LITERATURE REVIEW

2.1 Socio-Economic Characteristics of Farmers

Socio-economic characteristics play significant role in the farmers‟ lives in the sense that they influence willingness to accept changes which contributed significantly in raising farm productivity and ultimately their standard of living. Some of the most commonly used socio-economic variables includes age, sex, marital status, level of education, household size, farm size, farming experience, land acquisition, labour, access to credit, member of cooperative, extension contact and other estimated economic variables like income, output and standard of living. In a study of Indian farm households, Sharma et al. (2003) reported that all male-headed with an average family size did not vary significantly across the regions where the study was conducted. Likewise, average age of household heads was above 40 years old. However, average age of commercial farmers was lower compared to other farm size categories which indicated that younger farmers have strong preference for production activity.

According to Emmanuel et al. (2006) farmers participating in irrigation project had some type of formal education and not all of them are illiterate. In survey of pigeon pea production systems utilization and marketing in semi-arid lands of Kenya, the average age of farmers in both locations was 46.5 years with over 40.0% having attended at least 4 years school and average family size was 8.6 people (Mergeai et al., 2001). Muhammed-Lawal et al. (2009) also reported that 82.7% of the youth in agriculture are male. Chikezie et al. (2012) revealed in his findings of factors constraining rural youth involvement in cassava production that majority of the youths in Onu-Imo local government area of Imo State were at the productive age where their energies could be harnessed and utilized for productive venture in agriculture especially cassava production. More so, 9.2% of the respondents were less than 20 years, 43.3% and 33.3% were between 21–25 years and 26–30 years, respectively, while only 14.2% of the respondents were more than 30 years of age. He also revealed that 81.7% of the respondents were male, while 18.3% were female. According to Adewale et al. (2005) gender is no barrier to active involvement in cassava production activities.

However, Oladeji et al. (2003) observed that it is generally believed that males are often more energetic and could readily be available for energy demanding jobs like cassava farming. Respondents‟ education revealed that 52.5%, 38.3%and 4.2% had primary, secondary and higher education respectively. While only 5.0% of the respondents had no formal education. In terms of farming experience, his study showed that 66.7% of the respondents had been in cassava farming for less than 10 years, 20.8% and 12.5% had been in cassava farming for between 11 – 25 years and more than 25 years respectively. The farming experience shows that farmers will be able to make sound decisions as regards resources allocation and management of their cassava farms. Furthermore, the size of the farm cultivated is a function of population pressure, family size and financial background of the farmers.

One major characteristic of small-scale farming is fragmented land holding. The results of Oladeji et al. (2003) revealed that 63.3% of the respondents farmed on less than one hectare, while 33.3% and 3.3% farmed on between 1 - 2 hectares and more than two hectares respectively. According to Nsoanya and Nenna (2011) majority of farmers (60.0%) were aged between 31 – 40 years, with a mean age of 37.5 years, indicating that the cassava producers were relatively young. They also indicate that majority (85.0%) were females while only few (15.0%) were males. This shows that women play a significant role in the production of cassava in the area even though they are not allowed to own lands especially by inheritance for cultural reasons. This finding supports Adisa and Okunade (2005) and Akinnagbe et al. (2008) who asserted that women are the backbone of Agricultural sector, and being responsible for 80.0% of food production. A recent study on gender and cassava commercialization in Nigeria showed that as cassava is commercialized, households in cassava producing areas invest more on the education of their children (Kormawa and Asumugha, 2003).

Nweke et al. (2002) identified five important gender relevant issues related to cassava. He stated that both men and women make significant contributions of their labour to the cassava industry, with each specializing in different tasks; men work predominantly on land clearing, ploughing and planting, while women specialize in weeding, harvesting, transporting and processing. Secondly, both men and women play strategic, but changing roles in the cassava transformation process. Thirdly, as cassava becomes a cash crop, men increase their labour contribution to each of the production and processing tasks. The introduction of labour saving technologies in cassava production and processing has led to a redefinition of gender roles in the cassava food systems. Finally, women who want to plant cassava are usually constrained by the lack of access to new cassava production technologies and other resources.

Ayoada et al. (2011) in their study on“Impact of the National Special Programme for Food Security (NSPF) on Poverty Alleviation among Women in Oyo State” revealed that most of the participants (71.1%) had between 1 - 5 people in each of their households and 28.9% had between 6 -10 people, while 25.5% of the non-participants had between 1 - 5 people in each of their households, 69.1% had between 6 - 10 people in their households and 5.4% had between 11 - 15 people. They also show that all the respondents reported increase in their farm size, output and income. This implies that the participants' involvement in NSPFS has enabled them to expand their farm size as well as increase their output and income. An increase in level of participation decreases the intensity of poverty more than its probability was also indicated in their study.

In the same vein, Kudi et al. (2008) in their study “Analysis of the Impact of National

Fadama Development Project II (NFDP II) in Alleviating Poverty among Farmers in Giwa Local Government Area of Kaduna State” posited that farm size, labour (family and hired) and fertilizer were the most important factors of production and efficiencies are positively and significantly correlated with years of irrigation farming, number of visit by extension agents, level of education, household size and ownership of water pump. Therefore, NFDP II programme had increased the income, enhanced access to farm inputs at subsidized rate and increased training and knowledge of participants in the study area.

Chikaire et al. (2011) in their study on “Landholding Inequality among Smallholder

Farmers in Imo State, Nigeria” found that greater degrees of inequality in land holding exist in the study area. This is as a result of differences in access to farm land. Farm land ownership structure shows wide variations in the size of holdings in the study area. Majority of holdings however, tend to be in small sizes. The distribution of farms by size of holdings in the study area shows that majority falls within 0.25 - 2 hectare. Data from the field revealed that among these groups are the widows who acquired land by rent especially, farmers with small family size and new entrants in farming business.

Mohammad et al. (2011) in their study “Assessment of Factors Influencing Beneficiary Participation in Fadama II Project in Niger State, Nigeria” revealed the following socioeconomic characteristics of respondent in the study area that 54.7% of the respondents were within age bracket of 45-59 years while 26.6% and 16.0% were within age brackets of 30 – 44 years and 60 years and above respectively. In respect with marital status, 66.7%, 13.3% and 9.3% of the respondents were married, widows and divorced respectively while 46.7% of the beneficiaries possessed primary school education, 22.7% had secondary school education while 9.3% had tertiary education. On cooperative membership experience, majority (70.7%) of the respondents had between 3-4 years of experience. This implies that cooperative society is not new among the respondents and level of participation can be categorize into different stages such as problem identification, decision making, project implementation and project evaluation.

Oruche et al. (2012) in their study of “Impact of the National Special Programme for Food Security on Livestock Farmers” showed that sources of income of the farmers in the study area was predominant from personal savings which was common to both participants and non-participants. Cooperatives and banks recorded low percentages with 0.8 and 10 percent respectively. This could simply be due to low income earning of the farmers, inability of meeting the demands of the banks such as provision of collateral or could also be due to the high interest rate.

2.2 Level of Awareness of Agricultural Innovations by Small-holder Farmers

To determine the level of awareness of agricultural innovations, there is need to understand the concept of awareness which according to Rogers (1983) is the first stage of adoption process and involves the individual learning of the existence of an innovation. However, at this stage he has little knowledge about it. He may have heard about the innovation from other family members, friends, neighbours, the mass media, change agents, sales promoters or local cooperative organization. Depending upon individual‟s felt need, he might want to go on and find out more about the innovation (Ekong, 2003). It is the knowledge of an individual or group about the existence of an innovation, project or programme. Akgul and Macaroglu (2011) defined agricultural awareness as understanding basic concepts related to agricultural issues and their societal impacts including the definition of agriculture. Lots of studies have been conducted to determine the level of awareness of agricultural innovations and programmes all over the world (Yahaya and Olayide, 2006; Emma, 2010; Akgul and Macaroglu, 2011 and Ajala et al., 2012).

According to Emma (2010) in his study on improving rural livelihoods in South Africa – an impact assessment report posited that, the level of awareness among households about various aspects of cassava production, such as seed selection, planting time, plant spacing, and weeding time was generally good. Most cassava growers were aware of the good management practices that had been promoted. About 70.0% of farmers in Malawi were aware of how they should select good seeds, when they should plant, at what spacing, and when they should weed their cassava field. A slightly lower proportion in Zambia and Mozambique was aware of good management practices. Awareness of pests and diseases was relatively low at 33.3% of the cassava growers. Slightly more cassava growers (39.0%) in Malawi were aware of the major diseases and pests compared with 20.0% in Zambia and 34.0% in Mozambique. He also stated that few farmers were aware of the cassava processing machines in all countries. The technology commonly known was the grater (34.0%) compared to others. More farmers in Mozambique (73.0%) were aware of the grater than in Zambia (14.8%) and Malawi (23.5%). The level of awareness of the role of cassava in the economic development of southern Africa and the Chinyanja Triangle (CT) in particular was enhanced. In Malawi, large farms in cassava production emerged during the implementation of the project under review (Emma, 2010).

Nwachukwu and Ezeh (2007) in their study, impact of selected rural development programmes on poverty alleviation reported that in terms of awareness, 66.6% of the respondents were aware of the existence of the programmes while 34.4% were not aware of their existence. This implies a weak grass – root governmental information dissemination system. The fact that most of these programmes have been implemented for more than 2 decades and a good proportion (34.4%) of the rural people were still not aware of their existence is an unfortunate situation. Posited by Oruche et al. (2012) in their study impact of the national special programme for food security on livestock farmers, participating farmers were interviewed to ascertain their level of awareness of NSPFS management practices before the programme was introduced, 80.0% of them said that they were not aware of any of the NSPFS management Practices, while 20.0% agreed that they were aware of few of the practices. This is due to the fact that not all farmers are aware of programme at initial stage until later stage of a programme.

Ajala et al. (2012) in their work of assessing the effectiveness of improved cassava production technologies among cassava farmers revealed that 46.0% of cassava farmers had medium level of awareness of improved technologies, while 33.0% had high level of awareness. The mean awareness score for the respondents‟ level of awareness was 8.21 with standard deviation of 4.57. They therefore concluded that, despite the rigorous efforts of the extension agents towards dissemination of the improved technologies, farmers level of awareness is still at medium level. The achievement of a high level of farmer awareness (of the new technologies) will not necessarily result in a high level of adoption. The farmer will only adopt those innovations which he judges to be useful / beneficial to his particular situations. According to Yahaya and Olayide (2006) despite the ongoing cassava revolution in Nigeria and the high level of awareness of associated technologies, lower levels of cassava technologies use still predominates.

2.3 Factors Influencing Adoption of Recommended Practices

Socio-economic characteristics of farmers influence the adoption of innovations in project implementation. A lot of research had been conducted to identify socioeconomic characteristics of rural farmers in relation to adoption and agricultural development in general. Socio-economic factors such as age, household size, formal education, income, social status, family size, social participation and extension contact were all found to be significantly related to adoption (Voh, 1979; Atala, 1980 and Eneh, 2008). However, other factors like political and environmental could have a strong influence on the potential for meaningful local-level participation. Onu and Madukwe (2002) stated that the most important factors affecting adoption behaviour of farmers are their personal and socio-economic characteristics such as age, education, farming experience, income and social status. Adesina et al. (1995) posited that older farmers may have more resources at their disposal that might make it likely for them to try new technologies. But, Adeniji (1996) confirmed a negative relationship between farmers‟ age and his adoption behavior.

Nsoanya and Nenna (2011) in their study, adoption of improved cassava production technologies revealed that majority of farmers (60.0%) were aged between 31 – 40 years, with a mean average age of 37.5, indicating that the cassava producers were relatively young. This is an advantage for the adoption and spreading of innovative practices since young people are likely to accept and serve better as agents of innovation transfer (Onu and Madukwe, 2002). However, Ojuekaiye (2001) posited that, education is an important socio-economic factor that influences farmer‟s decision because of its influence on farmer‟s awareness, perception, reception and the adoption of innovation that can bring about increase in production. Maiangwa (2006) in his study of socioeconomic factors associated with adoption of agro-forestry in north-west zone of Nigeria reported that off-farm income and land security have significant effects on adoption.

According to International Fund for Agricultural Development (1999) poorest segment of the population in Nigeria is characterized by below-average household size, limited labour and no access to fertilizer or credit. They have low crop yields, no marketable surplus and depend on low income off-farm activities for their economic survival. The relatively less-poor segment of the target group has enough family labour to produce sufficient marketable surplus but remains vulnerable. These families can afford small quantities of fertilizer when available and hire some labour. Ekenta (2004) stated that, adoption of improved technologies is influenced by certain factors and is a function of farmer‟s characteristics, extension agency and the new technologies themselves as material components. Overall farmers‟ response to agricultural innovations is attributed to a number of institutional, national, economic and environmental factors like credit, extension agent, input delivery, land tenure and source of information. Information source have been reported as important stimulus to individuals in the adoption process (Rogers, 1995).

More so, Nsoanya and Nenna (2011) in their study adoption of improved cassava production technologies stated that high yielding, resistance to diseases, early maturity period, high market value and drought tolerance are major reasons cassava growers adopt cultivating improved cassava varieties. Major constraints associated with the adoption of improved cassava production technologies include; high cost of fertilizer, agrochemicals and unavailability of markets which could influence adoption of recommended practices. Gadzama et al. (1995) reported that the major factors that hinder the adoption of recommended practices are the expensive nature of farm inputs and ignorance on the part of the farmers. However, according to Adebayo et al. (2003) most people will adopt new ideas if they have the resources and are not hampered by physical, social and organizational constraints.

2.4 Cassava Production in Nigeria

Cassava manihot esculenta originated from Brazil and Paraguay and was introduced into West Africa by the Portuguese around 18th century and it is widely grown today over a wide range of climatic, soil and ecological zones (Cock, 1990; IITA, 2002 and Ohadike, 2007). Cassava scientifically belongs to the family Euphorbiaceae and two varieties are known to be of economic values which are the bitter (poisonous) and the sweet (non-poisonous). Cassava is believed to be the most produced crop in the tropics. It is a perennial plant, propagated from the stem cutting and usually harvested during the first or second year in the typical farming set-up. In Africa, cassava is mostly grown on small farms, usually intercropped with vegetables, plantation crops (such as coconut, oil palm, and coffee), yam, sweet-potato, melon, maize, rice, groundnut, or other legumes (IITA, 2002). Cassava has the ability to grow on marginal lands where cereals and other crops do not grow well; it can tolerate drought and can grow in low-nutrient soils. Because cassava roots can be stored in the ground for up to 24 months, and some varieties for up to 36 months, harvest may be delayed until market, processing, or other conditions are favorable (IITA, 2002).

Cassava is important, not only as a food crop but even more so as a major source of income for rural households. Its comparative production advantage over other staples serves to encourage its cultivation even by resource poor farmers (Fakayode et al.,

2008). It is largely consumed in many processed forms in Nigeria and its uses in the industry and as livestock feed, is well known, but is gradually increasing, especially as import substitution becomes prominent in the industrial sector of the economy.

According to Nweke (2004) cassava is the major calorie in the diet of rural consumers. Nigerian cassava production is by far the largest in the world with an annual output of over 34 million tonnes of tuberous roots; a third more than production in Brazil and almost double the production of Indonesia and Thailand. Cassava production in other African countries, the Democratic Republic of the Congo, Ghana, Madagascar, Mozambique, Tanzania and Uganda appears small in comparison to Nigeria‟s substantial output (IITA, 2004 and Chukwuji, 2008). The total production was around 45 million tonnes in 2009, almost 19.0% of total world production.

According to International Institute for Tropical Agriculture (2004) impact studies have revealed that in Nigeria the introduction of improved varieties has provided food for 50 million people. The benefits of the improved varieties are not limited to Nigeria; improved cassava varieties are now used in most cassava-growing countries in Africa. However, the presidential initiative, on cassava which was launched in 2003 brought cassava and its potentials to national limelight. The initiative has as goal, the promotion of cassava as a viable foreign exchange earner for Nigeria, and also development of the cassava production system in order to sustain the national demand (UNIDO, 2006). The cassava production initiative of the Federal Government has started to yield the expected dividend as farmers may have earned $136 million (about N2 billion) from the produce exported to china in the last few months (Falaju, 2012).

More also, a number of new initiatives are currently being implemented to increase yields and area in order to achieve increased cassava production in Nigeria. One innovative initiative to achieve greater cassava production is being undertaken by the Cassava Growers Association. It has acquired large parcels of land in each LGA intended to provide 1,000 ha of continuous land, suitable for commercial cassava cultivation. In addition to current production levels, farmers‟ groups (or clusters) would be organized in such a way that, using mechanized equipment, high yielding varieties and improving farming practices, yields of 30 tonnes per ha could be achieved in this new area (IITA, 2004).

Constraints in cassava production include a wide range of technical, institutional and socio-economic factors. These include pests and diseases, agronomic problems, land degradation, shortage of planting materials, food policy changes, access to markets, limited processing options and inefficient / ineffective extension delivery systems

(Adeniji et al., 2006). Between 2002 and 2010, International Institute for Tropical Agriculture (IITA) under Integrated Cassava Project (ICP) and in partnership with other sister‟s organization like International Fund for Agricultural Development (IFAD), United State Agency for International Development (USAID) and others had introduced and promoted more than fourty (40) cassava varieties among farmers in order to accelerate cassava production in the country. Cassava production like other crops in Nigeria is mostly driven by land area expansion rather than productivity associated with improved technology (Manyong et al., 2005; IFPRI, 2010).

Dynamic and sustainable approach to cassava development has remained great concern to Nigerian government and policy makers (Agwu et al., 2008). Moreover, the utilization of cassava has largely explored traditional technologies for processing of its roots into human food such as garri, fufu and flour (Dada et al., 2010). Cassava processing by traditional methods is labour-intensive. Cassava processing equipments and machines that are locally produced by researchers to enhance the level of processing are as follows; graters, sifters, de-watering presser, fryers, chippers, batch dryers, pelleting machines and starch mill. According to International Fund for Agricultural Development (2006) graters, pressers, mills, stoves, are among the processing equipment easily adopted by processors. This assertion is supported in the work of Adebayo (2009) and Davies et al. (2008). Peeling as a unit operation in cassava processing presented a considerable problem and was still largely undertaken mostly by women and children using knife (Faborede and Ajibola, 2000; Ajibola, 1995).

2.5 Rural Household Income

According to International Labour Organization (2003) “household income consists of all receipts whether monetary or in kind (goods and services) that are received by the household or by individual members of the household at annual or more frequent intervals, but excludes windfall gains and other such irregular and typically one time receipts. Household income receipts are available for current consumption and do not reduce the net worth of the household through a reduction of its cash, the disposal of its other financial or non-financial assets or an increase in its liabilities”. Rural households in the developing world are involved in a variety of economic activities, as part of complex livelihood strategies. Agriculture, while remaining important, is not the sole nor, in some cases, necessarily the principal activity of the poor. Olawepo (2010) stated that the majority of the rural populace in Nigeria either depends entirely on farming and farming activities for survival and generation of income, or depends on these activities to supplement their main sources of income.

However, Adedayo (1985) suggested that the income levels of rural communities may be attributed to certain crucial factors, and understanding these factors may hold the keys to effective rural development policy making. In another study, Olatona (2007) stated that a closer look at the determinants of rural income provides an in-depth knowledge into the factors that explain low income, yields and poverty in rural regions where these rural farmers constitute about 90.0% of the total population. Olayemi (2001) posited that, income diversification is the norm among rural households, and dierent income generating activities oer alternative pathways out of poverty for households as well as a mechanism for managing risk in an uncertain environment. It is therefore useful, when thinking about rural development, to think of the full range of rural income generating activities, both agricultural and non-agricultural, carried out by rural households. This can allow a better understanding of the relationship between the various economic activities that take place in the rural space and of their implications for economic growth and poverty reduction (Davis et al., 2010).

Agricultural production remains an important source of income for most of those living in rural areas and its growth will continue to be a mainstay of poverty alleviation. But most farms are small – indeed Anríquez and Bonomi (2007) estimated that roughly 9 of 10 farms in the developing world are smaller than 2 hectares. Even though measuring household well-being is still considered one of the key reasons to collect income data, other purposes are often more important, such as utilizing income data as an input into the analysis of the determinants of welfare and poverty, to check the accuracy of consumption data, to estimate household savings, and to assess the relative importance of the various activities that contribute to total household income (McKay, 2000).

An income aggregate is a measure of household welfare that is based on the different sources of income – wage and non-wage, dependent and independent – that a given household can earn over a well-defined reference period. Set up as a monthly or annual indicator, the income aggregate is reported as an average net income figure. Wage income includes all activities undertaken by persons in which the income received is in the form of a salary paid out by an employer; in other words, wage income includes earnings from dependent activities. Non-wage income is a broader category referring to (1) independent income, which includes crop and livestock production and selfemployment (enterprise) earnings, and (2) non-labour income, containing transfer and other miscellaneous income sources (Aksoy et al., 2009).

2.6 Rural Livelihoods and Their Natures

A livelihood comprises people, their capabilities, and their means of living, including food, income and assets. Tangible assets are resources and stores, and intangible assets are claims and access. A livelihood is environmentally sustainable when it maintains or enhances the local and global assets on which livelihoods depend. Livelihood is socially sustainable which can cope with and recover from stress and shocks, and provide for future generation (Chambers and Conway, 1992). According to United States Agency for International Development (2005) livelihood is the sum of ways in which households make ends meet from year to year and how they survive or fail through difficult times. Onakuse and Eamon (2008) perceived livelihood to comprise the capabilities, assets and activities required for a means of living. The concept of livelihoods is dynamic, recognizing that the conditions and consumptions change. People‟s livelihoods change sometime rapidly overtime (Drinkwater, 1998).

The concept has gained wide acceptance as a valuable means of understanding the factors that influence people‟s lives and well-being particularly those of the rural poor (Wanmali, 1999). Livelihood approaches are way of thinking about the objectives, scope and priorities for development. They place people and their priorities at the center of development. It focuses on poverty reduction interventions on empowering the poor to build on their own opportunities, supporting their access to assets, and developing enabling policy and institutional environment. Core to livelihood approaches are a set of principles that underpin best practice in any development intervention such as peoplecentred, responsive and participatory, multi-level, conducted in partnership, sustainable and dynamic. According to Ellis (2000) rural livelihoods compose of activities that generate means of household survival and long term well-being. He further stated that livelihood strategies could be divided into; natural resources based activities like (collection and gathering, cultivation, livestock rearing, weaving) and non-natural resources based activities such as (trade, service and remittance).

A focus on changes of sources of livelihood of rural poor and factors affecting these changes may vary depending on location, gender, available natural resources, income generation activities and ethnicity. These factors affects access to assets of production which include natural resources like land and water for farming activities, labour and human capital, education, skill and health (Onakuse and Eamon, 2008). Similarly, there has been a shift from a material perspective that focuses on the improvement of people‟s capabilities to ensure their own livelihoods. Greater part of this thinking is derived from the participatory approaches that have become well integrated into the various implementing agencies activities for project diagnosis and design (Singh et al., 2002).

Cleaver (1999) stated that poor livelihood is associated with lack of portable water, electricity, health care facilities, educational and recreational facilities, and unmotorable roads. Others are high population growth rates, high infant and maternal mortality and low life expectance. International Fund for Agricultural Development (2001) argued that increasing access to assets is crucial for broad-based growth and poverty reduction. There has been lots of government intervention programmes put in place aimed at improving the livelihood of rural people in the country. Therefore, improving the living condition of the poor requires a focus on sectors that would benefit them, for instance, boosting rural economy and distribution system (Igwe, 2005).

2.7 Agricultural Intervention Projects in Nigeria

The word intervention as simply defined by Encarta (2010) is the act of intervening, especially a deliberate entry into a situation or dispute in order to influence events or prevent undesirable consequences. Agricultural interventions therefore are those agricultural projects or programmes consciously design to address a particular problem in agriculture. It is most of the time centered on improving agricultural production and productivity which has a pre-requisite effect on the rural people thereby enhancing rural development. Agricultural development is an integral part of national development. A lot of agricultural development programmes have been designed to bring about increase in production and income of the rural farmers. It has being on course since the precolonial era through colonial down to the present independency period. It is probably as a result of the aforementioned that successive governments in Nigeria have executed several agricultural development interventions aimed at improving or elevating the level of agricultural production that will ensure self-sufficiency in food production. These interventions can be viewed from two perspectives that are based on Policy and Nature of the Agency. Some of these agricultural intervention projects/programmes are as follows;

The National Accelerated Food Production Programme (NAFPP) which was launched in 1972 as a joint Federal and States Programme designed to develop technologies to rapidly increase the production of six major food crops. They include sorghum, millet, wheat, rice, maize and cassava.

Operation Feed the Nation (OFN) was launched in 1976 by the military regime. It is theoretically valid to preface discussion of the OFN with representation of two startegies of developement which includes the following; the management stategy and the mobilization strategy.

River basin development authorities (RBDA) were an irrigation schemes that are central part of a strategy to raise food produciton in Nigeria. The most notable ones are the Kano River project in Kadawa, the Sokoto Rima Project at Bakolori and Goronyo and the Lake Chad Basin Development in Borno State.

The Green Revolution (GR) was another mobilization scheme, conceived and executed within the same system, in which Operation Feed the Nation lived and terminated. The “Green Revolution” programme was formulated by President Shehu Shagari in the second republic civilian administration in 1980; primarily aimed at making Nigeria self-sufficient and self-reliant in food needs.

Agricultural Development Projects (ADPs) were rightly tagged as Wold Bank

Projects because of the Bank‟s heavy financial and technical commitments to them. The ADPs began as Integrated Agricultural Development projects whcih dated back to 1972 when the World Bank assisted officials of Nigeria‟s Federal Ministry of Agriculture to mount a country-wide agricultural projects identification misssion. vi. The Nigerian Agricultural and Co-Operative Bank (NACB) was a development finance institution owned by Federal Government with a share of 60.0% and the Central Bank of Nigeria with a share of 40.0%. It is charged with the responsibility of credit delivery for hte development of agriculture and other agro-allied industries, including marketing of agricultural products.

Directorate for Food, Roads and Rural Infrastructure (DFRRI) in 1986. DFRRI was established by General Ibrahim Babangida, the then Head of State. This Directorate of Food, Roads and Rural Infrastructure was under the Office of the President.

National Fadama Development Project (NFDP) was an idea concieved by the World Bank, African Development Bank and the Federal Government of Nigeria with active participation of theStates and Local Governments. It is a quick and sustainable agricultural and rural development project with a nation wide spectrum targeted at dry farming and related agro-processing and marketing activities. ix. Special Programme for Food Security (SPFS) was a bi-partial agreement to embark on special programme for food security between food and agriculture organisation of the United Nations and Federal Government of Nigeria on 11th May, 2000. Theconviction is that SPFS offers a practical vehicle for applying innovative low cost approaches to improving the productivity and sustainability of agricultural systems with ultimate objective of contributing to better livelihood for poor farmers.

Constraints Faced by Smallholder Farmers in Agricultural Programmes Studies have shown that smallholder farmers encountered several problems associating with the implementation of intervention programmes which could potentially limit the output of production thus affecting the programme goal. These problems range from the socio-economic, cultural, political and technological attributes such as cost, complexity, compatibility, visibility and divisibility among others (Abdullahi, 2005). According to Lawal (2010) access to inputs, insufficient capital, high cost of planting materials, labour intensity and poor market of products among others were major problems faced by farmers during implementation of Root and Tuber Expansion Projects (RTEP).

Camara et al. (2011) posited that several constraints limits rural farmers productivity in Kindia region of Guinea which includes: lack of funding to ensure the intensification of action in development programmes, low awareness of the importance of production facilities, lack of modern infrastructure and extension services to help create the needed awareness, low technical knowledge on the maintenance and repairs of machineries leading to inadequate care and management of community infrastructures, lack of credit facilities tailored to the needs of programme operators, lack of facilities for the preservation and packaging of agricultural products, poor organization of the marketing operators and failure to comply with the legislation of trading.

However, Adegboye (2011) reported that constraints by women farmers in accessing extension information includes literacy problems, lack of awareness of sources of information, inadequate fund to acquire information, complexity in operating equipment, inadequate professionals, feedback problem and cooperation of the extension staff. According to Byamugisha et al. (2011) problems encountered in the course of sourcing information is related to lack of cooperation from fellow farmers, high transport cost and lack of understanding the language in which the information was disseminated. Kabro and Zabo (2001) identified lack of linkages between the government agencies charged with the responsibilities for implementing programs and research institutes in terms of management as impediment to effective progamme implementation.

Constraints in Implementation of Agricultural Intervention Projects in Nigeria Willliams (1990) opined that programme implementation have been characterized by many impediments, among the most important factors mentioned was the “top down” approach in which the rural farmers were not involved in the concept, planning and monitoring of programmes. Other factors include lack of understanding the socioeconomic, cultural and religious factors of the target population. In the same vein, Amalu (1998) classified the problems impeding effective implementation of agricultural intervention programmes into four which are institutional pathway framework, externalities, internal arrangement and field implementation. Field implementation problems centered on the continuity and sustainability of the programme, inadequate incentive structure for adaptive research and extension staff (Ifeanyi, 2010).

The general and common factors limiting the effective agricultural intervention projects or programmes in Nigeria are highlighted briefly as follows:

Lack of commitment to agricultural development: Though series of Nigerian Government have made promises to commit themselves to agricultural and rural development programmes but there have not been consistency in capital budget allocation. Where fund is available, there is always a problem of misappropriation and diversion of fund for no cause.

There is policy associated problems: policy of Nigerian government characterised by frequent reversal due to high degree of political instability. Therefore, policy on agriculture and rural development are characterised by harsh policy environment. iii. Lack of systematic and coordinated implementation of programmes resulting in duplicationof efforts. Most of the programmes either from the government, international donors and NGOs, are usually channeled to the same target group hence, difficult to comprehensively monitored and evaluate performance.

Lack of community empowerment: Most of the rural and agricultural development programmes rarely affect the lives of the rural people on sustainable basis; this is basically due to the fact that they are top-down driven with little or no community participation.

High level of corruption: This is a menace that has eaten deep into the present day Nigeria society and heavily constrained meaningful aricultural and rural developement programmes.

2.10 Theoretical Framework of the Study

This study was guided by the adoption and diffusion framework and the perspectives on impact assessment.

2.10.1 The adoption and diffusion theory

Rogers (1983) defined adoption as use of a technology by a farmer at a given period of time on relatively large scale. This definition can be extended to all economic units in a social system. Adoption is commonly refers to as the decision to use new technology or practice by economic units on a regular basis. Feder et al. (1985) distinguished individual adoption (farm level) from aggregate adoption. Individual (farm level) adoption was defined as the degree of use of a new technology in a long-run equilibrium when the farmer has full information about the new technology and it‟s potential. He termed aggregate adoption as diffusion which is the spread of technology within a region. Adoption research has moved on in the last 25 years.

Doss (2006) stated that adoption research was needed in five areas: (i) examining the intensity of adoption (not just dichotomous choices); (ii) addressing the simultaneity of adoption of different components of a technology package; (iii) analyzing the impact of incomplete markets and policies on adoption decisions; (iv) contextualizing adoption decisions within social, cultural and institutional environments; and (v) paying attention to dynamic patterns of changes in landholdings and wealth accumulation among early and later adopters. The adoption process is essentially a decision-making process. According to Rogers (1995) adoption process is a mental process through which an individual passes from hearing about an innovation to final adoption.

The adoption of practice is not a unit act and instantaneous. The farmer‟s decision to accept or reject adoption of science based production technology consists of several stages and involves sequence of thoughts and decisions. Technology development without dissemination to ultimate users could be a waste of resources. Some of the recommended and improved technologies in cassava production and processing

includes the following; cassava chippers, graters, leaf choppers, solar driers, pulverizers, improved cassava varieties, high quality cassava flour for bakeries, cassava silage, storage of fresh cassava leaf vegetable, storage of fresh cassava roots, and stem storage, plus a number of agronomic and management practices (Emma, 2010).

The study of adoption and diffusion of innovations are central to understanding the process of change in human societies. But, approaches to exploring the adoption process have changed over time. While early studies have simply focused on measuring the awareness of innovations, the focus in the 1980s and 1990s was on establishing relationships between various independent factors and the adoption of new innovations. It is assumed that socio-economic factors such as age, gender, marital status, occupation, household size, educational level, farm-size and land tenure tend to determine the level of participation of individuals, groups and communities in economic activities. They have direct relationship on the cause of poverty, unemployment and poor living condition. In order to improve on the condition of rural farmers, institutional factors such as access to credit, extension visit and cooperative membership play significant roles in driving rural people to better living condition. Therefore, in carrying out development activities, the poor and vulnerable in the community should be the main target and should be allowed to actively participate in the decision making and management of agricultural development programmes.

2.10.2 The impact assessment perspectives

Sanginga et al. (1999) posited that impact analysis deals with the investigation of the change that occurred or likely to occur on the people‟s life as a result of a project or programme. Impact assessment is a special form of evaluation that deals with the effect of intervention programme output on the target beneficiaries or population. In conducting impact assessment research, some researchers often use “with” and

“without” impact method, while others use the “before” and “after” impact method. Manyong et al. (2001) argued that impact assessment of agricultural development projects is a continous process and therefore being a process, it is better conceptualized to use the “before and after” impact assessment approach. The International Initiative for Impact Evaluation (2008) defined rigorous impact evaluations as: “analyses that measure the net change in outcomes for a particular group of people that can be attributed to a specific program using the best methodology available, feasible and appropriate to the evaluation question that is being investigated and to the specific context”.

According to the World Bank's Independent Evaluation Group (2008) impact evaluation is the systematic identification of the effects positive or negative, intended or not on individual households, institutions, and the environment caused by a given development activity such as a program or project. Impact Evaluation has been defined differently over the past few decades. Other interpretations of impact evaluation include: An evaluation which looks at the impact of an intervention on final welfare outcomes, rather than only at project outputs, or a process evaluation which focuses on implementation. An evaluation carried out some time (five to ten years) after the intervention has been completed so as to allow time for impact to appear and evaluation considering all interventions within a given sector or geographical area. However, impact assessment of agricultural research is viewed as an important activity to ensure accountability, maintain credibility and improve internal decision-making process and the capability to learn from the past experience (Alene et al., 2006).

2.11 Conceptual Model

A model is a construction that shows relations existing among variables. Model has been used in research primarily as tools for organizing knowledge gained in experimentation (Adebayo and Okunaye, 2004). The term conceptualized model may be used to refer to a model which has been formed after a generalized process in mind. It helps us to know and understand the subject matter they represent. It is a figurative expression of relationships between independent and dependent variables. These relationships are depicted schematically or mathematically as shown below. In this model, the first box contains the activities of Survival Farming Intervention Programme (SFIP) which when the participants in the second box take will result in the third box containing the impact variables namely: cassava output, cassava yield, income from cassava and finally level of living compared with those of non-participants. The first dotted arrow indicates if there are any spill-over effects on non-participants, while the second dotted arrow indicates the resultant impact on the non-participants.

2007 2014 (TIME)

Figure 1. Conceptual Model of Impact of Kogi ADP Survival Farming Intervention Programme on Cassava Production in Three LGAs.

CHAPTER THREE

METHODOLOGY

3.1 Study Area

This study was conducted in Adavi, Okehi and Okene Local Government Areas of Kogi State. The LGAs are located on latitude 70401N, 70 421N and 70331N, and longitude 60271E, 60181E and 60141E of the equator respectively (Kogi ADP, 2003). The estimated land area for the three LGAs is 1707 square kilometers (Km2) and a total population of 202,194 for Adavi LGA, 199,999 for Okehi LGA and 320,260 for Okene

LGA (NPC, 2006). The projected population as at 2013 using 3.2% growth rate was

252,743 for Adavi LGA, 249,999 for Okehi LGA and 400,325 for Okene LGA. The Local Government Areas are characterized by two main seasons which are wet and dry seasons. The rainy season is established around late march to early April and get to the peak in August and September while dry season begin in November up to late February.

Just like in the Northern part of the country, the area also experience cold weather “harmathan” from December to January.

Vegetation type is Sudan savannah with notable trees such as locust-beans, baobab, sheer-butter and palm trees. Majority of the people, especially the male are farmers engaging in crop production such as maize, cassava, guinea corn, yams, beni-seed, ground nut and cotton to some extent and livestock rearing (goats, sheep, poultry, etc). The female are responsible for the livestock rearing, but their major occupation is weaving, sales of produce within and outside the Local Government Area. With the advent of modernization, diversification of occupation exist with some people working as civil servants and others engage in trading, furniture making, photography, printing, small scale processing and other economic activities.