11TH INAUGURAL LECTURE
OF THE
NATIONAL OPEN UNIVERSITY OF
NIGERIA
TITLED
AGRICULTURAL INNOVATIONS AND RURAL
POVERTY ALLEVIATION IN NIGERIA
DELIVERED 12TH May, 2017
BY
PROFESSOR NDA E. MUNDI
B.Sc. (Ed), M.Sc., Ph.D
(Professor of Agricultural Extension and Rural Sociology)
Dean, Faculty of Agricultural Sciences
National Open University of Nigeria (NOUN) Jabi- Abuja, NIGERIA
INTODUCTION
It is a great pleasure and honour to present the 11th Inaugural lecture of the
National Open University of Nigeria (NOUN) Jabi-Abuja. This happens to be
the first Inaugural lecture to be delivered from the Faculty of Agricultural
sciences which emerged from the existing former school of Science and
Technology now Faculty of Sciences.
My specialization is Agricultural Extension and Rural Sociology. This is a
discipline which deals directly and constantly with farmers. It involves
helping farmers to help themselves, identifying farmers problems and
opportunities, promoting new and improved Agricultural technologies,
offering advice and stimulating innovation among farmers.
Today’s lecture focuses on Agricultural innovations and rural poverty
Alleviation in Nigeria as it relates to agriculture. This is an important area of
Agricultural development which adequate attention has not been given in
some developing countries including Nigeria. The lecture of today is
challenging as it affects all of us working in Agricultural and Non-Agricultural
sectors.
Conceptual Clarifications
Agricultural Innovations
•The concept of “innovation” ordinarily implies something new. All technologies,
ideas and practices have origin or starting point and will be treated as innovations
in a domain until its popularity is over whelming.
•An innovation is therefore an idea, practice or product that is perceived as new
by the potential users or adopters. Improved seed varieties, agro chemicals and
fertilizers are examples of Agricultural innovations.
•Mosher (2008) defined an innovation as a new way of doing something. So far
as Agricultural extension is concerned, an innovation is the same thing as a
change in practice. Njoku (2007) defined it as an idea, method or object which is
regarded as new by an individual, but which is not always the result of recent
research.
Significance of innovation in Agricultural Development
•Innovation in Agriculture is the process of ensuring that a new product or
knowledge is converted to perpetual use.
•It leads to social and economic benefits and it is critical to Agricultural
development
•For countries that depend almost completely on agriculture, innovations
have to be encouraged for progress and poverty alleviation
•Innovation in agriculture therefore, provides good opportunity for
researchers to interact and play their role in the innovation process.
Innovation is something new and novel in human knowledge and
experience. It is commonly called invention, research result or new
development of some older idea or ideas.
The Concept of Poverty
Tell (2008) and Anyanwu (2007) among others rightly pointed out that any study of
poverty must begin with conceptualization of poverty in order to provide a focus by
which we can determine the limits of our understanding.
•Poverty can be defined in many ways. The way economist views poverty is
likely to be different from a woman living in rural Bangladesh. People in
African have their own varied and changing notions of poverty.
•Eric (1999) viewed poverty as a situation, which arises when a family
income and output cannot secure some minimum standard of living.
•“Poverty is lack of opportunity and freedom. It is hunger and malnutrition,
disease and lack of basic social services. It is an equity gap between
countries and within countries. Poverty is still the greatest insult to human
dignity .It is the scar on humanity’s face world Bank(2000).
Rural poverty Alleviation in Nigeria
• About 56% of Nigerian’s live below poverty line (Okunmadewa, 2002)
•Research had it that the poorest groups of people in the world are salary
earners, next to beggars. They live in a vicious cycle of poverty managed
on 30 days.
•Salary alone cannot solve your money problems. You need multiple
sources of income to balance. Salary is the medicine for managing
poverty, not cure it. Only your business or investment cures poverty.
•Most salary earners end up poor in the long and short term. I therefore
urge each and everyone of us to be financially intelligent, financially literate
and train our eyes to see opportunities in problems. Delve into
entrepreneurship because salary is a lifetime disappointment.
• Agriculture is the locus of majority of the poverty of the economy (World
Bank 1999 and Okunmadewa, 2002). However, agriculture employs about
72% of the country’s labour force (UNICEF, 2005) and 70% of the Africa’s
poor live in rural areas and depend on agriculture (Cleave and Sherelber
2004). One can therefore reason that the solution to poverty in Nigeria lies
predonmantly on agricultural sector which is basically rural based.
•The design and implementation of efforts to reduce poverty must be
guided by the need of the poor as identified by the poor themselves. In this
light, poverty alleviation must not only address the occupation of the rural
dwellers, but also address the infrastructural need of the poor as identified
by the poor themselves (World Bank, 1999).
•Effective poverty alleviation strategies in Nigeria should therefore address
the problems of the rural poor who are mostly farmers through:
(a)Incorporating their local knowledge and input into developed
technologies through developing locally sourced inputs or technologies to
them for dissemination. This will reduce the effect of their low access to
credit as well as unavailability of inputs.
•Enhancing their access to marketing facilities ie.
transportation, storage and efficient processing facilities.
good
roads,
•Providing infrastructures such as electricity, potable water, formal schools
and health centres. This will reduce the rural –urban migration that has
turned our rural centres into slums.
•Provision of credit to the rural farmers through their indigenous social
groups should be sought which is a better way.
•The use of incentive like subsidy affects farmers’ affordability of
technologies, while availability of technologies help in sustaining farmers’
adoption of these improved technologies.
All these will make rural areas more habitable and help in the rural poverty
alleviation that has plagued the nation overtime.
My Research Focus
Mr. Vice-Chancellor Sir, distinguished ladies and gentle men, my
specialization is such that demands being jack of all trades in agriculture
and other related disciplines and master of all. Therefore, my research
focus has been quite broad and varied.
Nonetheless, I have tried to focus on issues directly related to adoption of
Agricultural innovations and rural poverty alleviation in Nigeria. However, for
the purpose of this lecture, the following areas are given particular attention
because these are some key areas where I have made contributions to the
body of knowledge.
The areas are: Agricultural innovation adoption, adoption determinants,
farmer’s attitude to Agricultural innovations, analysis of poverty alleviation
strategies, Agricultural and non-agricultural income generating activities,
accessibilities of rural women to productive resources and infrastructural
facilities, indicators of poverty level and socio-economic status.
Research on Adoption of Agricultural Innovation
•Innovation adoption research is premised on the theory of social change. Rogers
(1969), defined social change as the process by which alteration occurs in the
structure and function of social systems. This definition conforms to that of hunt
and Herton (1982), who sees social change as the transformation of social
structures and social relationships in society.
•Innovation adoption is expected to lead to increased Agricultural production,
improvement of income, welfare of farmers and their households. Many studies
have documented farmers’ innovation adoption behavior both in Nigeria and
elsewhere.
•Our study, Mundi et al (2002), on adoption level of recommended farm
technologies among groundnut (Arachis hypogae) farmers in North Western
Nigeria; adoption determinants of recommended farm innovations for rice
production among farmers in Kogi State, Nigeria was examined (Mundi 1998) and
Mundi study (1999) on the impact of infrastructure facilities on adoption of
soyabean production technologies among farmers in North-Central Nigeria are as
indicated by the results of the studies. The implications of these findings suggest
that extension agents will continue to play very significant roles in the
dissemination of innovations to farmers in Nigeria for long time to come.
Adoption Determinants
Table 1 shows the results of correlation analysis, which deals with the nature of
relationship between two variables. The variables include adoption level and
personal/socio-economic variables. Those personal and socio-economic
variables include level of education, farm size, farmers’ knowledge of
innovation, cosmopolitness, income level of the farmers and contact with
extension agents.
Adoption levels where correlated with the level of education, farm size, farmer’s
knowledge of the practice, cosmopoliteness, income level and contact with
extension agents and the correlation co-efficient (r=values) were obtained as
presented in Table 1.
Table 1: Results of correlation analysis
Variables (Adoption Determinants) Correlation
Co-efficient tCal
t-tab
Df
(r)
Level of Education
-0.33
0.350 0.007
1
Farm Size
-0.50
0.817 0.950
2
Farmers’ knowledge of practice
0.93*
3.578 0.950
2
Cosmopoliteness
0.03
0.030 0.997
1
Level of income
1.00*
1.414 0.950
2
Contact with extension agent
-0.75*
1.906 0.878
3
P < 0.05
Source: Mundi and Ezenwa 2006
•The study was conducted to investigate the adoption determinants of
improved oil palm production technologies in Ovia, North-East of Edo State
(Mundi and Ezenwa 2006). Structured questionnaires were used to collect
data from one hundred and fifty (150) respondents (farmers) from five
predominantly farming villages (Agricultural Zones). The selection of the
respondents was however, purposive and it involved multi-stage sampling.
•Improved technologies considered in this study included: Land cultivation
techniques, improved varieties, spacing techniques, pruning, fertilizer
application, use of herbicides, modern processing techniques, and improved
marketing methods. Data in Tables 1 and 2 show the findings of the study.
Table 2: Adoption of Improved Oil Palm Production Technologies
Improved Oil Palm Production
Not adopted
Adopted
F
%
F
%
F
%
Land Cultivation Techniques
-
-
15
10.71
-
-
Improved Varieties
-
-
30
21.43
-
-
Spacing Varieties
-
-
30
21.43
-
-
Pruning
-
-
20
14.29
-
-
Fertilizer Application
-
-
-
-
14
10.00
Use of Herbicides
16
11.43
-
-
-
-
Modern Processing Techniques
-
-
10
7.14
-
-
Improved Marketing Method
5
3.75
-
-
-
-
Total
140
100
140
100
140
100
Source: Mundi and Ezenwa 2006
Discontinued
Table 2 presents data on adoption of improved oil palm production technologies. The
data reveals that 75% of the respondents have adopted five of the improved oil palm
production practices comprising land cultivation techniques (10.17%), improved
varieties (21.43%) and modern processing techniques (7.14%). Fifteen per cent (15%) of
the respondents had not adopted two of the improved technologies i.e use of herbicides
(11.43) and improved marketing methods (3.75%) whereas 10% of the respondents had
discontinued one of the improved oil palm production technologies – fertilizer
application (10%). This result is in conformity with Feder et al (1982) finding, which says
that adoption of technology innovation in agriculture has attracted considerable
attention among rural farmers because new technology offers opportunity to increase
production and income.
Mr. Vice-Chancellor Sir, to be realistic oil palm production is extensive in Edo State. Oil
palm is one of the cash crops of the country which has contributed greatly to the
economic development of Nigeria. The produce from oil palm such as palm oil and palm
kernel are used as food for men and livestock as well as raw materials for our local
industries. It contributes over 15% or about N62 million yearly to the national revenue
and also provides employment to millions of Nigerians.
Attitude of Farmers towards Agricultural Innovation
In this investigation, psychological consideration has been studied in relation to
Agricultural innovation with special reference to dwarf varieties of wheat in Jos in
North-Central, Nigeria (Mohammed, et al 2004). The following data in Tables 3 –
5 indicate the findings of the study.
Table 3: Distribution of respondents on the basis of attitude towards dwarf
varieties of wheat
Small farmers
Marginal farmers
(N = 81)
Total
(N = 69)
Categories
Frequency
Percentage
Frequency
Percentage
Favourable
76
93.83
67
97.09
143
Unfavourable
5
6.17
2
2.91
7
Total
81
100.00
69
100.00
150
Source: Mohammed, Mundi and Gimba (2004)
Table 3 shows that majority of the farmers in both the categories had positive
attitude towards high yielding dwarf varieties of wheat. As such 93.83 per cent
small and 97.09 per cent marginal farmers had favorable attitude. Out of 150
respondents, only 7 did not have favourable attitude towards dwarf varieties of
wheat.
The above finding implies that majority of farmers have accepted the dwarf
varieties of wheat for cultivation.
Table 4: Distribution of respondents on the basis of age and
attitude towards dwarf varieties of wheat
Attitude
Small farmers
Marginalfarmers
(N = 81)
(N = 69)
Age
Favourable
Unfavourable
Favourable
Unfavourable
Young age
8
1
7
0.0
(25-30yrs)
(9.88)
(1.23)
(10.14)
-
Middle age
46
1
36
0.0
(31-50yrs)
(56.79)
(1.23)
(52.17)
-
Old age
22
3
24
2
(above 50yrs)
(27.16)
(3.71)
(34.78)
(2.91)
Total
76
5
67
2
(93.83)
(6.71)
(97.09)
(2.91)
N. B. – Figures in parentheses are percentage
Table 4 indicates that 9.88, 56.79 and 27.16 per cent small farmers
having young, middle and old age group respectively had favourable
attitude for dwarf varieties of wheat. The percentage of young,
middle and old age marginal farmers was 10.14, 52.17 and 34.78 per
cent respectively.
The percentage of farmers having unfavourable attitude in small and
marginal farmers group was 6.17 and 2.91 per cent respectively
mostly belonging to old age group.
This clearly shows that old age farmers are less receptive to
innovations and are not willing to take risk. The findings of Pandey
and Sarka (1999) are also in accordance with our findings of the
present investigation.
Table 5: Distribution of respondents on the basis of Education and attitude
towards dwarf varieties of wheat
N. B. – Figures in parentheses are percentage
Education and attitude are being presented in table 5.
The percentage of small farmers having educational level, illiterate,
primary school, junior secondary school, senior secondary school
and graduate who had positive attitude was 22.22, 29.63, 0.0, 30.86
and 11.11 percent respectively.
Among marginal farmers 46.38, 15.94, 15.94, 17.39 and 1.45 per
cent were illiterate, primary, junior secondary school, senior
secondary and graduate respectively having positive attitude and
most of them were educated below junior secondary school.
The above findings clearly show that education of farmers is not a
binding force for the adoption of high yielding varieties of wheat,
though most of the educated farmers have favourable attitude
towards cultivation of high yielding wheat varities.
Rural Poverty Alleviation in Nigeria
Mr. Vice-Chancellor Sir, I would like to start this part of the inaugural lecture
with the conceptual frame work for the study. The focus of this research is to
analyze poverty alleviation strategies of rural women in Kogi State Nigeria. The
various coping mechanisms of these rural women were examined.
Figure 1 is the conceptual frame work for the study indicating poverty alleviation
strategies among rural women in Kogi State.
Explanation of the frame work
The frame work is made up of three features:
(a)
The independent variables
(b)
Intervening variables and
(c)
Dependent variables.
The independent variable is made up of demographic/personal characteristics of
the respondents which include age, marital status, household leadership,
education level, experience, religion, major occupation and social factors which
include extended family, infrastructural facilities, land, labour, farm size among
others.
The intervening variables consist of women cooperative societies, micro finance
institution, and other agencies like National Poverty Eradication Programme
(NAPEP) and extension services.
The dependent variables consist of poverty alleviation strategies which include
multiple income generating activities, farming, membership of cooperative
societies, borrowing from banks, friends for investments, adjusting to basic needs,
petty trading among others and socio-economic positions of the respondents which
are at two levels at moderately poor with the following characteristics food security,
income security, high productivity etc and extreme poor which is made up of those
with inadequate food supply, very low income, use non-timber forest products,
limited access to productive resources.
Demographic characteristics of the respondents to a greater extent influence the
social factors while the social factors also affect some aspect of the respondent’s
personal characteristics such as educational level, household leadership and
occupation.
The socio-economic characteristics (independent variables) of the respondents
provide impact for the intervening variables. This is because formation and
operational modalities of women cooperative societies depend on the personal
characteristics of the respondents like occupation, educational level etc.
Membership of Cooperative Society also affects the Social Characteristics of the
respondents such as farm size, access to inputs, production capacity.
Micro finance institution is also influenced by the women cooperative societies as they
give credit facilities to groups which is more preferred for loan recovery. Other
agencies like National Poverty Eradication Programme (NAPEP) is the current
programme which focuses on the provision of strategies for the eradication of absolute
poverty in Nigeria (FRN, 2001) is also influenced by micro finance. Extension provides
information for the micro finance institution and other agencies while the micro finance
also provides information for extension to disseminate to her respondents (rural
women).
SOCIO ECONOMIC
INDEPENDENT
VARIABLES
*
*
**
**
**
**
**
*
*
CHARACTERISTICS
Age ECONOMIC
SOCIO
Marital Status
CHARACTERISTICS
Household Leadership
Age
Marital
Status Level
Educational
Household
Leadership
Experience
Religion Level
Educational
Experience
Major Occupation
Religion
Major Occupation
*
COOPERATIVE
SOCIETY (wcs)
*
MICRO FINANCE
INSTITUTION
MICRO FINANCE
(NACRDB)
SOCIAL FACTORS
*
Extended Family
Infrastrcture
Extended
FamilyFacilities
Land
Infrastrcture
Facilities
Land
Labour
Labour
Personal Func
Personal
Credit Func
Credit
Farm Size
Farm
Size
Accessibility
to farm input
Accessibility to farm input
*
*
*
*
OTHER
*
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
STRATEGIES
WOMEN
COOPERATIVE
SOCIETY (wcs)
WOMEN
INSTITUTION
(NACRDB)
SOCIAL FACTORS
POVERTY
ALLEVIATION
DEPENDENT
VARIABLES
INTERVENING VARIABLES
AGENCIES
OTHER
(NAPEP)
AGENCIES
(NAPEP)
*
*
(NTFPs)
EXTENSION
EXTENSION
SERVICES
SERVICES
SOCIO ECONOMIC POSITION
SOCIO ECONOMIC
POSITIONPOOR
MODERATELY
MODERATELY POOR
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
Key
Key
Fig. 1:
Fig. 1:
* ALLEVIATION
Multiple income generating
POVERTY
STRATEGIES
activities
*
Farming
(crop planting &
Multiple
income
generating
activities animal rearing)
Farming
(crop
planting &of cooperative
*
Membership
animal rearing)
societies
Membership
of cooperative
*
Borrowing
from banks,
societies friends for investments
Borrowing
from banks,
*
Adjusting
to basic needs
friends for investments
*
Getting money through
Adjusting to basic needs
“Esusu”/”Adachi”
Getting money through
*
Petty
Trading
“Esusu”/”Adachi”
* Trading
Gathering and marketing of
Petty
forest
Gathering non-timber
and marketing
of products
non-timber(NTFPs)
forest products
Main Stream and Direct Link
Main Stream and Direct Link
Direct Interactions
Direct Interactions
Indirect Interactions
*
Food security all year round
Food
all year
round
* security
Income
security
OUTPU
Income security
OUTPUT
*
Likely to hire labour
Likely to hire labour
*
Have access to productive
Have access to productive
Improved st
Improved standard
resources resources
of livin
of living
EXTREME
PPOR
EXTREME PPOR
*
Inadequate
Inadequate
food supplyfood supply
Very low income
Very* low income
Utilize
forest
* non-timber
Utilize non-timber
forest
products (NTFPs)
products (NTFPs)
Likely
as to
hired
* to work
Likely
work as hired
labour
labour
Limited
to productive
* access
Limited
access to productive
resources resources
Indirect influence
Indirect influence
Indirect
Interactions
Conceptual
Frame
Work Indicating Poverty Alleviation Strategies among Rural Women in Kogi State, Nigeria
Conceptual Frame Work Indicating Poverty Alleviation Strategies among Rural Women in Kogi State, Nigeria
Research on Analysis of Poverty Alleviation Strategies
•A study was conducted to analyze the existing poverty alleviating strategies used by rural
Women in Kogi State Nigeria.
•The African rural Women like most women, must be able to eliminate malnutrition from their
families and have major responsibility of lifting their families out of poverty in which Kogi
State is not an exception. Nigeria women perform multiple roles for the survival of their
homes and the nation. The need to provide satisfactory information on rural Women and
poverty alleviation strategies used by women calls for the assessment of all their activities.
Mr. Vice chancellor Sir, to support the importance of need assessment of coping mechanisms
used by poor rural Women, Table 6 shows the distribution of respondents by coping strategies
for poverty alleviation.
It shows that a total of 95.5 % of the respondents engaged in getting money through
“esusul/adache”, adjusting to basic needs (91.7 percent) and collecting money from people for
farming or other business activities to be paid at the end of the season (98.1percent).The table
also reveals that they rarely engaged in selling of assets acquired in the past (21.1percent) or
used the strategy of packing excess foods at social functions (3.7percent).Most of them
occasionally were members of cooperatives societies (60.3percent), involved in multiple
income generating activities (59.7percent) and avoid attendance of too many social functions
(77.8percent). The high percentage recorded that few borrowed money from
friends/relations (62.8 percent) might be due to the fact that nearly every one of them
falls into the same category of inability to get money to meet family needs.
In support of these findings; World Bank (1999) reported that rural women resorted to membership of
cooperative societies, avoidance of too many social functions; eating of unconventional foods among
others to meet family needs. Aboyade (2001) also found that rural women often engaged in getting money
from friends and relatives in order to meet family needs. Olawoye (1996) similarly reported that
remittances of cash, material goods and exchange of food had been found to be common between rural
and urban relatives.
Table 6: Coping Strategies for Poverty Alleviation
Source: Mundi, 2006
Agricultural and Non-Agricultural Income Generating
Activities
Review of Agricultural programmes indicates that the performance of Agricultural
and non-agricultural income generating activities of rural women in kogi state has
not been encouraging. This is due to the dependence on the small-scale rural
women who employ traditional methods in Agricultural production. In order to
improve Agricultural production, efforts have been made to encourage rural
women to adopt new strategies.
In the study Mundi (2008) identified types of income generating activities engaged
in by rural Women.
Table 7 shows that the main Agricultural and non-agricultural income generating
activities that many of the rural women were involved include planting of
crops(49.7%); processing of crops (44.7%); gathering and selling of non-Timber
forest products (NTFP)(40.3%).
The women were only partially involved in craft weaving, sewing, knitting and
carving. Olawoye (1996) and Adekanya (1998) were in support of these findings
when they concluded that women constituted a substantial proportion of the
nation’s farmers and provided about 60-80% of the rural labour input, though in
different degrees in Agricultural production.
Table 7: Types of Income Generating Activities
Types of Variables
Fully involved
Partially involved
Occasionally involved
Never involved
a.
Planting of crops
Freq
179
a.
Rearing of animals
136
37.8
50
13.9
138
38.3
36
10.0
a.
Selling of livestock
94
26.1
53
14.7
195
54.2
18
5.0
a.
Petty trading
53
14.7
39
10.8
155
43.1
113
31.4
a.
Craft Weaving
-
-
11
3.1
48
13.3
301
83.6
a.
Hired Casual labour
63
17.5
14
3.9
229
63.6
54
15.0
a.
Hair plating
36
10.0
8
2.0
162
45.0
154
42.8
a.
Native medicine
1
0.3
9
2.5
35
9.5
315
87.5
a.
Processing of crops
161
44.7
122
33.9
58
16.1
19
5.3
a.
Gathering and Selling of non-timber forest products (NTFPs)
145
40.3
65
18.1
144
40.0
6
1.7
a.
Selling of Cooked Foods
42
11.7
48
13.3
83
23.1
187
51.9
1
0.3
2
0.6
20
5.6
336
93.3
-
-
2
0.6
22
6.1
336
93.3
-
-
-
-
-
-
360
100.0
28
7.8
42
11.7
196
54.4
94
26.2
a.
Pottery
a.
Sewing and Knitting
a.
Carving
a.
Others
Source: Mundi, 2008
%
49.7
Freq
124
%
13.4
Freq
51
%
14.2
Freq
6
%
1.7
Women’s Access to Productive Resources
In the study carried out to a certain the level of accessibility of women to productive
resources in North Central Nigeria, rural women’s access to and control over the
productive resources were examined. The findings are presented in Table 8.
The Table indicates that the respondents did not have absolute control over most of
the productive resources. None of the rural women had absolute control over
formal sources of capital, mechanized equipment and agro-chemicals. This clearly
shows that rural women were handicapped in performing well in the productive
sector. Their poor condition remains if they are not allowed to make full use of
productive resources. The results also show that more than half of the rural women
do not have access to land (53.9%). The above findings are in conformity with
Jazairy et al (2003), who opined that in many places, women were not allowed to
own land or control family finances.
Table 8: Distribution of Respondents by Access to and Control over
production resources
Variables
a.
Land
b.
Labour:
(i)
Personal labour
(ii) Family member labour
a.
Capital:
(i)
Informal Sources
(ii) Formal Sources
Absolute control
over
Short-term access to
Do not have
access to
Freq
%
Freq
%
Freq
%
5
1.4
161
44.7
194
53.9
263
73.1
93
25.8
4
1.1
2
0.6
325
90.3
33
9.2
167
46.4
131
36.4
62
17.2
-
-
197
54.7
163
45.3
a.
Simple farm tools used
218
60.6
108
30.0
34
9.4
b.
Mechanized equipment
-
-
112
31.1
248
68.9
c.
Agro – chemicals:
(i)
Fertilizers
-
-
170
47.2
190
52.8
(ii) Herbicides
-
-
136
37.8
224
62.2
(iii) Pesticides
-
-
158
43.9
202
56.1
Source: Mundi, 2008
Access to Infrastructural Facilities and Utilization
of Poverty Alleviation Strategies
Mr. Vice-Chancellor Sir, a study was conducted to:
i. Investigate into the accessibility of rural women to infrastructural facilities
and
ii. Determine the relationship between the access of rural women to
infrastructural facilities and their use of poverty alleviation strategies
(Mundi 2009).
The null hypothesis (Ho) formulated and tested was that there is no
significant relationship between the access of rural women to
infrastructural facilities and their utilization of poverty alleviation strategies
in Kogi State. Inferential statistics like Pearson Product Moment
Correlation (PPMC) was used for hypothesis testing. The facilities
considered for this study include: rural physical infrastructures, rural social
infrastructures, rural utilities and rural institutional infrastructures. Findings
are shown in Tables 9 and 10.
Table 9: Distribution of Respondents by Access to Infrastructural
Facilities
Table 9 shows that most of the respondents (89.4%) did not have access to reliable
public transportation. The implication of this for rural women is that they will find it
difficult to get their product to the market and the perishable product or goods will
get spoilt. Nearly all the infrastructural facilities indicated were not available.
Where they were available, the respondents did not have access to them.
The consequence of the above findings, as revealed by Akinwumi and Olawoye
(2006), was that rural residents needed to go to larger towns to secure such
services. This might encourage rural-urban migration among the productive youths.
Table 10: Correlation Coefficient on the Relationship between Rural
Women’s access to Infrastructural Facilities and their use of poverty
Alleviations Strategies
Adequate storage facilities and processing facilities were also found to be negatively
and non significantly correlated with poverty alleviation strategies (r = - 0.115) and (r
= -0.004). Primary School were found to have negative and non significant
correlation with poverty alleviation strategies (r = -0.095). These values are not
significant at 0.05 level. Health care facilities were found to have positive and non
significant relationship with poverty alleviation strategies (r = 0.166). Secondary
School had positive and non significant relationship with poverty alleviation
strategies (r = 0.028). Electricity was found to have negative but significant
correlation with poverty alleviation strategies (r = -0.296) at 5% level. Good water
supply was found to have positive and significant correlation with poverty alleviation
strategies (r = 0.198).
Cooperative societies were found to be positively and highly significant correlation
with poverty alleviation strategies (r = 0.599). Women groups were found to have
positive and significant relationship with poverty alleviation strategies (r = 0.432)..
Markets for goods produced were found to be negatively and significantly correlated
with poverty alleviation strategies (r = -0.301).
Therefore, the null hypothesis which states that there is no significant relationship
between access of rural women to infrastructural facilities and their utilization of
poverty alleviation strategies are accepted for variables like reliable public
transportation, adequate storage facilities, processing facilities, health care facilities,
primary School, secondary School, electricity, good water supply, women groups and
markets for goods produced while alternative hypothesis is rejected for cooperative
societies.
Indicators of Poverty Level and Socio-Economic
Status
A study was conducted to identify indicators of poverty level and socioeconomic status of rural women in Kogi State, Nigeria (Mundi 2011).
Thus, the specific objectives of the study were to:
Determine the indicators of poverty among rural women in Kogi State.
Determine the level of poverty indicators among rural women.
Determine the socio- economic status of rural women in Kogi State.
Stratified random sampling techniques were utilized for the selection of
the respondents for the study. The twenty one (21) Local Government
Areas (LGAs) in the state were stratified into three, namely: the Eastern,
Central and Western Zones. From these, two LGAs were randomly
selected from each Zone. In all, six LGAs were randomly selected from
the three Zones of Kogi State.
These include Bassa and Ankpa LGAs, Okene and Adavi LGAs and
Lokoja and Kogi LGAs from the Eastern, central and western zones
respectively. A total of (N=360) rural women were selected to participate
in the study.
Measurement of Variables
For the purpose of this study the following variables were measured.
Indicators of poverty
Indicators were measured by assigning scores to the responses of the
respondents, which were grouped into five (5) such as all the time (1); most of the
time (2): occasionally (3); seldom (4) and never (5); under this variable. There
were 8 items under these variables. The least score was 8 and the highest score
was 39. The respondents having scores between 8 and 24 were regarded as
having low poverty level while respondents with scores between 25 and 39 were
regarded as high poverty level. This is shown in Table 11.
Socio-Economic Status of the Rural Women
This was measured by assigning scores of 1 to non-possession of
materials, 2 to possessing only one (1) of such items and 3 to possession
of more than one of the items under consideration. There were twenty one
(21) items under the variable. The least score was 21 and the highest
score was 59. The respondents that have the scores between 21 and 42
were regarded as having low socio-economic status (SES) while the
respondents having scores of between 43 and 49 were regarded as
having high socio-economic status (SES) as indicated in Table 12.
Results
This section deals with the indicators of poverty level. The distribution of the
respondents by level of poverty is shown in Table 11 with respect to each of
the items. The Table reveals that majority of the respondents were living in
poor conditions due to their level of poverty. Few people (1.4%) of the
respondents had the opportunity of getting medical attention when needed
while only 1.9% of them had the mean to eat three times a day. Only 2.5%
could eat balance diet, 3.9% could obtain labour when needed, 25.0% could
raise capital for business, 2.8% could obtain transport when needed and
8.6% could send all their children to school.
This implies that most of the rural women were living in abject poverty. In this
situation, the family earning is not enough to obtain minimum necessities for the
maintenance of the families existence. These findings clearly show that rural women
are still finding it difficult to cope with the present unfavourable realities of poverty.
Table 12 shows level of poverty indicator of rural women. The percentage of the
respondents that had Low Poverty Level (LPL) was 44.4% while respondents having
High Poverty Level (HPL) was 55.6%.
Table 12: Level of Poverty Indicator
Mean = 23.032
Socio-Economic Status of Rural Women
This section deals with the Socio-Economic Status (SES) of rural women. The
distribution of the socio-economic status is as indicated in Table 13. From the
findings as shown by the raw scores in Table 13, 167 respondents (46.4%) were of
low socio-economic status (SES), while 193 respondents (53.6%) were of high
socio-economic status (SES) with respect to the items of possession or ownership
under consideration. This shows that majority of the rural women possessed most
of the materials used for social engagements and housekeeping.
Table 13: Distribution of Respondents by Socio-Economic Status (n=360)
Mean = 41.72
IMPLICATIONS OF THE RESULTS
The direct implications of these results are:
1. Adoption of Agricultural innovation is expected to lead to increased Agricultural
production, improvement in the income and welfare of farmers and their households.
The success of extension service depends on the rate of adoption of improved
farming technologies/innovations by farmers in the Nigeria and elsewhere.
2. Majority of the farmers have accepted the dwarf varieties of wheat for cultivation
and they had positive attitude in both categories towards high yielding varieties.
3. Some of the poverty alleviation strategies utilized by rural women are long-time
approaches and may lead to an improvement on the standard of living, increase yield
of farm productivity, better education, better housing and abundance of food and their
socio-economic status will be improved.
4. The findings shows the seeming dynamic nature of rural women playing varying
roles in involving themselves in different activities of income generation with time and
seasons in an attempt to lift their families out of poverty. It further shows their level of
commitment to their families and helping them to survive harsh times.
5. Majority of the rural women did not have access to reliable public
transportation. This implies that they find it difficult to get their produce to the
market and the perishable produce or foods will get spoilt.
6. Most of the respondents were living in poor conditions due to their level of
poverty.
7. For Socio-Economic Status (SES), majority of the rural women possessed
most of the materials used for social activities and housekeeping with regards the
items of ownership under consideration.
8.
Reliable public transportation (r = - 0.143), adequate storage facilities (r
= - 0.115), processing facilities (r = - 0.004), health facilities (r = - 0.166), primary
schools (r = - 0.095) and secondary schools (r = - 0.028) were found to be noncorrelated with poverty alleviation strategies. The correlation values are not
significant to poverty alleviation strategies. This implies that they have no
contribution to poverty alleviation strategies in the study areas.
9.
Good water supply (r = 0.198) and cooperative societies (r = 0.599) were
found to have positive and significant high correlation with poverty alleviation
strategies respectively. The implication of this is that as good water supply and
cooperative societies increase, their strategies to be adopted or utilized to
alleviate poverty also increase. That is, they have direct effect on alleviation
CONCLUSION
The relationship between Agricultural innovations and poverty alleviation in the rural
sector of Nigeria has been opined to be strong.
The most important income generating activities of rural women as the study
revealed were crop farming, crop processing, gathering and selling of NTFPs and
few indicated other income generating activities.
It could further be concluded that factors such as financial constraint, non-access
and control over productive and infrastructural facilities account for the present
predicament of the rural women and their inability to meet up their family needs.
Some strategies being employed could be regarded as short-term approach to
poverty alleviation. Thus, it could be concluded that there is need to improve upon
areas of income generating activities which will actually be a lasting solution to the
state of the rural women.
Financial problem is one of the main factors responsible for poverty among rural
women and farmers, in which they find it difficult to secure loan from the bank and
majority of them resorted to other sources which they hardly got much.
RECOMMENDATIONS
Mr. Vice-Chancellor Sir, distinguished ladies and gentlemen, in ending this lecture, I
wish to make the following recommendations:
Extension service agencies should be made efficient to acquaint the farmers for the
recent developments.
There is need to increase the level of awareness of rural populace to the importance of
education as majority of rural women were not educated.
Adult Education Centre should also be established to train rural women how to read
and write.
Credit facilities through banks and cooperatives should be made available well in
advance to the farmers and the procedure should be made very simple.
Efforts should also be made by individuals, philanthropists and governments at local,
state and federal levels to make provision for the improvements of productive resources
and infrastructural facilities since improvements from these areas or sectors will foster
opportunities for rural women to improve the quality of their lives.
There should be provision of good roads, marketing channels and reliable public
transportation to enable rural women dispose their goods and farm produce easily to
the market.
Agro-service centre should be established where inputs (fertilizers, herbicides,
pesticides, seeds, etc.) would be made available to rural women farmers at strategic
places in rural areas.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
First and foremost, I thank God Almighty, my Alpha and Omega for his love and
protection and for giving me sound health to get to this stage.
I wish to express my most sincere appreciation to all the people who have
contributed directly or indirectly in my academic career in some ways. I cannot but
mention some of them. Firstly, I am grateful to my late parents Mallam Yusuf
Akumkpa, Mrs Aminat Yusuf and Zainab Shimodo, who struggled so much in making
sure I am educated but unfortunately they could not wait to see a day like this, may
their gentle souls rest in perfect peace. I can never forget their tremendous efforts in
making my education a reality.
My appointment to this University was during the era of the pioneer Vice-Chancellor
Professor Olugbemiro Jegede, a well rounded exponent, advocate and father of
Open and Distance Learning (ODL) in Nigeria. I am sincerely grateful to him for
giving me the opportunity to see learning instruction from the other side of the prism
and have broad knowledge of Open and Distance Learning. I want to appreciate and
thank the second Vice-Chancellor Professor Vincent Ado Tenebe under whom the
Faculty of Agricultural Sciences was established from the former School of Science
and Technology now Faculty of Sciences. He presented a proposal to Senate for
establishment of the school at its 68th regular meeting held on Tuesday 24th January,
2012 and approval was given at the 69th meeting of Senate and ratified.
I also say well-done to you Sir, for all the physical structures on the on-going
TETFUND projects at the Faculty of Agricultural Sciences Research Farm in
Kaduna (Veterinary Clinic, Goat pen, Cow pen, Poultry pen, Feed mill,
Maintenance Workshop, Cow ranch, Fish pond, ware house and gate house) for
effective research, teaching and learning. It is really the first of its kind in the
history of this university. I say a very big well-done to you Sir and your team and
God bless. I thank him particularly for giving me the opportunity to be part of the
good work he was doing by appointing me as a Dean of Faculty of Agricultural
Sciences in the university without lobbing.
I wish to thank the new Vice-Chancellor of the National Open University of Nigeria
in person of Professor Abdalla Uba Adamu who promised to consolidate and even
surpass the legacy of his predecessor when he assumed duty in March, 2016. We
appreciate your vision for NOUN which revolves around vibrant, energetic,
rearmed and ballistic, an internal slogan. This was “From NOUN to VERB: NOUN
Reloaded” which he personally coined to aggressively steer the University to the
next level. I also appreciate your commitment to take education to the door step of
every Nigerian, while ensuring the sustenance of the core values of accessibility,
affordability and flexible learning for the reputation of NOUN. I wish you God’s
guidance in all your academic and administrative endearvours Sir.
The contribution of Professor S. O. Ewola my professional mentor and doctorial
thesis Supervisor and Professor J. O. Okunlola my Co-Supervisor were quite
immense. Word of the mouth are not enough to express my gratitude but I know the
greatest rewarder will bless and grant all your heart felt desire. I am also grateful to
Professor C. O. Igodan in Ethiopia Adisa Baba, Professor A. A. Ladele, Professor J.
E. Olawoye of Department of Agricultural Extension and Rural Development,
University of Ibadan and Professor C.P.O. Obinne of Federal University of
Agriculture Makurdi.
I acknowledge the support I have been receiving from Professors Mba Ogbureke
Okoronkwo, OON (former Deputy Vice Chancellor, Academic, Dean, School of
Science and Technology and Faculty of Health Sciences) NOUN, Mathew D.
Alegbeio, Pioneer Dean of Faculty of Agricultural Sciences, late Abdul-Rashed
Yusuf, Tanglang Nebath, Eya Patrick, Vincent Ogunlela, Adedikpe Victor Oluwole,
Maduabum, C., Israel F. Adu, Ibioma Godwill, Salawu Ibrahim Olatunde, Okonkwo
Charity, Oguntuashe Kayode, Justus Sakefun, Idowu, O. M. O. and Atungu Jonathan
(UNAB), Femi Otubanjo, Stanley Naribo, Monioluwa Olaniyi, and Adewumi David.
Special appreciation goes to Drs. U.S.A Osuji, Eric Mazu, Inegbedion Julliet, Aminu
Kazeem, Mande Sumaila, Mr. Felix Edoka, Mr. John Ubaji, Mr. Ukoha O. Igwe and
Mr. Ifeanyi Ikenze.
I owe immense debt of gratitude to the University Management and my colleagues
in academia, in the Faculty of Agricultural Sciences, Professor Grace E. Jokthan,
Mr. Awolumate Samuel, Mrs. R. M. Bashir, Dr. Bankole Samuel, Dr. Kaine Anthony,
Dr. Petu, Ibikunle, Dr. Sabo Elizabeth, Dr. Ketswet Andrew, Mrs Yetunde O.
Olawode, Mr. Alfred J. Augustine and Professor Gregory Okagbare, Professor A. S.
Gidado, Professor Butswart Isa ac (SIWES Coordinator), Dr. Sunday Kolawole, Dr.
Aliyu Musa who are all Centre Directors and Specialists in Agriculture Servicing the
Faculty. Mr. Vice-Chancellor Sir, I seize this opportunity to declare publicly that
whatever the Faculty of Agricultural Sciences under my leadership has been
achieving are products of the support I have been constantly receiving from them. I
thank you all.
I also acknowledge the contributions of all non-academic staff in the Faculty of
Agricultural Sciences, Mr. Ambi Philemon, Grace Elanu, Baaki Sunday, Gowong
Bernard, Tope Sambo, Gideon Kaduno and Ishaya Zakka for their commitment to
official responsibilities. They have been so wonderful. The untiring effort Mr, Aliyu
Alhassan put into the typing of this lecture is highly appreciated and commendable.
Finally, I wish to express my heartfelt appreciation to my dearest wife, Hajia
Hadiza Halidu Mundi for all she has done for me. I thank her for encouragement,
support, love and her doggedness. My two lovely children, Amina and Yusuf, I
thank you for being good children and making it easy for me to leave home
confidently anytime in pursuit of my ambition and coming back to find out that all
is always well. I appreciate them because some children inflict pains on their
parents but you have been sources of joy and pride to us. God Almighty bless
you.
Mr. Vice-Chancellor Sir, distinguished ladies and gentlemen, I thank you for
listening.