depend mainly on farming. The OLS was regression used to test the first hypothesis which states that: There is no significant effect of participants’ socio-economic attributes/characteristics on participation index, revealed that the semi log model showed that at R2=0.55; education and occupation showed a positive relationship at (p ≤ 0.05), therefore the null hypothesis was rejected.
Results of the study revealed that building of markets ranked first (1st) as the dominant agricultural activity implemented by LGAs in the state. The second ranked agricultural activity the state is in the fisheries sub-sector while establishment of poultry farms follows as the third ranked agricultural activity implemented. This implies that building of markets, establishment of fishery and poultry farms were the main agricultural activities implemented by LGCs in the
State. The status of agricultural activities implemented showed that a higher percentage (46%) of the respondents affirmed that building of markets had been completed followed by 22% of the respondents who agreed that some fishery farms had been completed. This implies that LGA have started harvesting and selling their fish to the rural populace. For poultry farms, 7.7% of the respondents said they had been completed, 7.2% said it existed. This means that poultry
116 farms were implemented by past LG chairmen which are no longer fashionable. Majority
(80.39%) of the staff agreed that FADAMA collaborated with the LG to fund fishery projects.
Also, 3.3% and 80.4% of the staff said IFAD and FADAMA, respectively collaborated with the
LG to fund the establishment of poultry farms. It implies that these two organizations, which are international agencies, collaborated with the LG to fund some of the agricultural activities/projects in the state.
Also, the result shows that majority (62.5%) of the local leaders and households’ participated in the implementation stage of agricultural activities carried out by LGAs in the state. Out of this percentage, 43.3% participated because of the incentives involved which is
Material Incentive Induced Participation, 29.4% of the respondents were consulted and informed to participate when the activity/project has already been diagnosed, planned and designed by an external agency which is Passive Participation and 12.2% participated on paper/document than in actuality which is Functional participation. While 7% participated because they were given the impression that participating in agricultural activities was good for them which is Manipulative participation. It implies that rural people are willing to participate in agricultural activities that would improve their standard of living especially when incentives in the form of cash and materials are attached.
LG staff and households heads’ perception on benefits of LG agricultural activities showed that increased employment opportunities (M=3.14), reduced poverty rate (M=3.17), reduced rural-urban migration (M=3.06), encouraged more rural people to go into farming (M=3.10), reduced income disparities (M=2.83,), development of the rural areas (M=2.99), provision of raw materials for the nations industry (M=3.02), ensured food sufficiency and food security
(M=2.91), low cost of food (M=3.11), adoption of agricultural innovation (M=3.06), lower
117 unemployment (M=3.18), reduction of youth restiveness (M=3.11), increased food supply
(M=3.10), increased interest on agriculture (M=3.13) and increased agro business in the area
(M=2.98) were the benefits accrued from agricultural development. This implies that the development of the agricultural sector has enormous benefits to the rural people. However, local leaders and household heads’ perception on benefits of LG agricultural activities in Rivers State considered increased rural infrastructure and reduced income disparities as not benefits of LG implementing agricultural projects.
The LGA that budgeted and spent the highest amount on agricultural development out of the 6 upland LGAs surveyed was Khana LGA with 6.4%, followed by Bonny LGA with 3.8% and Eleme 2.4%. Opobo/Nkoro, Etche, Ikwerre, Obio/Akpor and Ahoada-East spent 1.6%,
1.2%, 1.1%, 1.1% and 1.03%, respectively on agricultural development. The LGA that allocated the lowest fund was Asari-Toru with 0.6% while Bonny LGA budgeted 3.6% but spent 3.8%.
None of the LGAs actually spent up to 10% in agriculture. This implies that funding for agriculture is very small to bring about any meaningful development in that sector.
The area of common linkage between ADP, FADAMA, IFAD, NDDC and RSSDA was in: information sharing which showed strong linkages. The mean of the five agencies was above
2.50. Joint use of staff (M=3.25), joint reaching and locating farmers (M-2.65) and joint funding of project (M=2.84) show a strong linkage between LG and Fadama and IFAD.
Major factors inhibiting effective implementation of agricultural activities in the state according to the perception of households heads included; corruption, poor interest of the community people, urbanization resulting to deforestation, non-continuity of past leaders projects, not siting the appropriate project required by the local people and poor monitoring and evaluation. While LG staff were of the view that low budgetary provision for agriculture,
118 inconsistence government policies, non specialist heading the agricultural sector, corruption, non-continuity of past leaders’ projects, politicization of selected participants, poor monitoring and poor conception and planning of projects were the major factors inhibiting effective implementation of agricultural activities in the state
The result of the rotated component matrix showing the extracted factors, based on the responses of LG staff and heads of households on the possible factors inhibiting LG agricultural activities shows three inhibiting factors namely; economic factors (factor 1), institutional factors
(factor 2) and technical factors (factor 3), there was no loading under environmental factors
(factor 4),
5.2 Conclusion
Different types of agricultural activities were implemented by State Government, LG and international agencies in the State. They include building of markets for agricultural produce, establishment of poultry and f fish farms, training of youths in agriculture, encouraging farmers to form cooperatives and giving of loans to farmers. Some of these agricultural activities implemented had been completed and rural dwellers and farmers in most of these LG areas were already benefiting from these activities for example markets built through LG efforts for evacuation of agricultural produce are already functioning. Others already completed and put to use include; fish farms and poultry farms. Agricultural activities that are on- going include training of youths in agriculture with a view to making them entrepreneurs and encouraging formation of cooperative groups among farmers. While provision of fertilizer to farmers, establishment of cassava farms, distribution of fishing nets to fishermen and provision of tractors
119 were carried out in the past by LG administration but were no longer fashionable at the present dispensation.
The agricultural activities/projects that were implemented, some of the rural people participated as labourers at the project sites while the traditional leaders and local leaders were involved in the allocation of land to the executors (State/LG). Also, some of the rural dwellers part took in the training of agricultural skills and in the planning and monitoring of the activities/projects. In that respect, household participation in LG agricultural development was significantly influenced by their educational level, occupation and income. .
Most of the rural people were of the view that the development of the agricultural sector in the state, would give employment opportunities to the unemployed, reduce poverty among rural people, provision of raw materials for our industry and ensure food availability in the state.
However, the amount budgeted and spent on agriculture in the state in low. In some of the
LGs, the amount budgeted was not actually spent and this has retarded the development of the sector in the State.
There was a strong linkage that existed between LG and other agricultural agencies in the area of joint use of staff, joint use of clients and joint funding of projects. This has helped in the development of the agricultural sector in the State to some extent.
Low budgetary allocation, corruption, non-continuity of projects/programmes by successive government, lack of interest in agriculture by our youths has affected the development of agriculture in the state.
120
5.3 Recommendations
Based on the findings of the study, the following recommendations were made:
1. For the agricultural sector to have the required impact on the rural people, enough funds
have to be allocated to the sector. A minimum of 10% annual budget allocation should be
assigned to the sector, not just allocated on paper but to be actually spent on the sector.
2. There is the need to check and reduce corruption in LG. This will ensure that money
budgeted and released for agricultural development is not diverted for something else but
fully applied within the sector.
3. LG should not only concentrate on building of markets, establishment of fish and poultry
farms. They should diversify into food processing, formation of farmers’ cooperatives,
giving of credit to farmers and training of youths in agricultural skills. .
4. Furthermore, the phenomenon of non- continuity of projects by successive administrations
should be eradicated. Successive administration should continue with projects that were
established by their predecessors’, especially agricultural development projects that
would impact on the people as this will ensure sustained development of agriculture.
5. Most times, the amount allocated to the agriculture sector was not spent on it especially
when a non agriculturist heads the department. Therefore, allowing a specialist in
agriculture to head the department will help in the improvement of the sector.
121
REFERENCES
Adamolekun, L. (1979). The Idea of Local Government as a Third Level Government. Ibadan: Heinemann Educational.
Adamolekun, L. (1983). Public Administration: A Nigeria and Comparative Perspective. New York : Longman Inc.
Adedoyin, S.F., Fapojumo, O.E., & Torimiro, D. (1999). Educational Communication Materials in Agricultural Technology Promotion: A Survey of Extension Agents in Ijebu area of Ogun State. Proceedings of the 5th Annual National Conference of the Agricultural Extension Society of Nigeria (AESON).
Adesope, O.M. (2003; July). Monitoring development projects among Niger Delta youths in Nigeria .Agricultural Research and Extension Network Newsletter. No. 48.
Adesope, O.M. (2007). Agricultural Youth Organization: Introductory Concepts (Second Edition). Port Harcourt: University of Port Harcourt Press.
Agagu, A.A. (1997). Local Government. In: Kolawole, D. (ed) Reading in Political Science. Ibadan: Dekaals.
Agbakoba, R & Ogbonna, M (2004). Local Government Administration and Development in Nigeria. Lagos: The Human Rights Law Services.
Aghayere, V.O. (1997). Dominant Issues in the Nigerian Local Government System: A Contemporary Focus. Lagos : Imprint Services.
Agwu, A. E. & Adeniran, A.A. (2009). Sources of agricultural information used by arable crop farmers in Isale Osun farm settlement, Osogho Local Government Area of Osun State. Journal of Agricultural Extension, 13(1): 24-34
Ajayi, K. (2000). Theory and Practice of Local Government. Ado Ekiti : UNAD.
Akpan, N.U (1988). Epitaph to indirect rule In: O. Oyediran (ed) Essays on Local Government and Administration in Nigeria. Lagos: Project Publication Ltd.
Albert, C.O., Emah, G.N., & Ezeano, C.I. (2009). Analysis of unemployment among youths in Ogba/Egbema/Ndoni and Ahoada-East Local Government Area in Rivers State. Journal of National Association of Science, Humanities and Education Research, 7(1): 21-24
Albert, C.O. (2010). Unemployment and its problems in rural Rivers State. International Journal of Social Science, 2(2), 54-57
122
Albert, C.O. (2013). Changes in rural livelihoods systems in oil producing communities: Implications for agricultural development. International Journal of Rural Studies, 1(20): 5-11.
Albert, C.O & Igbokwe, E.M (2014). Assessment of rural livelihoods in oil producing communities of Rivers State, Nigeria. Agricultura, Agricultural Practice and Science Journal, 1-2 (89-90), 103-108.
African Multiple Indicator Scorecard on Hunger and Food Security (2014). www africanscorecard/hunger/foodsecurity. Retrived 29/5/15
Amakom, U. (2009). Effective financing of local governments to provide water and sanitation services. Report on 12119 Nigeria-Finanacing Water and Sanitation at Local Levels, Department of Economics, Nnandi Azikiwe University, Awka, Enugu state, Nigeria. Layout 1, 3:41
Ani, A.O (2013).Contemporary Issues in Programme Planning, Implementation , Monitoring and Evaluation in Agricultural Extension. Ibadan: BWright Integrated Publishers.
Arowolo, D. (2008). Local Government Administration and the Challenges of Rural Development in Nigeria. Lagos : Unicampus Books.
Adeniyi, A.A. (2008). Third National Fadama Development Project (Fadama-III). Paper presented at workshop held on the 17 November at Abuja.
Botlhoko, G. J. & Oladele, O. I.(2013). Factors affecting farmers’ participation in agricultural projects in Ngaka Modiri Molema District North West Province, South Africa. Journal of Human Ecology, 41(3): 201-206.
Barber, M.P. (1974). Local Government (Third Edition). London: Macdonald & Evans Ltd.
Bretty, E.A. (2003) Participation and accountability in development management. The Journal of Development Studies, 40 (2), 1-29.
Butt, T. A; Mclan, B.A; Augenes, J. Dyke, P.T & Stuth, J.W. (2005) The economic and food security: Implications of climate change in Matia. Journal of climate change, 6(8); 355 – 378
Chabeuf, N., Toledeno, J., Bouarfa, Y., & Neighbor, H (2004). Benin: Faster and less costly commonly developed: In William, R and Gary, A (Ed) Demand-Driven approaches to agricultural extension: Case studies of international initiatives. Agricultural and rural development. Discussion Paper 10, Extension reform for rural development. The World Bank.
Chizea, B. & Ubhenin, O. (2009).Current Perspectives on Local Government in Nigeria. Benin City: Dos- Nitas Global.
123
Chukuigwe, E. C (2010). The FADAMA III baseline report, Port Harcourt, Rivers State
David – West, T (1985). The Petroleum Industry and the Nigerian Environment. Keynote Address presented at the seminar on Petroleum Industry and the Nigerian Environment, Lagos.
DFID (2002). Tools for Development. A handbook for those engaged in development activity. Performance and Effectiveness Department, DFID.
Drake, S.D. (1991). Local participation in Ecothrivm projects In: T. Whela (ed) Nature Tourism: Managing for the Environment. Washington D.C: Island Press.
Dukeshire, S & Thurlow, J (2002). Challenges and barriers to community participation in policy development. Rural Communities Impacting Policy Project, Halifax, Ns. 6
Daniel, N., Denford, M., & James, E (2003). Determinants of household participation in rural development projects. Selected Paper for presentation at the Southern Agricultural Economics Association Annual Meeting, Alabama, USA.
Ekong, E.E (2003). Introduction to Rural Sociology. Uyo: Dove Publishers.
Ekpo, H. H & Olaniyi, O. (1995). Rural development in Nigeria: Analysis of the impact of the Directorate of Food, Roads & Rural Infrastructure (DFRRI) 1986 – 93. In Eboh, E.C., Okoye, O., & Ayichi(eds) Development in Nigeria, Concepts, Processes and Prospects. Enugu: Auto-Century Publishing.
Ekpo, U. (2004). The Niger Delta and oil Politics. International Energy Communication, vol. 1.
FAO (1997). Negotiating a Sustainable Future for Land. Rome: Land and Water Development Division, FAO.
FAO (1997) Participation in Practice: Lessons from the FAO People’s Participation Programme [online]. [Accessed on 25th June 2006]. Available from
Farid, K.S., Mozumdar, L., Kabir, M.S., & U.K. Goswami, U.K. (2009). Nature and Extent of Rural Women’s Participation in Agricultural and Non-Agricultural Activities. Agricultural Science Digest, 29(4): 254-259.
Federal Government of Nigeria (FGN) (1976).Guidelines for Local Government Reforms 1976. Abuja: FRN.
Federal Republic of Nigeria (FRN) (2002).The New Nigerian Agricultural Policy. http://www.nipo.gov.ng/important%Odocument/policy.Doc.
124
Food and Agricultural Organization (FAO) (2006). Plan of Action for People’s Participation in Rural Development. Food and Agricultural Organization, Rome.
Freeman, H.E., Rossi, P.H., Wright, S.R. (1979). Evaluating Social Projects in Developing Countries. Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD), UK.
Gayanajake, S. (1993).Community Empowerment: A Participating Training Moral of Community Project Development Office of the Inter training and Consultation. USA: Northern Illinois University.
Gboyega, A. (1987). Political Values and Local Government in Nigeria. Nigeria: Malt house Press Ltd.
Gordon, A & Crang, C. (2001). Rural non-farm activities and poverty alleviation in Sub- Sahara, Africa. Policy Series 14 Chathan UK, NRI
Greene, H. W. (2008). Econometric Analysis 5th Edition. New Jersey: Pearson Education Inc.
Guijt, I. and Shah, M.K. (eds) (1998). The Myth of Community: Gender issues in participatory development. London: ITDG Publishing.
Gujarati, D. N. (2006). Essentials of Econometrics. 3rd Edition. New York : Mc Graw Hill.
Hart, R. (1992). Children’s Participation: From Tokenism to Citizenship. Florence: UNICEF.
Hoag, D.I., Ascough II, J.C., & Frasier, M.W. (1999). Farm computer adoption in the Great Plains. Journal of Agricultural Applied Economics, 31(1999):57-67. http:// guide. online Nigeria.com http://RiversState.online
Human Rights Watch (HRW) (2007). The human rights impact of local government corruption and mismanagement in Rivers State, Nigeria. Human Rights Watch, (19)2A: 23-25
Ibe, S.N. (2011). Nigerian agriculture, global challenges and rural development In: Nwachukwu, I. & Ekwe, K.C. (eds) Globalization and Rural Development in Nigeria. Abia : Extension Centre, Michael Okpara University of Agriculture.
IFAD, (2006). About IFAD. Available on en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/international Fund for Agricultural Development, Retrieved 12 April, 2013.
IFAD, (2010). The Economy of Nigeria: Nigeria Community-based Natural Resource Management Programme, Niger Delta Appraisal Report.
125
International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI) (2004). Assuring food and nutrition security in Africa by 2020. Proceedings of All African Conference, Kampala, Uganda
International Fund for Agricultural Development (IFAD) (2004). www.ruralpovertyportal.org. Retrived on 03/06/15
Igbokwe, E.M. & Ajala, A. A. (1995). Popular participation for rural development in Nigeria. In: Eboh, E.C, Okoye, O. & Ayichi, D. (eds) Rural Development in Nigeria: Concepts, Process and Prospects. Enugu : Auto-Century Publishing.
Igbokwe, E.M & Enwere, N.J. (2001). Participatory Rural Appraisal in Development Research. Enugu : New Generation Ventures.
Igbuzor, O. (2002). Making democracy work in Nigeria: The civil society and constitutional reform In: Buja, A & Adejunobi, S. (eds) Breaking Barriers, Creating New Hopes: Democracy, Controvert and Good Governance in Africa. USA : Africa World Press.
Igbuzor, O. (2004). Local Government Reform and Constitutional Review in Nigeria. Retrieved on 10/7/2012 from http://www.gamiji.com/NEWS.2676.html
Imuetinyan, F.O. (2002). Issues in Nigerian Government and Administration. Benin City: Denvic Publishing Company.
Isife, B.I (2001). Linkages between Non-Governmental Agricultural Extension Systems and Technology Generation and Utilization Sub-systems in South-Eastern Nigeira. The Nigeria Agricultural Journal, Vol. 32, 174 – 187.
Isife, B. I. & Onyeocha, V.C. (2014). Analysis of linkages among organizations involved in agricultural and rural development of Ogba area in Rivers State Nigeria. Arabian Journal of Business and Management Review (Nigerian Chapter,) 2,( 9), 36-42.
Kahn, S.U., Gurley, E.S., Hossain, M.J., Nahar, N., & Sharker, M.A.Y. (2012). A randomized controlled trial of interventions to impede date palm sap contamination by bats to prevent nipah virus transmission in Bangladesh. PLOS ONE 7(8): e42689. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0042689
Kolawale, A. (1982). The role of grassroots participation in national development: Lessons from the Kwara State of Nigeria community. Development Journal, 17 (2): 11-18
Lawal, S. (2000). Local government administration in Nigeria: A practical approach In: Ajayi, K (ed) Theory and Practice of Local Government. Ado Ekitti: UNAO.
Laski, H. J. (1982). A Grammar of Politics. London: Allen Unwin.
Lockard, D.M. (1968). Local Government in International Encyclopedia of the Social Sciences. New York: Voloa Publisher.
126
Madukwe, M.C. & Ndukwo, I.K (1999). Linkages between public agricultural extension services and private agricultural input support agencies In: T.A. Olowu (ed) Agricultural Extension Research and Development in Nigeria. Processing of the 5th Annual National Conference of the Agricultural Extension Society of Nigeria (AESON) held at Nsukka, Enugu State.
Madukwe, M.C. (2004). Multivariate analysis for agricultural extension research. In: Olowu, T.A. (ed) Research Methods in Agricultural Extension. Ilorin: ASESON.
Madukwe, M.C. (2008). Role of local government in Fadama III. Paper presented at workshop on the 17th of November held at Abuja, Nigeria.
Manyong, V.M., Ikpi, A., Olayemi, J.K., & Yusuf, S.A (2005). Agriculture in Nigeria: Identifying Opportunities for Increased Commercialization and Investment. Ibadan: 11TA.
Masanyiwa, Z.S & Kinyashi, G.F. (2008). Analysis of community participation in projects managed by Non- Governmental Organization: A case of world vision in Central Tanzania. United Kingdom: Institute of Development Studies, IDS
Maunder, A.H. (1973). Agricultural Extension: A Reference Manual. Rome: FAO.
Mohammad, S.N. (2010). People’s participation in development projects at grass-root level: A case study of Alampur and Jagannathpur Union Parishad. Master in Public Policy and Governance Program, Department of General and Continuing Education, North South University, Bangladesh.
NAOC (2004). Community Development. News Bulletin, Vol. 13: 10-12
National Population Census (NPC) (2006).The National Population Commission.
Ndirika, V.I. (2011). Status of agro-processing in Nigeria: Challenges in alleviating food crisis. In Nwachukwu, I & Ekwe, K.C. (eds) Globalization and Rural Development in Nigeria. Extension Centre, Michael Okpara University of Agriculture, Abia.
National Directorate of Employment (NDE) (2013). Employment in Rivers State. Bulletin of Directorate of employment, 4(12): 12-14
Nnadi, F. N. & Akwiwu, C. D. (2008). Determinants of youths` participation in rural agriculture in Imo State, Nigeria. Journal of Applied Sciences, 8: 328-333.
Nwabueze, B.O. (1982). A Constitutional History of Nigeria. London: Macmillan.
Nwachukwu, I & Onuekwusi, G.O. (eds) (2005). Agricultural Extension and Rural Development. Enugu: Snaap Press.
127
Nwachukwu, Ike (2008). Planning and Evaluation of Agricultural and Rural Development Projects. Umuahia: Lamb House Publishers.
Nwachukwu, I. & Kanu, R.U. (2011). Globalization and rural development strategy of Michael Okpara University of Agriculture Umudike: A paradigm shift. In Nwachukwu, I & Ekwe, K.C. (eds) Globalization and Rural Development in Nigeria. Abia: Extension Centre, Michael Okpara University of Agriculture.
Nwalieji, H.U. & Igbokwe, E.M. (2012).Assessment of performance of local government administration in agricultural development in Anambrs State. A Ph.D degree seminar presented at Department of Agricultural Extension, University of Nsukka, Nigeria.
Nwalieji, H.U., Igbokwe, E.M., and Nsoanya, L.N. (2012). The role of local government in agricultural development in Anambra, Nigeria. In Aniebo, A.O & Ugwumba, C.O.A (eds) Processing of International Agricultural Conference on Environmental Concerns and Agricultural Productivity, Anambra State University, Igbaram Campus,Anambra State.
Nwalieji, H.U., Igbokwe, E.M., & Okeke (2013). Constraints to local government performance in agricultural development in Anambra State, Nigeria. Book of Abstracts of 18th Annual National Conference on Transforming Nigerian Agricultural Extension of Agricultural Extension Society of Nigeria (AESON).
Nyienakuma, M.G (2011). Contribution of advisory services and input support: Support to ADPs and adaptive research to the attainment of the FADAMA III project development objective in Rivers State, Port Harcourt
Obuzor, I. C. (1998). Economic Impact of Crude oil Exploitation on Farmlands in Ogba/Egbema/Ndoni Local Government Area of Rivers State; MSc Theses University of Science and Technology, Port Harcourt
Odoh, A. (1990). Local government party policies and political regimes. Paper presented at Conference on Administration and People in Rural Areas Source/dependence, Bordeaux, France.
Ojo, S.O.J (2009). Issues in perspective. In: Aghayere, V.O. & Iyohe, F.E. (eds) Ethics, Standard and Accountability in Governance. Ekpoma: Institute for Governance and Development, Ambrose Ali University.
Ojoko, S. (2000). History and Development of Agricultural Extension: Agricultural Extension Theory and Practice. Owerri: Springfield Publisher.
Okidim, A.I. & Albert, C.O. (2012). Assessment of budgeting allocation to agricultural sector and its effect on agricultural output in Rivers State, Nigeria (1999-2000). Journal of Biology Agriculture and Health Care, 2(5): 29-33
128
Ola, R.O.F. (1984). Local Government Administration in Nigeria. London: Kegan Parl.
Oladejo, J. A., Olawuyi, S.O., & Anjorin, T.D (2011). Analysis of women participation in agricultural production in Egbedore Local Government Area of Osun State, Nigeria. International Journal of Agricultural Economics and Rural Development, 4(1): 1-11
Oladele, Y.L. (2013). The contributories of the doctrine of citizens’ participation in organization and implementation of community development projects. European Journal of Scientific Research , 41 (1): 31-37.
Olanipekun, J. M. (1988). Local Government in Nigeria: Local Government System in Nigeria Ibarapa Local Government Area, Oyo State
Omokore, D.F. (2009). The crises facing the Nigerian peasantry since independence In: Agbamu, J.U (eds) Rural Development. Owerri: Springfield Publishers Ltd.
Omotoso, F. (ed). (2001). Contemporary Issues in Public Administration. Lagos: Bolabay Publication.
Onuekwusi, G (2011). Rural youths and development in a globalized world In: Nwachukwu, I & Ekwe, K.C. (eds) Globalization and Rural Development in Nigeria. Abia: Extension Centre, Michael Okpara University of Agriculture.
Onyeocha, V.C. (2010). Linkages among Organisations involved in Agricultural and Rural Development in Ogba/Egbema/Ndoni LGA of Rivers State. B.Sc Project, Department of Agricultural Economics and Extension, Rivers State University of Science and Technology, Port Harcourt.
Orewa, G & Adewumni, J.B (1983). Local Government in Nigeria: The Changing Phase. Benin: Ethiope Publishing.
Orubo, D.I. (2005). Knowing Rivers State, Its People and Culture. Port Harcourt: Young Minds International.
Overseas Development Institute (ODI) (1997). Global hunger anf food security after the World Food Summit. Briefing Paper, (1): 1- 15.
Oviasuyi, P.O., Idada, W., & Isiraoje, L. (2010). Constraints of local government administration in Nigeria. Journal of Social Science, 24(2): 81-86.
Oyediran, O (1988). Essays on Local Government and Administration in Nigeria. Lagos: Project Publications.
129
Ozor, N. & Madukwe, M.C. (2005). Obstacles to the adoption of improved rabbit technologies by small scale farmers in Nsukka Local Government Area of Enugu State. Journal of Tropical Agriculture, Food, Environment and Extension, (4) 1: 70-73.
Philip, D., Nkonya, E., Pender, J., & Oni, A.O. (2008). Constraints to increasing agricultural productivity in Nigeria. In: Nigeria Strategy Support Programme. Brief No.4 IFPRI (International Food Policy Research Institute).
Rifkin S.B & Pridimore, P. (2001). Partners in Planning: Information, Participation and Environment. London: Macmillan/TALC.
Rivers State Fadama Development Office (2012). National Fadama 111 Project Sub- Projects Implemented in Rivers State, Dec 2009- Dec 2012. A Brief in Rivers State Fadama
Rivers State Ministry of Agriculture (2012). Statistical Bulletin.
Sam, O. (2012). Institutional Strengthening and Development of Rural Community in Niger Delta: IFAD/FGN/NDDC Community Based Natural Resource Management Programme: Achievements from 2006-2012.
Scarpitti, F.A & Anderson, M.C (1998). Social Problems: Unemployment (2nd Edition). New York: Herper Collins Publishers.
Smith, B & Skinnes, M. (2002). Adaptation options in agriculture to climate change. A hypnology, mitigation and adaptation strategies for global change. African Journal of Agriculture and Resource Economics 3(5), 78-82
Turyatunga, F.R. (2004). Tools for Local Level Rural Development Planning: Washington D.C: World Resources Institute.
Uchegbu, S. N. (1998). Environmental Management and Protection. M.Sc Dissertation, Institute of Pollution Studies, Rivers State University Science and Technology, Port Harcourt.
Ugorji, M.T. (2000). The Economy of Ogba/Egbema/Ndoni People of Rivers State of Nigeria. Canada: Mandyn University Press.
Ugwu, S.C. (2000). Issues in Local Government and Urban Administration in Nigeria. Enugu: Echrisi and CO.
UNDP (1992) .The Benefit of Biodiversity: An Incentive Towards Sustainable Agriculture. United Nation Development Program, New York.
Vishoo, B. & Vidya, B. (2005). Public Administration (17th edition). New Delhi: Schand and Company.
130
Williams, S. K. T (1993). Rural Development in Nigeria, University of Ife Press, Nigeria
Washington State Legislation (WSL) (Online). Agricultural Activities and Forest Practices: Definition. Retrieved from apps.leg.wa.gov/rew/default.espx on 01/08/2014.
Weinberger, K. & Jutting, J.P (Online). Determinants of participation in local development groups: Experiences from group based projects in Kashmir and Chad. Centre for Development Research (ZEF), University of Bonn. www//5034.localparticipation.com
World Bank (1994). The World Bank and Participation. Washington D.C: World Bank.
World Bank (1996). World Bank Participation source book [online]. Available from
World Food Programme (2005). Emergency Food Security Assessment Handbook. United Nations World Food Programme (WFP)
Wralth, R. (1964). Local Government in West Africa. London: George Allen and Unwin Ltd.
Zhang, Y & Huxham, C (2001). Identify construction and trust building in developing instructional collaborations. Journal of Applied Behavioural Science, 45(2): 186-211.
131
APPENDIX A
Table 18: Funding and actual for three LGAs AHOADA- ASARI-TORU LGA ELEME LGA WEST LGA Year Average Actual % of Average Actual % of Averag Actual Amount % of Local Amount Budget Local Amount Budget e Local Budget/Spent on Govern Budget/Spe Spent on Government Budget/S Spent Govern Agriculture in N:K Budget ment nt on Agricultur Allocation pent on on ment Spent Allocati Agriculture e Actuals Annually in Agricultu Agricul Allocati on on in N:K Naira: Kobo re in N:K ture on Annuall Actuals Annuall Agricul y in y in ture Naira: Naira: Actuals Kobo Kobo 2005 9164000 3,000,000 3.27 75840000 100,000 0.132 790000 470,000 0.595 0.00 00 2006 1106000 2,000,000 1.81 120080000 500,000 0.416 120080 760,000 0.633 00 000 2007 1153400 1,000,000 0.87 126400000 1,000,000 0.791 126400 1,000,000 0.791 00 000 2008 1264000 400,000 0.32 153260000 1,000,000 0.652 139040 2,000,000 1.438 00 000 2009 1390716 500,000 0.36 142231600 1,000,000 0.703 143780 6,000,000 4.173 00 000 2010 1340000 500,000 0.37 100000000 500,000 0.500 120000 7,000,000 5.833 00 000 Total Fund 7170516 7,400,000 717811600.0 4,100,000 728300 17,230,000 00.00 0 000.00 Mean 1195086 1233333.33 1.03 119635266.6 683333.3 0.57 121383 2871666.67 2.37 00.00 7 3 333.33 Source: Computed by Author, 2013 based on data from Human Right Watch, 2007 & Nigerian Tide, 2008 .
Table 18: Funding and actual for three LGAs Ikwerre LGA Khana LGA Bonny LGA Year Average Actual % of Average Actual % of Average Actual % of Local Amount Budget Local Amount Budget Local Amount Budget Government Budget/S Spent Governm Budget/S Spent Governm Budget/S Spent Allocation pent on on ent pent on on ent pent on on Annually Agricultu Agricul Allocatio Agricultu Agricul Allocatio Agricultu Agricul re ture n re ture n re ture Actuals Annually Actuals Annually Actuals 2005 92114000 0 0.00 75840000 1,000,00 1.319 82160000 8,100,00 9.859 0 0 2006 110600000 300,000 0.27 79000000 500,000 0.633 94800000 8,000,00 8.439 0 2007 121660000 6,000,00 4.93 12482000 3,300,00 2.644 13746000 6,760,00 4.918 0 0 0 0 0 2008 126400000 300,000 0.24 13098200 5,700,00 4.352 14536000 600,000 0.413 0 0 0
132
2009 137460000 500,000 0.36 13749160 10,500,0 7.637 15800000 1,105,00 0.699 0 00 0.00 0 2010 124000000 500,000 0.40 10000000 20,300,0 20.300 13400000 3,800,00 2.836 0 00 0 0 Total 712234000. 7,600,00 64813360 41,300,0 75178000 28,365,0 Fund 00 0 0.00 00 0.00 00 Mean 118705666. 1266666. 1.07 10802226 6883333. 6.37 12529666 4727500. 3.77 67 67 6.67 33 6.67 00 Source: Computed by Author, 2013 based on data from Human Right Watch, 2007 & Nigerian Tide, 2008 .
Table 18: Funding and actual for three LGAs Opobo/Nkoro LGA Obio/Akpor LGA Year Average Actual % of Average Actual % of Average Local Amount Budget Local Amount Budget Local Government Budget/Spent Spent on Government Budget/Spent Spent on Government Allocation on Agriculture Allocation on Agriculture Allocation Annually Agriculture Actuals Annually Agriculture Actuals Annually 2005 91640000 500,000 0.546 123240000 1,400,000 1.136 123240000 2006 101120000 700,000 0.692 126400000 3,600,000 2.848 126400000 2007 110600000 800,000 0.723 181160000 4,400,000 2.730 161160000 2008 118342000 1,000,000 0.845 194182000 500,000 0.257 194182000 2009 135911600 5,100,000 3.752 216491600 1,400,000 0.647 216491600 2010 114000000 1,000,000 0.877 154000000 700,000 0.455 154000000 Total Fund 671613600.00 9100000.00 975473600.00 12000000.00 975473600.00 Mean 111935600.00 1516666.67 1.24 182578933.33 2000000.00 1.09 162578933.33 Source: Computed by Author, 2013 based on data from Human Right Watch, 2007 & Nigerian Tide, 2008
APPENDIX B Effects of Participation and other socioeconomic variables on income Linear Model Dependent Variable: INCOM Method: Least Squares Date: 12/16/13 Time: 14:13 Sample: 1 180 Included observations: 180
Variable Coefficient Std. Error t-Statistic Prob.
133
C 7791.302 5765.390 1.351392 0.1783 PARTCPTN 23526.97 2320.341 10.13944 0.0000 AGE -29.09910 106.4232 -0.273428 0.7848 MARSTAT -1037.128 3032.589 -0.341994 0.7328 EDUCYRS 370.1225 192.6832 1.920887 0.0564 OCCUPTN 3645.326 711.8077 5.121222 0.0000
R -squared 0.484411 Mean dependent var 27761.11 Adjusted R-squared 0.469596 S.D. dependent var 20820.52 S.E. of regression 15163.35 Akaike info criterion 22.12392 Sum squared resid 4.00E+10 Schwarz criterion 22.23035 Log likelihood -1985.152 Hannan-Quinn criter. 22.16707 F-statistic 32.69567 Durbin-Watson stat 1.498486 Prob(F-statistic) 0.000000
Semi-log Model Dependent Variable: LNINCOM Method: Least Squares Date: 12/16/13 Time: 14:15 Sample: 1 180 Included observations: 180
Variable Coefficient Std. Error t -Statistic Prob.
C 9.293824 0.172991 53.72444 0.0000 PARTCPTN 0.871716 0.069622 12.52072 0.0000 AGE -3.14E-05 0.003193 -0.009828 0.9922 MARSTAT -0.035528 0.090993 -0.390452 0.6967 EDUCYRS 0.016781 0.005781 2.902573 0.0042 OCCUPTN 0.090176 0.021358 4.222169 0.0000
R -squared 0.552059 Mean dependent var 10.00823 Adjusted R-squared 0.539188 S.D. dependent var 0.670235 S.E. of regression 0.454977 Akaike info criterion 1.295623 Sum squared resid 36.01864 Schwarz criterion 1.402055 Log likelihood -110.6061 Hannan-Quinn criter. 1.338777 F-statistic 42.88887 Durbin-Watson stat 1.637031 Prob(F-statistic) 0.000000
Variance Inflation Factors Date: 12/16/13 Time: 14:16 Sample: 1 180 Included observations: 180
Coefficient Uncentered Centered Variable Variance VIF VIF
C 0.029926 26.02194 NA PARTCPTN 0.004847 1.990366 1.048370 AGE 1.02E-05 22.58257 1.606596
134
MARSTAT 0.008280 28.23848 1.636357 EDUCYRS 3.34E-05 3.448880 1.074112 OCCUPTN 0.000456 3.459670 1.089563
Heteroskedasticity Test: Breusch-Pagan-Godfrey
F-statistic 1.161551 Prob. F(5,174) 0.3301 Obs*R-squared 5.813965 Prob. Chi-Square(5) 0.3247 Scaled explained SS 21.81822 Prob. Chi-Square(5) 0.0006
Double Log Function
Dependent Variable: LNINCOM Method: Least Squares Date: 12/16/13 Time: 14:18 Sample: 1 180 Included observations: 180
Variable Coefficient Std. Error t-Statistic Prob.
C 10.36300 0.578448 17.91516 0.0000 LNPARTCPTN 0.126728 0.010253 12.35979 0.0000 LNAGE -0.001093 0.163337 -0.006694 0.9947 LNMARSTAT -0.040549 0.158345 -0.256080 0.7982 LNEDUCYRS 0.019204 0.009270 2.071683 0.0398 LNOCCUPTN 0.198795 0.052138 3.812888 0.0002
R-squared 0.528954 Mean dependent var 10.00823 Adjusted R-squared 0.515418 S.D. dependent var 0.670235 S.E. of regression 0.466563 Akaike info criterion 1.345919 Sum squared resid 37.87654 Schwarz criterion 1.452351 Log likelihood -115.1327 Hannan-Quinn criter. 1.389072 F-statistic 39.07811 Durbin-Watson stat 1.662321 Prob(F-statistic) 0.000000
Exponential Function Dependent Variable: INCOM Method: Least Squares Date: 12/16/13 Time: 14:19 Sample: 1 180 Included observations: 180
Variable Coefficient Std. Error t-Statistic Prob.
C 43969.73 19235.70 2.285840 0.0235 LNPARTCPTN 3444.438 340.9600 10.10218 0.0000 LNAGE -2190.677 5431.588 -0.403322 0.6872 LNMARSTAT -972.8214 5265.607 -0.184750 0.8536 LNEDUCYRS 387.3753 308.2595 1.256653 0.2106
135
LNOCCUPTN 8012.584 1733.785 4.621441 0.0000
R-squared 0.460215 Mean dependent var 27761.11 Adjusted R-squared 0.444704 S.D. dependent var 20820.52 S.E. of regression 15515.07 Akaike info criterion 22.16978 Sum squared resid 4.19E+10 Schwarz criterion 22.27621 Log likelihood -1989.280 Hannan-Quinn criter. 22.21293 F-statistic 29.67014 Durbin-Watson stat 1.511829 Prob(F-statistic) 0.000000
Determinants of Participation in Agric development Programmes (binary logit model) Dependent Variable: PAT Method: ML - Binary Logit (Quadratic hill climbing) Date: 12/16/13 Time: 14:26 Sample: 1 180 Included observations: 180 Covariance matrix computed using second derivatives
Variable Coefficient Std. Error z-Statistic Prob.
C -3.0032** 1.242 -2.417 0.016 AGE -0.010 0.023 -0.415 0.678 MARSTAT -0.166 0.660 -0.252 0.801 EDUCYRS -0.1126** 0.045 -2.514 0.012 OCCUPTN -0.319* 0.199 -1.605 0.109 INCOM 0.0010*** 0.000 6.742 0.000
McFadden R-squared 0.545839 Mean dependent var 0.472222 S.D. dependent var 0.500620 S.E. of regression 0.310099 Akaike info criterion 0.694865 Sum squared resid 16.73210 Schwarz criterion 0.801297 Log likelihood -56.53787 Hannan-Quinn criter. 0.738019 Deviance 113.0757 Restr. deviance 248.9771 Restr. log likelihood -124.4886 LR statistic 135.9014 Avg. log likelihood -0.314099 Prob(LR statistic) 0.000000
Obs with Dep=0 95 Total obs 180 Obs with Dep=1 85
136
APPENDIX C University of Nigeria, Nsukka Interview Schedule
Assessment of Local Government Agricultural Activities in Rivers State, Nigeria
Dear Respondents,
I am a Ph.D student of the Department of Agricultural Extension, University of Nigeria Nsukka, carrying out a research on Assessment of Local Government Agricultural Activities in Rivers State, Nigeria.
This research is purely for academic purpose and all information to be supplied will be treated in absolute confidence and be used for the purpose of the study only. I look forward to receiving your unalloyed support and assistance. Thanks
Albert, C. O.
FOR LOCAL LEADERS/HOUSEHOLDS
SECTION A: Socio-economic characteristics of the respondents 1. (a) Community:……………………….. (b) LGA:……………… 2. Age as at last birthday (years)………………………………………… 3. Marital status: (a) Single ( ) (b) Married ( ) (c) Widowed ( ) (d) Divorced ( ) 4. Educational status (a) No formal education ( ) Formal education 5. Number of years spent in school:…………………………………………
6. Sex: Female ( ) Female ( )
7. What is your major occupation? (a) Farming ( ) (b) Fishing ( ) (c) Artisans ( ) Others Specify:………………………. 8. Any secondary occupation? Yes ( ) No ( ) If Yes, Please state ------9. What is your income every month? Please tick the right box Less than 20,000 21,000-40,000 41,000-60,000 61,000-80,000 81,000-100,000 101,000 and above
137
SECTION B: 9. Is there any agricultural activity in your Local Government Area or community? (a) Yes ( ) (b) No ( ) If yes, please indicate the agricultural activities initiated in your LGA
Agricultural activities On-Going Completed with year Existed with Year YES NO Yes No Yes No Fishery Distribution of fishing nets Cassava project Provision of planting materials Provision of fertilizers Oil mill project Building of markets Oil palm plantation Provision of tractors Encouraging cooperatives Poultry farms Distribution of fingerlings Training youths in Agricultural areas Giving loans to farmers
Others indicate ------
10. Why did the agricultural activities executed in your area stopped or failed? Please indicate the appropriate reasons Agricultural activities Reasons why it failed Fishery Because we were not involved in the project planning and implementation Distribution of fishing nets Theft
Cassava project The project ended as the executor (chairman) ended his/her tenure Provision of planting Vandalization materials Provision of fertilizers Corruption
Oil mill project Non-agriculturalist heading the agricultural sectors Building of markets Community conflict Oil palm plantation Youth restiveness Provision of tractors The programme/project was not what the people wanted Encouraging cooperatives Poultry farms Distribution of fingerlings Training youths in Agricultural areas Giving loans to farmers
Others please indicate------
138
11. Did you participate in the execution of the agricultural activities in your area? (a) Yes( ) (b) No ( ) If yes, Please indicate the project and the level at which you participated by ticking ‘√’ against the “YES” or “NO” columns respectively. Activities/Programmes Variables -The level of participation YES NO Fishery I was used to identify the problem Distribution of fishing nets I participated but I did not know anything about the project I was given the impression that participating is good for me
Cassava project I was invited to participate when the project has already been planned by the executors Participated as a leader in land allocation Provision of planting I was consulted to know my opinion about a problem that is being planned for materials through social and diagnoses survey
Provision of fertilizers I participated in the project because of the incentives (money, inputs) given to me Oil mill project I participated by actively interacting with the project providers to identify the problems in my community and the action plains for the problem Building of markets I took the initiative to identify a project and embark on its actualization independent of external bodies Oil palm plantation I participated on paper/ document than actual fact Provision of tractors I was consulted and informed, but the project was then designed by external agencies Encouraging cooperatives I participated at the implementation stage Poultry farms I participated at the monitoring level Distribution of fingerlings I participated at planning level Training youths in Participated as a Labourer Agricultural areas Giving loans to farmers Participated in training at the project
Others please indicate ………………------
SECTION 2 12. Has the agricultural activity executed in the LGA, impacted/affected on your life?Yes ( ), No ( ) If yes, please indicate the benefit derived from each project Projects/Programmes Benefits from each project Fishery I was employed through the project Distribution of fishing nets It has brought development as road and electricity came through the project Cassava project We have surplus food in the area Provision of planting materials I started a business by buying and selling the products of the project Provision of fertilizers I can pay my children school fees
Oil mill project I can buy clothes for myself and family
139
Building of markets My family eat three meals per day
Oil palm plantation I have saving now for the raining day Provision of tractors I have built my house
Encouraging cooperatives Poultry farms Distribution of fingerlings Training youths in Agricultural areas Giving loans to farmers
Others please indicate------
14. Please indicate how participating in agricultural activity have impacted on your live, by indicating what you had before participation and what you have achieved after participation on the following poverty reduction or welfare indicators. MOBILITY BEFORE PARTICIPATION AFTER PARTICIPATION Car or any 4 wheel vehicle Tricycle Bicycle Canoe Engine boat Truck Cart SHELTER ACQUIRED Mud/thatched house(Batcher) Mud/zinc house Block/zinc house With rooms tiled floors Rooms cemented HOUSEHOLD ITEMS Mobile set Fridge/Freezer Television Radio Video Computer Beds Gas cooker Kerosene stove Generator set Dinning set Chairs Air conditioner SAVINGS/INVESTMENT Opened bank account ATM Ownership
140
Purchased share Participated in contribution Participated in social group as a financial membership LAND SIZE(Plots) Farm owned(size in Ha) Sheep/goats(Herd size) Fish pond(counts) Income Enterprises operated Average Total Expenditure on Household per month Food Expenditure per month Number of wards in School Qualification obtained(Number of certificates added) Number of Household members gainfully employed Others please indicate------13. Please indicate your perceived benefits of agricultural activities S/N Benefits Strongly Agreed Disagreed Strongly Agreed (4) (3) (2) Disagreed (1) 1 Increased Rural Infrastructure 2 Increased interest on agriculture 3 Adoption of Agricultural Innovation 4 Increased Employment Opportunities 5 Low unemployment 6 Development of the rural areas 7 Reduction in Poverty 8 Reduced rural-urban migration 9 Provision of raw materials for the nation’s industry 10 Reduction of youth restiveness 11 Increased food supply 12 Low cost of food 13 Ensured food sufficiency and food security 14 Reduced crime and social vices 15 Increased agro business in the area
SECTION D: Factors inhibiting local government agricultural activities Is there any factor inhibiting local government agricultural activities? Yes ( ) No () If yes please tick the appropriate inhibiting factors S/N Inhibiting Factors Very Serious Not Serious (2) (1) Serious (0) 1 Riskiness of the venture project gives without insurance provision 2 Poor interest of the community 3 Lack of adequate incentives 4 Non specialist heading the agricultural sector 5 Urbanization resulting to deforestation
141
6 Corruption 7 Non-continuity of past leaders Projects 8 Poor and dilapidating infrastructures in the rural areas 9 None participation of the people the projects are intended for 10 land degradation and soil erosion 11 Pollution resulting from oil pollution 12 Youth restiveness in the rural areas 13 Effects of climate change 14 Not siting the appropriate project required by the local people 15 Not identifying the needs of the people before implementing projects 16. Politicizing of selected participants
University of Nigeria, Nsukka Questionnaire
Assessment of Local Government Agricultural Activities in Rivers State, Nigeria Dear Respondents,
I am a Ph.D student of the Department of Agricultural Extension, University of Nigeria Nsukka, carrying out a research on Assessment of Local Government Agricultural Activities in Rivers State, Nigeria.
This research is purely for academic purpose and all information to be supplied will be treated in absolute confidence and be used for the purpose of the study only. I look forward to receiving your unalloyed support and assistance. Thanks
Albert, C. O.
FOR LOCAL GOVERNMENT STAFF
SECTION A: Socio-economic characteristics of the respondents 1. (a) Community:……………………….. (b) LGA:……………… 2. Age as at last birthday (years)………………………………………… 3. Marital status: (a) Single ( ) (b) Married ( ) (c) Widowed ( ) (d) Divorced ( ) 4. Educational status (a) No formal education ( ) (b) Formal education
5. Number of years spent in school:…………………………………………
6. Sex: Male ( ) Female ( )
7. What is your position in the LGA ------
8. How long have you been working with the LGA------
142
9. From your record of implemented agricultural activity by your Local Government Area, Please indicate the agricultural activities that is ongoing, completed or existed in your LGA
Agricultural Activities On-Going Completed with Year Existed with Year YES NO YES NO YES NO Fishery Distribution of fishing nets Cassava project Provision of planting materials Provision of fertilizers Oil mill project Building of markets Oil palm plantation Provision of tractors Encouraging cooperatives Poultry farms Distribution of fingerlings Training youths in Agricultural areas Giving loans to farmers
Others indicate ------10. Has any of the agricultural activities executed failed or stopped in your LGA? Yes No ( ). If Yes, Why did it fail? Please indicate Agricultural Activities Reasons why it failed Fishery Because we were not involved in the project planning and implementation Distribution of fishing nets Theft
Cassava project The project ended as the executor (chairman) ended his/her tenure Provision of planting materials Vandalization Provision of fertilizers Corruption
Oil mill project Non-agriculturalist heading the agricultural sectors Building of markets Community conflict Oil palm plantation Youth restiveness Provision of tractors The programme/project was not what the people wanted Encouraging cooperatives Poultry farms Distribution of fingerlings Training youths in Agricultural areas Giving loans to farmers
143
Others please indicate------
11. The agricultural activities executed in your LGA, Were the leaders or local people Consulted or allowed to participate? (a) Yes ( ) (b) No ( ) If yes, Please indicate the project/programme and the level at which the people participated
Agricultural Activities Variables -The level of participation Yes No Fishery They were used to identify the problem Distribution of fishing nets They participated but I did not know anything about the project I was given the impression that participating is good for me
Cassava project They were invited to participate when the project has already been planned by the executors
Provision of planting They were consulted to know my opinion about a problem that is materials being planned for through social and diagnoses surveys
Provision of fertilizers They participated in the project because of the incentives (money, inputs) given to me Oil mill project They participated by actively interacting with the project providers to identify the problems in my community and the action plains for the problem Building of markets They took the initiative to identify a project and embark on its actualization independent of external bodies Oil palm plantation They participated on paper/ document than actual fact Provision of tractors They were consulted and informed, but the project was then designed by external agencies Encouraging cooperatives They participated at the implementation stage Poultry farms They participated at the monitoring level Distribution of fingerlings They participated at planning level Training youths in They were not involved in any way Agricultural areas Giving loans to farmers
Others please indicate ……………… 12. Who executed the activities? And how was it funded? Please indicate
144
Agricultural TEPN IFAD RSSD NDD RS ADP LG NEPAD FADAM SPDC NAOC Activities L A C G A 111 Fishery Distribution of fishing nets Cassava project Provision of planting materials Provision of fertilizers Oil mill project Building of markets Oil palm plantation Provision of tractors Encouraging cooperatives Poultry farms
Distribution of fingerlings Training youths in Agricultural Giving loans to farmers
Others indicate:…………………………………………….
13. Apart from finance, are there any other linkages between local government and agricultural agencies? (a) Yes ( ) (b) No( ) If yes, Please indicate the extent of linkages by indicating Great Extent (GE-4), To some Extent (SE-3); Very little extent (VLE-2), and No Extent (NE-1) from the listed variables S/N Linkages ADP IFAD FADAMA NDDC RSSDA 1 Information sharing 2 Staff on location
145
3 Joint use of clients/farmers 4 Joint diagnosis of problems 5 Joint use of staff 6 Staff transfer 7 Staff out stationing/outreach 8 Transfer of services 9 Joint funding of project 10 Joint budget of project 11 Record keeping 12 Purchase of services 13 Secondment of staff
Please indicate the extent of linkages between LGA and staff S/N Linkages To a Great To Some To a Very To no Extent (4) Extent (3) Little Extent Extent (1) (2) 1 Supervision of projects 2 Personal contacts 3 Conduction of workshops 4 Organization of conference/meetings 5 Conduction of farm trials 6 Consultancies 7 Sharing of annual reports
SECTION C 13. Please indicate your perceived benefits of agricultural activities in the community
S/N Benefits Strongly Agreed (3) Disagreed (2) Strongly Agreed (4) Disagreed (1) 1 Increased Rural Infrastructure
2 Reduce Income Disparities
3 Adoption of Agricultural Innovation 4 Increased Employment Opportunities 5 Low unemployment 6 Development of the rural areas 7 Reduction in Poverty 8 Reduced rural-urban migration 0 Encourage rural people to farm and contribute to both rural and national development 9 Provision of raw materials for the nation’s industry 10 Reduction of youth restiveness
11 Increased food supply
146
12 Low cost of food 13 Ensured food sufficiency and food security
14 Reduced crime and social vices 15 Increased interest on agriculture 16 Increased agro business in the area
14. Any inhibiting factors to LGAs implementing agricultural activities? YES ( ) NO( ) ; If yes please tick the appropriate inhibiting factors S/N Inhibiting Factors Very Serious Not Serious (1) Serious (0) (2) 1 Inconsistent government polices 2 Low budgetary provision for agriculture 3 Lack of adequate incentives 4 Non specialist heading the agricultural sector 5 Urbanization resulting to deforestation 6 Corruption 7 Non-continuity of past leaders Projects 8 Poor and dilapidating infrastructures in the rural areas 9 None participation of the people the projects are intended for 10 land degradation and soil erosion 11 Pollution resulting from oil pollution 12 Youth restiveness in the rural areas 13 Effects of climate change 14 Not siting the appropriate project required by the local people 15 Not identifying the needs of the people before implementing projects 16. Poor interest of the community 17. Politicizing of selected participants 18. Poor conception and planning of project 19. Riskiness of the venture project gives without insurance provision 20. Poor monitoring and evaluation
147