TITLE PAGE ANALYSIS of RICE (Oryza Spp.) INNOVATION SYSTEM in SOUTHEAST NIGERIA by EMODI, ANGELA IZUKANNE. PG/Ph.D/05/39672

TITLE PAGE

ANALYSIS OF RICE ( Oryza spp. ) INNOVATION

SYSTEM IN SOUTHEAST NIGERIA

EMODI, ANGELA IZUKANNE. PG/Ph.D/05/39672

A THESIS SUBMITTED TO THE DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURAL EXTENSION IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE AWARD OF DEGREE OF DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY IN AGRICULTURAL EXTENSION.

FACULTY OF AGRICULTURE UNIVERSITY OF NIGERIA, NSUKKA

MARCH, 2010

CERTIFICATION

Emodi, Angela Izukanne, a post graduate student in the Department of Agricultural Extension and with the registration number PG/PhD/05/39672 has satisfactorily completed a requirement for course and research work for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy (PhD) in Agricultural

Extension.

The work embodied in this thesis is original and has not been submitted in part or full for other diploma or degree in this University or any other University.

------Dr. (Mrs) A.E. Onwubuya Prof.M.C. Madukwe (Head of Department) (Supervisor)

Date: Date:

DEDICATION

Thank you God for blessing me with good health and sound mind to undertake this study. To my husband, Emmanuel Emenike Emodi and my children (Anwulichukwuka Alexis Emodi,

Olisaemeka Emmanuel Emodi and Ifeyinwa Frances Emodi).

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

The past few years would not have been possible without the prime role played by my supervisor, Professor M.C. Madukwe. For the kind of coaching that conveyed both caring and confidence always. His experience, intellect and instinct continually challenged my speed and compelled me to critically examine each milestone and assess each curve ahead until the last lap had been run. Numerous persons coached me throughout this endurance run. Among them were

Professor E.M Igbokwe, Dr (Mrs) E.A. Onwubuya (a mother), Dr. A.E. Agwu (thank you so much), Professor A.R. Ajayi, Professor A.C. Anyanwu, Dr (Mrs) M.U. Dimelu, Dr N.S. Ozor,

Mrs J.C. Iwuchukwu, Mrs A.N. Asadu and Mr M. O. Akinnagbe. To a very great extent, their assistance facilitated the completion of this work.

I wish also to express my profound gratitude to Mrs. B.N. Onah, who carried most of my parcels from Enugu Transport Cooperation (ENTRACO) to my supervisor, Mrs. E.N. Orji, Mrs

H.A. Jisieike, Mrs C.J. Obiorah and Mrs A.E Oledinma of the Department of Agricultural

Extension, University of Nigeria, Nsukka for their concern and support towards the achievement of this worthy initiative.

I would not have been able to make utmost sense of my research findings if Dr. O.M. Adesope and Lady Bola Oladugba had not interpreted the data.

I also encountered and noted gratefully, other fans along the way who conveyed words of encouragement. Among them were my siblings and their spouses, Mr and Mrs Dubem

Agbakoba; Mr and Mrs Eugene Odiamma, my nephew-in-law Mr Amechi Emodi, Professor

H.O. Agusiobo (late), Professor (Mrs) E.U. Anyakoha, Professor (Mrs) Osa Tawari, Dr B.I.

Isife, Dr (Mrs.) E.U. Madukwe, Mrs Ogo Nnebe, Mr N.S. Oluah, Dr Summerset Embiowei,

Mr Abraham Musa Peters, Mrs Oby Muobike, The Akpamus` (thank you for being a family).

I am deeply indebted to Aunty, Grace Nwoko, Aunty, Franka Igwe, Mother Ann Amene, Rev.

Fr. Steve Ziga Dedua (always there for me) and Rev. Fr. Ray Ikponmwoba (a brother). Thank you for all your prayers. Micheal Nnamdi Emodi thank you for being more than a nephew-in- law, I will always remember nevertheless, his invaluable support, encouragement and our trip to

University of Nigeria, Nsukka to purchase the form for this Doctoral programme.

It is pertinent to acknowledge with deep sense of appreciation the cooperation received from Dr.

Emmanuel Meji and Mrs R.U. Mecha of National Cereals Research Institute (NCRI), southeast zone Abia State; Mrs Q.N. Obioma, Director of Extension, Abia State Agricultural

Development Programme (ADP) who contributed immensely to the questionnaires used for this study.

I am grateful to my extra-ordinary mother, Mrs Felicia Nnoyelum Agbakoba, who instilled in me the values of honesty, hard work and faith in God. Mama you are one in a million and in you motherhood is personified. I appreciate all your hard work and struggles in our up-bringing.

To Emmanuel Emenike Emodi, my husband, how can words ever suffice as thanks, for the excitement you added to my life; for your unflagging support of my mission, for your unerring faith on my acumen and ambition. Thanks to you and our children

(Anwulichukwuka Alexis Emodi, Olisaemeka Emmanuel Emodi and Ifeyinwa Frances Emodi) for your patience without end, my thesis I did successfully defend. Because of you I persevered pursuing my goal. And now I stand exhausted but free at the end of the journey. Thank you my husband.

A.I. Emodi Department Agricultural Extension University of Nigeria, Nsukka.

TABLE OF CONTENTS Title page i Certification ii Dedication iii Acknowledgement iv Table of contents vi List of tables xi List of figures xiii Abstract xiv Abbreviations and Acronyms xv

Chapter One: Introduction 1 1.1 Background Information 1 1.2 Statement of the Problem 8 1.3 The Purpose of the Study 11 1.4 Hypothesis 11 1.5 Justification for the Study 11 1.6 Definition of Terms 12

Chapter Two: Literature Review 14 2.1 Innovation systems perspectives 14 2.1.1 Origins of innovation systems concepts 22 2.1.2 Methodological challenges for innovation system 26 2.1.3 Partnerships in innovation system 30 2.2 Rice productions, processing and marketing in Nigeria 38 2.2.1 Constraints in rice production 46 2.2.2 Studies on rice production 52 2.3 Participatory approaches in agricultural research 65 2.4 Adoptions in innovation 70 2.5 Theoretical consideration 73 2.6 Conceptual framework 75

Chapter Three: Methodology 82 3.1 Study area 82 3.2 Population and sample 88 3.2.1 Population 88 3.2.2 Sample size 88 3.3 Data collection techniques and Measurement of Variables 93 3.3.1 Data collection techniques 93 3.3.2 Measurement of Variables 95 3.4 Data Analysis 99 3.5 Limitation of the study 100

Chapter Four: Results and Discussion 101 4.1 Review of policies, acts and initiatives in rice innovation system 101 4.2 Socio-economic characteristics of farmers in rice innovation system 111 4.2.1 Sex 111 4.2.2 Age 111 4.2.3 Marital status 112 4.2.4 Educational level 112 4.2.5 Household size 113 4.2.6 Primary occupation 113 4.2.7 Farming experience (years) 113 4.2.8 Source of information 114 4.2.9 Farm size (hectare) 114 4.2.10 Land ownership 115 4.2.11 Main source of labour 115 4.3 Farmers years of awareness of improved rice technology 118 4.4 The adoption of improved rice technology by farmers 118 4.4.1 Improved varieties 119 4.4.2 Tillage/Land preparation 119 4.4.3 Fertilizer use/application 119 4.4.4 Milling/ processing 120 4.4.5 Planting method 120

4.4.6 Pest and disease control 120 4.4.7 Weeding technique 120 4.4.8 Harvesting 121 4.4.9 Threshing 121 4.4.10 Parboiling 121 4.4.11 Rice weighing 121 4.4.12 Rice bagging 122 4.4.13 Rice storage 122 4.5 Constraints in improved rice technology as perceived by farmers 123 4.6 Socio-economic characteristics of marketers 125 4.6.1 Sex 126 4.6.2 Age (years) 126 4.6.3 Marital status 126 4.6.4 Educational level 126 4.6.5 Household size 127 4.6.6 Primary occupation 127 4.6.7 Source of information 127 4.6.8 Volume of rice purchased 128 4.6.9 Type of rice sold 128 4.6.10 Transportation problems in rice marketing 128 4.7 Socio-economic characteristics of consumers 131 4.7.1 Sex 131 4.7.2 Age (years) 131 4.7.3 Marital status 132 4.7.4 Educational level 132 4.7.5 Household size 132 4.7.6 Type of rice preferred 133 4.7.7 Quantity of rice consumed 133 4.7.8 Complain on quantity (colour, size, taste and stones ) of local rice bought 133 4.7.9 Rice mill visits 134 4.8 Socio-economic characteristics of researchers 136 4.8.1 Years of service in the organization 136

4.8.2 Educational level 136 4.8.3 Availability of rice on-farm trial 136 4.8.4 Availability of training programmes 137 4.8.5 Number of training organizations in a year 137 4.9 Socio-economic characteristics of policy personnel 139 4.9.1 Years of service in the organization 139 4.9.2 Educational level 139 4.9.3 Availability of training programmes 140 4.9.4 Number of training organized in a year 140 4.10 Socio-economic characteristics of technology transfer agencies 142 4.10.1 Years of service in the organization 142 4.10.2 Educational level 142 4.10.3 Availability of rice on-farm trial 143 4.10.4 Number of training organized in a year 143 4.11 Perception of agronomic activities that are involved in rice production among farmers 145 4.12 Linkages among the actors in rice innovation system 147 4.12.1 Researchers link with other actors in rice innovation system 147 4.12.2 Pull mean of researchers link with other actors in rice innovation system 149 4.12.3 Policy personnel link with other actors in rice innovation system 150 4.12.4 Pull mean of policy personnel link with other actors in rice innovation system 151 4.12.5 Technology transfer agencies link with other actors in rice innovation system 152 4.12.6 Pull mean of technology transfer agencies link with other actors in rice innovation system 154 4.12.7 Farmers link with other actors in rice innovation system 155 4.12.8 Pull mean of farmers link with other actors in rice innovation system 156 4.12.9 Marketers link with other actors in rice innovation system 156 4.12.10 Pull mean of marketers link with other actors in rice innovation system 157 4.12.11 Consumers link with other actors in rice innovation system 158 4.12.12 Pull mean of consumers link with other actors in rice innovation system 159

4.13 Linkage mechanisms of (researchers, policy personnel, technology transfer agencies and farmers) respondents in rice innovation system 160 4.14 Strategies for enhancing effective linkage among the (researchers, policy personnel , technology transfer agencies, farmers, marketers , consumers) respondents in rice innovation system 161 4.15 Relationship between socio-economic characteristics of key actors in rice innovation system and the level of linkages among farmers, marketers and consumers 168 Chapter Five: Summary, Conclusion and Recommendations 171 5.1 Summary 171 5.2 Conclusion 178 5.3 Recommendations 179 5.4 Suggestions for further research 180

References 181 Appendix 189

LIST OF TABLES

Table 1 Sample for researchers 89 Table2 Sample for policy personnel 90 Table 3 Sample for technology transfer agencies 90 Table 4 Sample for farmers 91 Table 5 Sample for marketers 91 Table 6 Sample for consumers (Non producers of rice) 92 Table 7 Sample for the study 93 Table 8 1961 – 2006 rice production figures in Nigeria 102 Table 9 Categorizing actors and elements in innovation systems 105 Table 10 NCRI nine zones, states and headquarters in Nigeria 107 Table 11 Percentage distribution of farmers’ by socio-economic 117 characteristics Table 12 Percentage distribution of farmers by years of awareness of 118 improved rice technology Table 13 Percentage distribution of farmers adoption of improved rice 123 technology Table 14 Mean distribution of constraints in improved rice 125 technology as perceived by farmers Table 15 Percentage distribution of marketers by socio-economic 130 characteristics Table 16 Percentage distribution of consumers by socio-economic 135 characteristics Table 17 Percentage distribution of researchers by socio-economic 138 characteristics Table 18 Percentage distribution of respondents in policy personnel by 141 socio- economic characteristics Table 19 Percentage distribution of respondents in technology transfer 144 agencies by socio-economic characteristics Table 20 Mean distribution of perception of agronomic activities 146 that are involved in rice production among farmers

Table 21 Mean distribution of researchers link with other actors in rice 148 innovation system Table 21a Pull mean distribution of researchers link with other actors in rice 150 innovation system Table 22 Mean distribution of policy personnel link with other actors in rice 151 innovation system Table 22a Pull mean distribution of policy personnel link with other actors in 152 rice innovation system Table 23 Mean distribution of technology transfer agencies link with other 153 actors in rice innovation system Table 23a Pull mean distribution of technology transfer agencies link with 154 other actors in rice innovation system Table 24 Mean distribution of farmers link with other actors in rice 155 innovation system Table 24a Pull mean distribution of farmers link with other actors in rice 156 innovation system Table 25 Mean distribution of marketers’ link with other actors in rice 157 innovation system Table 25a Pull mean distribution of marketers’ link with other actors in rice 158 innovation system Table 26 Mean distribution of consumers’ link with other actors in rice 159 innovation system Table 26a Pull mean distribution of consumers’ link with other actors in rice 159 innovation system Table 27 Mean distribution of linkage mechanisms of (researchers, policy 162 personnel, technology transfer agencies and farmers) respondents in rice innovation system Table 28 Strategies for enhancing effective linkage among (researchers, 168 policy personnel, technology transfer agencies, farmers, marketers, consumers) respondents in rice innovation system Table 29 Multiple regression analysis of relationship between key actors 170

(farmers, marketers, consumers) socio-economic characteristics and the linkage level in rice innovation system

LIST OF FIGURES

Fig. 1 Agricultural Science Technology Innovation System 77 Fig. 2 Existing operational framework for rice innovation in Southeast of 78 Nigeria Fig. 3 Schema for analyzing rice innovation system in Nigeria 81 Fig. 4 Map of Nigeria showing the Southeast states 86 Fig. 5 Map of Southeast Nigeria showing the study area 87

ABSTRACT

The general objective of the study was to analyse rice innovation system in southeast Nigeria and the specific objectives were designed to review policies, acts and initiatives in rice innovation system, describe socio-economic characteristics of various key actors in rice innovation system, examine the activities of selected key actor in rice innovation system, examine the level of linkages existing among the selected key actors in rice innovation system and identify strategies for enhancing effective linkage among key actors in rice innovation system. The study was carried out in southeast agro-ecological zone of Nigeria; four states (Abia, Anambra, Ebonyi and Enugu states) were selected and sampled for data collection. Actors in rice innovation system were classified into six major groups according to their main activity in the system; the groups include research agency, policy personnel, technology transfer agencies, farmers, marketers and consumers who constituted the population of the study. A total sample size of 539 respondents, made up of 40 (researchers), 76 (policy personnel), 96 (technology transfer agencies), 196 (farmers), 51 (marketers) and 80 (consumers) were used. Percentages, means and multiple regression were used in data analysis and presentation. A review of rice policies showed inconsistencies and import restrictions including outright ban. The farmers (59.5%) and marketers (60%) were male while 70% of consumers were female. Majority (63.2%) of farmers’ source of information was ADP, 71.1% of marketers’ source of information friends/fellow marketers. About 35% of researchers were less than five years in service, 43% of policy personnel and 69.2% technology transfer agencies years of service was 6-10 years respectively. The marketers (60%) sold more of foreign rice in the market and 65% of consumers preferred foreign rice. The researchers (52.5%), policy personnel (67.1%) and technology transfer agencies (51.6%) provided 7-9 times, 1-3 times and 4-6 times number of training programmes in a year respectively. Nursery preparation was perceived by farmers as the most important agronomic activity performed in rice production. Among researchers, NCRI and IITA had link with technology transfer agencies, IITA had link with policy personnel. For policy personnel, the Federal Ministry of Agriculture had link with farmers ( X =2.51) and NAFDAC had link with researchers ( X =2.83) in rice innovation system. Among technology transfer agencies, ADP had link with researchers ( X =3.00), policy personnel ( X =2.88), farmers ( X =3.00) and Federal Ministry of Commerce had link with researchers ( X =2.73). Marketers had link with policy personnel ( X =2.72) and farmers ( X =2.68) in rice innovation system. The consumers had link with farmers ( X =2.72). The major linkage mechanisms that existed among the actors (researchers, policy personnel, technology transfer agencies and farmers) include dissemination of knowledge and information ( X = 3.00). However the farmers favoured the use of other linkage arrangements such as joint problem identification, joint research activities, dissemination of knowledge and information, collaborative professional activities, joint reports, joint demonstration trial, joint field day, joint seminar and workshop training, cross research and training and evaluation of field visits. The strategies perceived for effective linkage among the respondents in rice innovation system were ban on rice imports, establishment of destoner mills, promotion of NGO involvement, set pre-season prices, subsidy on fertilizer, intensification of research, and promotion of active extension. There is significant relationship between the socio-economic characteristics of key actors (farmers, marketers and consumers) in rice innovation system and the level of linkages ( X ≥=2.00) with other major stakeholders in rice innovation system. The study concludes that for increase in rice production, there is need for strong linkage mechanisms among the actors in rice innovation system.

ABBREVIATIONS AND ACRONYMS

ADP Agricultural Development Programmes

AIS Agricultural innovation system

AKIS Agricultural knowledge and information system

ARI Agricultural Rice Initiative

BES Block Extension Supervisor

CBO Community Based Organisations

CGIAR Consultative Group on International Agricultural Research

DES Directors of Extension

FMA Federal Ministry of Agriculture

FMC Federal Ministry of Commerce

FAO Food and Agriculture Orga nisation

FRRS Federal Rice Research Station

GRP Green River Project ha Hectare

IITA International Institute for Tropical Agriculture

INGER - International Network for the Genetic Evaluation of Rice Africa

IPMU Integrated Pest Management Unit

IRRI International Rice Research Institute

Kg Kilogramme

MNRDP Multinational New Rice Dissemination Project mt Metric Tonnes

NABDA National Biotechnology Development Agency

NACRDB Nigerian Agricultural Cooperative and Rural Development Bank

NAFDAC National Agency for Food and Drug Administrations and Control

NAFPP National Accelerated Food Production Program

Nigerian Agip Oil Company NAOC

NARS National Agricultural Research System

NCAM Natio nal Centre for Agricultural Mechanisation xvi

NCRI National Cereals Research Institute

NERICA New Rice for Africa

NGO Non - Governmental Organizations

NPC National Population Commissi on

NRCRI National Root Crops Research Institute

NRS National Research System

OECD Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development.

OFN Operation Feed the Nation

PM Programme Managers

PQS Plant Quarantine Service

Prop Com Pro -poor Commodity a nd Service Markets

REFILS Research -Extension -Farmer -Input -Linkage System

SMS Subject Matter Specialist

SPDC Shell Petroleum Development Company

SSA Sub Saharan Africa

USDA FAS United States Department of Agriculture a nd Foreign Agricultural Services

USAID United States Department of Agriculture

WARDA West Africa Rice Development Agency

ZEO Zonal Extension Officer

CHAPTER ONE

INTRODUCTION

1.1 Background Information

Rice is a major food crop of the world by virtue of the extent and variety of its uses and adaptability to a broad range of climatic, edaphic and cultural conditions.The production of rice introduces new cuisine with rich taste, and provides farmers with new sources of income. With the increased availability of rice, it has become part of the everyday diet of many in Nigeria.

Rice indeed is no longer a luxury food in Nigeria but has become a major source of calories for the urban poor (Alufohai and Ojogho, 2009). The World Bank projected that from 2010, the poorest income class of urban households in Nigeria may obtain not less than 33 percent of their cereal-based calories from rice annually (United States Department of Agriculture and Foreign

Agricultural Service (USDA FAS,2003). This is due to the changing consumer preferences and rapidly increasing population. If Nigeria is to become self-sufficient in rice production, productivity must increase. This implies that resources allocated to rice production must be efficiently utilized.

Rice production flourishes well in humid regions of the sub tropic and temperate climates. It is grown under shallow flood or wet paddy conditions. Rice production requires an integrated quality management along the entire commodity chain from rice production, through processing and marketing (World Bank, 2004). Africa is the only continent where the two species of cultivated rice Oryza glaberrima (African rice) and Oryza sativa are grown, with

Nigeria and Madagascar accounting for 60% of the rice land in Sub Saharan Africa (SSA)

(Consultative Group on International Agricultural Research (CGIAR,2006). About 90% of the world’s rice is produced in tropical and semi-tropical areas by small-scale farmers in low- income developing countries (Food and Agriculture Organisation (FAO, 2008). Nigeria is

19 currently the highest rice producer in West Africa, producing an average of 4.2 million tonnes of paddy (2 million tonnes of milled rice) on 2.8 million hectares of farm land (Emodi and

Madukwe, 2008; Momoh, 2009). Nigeria is also the largest consuming nation, with the growing demand amounting to 4.1 million in 2002 and only about half of that demand met by domestic production (United States Department of Agriculture and Foreign Agricultural Service

(USDAFAS, 2003). Jennifer (2009) opined that Nigeria consumes 5.4 million metric tonnes of rice worth $4 billion annually; approximately 3.1 million metric tonnes of that is imported, making Nigeria the largest net importer of rice on the African continent and the second largest importer in the world.

To overcome the above trend, successive governments in Nigeria have made concerted efforts towards self-sufficiency in food production through the development of its agricultural sector. Agricultural development depends to a great extent on how successfully knowledge is generated and applied. Investments in knowledge especially in the form of science and technology have featured prominently and consistently in most strategies to promote sustainable and equitable agricultural development at the national level. It is increasingly recognized that the value of traditional agricultural science and technology investments such as research and extension, although necessary, is not sufficient to enable agricultural innovation (World Bank,

2004). Most agricultural production is increasingly integrated in value chains with forward

(marketing) and backward (input supply) linkages. Agricultural production is increasingly based on a wider range of inputs (seed, fertilizer, pesticides, machinery, and water) that must be combined and used judiciously toachieve better yield. The performance of the agricultural sector continues to be relatively disappointing in developing countries (Agwu, Dimelu and

Madukwe, 2008). Empirical evidence reveals several linkages, gaps and missing links among and between the actors in the system (Agbamu, 2000; Uzuegbunam, 2001). Institutions

(universities and research institutes) innovate in isolation; research taking place at various national and international organizations. The coordination seem dysfunctional and poorly linked to the productive sector with farmers innovations not included in the knowledge system. The emergence of Research-Extension-Farmer-Input-Linkage-System (REFILS) management mechanism has not significantly changed the situation. Reports indicated that REFILS approach to linkage problems initiated by World Bank has only strengthened the traditional weak linkages between research and extension, and linkages among research institutes, but farmers and government were weakly linked (Asiabaka, 2007).

Among other features, they are characterized by the sovereign role of researchers in developing hypotheses and designing a research process, the results of which are then passed over to specialized agencies (such as extension) in charge of disseminating the technologies and other solutions imagined by researchers. However, such approaches have long ceased to be the only paradigm for designing and delivering the technology needed to help agriculture and most notably farmers, adapt to a rapidly evolving set of demands and a changing natural and socio- economic environment. Linkages, interactions and learning mechanisms among the component actors are notably weak and /or often non-existent (Agwu, et al, 2008). Some scientists argued that if farmers with limited resources had adopted some of the technological innovations generated by research over the past decades, declining food security and increasing poverty would not be major crisis today. Arokoyo (1998) however opined that the output of national agricultural research and extension system in developing countries has not been commensurate with the scope and level of investment in the system, as evidenced by farmers’ poor productivity, incessant and intractable food shortage and the accompanying high food prices.

More recently the low performance of the agricultural sector is rather viewed as a system problem, which is prevalent within the Research – Extension – Farmer – Input – Linkage -

System (REFILS). Increasing rice yield and production requires not only genetic improvements for higher yield potential, but also better management technologies and systems including institutions. According to Fashola, Oladele, Alabil, Tologbonse and Wakatsuk (2007), the goal of increased productivity can be best achieved by coupling the most appropriate available technologies.

Hall, Mytelka and Oyeyinka (2005) observed that the system of innovation in developing countries is characterized by rigidities in organization, organizational ineffectiveness and institutional gaps. According to Pretty (2003), innovation is the generation, production, distribution and adoption, adaptation, and widespread use of new technical, institutional and organizational knowledge. It provides an analytical framework that explores complex relationships among heterogenous agents, social and economic institutions, and endogenously determined technological and institutional opportunities. It demonstrates the importance of studying innovation as a process in which knowledge is accumulated and applied by heterogenous agents, through complex interactions that are conditioned by social and economic institutions. It is a process that requires linkages; alliances among many actors; stakeholders and is supported and embedded in context specific social relations (Barret Lee and

Mcpeak, 2005; Wennik and Heemskerk, 2006). Erenstein, Lancon, Akande, Titilola, Akpokodje and Ogundele (2003) observed that different actors are involved in each step in rice production.

The public sector (government, universities, research institutes, scientists, and extension agents) and private sector (rice farmers, non- governmental organizations (NGOs), processors, millers, marketers, distributors, input and service providers) are involved in rice production. It is important to note that investment in knowledge especially in the form of science and technology has featured prominently and consistently in most strategies to promote agricultural development at the national level. This may imply that without adequate investment in science

22 and technology, economic growth will remain a mirage. Moreover, technological change rather than institutional context is believed to drive social and economic development. Admittedly investment in science and technology may increase knowledge, but may not spur innovation culture in the system. Institutions and other macro economic and medium level factors including the policy and legislative framework, and nature of human capital, physical infrastructure, finance and investment, climate and systems for facilitating information and knowledge flows among the various actors and institutions should be sufficiently addressed

(World Bank, 2004).

Active and systematic rice research started in Nigeria with the establishment of the

Federal Rice Station. The focus for rice research was the development of rice varieties with improved grain quality, uniform shape and sizes appropriate for minimal breakages during milling. These were achieved through introduction and adaptation of rice varieties. The development and multiplication of improved varieties of rice seeds for distribution to rice farmers was a failure. The result was that the impact of the station on rice production in Nigeria was not strongly felt (WARDA, 2004). Similarly there was National Cereals Research Institute

(NCRI) established with the mandate to carry out research in rice and other cereals for trial on farmers’ plots. The project was accompanied by the establishment of supporting services such as agro-service centres, on-farm adaptive research, seed multiplication and training of extension staff. However the provision of production credit and marketing of produce left in the hands of the farmers, led to inadequate finance due to the low level of projected capital expenditure.

On the other hand, Operation Feed the Nation (OFN) was established as a strategy to bring about self sufficiency in domestic food supply. The common element of the programme came with some agricultural based incentives such as the introduction of subsidy on land clearing, seed and fertilizer, credit and mechanization. A number of rice farmers who responded

23 by increasing the hectares in rice cultivation had increased rice production, but were not able to sell their produce due to massive importation of cheaper and better quality rice during the

1977/78 period. Also the Agricultural Development Programmes (ADPs) have been a major channel through which government policies on rice production were implemented. It is the main link between research and farmers.Though still in operation; activities of the ADPs have been drastically scaled down owing to the non-availability of funds for operation. World Bank, the major finance of the project has withdrawn its financial commitments. There was presidential rice production programme of president Shagari regime of the early 1980s which failed as a result of military over-throw. Another presidential initiative on rice production was established in 1999 for the- New Rice for Africa (NERICA) developed by West Africa Rice

Development Agency (WARDA), now called Africa Rice Centre. The objective of the

Presidential Initiative on increased rice production, processing and export was to address the widening demand-supply gap and attain self-sufficiency in rice production. Agricultural Rice

Initiative (ARI) was created to ensure a rapid dissemination of NERICAs and complementary technologies to meet the increasing demand for rice across Sub Saharan Africa (SSA). Central to ARI is the establishment of stakeholders’ platforms and new forms of partnerships to put rice producers, processors and retailers in direct contact with research and other actors within the rice development sector (WARDA, 2009).

A nation’s ability to solve problems and sustain economic growth depends partly on its capabilities in science and technology, and innovation (Juma and Yee- cheong, 2005). Thus innovation emphasizes the need to harness science and technology to accelerate development.

Innovation seems to make sense not only in invention but on the development, adoption of technologies and the application of knowledge that is new within a specific contest. It is seen as an interactive process in which institutions and organizations innovate, bringing new ideas,

24 products and services into social and economic use. For innovation to be effective in rice production, the linkages between the different stakeholders must be formed and strengthened.

Thus effective participation of different actors portrays organizational mandates, objectives, motivation, extension approaches and sources of funding. This means that innovation with good linkage will aid increase in rice production.

Rice innovation is important in the development of behavioral patterns that make organizations and policies sensitive to stakeholders (World Bank, 2004). These innovations are the changes that lead to improvements in economic and social conditions and environmental sustainability. An innovation system may be defined as comprising the organizations, enterprises and individuals that together demand and supply knowledge and technology, and the rules and mechanisms of which these different agents interact (World Bank, 2006).

Understanding this system, the components and the way in which they interact is the essential first step for a more efficient innovation system (Lundvall, Johnson, Anderson and Dalum,

2002; Hall, Mytelka and Oyeyinka, 2005). According to Hall (2006), Innovative culture is more likely to flourish when the different actors understand and respect their different roles and capabilities. It is an interactive learning process in which enterprise / agents in interactions with each other, supported by organizations and institutions play key roles in bringing new products, new processes and new forms of organizations into social and economic use (Francis, 2006).

The innovation systems concept is attractive not only because it offers a holistic explanation of how knowledge is produced, diffused and used; its emphases is on the actors and processes that have become increasingly important in agricultural development. Innovation system thinking represents a significant change from the conventional linear approach to research and development.

1.2 Statement of the Problem

Despite the fact that rice contributes a significant amount in the food requirements of the population, its production is far below the national requirements. Rice production in Nigeria rose from 2.4 million metric tones in 1994, to 3.4 million metric tons in 2007. This is below the average Nigeria`s rice demand of 5 million tonnes of rice per year, representing 9 percent of caloric intake (International Rice Research Institute (IRRI), 2001; Emodi and Madukwe, 2008).

The rise in domestic demand/consumption of rice far exceeds local production, precipitating an increase in rice importation bill to as high as $695 million US dollars in 2007 (Emodi and

Madukwe, 2008). To meet the increasing demand, the importation of milled rice was used to bridge the gap between the domestic demand and supply with its attendant negative implication on Nigerian economy. In the short term, rice imports may serve to bridge the gap between demand and rice supply, but their increasing market share (40-45 percentage of the total rice supply) reveals the region’s high dependency on external supplies for one of the staple foods.

The average rice yield in the sub-continent of Sub Saharan Africa (SSA) is the lowest in the world compared to Asia`s average of 4 tonnes (more than 6 tonnes in China) (WARDA,

2006). However, rice is successfully and economically produced in a wide range of agro- ecologies in SSA. For instance, in Madagascar where per capita rice consumption is among the highest in the world, most of the rice consumption is home grown (WARDA, 2006).

Consequently, emphases by government and other stakeholders have been to improve domestic production of rice to meet the increasing demand. Nigeria which has all the agro-ecological zones suitable for rice cultivation has the potentials to become a major rice granary in SSA.

Singh, Fagade, Ukwungwu, William, Jagtap, Oladimeji, Effisue and Okhidievbie (1997) opined that the country has five different rice environments or ecologies; a potential land area for rice production of between 4.6 and 4.9 million hectares. Only 1.8 million hectare or 37 percent of

26 some 4.9 million hectares of the Nigeria’s total land mass of 120 million hectares is cropped to rice.

The sustainability of rice production is further threatened by a vicious cycle of declining soil fertility and increasing problems of pests, diseases and weeds. Besides, lack of knowledge on how to add value through proper storage, processing and marketing impedes rice production.

Technologies exist to address these problems, but their adoption is constrained by lack of information packaged in appropriate formats, and poor communication channels (Tran, 1997).

Over the years, inconsistency and the rate of turnover in rice policies had been high, with many policies formulated and scrapped in rapid succession. On the other hand certain government policies in Nigeria towards agriculture have discouraged farmers in rice cultivation; there has been support from government which has made some rice farmers to switch to other crops with similar ecological requirements. Such policies according to Nyoro and Ariga (2004), include the decision to import foreign rice into Nigeria which depresses domestic price , lack of incentives, weak provision of market information services, absence of coordinated infrastructure, poor provision for learning and technological capacity building

However, Toure (2004) noted that the goal of increased productivity can be best achieved by coupling the most appropriate available technologies. But a farmer’s ability to adopt technologies is a function of institutional, social, economic and political environment; the intensity of interaction among participating actors in the system. Thus closing rice demand- supply gap requires a more holistic and systematic approach. This depends on the linkages among research institutions, extension services and farmers. The strategy for increasing rice production in most of Africa has traditionally focused on increasing yield, while neglecting the roles of policies, markets and institutions in the development of whole rice market value chains.

The importance of changes in national and international trade policies and their effects on

27 domestic rice competitiveness as well as the contribution of rice sector to income and employment generation, food security and welfare have not previously been given the attention they deserved. A deeper understanding of the policy, social, institutional and market environment in which rice production and trade is taking place is vital in developing strategies for competitive rice sectors within a background of continuously growing demand for rice.

Likewise, given the relative importance of rice imports in Sub-Saharan Africa (SSA) and the requirements of bringing the quality of locally milled rice to conformity with imported rice to satisfy consumer demand, it is imperative to integrate this factor in the rice research for development program in order to propose evidence-based policy options for a sustainable domestic rice sector to decision-makers. Apparently understanding rice innovation system is imperative in the development of rice sectors in SSA.

In the face of changing environmental and economic realities, innovation system in agriculture constitutes the cornerstone in efforts to develop rice production and improve the livelihood strategies of farmers in SSA (Sanginga, Chitsike, Delve, Kaaria and Kirkby, 2004).

There is need to find an appropriate institutional framework for Research-Extension-Farmer-

Input- Linkage System (REFILS) that would be beneficial to the farmers with appropriate technologies at the time they can use them, and get relevant feedback to research in a timely fashion (Unamma, Onwudike, Uwaegbute, Edeoga and Nwosu, 2004). This necessitates the need to examine rice innovation system, the roles, performance and linkages among key actors.

The major questions are: who are the key actors in rice innovation system? What are the traditional habits and practices of the actors in terms of learning, linkages and investment? To what extent do the actors carry out their activities? What is the nature and intensity level of linkage that exists between the key actors?

1.3 The Purpose of the Study

The overall purpose of this study was to analyse rice innovation system in Nigeria.

Specifically, the study was designed to:

1 review policies, acts and initiatives in rice innovation system;

2 describe the socio-economic characteristics of various key actors in rice innovation system;

3. discuss the activities of selected key actor in rice innovation system;

4. ascertain the level of linkages existing among the selected key actors in rice innovation

system; and

5. identify strategies for enhancing effective linkage among key actors in rice innovation

system.

1.4 Hypothesis

1) Ho: There is no significant relationship between the socio-economic characteristics of key actors (farmers, marketers and consumers) in rice innovation system and the level of linkages among them.

1.5 Justification for the Study

In Nigeria, rice innovation system seems yet to receive the required attention to boost increase in rice production. This seem to have led to increase in rice importation; neglect in domestic rice farming research, adoption and dissemination of technologies among the farmers will adversely affect domestic rice production in Nigeria.

An innovation system approach can help policymakers, researchers, research managers, donors and entrepreneurs to identify and analyze new ways of encouraging innovation. It does so by offering greater insight into the complex relationships between diverse actors, processes

29 of institutional learning and change, market and nonmarket institutions, public policy, poverty reduction, and socio-economic development. Therefore it is hoped that the findings of the study will be useful to the researchers, farmers, academics, and policymakers to determine the technological needs/gaps in existence; the technological policy variables required to guide, control and improve the performance of rice innovation in the Nigeria economy; and the role actors are expected to play. Government and policy makers will benefit from the findings of this study by utilizing the information to address the problems of improved rice technologies. These will be used as checks and balances by policy makers and academics in designing of subsequent technologies in improved rice varieties in the study area.

The findings of the study will highlight the links between the researchers, government agencies, technology transfer agencies, farmers, marketers and consumers; the need for mutual cooperation, integration and coordination for effective improved rice technology in rice innovation system. The awareness created will be of relevance to the researchers, policy makers, academics, farmers, marketers and consumers in rice innovation system, and will help to sensitize key actors in rice innovation for change in attitude and appreciation of other actors in rice innovation system. Secondly, this study will complement other studies conducted to guide appropriate policy options for improved performance of improved rice technology in the country. It will further be useful to other actors in related areas.

1.6 Definition of Terms

Innovation- is defined as any new-knowledge introduced into and utilized in an economic or

social process (Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD,

1999)

Innovation system- An innovation system is a network of organizations, enterprises, and

individuals focused on bringing new products, new processes, and new forms of

organization into economic use, together with the institutions and policies that affect

their behaviour and performance. The innovation systems concept embraces not only

the science suppliers but the totality and interaction of actors involved in innovation.

Agents: Comprising individuals and firms as well as public institutions and non state actors-

constitute the principle operating components of the system.

Interaction-This refers to the relationship between and among agents in an innovation system.

Cooperation-Cooperation is a form of interaction that is a key behavioural aspect of agents in an

innovation system. In the context of an innovation system framework, cooperation is

referred to as an incompletely specified exchange (non market) relationship that

allow for opportunistic behaviour by agents involved in the exchange (Fritsch, 2004)

Institutions- These are organizations that enact rules and regulations in the development and

operation of an innovation system.

Linkages- the connection / go between the various actors in rice innovation

Partnership- Partnership is an alliance among partners who agree to address a common goal,

with people who are able to work together and share resources, risks and benefits.

CHAPTER TWO

LITERATURE REVIEW

Relevant literatures were reviewed under the following headings:

2.1 Innovation systems perspectives

2.1.1 Origins of innovation systems concepts

2.1.2 Methodological challenges for innovation system

2.1.3 Partnerships in innovation system

2.2 Rice productions, processing and marketing in Nigeria

2.2.1 Constraints in rice production

2.2.2 Studies on rice production

2.3 Participatory approaches in agricultural research

2.4 Adoptions in innovation system

2.5 Theoritical consideration

2.6 Conceptual framework

2.1 Innovation systems perspectives

The World Bank (2004) defined innovation system as a network of organization, enterprise, and individuals focused on bringing new products, new processes and new forms of organizations into social and economic use, together with the institutions and policy that affect their behaviour and performance. The innovation systems concept embraces the totality and interaction of actors involved in innovation. It tends to go beyond the creation of knowledge to encompass the factors affecting demand for and use of knowledge in useful ways. According to the Organization for Economic Cooperative Development (OECD, 1999), innovation can be defined as anything new and successfully introduced into an economic and social process.

Innovation is not just trying something new, but successfully integrating a new idea or product into a process that includes technical, economic and social components. This definition stresses that innovation is the creative use of different types of knowledge in response to social or economic needs and opportunities. Secondly, a trial only becomes an innovation, when it is adopted as part of a process (Bailey and Ford, 2003). In the terminology of complexity theory, innovation results not just from variation (trying something new), but also from selection

(finding things better than what is currently used) and incorporation into long complex processes. He further states that innovation processes are essentially complex because if they could be planned in advance, they would not be innovative. To Hall and Dijkman (2006), the concept of innovation is the search for development, adaptation, imitation and adoption of technologies that are new to a specific context. An innovation system is therefore a network of organizations within an economic system that are directly involved in the creation, diffusion and use of scientific and technological knowledge, as well as the organizations responsible for the coordination and support of these processes. The approach to put the concept of innovation system central in the production of scientific and technological knowledge represents a major change in the way knowledge and technology are generated, viewed and supported by different actors. It shifts attention away from technology, towards the whole process of innovation in which research is only one element (Hall and Dijkman, 2006). Hence, Mytelka (2001) stresses that innovation is both gradual and cumulative and is a process that involves continuous interactivity between suppliers, clients, universities, productivity, standards selling bodies, banks and other critical system and economic actors. Therefore, innovation is not an individual act of learning, but is situated within a larger system that both enables, and draws on the innovation process. Lundvall (2000) argues that innovation systems are both social and dynamic. This refers to both the nature of the institutions that make up the system as well as to

33 the linkages and flows that connect them to one another. It is social in the sense that it relies on an institutional context, cultural norms, routines, habits, technical standards (Lundvall, 2000).

Innovation according to CTA (2005) can be defined as the process by which firms master and implement the design and production of goods and services that are new to them, irrespective of whether they are new to competitors. Mytelka (2000), opines that for innovation to take place, there must be continuous learning and the opportunities to learn depend on the degree and type of interactions between and among the different enterprises, organizations and related sectors as well as institutional behaviours, which determine the extent and rate at which information and knowledge are produced, transferred and utilized. Innovations are therefore not solely the product of organized research and development activities undertaken within universities, research and development institutes; but should not be assumed that the results of formal research or increased investments in research and development or science and technology infrastructure will automatically spur innovation or be put into economic use. It is the enabling environment that encourages continuous learning, creativity and knowledge flows which facilitates innovation for socio-economic development (Mytelka, 2000). The decision to innovate is often conditioned by the behaviour of other individuals, the social and economic context within which decisions are made (Anselin, 2002). This means that the incentives to innovate vary on the basis of individual endowments of wealth, income, or capacity and collective endowments of a similar nature. Spielman (2005) succinctly defines an innovation system as a network of agents, along with the institutions, organizations, and policies that condition their behaviour and performance with respect to generating, exchanging and utilizing knowledge.

The innovation systems concept focuses not merely on the science supplies but on the totality and interaction of actors, involved in innovation. It extends beyond the creation of

34 knowledge to encompass the factors affecting demand for and use of new and existing knowledge in novel and useful ways. Thus, innovation is viewed in a social and economic sense and not purely as discovery and invention. Innovation systems approach changes the focus of analysis from the internal working of an economic system to the way that the system interacts with the outside world. Probst and Hagmann (2003) observed that an analysis of the innovation system within a given context needs to be conducted to verify whether there is a functioning research and continuum; to review the roles and mandate of research, extension development agencies.

According to Probst and Hagmann (2003), technology transfer model is overtly, linear technology driven and includes mainly three actors: researchers who develop technologies and innovations, extensionists or agencies that transfer the standardized messages developed by researchers to the third actor, farmers, who simply have the role of adopters, or rejecters of technologies developed by others. The implication is that capacity of development is needed to focus, not just on enhancing the ability to produce knowledge, sustain partnerships but also the ability to put the knowledge and technologies into productive use. The innovation systems approach is a holistic approach that is widely used as a conceptual framework for innovation studies. It is also a useful tool to study agricultural innovations in the economy. The systems approach is crucial in identifying economic, social, political, organizational, institutional activities and functions of the innovation system. These activities are conducted by sets of agents that interact to achieve a common goal through exchange of information and by learning from each other. The reality of agricultural innovation is that it involves diverse sets of agents as a result; innovation requires different sets of functions, the most important ones being technological invention, communication and the adaptation of new ideas for current practice.

Every function is important and actors or stakeholders need to collaborate in order to achieve

35 innovation (Arumapperuma, 2004). Innovation system approach also provides a useful framework to explore the linkages between stakeholders in agricultural innovation diffusion.

Those actors belong to various companies, organizations, institutes, corporations, universities, and research centres. They can be classified as private including NGOs and public, depending on size, nature of funding sources, and whether they operate as a service or profit-oriented enterprise. These actors can be local, regional, national or international in their scope.

Innovation systems concept though relatively new to agricultural policymakers and agricultural research managers in developing countries, is increasingly suggested as a way of re-visiting the question of how to strengthen agricultural innovation capacity (Hall,Bockett, Sivamohan, Clark,

Taylor and Bockel, 2001; Clark, Hall, Sulaiman, and Naik 2003). Policy support of innovation is not the outcome of a single policy but of asset of policies that work together to shape innovative behaviour. In evaluating the effectiveness of policies on innovative performance, it is therefore necessary to be sensitive to a wide range of policies and attitudes; effective policies will take account of existing behavioural patterns (Mytelka, 2000). For example, the introduction of more participatory approaches to research is often ineffective unless scientists’ attitudes (and incentives) are changed. The innovation systems concept recognizes the importance of the inclusion of stakeholders and the development of behavioural patterns that make organizations and policies sensitive to stakeholders’ agendas or demands (Engel, 1997).

Stakeholders’ demands are important signals that can shape the focus and direction of innovation processes. Attaining goals must be the ultimate of the innovation process but unfortunately, most innovations fail to meet organizational goals. Innovations that fail are often potentially good ideas but have been rejected or shelved due to budgetary constraints, lack of skills or poor fit with current goals (O’Sullivan, 2002); some causes will be external to the organization and outside its influence of control while others will be internal and ultimately

36 within the control of the organization. Internal causes of failure can be associated with the innovation process itself (O’Sullivan 2002). According to Kaplinsky and Morris (2008), an innovation system reflects one aspect of value chain analysis by bringing actors together in the application of knowledge within a value chain, a process termed – ‘upgrading’ in the value chain literature. Both ideas highlight the need for a holistic approach to the nature and structure of interaction between actors linked together within a system where the application of new or existing knowledge is the key element.

The innovation system concept serves to draw different ideas together, including the idea of a national system of innovation. National innovation system is a system constituted by various actors most of them organized, who influence technological innovation. It operates through various interactions taking place within the context of the institutional establishment of the system, and it is significantly influenced by national policies. A national innovation system is “national” to the extent that it has identifiable national and societal specifications. It is a system in as much as the importance of institutional support for the learning and innovation process can be identified (Lundvall, 2000). According to Hall, Sulaiman, Clark, Sivamohan and Yoganand, (2002) and Clark, Hall, Sulaiman and Naiik (2003), the concept recognizes that innovations emerge from systems of actors. These systems are embedded in an institutional context that determines how individual actors behave, and interact with other elements of the system. They argue that learning and the role of institutions are critical components of such systems. Not only does this mean that innovation had multiple sources and formal research organizations, but it also suggests that learning causes much interaction and evolution to take place in innovation processes and approaches. They further stated that these observations suggested that innovation is a complex systems phenomenon.

Innovation is a social process (i.e., it involves people who are influenced by their experiences of participating in that process), where learning inevitably takes place; as a result, capabilities, linkages, networks, and institutional arrangements are continuously changing. This means that in the planning and particularly the evaluation of intervention, it is not sufficient to explore the inputs and outputs of such systems. Processes and systems invariably evolve and change because the actors involved in innovation learn along the way and modify their behaviour accordingly. Innovation is the key to the production as well as processing of knowledge (Mashelkkar, 2001). A nation’s ability to convert knowledge into wealth and social good through the process of innovation determines its future. The purpose of innovation therefore is to create a new value for an individual, team or organization, or for society at large.

New values could be in the form of breakthrough products or services, new strategies, new processes and new methods for organization. Christensen and Lundvall (2004) stated that networking and interactive learning are important prerequisite for successful innovation.

Innovations may be the outcome of accidents, but more often they will result from systematic efforts. But in external and internal networking, the core activities are human interaction in the form of co-operation, communication and learning. Developing common norms, rules and language within a group and across groups is a costly and time consuming process. The interaction is shaped by the roles individuals play in relation to each other and this will reflect both their educational background and the wider cultural and social setting within which they operate. The setting refers to the institutions that shape human interaction in relation to innovation (Christiensen and Lundvall, 2004). These institutions include family pattern, education system, and career patterns in labour markets, inequality and social welfare systems.

They also include the economic context, especially the historical record of macroeconomic stability and access to finance. Others include the final demand from households and public

38 sector organizations, and government and public policy directly aiming at stimulating innovation, including diffusion and efficient use.

The concept of innovation system was not common in developing countries until the 21 st century which might be as a result of several reasons. Although the innovation systems concept is relatively new to agricultural policy makers and agricultural research managers in developing countries, it is increasingly suggested as a way of revisiting the question of how to strengthen agricultural innovation capacity (Hall et al. 2001; Clark et al. 2003; Hall, 2005). As Hall and

Nahdy (1999), argued based on their work in Uganda, there are systematic problems to implement new methods in old institutions. They further stated that the greatest policy challenge is to devise ways in which public sector organized science can be integrated into the complex matrix of individuals and institutions engaged in the innovation process. As a strategy to sustain a project intervention, donors from the developed countries often insist that non- governmental organizations work in partnership with the public sector as an effective strategy for long-term sustainability of project interventions. This type of partnership may work for both conventional agriculture involved with pro-poor and pro-environment innovations (Ojha and

Mornin 2001). This partnership recognizes small holder farmers as the potential entrepreneurs and attempts to transform the informal sector into non-profit sector (Agbamu, 2000). Public sector researchers often perceive themselves as superior to the extension workers and the extension workers consider themselves more embedded in society than the researchers. They seldom relate with each other as collegial partners despite being within the same sector (Hall, et al, 2001).

2:1:1 Origins of the innovation systems concept

Early study of innovation can be traced to Adam Smith (1993), who first noted the influence of innovation as new production techniques and new divisions of labour on output and society. But it is the works of Ricardo (1821) that provided a useful starting point for a discussion of both orthodox (neoclassical) and heterodox economic perspectives on innovation and technological change in agriculture. Ricardo’s analysis captured the fundamental challenges of agricultural production: land’s diminishing marginal returns, and the importance of technology in shifting agricultural production possibilities. More importantly, his analysis introduced factor bias as a determinant of the impact of technological change on productivity, income and welfare. Ricardo did this by distinguishing between two types of technology: that which “increases the productivity powers of the land” or that which “obtains its produce with less labour”. But it was Schumpeter (1961) who laid the cornerstone of the modern innovation systems approach. Schumpeter provided the first nuanced definition of technological change by distinguishing between invention, innovation, and diffusion. He further defined innovation as any addition to the existing body of technical knowledge or know-how that results in an outward shift of the production function and a downward shift of the associated cost curves—by distinguishing between product, process, and organizational innovation. Innovation is thus endogenously determined by the behavior of the entrepreneur and his or her financiers, and by the institutions of private property, business traditions, and capitalist competition. Schumpeter suggested that innovation results from the character of social and economic institutions, and that institutions change in response to innovation, that is, that the relationship between society and innovation is endogenously determined.

The innovation systems approach emerged in the mid-1980s as a neo-Schumpeterian perspective by emphasizing continuous and non-linear processes of endogenously determined

40 technological and institutional change, in contrast to the more conventional study of relative factor prices, exogenous technological shocks, and static equilibrium. From systems theory, the innovation systems approach drew its emphasis on the study of the attributes and interactions among diverse elements of a set, how the properties and behaviors of each element influence other elements and the set as a whole, and how interdependence among the elements renders the set indivisible and thus analysis of a single element irrelevant (Caarlson, Jacobson, Holmen,

Rickne, et al., 2002). A comprehensive description of the innovation systems approach was first set forth by Lundvall (1988). Application of the innovation systems approach has since been explored by the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD, 1997) and its members (Arnold and Bell, 2001). Innovation systems studies often open the “black box” of innovation to analyze actors’ motives and behaviours; the institutions that shape these motives and behaviours; interactive, joint, and complementary processes of innovation; and the dynamics of institutional learning and change. But while insights from Schumpeter, evolutionary economics, and systems theory have contributed to the development of the innovation systems perspective, they have had little influence on the study of agricultural research and technological change in developing countries.

Theories of technological change in agriculture developed in the latter half of the 20th century have tended toward the Hicksian notion of innovation induced by relative factor scarcities. By introducing relative factor scarcities and prices as the key determinants of innovation, Hicks (1946) married the notion of innovation to the larger neoclassical framework.

Thus, it is Hicks’s work that gave rise to the modern theories of agricultural development and economic development posited most notably by Hayami and Ruttan (1971). Their work, in turn, gave rise to a dense literature on the role of public research systems in generating technological change in agriculture (Echeverría, 1990; Anderson, Pardey, and Roseboom, 1994; Alston,

Norton, and Pardey, 1995; and Alston, Pardey, and Smith, 1999). The innovation systems approach broadens the National Agricultural Research System (NARS) and Agricultural

Knowledge and Information System (AKIS) perspectives by focusing on the processes by which diverse agents engage in generating, disseminating, and utilizing knowledge, the organizational and individual competencies of such agents, the nature and character of their interactions, and the market and non-market institutions that affect the innovation process. Yet the innovation systems approach is still nascent in the study of developing-country agriculture.

The common thread in all these studies is the emphasis placed on the role of diverse actors and interactions within complex systems of innovation and the institutional context within which these processes occur.

• An innovation system model

Game theoretic modeling based on emerging work in evolutionary economics offers some insight into the value of the innovation systems framework. The models illustrate the spontaneous processes of social self-organization and the ways in which public policy and organizational structures can affect these processes. This perspective differs significantly from the neo-classical approaches to constitutional design and benevolent social planning: in an evolutionary approach, aggregate social outcomes are not the summation of individual maximizing behavior; rather, they are the result of individual behavior conditioned by the behavior of others and by the institutional landscape that conditions these behavior patterns.

The evolutionary model employed below derives from the biological population models described by Maynard Smith (1982) but substitutes for the intergenerational selection of biologically inheritable traits, the selection of socioe-conomic behaviors, both idiosyncratic and intentional over time. The approach is described in detail by Nelson and Winter (1982) and pursued further by Andersen (1994), who models an innovation system with Schumpeterian

42 characteristics to describe the strategic decision-making processes of diverse agents who cooperate, compete, or otherwise interact over time.

A Schumpeterian game theoretic model is configured as follows: First, the model is set up with the standard attributes of a non cooperative game: several agents (“players”) pursue different behaviors (“strategies”) that obtain different outcomes (“payoffs”). Second, the model is initially configured as the classic hawk/dove game. Intuitively, when a hawk and dove meet, the dove is severely injured by the hawk’s aggressive nature; when two hawks meet, they are both severely injured because of their equally aggressive natures; and when two doves meet, they both fare well because of their peace-loving nature. The hawk and dove strategies are respectively renamed Innovator (I) and Adaptionist (A) to capture the Schumpeterian nature of the game described here. In this game, an Innovator might be an actor who possesses and transforms knowledge into a functional technology. For instance, an Innovator might be a research-based firm or a highly entrepreneurial individual. An Adaptionist might be an actor who applies such knowledge to the production of some good or service. Thus, an Adaptionist might be a small-scale farmer or a rural entrepreneur. These descriptions provide an appropriate starting point for modeling a simple innovation because they represent a set of agents that engage in interactions (exchanges) that are subject to coordination failures caused by, say, contracts for appropriating rents from innovation that are difficult to enforce or otherwise incomplete.

Agricultural research and innovation in many developing countries are focused on attaining food security and alleviating poverty, by enhancing crop yields for farmers and improving food availability for consumers with limited market access or purchasing power.

This strategy has traditionally required that research outputs be generated as non-excludable, non-rival (public) goods, requiring in turn, public sector investment in research and innovation.

This is most acute in Sub-Saharan Africa, where more than 97 percent of agricultural research is undertaken by the public sector (Beintema and Stads, 2004).

2.1.2 Methodological challenges for innovation system

The study of technological change in agriculture is concerned with systems such as national agricultural research system (NARS), which was established in 1980 to provide infrastructure capacity, management, and policy support at the national level. Agricultural knowledge and information system (AKIS) approaches established in 1990; though focused on research supply gives much more attention to the links between research, education, extension and the identification of farmers demand for new technologies. The AKIS links individuals and institutions to promote mutual learning and to generate, share and utilize agriculture-related technology, knowledge and information. According to the World Bank (2004), an AKIS integrates farmers, agricultural educators, researchers and extensionists to harness knowledge and information from various sources for improved livelihoods. The AKIS approach focuses on the dynamics of knowledge and technology dissemination through extension and it is largely based on a linear vision of science. AKIS perspective emerged as a response to the challenges of the theory of adoption and diffusion of innovation, which was pre-occupied with studying of people’s adoption or non adoption of new agricultural innovations and practices (Leeuwis and

Van den ban, 2004).

The NARS approach is concerned with the role of public sector research organizations in generating and disseminating new technical information. Interventions based on the NARS perspective traditionally focused on investment in the national organizations, institutions and universities engaged in organizing, coordinating or executing activities expected to contribute to agricultural development geared towards strengthening NARS infrastructure, management, and

44 capacity within these organizations and improving the policy environment within which they operated. The main short comings of these interventions are that they implicitly assumed that the generation of information was often enough to induce innovation. NARS and AKIS are increasingly challenged by the changing globalization context, in which technological and agricultural development are evolving (World Bank, 2006).

Thus, Agricultural Innovation System (AIS) approach does not necessarily supplant prior approaches, but looks at them from a different perspective. It highlights the complex relationships and interactions between old and new actors, and the organizational and institutional learning behaviours and practices that characterize the system. Importantly, the

AIS framework highlights the notion of individual and collective absorptive capabilities to translate information and knowledge into a useful social or economic activity. Thus, an AIS analysis requires an understanding of how individual and collective capabilities are strengthened and how these capabilities are applied to agriculture. This suggests the need to focus far less on the supply of information; advance to systemic structures, failures within a system, the practices and behaviours that affect learning and innovation processes (Spielman,

2006 a,b). The AIS framework does face several methodological limitations in its applications to developing countries agriculture. First, while the conventional innovation systems approach relies on adversity of rigorous qualitative and quantitative methods in studies of industrialized countries, the methodological tool kit employed in the study of developing countries agriculture remains fairly limited. The favoured methodology in the study of agricultural research in developing countries is the descriptive case study often drawn from an action research or stakeholder analysis exercise (Hall, et al 2005).

Innovation processes are complex, with many forces and actors interacting at different scales and dynamics. If the main processes and sub processes that govern the dynamics are well

45 characterized, their successful operation contributes to achieve the overall objectives. The consequences of the complex nature of innovation processes are alike in time and space. For this reason, past experiences are poor guides to the implementation of new programmes to promote innovation. Experiences cannot be copied but can only highlight factors that are potentially important in innovation processes. This is the reason why so often best practices fail when applied in a difficult programme or context. The consequence of the complex nature of innovation processes is that the learning should occur not only at the implementation level, but also at the donor and policy making body level. If appropriate monitoring system is implemented at this level, each programme can be seen as a learning experience that contributes both to improve the implementation of all other progarmmes and the ability of policy makers to identify new instruments to promote innovation. Given the complexity of innovation processes and system no single method can be used to analyse them. The choice of a method should depend on the objectives of the study; several methodologies could contribute significantly to the existing innovation systems tool kit. These methodologies when combined provide not only a valid, rigorous and replicable tool kit, but also possess the ability to influence decision- making on key issues in agriculture and rural development, enhancing production, increasing food security and nutrition, diversifying and improving rural livelihoods and reducing poverty.

Although many investments in science and technology have featured in most strategies to promote sustainable and agricultural development at the national levels, the context of agriculture is changing rapidly. It is recognized that the value of traditional agricultural science and technology investments such as research and extension, although necessary is not sufficient to enable agricultural innovation. There are changes in agricultural development which calls for the need for innovation in the agricultural sector (Bharghonti, Sorby and Ali, 2004).

Agricultural development was in the past years linked to major improvements in the

46 productivity of staple food crops, but this situation is changing. There is a shift to strategies that enhance agricultural production; secondly, the production trade and consumption environment for agriculture and agricultural products is increasingly dynamic and evolving in unpredictable ways. If stakeholders (farmers and companies) are to manage, compete and survive in contemporary agriculture, they need to innovate continuously. Thirdly, knowledge information and technology are increasingly generated, diffused and applied through the private sector.

Innovative businesses develop and supply a substantial number of the technologies that farmers use or introduce (example: seed, fertilizer, pesticides and machinery). Fourthly, exponential growth in information and communication technology (ICT), especially the internet, has transformed the ability to take advantage of knowledge developed in other places or for other purposes (Arnold and Bell, 2001). Fifthly, the knowledge structure of the agricultural sector in many countries is changing markedly. The number of uneducated farmers and farm workers was in the hundreds of millions under these circumstances. It made perfect sense to create a critical mass of intellectual resources in a few places mostly in national agricultural education levels. Greater numbers of experienced and educated people in the farm community, the private sector and in non governmental organizations (NGOs) now interact to generate new ideas or develop responses to changing conditions. Technical change and innovation have become much more interactive processes, which can be led by many different types of actors (Janssen and Braunschweig, 2003). Sixthly, agricultural development increasingly takes place in a globalized setting.

In the African agricultural sector, innovation is a process that requires linkages and alliances among actors and stakeholders; is supported and embedded in context specific to social relations (Wennick and Heemskert, 2006). While innovation is a multi-stakeholder process that cannot be achieved by one group of stakeholders, the reconfiguration of

47 agricultural research and extension in African countries means that positive outcomes are now particularly dependent on the role that farmers play in innovation systems (Wennick and

Heemskert, 2006). At the farmers level, social networks and the changes that occur within them, have emerged as a crucial element in defining the nature of that role and delineate the context for success or failure of innovation. As the innovation processes unfold, type of information shared changes. This type of information includes the constraints likely to be faced before and after adopting innovations, and the types of benefits that farmers would expect to get after adoption. Innovation processes provide what Anderson (1997) refers to as setting of sociability in which farmers experience changes in the way they thought of themselves and other actors.

Agricultural research and extension over recent decades has failed to noticeably improve poor peoples’ livelihoods, particularly in SSA. But even without the support of research and extension services, farmers can and do adapt to changes in their environment, since some farmers are natural innovators. The key is to recognize these innovations and to integrate them into agricultural research and development. Therefore, Innovation is a process; it is not a product and can be sourced from different directions. There is farmers’ innovation, but scientific research organizations can also be a source of knowledge that can be transformed into innovation when it passes through social intervention processes. Unless technology and knowledge are transformed into products and process which are eventually used by the end users, then it never becomes an innovation.

2.1.3 Partnerships in innovation system

A partnership should be an alliance among partners who agree to address a common goal, with people who are able to work together and share resources, risks and benefits (Prasad,

Singh, Prasad, Virk, Steele, Witcombe and O’Toole , 2004). It is important that stakeholders intending to go into partnership first define a common goal and objectives, identify areas of conflict or duplication and recognize the strength, weaknesses and expectations of each stakeholder. Partnership arrangements catalyze the flow of information based on shared vision.

Partnership strengthening is a way of developing the capacity of agricultural innovation system, institutional change, particularly public research organizations. However, successful partnership needs a much more holistic understanding of the process of technology development and the institutional policy arrangements necessary to achieve it (Hall and

Dijkman, 2006).

Enhancement of innovation processes and partnerships is important to linking technology users to technology developers and agro-production to consumption. Current trends in agricultural development emphasize innovation systems, agricultural food systems, and knowledge development and dissemination perspectives. Partnerships are characterized by sharing of roles, resulting in increased synergy in technology development and dissemination.

Public private partnership is a collaborative effort between the public and private sector in which each sector contributes to the planning, resources, and activities needed to accomplish a shared objective. The term therefore covers a wide variety of interactions, including university – industry research projects, multi-party and multi-sectorial research consortia, local development programmes between small businesses and governments, or large scale global partnership programmes. Such a partnership is initiated to purse shared objectives and the production of scientific knowledge and technology in a manner that generates research synergies. Public– private partnerships are increasingly being emphasized as a mechanism for improving public service provision and implementing development programs. In developing countries, such partnerships are often used to mobilize complementary and scarce resources in the public and

49 private sectors for projects involving the development of infrastructure, communities, and agriculture. There are many cases of partnerships among farmers, private companies, government agencies, and non governmental organizations (NGOs) under which each entity contributes human, physical, and financial resources to foster the generation and diffusion of innovations, new forms of technologies, and knowledge to redress gaps in the development, production, processing, and marketing of improved agricultural products. Many agents enter partnerships without negotiating partner contributions or even having a clear picture of the potential benefits; agents seem to enter into partnerships on an ad hoc basis, following the common perception that partnering is inherently a good thing. Often, limited emphasis is placed on how the partners will interact effectively or how relationships might be improved. Hence, public–private partnerships often suffer from lack of trust and commitment with the result that they fail to meet their potential (Spielman and Von Grebmer, 2004).

Mytelka (2000) notes that habits and practices interact with policies, so to design effective policies, it is necessary to take into account the habits and practices of the people affected. For example the introduction of more participation approaches in research is often ineffective unless the habits and practices of scientists are also changed (Hall and Dijkaman

2006). Policy makers’ involvement in innovation process is crucial for gathering support for innovations and projects and/or creating the right institution/environment. According to Prasad et al (2004), policy makers should be consulted so as to shape the overall project design and through regular reviews of the project. This type of dialogue will encourage changes within the institutional structure necessary to overcome the institutional barriers to change. Working and learning together encourages the evolution of networks that enhance the flow of quality information. Partnerships also increase innovativeness by trying new and alternative ways of doing things and by amalgamating scientific technologies with farmer innovations. The

50 effectiveness and relevance of different partners and partnership arrangement is determined to some degree by the type of partnerships and the way the stakeholders relate to one another.

Effective partnership may be formed with other public institutions and private sector community based organizations. Prasad et al (2004) in a study on multi-stakeholders’ partnership through participatory research in rice breeding and seed dissemination, enumerated some qualities of good partnership which include private, public institutions and community individual farmers. Other characteristics of good partnership were that the initiators had a common goal with a poverty focus and fair gender consideration; high level of participation of different partners reduced the gap between technology development and disseminations, NGO played a big role in technological disseminations, and good links, between scientists and end users. There were obvious weaknesses as well. The partnership was formed on basis of a common need and when the need is satisfied, the partnerships may disintegrate. Prasad et al

(2004) mentioned that this clearly indicates that partnerships are means to a desired output.

They are context/situation based, their evolution may depend on the mutual benefit and if the benefits are insignificant or not obvious, some partners may feel that they are only being used by others.

• Stakeholders influence in technology development: Technology development and

implementation include social processes where various stakeholders voice their

interests and concerns. Stakeholders influence the process of technological

advancement in a variety of ways. These interests and concerns, in turn, are shaped by

the stakeholders’ institutional context. Organizations involved in technology

development have to acknowledge and integrate key stakeholders in order to promote

the process in a successful way. Important elements of such an engagement are:

identifying key stakeholders (Mitchell, Angle and Wood 1997) propose ‘power’

‘legitimacy’ and ‘urgency of claims, as factors to rank stakeholders according to their

importance for the organizations; and assessing the key stakeholders perceptions. The

organizations and its key stakeholders will differ with regard to knowledge about

technology perceptions. Thus, differences in perceptions partly might lead to an

approximation of views. Assessing the key stakeholders’ interests; the development

and implementation of technologies are associated with a variety of interests.

Depending on the nature of interests, different patterns of interaction between the

organization and its stakeholders may occur. These differences in perceptions require

the willingness to learn from each other and differences in interests require the

willingness to compromise (Weisenfeld, 2003). He further stated two objectives which

could be quite difficult to achieve if the parties involved have a different cultural,

economic, and social background.

• The role of public policy: An important implication of the innovation systems

approach is that innovations can emerge at any point in the system as the result of

consciously mediated or coordinated interactions among different types of agents.

Thus, the appearance of innovations does not necessarily depend on any government

action – although these actions can have great influence on the evolution and strength

of particular innovations. Seen from this perspective, an innovation system is larger

than the national research system (NRS), and larger than the set of public-sector

organizations charged with the creation and dissemination of new technologies. In

other words, multiple sources of innovation can be found to exist in practice.

The innovation systems perspective has so far given little attention to policy analysis

(Spielman 2006a). This shortcoming may be caused by the depth, breadth, and complexity of de facto innovation policy—which often embraces policies in industry, agriculture, trade,

52 finance, education, science and technology, labor, and others. To provide useful guidance for national development purposes, analyses of innovation policy will need to move beyond case studies of specific innovations to more comprehensive analyses of national and sectoral policies at a level that is applicable for singling out policy options or for constructing cross-country benchmarks and indications of best practice. By combining well-grounded empirical analysis with a good understanding of the institutional context in which innovation occurs, innovation systems research can be a powerful tool for designing public policy and associated incentive structures (Omamo 2003).

Porter (1990) argues that the policies espoused by government can make a difference in creating and sustaining national competitive advantage as a highly localized process.

Differences in national economic structures, values, cultures, institutions, and histories contribute to competitive success. Thus, although the globalization of competition might appear to make the nation-state less important, the role of the home nation has, in fact, become stronger than ever. Therefore, public policy plays an important role in either facilitating or impeding conditions that are favourable to innovation. Porter (1990), reasons that public policy directly influences the national competitive firms. Governments cannot create competitive firms; only firms can do this. But governments can influence the operating conditions and institutional structures that surround firms. Thus, governments’ most powerful roles are indirect rather than direct. That is, they “steer” by shaping the business environment rather than by intervening directly. And what are most often being shaped in the business environment are the incentives for innovation.

Nelson (1993) also emphasizes the role of the overall policy environment, the educational sector, and idiosyncratic institutions that affect innovation but for which international comparison is difficult (e.g., the role of individual funding agencies in individual

53 countries). He underscores the active role played by specific institutional actors in shaping government policies. In particular, he points to institutional and policy choices that influence:

(1) the nature of the university system; (2) the extent of intellectual policy protection; (3) the historical evolution of industrial research and development (R&D) organizations; and (4) the division of labor between private industry, universities and government in R&D performance and funding. In their study of the common factors which support innovation in most industries,

Stern, Porter and Furman (2000) highlight: (1) overall technological sophistication of the economy; (2) the supply of scientifically and technically trained workers; (3) the extent of overall investments in basic research and higher education; and (4) the policies that affect the incentives for innovation in any industry. In short, science and technology policy, education/training policy, and fiscal policy are singled out as especially relevant for fostering innovation. The authors find that countries which have located a higher share of their R&D activity in the educational sector (as opposed to the private sector or government) have been able to achieve significantly higher levels of innovation, as measured by patenting productivity.

They further conclude that government policies at the provincial and local level also play an important role in shaping national advantage (Stern, Porter and Furman 2000).

In assessing common elements of technological adaptation derived from ten country studies of technological leap-frogging into profitable export activities, Chandra and Kolavalli

(2006) emphasize the importance of “tacit knowledge,” i.e., information, skills, interactions and procedures imbedded in individuals or organizational structures such as firms, networks and public institutions. This finding point up the important role played by organizational structures in the innovation process and also illuminates the difficulties inherent within technology transfer undertakings. It also serves to highlight the importance of technological learning processes in their own right and to target them for special policy attention. They further noted

54 that national efforts to provide public support for technological adaptation, while simultaneously encouraging institutional development, typically take some form of an industry- specific policy. Most often, these industry-specific policies combine incentives for private initiative with the creation of government-facilitated institutions that perform coordinating, regulating or facilitating functions.

Spielman (2006a) states that in an innovation system, the enterprise often constitutes the focal agent of inquiry and represents the primary agent. In agriculture, this includes multinational and national agribusiness companies, small/medium agro-enterprises, individual entrepreneurs, farmer/producer associations, rural cooperatives, or other community-based groups. These agents engage in the production, processing, marketing, and distribution of agricultural commodities, as well as in the purchase of agricultural and agro-industrial inputs.

He makes an important point, which is that research on agricultural innovation must begin from the perspective of the enterprise or firm. Spielman (2006a) then highlights several aspects of institutional behaviour that lie at the heart of the innovation systems approach. He points to cooperation (only one of several forms of interaction) as one of the key behavioral aspects of agents in an innovation system. Cooperation (e.g., networking, knowledge sharing, joint undertaking) is conditioned by the institutions that promote or impede it. This concept is particularly relevant when studying learning processes or relationships that blur the traditional roles of distinct actors - for example, partnerships between public and private research entities.

To recapitulate, public policies alone cannot produce innovation. But well-crafted policies can facilitate, steer, and reinforce it as desirable behaviour by individuals, firms and institutions. In the same way, poorly conceived public policies can stifle, retard or penalize innovation. Although policies from a wide range of sectors may – depending on the technological characteristics and production conditions associated with a particular good or

55 service – combine to exercise such positive or negative effects on innovation processes.

Studies carried out to date suggest that policies most relevant to innovation tend to be found in the areas of human development (especially worker training and technical/university education), trade, taxes and subsidies, research and development, law and jurisprudence, labor and employment, science and technology, and information flow and censorship.

2.2 Rice production, processing and marketing in Nigeria.

Rice is a member of the grass family (Gramineae) and belongs to the genus Oryza under tribe Oryzeae. The genus Oryza includes 20 wild species and 2 cultivated species (cultigens).

The wild species are widely distributed in the humid tropics and subtropics of Africa, Asia,

Central and South America, and Australia (Chang 1985). Of the two cultivated species, African rice ( O. glaberrima Steud.) is confined to West Africa, whereas common or Asian rice ( O. sativa L.) is now commercially grown in 112 countries, covering all continents (Bertin et al.

1971). It is an annual plant which completes its entire life cycle within a year. Rice cultivation is carried out in all regions having necessary warmth and abundant moisture favourable to its growth mainly subtropical rather than hot or cold. The rice grain is made up of three main layers- the hull, or husk (a hard protective outer layer). The hull is removed when the grain is milled. Underneath the hull is the bran and germ layer, which is a thin layer of skin; this layer gives brown rice its colour. The brown rice is the edible fraction of the rice grain (FAO, 1993).

White rice is brown rice with the bran and germ layer removed. The endosperm is the inside of the rice grain, which is hard and white and contains lots of starch.

Rice production is widespread within the country, extending from the northern to southern zones with most rice growth in the eastern and middle belt of the country

(USDA/FAS, 2003). Rice is predominantly produced by small holders (Erenstein et al, 2003).

On average, rice producing households produce 4.6 tons of paddies per year from an annual crop area of 3.3 ha. Rice producing households do not have easily distinguished socio- economic features that distinguish them from non-rice producers. Rice production however does seem to be concentrated in selected geographic areas in Nigeria. According to Erenstein et al (2003), Nigeria has the capacity to be self-sufficient in rice production as virtually all ecologies in the country are suitable for rice cultivation. Rice in Nigeria is typically planted from April-May and harvested from August-November (Nigeria crop calendar and crop zone descriptions). Rainfed upland rice accounts for approximately 25% of the harvested area; rainfed lowland systems account for 16% and deep water mangrove swamps account for less than 10% of the total rice area. Rain lowland system includes the broad valley bottoms or fadama (lowlands) in the Niger and Benue river systems. Irrigated systems include a few large scale irrigation schemes in the north and small-scale systems located on the inland valley bottoms in the south.

Rice according to WARDA (2003) has established itself as a preferred staple in Nigeria.

In Africa, a large proportion of the rice production is in Nigeria and Madagascar, who produced together over 50% of the rice produced in SSA in 2004. The amount of rice consumed is increasing more rapidly in SSA and unlike in Asia, the harvest has continued to increase (FAO,

2005). The increase in rice demand is attributed to a consumer shift from traditional staples such as yam and garri, to imported parboiled rice. In addition, local rice has a very poor marketing image compared to imported rice. This is due to post-harvest handling and processing of local rice which introduce foreign bodies, which consumers find unacceptable.

Consumers are also weary of picking stones from the rice and washing local rice several times, while imported parboiled rice is clean and free from foreign matter. Rice imports account for approximately one third of Nigeria rice supplies. The bulk of the rice imports come from

Southeast Asia, with about 80% coming from Thailand and smaller amounts from India and

Vietnam (FAS attaché 2001).

Rice grains undergo series of processes before marketing. Rice is parboiled before milling which is the usual practice in Nigeria. . Parboiled process is time consuming, laborious and utilizes large quantities of firewood and water. Rice milling is a `cottage industry` primarily done in small-scale mills, although occasionally a share of the produce may also be milled by traditional hand- pounding which is typically done for limited quantities for own consumption (Erenstein et al 2004). The hand pounding system is a traditional system of processing rice paddy still used by some rice farmers in Nigeria. It involves soaking of paddy for about 24hours, after which the paddy is boiled for about 20 minutes. The boiled paddy is then spread in the sun (usually by the road side) to dry. Sun drying in the open does not allow for drying during the rainy season. Where it is possible to dry during the rainy season, often the paddies do not dry properly and this partly accounts for foul odour of the final product. After drying, the paddy is pounded in a mortar to separate husks and bran from the grains. The last stage of this processing is the winnowing. The major feature of the traditional system is that, it is very slow and labour intensive. The final product obtained often contains a high percentage of broken grains and foreign bodies. The small rice mills constitute the most predominant processing system. About 85% of Nigerian rice is processed through the small milling system

(Ojehomon, Ojehomon and Otitolaiye, 1998). This system involves the use of mechanized milling capacity of 600 and 200-300 tons per day respectively. The use of the rubber roller technology (a modernized technology) is not common among the rice millers. Some of the machines are diesel powered, others are electrically energized but the major problem is the non- availability of de-stoning machine.

In Nigeria, few large mills exist and most of these mills are owned by government or quasi-government parastatals such as the state agricultural development projects. The Pateggi,

Uzo-Uwani, Abakaliki and Agbede rice mills are typical examples of large mills in Nigeria.

These mills combine rice milling with rice polishing, and in most cases, they possess separate parboiling equipment which are not popular with the Nigerian farmers. According to

Akpokodje et al, (2001), the large mills require large amount of capital investment and most of the existing large mills have broken down as a result of lack of spare parts and the general poor maintenance culture of government owned assets.

The income and employment problem of small rice farmers cannot be effectively addressed just through yield-increasing technologies or new forms of cooperation in production and marketing. Thus, the small rice farmers income problem needs broader rural and economy- wide policy actions, including rural infrastructure and education policies in order to facilitate long run transformation of the rural sector (FAO, 2006). Swaminathan (2005), envisaged that in the coming decade, productivity enhancements and more efficient market functioning remain of importance for the incomes of poor rice farmers. He further stated that labour, energy market and rising energy costs are increasingly affecting rice production. Among other things (such as drought, flooding, diseases, and insect attacks), the rising cost of energy has contributed to rising cost, translating increasing price for rice (FAO, 2006).

• Rice yield gap: According to Tran, (1997) various factors cause exploitable

yield gaps in rice, such as physical, biological, socio-economic, and institutional

constraints, which can be effectively improved through participatory research

and government attention. In practice, yield gaps are classified into agronomic

gaps, socio-economic gaps, institutional gaps, and mixed gaps. Closing the rice

yield gap aims not only to increase rice yield and production but also to improve

the efficiency of land and labour use, reduce production costs and increase food

security. The narrowing of the yield gap is not static but dynamic with

technological development in rice production, as the gap tends to enlarge with

the improvement of the yield potential of rice varieties. This requires integrated

and holistic approaches, including appropriate concepts, policy interventions,

understanding of farmers’ actual constraints to high yield, deploying new proven

technologies for production and post production in an integrated approach and

adequate institutional support to farmers. Future increased rice production

therefore requires improvements in productivity and efficiency.

Innovative technologies such as hybrid rice, new plant types and possibly transgenic rice can play an important role in raising the yield ceiling in rice production, thus increasing productivity, while widening the existing rice yield gaps between farmers and research stations.

Narrowing of these gaps could not only improve the productivity and efficiency of rice production but also increase food security worldwide. Increased rice yield could lead to lower prices on the market, thus facilitating access to food for many low-income citizens. High rice productivity could offset rice growers’ losses caused by low prices. However, the problems in bridging the yield gap under the limitations of social, biological, cultural, environmental and biotic constraints still need close scrutiny. Yield gaps have at least two components: the first component is mainly due to factors that are generally not transferable such as environmental conditions and some built-in component technologies available at research stations. The second component of yield gaps is mainly due to differences in management practices. This exists because farmers use suboptimal doses of inputs and cultural practices in rice production. Herdt

(1996) provided a similar description of yield gaps and their components. In practice, yield gaps are also classified according to constraints: Agronomic gaps: due mainly to biological and

60 partly physical constraints. Socio-economic gaps: due mainly to socio-economic constraints.

Institutional gaps: due mainly to institutional constraints.

Pingali, Hossain and Gerpacio (1997) argued that the yield gaps in favourable rice ecologies are not significant for exploiting to increase rice yield and production. Most researchers believe that large rice yield gaps still exist in both favorable and less favorable conditions in many countries and that they could still be exploitable for further improvement in productivity. This is due to poor crop management and problems of institutional support, especially inputs and farm credit supplies, in many developing countries. The national rice yield is an average of yields of rice planted across agro-ecologies and locations in a country.

Therefore, the exploitable yield gap cannot be defined as the difference between the national yield and that of research stations. National yields may be used as indicators to monitor the evolution of rice productivity in a country. In general, the analysis of the evolution of rice yield in the world shows that national average yields have increased, suggesting that yield gaps have narrowed, although at a slow rate.

Factors causing yield gaps: There are several factors that can cause yield gaps, and they can be classified according to their nature and degree by which they contribute to yield gaps. In general, the factors causing yield gaps (Tran, 1997) could be classified as:

• Biophysical: climate/weather, soils, water, pest pressure, weeds.

• Technical/management: tillage, variety/seed selection, water, nutrients, weeds,

pests, and post harvest management.

• Socio-economic: social/economic status, farmers’ traditions and knowledge,

family size, household income/expenses/investment.

• Institutional/policy: government policy, rice price, credit, input supply, land

tenure, market, research, development and extension.

• Technology transfer and linkages: competence and equipment of extension staff,

research, development and extension integration, farmers’ resistance to new

technology, knowledge and skills, weak linkage among public, private, and non

governmental extension staff.

Yield gaps may be caused by technical deficiencies but also by economic considerations.

For example, farmers who seek maximum profit may not apply fertilizer doses to obtain maximum production. The effort to narrow the yield gap without considering economic aspects may have a counter-productive effect. Closing the yield gap may actually decrease farmers’ income, particularly if rice prices are low. The ratio between the price of rice and price of fertilizer could influence the rate of fertilizer applied by farmers and thus rice yield.

Consequently, institutional factors that increase the price of rice or fertilizer could positively contribute to gap narrowing (De Datta 1981).

Exploitable yield gaps of rice are often caused by various factors, such as physical, biological, socio-economic, and institutional constraints, which can be effectively improved through participatory and holistic approaches in action and government attention; an integrated program approach is essential (Tran 1997, Duwayri, Tran, and Nguyen, 1999).

Policy support: Rice policy should be well defined and formulated in a country, especially where major structural reforms have been introduced. Governments should address and find solutions for socio-economic and political questions before narrowing the agronomic gap between farmers’ fields and the research station .Goodwill of governments is also essential to initiate a yield-gap-narrowing program and to achieve effective coordination and intervention, with the aim of providing appropriate solutions to actual problems. Policymakers and government officers should be sensitive to these problems, which is a very important activity in bridging yield gaps.

The first step in narrowing the yield gap is to identify and analyze actual and potential constraints to rice production in a particular area and yield gaps should be classified into:

Promotion of integrated crop management: Integrated crop management, including varieties of higher yield stability, can narrow agronomic yield gaps and at the same time help farmers to reduce wasteful resource use due to poor management of inputs, natural resources, and other cultural practices; and increase rice yield and farmers’ income at a particular location. Precision crop management practices can be realized with the use of advanced technologies. Precise application of fertilizers, for example, can be done by using computer-aided systems and costly equipment. However, most resource-poor farmers cannot afford such systems. According to

Siddiq (2000), narrowing yield gaps by improving crop management practices of small farmers in developing countries is often not an easy task. Although several improved crop management practices exist, their dissemination has proven to be more complicated than that of seed-based technologies. Crop management practices are seldom static and often must be adjusted to environmental factors, knowledge and market forces

Adequate input and farm credit supplies: Fertilizers, especially nitrogen, play an important role in rice production and productivity. Farmers need adequate amounts of fertilizer at the right time to obtain high yields in rice cultivation. The supply of fertilizers needs to be decentralized to village markets and fertilizer quality should be assured. Small farmers are usually unable to buy sufficient quantities on time for application; hence, the provision of village credit could greatly help them.

Post -Production: Yield losses can be caused during pre- and post-production. Losses are more serious in the wet-season harvests due to the lack of drying facilities. Resource-poor farmers tend to deploy labor-intensive practices in hand harvesting, sun drying, manual threshing, wind winnowing, and inappropriate storage, thus contributing greatly to grain losses.

Training of farmers and access to credit to introduce more efficient technologies to handle threshing, drying, storage, and milling are important for reducing post-production losses.

Linkage of research and extension: The support of research and extension ensures the effective bridging of rice yield gaps. Farmers’ adoption of the above mentioned improved technologies depends on the capability of national agricultural research centers and extension services, which need more government resources and training. This research should understand farmers' constraints to high rice productivity and provide farmers with appropriate technological packages for specific locations to bridge the gaps under participatory approaches.

2.2.1 Constraints in rice production

In recent past, investment in the support services to Nigerian agriculture has been neglected with the result that this sector has not realized its full potential to contribute to the prosperity and economic development of Nigeria (United States Agency for International

Development, USAID, 2003). Meanwhile, increasing population pressure and the accompanying need to intensify agricultural production is leading to erosion of the natural resources base on which agriculture depends. The sustainability of production is threatened by a vicious cycle of declining soil fertility and increasing problems of pests, diseases and weeds.

Moreover, the lack of knowledge on how to add value through proper storage, processing and marketing impedes agricultural growth. Technologies exist to address these problems, but their adoption is constrained by lack of information packaged in appropriate formats, and poor communication channels.

Soil and water management: The chief concern as relate to rice production today is increased pressure in water and land resources. The key biophysical constraints are the availability of water and nutrients; in some lowland areas, lack of adequate drainage is also a

64 major problem. According to WARDA (2004), the scarcity of water is perhaps the biggest challenge to increasing rice production world wide. In order to fulfill potential high-yielding, modern rice varieties need good water management and an adequate supply of nutrients, particularly nitrogen. Inappropriate management of irrigation has contributed to environmental problems, including water adoption, water quality reduction, water logging and salinization

(Rosegrant, Meijer and Chine, 2002). In many developing countries average irrigation efficiency is low, thus contributing to wasteful use of water supply. To meet immediate food demands in rainfed environments, farmers have expanded production into marginal lands. These lands are sometimes susceptible to environmental degradation.

Pests, diseases and weeds: Pests and diseases can cause significant yield loss in rice crops and successful control is crucial to farmers’ ability to produce rice profitably. Pest and disease incidence damage, vary widely according to location and season so that knowledge of pest ecology and dynamics is therefore necessary to allow farmers to take appropriate action to manage their rice crops effectively. Moreover, the control of diseases, such as rice blast and sheath blight remains difficult to be achieved in the Integrated Pest Management Unit (IPMU) in developing countries (Defoer, Whoperreis, Tones, Lancon, and Ernestein, 2002). It is also anticipated that intensification of rice production will lead to an increase in the significance of diseases, particularly the fungal disease (rice blast), as production constraints. Fungicide application is almost non-existence in most of the African rice based farming systems and therefore varieties resistance is considered to be the most effective way of combating the disease. Weeds cause significant losses in all rice-growing environments, although these are particularly severe in rainfed and upland systems (Johnson, 1997).

Rice quality and marketing: Developing rice varieties that meet farmers’ quality requirements, resistant to pests, diseases, and that can tolerate stresses is a major challenge.

Advances have been made in rice varieties improvement in recent decades and the yield potential of the crop in irrigated systems has increased. New rice varieties are needed that can perform well under constantly changing farming systems and environments (drought – prone environments), inefficient and under resourced agricultural extension services and an under developed private sector for seed multiplication and sale are in many countries preventing farmers from benefiting from improved varieties and associated technologies such as soil and water management, control of pests and diseases, and processing and marketing. Adoption of improved germplasm and technology options has also been hindered for many years by the lack of coherent and delivered messages through extension services. This has been caused by a range of factors, from lack of information reaching extension agents to the wrong messages being delivered. Therefore, strong linkages between farmers, extension services and research are critical to speed up information flows and diffusion of technologies (Kaaria, Kirkby, Delve,

Njuki, et al, 2004).

While agricultural industries tend to be competitive, the perfectly competitive model does not necessarily apply since farmers may face a significant number of institutional constraints and policies which affect their behavior significantly and result in outcomes that are different from those predicted by the perfectly competitive model. This institutional constraint may be especially important in the area of technological change and adoption. Some of the most important constraints relate to credit as well as tenure relationships.

Agricultural policy for growth and poverty reduction : Technology and innovation are essential components of effective strategies and programmes for reducing poverty and its many associated problems (Hall, et al , 2005). Key policy statements in many nations have recognized the importance of agriculture in their countries, allocating sufficient funds for agriculture to keep pace with population growth. Deeply rooted incompatibility among policy environments,

66 institutions and micro-economic conditions and behaviour in developing countries render innovations in agricultural production and trade risky. According to Spielman (2005), institutional arrangements vary according to the policy environment within which economic activities takes place and with behaviour of individuals and organizations, policy changes can shift the comparative costs of institutional innovations, which in turn can influence micro-level behaviour. The framework not only clarifies what needs to be done to promote growth and reduce poverty, it signals how to do it at the macro policy level, the meso institutional level, and the micro level. Hall et al (2005) stated that most African, Caribbean and Pacific (ACP) countries are currently unable to provide adequate food for the populace and are uncompetitive in national and global markets. Nowhere is this difficulty more evident than in agricultural production, with the current low levels of living and intense poverty in many countries which is reflected in the human development index; has led the international development community to reconsider the approaches to science and technology (S&T), policy formulation and its role in development.

Agricultural innovation is an engine for rural development and has been attracting considerable attention in recent years (Wennink and Heemakertk, 2006). To design policy to spur innovation, one first needs to understand agricultural innovation process, the three major components of successful innovation; the idea, entrepreneurship and capital. The idea that sparks innovation in agriculture usually consists of a new concept with respect to an alternative crop mix, a production process technology or an emerging market. Agriculture progresses technologically as farmers adopt innovations. The extent to which farmers adopt innovations and the speed by which they do so determine the impact of innovations in terms of productivity growth. According to Sunding and Zilberman (2001), not all the potential users adopt at once new technologies that have superior characteristics compared to their predecessors. The

67 appearance of innovation on the market creates opportunities for improvements in efficiency; but these are not realized individually because markets for new technologies are characterized by a lack of transparency and imperfect information. This is not so much a lack of information on the existence of the innovation but rather uncertainty about the operating conditions, risks and performance characteristics of the new technology (Geroski, 2000). Gradual innovation diffusion is not due to market imperfection but to variation of the adoption benefits over the potential adopters. The adoption benefits may vary over adopters for two reasons.

Technologically the innovation may have a superior characteristics compared to a previous technology, but whether those translate into economic benefits depends upon the adopters structural characteristics (Stoneman, 2002).

Agricultural innovation policies and programmes cannot start from agricultural research and extension, and then hope to address innovation system in rice production. This can only lead to standardized, one size fit for all solutions. The role of agricultural innovation in poverty reduction must be based on an analysis of the assets and context of rural poverty in specific locations and on an understanding of both the direct and the indirect efforts of increases in agricultural productivity on different classes of poor people. According to World Bank (2000),

1.2 billion people lived in absolute poverty in 1998, depending on an income of less than US$1 per day. An additional 1.6 billion lived on less than $2 per day with an additional 250 millions living on less than $2 per day. Around two-thirds of the world poor lives in the rural areas of the developing world, and in SSA they constitute as much as 50% to 90% of the population

(World Bank, 2000). FAO (2001) argued that while there is broad consensuses that agricultural development cannot by itself overcome all state of deprivation of so many people, there is also little doubt that without the long term and significant growth of the agricultural sector, there would be fewer opportunities for significantly reducing rural poverty. Its manifestations and

68 definitions are contextual and it is not only a state of deprivation but also a set of processes

(World Bank, 1999). In SSA, the poor quality of land and the erosion of customary rights have become the major obstacles to agricultural growth. In SSA and Asia, one-third of small holders subsist on plots too small to support their families (Oxfam International, 1997).

Agricultural innovation can have both direct and indirect effects on reducing poverty.

The importance will be determined largely by the relative speed with which a household adopts new technologies, the status of the households as a net food buyer or seller. New technologies can improve farmers’ income when they reduce the marginal cost of producing one unit of output since output prices will for a time be driven by the prevalent (old) technology. Lower food prices are an inevitable consequence of increased productivity due to technical change

(CGIAR, 2000). Some improved agricultural technologies can increase total on-farm employment, particularly when they stimulate agricultural output per unit of land per year.

Otsuka (2000), study on the effect of agricultural innovation on labour demands in developing countries revealed that adoption of modern varieties of rice increased labour use and also led to the adoption of labour saving technologies. After reviewing the evidence on the impact of technological change on the labour markets, Renkow (2000) concludes that rising real wages appear to be the obvious result of increased labour demand caused by technological change.

Thus for an invention to effect a change, It must be delivered to the users.

Rice delivery system depends upon the source of the new idea on technology, if the idea or innovation comes from a public institution; the government plays a key role in bringing the idea or innovation to effect rice production or productivity. If the technology developer is a private individual or a corporation, the technology is brought into the market as a commercial product or process which should lead to improvements. Success in modernizing agriculture in developing the full potential of the rural sector will depend in large measure on leaders who can

69 promote change and harness the vast potential of their countries by removing the anti-rural bias in development policy (Halos, 2005).

Most of the countries in Africa especially those in the SSA region, are experiencing profound socio-economic and political problems. These include unemployment, food insecurity and disruptive conflicts. The high rate of population growth, relative to the growth of the economies, presents many challenges for the national governments. Economists have identified technical progress as the single most important determining factor for achieving sustainable economic growth of a country or region. An effective innovation system in agriculture would contribute enormously to rice farming. For the innovation system to be effective, the structure content and delivery mechanisms for innovation programmes must be linked to social and economic development needs (Muthoka, 2005). Technology that targets rice production systems must also consider the high variability of the conditions under which rice is produced even within a given ecology. This dissemination of new components therefore requires a significant amount of adaptations to fit farmers’ requirements. This implies that agents of change have access to a range of technical options and also the capacity to adjust technical recommendations to local conditions (WARDA, 2004).

2.2.2 Studies in rice production:

Akpokodje et al (2001) review on rice policy and development in Nigeria, assessed the major trends of the rice economy on the supply and demand side based on state level data; it subsequently presented the different type of rice based systems encountered in Nigeria and the most recent secondary data on their respective profitability. It is worth noting that in most of the references identified, lowland rainfed rice systems have a higher profitability than upland rice.

The paper concludes by underlining that although a lot of work has been done on rice, this

70 material is not easily accessible and has not properly documented how the removal of the rice ban import has affected the Nigerian rice economy.

In Erenstein, et al (2003) rice producers’ survey, rice is first and foremost a cash crop for

Nigerian rice producers – i.e. it is produced primarily for the market. This market orientation reflects that both rice production and rice consumption are non-traditional in Nigeria. The survey characterized rice producers and rice production systems with rice producing farm households as primarily small-holders with limited capital resources. They cultivate an average of 8 ha with crops per year – of which 3.3 ha are devoted to rice. Crop farming typically is the main source of household income, but households variously supplement their income with livestock and off-farm sources of income. He further revealed that rice is typically the main crop for rice producing households in terms of area allocation and income. Where rice production is established, it is widespread within the village/region and appears relatively stable with a long history. This reflects that rice production is attractive in survey areas, despite the relatively limited returns and substantial policy changes over the last decades. This also suggests that rice producers may lack alternatives – in terms of remunerative opportunities to generate cash and/or to use their labour and land resources productively. In particular this seems to apply to lowland and remote areas. Still, it needs to be reiterated that the survey only addresses current rice producers. It thereby does not address those that have stopped with rice production. Indeed, in other areas producers may have entered and subsequently left rice production. The survey has highlighted that returns to rice production are relatively limited.

This implies a need to enhance productivity and reduce production costs to enhance competitiveness. Rice production is labour intensive and labour represents the major production cost and cash outlay. Improving labour productivity is primordial and the use of labour-saving technology – e.g. traction and herbicides - offers substantial promise. The market orientation of

71 rice production inherently enables external input use. Indeed, rice producers are already willing to invest to some degree in the use of productivity enhancing technologies– even without input subsidies and in an uncertain policy environment. The surveyed rice producers variously used fertilizer (62%), herbicides (52%) and tractor for land preparation (27%). External input use not only allows increasing productivity, but also can help ensure the sustainability of rice production systems.

An underutilized venue to enhance productivity is the use of improved varieties. Indeed, numerous rice producers still rely on traditional varieties– with characteristic low yields, limited response to fertilizer and long growing cycles. Improved varieties currently in use by some farmers already show that with the present varietal basket, substantial improvements are possible. The addition of new improved genetic material to the varietal basket should allow for further substantial increases in rice productivity– even when maintaining current input use levels. The upland rice producers’ location variously affects the returns to rice production – in terms of production costs, produce value and productivity differentials. Production costs are to a large extent determined by technology use and resource costs. Produce value is to a large extent determined by access to rice consumer centers. Productivity differentials reflect technology use and ecology. Indeed, significant variations in land productivity (yield) exist over the surveyed locations. The ecology of the rice field influences the returns to rice production. Lowlands without water control were the most common rice production ecology amongst the surveyed fields - but comprise substantial variation in terms of water-logging, flooding levels and topography. However, relatively low yields and about average production costs imply meager and variable returns to rice production.

In Kebbeh, Haefele and Fagade (2003), irrigated rice study in Nigeria, it was revealed that the rice sector is characterized by a wide array of irrigated rice -based production systems

72 in different parts of the country, from systems with complete water control found in the Sahel and Sudan Savannah zones in northern Nigeria to systems with partial water control found in some parts of the savannah and equatorial zones in the Middle Belt and Southeastern parts of the country. Irrigation schemes in the north of the country are generally much larger than those in other regions. In addition to problems with maintenance and operation of schemes, there is widespread underutilization of irrigation infrastructure at all schemes visited in the north. This observation has important implications for increasing irrigated rice productivity and production in the country. Kebbeh et al, (2003) further stated that significant production gains can be achieved by better utilization of existing infrastructure. Irrigation development policy should focus on improving the performance and efficiency of existing irrigation infrastructure, rather than investment in new schemes. There is wide diversity of land and resource endowment, ranging from small farmers with access to less than one hectare of irrigated rice land to large- scale producers cultivating more than one hundred hectares. There is a strong relationship between extent of water control and levels of investment in external inputs like fertilizers and herbicides. In general, the input rates or dosages are much higher in systems with greater water control. Although farm level decision-making continues to be dominated by men, female farmers continue to play important roles in the irrigated rice sector. Women are actively involved in various production and post harvest operations. In general, yields are much higher in the Sahel and Sudan savanna zones than in irrigated rice systems in the other agro-ecological zones in the country. In most sites however, there have been significant declines in irrigated rice yields over the last decade. Actual yields are also much lower than potential yields. Yields obtained by farmers in northern Nigeria are much lower than those obtained by farmers in similar environments in the Sahel. Yields and profits obtained by small-scale farmers in the

73 study sample are generally higher than those obtained by medium scale and large scale farmers.

Similarly, benefit: cost ratios are higher among small-scale producers.

Research and extension support for irrigated rice-based systems in the Sahel and Sudan savannah zones are highly inadequate. The scope of adaptive on-farm research and development is very limited. Farmers make little, if any, contribution to the debate on the major constraints and priority research and extension themes. Current mechanisms of extension support for irrigated rice production are rigid and emphasize a top-to-bottom extension process. In general, extension staff is not adequately trained and lack access to relevant training materials and other resources. Major constraints identified in the study sites are:

- High input costs and limited access to farm credit.

- Use of inappropriate crop and resource management practices, due to general lack of

knowledge of improved technologies.

- Limited access to improved varieties (duration and yield), and persistent use of poor

quality seed.

- Lack of appropriate small farm machinery for harvest and post-harvest operations.

- Inadequate research and extension support, especially in the Sahel and Sudan Savannah

zones.

- Localized problems of soil degradation.

Recommendations for research and development interventions:

- Development and adaptation of small farm machinery for harvest and post harvest

operations (Thresher-cleaner, reaper-harvester).

- On-farm evaluation and adaptation of improved irrigated rice varieties.

- Site specific adaptation of improved integrated crop management technologies.

- Limited number of key sites (one or two) for participatory on-farm research and

development (R&D) activities.

According to Lançon et al , (2003) rice processing survey, milling in Nigeria is a ‘cottage industry’ mainly carried out by small-scale workshops with an average hourly capacity of 200 kg of milled rice. The majorities of the millers do not trade produce – i.e. purchase paddy and sell rice – but only process paddy on a fee basis for others (producers, traders or consumers).

The limited number of millers involved in paddy and rice trade is due to the high risks attached to the marketing of both products, which may result in financial losses. Furthermore, beyond market instability, miller-traders who purchase paddy also have to bear the high costs of parboiling operations which represent more than half of their total processing costs. The cost of fuel wood is particularly high for workshops located in peri-urban areas. On the other hand, milling operations carried out for a fee by millers-only are financially viable under the current average level of milling fees (N2 to N3 per kg of rice) which represent a marginal amount

(below 5%) of the rice market price at the retailing spot. In this system, through which 78% of the total production is processed, paddy is parboiled beforehand by the producers or a specialized agent generally located in rural areas benefiting from lower opportunity costs for getting the required inputs (fuel wood and water).

The dissociation of the various processing tasks among different operators confers more flexibility to the post-harvest segment of the rice commodity chain and therefore increases its resilience under very unstable and risky market conditions. However, this system does not provide the awaited mechanism to increase the quality of the milled rice, as millers-only do not have any incentives to improve the quality of their output. Along the same line, for miller- traders the survey also indicates that, under the current level of price for imported rice, it is worth to invest in improved technology to enhance the appearance and cleanliness of the local

75 rice to match imported rice standards. Investment in improved technologies is actually limited on the one hand by constraints in accessing the capital needed (credit) and availability of the equipment, but on the other hand also by a rice market that does not convey a reward to quality from the consumers to the miller and further up-stream to the producer.

The survey shows that technical changes at the milling stage would not by itself solve the issue of the Nigerian rice quality. The investment in new equipment like destoners is necessary but it would have a real impact only if the quality issue is tackled holistically at the various stage of the commodity chain to establish an enabling marketing environment through the emergence of a shared concern among stakeholders.

This rapid appraisal of imported rice customers’ preferences according to Lançon et al ,

(2003) survey, confirmed that imported rice cleanliness is the overwhelming factor explaining the expansion of imported rice consumption in Nigeria at the cost of local rice market development and in spite of an increasing tariff barrier. Along the same lines, the lower price of local rice remains the major incentive for imported rice customers to also maintain their purchase of Nigerian rice. Beyond, customers’ preferences, the survey also indicates that local rice marketing suffered from higher transaction costs in urban market induced by a scattered and irregular supply of product. These constraints tend to turn rice retailers away from the local rice marketing chain in favor of the imported rice channels which offers extended facilities for managing their business (credit). The prevalence of constraints related to rice transaction management indicates that if quality is a key word for the Nigerian rice sub-sector recovery this is necessary but not sufficient condition. The exploitation of the “organoleptic” potential of

Nigerian varieties would also require a reduction of transaction costs which partly depend on the marketing of a larger volume, and hence an upward trends in production.

In price integration study in Nigeria by Akande & Akpokodje (2003), a number of findings emanate from this study. First, the retail prices of local rice generally had an upward trend during the period of coverage. Retail prices appear to be rising faster in Lagos than in any another center. Indications are that prices of local rice rose more in Lagos (with a slope of

0.2253) than in Abuja and Enugu with slopes of 0.2044 and 0.2022 respectively. Second, the high average growth rates of retail prices during the period of study appear to portend some great danger as this has the implication of eroding the purchasing power of rice consumers. This is particularly grievious when cognizance is taken of the fact that wages remain constant over a considerable period of time and inflation has been rising unabated. But it should be noted that in more recent years (i.e., 2000-2001), the growth rates have been negative. If prices remain at these levels, then the welfare of rice consumers may be secured. But this would be at the expense of rice producers who are experiencing little or no increase in the prices of their products. This could serve as a disincentive to further investment in rice farming activities. The implication of this is a reduced level of local rice output. This could trigger increases in the prices of local rice, and may engender further increase in rice importation, thereby depleting further the foreign exchange earnings of the country. It should be stressed that the negative growth in rice prices in more recent years is a reflection of deliberate government policies geared towards securing cheap food items for urban dwellers. Third, price variability levels are generally and relatively low, which on the average is less than 30%, with variability higher in the prices of local rice than in imported rice. However, the difference between this variability does not appear to be very huge. The relatively low level of price variability in both local and imported rice implies that rice consumers can effectively plan their expenditure pattern on price with a fairly high degree of expectation that prices are not likely to substantially deviate from their expectations. On the part of policy, this makes for effective planning.

Fourth, retail prices in one market tend to be correlated with similar prices in other market. In addition, retail prices of a category of rice seem to correlate with the retail prices of another category of rice in the same center. This implies that movements in retail prices irrespective of their centers tend to move with changes in retail prices in other centers. The implication of this is that policy makers need to take into cognizance the possible effects that policy measures put in place, probably to effect prices in a particular center or on a particular category of rice, are likely to have on the prices of rice in other centers. Fifth, the markets for local rice are generally integrated. This implies that excluding transportation and risk factors, retail prices of local rice in one center do not substantially differ from prices of the same commodity in other centers. Sixth, markets for imported rice are generally characterized by imperfections. This could be due to the poor transportation network between the different imported rice marketing centers. Price integration was only discovered between centers that are close to the source of imported rice. Perhaps, most of these other markets are serving as secondary markets, hence the non-integration of those markets. Seventh, imported and local rice markets generally do not interact in the same center. It appears that the markets are high segregated, implying that they function independently. Two major recommendations emanate from the findings of this study. These are designed towards an effective functioning of the rice markets in Nigeria. First, there is the need for the development of a comprehensive and public price information system. The dissemination of price information may contribute to developing a common base of information for all economic agents involved in food crop chains. This is an indispensable tool for policy makers to efficiently monitor marketing issues which are vital in the assessment of the effects of specific agricultural policies. Second, there is the need for an urgent rehabilitation of the feeder roads in the country. Such an enhancement to the transportation infrastructure is a necessary condition to ensure a better flow of price information

78 and rice products and thereby further reduce transaction costs. Conclusively, rice has assumed a prominent role in the consumption patterns of the majority of Nigerians. This has aroused the interest of government in the development of the rice economy of the country. However, prices play a prominent role in the allocation of resources in the economy at large, but more specifically in the rice economy. Local rice markets are generally integrated though there is still room for improvements. Imported rice markets are generally not integrated. The dearth of information on prices is highlighted in the study as gaps are noted in the data series employed.

IRRI (2003) revealed that no single technology can meet the needs of all farmers. Instead, a range of modern farming options needs to be offered. Modern communication tools, such as information technology, can be used to deliver technical options to farmers. The rural poor are better helped if key constraints are targeted and options identified so that farmers can adopt alternatives that enhance their lifestyles. The complexity of their needs has to be distilled into viable choices that are apparent, readily available, and sensitive to their environments.

According to a survey carried out by Longtau (2003), rice production data in Nigeria is mostly based on recycled information from ADPs rather than formal research. He further stated that a true picture of the rice enterprise in Nigeria is therefore hard to come by; the ADP data are based on large-scale production. However, on the ground, there are hardly any large-scale rice farmers in Nigeria. Rice producers are smallholder farmers who are left entirely on their own to keep the sub-sector afloat against so many odds. The threat to local rice production by imported cheap rice is real, but farmers are consistent in their response that local rice with good milling characteristics actually attracts better prices. The promotion of appropriate processing technology and varieties will go a long way in keeping rice farmers business, given the huge national and sub-regional markets. Many smallholder farmers are unable to part with the rice

79 cultivation vocation even when government policies and incentives to cheaply produce the commodity are lacking.

In a study on role of legume fallows in intensified upland rice based systems of West

Africa, Becker and Johnson (1999) revealed that the traditional upland rice based cropping systems in West Africa rely on periods of fallow to restore soil fertility and prevent the build-up of insect pests and weeds. Demographic growth and increased demand for land forces many farmers to intensify their rice production systems; declining fallow length and increasing number of crops before leaving the land to extended fallow, result in a significant yield reduction. To increase benefits from improved fallow technology, the timing of legume establishment in relation to rice and the effect on crop and weed growth of removing, burning, mulching, or incorporating fallow residues prior to the rice crop were determined. Intensified land use resulted in a significant plot level yield reduction that was highest in the derived savannah and the bimodal forest zones where it was associated with a doubling of the weed biomass in rice and a significant reduction in soil Nitrogen supply. Legume fallows appear to offer the potential to sustain rice yields under intensified cropping system.

WARDA (2004) revealed that the overall effectiveness of the rice innovation system, complementarity in skills, knowledge and expertise needs to be strived for. Despite this recognition, a better understanding of forces shaping institutional relationships will help in carving out future R&D strategies for pro-poor development. Impact studies revealed that the relatively low adoption rate of NERICA is mainly due to farmers’ limited access to seed, which in turn is due to weak national capacities and a range of social, institutional and policy related factors. Organizational models need to be developed and tested to improve the formal and informal seed sector, and their interactions. Given that few analyses exist on which intervention strategies can be shaped, the documentation of local and national rice seed systems in Africa

80 deserves urgent attention. Also, the role of marginalized youth and women in the generation and dissemination of technologies, especially in post-conflict countries, needs to be studied and strengthened.

The socio-economic factors influencing the adoption of sawah rice production technology in Nigeria by Fashola, Oladele, Alabi , Tologbonse, and Wakatsuki, (2007) was carried out in Bida area, Niger State, where the sawah rice production was disseminated by

Watershed Initiative in Nigeria/Hirose Project through the support of the Japanese government.

Simple random sampling technique was used to select rice growing farmers in the area covered by the project. Primary data were collected through the use of a structured questionnaire on the objectives of the study. Descriptive statistics was used to analyze the socio- economic features of the farmers while the probit model was used to capture the socio-economic factors influencing the adoption of sawah rice production technology among rice growing farmers. The results were disaggregated based on the adoption status in order to highlight differentials in the characteristics studied among the two categories of the respondents. A greater proportion of the non- adopters were at least 40 years old while most of the adopters were in the age group of less than or equal to 40 years. There was a similar trend in terms of the household size, for the non- adopters majority had their household size of more than 10 members while the adopters had a few proportion above 5 members. Both the adopters and non-adopters had long years of residence in the villages of at least 10 years. The non-adopters had a greater proportion of their households involved in farming than the adopters while the proportions of educated farmers were similar for the respondents. The trend of the result was similar in terms of the proportion of adopters and non-adopters with respect to their major occupation and number of rice plots.

On the other hand, a greater proportion of non-adopters had large farm size planted with upland varieties than the adopters, although they had the same proportion planting lowland rice

81 varieties. The patterns of membership in farmers associations, length of farming experience and land ownership were the same for the adopters and non-adopters.

From the results of the probit model the chi-square value was used to determine the goodness of fit of the model. The value is statistically significant at one percent level. It can be deduced that the longer the farmers have stayed in the village the higher the adoption of sawah technology. This might be due to the fact that the same inland valleys they have been cultivating for years can give them better yield with the sawah technology. This will also influence their access and control of the size and location of inland valleys they can cultivate. There is a positive relationship between the membership of farmers association and the probability of adopting sawah technology. This indicates that farmers who are members of the farmers association have higher probability of adopting sawah technology. This is because of high level of interaction among members of the same group which is a means of disseminating innovation to the members. Farmers groups are sources of inputs to farmers and also exert peer influence on members to adopt innovation. Increase in land ownership status will increase the probability that a farmer will adopt sawah technology. Thus land owners will be more willing to adopt the technology than non- owners because the land which is a major component of the sawah package will have to be retained after harvest in order to save labour for the next rice growing period, the control of which may be lacking with the non-land owners.

The results show that about a third part of the farmers sampled has adopted the sawah technology in the villages where the dissemination took off. Length of residence in the village, membership of farmers association, land ownership and educational level are factors that could be used to explain the preference for the sawah technology. It is therefore recommended that the organization responsible for the dissemination of sawah technology will pay more attention to these variables as more rice producing areas are covered.

Amaza and Maurice (2005) investigate factors that influence technical efficiency in rice- based production systems among fadama farmers in Adamawa State, Nigeria. Primary data were used in the analysis of data. The analytical tools include descriptive statistics and stochastic frontier production function, which incorporates technical inefficiency model using the maximum-likelihood estimation (MLE), applied on a cross-sectional data of 122 sampled farmers during 2002/2003 cropping season. The results show that rice sole crop, rice-maize and rice-cocoyam were the common cropping patterns adopted by farmers. The MLE estimates of the parameters of the stochastic frontier production function reveals that the elasticities of output with respect to land ( 0.157), seeds (0.146) and other costs (0.382) were significant at

(ρ = 0.01), while fertilizer (0.172) and water (0.082) were significant at ( ρ = 0.05) The inefficiency model reveals that farming experience and education significantly affect farmers’ efficiency levels. Technical efficiencies vary widely among farms, ranging between 0.26 and

0.97 and a mean technical efficiency of 0.80. The economic implication of the study is that efficiency in rice production among fadama farmers in Adamawa State could be increased by 20 percent through better use of available resources, given the current state of technology. This can be achieved through policy interventions that contribute to better access to: improved seeds, irrigation water, fertilizer and farmer-specific efficiency factors, which include enhanced farmer education.

2.3 Participatory approaches in agricultural research

To understand the quantity of participation that can be applied in research for development processes, Lilja and Ashby (1999) argued that the expected impacts of incorporating stakeholders participation in research are dependent on the stage at which stakeholders (especially farmers as end-users) are involved in the technology development

83 process. They further developed a typology of participation which defined two decision makers as scientists and farmers. In their definition, farmers is a generic term representing end-users and the term scientists is used to describe outside agencies, the extension system or formal research and development (R&D) agencies. An important premise underlying the typology of participation is that differences in who makes a decision (between the farmer and scientist) will result in different types of impact on the innovation process. Farmers can be involved in the technology development process in many of the 3 stages of innovation process (design, testing and diffusion). In each of these stages, diffusion decisions related to technology options are made. For example, in the design stage decisions on opportunities and problems, prioritization of research options and potential solutions are made. In the testing stage, testing and comparing possible solutions are conducted. During this stage, decisions are made about what type of experimentation and how different stakeholders will be involved. The final stage is diffusion, which involves dissemination of results and building the capacity for implementation of recommended solutions among future users. This stage leads to full or partial adoption or to no adoption by users. There are five types of participatory approaches depending on who makes the decision at each stage in the innovation process (Biggs and Farrington, 1991). These are:

Conventional (non-participatory) - scientists make the decisions alone without organized communication with farmers.

Consultative (functional participation) - scientists know about farmers’ opinions, preferences and priorities through organised one-way communication with them. Scientists may or may not let this information affect their decisions.

Collaborative (empowering participation) – the decision is shared between farmers and scientists, and involves organized communication among them. Scientists and farmers know about another’s opinions, preferences and priorities through organized two-way communication.

The decisions are made jointly; neither scientists nor farmers make them on their own. No party has a right to revoke the shared decision.

Collegial (empowering participation) - farmers make the decisions collectively in a group process or through individual farmers who are involved in organized communication with scientists. Farmers know about scientists’ opinions, preferences, proposals and priorities through organized two-way communication. Farmers may or may not let this information affect their decision.

Farmers’ experimentations - farmers make the decisions individually or in a group without organized communication with scientists.

Lilja and Ashby (1999) argued that farmer participation at different stages of innovation can have different impact on the technology or innovation design, as well as on the potential adoption or acceptance among the intended users. If scientists make all the key decisions without farmer participation in the early stage of an innovation process, farmers cannot influence many features of the innovation that are of most interest to them. Their participation in planning and setting goals will help focus research more directly towards farmers’ priority needs thus reducing time of conclusion, improving the efficiency of the process and reducing the likelihood that the technology being developed is ultimately unacceptable to farmers. There is evidence that farmers’ participation together with a broadening of research for development partnerships can harness additional and much needed expertise and resources to solving practical problems and reaching a greater number of beneficiaries (Douthwaite et al,2002).

There are different participatory approaches that have been used to involve farmers or end-users in the technology design and development process. (Douthwaite et al 2002). The approaches are:

• Approaches for priority setting: This involves identifying problems that limit the

productivity of a farming system, ranking the problems, identifying their causes and

analyzing interactions among problems and causes, identifying possible solutions and

evaluating those solutions. According to Mburu and Macharia (2004), learning and

sharing with the farmers in a participatory manner helped to convey local technical

knowledge with the outsiders’ knowledge. This could be achieved through pair-wise

ranking and wealth ranking which is important in identification analysis and

prioritization of constraints and opportunities.

• Farmer’s experimentation: The involvement of end-users in the design and

development of technologies enables researchers and stakeholders to examine and

understand the local farming systems and the larger context within which they exist, to

incorporate local knowledge with technology innovation, and to develop locally

appropriate solutions (Sanginga et al 2004).

• Enabling Rural Innovation (ERI) approach: This offers a practical framework to link

farmers’ participatory research and market research in a way that empowers farmers to

better manage their resources and offers them prospects of an upward spiral out of

poverty. ERI uses participatory processes to build the capacity of farmers’ groups and

rural communities in marginal areas to identify production through experimentation,

while sustaining the resource base upon which their livelihoods depend. The approach

emphasizes integrating scientific expertise with farmer knowledge and strengthening

social organization and entrepreneurial organizations through effective partnership

between research development and rural communities. A unique aspect of ERI is that

the approach links the management community assets (natural human, social physical

and financial) to production, post-harvest handling and marketing in a resource-to-

consumption (R-to-C) framework (Kaaria and Ashby, 2001).

Impact of approaches in agricultural research: Agricultural research projects are experiencing a shift away from centralized biophysical technology led top down approaches towards more decentralized participatory approaches, which are flexible and interactive.

Agricultural research is becoming more concerned about reaching resource poor farmers and other stakeholders, and building their capacity to adapt to changing conditions. An important component of any innovation process is therefore to demonstrate the extent to which it creates positive impacts to the livelihood of poor people or result in improving the performance and effectiveness of agricultural research and development organizations. We can distinguish three broad types of impacts: technology impacts, process impacts and cost impacts. Technology impacts are related to direct benefit of the technology or innovation being promoted and the direct benefits to its users, in terms of adoption rates, income yield increases or productivity changes. Johnson, Lilja and Ashby (2001) argued that process impacts relate to the types of approaches and occur as a result of the participation itself rather than as a result of the technologies developed via participatory research methods. Process impacts are often qualitative impacts relating to the empowering function and capacity building of actors in innovation system. They include impact assessment systems which look beyond the technical indicators of agricultural research (such as yields, resistance to pests and diseases), and other socio-economic indicators (adoption rates, income, cost-benefits), to focus attention on the process of participation, their outcomes and impacts. Cost impacts in assessing the effects of agricultural research, is complex and costly for several reasons. First, it requires costly fieldwork and analysis. There is no general guideline on how much to spend on impact

87 assessment. The cost will depend on the scale of impact assessment (national-, program- or project-level) and depth of assessment (methods used and rigor applied).

• Capacity building: In order for complex innovations to be adopted and applied in a

variety of different contexts, those involved need to have a good understanding of the

knowledge and principles underlying the innovation. According to Prasad et al (2004),

this implies rigorous capacity building of staff in local institutions and building the

adaptive capacity, with local institutions and local communities. Capacity building is an

important strategy especially in the implementation, and for farmers to participate in

technology innovation process and other extension services; their capacity will need to

be increased. Capacity in local organization, group formation, literacy, skills,

monitoring and evaluation are crucial if participatory extension is going to succeed. For

interventions and innovations to be owned by farmers, they need to feel that they are

part of these interventions. This can only happen if their capacity to participate is

enhanced. Capacity building also involves building the capacity of scientific personnel

and the institutional systems to sustain and replicate the process.

2.4 Adoptions in innovation

In recent years, a number of nations have sparked their economic performance through adoption of what has come to be called the “new agriculture” (World Bank, 2006). The attraction of the “new agriculture” lies in the possibility for a developing country to exploit its latecomer status to close the gap with developed countries in particular commodities or sub- sectors through the application of more knowledge-intensive and market driven production technologies. There are several stages in the generation of innovations. The first stage is

88 discovery, characterized by the emergence of a concept or results that establish the innovation.

A second essential stage is development, where the discovery moves from the laboratory to the field and is scaled up, commercialized, and integrated with other elements of the production process. For embodied innovations, the marketing stage consists of education, demonstration, and sales. Only then does adoption occur. There is often a significant interval between the time an innovation is developed and available in the market, and the time it is widely used by producers. Adoption and diffusion are the processes governing the utilization of innovations.

Studies of adoption behavior emphasize factors that affect if and when a particular individual will begin using an innovation. Measures of adoption may indicate both the timing and extent of new technology utilization by individuals. Adoption behavior may be depicted by more than one variable. It may be depicted by a discrete choice, whether or not to utilize an innovation, or by a continuous variable that indicates to what extent a divisible innovation is used. For example, one measure of the adoption of a high-yield seed variety by a farmer is a discrete variable denoting if this variety is being used by a farmer at a certain time; another measure is what percent of the farmer’s land is planted with this variety.

Roger’s Innovation Decision Process theory proposes that innovation adoption is a process that occurs over time through five stages: Knowledge, Persuasion, Decision,

Implementation and Confirmation. Accordingly, the innovation-decision process is the process through which an individual or other decision-making unit passes: from first knowledge of an innovation; to forming an attitude toward the innovation; to a decision to adopt or reject; to implementation of the new idea and to confirmation of this decision.

Many of the studies of rural sociologists emphasized the importance of distance in adoption and diffusion behavior. They found that regions that were further away from a focal

89 point (e.g., major cities in the state) had a lower diffusion rate in most time periods. Thus, there was emphasis on diffusion as a geographic phenomenon.

• Geographic considerations

Much of the social science literature on innovation emphasizes the role of distance and geography in technology adoption (Rogers, 1962). Geography sets two barriers to adoption: climatic variability and distance. Distance is a major obstacle for adoption of technologies in developing countries. The impediment posed by distance is likely to decline with the spread of wireless communication technologies. It is a greater challenge to adopt technologies across different latitudes and varying ecological conditions. The establishment of international research centers that develop production and crop systems for specific conditions is one way to overcome this problem.

• Risk considerations

The adoption of a new technology may expand the amount of risk associated with farming. Operators are uncertain about the properties and performance of a new technology, and these uncertainties interact with the random factors affecting agriculture.

The number of risks associated with new technologies gives rise to several modeling approaches, each emphasizing aspects of the problem that are important for different types of innovations. Roumasset (1976) and others argued that risk considerations were crucial in explaining these diversifications, while having higher expected yield also tended to increase risk.

• The Cochrane treadmill

A key issue in the economics of innovation and adoption is to understand the impact of technology change on prices and, in particular, the well being of the farm population over time.

When a supply-increasing innovation is adopted to a significant degree, it will lead to reduction

90 in output prices, especially in agricultural commodities with low elasticity of demand. When it comes to adoption of a new technology, Cochrane (1979) divided the farming population into three subgroups - early adopters, followers, and laggards. The early adopters may be a small fraction of the population, in which case the impact of their adoption decision on aggregate supply and, thus, output prices is relatively small. Therefore, these individuals stand to profit from the innovation. The followers are the large share of the farm sector that tends to adopt during the take-off stage of the innovation. Their adoption choice will eventually tend to reduce prices, which reduces profits as well. This group of adopters may gain or lose as a result of innovation. Finally, the laggards (the third group) are the farmers who either adopt at the lag stage of the adoption process or do not adopt at all. These individuals may lose from technological change. If they do not adopt, they reduce the same quantity as before, at low prices; and if they adopt, the significant price effect may sweep the gain associated with higher yields. Thus, Cochrane (1979) argues that farmers, on the whole, are not likely to gain from the introduction of innovation in agriculture, except for a small group of early adopters.

Introduction of new technology may lead to structural change and worsen the lot of some of the small farms. The real gainers from technological change and innovation in agriculture are likely to be consumers, who pay less for their food bill.

2.5 Theoretical consideration

In the neoclassical economics tradition, innovation is understood to be induced by the relative scarcity (price) of factors (Hayami and Ruttan, 1971; Rogers, 1995). It follows that there is a linear, input/output relationship between agricultural research, development of technology and its dissemination, and at the end, adoption by farmers leading to economic; social effects and impacts (Hall et al , 2001). This paradigm of linear technology diffusion has

91 been criticized for its failure to understand the source, nature and dynamics of most innovations processes, in particular in the context of developing countries (Engel, 1997), as well as for failing to pay sufficient attention to the distributional or equity issues related to innovation (Hall et al , 2001).

The concept of innovation systems provides an alternative framework to look at innovation processes from a systemic perspective. The framework “opens the ‘black box’ of innovation” to analyze the roles of different innovation agents, the types and quality of the interactions between them; the formal and informal institutions that structure the innovation processes. In this innovation systems framework, an innovation has been defined in different ways, each of which highlights specific aspects of interest: Any new knowledge introduced into and utilized in an economic or social process in which knowledge is accumulated and applied by heterogeneous agents through complex interactions conditioned by social and economic institutions (Spielman, 2005). Innovations are social constructs, and as such, they reflect and result from the interplay of different actors, often with conflicting interests and objectives, and certainly with different degrees of economic, social and political power (Spielman, 2005).

An innovation system is comprised of the agents involved in the innovation process, their actions and interactions, and the formal and informal rules that regulate this system

(Ekboir and Parellada, 2002). Innovation system involves the collaboration of various actors who perform specific roles in the innovation-dissemination process. They can be categorized depending on the role they perform in the innovation system as policy makers, education providers, finance/credit providers, research organizations, input suppliers, extension and information providers, farmers and farm organizations, logistics providers, processing companies, storage facilitators’ providers, marketing companies and consumers

(Arumapperuma, 2004). Explicit in the innovation system concept, is the notion that

92 innovations are the product of networks of social and economic agents who interact with each other and as a consequence of this interaction, create new ways to deal with social or economic processes. As Hall, et al , (2001) argue, this concept highlights the critical importance for innovation of idiosyncratic, inter-personal and inter-organizational relationships and partnerships. ‘Social capital’, that is, the ability to form relationships of cooperation, is a key ingredient of effective innovation systems. Innovation agents are individuals or organizations, in the public (government agencies) or the private (non-governmental agencies) domain who have the ability to cause change. Agents interact with each other knowingly or unknowingly, directly or indirectly, through formal or informal networks. Whatever the definition, the important elements in an innovation process are: putting knowledge into use; whether it is new, or accumulated, or simply used in a creative manner; the presence of diverse agents; complex interactions between them and lastly the role of institutions.

2.6 Conceptual framework

The conceptual framework is based on the methodological framework by the Tropical

Centre for Agricultural and Rural Corporation (CTA, 2005), it considered the inter-disciplinary nature of innovation system and the diversity of factors that shape the interactions among actors and how these impact on the actors individual and collective ability to learn, adapt and innovate.

Identifying all the relevant actors who make up the innovation system and mapping their relationships in specific sub-sector is important step in the diagnostic process since it helps to identify the actors who are involved in continuous innovation. Hence, these actors were classified into five clusters.

(1) market/demand

(2) enterprise

(3) research and training

(4) diffusion and

(5) infrastructure

These five clusters of actors give an indication of possible groupings of actors in each category based on their primary role (CTA, 2005).

Market / Demand: Consumers / buyers / retailers / wholesalers / middle men / consumers of raw materials for industrial e.g. agro processing industries, commodity markets / traders

Enterprise: Farmers Input suppliers (seed /feed, machinery, Packaging)

Diffusion: Extension services (public/private), NGOs and community based organizations

(CBOs), farmers and trade organizations

Research and training: National, regional and international agricultural research and development organizations (public, quasi-governmental, private) commodity markets / traders / universities and other institutions of higher learning (public, quasi-governmental, private) research foundations.

Infrastructure component: Policy making agencies ( ministries; quasi-governmental agencies

/state boards), Banking and financial agencies- private and public /quasi-governmental/ transport and marketing agencies/commodity boards/exchange Information and communication infrastructure organizations networks – professional networks, farmer and trade regulatory agencies (sanitary regulations) standard setting bodies

Market / Demand (set price, volume, quality )

Enterprises: Research &

produce products Diffusion: Training: for sale (mainly Information / Produce

use knowledge – knowledge knowledge codified or tacit) (mainly codified) transmitters

Infrastructure (policy, legislation, resources)

Fig. 1: Agricultural Science Technology Innovation System

Source: (CTA, 2005).

Figure 2 is the existing rice innovation system in Nigeria. There is fundamental gap between research and the farmers who are the main target/end-users in the system. Farmers rely on information not directly from research, but from intermediaries which causes the needs and problems encountered in the field to be misrepresented and misinterpreted.

1 Research & Training: Produce knowledge (Mainly codified)

2 Diffusion (Technology transfer) -Information / knowledge Transmitters • Demonstration • Multiplications • Processing and Machine fabrication

3 Utilisation: -produce products for sale (mainly use knowledge – codified or tacit) -Farmer organizations and individuals Privatize sector:

Fig. 2: Existing operational framework for rice innovation in Southeast of Nigeria.

Source: adapted from NCRI, 2006

In box 1 represents research and development in rice innovation system. While boxes

(2) and (3) represent policy personnel and technology transfer agencies respectively. Box (4) represents the farmers, box (5) represents the processors, box (6) represents the marketers and box (7) represents consumers in rice innovation system. The arrows connecting the boxes determine the relationships between the actors in rice innovation system. Hence relationships between appropriate boxes were compared to determine activities, adoption rate, linkage

96 mechanisms, perceived constraints and strategies among the actors in rice innovation system.

The conceptual framework (research development and training (box 1); policy personnel (box

2); technology transfer agencies (box 3); farmers (box 4); processors box (5); marketers (box 6); consumers (box 7)) of this study was centered on the farmers who were the main focus and target in rice innovation system. Farmers carry out the results of the research on the field. It was therefore important that farmers had direct contact with research that has the mandate to generate innovations that would be beneficial to farmers. This interaction would help guide against misinformation and misinterpretation of the results/information from research. This would also facilitate quick adoption and adaptation of improved rice technology into farmers’ traditional rice farming system. This framework involved other stakeholders/key actors such as, policy personnel (box 2) involved in policy formation, financing; regulation of commercial activities and sponsoring of research. There were technology transfer agencies (box 3) that serve as advisory boards in some aspects of the improved rice technology; processsors (box 5) who mill and bags the rice; Marketers (box 6) who .provide the agro-chemicals, transportation, set price, stimulate quality volume of production through their feed back to farmers and retailers of rice products; consumers (box 7) who buy processed rice for consumption. Consumers influence the quality and type of rice cultivated by farmers and sold in the market by marketers.

The arrows connecting the boxes determine the relationships between the key actors in rice innovation system. Hence relationships between appropriate boxes were examined to determine the linkage mechanisms used by the actors: for each actor the activities, constraints in effective participation in the rice innovation system were examined. In determining the relationship between the actors in improved rice technology, boxes 1,2,3,4,5, 6 and 7 were compared. This is schematically represented in Fig 3.

The schema suggests mutual interactions and linkages between the key actors as a pre- condition for successful implementation of improved rice technology. The situation permits direct linkages and feedback across key actors in rice innovation system. In otherwards there are linkages between researchers, policy personnel, technology transfer agencies, farmers, marketers, and consumers in improved rice technology; as well as feedback between actors in improved rice technology. The schema posits six basic issues for consideration in improved rice technology such as policy and linkages between actors, motivation of improved rice technology among actors, dissemination of improved rice technology, input supply, processing and marketing.

Box-1 Research development and training: WARDA, NSS, NCRI, IITAs, NABRI, PQS, NCAM, NIHORT, UNIVERSITY Improved rice varieties - New knowledge Practices, behaviours, attitudes

Box – 2 Policy personnel : Box – 3 Technology transfer - Infrastructure and policy - Box – 4 agencies: - Federal Ministry of Agriculture Farmers: - - Rice - ADPs, FFAI, farmer - Commitment to project objective cultivation

- - Produce paddies for - Motivation cooperatives, SPDC. - sale -Ministry of Commerce . - Effective selection of policy and linkages - Promote active extension

- dissemination Box – 5 Processors - interaction between - Parboiling rice actors - Threshing and milling of rice - Processing and bagging of rice

Box -6 Marketers: - Input supplies - Rice retailers/whole sales - Set price

Box -7 Consumers (Non producers of rice) : - Type of rice preferred - Quantity of rice purchased - Quality of rice preferred

Fig. 3: Schema for analyzing rice innovation system in Nigeria

99 CHAPTER THREE

METHODOLOGY

3.1 Study area

The area of the study is made up of the four states in the rice cultivation belt in southeast

Nigeria (Abia, Anambra, Ebonyi and Enugu). The Southeast Nigeria is situated east of River

Niger and covering an area of 29,908 square kilometres with a population of about 16,381,729

(National Population Commission (NPC, 2006) and lying on latitude 5 0 and 7 0 75` North and longitude 6 0 85`and 8 0 46`East. The Southeast Nigeria is one of the six geo-political zones in

Nigeria (North- West, North-East, North- Central, South-West, South-East and South-South) and it comprises of five states namely: Abia, Anambra, Ebonyi, Enugu and Imo States. Nigeria encompasses nine major agro-ecological zones; Sahel Savanna, Sudan Savanna, Guinea

Savanna, Jos plateau, Montane region,. Derived Savanna, Lowland rain forest, freshwater swamp, Mangrove Forest, and Coastal Vegetation (Nigeria Forest Resources (NFR, 1998). The study was purposively carried out in four states-Abia, Anambra, Ebonyi and Enugu States. This is because of the existence of improved rice technology and its geographical spread.

Abia State

Abia State with Umuahia as the capital was carved out of former Imo State in 1991. The state shares boundary with Ebonyi State in the north, Rivers State in the south, Imo State in the west and Akwa Ibom State in the east. Situated on latitude 5 0 North and latitude 7 0 5`, the State occupies an area of 6,270 square kilometres with a population of 2,845,380 (National

Population Commission (NPC, 2006) with eighteen local government areas. Abia State is in the rainforest zone with two major seasonal patterns in a year namely: - rainy and dry season. The rainy season usually starts in March and last till October with two peaks in July and September and an annual rainfall that varies at 1800-2000mm. The dry season begins in November and last

100 till February. Generally, the state is rural with majority of the population engaging in subsistence farming as a means of livelihood. Major crops grown are rice, yam, cassava, maize, cocoyam, melon, plantain, banana, garden egg, vegetable, livestock (poultry, sheep, goat and rabbit) with a population of 258 rice farmers and 68 extension agents (Southeast ADPs farmers inventory file, 2009; Nwaogwugwu, 2009).

Anambra State

Present Anambra State is a product of 1991 state creation in Nigeria, out of the former

Anambra State. The State is located on latitude 5 0 80`and 6 0 10`North and longitude 6 0 85`and

70 60`East. It shares boundary with Enugu /Kogi States in the north, Delta State in the south,

Edo State in the west and Imo and Abia States in the east. It occupies an area of about 4,885 square kilometres with a population of 4,177,828 people (National Population Commission

(NPC, 2006), with 604 rice farmers and a total of twenty-one local government areas (Southeast

ADPs farmers inventory file, 2009). The State is located at the rain-forest zone with two main seasons:-the rainy and dry seasons. The rainy season lasts between March and October with annual rainfall that varies between 1600-1900mm with July and September as the peak. The dry season spans from November to February. The State is predominantly rural with subsistence farming as the major means of livelihood; though there is diversification into trading and other non-farm activities (Nwaogwugwu, 2009).

Ebonyi State

Ebonyi State is one of the thirty-six (36) States of Nigeria with the capital at Abakaliki.

It is located in the Southeast region of Nigeria which occupies an area of about 5,935 square kilometers, which is approximately 5.8 percent of the total land area of Nigeria with a population of 2,176,947 people (National Population Commission (NPC, 2006). The State lies

101 at latitudes 5 o 40’ and 6 o 45’ North and longitudes 7 o 30’ and 8 o 46`East (Awoke & Okorji,

2004). The State is made up of thirteen local government areas (Abakaliki, Ebonyi, Izzi,

Ishielu, Ohaukwu, Ikwo, Ezza South, Ezza North, Afikpo South, Afikpo North, Ohaozara,

Onicha and Ivo). Ebonyi State belongs to the Igbo ethnic group with a total population of about

1.7 million inhabitants. It is bounded on the North by Benue State and in the South by Abia

State. On the East, it shares a common boundary with Cross-River State and on the West with

Enugu State. Climatically, Ebonyi State is semi-savannah with seasonal variations of hot, mild cold weather and mixed grid vegetation with all eastern prototypes including agrarian, forestry and swamp ideal for rice cultivation. Their main occupation is farming with a population of

145,109 rice farmers (Southeast ADPs farmers inventory file, 2009). It has a mean temperature of 30 0c during the hottest period (February–April) and mean temperature of 21oc during the coldest period (December– January).The mean annual rainfall is between 1,500mm and

1,800mm. Naturally, the climate is a tropical hot humid type characterised by high rainfall, high temperature and sunshine with two marked seasons: - the rainy and dry (Awoke & Okorji,

2004).

Enugu State

Enugu State with Enugu as the capital was created in 1991 state creation exercise in

Nigeria out of former Anambra State. Enugu State is situated on latitude 6 0 15` and 7 0 05` North and longitude 7 0 15` and 7 0 75` East and lying on the longitude of Agwu, Udi, Nsukka, and Oji

River Basin to the west. The State is bounded in the north by Benue State, Anambra and Imo

States in the south, Ebonyi and Abia States in the east while Kogi State is in the west. It occupies an area of about 12,722 square kilometers with a population of 3,267,837 people

(National Population Commission (NPC, 2006) and comprising of seventeen local government areas ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enugu.state). There is a population of 2,130 rice farmers

102 (Southeast ADPs farmers inventory file, 2009). The State is located in the rain forest zone and is gradually giving way to Derived Savannah with two major seasons:- the rainy and dry seasons. The rainy season begins from March and last till October with annual rainfall that varies between 1400-1800mm with two peaks in July and September. The dry season spans from November to February with a temperature range between 27 0 and 28 0 centigrade. The area is predominately rural with agriculture (farming) as the major means of livelihood (Enugu State

Agricultural Development Programme (ENADEP, 1999). The crops grown include rice, yam, cassava, cocoyam, maize, groundnut, cowpea and vegetables.

103

104

105

3.2 Population and Sample

3.2.1. Population

The study population constituted all stakeholders in rice innovation system in Southeast agro-ecological zone of Nigeria. These actors (market/demand, enterprise, research and training, diffusion and infrastructure) that were classified and regrouped according to their related activities as follow: research, policy personnel, technology transfer agencies, farmers, marketers and consumers.

3.2.2. Sample size

The sample was made up of six key actors: researchers, policy personnel, technology transfer agencies, farmers, marketers and consumers. Researchers cover six agencies (Research

Institutes from National Cereal Research Institute (NCRI), International Institute for Tropical

Agriculture (IITA), West Africa Rice Development Association (WARDA), Plant Quarantine

Service (PQS), International Network for the Generic Evaluation of Rice (INGER- AFRICA) and National Center for Agricultural Mechanisation (NCAM) were purposively selected because of policy mandate on the agencies for research on rice technology in the nation. Forty researchers were purposively selected from the six agencies as follows: NCRI- nine researchers out of 27, IITA-seven researchers out of 21, WARDA-six researchers out of 18, PQS-seven researchers out of 20, INGER AFRICA-six researchers out of 19, and NCAM-five researchers out of 10 (Table 1).

106

Table 1: Sample for researchers

Components Population Number of respondents selected

NCRI 27 9

IITA 21 7

WARDA 18 6

PQS 20 7

INGER AFRICA 19 6

NCAM 10 5

Total 115 40

From seven policy agencies, three agencies (Federal Ministry of Agriculture (FMA),

National Agency for Food and Drug Administrations and Control (NAFDAC) and Nigerian

Agricultural Cooperative and Rural Development Bank (NACRDB) were purposively selected as follow: FMA (nine personnel out of 36 from Abia, nine personnel out of 27 from Anambra, nine personnel out of 36 from Ebonyi and nine personnel out of 18 from Enugu States);

NAFDAC ( five personnel out of 14 from Abia, nine personnel out of 12 from Anambra, five personnel out of 11 from Ebonyi and nine personnel out of 12 from Enugu States); NACRDB

(five personnel out of 15 from Abia, five personnel out of 12 from Anambra, five personnel out of 12 from Ebonyi and five personnel out of 15 from Enugu states). A total of 76 policy personnel were used for the study (Table 2).

107 Table 2: Sample for policy personnel

Components Population Number of respondents selected

Abia Anambra Ebonyi Enugu Total Abia Anambra Ebonyi Enugu Total

FMA 36 27 36 18 117 9 9 9 9 36

NAFDAC 14 12 11 12 49 5 5 5 5 20

NACRDB 15 12 12 15 54 5 5 5 5 20

Total 220 76

Similarly, out of four technology transfer agencies, one agency (ADP) was purposively

selected. Thus ADPs in Abia, Anambra, Ebonyi and Enugu States were purposively selected as

follow: All the directors (rural institution development, technical services division, director of

extension, human resources development and planning, monitoring and evaluation) of extension

(DES) 20, programme managers (PM) 4, zonal extension officer (ZEO) 12, were used. Also 20

subject matter specialist (SMS) and 40 block extension supervisors (BES) were purposively

selected for the study. A total of 96 respondents from ADPs in the states were selected for the

study (Table 3).

Table 3: Sample for technology transfer agencies

States Population Number of respondents selected

DES PM ZEO SMS BES Total DES PM ZEO SMS BES Total

Abia 5 1 3 5 10 24 5 1 3 5 10 24

Anambra 5 1 3 5 10 24 5 1 3 5 10 24

Ebonyi 5 1 3 5 10 24 5 1 3 5 10 24

Enugu 5 1 3 5 10 24 5 1 3 5 10 24

Total 96 96

108 Farmers were purposively selected for the study as follow: Abia State- 10 Out of

258, Anambra State- 20 out of 604, Ebonyi State-150 out of 145,109, Enugu State-16 out of

2,130. A total of 196 farmers were selected for the study.

Table 4: Sample for farmers

Components Total population of each state Number of respondents selected

Farmers

Abia State 258 10

Anambra State 604 20

Ebonyi State 145,109 150

Enugu State 2,130 16

Total 148,101 196

The marketers were purposively selected from the biggest markets in each of the states

(Abia, Anambra, Ebonyi and Enugu) capitals as follow: from Abia State (umuahia main market)

-12, Anambra State (Awka main market) -12, Ebonyi State (Abakiliki main market) -15, Enugu

States (Enugu main market) -12. A total of 51 marketers were purposively selected.

Table 5: Sample for marketers

Marketers Total population of each Number of respondents

state selected

Abia State - 12

Anambra State - 12

Ebonyi State - 15

Enugu State - 12

Total - 51

109 The consumers were purposively selected based on heads of 20 households from the states capitals as follow: Abia state (Umuahia household heads) - 20, Anambra state (Awka household heads) – 20, Ebonyi state (Abakiliki household heads) –20, Enugu state (Enugu household heads) – 20. A total of 80 consumers were purposively selected for the study

(Table 6).

Table 6: Sample for consumers (Non producers of rice)

Consumers(Not producers of rice) Population of households Number of respondents

Heads selected

Abia state 20 20

Anambra state 20 20

Ebonyi state 20 20

Enugu state 20 20

Total 80 80

40 researchers, 76 Policy personnel, 96 technology transfer agencies, 196 farmers, 51 marketers and 80 consumers were sampled for this study. These gave a total of 539 out of 148,532 key actors in the study area (Table 7). A total of 539 questionnaires were administered, while 496 questionnaires were properly completed and used in this study.

110 Table 7: Sample for the study

Key actors Population Sample size

Researchers 115 40

Policy personnel 220 76

Technology transfer agencies 384 96

Farmers 148,501 196

Marketers - 51

Consumers 80 80

Total 148,532 539

3.3 Data collection techniques and Measurement of Variables

3.3.1 Data collection techniques

The primary data were obtained through six sets of questionnaires. Review of policies measured through past literature on rice policies from publications and internet.

Interveiw schedules were held for farmers who could not read or write; their responses were ticked in the questionnaire. The sets of questionnaires were set based on the following key actors in rice innovation system: researchers, policy institutions, technology transfer agents, farmers, marketers and consumers. Based on the objectives of the study the questionnaires were divided into three Sections (A-C). Section A elicited information on socio-economic characteristics of the key actors (farmers, marketers, consumers) (age, sex, marital status, educational level, primary occupation, farming experience, household size, sources of innovation information, farm size, land ownership, main source of labour). Characteristics of key actors (researchers, policy personnel, technology transfer agencies) in improved rice technology (years of service in organization, educational level, availability of rice on-farm trial, training programmes, number of training organized in a year). Farmers years of awareness of

111 improved rice technology, adoption of improved rice technology (improved varieties, tillage

/land preparation, fertilizer use /application, milling /processing, planting method, pest and disease control, weeding techniques, harvesting, threshing, parboiling, rice weighing, rice bagging, rice storage). Constraints (poor soil fertility, lack of finance, rice competition with weed, disease /infection) in improved rice technology. Items on agronomic activities of farmers in improved rice technology which include land acquisition, land clearing, land stumping, ridge/mound making, nursery preparation, planting, pest and disease control, weeding, water management, fertilizer/agro-chemical application, harvesting, threashing, winnowing/ drying, storage, marketing. Marketers volume of rice purchased, type of rice sold, transportation problems in rice marketing. Consumers type of rice preferred, quantity of rice consumed, complain on rice quality (colour, size, taste and stone) of local rice bought, rice mill visits.

Section B elicited information on existing linkages in rice innovation system. The instrument measured linkages among the organizations (actors) in rice innovation system. These include researchers, policy personnel, technology transfer agencies, farmers, marketers and consumers link with other actors in rice innovation system. The instrument measured linkage mechanisms used and type of linkage arrangements among the stakeholders (joint problem identification, priority setting and planning committee, disseminating of knowledge and information, joint seminar and workshop training, joint curriculum development feedback, evaluation of field visits).

Section C sought information on strategies to enhance effective linkage among agencies such as ban on rice import, establishment of destoner mills, set pre- season prices, promote non governmental organizations (NGO) involvement in rice innovation system, subsidy on fertilizer, intensifying research, promotion of active extension in improved rice technology.

The questionnaires were validated by two academics (lecturers in the Department of

Agricultural Extension at the University of Nigeria Nsukka and University of Port Harcourt,

112 Rivers State) that were knowledgeable in this regard and gave independent judgments or opinion on the relevance and adequacy of the instruments in line with the objectives of the study. The necessary adjustments were effected before field administration.

Data for this study were collected in year 2009 and the results refer to this period. The secondary data were sourced from records of rice innovation actors, published and unpublished books, journals, technical papers, proceedings, project reports, magazines, newspapers and internet.

3.3.2 Measurement of Variables

The variables were specified as follow:

Sex: The respondents (farmers, marketers and consumers) were requested to indicate whether they were male or female.

Age: Age was measured in years. This was later aggregated into six age groups as follow: 20-

29 years, 30-39 years, 40-49 years, 50 years and above.

Marital status: Marital status was measured as married, single, divorced or separated.

Educational level: Educational level for the respondents ( researchers, agents in policy institutions, technology transfer agents, farmers, marketers and consumers) was operationalised into six categories: No formal education=1, primary school level completed=2, secondary school uncompleted=3, secondary school completed=4, vocational technical school completed=5, tertiary education (Ordinary National Diploma (OND)=6, Higher National

Diploma (HND)=7, Nigeria Certificate of Education (NCE)=8, First Degree ( (Barchelor of Art

(B.A), Bachelor of Science (B.Sc))=9 and higher degrees (Master of Science (M.Sc)=10.,

Doctor of philosophy (PhD))=11.

113 Household size: This was measured as the total number of people living with them and eating from same place. This was later grouped as follows: 1-3 persons, 4-6 years persons, 7-9 persons, 10-12 persons.

Primary occupation: This was measured in the following variables; farming, trading, teaching, schooling, palm wine tapping.

Years of farming experience: This was measured by the number of years farmers spent in rice farmings. The responses were grouped as follows: 21-30 years, 31-40 years, 41-50 years and

51-60 years.

Years of experience: This was measured by the number of years researchers, agencies in policy personnel, technology transfer agencies spent in rice innovation system. The responses were grouped into four categories: less than 5 years, 6-10 years, 11-15 years, and above 15 years.

Quantity of rice purchased: Quantity was measured in kilogramme (kg). The respondents

(marketers) were requested to indicate the quantity of rice purchased monthly. The responses were segregated and counted as follow: 25,000 kg, 100 kg and 50 kg.

Type of rice sold: Measured as local rice or foreign rice.

Transportation problems in rice marketing: Problem of lack of vehicle, high transport cost and poor road encountered by marketers in rice marketing.

Quantity of rice consumed: Quantity of rice in kilogramme (10 kg, 50 kg, 100 kg and 150 kg) consumed monthly.

Complain on quality (colour, size, taste and stones) of local rice bought: The consumers were requested to indicate `yes` to complain on quality of local rice or `No`. A ýes ‘response was scored 1 and No response was scored 0.

Rice mill visits: The consumers were requested to indicate `yes`to rice mill visits or `No`. A

`yes`response was scored 1 and `No` response was scored 0.

114 Sources of information received: Rice related information was sourced from the

Agricultural Development Programmes (ADP), market (input agency), mass media, friends/fellow farmers.

Farm size: Farm size was measured in hectares. The respondent farmers were requested to indicate their farm size. A football field was used as an estimate to quantity / the size of farm (a football field is equivalent to one acre and 2.5 acres make a hectare)

Land ownership: Farmers were requested to indicate inherited, lease/rent, purchase farm land.

Main source of labour: Farmers to indicate major source of labour based on family labour, hired labour, family+hired labour.

Years of awareness of improved rice technology: Farmers were requested to indicate the years they have been aware of improved rice technology.This was later segregated into three groups as follow: 1989-1994, 1995-2000 and 2001-2006.

Adoption of improved rice technology: To measure the adoption of improved rice technology, farmers were requested to indicate degree of adoption to 13 improved rice technology variables on a three point rating scale of fully adopted=3, partially adopted=2, Not adopted=1. The cut off point was 2.00.

Constraints that impede linkage among farmers: To assess the constraints that impede linkage among farmers in improved rice technology, six possible constraining variables were rated by the farmers on a three point rating scale as Very Serious Constraints=3, Serious

Constraints=2 and Less Serious Constraints=1. The cut offpoint was 2.00.

Availability of rice on-farm trial: the technology transfer agencies were asked to indicate

`yes`to availability of rice on-farm trial, otherwise `No`.

Availabilty of training programmes: The (researchers, policy personnel) were asked to indicate `yes` to availability of training programmes, otherwise `No`.

115 Number of training organized in a year: The (researchers, policy personnel, technology transfer agencies) were asked to indicate the number of training organized in a year. This was later segregated into three groups as follow: 1-3 times, 4-6 times and 7-9 times.

Agronomic activities in rice production: To elicit information on the perception of agronomic activities in rice production among farmers, 16 items (land acquisition, land clearing, land stumping, ridge/mound making, nursery preparation, planting, pest and disease control, weeding, water management, fertilizer agro-chemical application, trapping rodents, making scarecrows, harvesting, threshing/winnowing/drying, storage, marketing) were listed on a three point rating scale of High-3, Moderate=2 and Low=1. The cut offpoint was 2.00.

Linkage existing among key actors: To examine the level of linkage existing among the selected key actors in rice innovation system, the (researchers, policy personnel, technology transfer agencies, farmers, marketers and consumers) respondents were asked to indicate their organizational link with organisations grouped under key actors as follow: (1.) researchers (six)

- National Cereal research Institute (NCRI), International Institute for Tropical Agriculture

(IITA), National Institute of Horticultural Research and Training (NIHORT), National Stored

Product Institute (NSPRI), Federal Institute of Industrial Research Oshodi (FIIRO), National

Biotechnology Development Agency (NABDA). (2.) Policy personnel (two) -Federal Ministry of Agriculture (FMA), National Agency for Food Drug Administration and Control

(NAFDAC). (3.) Technology transfer agencies (three)-Agricultural Development Programmes

(ADP), Federal Ministry of Commerce, Farmers’ cooperative. Other actors include, Farmers, marketers and consumers. The research options and values assigned were: Strong Link = 4, Fair

Link = 3, Loose Link = 2, No Link = 1.The cut offpoint was 2.50. To elicit information on linkage mechanisms in rice innovation system among the (researchers, policy personnel, technology transfer agencies, farmers, marketers and consumers) respondents , 23 questions on linkage mechanisms (such as joint problem identification, joint priority setting and planning

116 committees, joint reports, joint seminar, workshop training) were also presented to the respondents. The respondents were requested to respond to the three point rating scale options:

High = 3, Moderate= 2, Low = 1. Linkage mechanism items with mean scores less than 2.00 were regarded as not effective.

To ascertain strategies to enhance effective linkage among the key actors in rice innovation, a list of seven possible strategies were presented. For each listed strategy, the respondents

(reseachers, policy personnel, technology transfer agencies, farmers, marketers and consumers) were requested to indicate whether the strategy was very effective or not effective in enhancing rice innovation system. A four point rating scale of Very Effective=4, Moderatly Effective=3,

Less Effective=2 and Not Effective=1 was used to determine the effectiveness of each strategy.

Strategies with mean scores less than 2.50 were regarded as Not Effective.

3.4. Data Analysis

The 15.0 Statistical Package for Social Science (SPSS) was the software used for data analysis. Descriptive statistics, consisting of frequencies, percentage and mean scores were used for analysis. Specifically, percentages were used to analyse socio-economic characteristics of the respondents based on the proportion of total respondents (indicating an opinion to a question), mean scores were used to analyse respondents response to, activities, existing linkages, level of adoption, strategies to enhance effective linkage and constraints to role performance.

Research Hypothesis

(1) Ho: There is no significant relationship between the socio-economic characteristics of key actors (farmers, marketers and consumers) in rice innovation system and the level of linkages among them.

117 Y=f (X 1, X2, X3, X4, X5, X6, X7, X8, e )

Where

Y= level of linkage

In the regression analysis:

X1 = gender (male = 1, female = 0)

X2 = age (years)

X3 = marital status (married = 1, divorced = 2, single = 3, separated = 4).

X4 = educational level (formal education=1, primary school level=2, secondary school uncompleted=3, secondary school completed=4, vocational teacher school completed=5, tertiary education (OND=6, HND=7, NCE=8, B.A=9, B.Sc=9), (higher degree (M.sc=10, PhD=11)

X5= Household size (1-3 persons=1, 4-6 persons=2, 7-9 persons=3)

X6 = Primary occupation (farming = 1, trading = 2, teaching = 3, schooling = 4, palm wine

tapping = 5).

X7 = Farming experience in rice (21-30 years=1; 31-40 years=2; 41-50 years=3; 51-60

years=4 ).

X8 = Farm size in hectares.

3.5 Limitation of the Study

The spread and long physical distance between the actors was a challenge. Consequently several trips and phone calls were made to get the attention and cooperation of these actors. The study did not dwell on rules and regulations guiding the linkages. Similarly formal; informal linkages and constraints in level of linkages among actors in rice innovation system were not dealt with in the study.

118 CHAPTER FOUR

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

4.1. Review of policies, acts and initiatives in rice innovation system

Policies associated with rice production have changed in a dynamic way over time. For instance Emodi and Madukwe (2008) reported that there have been fluctuations in rice production (Table 8).The Nigerian government has actively interferred with the rice economy over the last thirty years; the country’s policy on rice has been inconsistent and has oscillated between import tariffs and import restrictions including outright ban. For instance, there was subsidized provision of inputs and finance for production, but none of these measures halted the long term end to import dependency (Akande, 2002). According to Coulter and Havrland

(2005), seeking to eliminate imports over a short-time span is totally unrealistic with consumption outstripping production. Despite several measures to promote sufficient rice production, Nigeria still imports around 2 million metric tons of rice a year. The growth in rice demand as a preferred staple, is so strong that production intensification and higher yields per hactare has not been sufficient to fill the gap and meet rice demand (Tollens, 2006).

Intensification or a rapid increase in the area under rice cultivation (irrigated and rain fed) are necessary.

119 Table 8: 1961 – 2006 rice production figures in Nigeria

Period Area Unpolished Yield Domestic Out Rice imports self-

(hectares) rice quantity (Tonnes/ Milled In (Tonnes) sufficiency

Hectares tonnes

1961 149,000 133,000 0.893 88,711 1,100 98.78

1966 160,000 199,000 1.244 132,733 1,75 99.05

1971 304,000 388,000 1.276 258,796 255 99.90

1976 172,000 218,000 1.267 145,406 45,377 76.22

1981 600,000 1,241,000 2.068 656,799 656,799 55.76

87,747

1986 700,000 1,416,322 2.023 944,687 320,000 74.70

1991 1,652,000 3,226,000 1.953 2,151,742 296,000 87.91

1996 1,815,770 2,909,230 1.602 2,082,374 345,500 85.77

2001 1,770,000 N.R N.R 2,752,000 N.R N.R

2006 N.R N.R N.R 4,300,000 N.R N.R

Source: Summary from FMARD, Nigeria; FAOSTAT Database, 2001, Emodi and Madukwe

(2008)

* NR – No Record

From historical perspective, rice policies and acts in Nigeria can be discussed under three periods: pre-ban, the ban and the post ban periods (Akande, 2002).

Pre-ban period (1971-1985): This can be classified into pre-crisis (1971-1980) and the crisis period (1981-1985). The Pre-Crisis period was largely characterized by liberal policies on rice imports, though ad-hoc policies were put in place during times of interim shortages. It

120 corresponded to the launching of various programmes and projects aimed at developing rice production. During the crisis period, more stringent policies (Input Supply and Distribution

Policy, Agricultural Input Subsidy Policy, Water Resources and Irrigation Policy, Agricultural

Cooperatives Policy) were put in place; government policies had artificially lowered domestic rice and fertilizer prices relative to the world price level, through massive importation of rice resulting in low price of locally produced rice. Government was involved in rice importation, distribution, and its marketing with non transfer of actual costs to consumers. There was protection of elite consumers at the expense of farmers, leading to depressed farm gate prices.

This eroded the competitiveness of locally produced rice and served as major disincentive to rice farmers.

Ban period (1986-1995): The ban placed on rice import was reinforced by the introduction of

Structural Adjustment Programme (SAP) in 1986. Under SAP, various trade policies were put in place. It was illegal to import rice into the country, though importation of the commodity through the country’s porous borders thrived during this period.

Post-ban period (1995- date): During this period restrictions on rice importation were lifted, with more liberal trade policy put in place. The country’s policy on rice has also been inconsistent and has oscillated between import tariffs and import restrictions including outright ban. A number of reasons led to the lifting of the ban. There was extended pressure from the international financial organizations, such as the World Bank, World Trade Organization, and the International Monetary Fund (IMF) who argued that the ban on rice was not in consonance with the liberalization position of the government. On the domestic scene, the government failed in the implementation of the ban on the commodity. This is evidence by the major markets in Nigeria flooded with imported rice despite restrictions. There was also pressure on the government by those who had vested interest in rice importation and the urban elites who had a preference for the consumption of imported rice (Ladebo, 1999). In 2007, Nigeria granted

121 importation of 100,000 tons of Thai rice at zero duty (USDA, 2009). Agence France Presse

(AFP, 2008) observed that there was blank lifting of the ban on rice; Nigeria government approved N80bn for importation of 500,000 metric tonnes of rice. Nigeria however rescinded the import decision and instead approved the investment of US $85 million in a credit scheme meant to support local rice processing for 6 months in 2008; ordered the release of 11, 000 metric tones of grains from its strategies food reserves for sale at one –sixth its market value

(USDA, 2009).

According to United States Department of Agriculture (USDA, 2009), in 2008, Nigeria produced approximately 2 million metric tonnes (mt) of milled rice and imported roughly 3 million metric tonnes (mt), including the estimated 800,000 mt that was suspected to enter the country illegally on an annual basis. Though Nigeria’s rice trade policy has been and continues to be heavily protectionism, ranging from outright import bans in the 1980s to the 32.5 percent tariff/levy combination that is applied to rice imports currently, it has had little effect in stimulating local production to a level of significant import substitution. In 2007, the paddy production of 6 states (Niger (452,000 mt), Kaduna (347,000 mt), Benue (296,000 mt), Taraba

(282,000 mt), Ebonyi (256,000 mt), and Kwara (234,000 mt)) in Nigeria constituted more than

60 percent of total domestic output: (Federal Ministry of Agriculture and Water Resources,

FMAWR, 2008).

Key actors in rice innovation system in Nigeria

The actors in rice innovation system can be categorized in five clusters based on their primary role (CTA, 2005). These are:

122 Table 9: Categorizing actors and elements in innovation system.

Component Actors

Consumers / buyers / retailers / wholesalers / middle men

Consumers of raw materials for industrial e.g.

Market / Demand agro processing industries.

Commodity markets / traders

Farmers

Enterprise Input suppliers (seed /feed, machinery,Packaging)

Extension services (public/private)

Diffusion NGOs and community based organizations (CBOs)

Farmer and trade organizations

National, regional and international agricultural research and development

organizations (public, quasi-governmental, private)

Universities and other institutions of higher learning (public,quasi-

governmental, private)

Research and training Research foundations

Policy making agencies (ministries; quasi-governmental agencies / state

boards)

Banking and financial agencies – private and public / quasigovernmental

Transport and marketing agencies / commodity boards / exchange

Information and communication infrastructure

Organizations Networks – professional networks, farmer and trade

Regulatory agencies (sanitary regulations, etc)

Infrastructure component Standard setting bodies

ASTI innovation system

Source: (CTA, 2005)

123 For continuous application of knowledge in an innovation, there is need for cooperation among the key actors in the system. The level of cooperation among the actors determines the flow of information and knowledge available in rice innovation system. However, as in any dynamic system, the level of the linkages among the various elements and actors varies, with significance for the efficiency and effectiveness of the innovation system (CTA, 2005).

Programmes and agencies in rice innovation system in Nigeria

Attention was not focused on rice during the pre-colonial and colonial period. During this period, focus was rather on export crops such as cocoa, groundnut, rubber and palm produce; supported through pricing and marketing board policies. Thus rice and other food crops were left to develop at there own pace with no incentives, in the hands of the peasant farmers (Akpokodge, Lancon and Erenstein, 2001). To attain modest strides in rice production, some actions were taken by some key actors with collaboration of national and international organizations. The following are the summary of the major institutions engaged in rice production with their dates of establishments and mandates:

National programmes and agencies:

1970- Federal Rice Research Station (FRRS) was established in Nigeria to research into the development of improved varieties of grains. The objectives were achieved through introduction and adaptation by the rice farmers.

1972- National Accelerated Food Production Program (NAFPP) was funded with the mandate to effectively design, test and transfer technology package for production of rice, maize, sorghum, millet and wheat

124 1974- National Cereals Research Institute (NCRI) was lunched to carry out research on high yielding rice varieties for farmers, on-farm adaptive research, seed multiplication and training of extension staff. There are nine zones for NCRI in Nigeria.

Table 10: NCRI nine zones, states and headquarters in Nigeria.

S/No Zones States Headquarters

1 South East Abia Amakama

2 South East Adamawa Numan

3 South South Delta Warri

4 South South Akwa Ibom Uyo

5 South West Oyo Ibadan

6 South West Kebbi Birnin kebbi

7 Middle Belt Kwara Bachita

8 Middle Belt Niger Morkwa

9 Middle Belt Benue Yander

1976 - The Operation Feed the Nation (OFN) was established for self-sufficiency in domestic

food supply. There was introduction of land use subsidy Decree, seed and fertilizer

supply, credit and mechanization in agriculture.

1978 - Abakaliki Rice Project was established for rice production and processing

1987 - Agricultural Development Programme (ADP) is the main link between research and

farmers. It has been a channel through which government policies on rice production

were implemented.

125 1988 - Nigerian Agricultural Cooperative and Rural Development Bank (NACRDB)

was established for special credit schemes to boost rice production and other

activities/crops (maize, sorghum).

1999 - The Presidential Rice Initiative was launched to address the widening demand supply

gap and attain self-sufficiency in rice production.

International programmes and agencies:

1971 - West Africa Rice Development Association (WARDA), now called Africa rice centre,

was established to increase the sustainable productivity of intensified rice based

cropping systems in a manner that improves the welfare of resource-poor farm families,

conserves and enhances their natural resource base.

1985 - International Network for the Genetic Evaluation of Rice (INGER-Africa),

addresses the needs of National Agricultural Research Station by distribution of rice

nurseries tailored to meet the needs of national programmes.

1986 - Green River Project (GRP) is an outfit established by Nigerian Agip Oil Company

(NAOC). It launched Burma rice project for the traits, evaluation and identification of

the best rice production and management techniques.

1988 - Germplasm Collection and Conservation - is for the conservation of rice germplasm

for the production of improved rice varieties which are resistant to viruses, pests and

diseases.

1998 –Pro-poor Commodity and Service Markets (PropCom) is a market driven

intervention programme initiated by Oxfam International. They facilitate initiatives for

production of quality local rice in sufficient quantities. It is to compete with imported

rice and benefit the poor stakeholders.

126 2000 - Shell Petroleum Development Company (SPDC) resumed an experimental basis

for the distribution of improved varieties of rice to farmers.

2000 - Multinational New Rice for Africa (NERICA) Rice Dissemination Project

(MNRDP) was established by West Africa Rice Development agency (WARDA) now

called Africa Rice Center, for technology transfer, product support, capacity building

and project coordination.

2004 - The Ibom Rice Project was established by Akwa Ibom State Government in partnership

with Mobil Producing Nigeria unlimited and United States company, called Midland

Rice. It was established for practical training of local farmers on modern farming

technique in rice production

Gaps in rice policies, acts and initiatives in Nigeria

Imported policy concepts : Most policies relating to rice failed to recognize the problems of the stakeholders. They are detached and foreign to the tradition and cultural practices of the stakeholders. The situation existed because the Nigerian government failed to provide the necessary financial support to rice innovation system. The non-governmental Organizations

(NGOs), (Consultative Group on International Agricultural Research (CGIAR), International

Rice Research Institute (IRRI), National Agricultural Research Station (NARS), Green River

Project (GRP), Shell Petroleum Development Company (SPDC)), self-funded by their parent body or foreign donors controlled the mandates and pace of rice performance.

Lack of incentives: There was lack of economic incentives for wide and massive adoption, due to:

• poor technology transfer and delivery system, especially for seed; and

• inappropriate agricultural polices: though polices were needed to encourage

competiveness of domestic rice production against heavily subscribed imports, but

127 overriding problem is the decline in the regions self- sufficiency in rice production

and increasing dependency on imports (FAO, 2004).

Weak provision of market information services

Lack of market information creates unequal playing fields between middlemen and farmers. This negatively affects the terms of trade for small holder farmers and raises market transaction costs which lead to poor integration of markets across space and time. Market failure is the major reason for both the low productivity and uncompetitive market for domestic rice. When markets fail, capacity of smallholder farmers to use available prospective technologies is undermined.

Absence of coordinated infrastructure

Existing initiative did not coordinate the timely and effective provision of the necessary infrastructure for rice innovation system. Some of the major rice producing areas had poor access road. Again some areas were constrained by inadequate and inappropriate processing equipment, especially at the farm or village level. The inability to provide and use improved technologies in rice processing has led to the production of poor quality of domestic rice that is not competitively marketable.

Poor provision for learning and technological capacity building

Overtime, the succeeding initiatives showed poor provisions for the development of the needed capability to drive the rice innovation system. Similarly, they were evidence of poor learning as some of the weaknesses were transferred from preceding initiatives. There was lack of solid support for science to address most of the problems facing rice production such as drought, soil fertility depletion, diseases and pests.

128 4.2 Socio- economic characteristics of farmers

The socio-economic characteristics of farmers presented in this section include sex, age, marital status, educational level, household size, primary occupation, farming experience, farm size, land ownership and main source of labour.

4.2.1 Sex

Entries in Table 11 reveal that majority (59.5%) of the respondents were male, while

40.5% were female. This implies that sex distribution among farmers is skewed towards male in improved rice technology. This agrees with Adeola, Adebayo and Oyelere (2008) findings, that rice production in Oyo State is dominated by male farmers with only 5.0% female farmers engaged in rice production. The domination of men in rice cultivation may be due to intensive labour and other resource requirements associated with rice production which women farmers may not likely shoulder. Sex is based on the social relationship between male and female particularly the distribution of roles in the productive and non-remuneration process and responsibilities in the organization of society (Ityaoyor, 2008).

4.2.2 Age (years)

Data in Table 11 show that about (44.0% ) of the farmers were between the age range of 30-39 years. About 21.0% were within the age range of 40-49 years, 17.7 % were within 20-29 years, while 17.1% were within the age range of 50 years and above. The mean age was 23 years. The fact that the mean age of the farmers was 23 years implies that majority of them were still in their active years of farming and this is likely to enhance productivity in improved rice technology. These age categories were in line with those Bekele (2005) referred to as economically active groups. This agrees with Adewale, Olaniyi, and Adamou, (2007) who reported that farmers within the age 15-64 years were defined as economically productive

129 population; especially in rice cultivation, where farmers in their active years appears disposed to organize and provide the labour needed.

4.2.3 Marital status

The marital profile of the farmers in Table 11 shows that (88.0 %) of them were married. While about 12.0 % of them were single. The results reveal that majority of farmers were married. This confirms Jibowo’s (1992) findings that vast majority of the rural farmers consists of married people. The greater number of farmers that were married in improved rice technology may be to add extra labour as a result of less mechanized rice farms. It was the practice among farmers to marry and have a large number of children who would constitute their farm workforce (Echebiri and Mbanasor, 2003).

4.2.4 Educational level

The educational level of farmers was also investigated. Table 11 show that about 46.0% of farmers completed tertiary (OND, NCE, HND, first degree (B.Sc, B.A)) education. Only

27.2% completed their primary school, 21.5% of them had no formal education, while 5.7% of them completed vocational technical school. Thus, the bulk of the farmers are educated and interact to generate new ideas to changing conditions in rice production. The more educated the farmers, the more exposed they become, the more chances to accept and adopt improved rice technologies. The role of education has always been recognized as positive in the adoption of improved technologies among farmers (Sheikh, Mahmood, Bashir and Kashif, 2006). It is through education and communication that agricultural technologies are able to bring about changes in farmers knowledge, attitude and skills which help to put farmers in a frame of mind conducive for adoption of rice innovation (Agbamu, 2005).

130 4.2.5 Household size

Entries in Table 11 show about 49.0% of farmers’ household size were 4-6 persons.

Only about 33.5% of farmers’ household size was 1-3 persons, while 17.7% of farmers were 7-

9 persons in a household. Mean household size in the study area was 5 persons. Household size is made up of all the family members of a farmer; who contribute their skill, labour and intellect to the up-keep and progress of improved rice technology of that farm unit (National

Occupational Classification for Statistics, 2001). Since the mean household size was 5 persons.

This implies that the farmers were of fairly large household which could contribute in dissemination of improved rice technology.Similarly Onu and Omokoro (2008), observed that household size ranged from about 5 persons per household, which is an indication that there is a large number of dependants in a farm household. The implication of this finding is that farm labour would be readily distributed since relatively large household size seems an obvious advantage in terms of tasks in rice innovation system.

4.2.6 Primary occupation

Table 11 further reveals that a greater proportion (84.2%) of farmers primary occupation was farming, 10.8% of them were teachers, while 5.1% of them were traders. The findings show that most of the farmers’ primary occupation was farming. This implies that rice production seem a viable source of their income generation. Therefore, since rice farmers remain one important occupation, an improved, effective and adequate rice innovation system is needed in the study area to enhance production.

4.2.7 Farming experience (years)

Majority (59.5%) of farmers had farming experience of 31-40 years (Table 11). 20.9% of them had farming experience of 21-30 years, 17.7% of them had farming experience of 41-50

131 years, while 1.9% of them had farming experience of 51 years and above. The findings show that the farmers were quite experienced in rice production. The mean years of farming experience was 35.5 years. This implies that many of the farmers are quite old in rice production. Experience, they say is the best teacher. Long farming experience is an advantage for increase in rice production since it encourages rapid adoption of improved rice technology

(Obinne, 1991). Thus the longer a person stays on a job, the more likely the person is to become an expert. The farmers are therefore in a better position to make useful contributions on the issue of improved rice technology.

4.2.8 Source of information

A greater proportion (63.2%) of farmers ranked the Agricultural Development

Programmes (ADP) as their most important source of information on improved rice technologies, 20.9% of farmers’ source of information was from marketers (input agencies),

10.8% of them received information on improved rice technology from friends/fellow farmers, while the remaining 5.1% sourced information from the mass media. When agricultural innovation is introduced in an area, information spread is an important indicator of the way social networks are organized and how they change (Germine, Oumar, Sido, Hamidou, Yaovi and Hassane, 2001). ADP is the channel through which government policies on rice production were implemented (Emodi and Madukwe, 2008).

4.2.9 Farm size (hectare)

Entries in Table 11 show that majority (59.2%) of farmers operated in 2ha of land, while

23.1% of them had farm size of 1 ha. Also 17.7% of them operated on farm size of 3ha. This implies that the study area comprises of small-scale farmers. This agrees with Olayide (1992) that Nigerian farmers are small-scale farmers that cultivated small areas of land. The relatively

132 small farm size of the respondents will inevitably lead to subsistence farming which do not encourage commercial farming. Relatively small farm land could constitute a major constraint to rice innovation system (Agwu, Ekwueme and Anyanwu, 2008). Although the conventional wisdom is that small family farms seem backward and unproductive, research agrue that small farms are much more productive than large farms if total output is considered (Miguel, 2010).

4.2.10 Land ownership

A greater proportion (84.2%) of farmers operated on inherited land (Table 11), 10.8% of them leased/rented land for rice cultivation. While 51.1% of farmers operated on land they purchased. Majority of farmers in Nigeria acquired their farmland through inheritance (World

Bank, 1995; Saka, Okoruwa, Lawal and Ajijola. (2005). This implies that land ownership may be helpful to farmers in expanding their rice farms; however it might put serious limitations on the amount of land that is available for rice production as farm sizes will be affected by the terminal system of land acquisition, improved rice technology will be under utilized and maximum output will not be achieved in most cases.

4.2.11 Main source of labour

Data in Table 11 reveal that majority (51.3%) of farmers depended on a combination of family + hired labour for rice cultivation. About 27.0% of them depended on hired labour, while

21.5% depended on family labour. The findings show that farmers depend on a combination of family + hired labour for rice cultivation. The emphasis on family+hired labour is likely related to the tasks in improved rice technology and can be seen as an indicator of limited household resources.Innovation on labour demands in developing countries revealed that adoption of modern varieties of rice increased labour use and also led to adoption of labour saving technologies (Otusuka, 2000). Rice production is a labour intensive enterprise and labour input

133 is therefore an important production cost (Erenstein et al, 2003). This implies that with family support labour, the cost of rice cultivation will be reduced.

134 Table 11: Percentage distribution of farmers’ by socio-economic characteristics

Socio economic Characteristics farmers’ Mean (%) (n=158) ( X ) Sex Male 59.5 Female 40.5 Age (years) 20-29 years 17.7 30-39years 44.3 23years 40-49 years 20.9 50 years and above 17.1 Marital status Married 88.0 Single 12.0 Educational level No formal education 21.5 Completed primary School 27.2 Vocational technical school completed 5.7 Tertiary education(OND,NCE,HND,,B.Sc/B.A) 45.6 Household size 1-3 persons 33.5 4-6 persons 48.7 5 persons 7-9 persons 17.7 Primary occupation Farming 84.2 Trading 5.1 Teaching 10.8 Farming experience(years) 21-30 20.9 31-40 59.5 35.5years 41-50 17.7 51-60 1.9 Source of information ADPs 63.2 Market (input agency) 20.9 Mass media 5.1 Friends/Fellow farmers 10.8 Farm size(hectares) 1 23.1 2 59.2 3 17.7 Land ownership Inherited 84.2 Lease/rent 10.8 Purchase 5.1 Main source of labour Family 21.5 Hired 27.2 Family+ Hired 51.3

135 4.3. Farmers years of awareness of improved rice technology

Entries in Table 12 reveal that farmers had been exposed to improved rice technology since 1989. From 1989 to 1994, only 19.2% of farmers were aware of improved rice technology. About 11.0% of rice farmers were aware of improved rice technology in 1995-

2000, in 2001-2006, (70.2%) of the farmers were aware of improved rice technology. The findings revealed that majority of the farmers in 2001-2006 were aware of improved rice technology. This implies that many farmers in rice production may practice use of improved rice technology. According to Mook (2001) awareness is of highest priority in accepting improved technology.

Table 12: Percentage distribution of farmers by years of awareness of improved rice

technology

Years of awareness Percentage of farmers

awareness

1989-1994 19.2

1995-2000 10.6

2001-2006 70.2

4.4. The adoption of improved rice technology by farmers

Entries in Table 13 show the percentage of farmers’ perception of adoption rate in the level of improved rice technology. The results reveal that all the 13 items were adopted by farmers in improved rice technology. This implies that adoption of improved rice technology has been effective in increasing rice yields. The extents to which farmers adopt innovations determine the impact of innovations in terms of productivity growth (Sunding and Ziberman,

2001).

136 4.4.1 Improved varieties

Data in Table 13 show that (67.7%) of farmers adopted improved rice varieties. This implies that improved rice varieties assist farmers in increasing the yields and production of rice.

Adoption of improved varieties by farmers will mean more than just increased rice production and reduced imports, but will contribute to food security and poverty reduction among farmers

(Nwanze, 2004).

4.4.2 Tillage/land preparation

The results in Table 13 show that a greater proportion (62.0%) of farmers adopted tillage/land preparation in improved rice technology. Changes in tillage practices are considerable potential for sustaining and improving rice innovation system (Hobbs, Giri and Granle, 1997). The common benefits of improved land preparation are weed control, incorporation of fertilizers, increase in soil porosity and aeration, mixing the soil to bring up leached deposits and giving the soil a good condition to increase absorption of nutrient (Nguu Van Nguyen, 2006).

4.4.3 Fertilizer use/application

Data reveal that all (100%) of rice farmers adopted fertilizer use/application in improved rice technology (Table 13). Unamma, Okereke, Ene, Okoli and Odurukwe (1985), in a survey on farming systems in Nigeria, reveal that fertilization of crops was not new to over 91.0% of surveyed farmers.This implies that fertilizer play an important role in faster growth and maturity of improved rice varieties. The amount of fertilizer applied in rice cultivation depends on the qualities and level of residual nutrients in the soil (Maduakor, 1991).

137 4.4.4 Milling/ processing

Entries in Table 13 show that (94.9%) of respondents adopted milling / processing in improved rice technology. The implication is that farmers make more profit since there is the potential to produce clean, less broken, polished rice with improved milling/processing. Rice milling /processing removes the husk and the bran layers from paddy to produce whole white rice kernels that are sufficiently milled, free of impurities and contain a minimium number of broken kernels (USAID, 2009).

4.4.5 Planting method

A greater proportion (89.2%) of farmers adopted (line) planting method in improved rice technology. Improved rice planting method provides advantages in terms of better weed control, more uniform maturation of the plants, higher grain yield under intensive management, and more efficient use of the land for rice innovation system (Barker, Herdt, and Rose, 1985).

4.4.6 Pest and disease control

The study reveals that all (100%) of farmers adopted (seed treatment, use of insecticides and fungicides) pest and disease control methods in improved rice technology. Pest and disease attacks are serious problems in rice production (Ekeleme, Kamara, Omoigur, Tegbaru, Kshelia and Onyibo, 2008). Pest and disease can cause significant yield loss in rice production. There is need for knowledge of pest ecology and dynamics to allow minimal lost of rice yield to pests and diseases in rice innovation system.

4.4.7 Weeding techniques

Entries in Table 13 show that greater proportion (84.8%) of farmers adopted (pre and post emergence herbicides) weeding techniques in improved rice technology. This implies that

138 proper weed techniques promote the use of rice varieties. Weeds are the most serious biological constrain to rice production. Weeds limit rice yield greatly through competition with rice for sunlight, water and nutrients. (Nguu Van Nguyen, 2006).

4.4.8 Harvesting

Entries in Table 13 show that majority (94.3%) of farmers adopted (panicle) harvesting in improved rice technology. Harvesting is a major operation among actors in rice innovation system (Nkama, 1992).

4.4.9 Threshing

In Table 13, a greater proportion (94.3%) of farmers adopted threshing in improved rice technology.According to Food and Agriculture Organisation (FAO, 1995), threshing is a major aspect that is usually carried out after harvesting of given crop; the traditional threshing of rice is generally done by hands. This reveals why majority of the farmers adopt improved rice technology on threshing.

4.4.10 Parboiling

A greater proportion (89.9%) of farmers adopted parboiling methods in improved rice technology. Parboiled rice has better storage and cooking quality, it is richer in food value; devoid of unpleasant odour and breaks less during milling (Ekeleme, et al , 2008).

4.4.11 Rice weighing

Majority (65.8%) of farmers adopted rice weighing in improved rice technology. This implies that through rice weighing the quantity of rice yield could be estimated and

139 appreciated.The high adoption of improved rice weighing method could be as a result of high yield realized from rice innovation system.

4.4.12 Rice bagging

Entries in Table 13 show that majority (95.6%) of farmers adopted (synthetic bags) bagging in improved rice technology. The implication is that improved rice bagging increases the quality of paddy and its shelf life. This suggests that rice bagging seems to be the tool for transaction between the farmers and other actors in rice innovation system.

4.4.13 Rice storage

The study reveals that all (100%) of the farmers adopted ( air tight containers and use of phostoxin) storage in improved rice technology. This implies that traditional method of rice storage might be faulty and with improved storage methods, rice will have a long shelf life.

Rice storage posses a considerable challenge in rice innovation. At farm household level, storage is a means of holding and preserving paddy in rice innovation system until the final use

(Kader and Rolle, 2004).

140 Table 13: Percentage distribution of farmers’ adoption of improved rice technology

Innovations Adopted

Improved rice varieties 67.7

Tillage/land preparation 62.0

Fertilizer use/application 100

Milling/processing 94.9

Planting method (line planting) 89.2

Pest and disease control (pesticides, seed 100

treatment)

Weeding techniques 84.8

Harvesting (panicle harvesting) 94.3

Threshing 94.3

Parboiling 89.9

Weighing 65.8

Bagging(synthetic bags) 95.6

Storage (air tight containers,use of phostoxin) 100

4.5 Constraints to adoption of improved rice technology as perceived by farmers

Constraints to adoption of improved rice technology as perceived by farmers were

analysed and discussed as follow: The data reveal farmers perceived constraints in improved

rice technology as follow: poor soil fertility ( X =2.30), lack of finance ( X =2.78), competition

with weed ( X =2.42), disease/ infection problems ( X =2.46), land tenure problems ( X =2.45),

poor storage facilities ( X =2.44), poor access to farm inputs ( X =2.44), high cost of

agrochemical ( X =2.73), poor extension contact ( X =3.00), lack of inorganic fertilizer

141 ( X =2.72), high transport cost ( X =2.34), lack of processing facilities/ standard measure for rice ( X =2.77), lack of tractor ( X =2.61), high cost of hired labour ( X =2.39), lack of credit

( X =2.95) and delay in supply of improved rice varieties ( X =2.89).

The findings show that the farmers perceived all the 16 items investigated as constraints to improved rice technology. Soil infertility and low use of chemical fertilizers have been cited as two major factors limiting rice productivity growth (Bationo and Mokwunye, 1991; Vlek,

1990). Macro-level constraints to fertilizer use include: high import prices, extremely high marketing costs, irregularity of supply due to very poor road infrastructures, physical distribution facilities and the elimination of fertilizer subsidies that is worsened by a lack of adequate credit facilities for farmers (Daramola, 1989).

Post-harvest crop losses constituted a very major constraint in improved rice technology because storage and processing methods and facilities were ill developed and strong linkages with research institutions. The farmers relied on the crude methods employed by their forefathers (Amalu, 1998). Akande (2002), identified, inadequate input supply, poor agronomic practices and land tenure problems as among the several factors which have continued to constrain rice farming from expanding in production. Effort aimed at developing efficient technologies to improve rice productivity have focused on high quality inputs; which have achieved limited success in the case of farmers who are often regarded as resistant to change.

Failure by farmers to adopt improved rice technology has been attributed to inadequacy of rice innovation system. Technologies exist to address these problems but, their adoption is constrained by lack of information, packaged in appropriate formats, with poor communication channels (USAID, 2003). This implies that the complexity of farmers needs should be distilled into viable rice innovation system that is apparent, readily available, and sensitive to their environments (IRRI, 2003).

142 Table 14: Mean distribution of constraints to adoption of improved rice technology as perceived by farmers

Constraints Mean

( X )

Poor soil fertility 2.30

Lack of finance 2.78

Competition from weed 2.42

Disease/ infection problem 2.46

Land tenure problems 2.41

Poor storage facilities 2.44

Poor access to farm 2.44

High cost of agrochemical 2.73

Poor extension contact 3.00

Lack of inorganic fertilizer 2.72

High cost of transport 2.72

Lack of processing facilities/ standard measure for rice 2.77

Lack of tractor 2.61

High cost of hired labour 2.39

Lack of credit 2.95

Delay in supply of improved varieties 2.89

Cut offpoint = 2.00, Very serious constraints=3, Serious constraints=2, Less constraints=1

4.6 Socio-economic characteristics of marketers

The socio-economic characteristics of marketers presented in this section include sex, age, marital status, household size, primary occupation, source of information, volume of rice purchased, type of rice sold and transportation problems in rice marketing.

143 4.6.1 Sex

The results reveal that majority (60.0%) of the marketers were male, while the remaining 40.0% of these marketers were female. The dominance of male in the rice marketing activities could be due to high capital required to start rice marketing. Improved rice marketing among the male, implies more earning for the rice marketer to attend to various financial needs.

4.6.2 Age (years)

Majority (62.5%) of the marketers were within the age range of 30-39years. About

20.0% of them were within the age range of 40-49 years, while 17.5% of them were within age range of 50 years and above. The mean age was 40 years. This indicates that bulks of the marketers were of active and virile age group. This will have a positive impact in the output performance in rice marketing among the respondents in rice innovation system.

4.6.3 Marital status

Data in Table 15 reveal that all (100%) of marketers were married. This may have a positive effect on the availability of family labour in rice marketing and may increase the level of work commitment in rice innovation system (Afolabi, 2009).

4.6.4 Educational level

Majority (57.5%) of marketers were of primary school level, while 20.0% and 12.5% had no formal education and vocational school completed respectively. The results show that majority of the marketers are literates; could read and write. High educational level invariably could have positive influence in the over all rice marketing. Higher literacy level of the respondents has a serious but significant implication in improved rice technology practices; the more educated the

144 respondent is, the more likely he is to acquire new ideas in rice innovation system (Onuoha,

2006).

4.6.5 Household size

Entries in Table 15 show that a greater proportion (57.5%) of marketers were 1-3 persons in a household, while 25.0% of them were 4-6 persons in a household. Also the results reveal that 17.5% of marketers were 7-9 persons in a household. The mean household size was

4 persons. The impact of household size on productivity depends on the quality and capabilities of the household members, rather than on the sheer magnitude of the household size in rice innovation system (Ogundele, 2003).

4.6.6 Primary occupation

Majority (62.5%) of the marketers’ primary occupation was trading, while 20.0% and

17.5% of them were teachers and farmers respectively. This could be ascribed to the high demand of rice as staple in Nigeria. This implies increased quantity of market sale and more profit made in sale of improved rice produce. An individual’s primary occupation is that job in which the individual works the greatest number of hours (Gruenert, 1999).

4.6.7 Source of information

Results in Table 15 show that a greater proportion (71.5%) of marketers indicated friends / fellow marketers as source of information. About 18.0% of them sourced information from mass media, while 6.0% of them sourced information from government agencies. The findings show that the marketers sourced information on improved rice technologies mainly from friends / fellow rice marketers. The implication is that receiving information from friends

/fellow marketers builds confidence and encourages trust in improved rice marketing

145 transactions. However, information not received limits the marketers’ information on

improved rice marketing.

4.6.8 Volume of rice purchased

Entries in Table 15 reveal that a greater proportion (70.0%) of the marketers purchased

about 25,000kg of rice monthly, 25.0% of them purchased 50kg of rice, while 5.0% of them

purchased 100kg of rice. In support, Basorun (2009) revealed that rice marketers buy in

different measures and weights using bags, basins (big and small) and milk tins at the market

places. This implies that rice is a monthly purchase among Nigerians (USDA FAS (2003) and

all class of persons can buy any quatity of rice required since rice is sold in different measures.

4.6.9 Type of rice sold

Entries in Table 15 also reveal that majority (60.0%) of the marketers sold foreign rice

while the remaining 40.0% of them sold local rice. It seems that the sale of foreign rice is based

on consumers’ preference and demand. In a survey, FAO (2005) revealed that local rice has a

very poor image compared to imported rice. This is because of poor post-harvest handling and

processing which introduce foreign bodies that consumers find unacceptable. The cleanliness

associated with imported rice is the overwhelming factor explaining the expansion of imported

rice consumption in Nigeria (Lancon et al, 2003). These constraints tend to turn marketers away

from the local rice marketing chain in favour of the imported rice channel.

4.6.10 Transportation problems in rice marketing

Among the sampled marketers, majority (55.0%) of the marketers experienced problems

(lack of vehicle, high cost, poor road) in rice transportation, while the remaining 45.0% had no

problem (availability of vehicle, low transportation cost and good road) in rice transportation.

146 These problems (lack of vehicle, high cost, and poor road) have serious implication in rice innovation system. It could lead to increase in the cost of improved rice produce. Transportation problems have adverse effect on flow of information on current price sales in rice innovation sytem. Problems in rice marketing affect transaction costs in improved rice technology (Akande and Akpodjoke, 2003).

147 Table 15: percentage distribution of marketers by socio-economic characteristics

Socio economic Characteristics marketer Mean s X (%) (n=40) Sex Male 60.0 Female 40.0 Age (years) 20-29 years 0 30-39years 62.5 40-49 years 20.0 40years 50 -59years 17.5 Marital status Married 100 Single 0 Divorced 0 Separated 0 Educational level No formal education 20.0 Primary School Level 57.5 Secondary school uncompleted 0 Vocational Technical school completed 12.5 Tertiary education (OND, NCE, HND, first degree) 0 Higher Degree ( M.Sc, PhD) 0 Household size 1-3 persons 57.5 4-6 persons 25.0 4 persons 7-9 persons 17.5 10-12 persons 0 Primary occupation Farming 17.5 Trading 62.5 Teaching 20.0 Palm wine tapping 0 Source of information Mass media 77.5 Friends/Fellow marketers 42.5 Government agencies 80.0 Volume of rice purchased 25,000kg 70.0 192kg 100kg 5.0 50 kg 25.0 Type of rice sold Local 60.0 Foreign 40.0 Transportation problem in rice marketing Lack of vehicle, high cost and poor road 45.0 Availability of vehicle, low transportation cost and 55.0 good road

148 4.7 Socio-economic characteristics of consumers

The socio-economic characteristics of consumers presented in this section include: sex, age, marital status, educational level, household size, type of rice preferred, quantity of rice consumed, complain on quality (colour, size, taste and stones) of local rice bought and rice mill visits.

4.7.1 Sex

Entries in Table 16 show that a greater proportion (70.0%) of consumers were female, while the remaining 30.0% were male. This finding may not be unconnected to female high involvement in the household work. Gender wise, rice purchase is dominated by female consumers (Lancon et al 2003). It has been reported that women are at the centre-stage in household food consumption; It is the women’s duty in most African households to take decisions on the types of food that are made available, and the forms in which they are prepared for consumption by members of the household ( Isife and Emodi, 2000)

4.7.2 Age (years)

About 48.0% of consumers were 40-49 years age range, 35.0% of them were within the age range of 30-39 years. The results also reveal that 17.5% of them were within 20-29 years.

The mean age of consumers was 37 years. This indicates that consumers are active and to meet their daily energy requirements, energy given food such as rice is needed. For labouring adults, milled rice could meet the daily carbohydrate and protein needs for sustenance (Hegsted 1969;

Juliano 1985).

149 4.7.3 Marital status

Data in Table 16 indicates that majority (82.5%) of the consumers were married while the remaining 17.5% were single. Cooking remains the exclusive responsibility of women that are married and the preferred food is rice (Basorun, 2010). Rice availability and prevalence has become major determinants of the welfare of the African consumers (CGIAR, 2006).

4.7.4 Educational level

About 33.0% of consumers completed their tertiary ((Ordinary National Diploma

(OND), Higher National Diploma (HND), first degree (B.Sc, B.A)) education, 31.5% of consumers had higher (M.Sc, Ph.D) degree while 20.0% and 16.3% of them completed vocational technical school and primary school respectively. It is incontrovertible that education has positive influence in rice innovation system. The findings reveal that consumers are literates and can assess the quality of improved rice varieties consumed. This implies that consumers as end users of rice produce could influence the quality of rice produced through their demands/preference. Consumers’ demands could be important signals that can shape the focus and direction of innovation processes.

4.7.5 Household size

Data in Table 16 reveal that about 35.0% of consumers were 7-9 persons in a household, 17.5% of them were 10-12 persons in a household, 13.8% of them were 4-6 persons in a household while 12.5% of consumers were 1-3 persons. The mean was 5 persons. Households are characterized by high number of members with high dependency ratio in Nigeria; rice can support more people and their capacity to participate in rice innovation will vary significantly across the innovation system (Reardon, Berdegue and Escobe, 2001).

150 4.7.6 Type of rice preferred

Entries in Table 16 reveal that majority (65.0%) of the consumers preferred foreign rice, while the remaining 35.0% of them preferred local rice. There are main factors determining the level of rice consumption of any group at any time: milling quality; cooking, eating and processing quality; nutritive quality; and specific standards for cleanliness, soundness and purity (Webb, 1979). This indicates that quality differential between local and imported rice seems an important consideration in the decision making process. According to Lancon, et al

(2003) the inability of the local rice to match the quality of imported rice is the major constraints that affect the development of Nigerian rice sector.

4.7.7 Quantity of rice consumed

About 36.0% of the consumers reveal that 10kg of rice was consumed monthly, while

31.3% of them consumed 50kg bag of rice. About 18.0% and 15.0% of them consumed 100kg and 50kg of rice respectively. The mean rice consumed was 40kg. The findings show that majority of respondents consumed 100kg of rice monthly. It seems rice has assumed a prominent role in the consumption patterns of majority of Nigerians (Akande and Akpokodje,

2003). Rice for table use is easy to prepare. Its soft texture pleases the palate and the stomach.As a human food, rice continues to gain popularity in many parts of the world where other coarse cereals, such as maize, sorghum and millet, or tubers and roots like potatoes, yams, and cassava have traditionally dominated (Chang, 1985).

4.7.8 Complain on quality (colour, size, taste and stones) of local rice bought

Entries in Table 16 show that majority (61.5%) of the consumers complained of the quality (colour, size, taste and stones) of local rice bought in the market. About 32.5% of them had no complain on the quality of local rice bought. This implies that consumers are dissatisfied

151 with local rice bought in the market and are wary of picking stones from local rice and having to wash it several times (FAO, 2005). A major problem with the domestic output of rice in Nigeria is the poor operational techniques of processors which often had low production

(Basorun, 2008).

4.7.9 Rice mill visits

Data in Table 16 reveal that a greater proportion (85.0%) of consumers visited rice mill, while the remaining 20.0% of them never visited a rice mill. There were more consumers that visited rice mills, probably because they buy at cheaper price in the mill. Rice mill visits provide a perfect opportunity for consumers to use most of their senses to appreciate technologies in rice production and make wide choice of the quality of rice they want. The visits translate into increased chances of the consumers learning new technologies in rice innovation system. Advantage of rice mill visit includes the chance to track charges and being able to modify suggestions for individual mills (Calderwood, 1997).

152 Table 16: Percentage distribution of consumers by socio-economic characteristics

consumers Mean Socio- economic characteristics (%) (n=80) X Sex Male 30.0 Female 70.0 Age (years) 20-29 years 17.5 30-39years 35.0 37 years 40-49 years 47.5 50-59 years 0 Marital status Married 82.5

Single 17.5

Divorced 0

Separated 0

Educational level

Primary School completed 16.3 Secondary school uncompleted 0 Vocational Technical school completed 20.0 Tertiary education (OND, NCE, HND, 32.5 first degree) Higher Degree ( M.sc, PhD) 31.3

Household size 1-3 persons 2.5 4-6 persons 13.8 5 persons 7-9 persons 35.0 10-12 persons 17.5

Type of rice preferred Local 35.0 Foreign 65.0 Quantity of rice consumed 10 kg 36.3 50kg 31.3 100 kg 17.5 40 kg 150kg 15.0 Complain on quality (colour, size, taste and stones) of rice bought. Yes 67.5 No 32.5 Rice mill visits Yes 85.0 No 15.0

153 4.8 Socio-economic characteristics of researchers

The socio-economic characteristics of the researchers presented in this section include years of service in the organization, educational level, availability of rice on-farm trial, training programmes, number of training organized in a year.

4.8.1 Years of service in the organization

Among the researchers in improved rice technology about (35.0%) of them had years of service of less than 5years, and 16 years and above respectively, 20.0% of them had 11-15 years of service, while 10.0% of them had 6-10 years of service. The mean score was 12 years. This suggests greater capability for service delivery by the researchers in rice innovation system, all things being equal.

4.8.2 Educational level

Results in Table 17 also show that majority (52.5%) of researchers had first degree

(B.Sc, B.A), 20.0% of them had Master Degree (M.Sc.), while 17.5% and 10.0% had Doctor of

Philosophy (Ph.D) and Higher National Diploma (HND) respectively. This suggests that researchers possessed relevant education background essential for effective implementation of improved rice technology objectives. The dominance of first degree (B.Sc, B.A) may threaten rice research existence and performance in the field. Empirical studies show that poor training and low educational level of personnel add to the failure of many research activities (Obibuaku and Madukwe, 1991; Farouk and Okpokpo, 1997).

4.8.3 Availability of rice on -farm trial

Entries in Table 17 reveal that a greater proportion (82.5%) of researchers had on-farm trial in improved rice technology, while the remaining 17.5% of them had no on-farm trial. On-

154 farm experimentation can assist the research in prioritizing and determining the causes of perceived innovational problems (Waddington, Anthony, Edward and Oghenetsavbuko, 1990).

It can also be used to determine the optimal economic level of an input such as fertilizer for a well defined socio agro-ecological zone. Moreover, on-farm research is a way of verifying the stability and acceptability of a given technology, within a given environment.

4.8.4 Availability of training programmes

Data in Table 17 show that all (100%) researchers had training programmes conducted on improved rice technology. The benefit of this finding is that researchers will be very efficient in carrying out their research functions on improved rice technology and could be exposed to the latest technology. Training is an important mechanism to transfer technology to the users. A good educational level and professionalism of researchers are the major determinants of success of knowledge exchange in rice innovation system (Blum, 1988).

4.8.5 Number of training organised in a year

Results in Table 17 further reveal that a greater proportion (52.5%) of researchers received 7-9 training programmes in a year, 27.5% of them received 4-6 training programmes while 20.0% of them received 1-3 training programmes in a year. The mean score was 5 training programmes in a year, which indicate that researchers go through a number of trainings in rice innovation system. To promote research in rice innovation system, series of training is one option that can increase rice production, and high number of trainings will exhibit great confidence and intellect among the researchers in rice innovation system.

155 Table 17: Percentage distribution of researchers by socio-economic characteristics

Socio-economic characteristics Researchers Mean (n=40) X (%) Years of service in the organization Less than 5 35.0 6-10 10.0 12 years 11-15 20.0 16 and above 35.0

Educational level OND 0 NCE 0 HND 10.0

First degree(B.Sc,B.A) 52.5

M.Sc 20.0

PhD 17.5 Availability of rice on-farm trial Yes 82.5 No 17.5 Availability of training programmes Yes 100 No 0 Number of trainings organized in a year. 1-3 20.0 5 times 4-6 27.5 7 -9 52.5

156 4.9 Socio-economic characteristics of policy personnel

The socio-economic characteristics of the policy personnel presented in this section include: years of service in the organization, educational level, availability of training programmes, number of training organized in a year.

4.9 .1 Years of service in the organization

The data show that about (43.0%) of policy personnel years of service was 6-10 years,

35.5% of them had more than 16 years of service, while 21.1% of them had service less than 5 years. The mean score was 8 years which indicate that policy personnel had many service years in rice innovation system. The implication of this finding is that policy personnel are experienced; can formulate and execute high policy in rice innovation system.

4.9 .2 Educational level

The data also reveal that about (42.0%) of policy personnel had HND, 29.0% of them had Ordinary National Diploma (OND), 22.4% of them had B.Sc and 5.3% of them had M.Sc, while 1.3% of them had National Certificate of Education (NCE). This finding implies that staff of policy personnel were literates with different grades of educational qualifications; they possessed relevant educational background essential for effective implementation of policy formation objectives in rice innovation system. Educational qualification is an important yardstick for selection of agencies, and indeed actors in policy personnel (Madukwe, 2005). In other wards the high level of education among the respondents would likely make them more responsive in rice innovation system and its policies (Obinne, 1991).

157 4.9.3 Availability of training programmes

The results also reveal that majority (71.1%) of policy personnel conduct training programmes, 28.9% of them never conducted training programmes on improved rice technology. This suggests that with training the respondents become specialists in policy formulation in improved rice technology. This will expand and intensify the policy formulation among policy personnel in rice innovation system.

4.9.4 Number of training organised in a year

Records further show that majority (67.1%) of policy personnel organized 1-3 training programmes in a year. About 32.0% of them organized 4-6 training programmes in a year.

While 1.3% of them organized 7-9 training programmes. The mean score was 3 training programmes. This suggests greater capabilities for service delivery in policy formation. This implies that training has the potential to model ineffective policy personnel; and the amount of training received by policy personnel will strongly reflect on policy formed in rice innovation system.

158 Table 18: Percentage distribution of respondents in policy personnel by socio-

economic characteristics

Socio-economic characteristics policy personnel Mean (n= 76); No (%) ( X ) Years of service in the organization Less than 5 21.1 8 6-10 43.4 11-15 35.5 16 years and above 0 Educational level in organization OND 28.9 NCE 1.3 HND 42.1 First degree(B.Sc,B.A) 22.4 M.Sc 5.3 PhD 0 Availability of training programmes. Yes 71.1 No 28.9 Number of trainings organized in a year.

1-3 67.1 3 4-6 31.6 7 -9 1.3

159 4.10 Socio-economic characteristics of technology transfer agencies

The socio-economic characteristics of the technology transfer agencies presented in this section include: years of service in the organization, educational level, availability of rice on- farm trial, extension training programmes, number of training organized in a year.

4.10.1 Years of service in the organization

The results reveal that a greater proportion (69.2%) of technology transfer agencies years of service was 6-10 years, while 15.4% of technology transfer agencies years of service was 11-15 years, and 16 years and above respectively. The mean score was 7 years. This indicates that technology transfer agencies were experienced and have capability for service delivery in improved rice technology. This means that technology transfer agencies with more years of experience are better placed to make rational choice and decide among alternative in rice innovation system.The purpose of such interaction is essentially for the delivery of technological innovations, the soliciting of technical advice and the interchange of ideas and information on rice production issues in rice innovation system.

4.10.2 Educational level

Entries in Table 19 reveal that about (35.0%) of technology transfer agencies had HND,

34.1% of them had B.sc, while 15.4% had OND and M.Sc respectively. The results of the findings show that technology transfer agencies were literates and this is an advantage for rice innovation system as education has been shown to be a factor in high performance in rice innovation system (Obinne, 1991). This indicates that the technology transfer agencies are well read to understand and disseminate improved rice technology in rice innovation system.

160 4.10.3 Availability of rice on -farm trial

Similarly Table 19 show that majority (53.8%) of technology transfer agencies had on- farm trial on improved rice technology, while the remaining 46.2% of them never had rice on- farm trial. This implies that through on-farm trial, the technology transfer agencies practice and specialize in improved rice technology to be disseminated to the farmers in rice innovation system.

4.10.4 Number of training organised in a year

Similarly, majority (51.6%) of technology transfer agencies organized 4-6 training programmes in a year, while 46.2% of them organized 7-9 training programmes in a year. The mean score was 3 training programmes in a year. This implies that technology transfer agencies are highly competent in disseminating improved rice technologies since adequate training is received. Proper training is needed for frequent interaction and exchange of ideas among actors in rice innovation system (Lakoh, 1996).

161 Table 19: Percentage distribution of respondents in technology transfer agencies by

socio-economic characteristics

Socio-economic characteristics Technology transfer Mean agencies (n=91) X No (%) Years of service in the organization

Less than 5 0 6-10 69.2 7 11-15 15.4 16 years and above 15.4

Educational level in organization OND 15.4 NCE 0

HND 35.2

First degree (B.Sc,B.A) 34.1

M.Sc 15.4

PhD 0 Any rice on-farm trial Yes 53.8 No 46.2 Number of training organized in a year 1-3 46.2 3 4-6 51.6 7 -9 2.2

162 4.11 Perception of agronomic activities that are involved in rice production among

farmers

In examining perception of agronomic activities that are involved in rice production among farmers, mean scores were determined.

Data on Table 20 show that 15 items out of the 16 investigated were perceived by farmers as important in improved rice technology. These include: land acquisition ( X =2.35), land clearing ( X =2.42), land stumping ( X =2.25), ridge/mound making ( X =2.05), nursery preparation ( X =2.89), planting ( X =2.72), pest and disease control ( X =2.57), weeding

( X =2.51), fertilizer/agro-chemical application ( X =2.84), threshing/winnowing/drying

( X =2.68), storage ( X =2.63) and marketing ( X =2.30). The farmers rated water management

( X =1.99) less important activity in rice innovation system.

The findings show that the farmers perceived nursery preparation as the most important agronomic activity performed in rice production. Based on the findings, it seems safe to conclude that raising rice seedlings in the nursery is better than planting in-situ.

163 Table 20: Mean distribution of perception of agronomic activities that are involved in

rice production among farmers

Agronomic activities Farmers

Mean ( X ) SD

Land acquisition 2.35 0.74

Land clearing 2.42 0.67

Land Stumping 2.25 0.70

Ridge/Mound making 2.05 0.78

Nursery preparation 2.89 0.47

Planting 2.72 0.66

Pest and disease control 2.57 0.50

Weeding 2.51 0.76

Water management 1.99 0.79

Fertilizer/agro-chemical application 2.30 0.74

Trapping rodents/making scarecrows 2.30 0.87

Harvesting 2.84 0.37

Threshing/winnowing/drying 2.68 0.47

Storage 2.63 0.59

Marketing 2.30 0.74

Cut off point= 2.00; High=3; Moderate=2; Low=1

164 4.12. Linkages among the actors in rice innovation system

4.12.1 Researchers link with other actors in rice innovation system

The mean scores of researchesrs’ (National Cereal Research Institute (NCRI),

International Institute for Tropical Agriculture (IITA), National Institute of Horticultural

Research and Training (NIHORT), National Stored Product Research Institute (NSPRI),

Federal Institute of Industrial Research Oshodi (FIIRO), National Biotechnology Development

Agency (NABDA)) link with other actors in rice innovation system presented in this section include: NCRI had link with technology transfer agencies ( X =2.61), but had no link with policy personnel ( X =2.18), farmers ( X =0.00), marketers ( X =2.26) and consumers ( X =2.35) in rice innovation system respectively. Entries further revealed that IITA had link with policy personnel ( X = 2.60) and technology transfer agencies ( X =3.00) in rice innovation system respectively, while IITA had no link with farmers ( X =2.42), marketers ( X =2.18) and consumers ( X =2.35) in rice innovation system respectively.

Table 21 reveal that NIHORT had no link with policy personnel ( X =1.43), technology transfer agencies ( X =0.51), farmers ( X =1.92), marketers ( X =2.25) and consumers ( X =1.20) in rice innovation system respectively. Entries further reveal that NSPRI ( X =2.01) had no link with policy personnel ( X =2.28), technology transfer agencies, farmers ( X =2.35), marketers

( X =2.43) and consumers ( X =0.54) in rice innovation system respectively. Similarly FIIRO had no link with policy personnel ( X =1.68), technology transfer agencies ( X =0.38), farmers

( X =2.48), marketers ( X =2.43) and consumers ( X =1.88) in rice innovation system respectively, while NABDA had no link with policy personnel ( X =0.82), technology transfer agencies ( X =0.18), farmers ( X =1.99), marketers ( X =1.90) and consumers ( X =2.15) in rice innovation system respectively. The findings reveal that NCRI and IITA had link with technology transfer agencies while IITA had link with policy personnel in rice innovation

165 system.This implies that researchers link with actors may promote their mandates in line with their set objectives. On the other hand researchers no link with the actors may likely threaten the objectives, mandates and financial position of the agency. This highlights the complex relationships and interactions between actors and the organizational and institutional learning behaviours and practices that characterize the system of innovation (Spielman, 2006).

Table 21: Mean distribution of researchers link with other actors in rice innovation System

Organisations Policy Technology Farmers Marketers Consumers

Researchers personnel transfer

agencies

n=40; n=76 n=91 n=158 N=40 n=80

Mean Mean Mean Mean Mean Mean ( X )

( X ) ( X ) ( X ) ( X ) ( X )

NCRI - 2.18 2.61 0.00 2.26 2.35

IITA - 2.60 3.00 2.42 2.18 2.35

NIHORT - 1.43 0.51 1.92 2.25 1.20

NSPRI - 2.28 0.54 2.35 2.43 2.01

FIIRO - 1.68 0.38 2.48 2.43 1.88

NABDA - 0.82 0.18 1.99 1.90 2.15

Cut offpoint = 2.50; Strong link=4; Fair link=3; Loose link=2; No link=1

166 4.12.2 Pull mean of researchers link with other actors in rice innovation system

The pull mean scores of researchers’ (National Cereal Research Institute (NCRI),

International Institute for Tropical Agriculture (IITA), National Institute of Horticultural

Research and Training (NIHORT), National Stored Product Research Institute (NSPRI),

Federal Institute of Industrial Research Oshodi (FIIRO), National Biotechnology Development

Agency (NABDA)) link with other actors in rice innovation system presented in this section include: IITA had a fair link ( X =2.51) with other actors in rice innovation system. The entries further reveal that NSPRI ( X =1.92), NCRI ( X =1.88), FIIRO ( X =1.77), NIHORT ( X =1.75) and NABDA ( X =1.41) had loose link with other actors in rice innovation system.

It is not surprising that among researchers, IITA had a fair link with other actors in rice innovation system. The finding shows that the researchers might be working in isolation, which might generate a lot of discrepancies in production and dissemination of knowledge in rice innovation system.

167 Table 21a: Pull mean distribution of researchers’ link with other actors in rice innovation system

Organisations Researchers Policy Technology Farmers Marketers Consumers

personnel transfer

agencies

N=40; N=76 n=91 n=158 N=40 n=80 Pull mean

Mean Mean Mean Mean Mean ( X ) Mean ( X ) ( X )

( X ) ( X ) ( X ) ( X )

NCRI - 2.18 2.61 0.00 2.26 2.35 1.88

IITA - 2.60 3.00 2.42 2.18 2.35 2.51

NIHORT - 1.43 0.51 1.92 2.25 1.20 1.75

NSPRI - 2.28 0.54 2.35 2.43 2.01 1.92

FIIRO - 1.68 0.38 2.48 2.43 1.88 1.77

NABDA - 0.82 0.18 1.99 1.90 2.15 1.41

Cut offpoint = 2.50; Strong link=4; Fair link=3; Loose link=2; No link=1

4.12.3 Policy personnel link with other actors in rice innovation system

The mean scores of two organizations (Federal Ministry of Agriculture (FMA) and

National Agency for Food Drug Administration and Control (NAFDAC) investigated under

policy personnel link in rice innovation system were as follow: Federal Ministry of Agriculture

( X =2.51) had link with farmers while Federal Ministry of Agriculture ( X =2.18), ( X =0.41),

( X =2.08) and ( X =2.21) had no link with researchers, technology transfer agencies, marketers

and consumers in rice innovation system respectively. Similarly NAFDAC ( X =2.83) had link

with researchers, while there was no link ( X =1.03), ( X = 1.99), ( X =2.43) and ( X =1.68)

between NAFDAC with technology transfer agencies, farmers, marketers and consumers in rice

innovation system respectively. The finding reveals that there is no linkage between policy

personnel with technology transfer agencies, marketers and consumers in rice innovation

168 system. Lack of linkage affects the quality of knowlegde generation and knowledge

management upon which the long term success of rice innovation system depends.

Table 22: Mean distribution of policy personnel level of linkage with other actors in rice

innovation system

Policy Policy Technology Farmers Marketers Consumers personnel Researchers personnel transfer

agencies

n=40; n=76 n=91 n=158 n=40 n=80

Mean ( X ) Mean Mean ( X ) Mean Mean Mean ( X )

( X ) ( X ) ( X )

Federal

Ministry of 2.18 - 0.41 2.51 2.08 2.21

Agriculture

NAFDAC 2.83 - 1.03 1.99 2.43 1.68

Cut offpoint = 2.50; Strong link=4; Fair link=3; Loose link=2; No link=1

4.12.4 Pull mean of policy personnel link with other actors in rice innovation system

The pull mean scores of policy personnel (NAFDAC and Federal Ministry of Agriculture) link

with other actors in rice innovation system presented in this section include: NAFDAC

( X =1.99) and Federal Ministry of Agriculture ( X =1.88) had loose link with other actors in

rice innovation system. The policy personnel loose link with other actors could be that the rice

policies developed were foreign to the needs of other actors in rice innovation system.

169 Table 22a: Pull mean distribution of policy personnel level of linkage with other

actors in rice innovation system

Policy Policy Technology Farmers Marketers Consumer personnel Researchers personnel transfer s

Agencies

n=40; n=76 n=91 n=158 n=40 n=80

Mean Mean Mean Mean Mean Mean Pull mean

X ( X ) ( X ) ( X ) ( X ) ( X ) ( X ) ( )

Federal

Ministry of

Agriculture 2.18 - 0.41 2.51 2.08 2.21 1.88

NAFDAC 2.83 - 1.03 1.99 2.43 1.68 1.99

Cut offpoint = 2.50; Strong link=4; Fair link=3; Loose link=2; No link=1

4.12.5 Technology transfer agencies link with other actors in rice innovation system

The mean scores of the technology transfer agencies’ (Agricultural Development

Programmes (ADP), Farmers Cooperatives, and Federal Ministry of Commerce (FMC)) link

with other actors in rice innovation system presented in this section include: ADP ( X =3.00),

( X =2.88) and ( X =3.00) had link with researchers, policy personnel, farmers in rice innovation

system respectively, while ADP ( X =2.18) and ( X =2.35) had no link with marketers and

consumers respectively. The data further reveal that FMC ( X =2.73) had link with researchers,

while FMC ( X =1.46), ( X =2.30), ( X =2.10) and ( X =1.88) had no link with policy personnel,

technology transfer agencies, farmers, marketers and consumers respectively. Furthermore

170 Farmers Cooperatives ( X =1.48), ( X =2.25), ( X =2.30) and ( X =1.89) had no link with

researchers, policy personnel, farmers, marketers and consumers respectively.

It is not surprising that among technology transfer agencies, ADP had link with

researchers, policy personnel and farmers in rice innovation system, ADPs link with agricultural

technology generating system had been identified in innovation system (Dimelu and Anyanwu,

2008), while Federal Ministry of Commerce had link with researchers. This will invariable

promote technical base for the actors to share related technology knowledge and information in

rice innovation system. Technology transfer involves complex processes consisting of diverse

structures and relationship of inter-dependent factors and related variables aimed at enhancing

adoption of innovations (Madukwe, Okoli and Eze, 2002).

Table 23: Mean distribution of technology transfer agencies link with other actors in

rice innovation system

Technology Researchers Policy Technology Farmers Marketers Consumers transfer personnel transfer agencies agencies n=40; n=76 n=91 n=158 n=40 n=80 Mean ( X ) Mean ( X ) Mean ( X ) Mean Mean Mean ( X ) ( X ) ( X )

ADP 3.00 2.88 - 3.00 2.18 2.35 Federal Ministry of Commerce (FMC) 1.88 2.73 1.46 - 2.30 2.10 Farmers Cooperatives 1.48 1.31 - 2.25 2.30 1.89 Cut offpoint = 2.50; Strong link=4; Fair link=3; Loose link=2; No link=1

171 4.12.6 Pull mean of technology transfer agencies link with other actors in rice

innovation system

Entries in Table 23a show technology transfer agencies (Agricultural Development

Programmes (ADP), Federal Ministry of Commerce (FMC), Farmers Cooperatives) pull mean

link with other actors in rice innovation system as presented: ADP had strong link ( X =2.68),

while Federal Ministry of Commerce (FMC) ( X =2.09) and Farmers Cooperatives ( X =1.85)

had loose link with other actors in rice innovation system respectively. The ADP strong links

with other actors seem to reveal effective dissemination of information in rice innovation

system.

Table 23a: pull mean distribution of technology transfer agencies link with other actors in rice innovation system

Technology transfer Researchers Policy Technology Farmers Marketers Consumers

agencies personnel transfer

agencies

n=40; n=76 n=91 n=158 n=40 n=80 Pull mean

Mean Mean Mean ( X ) Mean ( X ) Mean ( X ) Mean ( X ) ( X )

( X ) ( X )

ADP 3.00 2.88 - 3.00 2.18 2.35 2.68

Federal Ministry of

Commerce (FMC) 2.73 1.46 - 2.30 2.10 1.88 2.09

Farmers Cooperatives 1.48 1.31 - 2.25 2.30 1.89 1.85

Cut offpoint = 2.50; Strong link=4; Fair link=3; Loose link=2; No link=1

172 4.12.7 Farmers link with other actors in rice innovation system

Data in Table 24 show that the farmers had link with researchers ( X =3.00), policy personnel ( X =2.82), technology transfer agencies ( X =3.00) and consumers ( X =2.84) in rice innovation system, while farmers had no link with marketers ( X =2.43). The farmers’ linkage with researchers, policy personnel, technology transfer agencies and consumers depend not only on how actors perform individually but also on how they interact with each other as elements of a collective system of knowledge that is creative and useful. Lack of farmers’ linkage with marketers is not surprising, since rice market does not convey a reward to quality from the consumers to the farmers and further up-stream to the researchers (Lancon et al , 2003).

Table 24: Mean distribution of farmers link with other actors in rice innovation system

Farmers Policy Technology Farmers Marketers Consumers

Researchers personnel transfer

agencies

n=40; n=76 n=91 n=158 n=40 n=80

Mean Mean Mean Mean Mean Mean

( X ) ( X ) ( X ) ( X ) ( X ) ( X )

Farmers 3.00 2.82 3.00 - 2.43 2.84

Cut offpoint = 2.50; Strong link=4; Fair link=3; Loose link=2; No link=1

173 4.12.8 Pull mean of farmers link with other actors in rice innovation system

Entries in Table 24a show that farmers had strong link ( X =2.82) with other actors

(researchers, policy personnel, technology transfer agencies, marketers, consumers) in rice

innovation system. This is not surprising since farmers are end users of knowledge in rice

innovation system. Through farmers’ strong link, other actors might become responsive to

needs in rice production.

Table 24a: Pull mean distribution of farmers link with other actors in rice innovation system

Farmers Policy Technology Farmers Marketers Consumers

Researchers personnel transfer

Agencies

n=40; n=76 n=91 n=158 n=40 n=80

Mean Mean Mean Mean Mean Mean ( X ) Pull mean

( X ) ( X ) ( X ) ( X ) ( X ) ( X )

Farmers 3.00 2.82 3.00 - 2.43 2.84 2.82

Cut offpoint = 2.50; Strong link=4; Fair link=3; Loose link=2; No link=1

4.12.9 Marketers link with other actors in rice innovation system

Entries in Table 25 show that marketers had link with policy personnel ( X =2.72) and

farmers ( X =2.68) in rice innovation system. The marketers had no link with researchers

( X =0.00), technology transfer agencies ( X =1.56) and consumers ( X =2.36) in rice innovation

system. This implies that the marketers’ links with policy personnel and farmers promotes the

flow of information and knowledge available in rice innovation system. While the marketers no

link with technology transfer agencies, research and consumers reveal a poor innovation spirit

in rice innovation system, which may limit the flow of information and cause weak role

174 performance in rice innovation system. However marketers’ having no link with consumers is surprising, since consumers as end users, purchase most of their rice produce from the marketers.

Table 25: Mean distribution of marketers’ link with other actors in rice innovation system

Marketers Policy Technology Farmers Marketers Consumers

Researchers personnel transfer

agencies

n=40; n=76 n=91 n=158 n=40 n=80

Mean Mean Mean Mean Mean Mean

( X ) ( X ) ( X ) ( X ) ( X ) ( X )

Marketers 0.00 2.79 1.56 2.68 - 2.36

Cut offpoint = 2.50; Strong link=4; Fair link=3; Loose link=2; No link=1

4.12.10 Pull mean of marketers link with other actors in rice innovation system

Data in Table 25a show that marketers had loose link ( X =1.88) with other actors

(researchers, policy personnel, technology transfer agencies, farmers, consumers) in rice innovation system. Marketers’ loose link with other actors could result to gap in sale of rice produce (set pre-season prices), especially between marketers and farmers. This could lead to uncoordinated middlemen activities in rice production.

175 Table 25a: Pull m ean distribution of marketers’ link with other actors in rice innovation system

Marketers Researchers Policy Technology Farmers Marketers Consumers

personnel transfer

agencies

n=40; n=76 n=91 n=158 n=40 n=80 Pull mean

Mean Mean Mean Mean Mean Mean ( X )

( X ) ( X ) ( X ) ( X ) ( X ) ( X )

Marketers 0.00 2.79 1.56 2.68 - 2.36 1.88

4.12.11 Consumers link with other actors in rice innovation system

The consumers had link with farmers ( X =2.72) in improved rice technology, while of

consumers had no link with researchers ( X =0.00), policy personnel ( X =1.54), technology

transfer agencies ( X =1.56) and marketers ( X =2.31) respectively. Consumers link with

farmers is not unexpected, if consumers taste, texture, aroma, or appearance of a newly

developed variety are not met by farmers, the usefulness of rice innovation system will be

greatly impaired (Webb, 1979). This implies that the more the consumers rice preference is

satisfied, the stronger their link with farmers in rice innovation system.

176 Table 26: Mean distribution of consumers’ link with other actors in rice innovation System

Consumers Researchers Policy Technology Farmers Marketers Consumers personnel transfer agencies n=40; n=76 n=91 n=158 n=40 n=80

Mean Mean Mean Mean Mean Mean

( X ) ( X ) ( X ) ( X ) ( X ) ( X )

Consumers 0.00 1.54 1.56 2.72 2.30 -

Cut offpoint = 2.50; Strong link=4; Fair link=3; Loose link=2; No link=1

4.12.12 Pull mean of consumers link with other actors in rice innovation system

The pull mean scores of the consumers, show loose link ( X =1.53) with other actors

(researchers, policy personnel, technology transfer agencies, farmers, marketers) in rice

innovation system. Consumers’ loose link is not surprising as their main concern seem more on

processed rice.

Table 26a: Pull mean mean distribution of consumers’ link with other actors in rice

innovation system

Consumers Policy Technology Farmers Marketers Consumers

Researchers personnel transfer

agencies

n=40; n=76 n=91 n=158 n=40 n=80

Mean Mean Mean Mean Mean Mean Pull mean

( X ) ( X ) ( X ) ( X ) ( X ) ( X ) ( X )

Consumers 0.00 1.54 1.56 2.72 2.30 - 1.53

177 4.13 Linkage mechanisms of (researchers, policy personnel, technology transfer agencies and farmers) respondents in rice innovation system

Entries in Table 27 show the major linkage mechanisms used by key actors (researchers, policy personnel, technology transfer agencies and farmers) in rice innovation system. The overall mean scores for the variables show that the respondents agreed to dissemination of knowledge and information ( X =3.00), Joint problem identification ( X =2.72), joint seminar and workshop training ( X =2.65), joint demonstration trials ( X =2.54), evaluation reports

( X =2.53) , evaluation field visits ( X =2.51), joint research activities ( X =2.49), joint cross research and training ( X =2.48), collaborative professional activities ( X =2.43), evaluation of meeting ( X =2.39), joint priority setting and planning committees ( X =2.37), joint curriculum development feedback ( X =2.27), joint programming ( X =2.22), evaluation survey ( X =2.18), joint field day ( X =2.11), joint reports ( X =2.80), joint audio visual materials ( X =2.02 ), joint research contract ( X =2.00).

The respondents individually perceived linkage mechanisms as follows: the researchers agreed to all 23 items as variables in rice innovation system. This indicates that rice innovation system requires an integrated quality management along the entire commodity chain from rice production, through processing and marketing.

Policy personnel did not use cross research and training ( X =1.93), joint curriculum development feedback ( X =1.93), exchange of resources ( X =1.70), use of foreign resources

( X =1.65), joint reports ( X =1.54), staff rotation ( X =1.54), joint publication ( X =1.53) and contract for services ( X =1.33) as linkage mechanisms. There were 11 items rated by technology transfer agencies as less important linkage mechanisms: joint reports ( X =1.92), evaluation ( X =1.87), joint programming ( X =1.70), joint publication ( X =1.46), exchange of resources ( X =1.36), joint field day ( X =1.35), joint research contract ( X =1.15), use of foreign

178 resources ( X =1.00), contract for services ( X =1.00), state rotation ( X =1.00), and joint audio visual materials ( X =1.00).

The data rated 13 items perceived by farmers as less important linkage mechanisms in rice innovation system: joint publication ( X =1.94), evaluation meeting ( X =1.92), evaluation of reports ( X =1.90), joint curriculum development feedback ( X =1.87), joint programming

( X =1.86), evaluation survey ( X =1.82), joint priority setting and planning committees

( X =1.82), joint audio visual materials ( X =1.82), staff rotation ( X =1.81), joint research contract ( X = 1.77), exchange of resources ( X =1.77), contract for services ( X =1.63) and use of foreign resources ( X =1.47).

Futhermore dissemination of knowledge and information ( X =3.00) was perceived by researchers, policy personnel, technology transfer agencies and farmers as most important linkage mechanism in rice innovation system.

The results showed that the respondents disagreed to those linkage mechanisms that may likely threaten the objectives, mandates and financial position of rice innovation system. Thus the identified linkage mechanisms may require some level of restructuring in operation of rice innovation system.

179 Table 27: Mean distribution of linkage mechanisms of (researchers, policy personnel,

technology transfer agencies and farmers) respondents in rice innovation system

Linkage mechanisms Researchers Policy Technology Farmers Grand Rank personnel transfer agencies Mean Mean Mean Mean Mean ( X ) ( X ) ( X ) ( X ) ( X ) Dissemination of knowledge and information 3.00 3.00 3.00 3.00 3.00 1st Joint problem identification 3.00 2.08 3.00 2.80 2.72 2nd Joint seminar and workshop 3.00 2.61 2.43 2.58 2.65 3rd training Joint demonstration trials 3.00 2.12 2.85 2.19 2.54 4th Evaluation of reports 2.83 2.74 2.67 1.90 2.53 5th Evaluation of field visits 3.00 2.82 2.21 2.04 2.51 6th Joint research activities 3.00 2.25 2.65 2.09 2.49 7th Cross research and training 3.00 1.93 2.86 2.14 2.48 8th Collaborative professional activities 2.80 2.33 2.47 2.15 2.43 9th Evaluation of meeting 3.00 2.61 2.03 1.92 2.39 10 th Joint priority setting and planning committees 3.00 2.18 2.49 1.82 2.37 11 th Joint curriculum development 3.00 1.93 2.29 1.87 2.27 12 th feedback Joint programming 3.00 2.34 1.70 1.86 2.22 13 th Evaluation survey 3.00 2.04 1.87 1.82 2.18 14 th Joint field day 2.80 2.07 1.35 2.25 2.11 15 th Joint reports 2.80 1.54 1.92 2.06 2.08 16 th joint audio visual materials 3.00 2.29 1.00 1.82 2.02 17 th Joint research contract 3.00 2.11 1.15 1.77 2.00 18 th Exchange of resources 3.00 1.70 1.36 1.77 1.95 19 th Joint publication 2.80 1.53 1.46 1.94 1.93 20 th Staff rotation 3.00 1.54 1.00 1.81 1.83 21 st Use of foreign resources 2.00 1.65 1.00 1.47 1.53 22 nd Contract for services 2.00 1.33 1.00 1.63 1.49 23 rd Cut off point =2.00; High=3; Moderate=2; Low=1

180 4.14 Strategies for enhancing effective linkage among the (researchers, policy personnel, technology transfer agencies, farmers, marketers, consumers) agencies in rice innovation system

Data in Table 28 show the respondents perception of the strategies for enhancing effective linkage among the agencies in rice innovation system. Researchers agreed to the strategies of ban on rice imports ( X =4.00), establishing destoner mills ( X =4.00), promotion of

NGO involvement ( X =3.18), set pre-season prices ( X =3.83), subsidy on fertilizer ( X =4.00), intensifying research ( X =4.00) and promotion of active extension ( X =3.18).

Policy personnel expressed the following strategies for enhancing effective linkage in rice innovation system: ban on rice imports ( X =2.92), establishing destoner mills ( X =3.22), promotion of NGO involvement ( X =2.83), set pre-season prices ( X =2.82), subsidy on fertilizer ( X =3.57) and promotion of active extension ( X =3.64).

Technology transfer agencies rated the followings as strategies enhancing effective linkage in rice innovation system: establishing destoner mills ( X =4.00), promotion of NGO involvement ( X =3.00), set pre-season prices ( X =3.31), subsidy on fertilizer ( X = 3.66), intensifying research ( X =3.66) and promotion of active extension ( X =3.67). Technology transfer agencies disagreed to ban on rice imports ( X =2.18) as strategy for enhancing effective linkage among the agencies in rice innovation system.

Data in Table 28 show that farmers indicated the followings as strategies for enhancing effective linkage in rice innovation system: ban on rice imports ( X =3.13), establishing destoner mills ( X =3.61), promotion of NGO involvement ( X =3.41), set pre-season prices

( X =3.06), subsidy on fertilizer ( X = 3.61), intensifying research ( X =3.84) and promotion of active extension ( X =3.61).

181 There is the need for the development of a comprehensive and public price information system in rice innovation system. Langtau (2003) observed that actors in rice innovation system have neither a role in fixing rice prices nor serve as information source on prices. The dissemination of price information may contribute to developing a common base of information for all actors involved in rice innovation system (Akande and Akpokodje, 2003).

This suggests the need for regulation of prices of rice inputs and rice produce in rice innovation system.

Entries in Table 28 show that marketers perceived the followings as strategies for enhancing improved rice technology: ban on rice imports ( X =3.80), establishment of destoner mills ( X =3.62), promotion of NGO involvement ( X =3.80), set pre-season prices ( X =3.55), subsidy on fertilizer ( X =3.35), intensifying research ( X =3.47) and promotion of active extension ( X =3.40).

Similarly, results reveal that consumers perceived the following as strategies for enhancing effective rice innovation system: ban on rice imports ( X =3.67), establishment of destoner mills ( X =3.46), promotion of NGO involvement ( X =3.83), set pre-season prices

( X =2.92), subsidy on fertilizer ( X =4.00), intensifying research ( X =3.64) and promotion of active extension ( X =3.72).

Individual respondents vary in their perception of strategies for enhancing rice innovation system. The researchers, policy institutions, marketers and consumers agreed to all the seven items: ban on rice imports, establishment of destoner mills, and promotion of NGO involvement, set pre-season prices, subsidy on fertilizer, intensifying research and promotion of active extension as strategies for enhancing rice innovation system. The use of ban on rice will undoubtedly reduce rice production costs, increase demand for local rice and enhance rice innovation system (Oyejide, Ogunkola and Bankole, 2005).

182 The results show that the researchers revealed four most important strategies for enhancing rice innovation system that were of the same mean score: ban on rice imports, establishment of destoner mills, subsidy on fertilizer and intensifying research. Policy institutions perceived promotion of active extension as the most important strategy in rice innovation system. It is recognized that a policy which provides adequate trained and well- equipped technology transfer agencies that has the potential to disseminate information on improved rice technology is very vital in rice innovation system (Erenstein et al , 2003).

Technology transfer agencies perceived establishment of destoner mills as most important enhancing strategy in rice innovation system. Longtau (2003) observed that destoner is important in post-harvesting of rice. The investment in destoners is necessary but it would have a real impact only if the quality issue is tackled holistically at the various stages of the commodity chain to establish an enabling rice innovation system through the emergence of a shared concern among stakeholders (Lancon et al , 2003).

The data further showed that the farmers’ most important strategy perceived was intensifying research. The results also reveal that marketers perceived two most important enhancing strategies as: ban on rice imports and promotion of NGO involvement. Similarly, the findings show that consumers perceived subsidy on fertilizer as the most important enhancing strategy in rice innovation system. Farmers need adequate amount of fertilizer at the right time to obtain high yields in rice production (Onwuka, 2005). Based on individual respondents, strategies for enhancing rice innovation system could be discussed as follows:

• Ban on rice import: Ban on rice import will encourage local rice production; lead to

increase in rice production; reduction in foreign exchange expenditure on rice importation,

and the country being self sufficient in rice production. Through ban on rice import there

will be increase in farmers’ rice sale and income earning. Ban on rice imports in 1989

resulted in a rapid increase in rice production; the subsequent relaxation of this ban in

183 recent years has led to hardship on rice producers in the country (Fagade, 2001). It is

important that governments develop policies which play a positive role in sustainable rice

production.

• Establishment of destoner mill: There is complete absence of destoners and modern

technology of drying and milling of local rice in most developing countries (Basorun,

2010). Hand-threshing on the soil is responsible for the high percentage of stones and

foreign matter mixed with the rice. Introduction of destoner in rice processing will involve

policy personnel (policy formation), researchers (machine fabrication), technology

transfer agencies (dissemination of knowledge and information), farmers (operations),

marketers (sale of processed rice) and consumers (consumption) in rice innovation system.

• Promotion of NGOs involvement: NGOs involvement in rice production is crucial as

strategy in enhancing the level of linkage in rice innovation system. It will entail strong

link between the actors, and better coordination, and networking capacity of various

NGOs with various actors, ranging from researchers, policy personnel, technology transfer

agencies, marketers to consumers. The rationale for NGOs promotion as effective linkage

strategy could be to pool resources to more effectively develop research on new

technology, building capacity and contributing towards research funding in rice

innovation system.

• Set pre-season prices: Rice innovation system can be promoted through pre-season prices

set in rice production, especially among the farmers and marketers. Through set pre-

season price, the farmers can easily purchase inputs (seed varieties, fertilizer, and agro-

chemical) at the cheapest and stable price available. To cope with fluctuating market

prices, there is need to enhance effective pre-season price among the actors in rice

innovation system (World, 2006). Without a coordinating body to develop more

productive forms of interaction in pre-season prices, rice innovation may well collapse.

184 • Subsidy on fertilizer: Fertilizers, play an important role in rice production with

government subsidy on fertilizer, there will be less risk of farmers use of adulterated and

yet very expensive fertilizer in rice production (Langtau, 2003).

• Intesifying research: Research has always been modelled according to western agenda and

methods (Fagade, 2001). This has to change in favour of collaborative research with

researchers, policy personnel, technology transfer agencies, farmers, marketers,

consumers) to enhance effective linkage strategies in rice innovation system. This will

strengthen new ideas in rice production to be within reach of farmers by increasing their

capacity in the field. Hence active technology transfer services are key requirements for

the dissemination of developed technologies to rice farmers. Therefore, new technologies

should be disseminated effectively and rapidly by technology transfer agencies so that

they can be adopted by farmers.

• Promotion of active extension: effective linkage will be established between actors in rice

innovation system through workshops, exchange visits, bulletins and leaflets. The

different actors will through these processes be informed on the activities of other actors

in rice innovation system. It will promote adoption of new technologies especially among

the farmers.

185 Table 28: Strategies for enhancing effective linkage among (researchers, policy personnel, technology transfer agencies, farmers, marketers, consumers) agencies in rice innovation system

S/no Strategies Researchers Poliy Technology Farmers Marketers Consumers personnel transfer agencies Mean Mean Mean Mean Mean Mean

X X X X X X 1 Ban on rice imports 4.00 2.92 2.18 3.13 3.80 3.67

2 Establishment of destoner mills 4.00 3.22 4.00 3.61 3.62 3.46

3 Promotion of NGO involvement 3.18 2.83 3.00 3.41 3.80 3.83

4 Set pre-season prices 3.83 2.82 3.31 3.06 3.55 2.92

5 Subsidy on fertilizer 4.00 3.57 3.66 3.61 3.35 4.00

6 Intensifying research 4.00 3.57 3.66 3.84 3.47 3.64

7 Promotion of active extension 3.18 3.64 3.67 3.61 3.40 3.72

Cut off-point=2.50; Very effective=4, Moderatly effective=3, Less effective=2, Not effective=1,

4.15 Relationship between the socio-economic characteristics of key actors (farmers, marketers and consumers) in rice innovation system and the level of linkages among them

Multiple regression analysis was carried out to determine if there is relationship between

socio-economic characteristics of farmers in rice innovation system and the level of linkages

among them. The result of the regression analysis is presented in Table 29. The table shows that

57.7% of variation on the linkage level of farmers with other major stakeholders toward rice

innovation system could be explained by the explanatory variables in the equation.

Furthermore, five out of seven explanatory variables were found to contribute significantly to

the predictor variables, which were sex, marital status, education, primary occupation, source of

information. This implies that sex, marital status, education, primary occupation and source of

information of farmers made significant contribution to the level of linkage among marketers

and consumers in rice innovation system.

186 The overall regression result showed that there is a significant relationship (F=29.20

(p<0.05) between some socio-economic characteristics of the farmers (sex, marital status, education, primary occupation and source of information) and the level of linkage in rice innovation system.

Entries in Table 29 reveal that multiple regression analysis was carried out to determine if there is relationship between socio-economic characteristics of marketers in rice innovation system and the level of linkages among them. The table shows that 91.8 % of variation on the linkage level of marketers with other major stakeholders toward rice innovation system could be explained by the explanatory variables in the equation. Furthermore, four out of five explanatory variables were found to contribute significantly to the predictor variable, which were sex, education, primary occupation, source of information. This implies that sex, marital status, education, primary occupation and source of information of marketers made significant contribution to the level of linkage among farmers and consumers in rice innovation system.

The overall regression result showed that there is a significant relationship (F=76.42

(p<0.05) between some socio-economic characteristics of the marketers (sex, marital status, education, primary occupation and source of information) and the level of linkage among farmers and consumers in rice innovation system.

Data further show multiple regression analysis carried out to determine if there is relationship between socio-economic characteristics of consumers in rice innovation system and the level of linkages among them. The result of the regression analysis is presented in Table 29.

The table shows that 39.5% of variation on the linkage level of consumers with other major stakeholders toward rice innovation system could be explained by the explanatory variables in the equation.

Furthermore, four out of five explanatory variables were found to contribute significantly to the predictor variable, which were sex, age, household size, education.

187 The overall regression result showed that there is a significant relationship (F=9.66

(p<0.05) between some socio-economic characteristics of the consumers (sex, age, household size, education) and the level of linkage among farmers and marketers in rice innovation system.

In general, the overall regression models for the key actors (farmers (F=29.20), marketers

(F =76.42) and consumers (F =9.66)) show a significant relationship; hence the null hypothesis between the socio-economic characterisctics of the key actors (farmers, marketers, and consumers) in rice innovation system was rejected.

Table 29: Multiple regression analysis of relationship between key actors (farmers, marketers, consumers) socio-economic characteristics and the linkage level in rice innovation system

Socio-economic Farmers Marketers Consumers characteristics Constant 18.603 39.536 -18.873 Sex 4.056* -15.982* 5.088* Age 0.588 -0.500 6.467* Marital status 2.331* 8.459 Household size 0.605 1.562* Primary occupation -3.829* 2.107* Education 1.627* 4.732* 1.998* Source of information 0.840* 6.143* R2 0.577 0.918 0.395 Adjusted R-squared 0.557 0.906 0.354 F-cal 29.199* 76.424* 9.664* N 158 40 80 *significant at 0.05 level

188 CHAPTER FIVE

SUMMARY, CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATION

5.1 Summary

In the face of changing environmental and economic realities, innovation system in agriculture constitutes the cornerstone in efforts to develop rice production. Evidence from the study suggests that the patterns of interactions necessary to create dynamic rice innovation system are frequently absent. The problem is not that the actors are absent in innovation system, rather they are not playing the required roles or they have not formed the relationships required to support the dialogue that leads to fruitful interaction, learning and innovation.

Objectives of the study

The study analysed rice innovation system in Southeast Nigeria. Specifically, the study was designed to:

1. review policies, acts and initiatives in rice innovation system;

2. describe socio-economic characteristics of various key actors in rice innovation system;

3. discuss the activities of selected key actors in rice innovation system;

4. ascertain the level of linkages existing among the selected key actors in rice innovation

system; and

5. identify strategies for enhancing effective linkage among key actors in rice innovation

system It also sought to test the following hypothesis:

189 Hypothesis

The hypothesis was set in the null form as:

1) Ho: There is no significant relationship between the socio-economic characteristics of key actors (farmers, marketers and consumers) in rice innovation system and the level of linkages among them.

Methodology

This research study was carried out in southeast Nigeria. The study population constituted all stakeholders in rice innovation system in southeast Nigeria. These actors were classified and regrouped into researchers, policy personnel, technology transfer agencies, farmers, marketers and consumers. The respondents were purposively selected for the study. A total of 539 questionnaires were administered in four states of the southeast states of Nigeria; namely Abia,

Anambra, Ebonyi and Enugu states. While 496 copies of the questionnaires were used for the study. Primary data was collected through interview and structured questionnaires for six key actors, while secondary data were sourced from books, journals, magazines, project reports and internet. Data generated from study were analysed using both descriptive and inferential statistics. The 15.0 Statistical Package for Social Science (SPSS) software was used to analyse the data.

Major findings

Review policies, acts and initiatives in rice innovation system

Policies associated with rice production have changed in a dynamic way over time.There have been fluctuations in rice production. From historical perspective, rice policies and acts in

Nigeria can be discussed under three periods: pre-ban, ban and the post-ban periods.

190 Characteristics of farmers, marketers and consumers in improved rice technology

The study revealed that the mean age of farmers, marketers and consumers were 23 years, 40 years, 37 years respectively. Majority of farmers (59.5%) and marketers (60.0%) were male respectively. The consumers accounted for 70.0% of female respondents in the study.

Most farmers (88.2%) and consumers (82.5%) were married while all (100%) of marketers were married. The findings showed that (84.2%) of the farmers primary occupation was farming and

(62.5%) of marketers were traders. Mean farming experience for farmers was 35.5 years.

Findings further revealed that (63.2%) of farmers’ sourced information on improved rice technology from ADP, (77.5%) of marketers from mass media. The farmers mean score for farm size was 1.05 hectares, (84.2%) of them were landowners through inheritance while 51.3% of them had their main source of labour through family + hired labour. Majority (70.2%) of farmers became aware of improved rice technology in 2001-2006.

The farmers’ adoption of improved rice technology

The results reveal that farmers adopted all the 13 items ( improved varieties, tillage/land preparation, fertilizer use / application, milling / processing, planting method (line planting), pest and disease control ( pesticides, seed treatment), weeding techniques, harvesting (panicle harvesting) , threshing, parboiling, rice weighing, rice bagging (synthetic bags), and rice storage

(air tight containers, use of phostoxin) in improved rice technology.

Constraints to adoption of improved rice technology as perceived by farmers

Farmers perceived all the 16 items: poor soil fertility ( X =2.30), lack of finance

( X =2.78), competition from weed ( X =2.42), disease/ infection problems ( X =2.46), land tenure problems ( X =2.45), poor storage facilities ( X =2.44), poor access to farm ( X =2.44), high cost of agrochemical ( X =2.73), poor extension contact ( X =3.00), lack of inorganic

191 fertilizer ( X =2.72), high transport cost ( X =2.34), lack of processing facilities/ standard measure for rice ( X =2.77), lack of tractor ( X =2.61), high cost of hired labour ( X =2.39), lack of credit ( X =2.95) and delay in supply of improved rice varieties ( X =2.89) investigated as constraints in improved rice technology.

Marketers (70.0%) purchased 25,000 kg volume of rice monthly, their mean was 192 kg,

(60.0%) of marketers sold local rice and (55.0%) of them had transportation problems in rice marketing. The results further indicated that mean household size for consumers was 5 persons,

(65.0%) of consumers preferred foreign rice, about (36.0%)s consumed 10 kg of rice with mean of 40 kg, (67.5%) complained on quality ( colour, size, taste and stones) of rice bought, while (85.0%) consumers visited rice mills.

Characteristics of researchers, policy personnel, technology transfer agencies in improved rice technology

The findings indicated that researchers had an average of 12 years in service; policy institutions had an average of 8 years in service, while technology transfer agencies had an average of 7 years in service. Researchers (53%) and policy personnel (42.1%) had first degree

(B.Sc/B.A) respectively. However, 35.2% of technology transfer agencies had HND. The study revealed that (82.5%) and (46.2%) of researchers and technology transfer agencies had rice on- farm trial respectively. The mean of land under rice cultivation was 3.35 hectares and 1.07 hectares for researchers and technology transfer agencies respectively. Results further revealed that all (100%) of researchers and (71.0%) policy personnel had training programme respectively. While (71.1%) of policy personnel had training programmes. The mean of the number of times training programme was organized in a year were 5, 3 and 3 for researchers, policy personnel and technology transfer agencies respectively.

192 Agronomic activities that are involved in rice production among farmers

Results showed fifteen activities (land acquisition, land clearing, land lumping, ridge/mound making, nursery preparation, planting, pest and disease control, weeding, fertilizer/agro-chemical application, threshing/winnowing/drying; storage and marketing) perceived by farmers as important in improved rice technology.

Linkages among the actors in rice innovation system

The results showed that NCRI had link with technology transfer agencies ( X =2.61), while IITA had link with policy personnel ( X =2.60) and technology transfer agencies

( X =3.00) in rice innovation system respectively. This implies that the link may promote their mandates in line with their set objectives. Further more NAFDAC had link with policy personnel ( X =2.51); technology transfer agencies had link with researchers ( X =3.00), policy personnel ( X =2.88) and farmers ( X =3.00) in rice innovation system. Farmers had link with researchers ( X =3.00), policy personnel ( X =2.82), technology transfer agencies ( X =3.00) and consumers ( X =3.00) in rice innovation system. Similarly marketers had link with policy personnel ( X =2.72) and farmers ( X =2.68) respectively, while consumers had link with farmers ( X =2.72) in rice innovation system. The pull mean revealed farmers strong link with other actors (researchers, policy personnel, technology transfer agencies, marketers and consumers) in rice innovation system.

Linkage mechanisms

The results reveal that all the 23 items were perceived as linkage mechanisms in rice innovation system, while the (researchers, policy personnel, technology transfer agencies,

193 farmers, marketers and consumers) respondents had same rank ( X =3.00) on dissemination of knowledge and information as most important in rice innovation system.

Strategies for enhancing effective linkage among the (researchers, policy personnel, technology transfer agencies, farmers, marketers, consumers) agents in rice innovation system

Researchers

Based on the overall mean scores ( X =4.00) the researchers highly perceived ban on rice imports, establishment of destoner mills , subsidy on fertilizer and intensifying research as strategies for effective linkage in rice innovation system respectively .

Policy personnel

Policy personnel revealed promotion of active extension ( X =2.83) as the most important strategy in rice innovation system.

Technology transfer agencies

The study showed that technology transfer agencies indicated establishment of destoner mills ( X =4.00) as most important enhancing strategy in rice innovation system.

Farmers

Farmers most important strategy was intensifying research in rice innovation system with an overall mean of ( X =3.84).

Marketers

Results further showed that marketers most important strategies were ban on rice imports and promotion of NGO involvement rice innovation system with an overall mean of ( X =3.80) respectively.

194 Consumers

The study revealed that subsidy on fertilizer ( X =4.00) was perceived as most important enhancing strategy in rice innovation system.

Relationship between socio-economic characteristics of key actors (farmers, marketers and consumers) in rice innovation system and the level of linkages among them Multiple regression analysis was carried out to determine if there is relationship between socio-economic characteristics of farmers in rice innovation system and the level of linkages among them. Furthermore, five explanatory variables were found to contribute significantly to the predictor variable, which were sex, marital status, education, primary occupation, source of information.The regression for the farmers show a significant relationship with F=29.20 ( p< 0.05). This implies that the null hypothesis which states that there is significant relationship between socio-economic characteristics of key actor (farmers) in rice innovation system and the level of linkages among marketers and consumers was rejected.

Multiple regression analysis was carried out to determine if there is relationship between socio-economic characteristics of marketers in rice innovation system and the level of linkages among them. The regression for the marketers show a significant relationship with F=76.42

(p< 0.05). This implied that the null hypothesis was rejected.

Data futher showed multiple regression analysis carried out to determine if there is relationship between socio- economic characteristics of consumers in rice innovation system and the level of linkages among them. The regression for the consumers show a significant relationship with F =9.66 (p< 0.05). This implied that the null hypothesis was rejected.

In general, the overall regression models for the key actors (farmers (F =29.20), marketers

(F =76.42) and consumers (F =9.66) show a significant relationship.

195 5.2 Conclusion

Based on the major findings, the following conclusions were reached.

1. The key actors in improved rice technology were dominated by married male

farmers and marketers, and married female consumers. The actors were literates with

different grades of educational qualifications.

2. Higher proportion of farmers relied on the ADP as their source of information. Also

the marketers source of information was mainly from friends/fellow marketers. The

challenges for policy makers were to co-ordinate and regulate the activities of the

technology transfer agencies based on the set objectives.

3. Researchers and policy personnel were provided with agricultural training

programmes. Training programme received by researchers was 7-9 times in a year.

Majority of the technology transfer agencies provided on-farm trial in rice

innovation system.

4. The results showed high demand for foreign rice among the marketers and

consumers. Also nursery preparation was most important agronomic activity among

farmers in improved rice technology.

5. Dissemination of information was vital linkage mechanism among the actors

(researchers, policy personnel, technology transfer agencies, farmers, marketers and

consumers).

6. The results of the pull mean showed that farmers had strong link with actors (

researchers, policy personnel, technology transfer agencies, marketers and

consumers) researchers, in rice innovation system, researcher (IITA) had Fair link,

while policy personnel, technology transfer agencies, marketers and consumers had

loose link in rice innovation system.

196 7. Respondents identified important strategies to improved rice technology to

include: ban on rice imports, establishment of destoner mills, subsidy on fertilizers,

intensifying research, promotion of NGO involvement in rice innovation system.

5.3 Recommendations

1. To improve the overall effectiveness of the rice innovation system in southeast Nigeria,

government should ensure that skills and knowledge of the stakeholders in rice

innovation system are improved through seminars, conferences, workshops and

agricultural training programmes. This will go a long way to increase rice production.

2. There is need for policy personnel to design policies and programs to strengthen

innovative capabilities among stakeholders in rice innovation system; create more space

for both public sector service providers and other actors to participate and cooperate

within smallholder innovation networks.

3. Stakeholders knowledge and access to information should be improved through

electronic media and internets by policy makers. Types of information covered should

include rice quality grades; varietal attributes; market information; information on rice

processing equipment (sources, prices, types); relevant material on rice sector.

4. It is suggested that training of rice stakeholders for capacity building & organizational

strengthening should be promoted by policy makers. Actors need training on modern

small-scale processing methods (parboiling and milling technology, destoners). Also

technology transfer agencies should train farmers on improved farming technologies

such as improved seeds, bagging, and storage facilities

5. It is advised that research should increase homogeneity of paddy starting at farm level (

include homogeneity of seed and post-harvest handling of varieties to prevent mixing) and

197 should be initiated in rice innovation system. This could be done through training of

farmers and dissemination of the skill by technology transfer agencies.

6. Harmonisation and enforcement of rice quality standards taking into account of marketers

and consumers current practices should be encouraged in rice innovation system by policy

makers. Rice technology situation of market information and ways to develop a more

comprehensive improved rice technology, that can link actors especially end-users of rice

could be assessed and implimented.

7. Rice innovation system does not only include stakeholders and interactions, but also

mandates that guide such interaction. To achieve the desired increase in rice production and

strong linkage mechanisms, appropriate framework should be established among the actors in

rice innovation system. It is important that periodic evaluation of the programme be undertaken

so as to know at what point to make amends and adjustments.

5.4 Suggestions for further research

1. There is need for the study to be replicated in other agro-ecological zones of the

country.

2. An in depth study of organisations involved in improved rice technology.

198 REFERENCES

Adeola, R.G., Adebayo, O.O. and Oyelere, G.O. (2008). Effects of the federal government special rice programme on rice yields and farmers income in Oyo State. International Journal of Agricultural Economics and Rural development (IJAERD) -1(1): IJAERD Press, Nigeria. http://www.lautechaee-ed.com/journal/ijaerd1/ijaerd%20- %20./%20edition.pdf ( retrieved, 2nd February 2009)

Adewale, J.G, Olaniyi, O.A. and Adamou, N.A. (2007). Farmers’ adoption of improved rice technology in Niamey, Rive Droite Area, Niger Republic. World Journal of Agricultural Sciences, vol 3(4), pp 530-535. www.idosi.org/wjas3(4)/19.pdf ( retrieved,8 nd February 2009)

Afolabi, J A. (2009). An assessment of garri marketing in south-west Nigeria. Journal of social science, vol 21(10, pp. 33-34. http://www.krepublishers.com/on-journals/jas/1 . ( retrieved, 5 th june 2009)

Agbamu, J.U. (2000). Agricultural research-extension linkage systems: An international perspective, Agricultural Research and Extension Network (AGREN) Network Paper 106a, 1-8. http:/www.odi.org.uk/agren/papers/agren paper_106a, pdf (retrieved,4 th March 2009)

Agbamu, J.U (2005). Problems and prospects of agricultural extension service in developing countries. In: Adedoyin, S.F. (ed) Agricultural extension in Nigeria. Agricultural Extension Society of Nigeria (AESON) . Ilorin, pp.159-169.

Agence France Presse (AFP, 2008). Nigeria to import 500,000 tonnes of rice: official. yahoo! news. Mht. advant.blogspot.com/2008_06_01_archive.html

Agwu, A.E., Dimelu, M.U. and Madukwe, M.C. (2008). Innovation system approach to agricultural development: Policy implications for agricultural extension delivery in Nigeria. African Journal of Biotechnology, 7(11): 1604-1611

Agwu, A. E., Ekwueme, J.N. and Anyanwu, A.C. (2008). Adoption of improved agricultural technologies disseminated via radio farmer programme by farmers in Enugu State, Nigeria. African Journal of Biotechnology, vol. 7(9), pp. 1277-1286 Available online at http://www.academicjournals.org/AJB ( retrieved,20th january 2010)

Akande, P.T. (2002). An overview of the Nigerian rice economy: The Nigerian Institutes of Social and Economic Research (NISER), lbadan, Nigeria. jaqm.ro/issues/volume-4,issue-2/pdfs/basorun.pdf

Akande, S.O. and Akpokodje, G. (2003). Rice prices and market integration in selected areas in Nigeria. The Nigerian Institute of Social and Economic Research (NISER,), Ibadan, Nigeria. Pp 11

199 Akpokodje, G, Lancon, F and Erenstein, O. (2003). A review of Nigeria’s rice policy and development. WARDA., Abidjan. http://www.usaid.gov/ng/downloads/markets/rice_report_of_the_final_technical _workshop.pdf

Akpokodje, G, Lancon, F; and Erenstein 0. (2001). Nigeria’s rice economy: State of the art. A project report, the Nigerian rice economy in a competitive world; constraints, opportunities and strategic choices. WARDA, Bouake, Cote d’Ivoire, pp.ii-55. http://pdf.dec.org/pdf_docs/Pnadb851.pdf

Alston, J. M., Norton G. W. and Pardey, P. G. (1995). Science under scarcity-principles and practices for agricultural research evaluation and priority setting, Ithaca: Cornell University Press. New York. 133pp. www.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=4980

Alston, J. M., Pardey, P. G.and. Smith, V. H. (1999). Paying for agricultural productivity. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press. 315pp.

Alufohai, G.O. and Ojogho, O. (2009). Economics of scale and production efficiency in small- scale rice farmers in Nigeria: Empirical approach for hybrid and local rice. papers.ssrn.com/sol3/Jeljour_results.cfm?Network=Yes.

Amaza, P.S and Maurice, D. C. (2005). Identification of factors that influence technical efficiency in rice-based production systems in Nigeria. Paper presented at workshop on policies and strategies for promoting rice production and food security in Sub-Saharan Africa, 7Th -9th Novermber, Cotonou, Benin Republic. www.fspublishers.org/jass/past- issues/JASS , VOL_3_NO_4/3.pdf

Amalu, U.C. (1998). Agricultural development programmes in Nigeria: an experience In: Unamma, R.P.A., Onwudike, O.C., Uwaegbute, A.C., Edeoga, H.O. and Nwosu, A.C. (2004). Linkage strategies for sustainable agriculture in Nigeria. Research-extension- framer-input linkage system (REFILS). Micheal Okpara University of Agriculture Umudike Umuahia. Abia State, Nigeria. pp.62

Andersen, E. S. (1994). Evolutionary economics: post Schumpeterian contributions. London: Pinter publishers. Journal of economic behaviour and organizations, vol. 32(2), pp. 324- 326 http://econpapers.repec.org/article/eeejeborg/v_3a32_3ay_3a1997_3ai_3a2_3ap_ 3a324-326.htm

Anderson, J. (1997). On grappling with the impact of agricultural research. Background paper for presentation for the CGIAR Centers’ Week, October 1997, Unpublished manuscript The World Bank, Washington, DC, USA. ageconsearch.umn.edu/bitstream/42363/2/IFPRIDP00736.pdf

Anderson, J., Pardey, P. and Roseboom. J. (1994). Sustaining growth in agriculture: A quantitative review of agricultural research investments. Agricultural Economics, 10(2), pp.107-123.

Anselin, L. (2002). Under the hood : Issues in the specification and interpretation of spatial regression models. Agricultural Economics vol 27, pp 247-267.

200 Arnold, E., and Bell, M. (2001). Some new ideas about research development. In partnership at the leading edge: A Danish vision for knowledge research and development, report of the commission on development related research funded by Danida, Copenhagen: Ministry of foreign affairs/Danida. www.future-agricultures.org/farmerfirst/files/T1c_Albright.pdf

Arokoyo, T. (1998). Agricultural development and dissemination: A case study of the Ghana and Nigeria experiences. Technical Center for Agricultural and Cooperation ( CTA) Wageningen.The Netherland. pp 5-40

Arumapperuma, S. (2004). Agricultural innovation system in Australia. Center for strategic economics studies, Victoria University. http://www.ibsge.vu.edu.au/issues.vol01no4/ Sudath.pdf .

Asiabaka, C.C. (2007). The challenges of research-extension-farmers-input linkage system (REFILS) In Agricultural technology development and delivery in southeast agro- ecological zone of Nigeria. Paper presented at the 22 nd Annual REFILS workshop southeast ecological zone, Awka, Anambra State Nigeria, 19-23 rd Nov.

Awoke, M.U and Okorji, E. C. (2004). The determination and analysis of constraints in resource use efficiency in multiple cropping systems by small-holder farmers in Ebonyi State, Nigeria. Joural of Africa Development , Vol. 29 (3), pp. 58-69.

Bailey, J.R. and Ford, C.M. (2003). Innovation and evolution. management tensions within and between the domains of theory and practice. In Shavinina, L.V. (ed.). The international handbook on innovation. UK: Pergamon. pp 248-257

Barker, R., Herdt, R. W. and Rose, B. (1985). The rice economy of Asia:Resources for the future.Washington, D.C.USA. pp.324. http://www.4.fao.org/cgi-bin/faobib.exe

Barrett, C.B., Lee, D.R. and McPeak, J.G. (2005). Institutional arrangements for rural poverty, reduction and resource conservation. Journal of World Development . Vol 33 (2):193-197.

Basorun, J.O (2008). Rice innovation system and operations in Igbemo region, Nigeria: what challenges. International Journal of Global Business, 2(1), 229-244

Basorun, J.O (2009). Rice marketing systems and operations in Igbemo region, Nigeria; what challenges? International Journal of Global Business, 2(1), pp 229-244

Basorun, J.O (2010). Food security among households: evidence from rice consumers in Igbemo region. Journal of social sciences 6(1), pp.41-46. http://www.scipub.org/fulltext/jss/jss6141-46.pdf

Becker M. and Johnson, D.E. (1999).The role of legume fallows in intensified upland rice based systems of West Africa Rice Development Association (WARDA), BP 2551.

Beintema, N. M., and Stads, G. (2004). Investing in Sub-Saharan African Agricultural Research: Recent Trends. 2020 Africa Conference Brief 8.Washington, DC:IFPRI. linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S0306919206000595

201 Bekele, l. W. (2005). Analysis of farmers’ preferences for development intervention programme: a case of subsistence farmers from Eastern Ethiopian highland. Proceeding of international conference on shared growth in Africa , ISSER/Cornell University/ World Bank/DFID/USAID. In. Ogunlade, A.,Omokanye,C.G. and Adeniji,A.A. (2007). An assessment of farmers interest in University of IIorin poultry research result. International journal of poultry science , vol 6(4), pp. 283-288. http://www.unilorin.edu.nig/unilorin/publications/ogunlade/pdf

Bharghonti, S. K., Sorby, K. and Ali, M. (2004). Agricultural diversification for the poor: Guidelines for practitioners. Agriculture and Rural Development Discussion Paper 1, World Bank, Washington, D C.

Biggs, S.D and Farrington J. (1991). Agricultural research and the rural poor: A review of social science analysis. International Development Research Center (IDRC), Ottawa, Canada. pp.139.

Blum, A. (1988). What can be learnt from a comparism of agricultural knowledge system? The case of Netherlands and Isreal. Agricultural Ecosystem and the Environments. Vol. 33: 325-339.

Caarlson, B., Jacobson, S,, Holmen, M. and Rickne, A. (2002). Innovation system: Analytical and methodological issues, Research policy vol 31, 233-245.

Calderwood, L.H. (1997). Survey of dollar value and importance of farm visits to eastern Vermont dairy farmers. Journal of extension, vol. 35(2): 1077-5315

Central Bank of Nigeria (2000). CBN annual report and statement of accounts. http://www.cenbank.org/documents/publications.asp

CTA, (2005). Methodological framework for Analyzing the Agricultural Science Technology and Innovation (ASTI) systems in ACP countries. Wageningen/Amsterdam: CTA/KIT.

Chang,K.C (1985). Crop history and genetic conservation in rice - a case study. Iowa State Journal of Research, vol. 59, pp. 405-455.

Chandra, V. and Kolavalli,S. (ed). (2006). Technology, adaptations, and exports: How some developing countries got it right. Washington D C: World Bank. www.unctad.org/en/docs/ldc2007ch2_en.pdf -

Christensen, J. L. and Lundvall, B.A. (eds.) (2004). Product innovation, interactive learning and economic theory user-producer interaction in the learning economy. Research Technology Innovation and Management Policy, Vol 8, Elsevier, Amsterdam. pp 101-128.

Clark, N.G., Hall, A.J., Sulaiman, R. and Naik. G. (2003). Research as capacity building: The case of an NGO facilitated post-harvest innovation system for the Himalayan Hills. Journal of World Development 31(11), pp. 1845-1863.

Cochrane, W.W. (1979). The development of American agriculture: A historical analysis, Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press. pp 400

202 Consultative Group on International Agricultural research (CGIAR, 2006). Transforming Sub-Saharan Africa’s rice production through rice research: Story of the month. www.cgiar.org/monthlystory/april.html .

Consultative Group on International Agricultural research (CGIAR, 2000). CGIAR news. Washington, DC: CGTAR. www.worldbank.org/htrnl/cgiar/newsletter/jun0o/news 0006.pdf .

Coulter, J. and Havrland, H. (2005). Monitoring of project 32(project 5): Policy environment and rice market development at WARDA, ECART-NATURA, Monitoring of CGTAR- projects co-founded by the European commission in 2004.

Daramola, B. (2005). Government policies and competitiveness of Nigerian rice economy. Paper presented at the workshop on rice policy and food security in Sub- Saharan Africa. WARDA Cotonou, Republic of Benin, 7-9 Novermber. www.warda.org/workshop/ricepolicy/Biyi/Biyi.D.Nigeria.Paper.pdf

Daramola, B. (1989). In. Akinwumi, A.A (1996). Factors affecting the adoption of fertilizers by rice farmers in Cote d’Ivoire. Nutrient cycling in agroecosystems, Kluwer Academic Publication, Netherlands. vol. 46, pp.29-39. http://www.springerlink.com/content/q501p236613u4u60/fulltext.pdf?page=1

De Bruijn, J. A., and van der Voort. H. G. ( 2002). Public-private partners in scientific research: a framework for evaluation. Study commissioned by the consultative committee of sector councils for research and development, Netherlands, pp.105–123

De Datta, S.K. (1981). Principles and practices of rice production. Wiley-Interscience Publications. New York. USA. pp. 618.

Defoer, T. M., Whoperreis, C.S., Tones, M.P., Lancon, F. and Ernestein, Ò. (2002). Challenges, innovation and change: Towards rice-based food security in Sub-Saharan Africa. Article presented at the 20th session of international rice commission, Bangkok 23-25 July.

Dimelu, M.U and Anyanwu, A.C. (2008). Linkage behaviour and practices of agencies in the agricultural innovation transfer sub-system in southeastern Nigeria: issues for agricultural extension policy. Journal of agricultural extension (AESON), vol.12(2) , pp. 9-23.

Douthwaite, B., Keatinge, J.D.H. and Park, J.R. (2002). Evolutionary learning selection: A model for planning, implementing and evaluating participatory technology development. Journal of Agricultural Systems, vol 72 (2), 109 -131.

Duwayri M, Tran D.V, and Nguyen, V.N. (1999). Reflections on yield gaps in rice production. Newsletter of the International Rice Commission, FAO, Rome, Italy, pp. 13-26.

Echeverria, R. (1990). Assessing the impact of agricultural research. In R. Echeverria (Ed), Methods for diagnosing research system constraints and assessing the impact of agricultural research , The Hague: ISNAR, Vol, 2, pp. 1 - 31.

203 Echebiri, R.N and Mbanasor, J.A. (2003). Rural age distribution and farm labour supply in food crop production systems in Abia State, Nigeria. Tropical and subtropical agroecosystems, vol 2(3), An International Multidisciplinary Journal,Mexico, pp.129-136.

Ekboir, J. and Parellada, G. (2002). Public-private interactions and technology policy in innovation processes for zero tillage in Argentina. In Byerlee D. and Leontieff, R. (1941). The structure of the American economy: An empirical application of equilibrium analysis. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. pp 1919—1929

Ekeleme, F., Kamara, A.Y., Omoigur, L.O., Tegbaru, A., Kshelia, J. and Onyibo, J.E. (2008). Guide to rice production in Borno State, IITA, Ibadan. http://www.iita.org/cms/articlefiles/740.Rice_monograph.pdf

Emodi, A.I and Madukwe, M.C. (2008). A review of policies, acts and initiatives in rice innovation system in Nigeria. Journal of Agricultural Extension, 12 (2), pp. 76-83 pp 76-83.

Engel, P.G.H. (1997). The social organization of innovation. A focus on stakeholders interaction. Amsterdam: Royal Tropical Institute. Amsterdam: KIT Press. pp. 44

Enugu State agricultural development programme, ( ENADEP, 1999) report, pp.15-17

Erenstein, O., Lancon, F., Akande, S.O., Titilola, S.O., Akpokodje G and Ogundele, O.O. (2003). Rice production in Nigeria: A survey project report - The Nigerian rice economy in a competitive world. Constraints, opportunities and strategies choices. Abidjan WARDA. http://pdf.usaid.gov/pdf_docs/PNADB852.pdf

Erenstein, O, Lancon, F, Osiname, O, and Kebbeh, M. (2004). Operationalising the strategic framework for rice sector revitalization in Nigeria. project. Report - the Nigerian rice economy in a competitive world: Constraints, opportunities and strategies choices. Abidjan: WARDA. pp ii -35.

Fagade, S.O. (2001). Yield gap and productivity decline in rice production in Nigeria. In Yield gap and productivity decline in rice production , Rome, FAO. p. 357-376.

Fas attach (2001). Rice report. http://www.riceweb .org/countries/nigeri.htm.

Fashola, O.O., Oladele, O.I., Alabil, M.O., Tologbonse, D. and Wakatsuk, T. (2007). Socio economic factors influencing the adoption of savannah rice production technology in Nigeria. Journal of Food, Agriculture and Environment . 5(1),239-242.

Farouk, U. and Okpokpo, S.S. (1997). Determinants of job performance of extension agents in Akwa Ibom State of Nigeria. Journal of Agricultural Extension, vol.1,:34-40

Federal Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Development (FMARD, 2001). New agricultural/ policy. Abuja, Nigeria:Federal ministry of Agriculture.

204 Federal Ministry of Agriculture and Water Resources, (FMAWR, 2008). In. USAID (2009). Nigeria rice value chain analysis. draft _Nigeria_rice_value_chain_analysis_report_8-20- 2009(1).pdf.

Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) (2001). Rice statistics. website www.fao.org

Food and Agriculture Organisation, (FAO, 2006). Food Outlook-global analysis. June. Rome

Food and Agriculture Organisation, (FAO, 2008).Scoop: Rice production to hit record high08, prices up press release. United Nations. Docstraining_infotmgtoo1sectf-e.html

Food and Agriculture Organisation, (FAO,2004). The market for non-traditional agricultural exports. Food and Agriculture Organisation of the United Nations, Rome.

Food and Agriculture Organisation, (FAO, 2005). FAOSTAT data. FAOSTAT-ONLINE:http://faosts.fao.org

Food and Agriculture Organisation, (FAO, 1995). Rice :post harvest technology, Tokyo, Japan: Ministry of agriculture, forestry and fisheries. pp. 167-179.

Francis, J. (2006). National innovation system relevance for development. Training of trainers workshop for ACP experts on Agricultural Science, Technology and Innovation (ASTI) system 2nd -3rd October 2008

Fritsch, M.(2004). Cooperation and the efficiency of regional R&D activities. Cambridge journal of economics, vol. 28, pp. 829-846.

Germine, I., Oumar, A.A., Sido, Y.A., Hamidou, S.O., Yaovi, S. and Hassane, A.M. (2001). Economic analysis of the impact of research on rice in Niger Republic. Institute of national research agromonmique du Niger, Niamey, Niger. www.idosi.org/wjas/wjas3(4)/19.pdf -

Geroski, P.A. (2000), Models of technology dispersion Research policy, vol. 29 ( 4-5 ), pp 603- 625.

Gruenert, J. (1999). Second job enterpreneurs. Occupational outlook Quarterly fall publication.Washington, 43 (3):18-26.

Hall, A and Dijkman, J. (2006). Capacity development for agricultural biotechnology in developing countries: Concepts, case studies and operational challenges of a systems perspective, United Nations. University of Maastricht. Economic and social research and training centre on innovation and technology working paper series, 2006-003. http://www.merit .unu.edu.

Hall, A. (2006), Public-private sector partnerships in a system of agricultural innovation: Concepts and challenges. International Journal of Technology Management and Sustainable Development , vol 29 (5), pp. pp. 783-747.

205 Hall, A., Bockett, G., Sivamohan, M.V.K., and Clark, N. Taylor, S. and Bockel (2001). Why research partnerships really matter: Innovation theory, institutional arrangements and implications for developing new technologies for the poor. Journal of World Development , 29(5), 783-797.

Hall, A., Sulaiman, R., Clark, N., Sivamohan, M.V.K., and Yoganand, 1.E. (2002). Public- private sector interaction in the Indian agricultural research system: An innovation systems perspective on institutional reform. In Byerlee, D.and Echeverria, R. (eds.) Agricultural research policy in an era of privatization, Oxon, UK: CABI. pp. 157-176.

Hall, A.J. (2005). Capacity development for agricultural biotechnology in developing countries: An innovation systems view of what it is and how to develop it. Journal of International Development 19(5): 611-630.

Hall, A.J., Mytelka, L. and Oyeyinka, B. (2005). Innovation systems: Concepts and implications for agricultural research policy and practice. ILAC policy brief. N0 2. International plant generic resources institute, Rome, p4.

Hall, A. and Nahdy S. (1999). New methods and old institutions: The systems context of farmer participatory research in national agricultural systems. The case of Uganda.’ AgREN Network Paper 93, 1-10.

Halos, C.S. (2005). A century of rice innovations. Philippines institute of development studies. Discussion paper series no.2005-12, http://econpapers.repec.org/RePEC:phd:dpaper:dp_2005-12

Hayami, Y. and Ruttan, V.W. (1971). Agricultural development: An international perspective (2nd edition). Baltimore: The John Hopkins University Press, pp.484-487.

Hegsted, D. M. (1969). Nutritional value of cereal proteins in relation to human needs. In protein-enriched cereal foods for world needs. M. Milner, St. Paul, Minn, pp.38-48.

Herdt, R.W. (1996). Establishing the Rockefeller Foundation ‘s priorities for rice biotechnology research in 1995 and beyond. Proceedings of the third international rice genetics symposium, 16-20 Oct. 1995, Los Baños, Philippines. Manila (Philippines): International Rice Research Institute (IRR),pp. 17-30.

Hicks, J. R. [1946], Value and capital. 2nd edition. Value and capital: An inquiry into some fundamental principles of economic theory. Oxford: Clarendon press, pp. vii -x. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Value_and_Capital-retrieved 27th January 2010).

Hobbs, P.R., Giri, G.S., Granle, P. (1997). Reduced and zero tillage options for the establishment of wheat after rice in South Asia. Consortium paper series 2. rice-wheat consortium for the indo-gangetic plains, New Delhi, India. Pp. 18. http://www.rwc.cgiar.org/pub_themes.aspx?// =5 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enugu.state . Retrieved 16 April 2010

206 International Rice Research Institute (IRRI, 2001). Delivery for impact: The dissemination of rice-related knowledge and technology. Los Barbs, Philippines. http://www.irri.org/science/progsum/pdfs/DGReport2000/CE4.pdf

International Rice Research Institute IRRI, (2003). Cross-ecosystems research CE4 Rice-a way of life for the next generation of rice farmers. Makati City 1271, Philippines. http://www.irri.org/science/progsum/pdfs/DGReport2000/CE4.pdf

Ityaoyor, D. (2008). Key issues in agricultural and rural development in Nigeria. Keynote address at the workshop on gender issues in agricultural and rural development held at University of Agriculture, Makurdi. May 26.

Isife, B.I and Emodi, A.I. (2000). Food preferences of rural household women in Etche local government area of Rivers State. International Journal of Educational Development (IJED). Vol 3(2), pp. 130-135.

Janssen, W. and Braunschweig T. (2003). Trends in the organization and financing of agricultural research in developed countries: Implications for developing countries. The Hague: International Service for National Agricultural Research (ISNAR) report no. 22. www.informaworld.com/index/912178129.pdf

Jeniffer, L. (2009). Rice farmers improve yield in Nigeria. United States Agency for International Development (USAID) frontiles bureau for legislative and public affairs. http://www.usaid.gov/press/frontiles/fl_mar09/p5_nigeria.html

Jibowo, A.I. (1992). Essential of rural sociology. Abeokuta, Ogun State: Gbemisodigo Sodipo Press Limited. Nigeria.

Johnson, N., Lilja, N. and Ashby, J.A. (2001). Characterizing and measuring the effects of incorportating stakeholder participation in natural resource management research: Analysis (PRGA), working document No. 17 PRGA. Centro Internacional de Agricultura Tropical (CIAT), Cali, Colombia.

Juliano, B. O. (1985). Production and utilization of rice. In. Rice: Chemistry and technology, ed. B. O. Juliano, 1-16. St. Paul, Minn

Juma, C and Yee-Cheong, L. (2005). Innovation: Applying knowledge to development (UN millennium project, task Force on science, technology and innovation). Earthscan, London. pp.38. http://www.unmillenniumproject.org/reports/index.htm

Kaaria, S, Ashby, A. (2001). An approach to technological innovation that benefits rural women: The resource-to-consumption system. Working document CGIAR systemwide program on participatory research and gender analysis No 13 Colombia.

Kaaria, S., Kirkby, R., Delve, R., Njuki, J., Twinamasiko, E., Sanginga, P. (2004). Enhancing innovation processes synthesis paper. Integrated agricultural research for development: achievements, lessons learnt and best practice. www.pwgsc. gc.ca/rps/inac/content/.

207 Kader, A.A. and Rolle, R.S. (2004). The role of post-harvest management in assuring the quality of safety of horticultural produce. Food and Agricultural Organisation of the United Nations (FAO) agricultural services bulletin, pp152

Kaplinsky, R. and Morris, M. (2008). Value chain analysis: a tool for enhancing export supply policies. International Journal of Technological Learning, Innovation and Development, vol. 1(3), pp. 283-308.

Kebbeh, M., Haefele, S. and Fagade S.O. (2003). Challenges and opportunities for improving irrigated rice productivity in Nigeria. Project report- The Nigerian rice economy in a competitive world: Constraints, opportunities and strategic choice, WARDA, Abidjan, Côte d’Ivoire, pp.ii-24.

Ladebo, O.J. (1999). Determinants of adoption of new technology among rice farmers in Ifo local government of Ogun State, Nigeria. ACTA Universities agriculture et Silviculturae Mendelinae Brunensis, vol.48. In. Awotide, D.O, and Yusuf, S.A. (2009). Agricultural extension and efficiency differentials among upland rice framers in southwest Nigeria: A profit function analysis. Agricultural journal vol 3(2): 142 – 146.

Lakoh, A.K. (1996). The effectiveness of agricultural research and extension in Sierra Leone African Technology Policy Studies Network, ATPS working paper NO. 6, Nairobi. pp 27- 29

Lal, R. (1979). Soil tillage and crop production. Proceedings of International Institute of Tropical Agriculture (IITA), Ibadan, Nigeria. Series N0. 2, pp ii.

Lancon, F., Erenstein, O., Akande, S.O., Titilola, S.O., Akpokodje, G. and Ogundele, O.O. (2003). Imported rice retailing and purchasing in Nigeria: A survey project report. The Nigerian rice economy in a competitive world constraints, opportunities and strategic choices. West Africa Rice Development Association (WARDA), Abidjan Cote d’Ivoire. pp 5-11.

Leeuwis, C. and Van den ban, A. (2004). Communication for rural innovation: rethinking agricultural extension, (3rd Edition). Wiley Blackwell, Oxford. UK. pp.424. http://eu.wiley.com/WileyCDA/WileyTitle/productCd-063205249X.html

Lilja N. and Ashby J. A. (1999). Types of participatory research based on locus of decision making. Participatory Research and Gender Analysis (PRGA) Working Document No. 6. PRGA- Centro Internacional de Agricultura Tropical (CIAT), Cali, Colombia.

Longtau, S. (2003). Multi-agency partnerships in West African agriculture: A review and description of rice production systems in Nigeria. Eco-systems development organisation. Jos, Plateau State, NIGERIA. pp. 47. In Basorun, J.O. ( 2009). Analysis of the relationships of factors affecting rice consumption in a targeted region in Ekiti - State, Nigeria. Journal of Applied science , vol 4 (2).

Lundvall, B. (1988). Innovation as an interactive process: from user-producer interaction to the national system of innovation. In. Dosi, G., Freeman, C., Nelson, R., Silverberg, G. and Soete, L. (1988). Technical change and economic theory. London printer. 17:349-369. http://www.carlotaperez.org/articulos/bibilo-cambiotecnologico.htm

208 Lundvall, B., Johnson, B., Anderson, E. S. and Dalum. B.(2002). National systems of production, innovation and competence building. Research Policy 31:213—23 1.

Lundvall, B.A. (2000). Systems of innovation: Growth, competitiveness and employment An Elgar reference collection, Edward Elgar Publishing, Cheltenham, UK.

Maduakor, H.O. (1991). Efficient fertilizer use for increased crop production: The humid Nigeria experience. Nutrient cycling in agro-ecosystem springer, Netherlands. 29 (1). pp. 65-79.

Madukwe, M.C. (2005). Multivariate analysis of agricultural extension research In: Olowu , T.A (ed). Research methods in agricultural extension (AESON), IIorin. pp. 206-236

Madukwe, M.C., Okoli, E.C. and Eze, S.O. (2002).Analysis and comparison of the agricultural development programme and University agricultural technology transfer systems in Nigeria. ATPS Working Paper Series No. 35 http://www.atpsnet.org/pubs/workingpaper/ working%20paper%20series%2035.pdf

Mashelkkar,R.A .(2001). Indian innovation: The changing landscape and emerging challenges. http://siteresources/278200...innovation_Mashelkar_sep.2008.pdf

Maynard Smith, J. (1982). Evolution and the theory of games. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. (en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Maynard_Smith retrieved 28 th January 2010).

Mburu, B.M. and Macharia, P.N. (2004). Re-orientating a research agenda: A holistic approach to soil management in the semi-arid lowlands of eastern Kenya. NARO IAR4D conference paper. In. Kaaria, S., Kirkby, R., Delve, R., Njuki, J., Twinamasiko, E. and Sanginga, P (2004). Enhancing innovation processes and partnerships. Synthesis paper for theme 2, integrated agricultural research for development: achievements, lessons learnt and best practice, Entebbe, September 1-4. http://ciat-library.ciat.cgair.org/articles_conf_themes_2_synthsis.pdf

Miguel, A.A. (2010). Agro-ecology, small farms, and food sovereignity. Monthly review. http://www.monthlyreview.org/090810altieri.php2010 .

Mitchell, R.K., Angle, B.R., Wood, D.J. (1997). Toward a theory of stakeholder identification and salience. Defining the principle of who and what really counts. Academy of management review 22(4), 853-886.

Momoh, Siaka (2009). Rice prices high in Nigeria, yet global prices are falling: Business day http://www.businessdayonline.com/index.php.option=com_content&view

Mook, B. (2001). Evaluating information: A letter to a project manager Wageningen: Technical Centre for Agricultural and Rural Cooperation. ACP-EU (CTA) working document No. 8025, pp. 53.

209 Muthoka, C.N. (2005). Tapping the potential of science, technology and innovation in agricultural food chains in Africa: Creating employment and wealth for youths in Africa. University of Nairobi, Kenya.

Mytelka, L. (2001). Promoting scientific and technological knowledge for sustainable development, paper for the Third UN conference on Least Developed Countries, Round table: Education for all and sustainable development in LDCs. 16th May.

Mytelka, L.K (2000). Local Systems of Innovation in a globalised world economy. Industry and innovation 7(1):15-32.

National Cereals Research Institute 2006 annual report. (retrieved from Amakama, Umuahia, Nigeria on the 2 nd of May 2009)

National occupational classification for statistics. (2001). Statistics Canada Catalogue 12:583- XPE. (Retrieved from http://dsp-psd.pwgsc.gc.ca/Collection/Statcan/12-539-X/12-539- XIE03001.pdf)

National population commission (NPC, 2006). Population figure of republic of Nigeria, Abuja. (Retrieved from http://www.npc.gov )

Nguu Van Nguyen. (2006). Sustainable intensification of rice production for food security in the near future :A summary report. http://www.fao.org/fileadmin/templates/agphome/ documents/rice/sustintriceprod.pdf.

Nelson, R. (1993). National innovation systems: A comparative analysis. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.( Retrieved from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_innovation_system on 28th January 2010).

Nelson, R. R., and Winter. S. G. (1982). The Schumpeterian trade-off revisited. American economic review. Vol 72, pp 114-132

Nkama, T. (1992). Local rice processing paper. Paper presented at the monthly technology, Review meeting for Taraba ADP, Adamawa, Nigeria. In, Olugboji, O.A. (2004). Development of a rice threshing machine. Australian Journal of Agriculture (AU) , 8 (2): pp. 75-80. http://www.journal.au.edu/au_techno/2004/oct04/vol8num2_art04.pdf

Nigeria Forest Resources Study (NFR, 1998). National report, vol. 1. In. Mande, M. J (2003). Agroforestry: A tool for accelerated socio-economic improvement of rural livelihood in Ibadan, Nigeria. http://www.cifor.cgiar.org/publications.../T3FINAL_mende_Micah.pdf

Nyoro, J. and Ariga, J (2004). Preparation of an inventory of research work undertaken in agricultural/rural sector in Kenya. Tegemeo institute of agricultural policy and development, working paper series, World Bank, July. Kewp 14. http://www.aec.msu.edu/fs2/kenya/wp14.pdf

Nweze, kanayo. (2004). Farmers embrace African ‘miracle’ rice: High-yielding ‘Nerica’varieties to combat hunger and rural poverty. Africa recovery, vol. 17(4), pp10.

210 Nwaogwugwu, O.N. (2009). Factors affecting selected livelihood strategies of rural resource-poor household in southeastern Nigeria.Unpublished Ph.D proposal, Federal University of technology, Owerri. pp. 59-61.

Obibuaku, L.O and Madukwe, M.C. (1991). Institutional framework for transfer of agricultural technology to resource poor farmers in Nigeria. Journal of Extension Systems, vol 8, 1 and 2: 103-113.

Obinne C.P.O. (1991). Adoption of improved cassava production technologies by small-scale farmers in Bendel State. Journal of Agricultural Science and Technology. 1(1), pp. 12-15.

Ogundele, O.O. (2003). Technology differentials and resource-use efficiency in rice production in Kaduna State, Nigeria. Unpublished Ph.D thesis. Department of Agricultural Economics, University of Ibadan, Nigeria.

Ojehomon, V. E., Ojehomon, T. O. and Otitolaiye, J. O. (1998). Effect of rice processing technology on income of the rural women in Niger State, Nigeria. In: Sustainable agricultural extension in Nigeria. Proceedings of the third annual national conference of the agricultural extension society of Nigeria (AESON) 17-19 June.

Ojha, G. P. and Mornin, S.R. (2001). Partnership in agriculture extensions lessons from Chitwan (Nepal). Agricultural research and extension (AgREN), Network paper No 114.

Olayide, S.O. (1992). Nigerian small farmers: Problems and prospects in integrated rural development. (CARD). pp. 72-75.

Onu, J.I. and Omokoro, M.I. (2008). Analysis of expenditure and inequality among farmers in Adamawa central, Nigeria. Journal of Sustainable Development in Agriculture and Environment, vol. 3(2); 144-151. http;//www.josdae.com/pages/GP 2.pdf

Onuoha, C. (2006). Financial analysis of small – scale okra production in Ebonyi State, Nigeria. M.Sc dissertation. Department of Agriculture, Abia State University Uturu. In, Ezeh, C.I., Onwuka, O.W., and Nwachukwu, I.N. (2008). Correlates of inorganic fertilizer consumption among smallholder farmers in Abia state, Nigeria. Journal of Agriculture and Social Research, vol. 18:pp. 56-63

Onwuka, O.W. (2005). Socio – economic determinants of inorganic fertilizer consumption among smallholder farmers in Abia State, Nigeria. M.Sc dissertation. Department. of Agriculture, Abia State University Uturu. In, Ezeh, C.I., Onwuka, O.W., and Nwachukwu, I.N. (2008). Correlates of inorganic fertilizer consumption among smallholder farmers in Abia state, Nigeria. Journal of Agriculture and Social Research, vol. 18:pp. 56-63

Omamo, S. W. (2003). Policy Research on African agriculture: Trends, gaps, and challenges. The Hague: International Service for National Agricultural Research report no. 21.

Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development. (OECD ,1997). Oslo manual. proposed guidelines for collecting and interpreting technological innovation data (second edition), Paris, France.

211 Organisation for Economic Cooperation Development (OECD, 1999). Managing national systems of innovation. Paris, France

O’Sullivan, D. (2002). Framework for managing developing in the networked organisations. Journal of Computers in Industry . Elsevier, 47 (1); pp 77-88. http://www. ingentaconnect. com/content/els/…..

Otsuka, K (2000). Role of research in poverty reduction: lessons from the Asian experience’, Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 25 pp. 447-462.

Oyejide, A.A., Ogunkola, A. and Bankole, A. (2005). Import prohibition as a trade policy instrument: The Nigeria experience case study 32, In: managing the challenges of WTO participation: 45 case studies. http://www.wto.org/english/res_e/booksp_e/casestudies_e/case32_e.htm.

Oxfam International. (1997). Growth with equity: an agenda for poverty reduction. Oxfam; Oxfam international. http://www.caa.org.au/oxfam/advocacy/equity

Pingali P.L., Hossain, M., Gerpacio, R.V. (1997). Asian rice bowls: The returning crisis. Wallingford (UK): CAB International. pp. 341.

Porter, M. E. (1990). The competitive advantage of nations. Macmillan Basingstoke, UK. In, Open source computer for agriculture in rural areas (OSCAR, 2006). Assessment of perception and appropriateness of the OSCAR tool in rural areas in the Indo-Gangetic Plains (IGP) Bangladesh, India, Nepal and Pakistan. Wageningen, April.

Prasad, A., Singh, V., Prasad, S.C., Singh, D.N., Virk, D.S., Steele, K.A., Witcombe, J.A. and O’Toole, J. (2004). Multi stakeholder partnership through participatory research in rice breeding and seed dissemination programme. NARO IAR4D conference paper.

Pretty, J. (2003). Social capital: Its origins and applications and in modern sociology. Annual review of sociology.22: pp 1-24.

Probst, K. and Hagmann, K. (2003). Understanding participatory research in the context of natural resources management paradigm approaches and topologies. Network paper, No. 130. ODI: London.

Reardon, J.J., Berdegue and Escoba, G. (2001). Rural non-farm employment and income: America overview and policy implications , Journal of World Development. Elevier, vol 29 (3), pp 395-409

Renkow, M. (2000). Poverty, productivity and production environment: A review of the evidence. Food policy Elevier, vol. 25. pp 463-478.

Ricardo, D. (1821). Principles of political economy and taxation. Amherst, NY: Prometheus Books. Retrieved from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Ricardo on 28th January 2010.

Rogers, E.M. (1995). Diffusion of innovations. (4 th ed.) New York: The Free press. Retrieved from http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Communication_Theory/Diffusion_of_Innovationson 28th January 2010 .

212 Rogers, E.M, (1962). Diffusion of innovations , New York: Free press of Glencoe. Retrieved from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Everett_R ogers on 28th January 2010.

Rosegrant, M., Meijer, S., Chine, S. (2002). International model for policy analysis of agricultural commodities and trade (IMPACT): Model description. International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI), Washington, D.C. USA.

Roumasset, J. A., (1976). Rice and risk: decision-making among low-income farmers, Amsterdam: North-Holland Publishing Co. pp 251

Saka, J.O., Okoruwa, V.O., Lawal B.O. and Ajijola, S. (2005).Adoption of improved rice varieties among small-holder farmers in South-Western, Ibadan, Nigeria. World Journal of Agricultural Sciences 1 (1): 42-49. IDOSI publications,

Sanginga, P.C., Best, R., Chitsike C., Delve R., Kaaria, S., Kirkby, R. (2004). Enabling rural innovation in Africa. An approach for integrating farmer participatory research and market orientations for building the assets of rural poor. Uganda. Journal of Agricultural Sciences . 9:942-57.

Schumpeter, J. A. [1934] 1961. The theory of economic development. An inquiry into profits, capital, credit, interest, and the business cycle. reprint, Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Retrieved from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_Schumpeter on 28 th january 2010

Sheikh, A.D., Mahmood, M. A., Bashir, A. and Kashif, M. (2006). Adoption of rice technology package by farmers of irrigated Punjab, Pakistan. Journal of Agricultural Research, Pakistan, vol 44 (4). pp.341-352.

Southeast Nigeria ADPs farmers inventory file, 2009. (retrieved from ADP Abia States in June ).

Siddiq EA. (2000). Bridging the rice yield gap in India. In: Proceedings of expert consultation on bridging the rice yield gap in the Asia-Pacific region, 5-7 Oct. 1999, Bangkok, Thailand.

Singh, B.N., Fagade, S., Ukwungwu, M .N., Williams, C., Jagtap, S.S., Oladimeji,O., Effisue, A. and Okhidievbie, O. (1997). Rice growing environment and biophysical constraints in different agro-ecological zones of Nigeria. Meterological Journal, 2, 35-44.

Smith, Adam. (1993). An inquiry into the nature and causes of the wealth of nations. Reprint, New York: Oxford University Press. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adam_Smith -

Spielman, D. (2006). Developing the art and science of innovation systems inquiry: Alternative tools and methods and applications to Sub-Saharan African agriculture. Paper prepared for the innovation Africa symposium Kampala Uganda, 21-23 November.

Spielman, D. J. and Von Grebmer, K. (2004). Public-private partnership in agricultural research: An analysis of challenges facing industry and the consultative group on international agricultural research. EPTD discussion paper No. 113. Washington, DC: IFPR[.

213

Spielman, D.J. (2005). Innovation systems perspectives on developing-country agriculture: A critical review. ISNAR discussion paper 2. IFPRI. Washington DC. www. i fpri .0 r/d ivs/i snar/d p.asp.

Spielman, D. J. (2006). A critique of innovations systems perspectives on agricultural research in developing countries. Innovation Strategy Today, 2(1), 41-54. (e-Journal at www.biodevelopments.org/innovation/index.htm )

Spielman, D. J. (2006b). Systems of innovation: Models, methods and future directions. innovation strategy today, 2 (1); 55-66. (e-journal at www.biodevelopments.orglinnovation/index.htm ).

Stern, S., Porter, M. E. and Furman, J. L. (2000). The determinants of national innovative capacity. Working paper No. 7876. September. Cambridge, MA: National Bureau of Economic Research.

Stoneman, P. (2002). The economics of technological diffusion, Massachusetts: Blackwell Oxford, London. Pp 29-54. www.economics-of-innovation.com/syllabus.html

Sunding, D. and Zilberman, D. (2001). The Agricultural innovation process: Research and technology adoption in a changing agricultural economics, Gardner B.L, Rausser G.C (eds.), vol.1:207 -261 . Amsterdam, Elsevier Science.

Swaminathan, M.S. (2005). Science and shaping of agricultural future. Canberra: Australia, South Asia Research Center (ASARC), Research School of Pacific and Asian Studies, Australian National University. pp. 24.

Tollens, E. (2006). Markets and institutions for promoting rice as a tool for food security and poverty reduction in Sub-Sahara Africa. Working paper.center for agricultural and food economics, Katholieke Universiteit leuven, October, pp.95. http://www.biro.kuleuven. be/aee/clo/wp/tollens2006.pdf

Tologbonse, D., Fashola, O. and Obadiah, M. (2008). Policy issues in meeting rice farmers agricultural information needs in Niger Sttae. Journal of Agricultural Extension. Vol. 12 (2).

Tran, D.V. (1997). World rice production: main issues and technical possibilities .In: Proceedings of second technical consultation of FAO/REU/RNE Inter-regional Co- operative Research Network on Rice Under Mediterranean Climate, 4-5 Sept.,Arles, France, Centre International de hautes etudes agronomiques Mëditerranëennes (CIHEAM), vol. 24:2.

Unamma, R.P.A.,Okereke, H.E., Ene, L.S.O., Okoli, O.O. and Odurukwe, S.O. (1985). Farming systems in Nigeria: report of the bench-mark survey of the framing systems of eastern agricultural zone of Nigeria. National Root Crops Research Institute (NRCRI) Umudike, Nigeria. pp.62.

214 Unamma, R.P.A., Onwudike, O.C., Uwaegbute, A.C., Edeoga, H.O., Nwosu, A.C. (2004). Linkage strategies for sustainable agriculture in Nigeria. Research-extension-framer-Input Linkage System (REFILS). Micheal Okpara University of Agriculture Umudike Umuahia. Abia State, Nigeria.pp. 22-123.

United States Department of Agriculture and Foreign Agricultural Service USDAFAS. (2003). Nigeria product brief rice. Gain report N13026. USDAFAS

United States Department of Agriculture ( USDA, 2007). Nigeria grain and feed rice imports quarterly reports. www.fas.usda.gov/gainfiles/200711/1462904.pdf.

Uzuegunam, C.O. (2001). Analysis of linkages between agricultural development programmes and universities in southeastern Nigeria. PhD thesis. Department of agricultural extension, University on Nigeria, Nsukka. Pp. 64-70.

Waddington, S.R., Anthony F, Edward, P. and Oghenetsavbuko T.E. (1990). International maize and wheat improvement centre, intercropping research methods for cereal/legume (CIMMIT). pp. 250. books:google.com.ng/books?isbn=938612750x…

Webb, B.D. (1979). Rice quality and grades. In: Rice production and utilization. AVI Publishing Company, Inc. Wesport, Connecticut. pp. 15

Weisenfeld, U. (2003). Engagement in innovation management: perceptions and interests in the GM creativity and innovation management. Vol. 12 (4), pp 211- 223. http:!/www3 .interscience.wiley.corn/journal/1 I 8890769/abstract? CRETRY I &SRE TRY=0

Wennink, B and Heemskerk, W. (2006). Farmers organization and agricultural innovation. A case study from Benin, Rwanda and Tanzania. Bulletin no.374. Royal Tropical Instiutte. Amsterdam, KIT Publishers.

West Africa Rice Development Assocation (WARDA, 2006). Participatory technology exchange and partnership. WARDA project server-project. www.warda.org/publications/COM/WARDA%20NEC%202006.pdf

West Africa Rice Development Association, (WARDA, 2004). Annual report. 2002-2003. The Africa Rice Center, Bouake’, Cote d’Ivoire, http://www.warda.org ..

West Africa Rice Development Association (WARDA, 2009). P03: Creating windows of opportunity through partnerships, learning and innovation systems Project overview and rationae. www.warda.org/publications/MTP/MTP2009-2011.pdf

World Bank (1995). Toward gender equality: The role of public policy. World Bank Washington, D.C. USA. pp.37-39.

World Bank (1999). Understanding poverty. http://www.worldbank.org/poverly /inission/up. i. him.

World Bank , (2000). Income poverty. The latest global numbers http://www.worldbank.org/poverty/dataJtrends/income.htm.

215 World Bank (2004). National agricultural technology project: Implementation completion report. Washington DC: World Bank.lnweb9O. Worldbank. org/OED/oeddoclib. nsf/Doc UNID ViewForJavaSearch/

World Bank. (2006). Enhancing agricultural innovation: How to go beyond the strengthening of research systems. Agriculture and rural development department. Discussion paper. Washington, D.C.

216

Department of Agricultural Extension

University of Nigeria, Nsukka.

Enugu State.

2-6-2009

Dear Sir / Madam,

The Researcher is conducting a postgraduate research titled `Assessment of rice innovation system in southeast Nigeria. The survey is designed to identify gaps and problems among the actors involved in improved rice technology and make recommendations for effective rice production.

Your assistance is needed in filling this questionnaire as a stakeholder in rice innovation system. The exercise is purely for academic purpose and your responses gathered will be confidentially treated. Thanks for your cooperation.

Yours sincerely,

Emodi, Angela. I.

{Researcher}

217 QUESTIONNAIRE FOR FARMERS

SECTION : A SOCIO-ECONOMIC CHARACTERISTICS

1. Sex (a) Male ( )

(b) Female ( )

2. What is your age? ( )

3. What is your marital status?

(a) Married ( )

(b) Single ( )

(d) Separated ( )

4. What is your educational qualification?

(a) No formal education ( )

(b) Primary school level ( )

(d) Secondary school uncompleted ( )

(e) Secondary School completed ( )

(f) Vocational Technical school completed

(g) Tertiary education (OND, NCE, HND, first Degree ( B.Sc, B.A)

(h) Higher Degree (M.sc, PhD)

5. How many persons are in your household?

6. What is your primary occupation?

(a) Farming ( )

(b) Trading ( )

(d) Schooling ( )

(e) Palm wine tapping ( )

218 7. How do you receive information on rice innovation?

(a) Mass media ( )

(b) Friends ( )

(d) others specify ( )

8. What is your household size?------

9. Primary occupation

(a) Farming ( )

(b) Trading ( )

10. years of Farming experience------

219 11. Indicate on the table your perception of agronomic activities in rice production by

ticking ( √) in any of the followings

S/N Activities High Moderate Low

1 Land acquisition

2 Land clearing

3 Land Stumping

4 Ridge/Mound making

5 Nursery preparation

6 Direct planting

7 Planting

8 Pest and disease control

9 Weeding

10 Water management

11 Fertilizer/agro-chemical application

12 Trapping rodents/making Scarecrows

13 Harvesting

14 Threshing/winnowing/ Drying

15 Storage

16 Marketing

12. What is your main source of information on technologies in rice production?

(a) ADPs ( )

(b) Market (input agency) ( )

(d) Friends/fellow farmers ( )

220 13. State your Farm size (hectares)------

(a) Land ownership ( )

(b) Inherited ( )

(d) Purchased ( )

14. State your main source of labour in improved rice technology

(a) Family ( )

(b) Hired ( )

15 . Indicate your years of improved rice technology awareness ------

16. Indicate your perception on adoption rate in improved rice technology by

ticking ( √) in any of the followings

S/N Improved rice innovations Fully Partially Not adopted adopted adopted 1 Improved varieties 2 Tillage/land preparation 3 Fertilizer use/application 4 Milling/processing 5 Planting method 6 Pest and disease control 7 Weeding techniques 8 Harvesting 9 Threshing 10 Parboiling 11 Weighing 12 Bagging 13 Storage

221 17. To what extent does the following factors constitute problem in improved rice technology

S/N Constraints Very serious Serious Less constraints constraints constraints 1 Poor soil fertility 2 Lack of finance 3 Competition from weed 4 Disease/ infection problem 5 Land tenure problems 6 Poor storage facilities 7 Poor access to farm 8 High cost of agrochemical 9 Poor extension contact 10 Lack of inorganic fertilizer 11 High cost of transport 12 Lack of processing facilities 13 Lack of tractor 14 High cost of hired labour 15 Lack of credit 16 Delay in supply of improved varieties

222 SECTION; B

18. In the table below please Score your link by ticking ( √) with these other organization

Note:

Strong relationship = well defined intimate collaboration.

Weak relationship= unidirectional relationship exist

Loose relationship = opportunistic relationship not defined

No relationship = no link.

S/N Organisations Strong Fair Loose No

relationship relationship relationship relationship

1 Researchers

2 Policy institutions

3 Technology transfer

agents

4 Marketers

5 Consumers

223 19. Indicate the type of linkage mechanisms you have existing in improved rice technology

S/N Linkage mechanisms Very Effective Less effective effective 1 Joint problem identification 2 Joint priority setting and planning committees 3 Joint programming 4 Joint research contract 5 Joint research activities 6 Exchange of resources 7 Use of foreign resources 8 Contract for services 9 Staff rotation 0 Dissemination of knowledge and information 11 Collaborative professional activities 12 Joint publication 13 Joint reports 14 Joint demonstration trials 15 Joint field day 16 joint audio visual materials 17 Joint seminar and workshop training 18 Cross research and training 19 Evaluation survey 20 Joint curriculum development feedback 21 Evaluation of meeting 22 Evaluation of field visits 23 Evaluation of reports

224 SECTION: C

20. Indicate by ticking (√) in any of the followings if perceived as strategies in improved

rice technology

S/N Very Moderately Effective Less

Strategies effective effective effective

1 Ban on rice imports

2 Establish de-stoners mills

3 Promote NGO involvement

4 Set pre-season Prices

5 Subsidy on fertilizer

6 Intensify research

7 Promotion of active extension

QUESTIONNAIRE FOR MARKETERS

SECTION :A SOCIO-ECONOMIC CHARACTERISTICS

1. Sex (a) Male ( )

(b) Female ( )

2. What is your age? ------

3. What is your marital status?

(a) Married ( )

(b) Single ( )

(d) Separated ( )

225 4. What is your educational qualification?

(a) No formal education ( )

(b) Primary school level ( )

(d) Secondary school uncompleted ( )

(e) Secondary School completed ( )

(f) Vocational Technical school completed ( )

(g) Tertiary education (OND, NCE, HND, first Degree ( B.Sc, B.A) ( )

(h) Higher Degree (M.sc, PhD) ( )

5. How many persons are in your household? ------

6. What is your primary occupation?

(a) Farming ( )

(b) Trading ( )

(d) Schooling ( )

(e) Palm wine tapping ( )

7. How do you receive information on improved rice technology?

(a) Mass media ( )

(b) Friends ( )

(d) Others specify ( ) \

8. What is your household size?------

9. Primary occupation

(a) Farming( )

(b) Trading( )

226 10. Volume of rice purchased

(a) 25,000kg( )

(b) 100kg( )

11. Type of rice sold

(a) Local( )

(b) Foreign ( )

12. Do you experience transportation problems in rice marketing?

(a) Yes ( )

(b) No ( )

227 SECTION : B

12. In the table below please Score your link with other actors in improved rice technology

by ticking ( √) in the followings

Note:

Strong relationship = well defined intimate collaboration.

Weak relationship= unidirectional relationship exist

Loose relationship = opportunistic relationship not defined.

No relationship = no link.

S/N Organisations Strong Fair Loose No

relationship relationship relationship relationship

1 Researchers

2 Policy

institutions

3 Technology

transfer agents

4 Farmers

5 Consumers

228 13. Indicate the type of linkage mechanisms you have existing in mproved rice technology

S/N Linkage mechanisms Very effective Effective Less effective

1 Joint problem identification

2 Joint priority setting and planning committees

3 Joint programming

4 Joint research contract

5 Joint research activities

6 Exchange of resources

7 Use of foreign resources

8 Contract for services

9 Staff rotation

10 Dissemination of knowledge and information

11 Collaborative professional activities

12 Joint publication

13 Joint reports

14 Joint demonstration trials

15 Joint field day

16 joint audio visual materials

17 Joint seminar and workshop training

18 Cross research and training

19 Evaluation survey

20 Joint curriculum development feedback

21 Evaluation of meeting

22 Evaluation of field visits

23 Evaluation of reports

229 SECTION: C

14. Indicate by ticking (√) in any of the followings if perceived as strategies in improved

rice technology

S/N Strategies Very Moderately Effective Less

effective effective effective

1 Ban on rice imports

2 Establish de-stoners mills

3 Promote NGO involvement

4 Set pre-season Prices

5 Subsidy on fertilizer

6 Intensify research

7 Promotion of active extension

QUESTIONNAIRE FOR CONSUMERS

SECTION : A SOCIO-ECONOMIC CHARACTERISTICS

1. Sex (a) Male ( )

(b) Female ( )

2. What is your age? ------

3. What is your marital status?

(a) Married ( )

(b) Single ( )

(d) Separated ( )

230 4. What is your educational qualification?

(a) No formal education ( )

(b) Primary school level ( )

(d) Secondary school uncompleted ( )

(e) Secondary School completed ( )

(f) Vocational Technical school completed

(g) Tertiary education (OND, NCE, HND, first Degree ( B.Sc, B.A) ( )

(h) Higher Degree (M.sc, PhD) ( )

5. How many persons are in your household? ------

6. Type of rice preferred

(a) Local rice( )

(b) Foreign rice ( )

7. Quantity of rice consumed complain on quality (colour, size, taste and stones)

of rice bought.

(a) Yes ( )

(b) No ( )

8. Have you been opportuned to visit a rice mill?

(a) Yes ( )

(b) No ( )

231 SECTION: B

9. In the table below please Score your link with other actors in improved rice technology by ticking (√) in the followings

Note:

Strong relationship = well defined intimate collaboration.

Weak relationship= unidirectional relationship exist

Loose relationship = opportunistic relationship not defined.

No relationship = no link.

S/N Organisations Strong Fair Loose No

relationship relationship relationship relationship

1 Researchers

2 Policy

institutions

3 Technology

transfer agents

4 Farmers

5 Marketers

232 10. Indicate the type of linkage mechanisms you have existing in improved rice technology

S/N Linkage mechanisms Very effective Effective Less effective 1 Joint problem identification 2 Joint priority setting and planning committees 3 Joint programming 4 Joint research contract 5 Joint research activities 6 Exchange of resources 7 Use of foreign resources 8 Contract for services 9 Staff rotation 10 Dissemination of knowledge and information 11 Collaborative professional activities 12 Joint publication 13 Joint reports 14 Joint demonstration trials 15 Joint field day 16 joint audio visual materials 17 Joint seminar and workshop training 18 Cross research and training 19 Evaluation survey 20 Joint curriculum development feedback 21 Evaluation of meeting 22 Evaluation of field visits 23 Evaluation of reports

233 SECTION : C

11.Indicate by ticking (√) in any of the followings if perceived as strategies in improved

rice technology

S/N Strategies Very Moderately Effective Less

effective effective effective

1 Ban on rice imports

2 Establish de-stoners mills

3 Promote NGO involvement

4 Set pre-season prices

5 Subsidy on fertilizer

6 Intensify research

7 Promotion of active extension

234 QUESTIONNAIRE FOR RESEARCHER

SECTION: A SOCIO-ECONOMIC CHARACTERISTICS

1. How long have you worked with the organization?

2. What is your highest academic qualification?

(a) OND ( ) (b) HND ( ) (c) NCE ( ) (d) B.Sc ( )

(e) M.Sc ( ) (g) Ph.D ( )

3. Any rice on-farm trial in your organisation?

(a) Yes ( ) (b) No ( )

4. Are training programmes organized for rice innovation?

(a) Yes ( ) (b) No ( )

5. If yes, Please kindly state the number of times it is organized in a

year______

235 SECTION: B

6. In the table below please Score your link with other actors in improved rice technology

by ticking ( √) in the followings

Note:

Strong relationship = well defined intimate collaboration.

Weak relationship= unidirectional relationship exist

Loose relationship = opportunistic relationship not defined.

No relationship = no link.

S/N Organisations Strong Fair Loose No

relationship relationship relationship relationship

1 Policy personnel

2 Technology

transfer agencies

3 Farmers

4 Marketers

5 Consumers

236 7. Indicate the type of linkage mechanisms you have existing in improved rice technology

S/N Linkage mechanisms Very effective Effective Less effective

1 Joint problem identification

2 Joint priority setting and planning committees

3 Joint programming

4 Joint research contract

5 Joint research activities

6 Exchange of resources

7 Use of foreign resources

8 Contract for services

9 Staff rotation

10 Dissemination of knowledge and information

11 Collaborative professional activities

12 Joint publication

13 Joint reports

14 Joint demonstration trials

15 Joint field day

16 joint audio visual materials

17 Joint seminar and workshop training

18 Cross research and training

19 Evaluation survey

20 Joint curriculum development feedback

21 Evaluation of meeting

22 Evaluation of field visits

23 Evaluation of reports

237 SECTION: C

8. Indicate by ticking (√) in any of the followings if perceived as strategies in improved rice

technology

S/ Very Moderately Effective Less

N Strategies effective effective effective

1 Ban on rice imports

2 Establish de-stoners mills

3 Promote NGO involvement

4 Set pre-season Prices

5 Subsidy on fertilizer

6 Intensify research

7 Promotion of active extension

238 QUESTIONNAIRE FOR POLICY PERSONNEL

SECTION: A SOCIO-ECONOMIC CHARACTERISTICS

1. How long have you worked with the organization?

2. What is your highest academic qualification?

(a) OND ( ) (b) HND ( ) (c) NCE ( ) (d) B.Sc ( )

(e) M.Sc ( ) (g) PhD ( )

3. Are training programmes organized for rice innovation?

(a) Yes ( ) (b) No ( )

4. If yes, Please kindly state the number of times it is organized in a

year______

239 SECTION: B

5. In the table below please Score your link with other actors in improved rice technology by ticking ( √) in the followings

Note:

Strong relationship = well defined intimate collaboration.

Weak relationship= unidirectional relationship exist

Loose relationship = opportunistic relationship not defined.

No relationship = no link.

S/N Organisations Strong Fair Loose No

relationship relationship relationship relationship

1 Researchers

2 Technology

transfer agencies

3 Farmers

4 Marketers

5 Consumers

240 6. Indicate the type of linkage mechanisms you have existing in improved rice technology

S/N Linkage mechanisms Very effective Effective Less effective

1 Joint problem identification

2 Joint priority setting and planning

committees

3 Joint programming

4 Joint research contract

5 Joint research activities

6 Exchange of resources

7 Use of foreign resources

8 Contract for services

9 Staff rotation

10 Dissemination of knowledge and information

11 Collaborative professional activities

12 Joint publication

13 Joint reports

14 Joint demonstration trials

15 Joint field day

16 joint audio visual materials

17 Joint seminar and workshop training

18 Cross research and training

19 Evaluation survey

20 Joint curriculum development feedback

21 Evaluation of meeting

22 Evaluation of field visits

23 Evaluation of reports

241 SECTION: C

7. Indicate by ticking (√) in any of the followings if perceived as strategies in improved rice technology

S/N Very Moderately Effective Less

Strategies effective efffective effective

1 Ban on rice imports

2 Establish de-stoners mills

3 Promote NGO involvement

4 Set pre-season prices

5 Subsidy on fertilizer

6 Intensify research

7 Promotion of active

extension

QUESTIONNAIRE FOR TECHNOLOGY TRANSFER AGENCIES

SECTION : A SOCIO-ECONOMIC CHARACTERISTICS

1. How long have you worked with the organization?

2. What is your highest academic qualification?

(a) OND ( ) (b) HND ( ) (c) NCE ( ) (d) B.Sc ( )

(e) M.Sc ( ) (g) PhD ( )

3. Are training programmes organized for rice innovation?

(a) Yes ( ) (b) No ( )

4. If yes, Please kindly state the number of times it is organized in a

year______

242 SECTION : B

5. In the table below please Score your link with other actors in improved rice technology by ticking ( √) in the followings

Note:

Strong relationship = well defined intimate collaboration.

Weak relationship= unidirectional relationship exist

Loose relationship = opportunistic relationship not defined.

No relationship = no link.

S/N Organisations Strong Fair Loose No

relationship relationship relationship relationship

1 Researchers

2 Policy personnel

3 Farmers

4 Marketers

5 Consumers

243 6. Indicate the type of linkage mechanisms you have existing in improved rice technology

Demonstrat ion

- Crop 244 manage SECTION : C ment 7. Indicate by ticking (√) in any of the followings if perceived as strategies in improved rice

technology

S/N Very Moderatly Effective Less

Strategies Effective effective effective

1 Ban on rice imports

2 Establish de-stoners mills

3 Promote NGO involvement

4 Set pre-season prices

5 Subsidy on fertilizer

6 Intensify research

7 Promotion of active extension