TABLE
OF CONTENTS
Title page – – – – – – – – – ii
Certification –
– – – – – – – – iii
Dedication – – – – – – – – – iv
Acknowledgement – – – – – – – – v
Table of
Contents – – – – – – – – vi
List of Tables –
– – – – – – – – ix
List of Figures- – – – – – – – – x
Abstract – – – – – – – – – xi
CHAPTER ONE:
INTRODUCTION
Background of the
Study – – – –
– – 1
Problem
Statement – – – – – 3
Objective of the
Study – – – – 5
Hypotheses of the Study –
– – – – 6
Justification of the
Study – –
– – – 6
CHAPTER TWO:
LITERATURE REVIEW
2.1 Definition and Development of Fadama
farming – – 8
2.2 Economic Importance of Fadama
farming – – 9
2.3 Rice Production Systems – – – – 10
2.4 Inputs Used in Rice Production in Nigeria- – – 12
2.5 Trends in Rice Production in Nigeria
– – – 14
2.6 Efforts to Boost Rice Production in
Nigeria- – 16
2.7 Developments in the Nigeria Rice Sector
Policy 17
2.8 Profitability of Rice Production
Nigeria – – 19
2.9 Efficiency of Rice Production in
Nigeria – – 21
2.10 Community Driven Development Approach and
Fadama Project 22
2.11 Theoretical Framework- –
– – – 23
2.12 Analytical Framework- – – – 29
CHAPTER THREE:
METHODOLOGY OF STUDY
Study Area – – – – – –
– – 32
Sampling
Technique – – – – – 33
Method of Data
Collection – – – 33
Data Analysis – – – –
– 34
Model
Specification – – – – 34
Stochastic Frontier
Production Function for Rice
Farmers 34
Gross Margin, Net
Farm Income and Return on Naira Invested
36
Likert Scale Rating
Technique- – – 37
Hypotheses
Testing- – – – 38
CHAPTER FOUR: RESULTS
AND DISCUSSION
Socio-Economic
Characteristics of the Respondents –
– 39
4.1.1 Age
of the Respondents – – – 39
4.1.2 Gender of Respondents – – – – 40
4.1.3 Marital Status of Respondents- – – – 41
4.1.4 Household Size of Respondents- – – – 41
4.1.5 Farm Size of the Respondents – – – 42
Farming Experience of
Respondents- – – 43
Educational
Qualification of Respondents-
– 44
4.1.8 Major Occupation of Respondents –
– – 45
4.2.1 Technical Efficiency of Fadama III and
non-Fadama III Rice Farmers 46
4.2.2 Diagnostic statistics- – – – – 50
4.2.3 Frequency Distribution of Technical
Efficiency of Respondents- 51
4.2.4 Elasticity of Factor Inputs and Return to
Scale – – 53
4.3 Assessments of the Allocative
Efficiencies of Rice Farmers – 54
4.3.1 Allocative Efficiency of Fadama Rice
Farmers- – 55
4.3.2 Allocative Efficiency of non-Fadama III
Rice Farmers- – 55
4.4. Costs and Returns of Fadama III and
non-Fadama III Rice Farmers 56
4.5 Constraints of Rice Farming in Niger
State – 59
Test of Hypotheses- –
– – – 61
CHAPTER FIVE:
SUMMARY, CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATION
5.1 Summary – – – – – – – – 64
5.2 Conclusion – – – – – –
– – 66
5.3 Recommendations – – – – – – – 67
5.3.1 Project Implementers- –
– – – 67
5.3.2 Policy Implication for Policy Makers- –
– – 68
5.3.3 Possible Areas for Further Studies- – – – 69
REFRENCES – – – – – – – – 71
APPENDICES – – – – – – – – 80
LIST OF TABLES
Table 2.1 Major Features of Nigerian Rice
Production Systems – 12
Table 2.2 Trends in Rice Production in Nigeria
(1961-2000) – – – – – -15
Table 2.3 Annual Trends in Rice Production in
Nigeria (1999-2009) 16
Table 4.1 Age of Respondents –
– – – –
– 39
Table 4.2 Gender of Respondents –
– – – – 40
Table 4.3 Marital Status of Respondents – –
– 41
Table 4.4 Household size of Respondents – – – 42
Table 4.5 Farm Size of Respondents – – – – 43
Table 4.6 Years of Farming Experience of
Respondents – – 44
Table 4.7 Educational Qualification of Frequency
– – 45
Table 4.8 Major Occupation of Respondents- –
– – 46
Table 4.9 MLE of Parameters of Cobb-Douglas
Frontier Function- 47
Table 4.10 Frequency Distribution of the Technical
Efficiencies of Rice Farmers – 52
Table 4.11 Estimated Elasticity of Factor Inputs
and Returns to Scale 53
Table 4.12. OLS Estimates of parameters of
Cobb-Douglas Function- 54
Table 4.13 Allocative Efficiency Fadama III
Beneficiary Rice Farmers 55
Table 4.14 Allocative Efficiency non-Fadama III
Beneficiary Rice Farmers 56
Table 4.15. Costs and Returns of Fadama III and
non-Fadama III Rice Farmers 57
Table 4.16 Mean Distribution of Constraints of Rice
Production as- 60
Table 4.17 T-Test on Technical Efficiencies of the
Rice farmers 62
Table 4.18 T-Test on Profitability of the Rice
farmers- – – 62
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 2.1 Growths in
Prices and Outputs of Rice in Nigeria-
– 18
Figure 2.2 Costs and
Returns in Rice Production by Agro-ecologies– 21
Figure 2.3 Technical
and Allocative Efficiencies-
– 25
Figure 2.4 Production
Frontier- — – – – – 27
ABSTRACT
This study
investigated resource use efficiency of Fadama III and non-Fadama III
beneficiary rice farmers in Niger State, Nigeria. Primary data were collected
using questionnaire/interview schedule administered to a sample of one hundred
and twenty rice farmers, selected using multi-stage sampling technique. Data
were analyzed using descriptive statistics, stochastic frontier production
function, return to scale analysis, gross margin analysis, net farm income
analysis and likert scale rating technique. Maximum likelihood estimates of the
Cobb-Douglas frontier function showed that coefficient of seeds (0.479), labour ( 0.445) and herbicides
( 0.093) had significant effects on output of Fadama III beneficiary rice
farmers while fertilizer ( 0.069) is the input with significant effect on
output of the non-beneficiary farmers. The estimated coefficients of the
inefficiency model revealed that age, household size, educational level, extension
contact and Fadama advisory services positively affected Fadama III rice
farmers’ technical efficiency, but only age and educational level were
significant. On the other hand, age, household size and extension contact
positively affected non-Fadama III rice farmers’ technical efficiency, but only
extension contact was significant. An increasing return to scale of 1.432 and
1.168 were recorded for the Fadama III and non-Fadama III rice farmers,
respectively. The technical efficiencies of the Fadama III rice farmers ranged
from 0.411 – 1 with a mean value of 0.79 while that of the non Fadama III
beneficiary rice farmers ranged from 0.435 – 0.989 with a mean value of 0.81 on
the scale of 1.This showed that technical efficiency can be increased by 21 and
19 percents to attain optimal level in the Fadama III and non Fadama III
beneficiary rice farmers, respectively. Allocative efficiency analysis showed
that all resource inputs were underutilized. Fadama III rice farmers made a
gross margin of N69, 288.37, a net farm income of N67, 599.91 and a return on
Naira Invested of 1.81 per ha while the non-Fadama III rice farmers made a
gross margin of N30, 250.36, a net farm income of N28, 550.26 and a return on
Naira invested of 1.12 per ha. The student t-test showed that there was no
significant difference between the technical efficiencies of Fadama III and
non-Fadama III beneficiary rice farmers. However, the t-test showed a
significant difference between the profit of the Fadama III and non-Fadama III
rice farmers. The study recommended that project implementers should tackle the
challenge of elite capture, inputs diversion and intensify advisory
services/training, while policy makers facilitate the usage of high yielding
seeds, labour saving technology and agro-chemicals for rice farmers.
CHAPTER
ONE
INTRODUCTION
1.1 BACKGROUND TO THE STUDY
The food sub-sector
of Nigerian agriculture has a large array of staple crops, but rice has risen
to a position of pre-eminence. At independence in 1960, rice was merely a
festival food consumed mostly in affluent homes during the Christmas and other
religious festivals (UNEP,2002). However, as shown in the report of Akpokoye,
Lancon and Erenstein (2001), since the mid-1970s, rice consumption in Nigeria
has risen tremendously, (+10.3% per annum) as a result of accelerating
population growth rate and changing consumer preferences. Urbanization appears to be the main cause of
the shift in consumer preferences towards rice in Nigeria. Rice is easy to prepare compared to other
traditional cereals, thereby reducing the chore of food preparation and fitting more easily the
urban lifestyles of rich and
poor alike. The poorest third of urban households obtain 33% of their
cereal-based calories from rice, and rice purchases represent a major component
of cash expenditures on cereals (World Bank 1991).
Ogundele and Okoruwa (2006) noted that in
an apparent move to respond to the increased per capita consumption of rice in
Nigeria, local production boomed, averaging 9.3% per annum. These increases
have been traced to vast expansion of cropped rice area at an annual average of
7.9% and to a lesser extent to an increase in rice yield of 1.49% per
annum. In spite of this, the production
increase was not sufficient to match the consumption increase.
Rice production, according to Onoja
(2007), can be found in each of the geopolitical zones of the country. These
extend from the Northern to Southern zones with most rice grown in middle Belt
(Niger, Benue, Kaduna, Kogi and Taraba States) and the Eastern states (Enugu,
Cross River and Ebonyi States). Daramola (2005) observed that the middle belt
of the country (where Niger state is located) has a comparative advantage in
production over the other parts of the country.
According to Singh et al (1997) rice
production systems in Nigeria include upland rainfed, lowland rainfed,
irrigated lowland and deep water and mangrove rice. Daramola (2005) asserted
that mangrove is the least important in terms of area, accounting for less than
1% of the total rice area with deep water accounting for 5% of the rice
production area, although this figure is most likely overestimated given the
physical unit to area expansion in this environment. Of the estimated three
million metric tons of annual rice production, three major rice production
systems, namely upland rainfed, lowland rainfed and irrigated productions
account for 97%. West African Rice Development Association – WARDA (2003) and
Daramola (2005) agree that lowlands without water control i.e. Fadama areas are
the main ecology followed by upland and irrigated rice.
In order to address the demand
/supply gap, governments have at various times come up with policies and
programmes. These include National Accelerated Food Production Programme
established in 1972, Agricultural Development Project established in 1975,
Operation Feed the Nation established in 1975, River Basin Development
Authority established in 1978, the Green Revolution established in 1980, the
Directorate of Food, Road and Rural Infrastructure established in 1985,
National Land Development Authority established in 1988, National Fadama
Development programme established in 1992 and FADAMA II established in
2004. The first National Fadama
Development Project was approved on March 26, 1992 and became effective
February 23, 1993. Small scale irrigation in the fadama has been hampered by
several constraints which include poor infrastructure in the Fadamas, low
investment in technology development and extension for irrigated agriculture,
weak financial intermediation, poorly organized Fadama Farms and limited access
to foreign exchange for importation of irrigation equipment. The first National
Fadama Development Project – FADAMA I was designed to tackle these constraints
(NFDP, 2003). The programme came to a close on March 31, 1999 and FADAMA II and
III later came on board.
The second and the third National
Fadama Development Project which started in May, 2004, and March, 2009,
respectively aims to sustainably increase the income of all users of Fadama
resources that include crop farmers, gatherers of edible and non edible fruits,
fisher folks, hunters, pastoralists and service providers. In Niger State the
Fadama II was implemented in the eleven participating local government areas
which are Agaie, Lavan, Katcha, Lapai, Shiroro, Suleja, Chanchaga, Kontagora,
Mariga, Magama and Borgu, while Fadama III is being implemented in the entire
twenty-five LGAs of Niger State. The project development approach is the
Community Driven Development (CDD)
which is a bottom up approach that empowers communities /associations to
develop social and all inclusive local development plans whereby communities
take responsibility for designing, implementing, operating and maintaining as
well as monitoring and evaluating the sub projects as prioritized in their
local development plans (NSFDO 2005).
Having expended much in the Fadama
Project, a World Bank intervention that
employs a Community Driven Development approach, it is very pertinent to
determine the resource use efficiency of rice farmers, the major users of
Fadama in Niger State, since World Bank (2009 ) observed that out of the three
CDD objectives (service delivery, empowerment/governance and economic
livelihood) evaluation data has been most lacking on outcomes in terms of improvements
in the lives and incomes of the poorest people themselves.