farmer literacy education strategies for achieving … agwu's final phd...farmer literacy...

Farmer Literacy Education Strategies for Achieving Poverty and Hunger Reduction Among Rural Farmers

in Abia State, Nigeria

By

Agwu, Augustus Amogu

Pg/Ph.D/05/39641

Thesis Submitted to the Department of Vocational Teacher Education

University of Nigeria, Nsukka in Fulfillment for the Award of Doctor of Philosophy(Ph.d) Degree in

Agriculture Education

Supervisor: Prof. N. J. Ogbazi December 5th 2013

i

APPROVAL PAGE

THIS THESIS HAS BEEN APPROVED FOR THE DEPARTMENT OF VOCATIONAL TEACHER EDUCATION,

UNIVSERSITY OF NIGERIA, NSUKKA

BY

___________________ __________________ PROF.N.J. OGBAZI (SUPERVISOR) INTERNAL EXAMINER

__________________ __________________ EXTERNAL EXAMINER PROF.A.C.IGBO HEAD OF DEPARTMENT

_________________________

PROF. S.A EZEUDU DEAN OF FACULTY

ii

CERTIFICATION

AGWU, AUGUSTUS AMOGU, a Postgraduate student of the Department of Vocational

Teacher Education with Registration Number PG/Ph.D/05/39641, has satisfactorily

completed the requirements for the award of the degree of Doctor of Philosophy (PhD) in

Agricultural Education. The work embodied in this Thesis is original and has not been

submitted in part or in full for any degree of this or any other University.

___________________ __________________ AGWU, A. AMOGU PROF.N.J. OGBAZI (STUDENT) (SUPERVISOR)

iii

DEDICATION

Dedicated to the Poor Resource Farmers; And to the Almighty God for His countless Graces and Mercies.

iv

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

To the many significant fellows, whose interests, advice, suggestions and

criticisms have contributed directly or indirectly to the success and quality of this

research work, the researcher extends his sincere gratitude. Particular thanks and

gratitude are due to Professor N.J. Ogbazi his academic mentor, adviser and supervisor

for his guidance, readiness and willingness at every stage to discuss matters arising from

the various dimensions of the study. The researcher is grateful to Professor Emmanuel

Osinem and Dr. Onu F.M of the Department of Vocational Teacher Education,

University of Nigeria, Nsukka; Dr. D. O Nwuabani of the Social Science Department,

UNN and Professor Emmanuel Ekwuonye of Evans Enwerem University, Imo State, for

their invaluable assistance, comments and suggestions that helped to improve the

standard of the work.

The researcher acknowledges the support and co-operation received from the

following agencies and persons: the National Bureau of Statistics (NBS), Abia State

Office, Umuahia; the Abia State Community-based Poverty Reduction programme

(ABCPRP),and in particular the assistance received from the General Manager of

ABCPRP, late Pastor Uzor C. Iheukwumere, including senior management staff of the

Agency in the persons of Pastors Ukpai N,and Pastor Uka N. I. Other agencies are the

Abia State Agricultural Development Programme (ADP); Abia State Planning

Commission; Ministry of Agriculture and Natural Resources; and the Ministry of Co-

operatives and Poverty Reduction. They showed very friendly disposition to the

researcher.

The researcher also appreciates a host of benefactors whose works the researcher

made references to and from whose ideas he drew inspirations and facts and figures that

helped to build up the literature content of the study.Also the researcher acknowledges

the encouragement and support given by his wife,Lady Nnenna Joy Agwu, and his

children Chudi, Emeka, Amaka, Onyeka and Obinna. May they never know “Poverty”.

Above all else, to God be the Glory for His Mercy and Grace that made this work

possible.

v

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Title Page

Approval Page

Certification

ii

iii

Dedication iv

Acknowledgement v

Table of Contents vi

Appendixs ix

List of Tables

List of Figures

xi

xiii

Abstract xiv

CHAPTER ONE:INTRODCUTION

Background of the Study 1

Statement of the Problem 7

Purpose of the Study 9

Significance of the Study 9

Research Questions 11

Research Hypothesis 11

Scope of the Study 12

Assumptions of the Study 13

CHAPTER TWO: REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE

Conceptual Framework of the Study 15

Theoretical Framework of the Study 20

Conventional Forms of Farmer Education 26

Indicators of Poverty and Hunger among Rural Farmers 32

Poverty , Hunger and Rural Agricultural Productivity 44

Approaches to Poverty and Hunger Reduction 64

Government Rural Agricultural Interventions Programmes 85

A System Approach To Agricultural Research – Extension for Rural Productivity 102

The Issue of Farmer Education and Rural Literacy: A Paradigm Shift 110

Review of Empirical Studies 120

vi

Relevance of Empirical Studies to the Research Work

127

Summary Of Literature Review 129

CHAPTER THREE: RESEARCH METHODOLOGY

Design of the Study 132

Area of the Study 132

Population of the Study 133

Sample and Sampling Technique 134

Instrument for Data Collection 135

Validation of the Instrument 136

Reliability of the Instrument 136

Methods of Data Collection 137

Methods of Data Analysis 137

CHAPTER FOUR: PRESENTATION AND ANALYSIS OF DATA

Results of Research Question 1 139





Test of Hypothesis 1 148





Findings of the Study 150

Discussion of the Findings 157

vii

CHAPTER FIVE: SUMMARY, CONCLUSION, RECOMMENDATIONS FOR

IMPLEMENTATION AND SUGGESTIONS FOR

FURTHER RESEARCH

Re-Statement of the Problem 162

Specific Objectives 163

Summary of the Procedures used for the Study 163

Major Findings of the Study 164

Implications of the Study 166

Conclusion 169

Recommendations for Implementation 170

Limitations of the Study 171

Suggestions for further studies 171

REFERENCES 172

APPENDICES 181

viii

Appendix A Poverty Incidence and Farm Practices in Nigeria 181

Appendix B Farm size distribution by Region and sex of Holder 182

Appendix C Profile of farmers 183

Appendix D Incidence of poverty in the Niger Delta -1980-2005 184

Appendix E Literacy status in Mine most populous countries in the world 185

Appendix F Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) and Targets 186

Appendix G Sectorial Allocation To Agriculture as Compared to Total

Budget

187

Appendix H ABCPRP Projects Executed for the period 2003-2006 188

Appendix I Nigeria Food Import Dependency Ratio (FIDR) 1986-2005 193

Appendix J Share of Agriculture And Oil in Nigeria’s Foreign Exchange

Earnings 2000-2005.

194

Appendix K Capital Allocation To Agriculture (Nm) 195

Appendix L Agricultural Ecological Zones of AbiaState 196

Appendix M Statistics of Farmers’ Multi-Purpose Co-operative Societiesin

the Ohafia Agriecological Zone of AbiaState

197

Appendix N Abia State ADP Field Staff Disposition for the year 2005 198

Appendix O Evidence of validation of instrument 199

Appendix P Final Draft of Questionnaire (Demographic Data) 200

Appendix Q Final Draft of Questionnaire (Causes of Poverty and Hunger). 201

Appendix R Final Draft of Questionnaire (Role of Farmer Literacy

Education)

203

Appendix S Final Draft of Questionnaire (Farmer Literacy Education

Models)

205

Appendix T Final Draft of Questionnaire (Impact of Government Rural

Agricultural Interventions on Farmer Literacy Education)

209

Appendix U Final Draft of Questionnaire (Benefits of Farmer Literacy

Education to Rural Farmers)

210

Appendix V Reliability Tests of Research Instruments 212

Appendix W Mean Ratings of Respondents (Enumerators and facilitators) on 219

ix

the causes of Poverty and Hunger among Rural Farmers.

Appendix X The Mean Opinions of Rural Farmers on the Role of Farmer

Literacy Education in the Context of Poverty and Hunger

Reduction among Rural Farmers

221

Appendix Y Mean Ratings of the Opinions of Respondents (Agric.

Extension Managers and Lecturers of Agricultural Education)

on Farmer Literacy Education Models

222

Appendix Z Mean Ratings of Agricultural Extension Agents on the Impact

of Government Rural Agricultural Intervention on Farmer

Literacy Education Programme

223

Appendix A1 Mean Ratings of Rural Farmers on the Benefits of Farmer

Literacy Education as Means to Achieving Poverty and

Hunger Reeducation at the Threshold

225

Appendix B1 t-test Analysis of the Mean Score of Respondents on Causes of

Poverty and Hunger among Rural Farmers.

228

Appendix C1 z-test Analysis for differences of two population Means on the

role of Farmer Literacy Education in the Context Poverty and

Hunger Reduction among Rural Farmers

230

Appendix D1 t-test Analysis of Mean Ratings of the Opinions of experts

(Extension Managers and Lecturers) on Farmer Literacy

Education Models for Teaching Modern Agricultural

Knowledge and Literacy Skills

232

Appendix E1 z-test Analysis of the Mean Ratings of Respondents (Agric

Extension Managers and Extension Agents) on the Impact of

Government Rural Agricultural Interventions of Farmer

Literacy Education Programmes.

238

Appendix F1 z-test Analysis of Mean Rating of Experts (Agric Extension

Managers and Extension Agents) on Benefits of Farmer

Literacy Education to Rural Farmers. In Achieving Poverty

and Hunger Reduction at Threshold

239

x

LIST OF TABLES Page

1: Poverty Incidence and Farm Practices in Nigeria. 181

2. Farm Size Distribution by Regions and Sex of Holder 182

3. Poverty Profile of Farmers in Nigeria 183

4. Incidence of Poverty in Niger-Delta (1980-2004) 184

5. Literacy Status of Nine Most Population Countries of the World 185

6. Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) and Targets 186

7. Sectorial Allocations to Agriculture as Compared to Total Budget for the

Period 1977 to 2005 187

8. ABCPRP Projects executed for the period 2003-2006 188

9. Nigeria Food Import Dependency Ratio (FIDR) 1986-2005 193

10. Share of Agricultural and Oil in Nigeria’s Foreign Exchange

Earnings 2000-2005. 194

11. Capital Allocation to Agriculture (#M) 195

15. Agricultural Ecological Zones of Abia State. 196

16. Statistics of Farmers’ Multi-Purpose Co-operative Societies in Ohafia

Agriecological Zone of Abia State 197

17 Abia State ADP Field Staff Disposition for the year 2005 198

18 Mean Ratings of Respondents (Enumerators and facilitators) on the causes

of Poverty and Hunger among Rural Farmers.

139

19 The Mean Opinions of Rural Farmers on the Role of Farmer Literacy

Education in the Context of Poverty and Hunger Reduction among Rural

Farmers

141

20 Mean Ratings of the Opinions of Respondents (Agric. Extension

Managers and Lecturers of Agricultural Education) on Farmer Literacy

Education Models

143

21 Mean Ratings of Agricultural Extension Agents on the Impact of

Government Rural Agricultural Intervention on Farmer Literacy Education

Programme

144

xi

22 Mean Ratings of Rural Farmers on the Benefits of Farmer Literacy

Education as Means to Achieving Poverty and Hunger Reeducation at the

Threshold

146

23 t-test Analysis of the Mean Score of Respondents on Causes of Poverty

and Hunger among Rural Farmers.

148

24 z-test Analysis for differences of two population Means on the role of

Farmer Literacy Education in the Context Poverty and Hunger Reduction

among Rural Farmers

148

25 t-test Analysis of Mean Ratings of the Opinions of experts (Extension

Managers and Lecturers) on Farmer Literacy Education Models for

Teaching Modern Agricultural Knowledge and Literacy Skills

149

26 z-test Analysis of the Mean Ratings of Respondents (Agric Extension

Managers and Extension Agents) on the Impact of Government Rural

Agricultural Interventions of Farmer Literacy Education Programmes.

149

xii

LIST OF FIGURES

Page

1. An Egg Model Concept of Farmer Education 19

2. The Eight Millennium Development Goal (MDG Target) 67

4. Conceptual Framework for the Achievement of MDGs 67

3. The Conceptual Framework of Agricultural System Approach to

Extension 105

5 Operational Elements of Functional Farmer Literacy Education 118

6 Classification of Rural Farmers According to Time of Adoption of

new Farm Practices. 123

xiii

ABSTRACT

Reducing poverty, hunger and illiteracy among rural farmers is a major challenge

facing governments, rural development experts and stake-holders. Over 70% of the poor live in

rural areas and where 48% of these already live in extreme poverty and hunger. The poor

concentrate in the rural communities where agricultureremains the major economic activity. It

was the assumption of this study that the basic approach to reducing poverty and hunger among

rural farmers is to teach rural farmers modern farming skills and technologies with basic

literacy skills in an integrated approach through farmer literacy education strategies. This

educational strategy was thought to improve agricultural knowledge and skills among rural

farmers; increase farm productivity; raise income generating capacity and in the long run

achieve poverty and hunger reduction. The purpose of this study was to identify functional

Farmer Literacy Education strategies that can teach modern agricultural knowledge and

literacy skills in an integrated approach to rural farmers as means to enhancing their socio-

economic living conditions. The descriptive Survey Research Design was the methodology

adopted for the study. Five research questions and five hypotheses respectively were stated

andformulated to guide the study. The instrument for data collection was the questionnaire.

This was structured on a 4 point response options designed to elicit responses that provided

answers to the research questions.Data analyses involved the use of Frequency Distribution

tables, Mean, Standard Deviation and Variance. These statistical procedures were used to

summarize and compute data generated from administration of the instrument. The five

hypotheses were testedat 0.05 level of significance, using t-test and z-test. The findings of the

study indicated among others that (i) low agricultural productivity, illiteracy, and poor access

to improved farm inputs are the major causes of poverty and hunger among rural farmers in

Ohafia agriecozone of Abia State; (ii) that Farmer Literacy Educationhas significant roles to

play if poverty and hunger are to decline rapidly among rural farmers. These findings have far

reaching implications on rural agricultural development programmes. The study suggested that

Farmer Literacy Education specifically designed for rural farmers should be geared towards

human capital development of the peasant farmers and the improvement of their productive

capacities. The study recommended that rural farmers need basic literacy skills and improved

agricultural knowledge as necessary conditions for rural agricultural transformation and

improved productivity leading to poverty and hunger reduction among rural farmers.

1

CHAPTER ONE

INTRODUCTION

Background of the Study

Poverty generally is not just an unfortunate reality attributable to the lack of the

abundance of nature or even due to laziness. Studies by Donald Dorr (1994) have shown that the

mis-development and poverty of a people are due less to nature than to human actions and

interventions and are largely the results of neglect and unjust actions in society, past and present.

Dorr asserts that to impoverish a people is to have poverty inflicted on them; and noted that

impoverishment is deliberate action. According to Dorr (1994), the poor generally refer to those

living at the bottom or near the bottom of society, and often referred to as the dregs of society.

These are usually the less favored sector of the society, and include the have-nots or those who

are economically deprived, politically marginalized, and socially excluded. Dorr (1994),

maintains that the poor are deprived of adequate food and housing; do not participate in the

decision-making process that affect their lives; they are despised because of their language or

accent and custom; they are deprived of education, and of the leisure and opportunities to

cultivate the things of the spirit. These poverty related issues are of particular importance to the

study.

For many years, poverty was defined in terms of income, in money and kind, necessary to

ensure access to a set of life basic needs such as food, portable water, good housing, healthy life,

knowledge (education) and decent standard of living. According to Okafor (2004) it is the

progress and achievements made in these dimensions of life that determines the status of a nation

or a people as developed, underdeveloped or developing or poor. With the passage of time

however, the concept of poverty became modified to include not only the lack of income, but

also the lack of access to good and quality food, health care delivery, basic education, basic

social infrastructure and political emancipation (National Bureau of Statistics – NBS, 2006). In

more recent times, the definition of poverty has expanded, in addition to the above, to include

other human dimensions of life such as powerlessness or lack of political power and

representation, social exclusion and isolation, marginalization, alienation and vulnerability

(Schulz, 2001). Annan (2001) leaning on the views of Dorr (1994) and Schulz (2001) posit that

poverty is not only deprivation of economic and material necessities, but also a violation of

human rights and dignity.

2 In essence, poverty has many strands. Okafor (2004) classifies poverty into four broad

categories, namely; absolute or abject poverty, relative poverty, material poverty and income

poverty. Absolute or abject poverty relates to living condition whereby the individual is deprived

of physical subsistence including inadequate food, poor access to healthcare delivery, good

housing, potable water, and basic education; and therefore incapable of protecting human

dignity. Schulz (2001) refers to abject poverty as the situation whereby people live on less than

one US dollar per day which in Nigeria is less than N150, depending on the exchange rate of the

Naira to the Dollar. Relative poverty refers to the inability of a group of people in a section of

society to satisfy their basic life needs when compared to the level of satisfaction of these needs

in other sections of the society. In this regard, there are urban and rural poverty.

Urban centers often offer relatively better conditions of living when compared to rural

areas. The major dividing line is the presence of modern amenities such as good roads, portable

water, health care services, educational opportunities, and higher incomes, which are grossly

absent in rural communities (Okafor, 2004). In line with this, the National Bureau of Statistics

(NBS, 2006), found evidence to assert that although incomes of many urban inhabitants may not

be sufficient to meet their basic needs, but their incomes are usually better than those in rural

areas. In effect, rural poverty is therefore worse than urban poverty. Okafor (2004) further notes

that material poverty refers to deprivations in non-monetary terms, which include the lack of

fixed or movable assets in forms of land, houses, farm equipments, livestock, seeds and other

physical factors of production which are grossly inadequate among rural farmers. Income

poverty was further expressed in terms of deprivation in monetary terms and earned incomes.

Poor incomes according to Schulz (2001) make it difficult for the individual to provide the basic

needs of life and a decent standard of living. Furthermore, the World Poverty line based on

incomes, classifies as extreme poverty those living on less than one US dollar a day or its naira

equivalent (Food and Agricultural Organization – FAO, 2005).

In view of the above postulations, poverty stands for a situation whereby one cannot meet

average life requirements and expectations. In simple terms, poverty is lack of basic life needs

without any means or resources in the foreseeable future to attain these need (Abia state

Community-based Poverty Reduction Programme – ABCPRP, 2002). In the same vein, the

United Nations Human Development Report (UNHDR-1996) note that poverty entails the

3 absence of the basic requirements for the survival and to an extent the comfort of man, and

asserted that poverty is synonymous with hunger and starvation.

Hunger, as defined by Federal Office of Statistics FOS, 1999), refers to the level of difficulty in

obtaining, meeting and satisfying basic food needs. The Federal Office of Statistics (FOS 1999)

states that hunger is a feeling experienced and usually followed by a desire to eat; and noted that

the sensation of hunger typically begins after a couple of hours without eating food and is

generally considered quite uncomfortable. In the view of FAO (2005), hunger undermines

health, education, productivity, and environmental sustainability. Reflecting on the issue of

hunger, World Bank Report (WBR-2005) note that hungry people are likely to catch infectious

diseases, suffer severe illness and death once they do so. As a consequence, hungry adults cannot

work hard or earn much. In most cases, hungry people need to use all the means at their disposal

to survive, even if that means despoiling the natural environment and resources which they

depend. Furthermore, FAO (2005) note that hunger leads to unsustainable use of resources; and

asserted that hunger spurs risky behaviors and perpetrates poverty by reducing productivity. In

addition, Brown in World Bank Report (WBR, 2005), observe further that hunger is both one of

the most painful symptoms and an important cause of extreme poverty. In the opinion of Bar-on

(2001), poverty is therefore strongly associated with hunger, undernourishment and malnutrition,

and is manifested in the sustained inability of the poor to have at least a meal a day. In the view

of FAO (2005), hunger perpetuates poverty by reducing productivity, while poverty prevents

people from producing enough or acquiring the food they need.

In Nigeria, poverty and hunger are pervasive. The incidence is most prevalent in the rural

communities (World Bank Report 1996) and noted that about 65 percent to 70 percent of the

rural populace are farmers. The World Bank (2001) further provided evidence to show that

poverty and hunger are concentrated in the rural areas despite the fact that these are the epi -

centers of agricultural production activities. Indications are that rural farming families in Nigeria

have the highest poverty levels when compared to non-farming families (Federal Office of

Statistics, FOS, 1999). A Household Consumption Data Survey (FOS, 1986-1996) found

empirical evidence that about 77% of rural farmers in Nigeria are poor, while about 48 percent

are in extreme poverty. On the issue of rural poverty and hunger, another information Survey by

the Federal Office of Statistics (FOS, 1999) established a strong link between agricultural

production system, food security, poverty and depressing educational attainment, and stated that

4 knowledge of this linkage is of paramount importance in efforts geared towards reducing poverty

and hunger. Evidence from these surveys suggested that such efforts should be directed to assist

in improving rural agricultural sector performance and the rural farmers themselves, through

relevant farmer educational procedures that will emphasize fundamental literacy.

This trend in poverty, hunger and low level educational attainment among rural farmers

was observable among rural of Abia state and in particular in the Ohafia agricultural ecological

zone located in the Abia north geo-political zone which constitutes the area of study. The zone is

made up largely of rural communities with farming as the primary economic activity of the

people (Abia State Hand Book, 1991-1997). Farming is a rural activity and the rural farmers

constitute a major part of the rural poor (FOS, 1999). Their farming systems are characterized by

small farm-holdings, rudimentary and traditional labour intensive practices. Low yielding

varieties of seeds and breeds of livestock are the major inputs. Only a small proportion of rural

farmers use improved inputs. Most rural farmers are deprived of education; cannot read and

write; and hence are unskilled and not specialized (Akinyosoye, 1999). In effect, rural agriculture

is more or less static, generally supported by age-old habits and inherited systems and beset by a

myriad of socio-economic problems. These conservative and traditional farming practices have

led to low agricultural productivity, poor income and endemic hunger and food insecurity among

the rural populace.

In spite of these problems, the small-scale farmers still produce over 90% of the food

consumed in Nigeria (NBS, 2005). Udo (2005), argued that since this situation is likely to

continue for a long time, it has become imperative that efforts be geared towards improving rural

agricultural productivity and emphasized the need for a change in farmer education procedures

with focus on human capital development of the rural labour-force through improved literacy

rates and modern agricultural knowledge. Thus, rural agriculture requires urgent transformation.

It is the contention of this study that farmer literacy education has the potential not only to

improve rural agricultural productivity and raise farm incomes through improved farming

techniques, but also teach literacy skills which are necessary in the acquisition and utilization of

modern farm technologies that will restructure and transform rural farming systems. These

synergies seem critical in facilitating the achievement of poverty and hunger reduction among

rural farmers. Poverty and hunger are synonymous. Poverty breeds hunger and hunger

perpetuates poverty by lowering productivity.

5

Poverty and hunger reduction simply means to lessen or make less severe, pains and

suffering stemming from poverty and hunger that not only deplete the human body but also

depresses the human spirit (Dorr, 1994 and Dixon 2001). This entails guaranteeing a decent

livelihood for those rural populations living in extreme poverty and hunger.

From this perspective, Mafeje (2001), and Dorr (1994), argued that poverty and hunger reduction

should, at best, be a product of good governance and improved options for the poor as initiated

and promoted by donor agencies and charitable organizations. Therefore, poverty and hunger

reduction programmes require conscious efforts and planning by governments and other relevant

institutions; and must be multi-sectoral in approach involving stake-holders such as NGOs,

Farmer Associations, Global agencies, Donor agencies, Community-based Organization (CBOs)

and other change agents, especially those concerned with adult literacy education and human

capital development campaign for the rural people.

In the past, and even in current practice, most farmer education strategies geared towards

improving the productive performance of rural farmers, have often revolved on the ministry of

agriculture-type extension services, packaged by research and delivered to rural farmers by

agricultural extension agents. But as Coombs and Ahmed (1999) observed, traditionally,

teaching basic literacy skills has not been an agricultural extension activity. They argued that

agricultural extension as a strategy for teaching rural farmers has never been concerned with the

teaching of fundamental literacy skills to rural farmers, but rather focused attention primarily on

increased agricultural production, agricultural information dissemination and farm technology

transfer from research.

Extension has the task of providing a two-way flow of information on improved farm

technologies from research to rural farmers (Peterson, 1997). This process of information flow

formed the basis of the Research-Extension-Farmer Linkage System (REFLS), which for many

decades has been based on the simple farmer education model of technology generation and

transfer – a system which Peterson (1997) acknowledged had never been a truly educational

process, since it never incorporated nor had been concerned with the teaching of basic literacy

skills to rural farmers. Moreover, the functions of agricultural extension agents have never

included any form of literacy activity. Based on these facts, the study drew attention to the need

for educational procedures for teaching rural farmers that will integrate basic literacy with

6 modern scientific agricultural knowledge as means of promoting poverty and hunger reduction

among rural farmers.

A new global approach to hunger and poverty reduction considers poverty alleviation not

just as mechanism to get the poor to cross a given income or consumption level but also as a

sustainable increase in agricultural production and an integration of the process of social and

economic growth of the rural people through educational procedures (FAO,1987). This

standpoint is in agreement with the position of Mafeje (2001) who asserted that poverty is not

only a problem of amelioration but of human development. These positions are further

strengthened by the general acceptance and adoption of the eight Millennium Development

Goals (MDGs 2000) by the international community which provided the current framework for

poverty and hunger reduction globally, and especially for the poor and developing countries. The

first two MDGs which are relevant to the study are:

• Eradicate Extreme Poverty and Hunger

• Achieve the Universalization of Education

The targets of these goals are:

(a) Reduce by half the proportion of people living on less than a dollar a day; and, those who

suffer from extreme poverty and hunger.

(b) Ensure that all boys and girls complete a full course of primary schooling.

These two MDGs are in consonance with the general purpose of the study; that is, poverty and

hunger reduction through improved rural agricultural production and well structured farmer

literacy education programmes. It was the projection of this study that reducing rural illiteracy

rates and improving agricultural productivity, are critical factors in the realization of the goals of

poverty and hunger reduction.

In line with the goals and general principles of the Millennium Development Goals

(MDGs), Nigeria embarked on new development reform agenda code named National Economic

Empowerment Development Strategy (NEEDS), to address poverty, hunger, educational and

other development problems in the country. The National Economic Empowerment

Development Strategy (NEEDS) was adopted from the MDGs as Nigeria’s response to the

challenges of the Millennium Development Goals. NEEDS was predicated on the premise that

every Nigerian has the right to adequate and quality food, good housing, healthcare and basic

education. In line with this, Obasanjo (1999) therefore recommended that a return to strategies

7 meant to enhance the income generating capacity of the rural sector, boost agricultural

productivity and modernization of farming practices, should all be part of the poverty reduction

package of NEEDS. From the foregoing, it is obvious that well-structured farmer education

strategy with literacy skills has significant role to play in any strategy geared towards enhancing

rural agricultural productivity and to ensuring a decent standard of living of the rural people.

In view of the foregoing submissions, eradication of illiteracy among rural farmers

should be seen as sine qua non in any consideration aimed at poverty and hunger reduction

among the rural populace.

Statement of the Problem

The UN- Human Development Index (HDI 2005) ranked Nigeria 151 out of 174 developing

countries and rated her 25th poorest nation. But by 2006 Nigeria’s poverty rating had appreciated

minimally to the 20th position (CBN, 2006). In the assessment of CBN, this remains high in

terms of economic deprivations and human suffering. Furthermore, studies by Idachaba (2006)

indicated that extreme poverty and hunger is a rural phenomenon. By his account, the poor

concentrate in the rural communities with farming as their major economic activity.

In Nigeria the percentage of the population who live in rural areas is by far greater than of

those who live in urban centres (NBS, 2006). A great majority of this population, according to

(NBS 2006), are engaged in agriculture where productivity is generally, extremely low.

Reflecting on the causes of lowering farm productivity, Idachaba (2006) noted that rural farmers

in Nigeria still live in a state of illiteracy and unawareness and are thus inhibited from taking

risks or adopting potentially profitable innovations in the farming enterprise. As a result, rural

farmers have remained traditional in their production techniques and rural agriculture static with

declining productivity leading to reduced rural incomes, rising food prices and food shortages,

which aggravate rural poverty and hunger.

According to Akenson (1984), large numbers of rural people coming from background of

poverty and hunger and having limited educational opportunities, lack skills and are ill-

motivated. Similarly, Akinyosoye (1994) asserted that illiteracy among rural farmers is one of

the greatest obstacles to rural agricultural transformation and rural economic recovery in Nigeria.

Akinyosoye (1994) maintained that low level of education tends to foster unfavorable attitudes

among rural farmers towards the adoption of new ideas and innovations, improved farm practices

8 and modern farm technologies. Akenson (1984) therefore suggested that functional farmer

education should be valued and given to rural farmers as means to improve literacy skills,

acquire new knowledge about farming occupations and technologies, which will bring about

change in the farmer’s production system, increase their production capacities and incomes, and

in the long run ameliorate poverty and hunger. This suggestion was in conformity with the

objective of the study and thus generated research interest in this direction.

In the Ohafia agriculcultural ecological zone of Abia State, peasant farming is the

predominant rural economic activity and rural farmers constitute the greater majority of the rural

poor (ABCRPP, 2002). This agency noted that their farming systems are characterized by small-

farm holdings, traditional and labour intensive practices. The agency further observed that farm

yields have continued to be low due to poor application of science and technology in the

production process.Akenson (1984), Coombs and Ahmed, (1999) and Udo (2005), suggested that

these problems be tackled through relevant farmer education specifically designed to solve the

socio-economic problems of rural farmers and in particular improve rural literacy rates as

necessary preconditions to reduce poverty and hunger among the rural farmers.

For far too long, a variety of agricultural extension methods have been in use in teaching

rural farmers and in assisting them to solve their farming problems. Yet extension has hardly

exerted the desired impact in educating rural farmers and in improving rural agricultural

performance; nor has its objective on accelerated food production been achieved (Akinsanmi,

1999). He argued that most rural farmers have remained traditional and primitive in their

production systems, which have led to declining yields, poor incomes, hunger and chronic

poverty despite many decades of operation of agricultural extension as the core farmer education

approach to educating rural farmers. This study is undertaken to provide sustainable solution to

the rural farmers’ predicament.

Akenson (1984), commenting further on the effects of illiteracy on rural farmers, affirmed

that most people in rural ethnic communities do not understand what are being talked about in

TV and radio about modern agriculture; what are written in agricultural publications and posters.

In proffering solutions to this state of affairs, Peterson (1997) in his Systems Approach to

extension stressed the need for a functional farmer education that will bring about real

agricultural change and that will teach rural farmers to read and write and be enabled to respond

effectively to the numerous socio-economic problems confronting them.

9

In line with this, UNDP (2005) also called for the setting of new priorities and the

building of knowledge-based agricultural production systems for rural farmers. Similarly, Kozol

(1984) advocated for well-structured rural literacy education programmes that will teach both

literacy skills and modern farming technologies to rural farmers as means of uplifting their

economic well-being. Kozol in addition recommended that functional farmer literacy education

is where we must start if rural farmers will understand the challenges posed by illiteracy, poverty

and hunger in their communities and the effects of these on their livelihood. Hence the problem

of the study was to identify farmer literacy education strategies that could facilitate the reduction

of poverty and hunger among rural farmers through improved access to fundamental literacy, and

knowledge-based agricultural practices.

Purpose of the Study

The general purpose of the study was to determine farmer literacy education strategies for

improving the literacy levels of rural farmers and facilitate the processes of poverty and hunger

reduction. Specifically, the study was undertaken to;-

1. Find out the causes of poverty and hunger among rural farmers;

2. Find out the roles of farmer literacy education in poverty and hunger reduction among

rural farmers;

3. Identify farmer literacy education strategies that would impart agricultural technologies

to enhance the productive capacities of rural farmers.

4. Identify farmer literacy education strategies that could teach literacy skills to rural

famers.

5. Find out the effect of government rural agricultural intervention programmes on rural

farmers in the context of poverty and hunger reduction.

6. Determine the benefits of farmer literacy education to rural farmers in achieving poverty

and hunger reduction at their individual farming households.

Significance of the Study

The following institutions, agencies and organizations will find and obtain from the

study, useful information and data as inputs into increased agricultural production strategies,

community and rural development programmes, and farmer literacy education strategies for

dealing with the problems of poverty, hunger and illiteracy among rural farmers.

10 The National as well as State Planning Commissions needs vital data and useful

information to enable them lay sound and solid foundation necessary for sustainable poverty and

hunger reduction programmes in the rural communities. Hopefully, the study will furnish such

data which will contribute to the implementation of the objectives and achieve the targets of

poverty and hunger reduction as specified in the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) and

the National Economic Empowerment Strategies (NEEDS).

Farmer Literacy Education strategies advocated in the study will be of immense

assistance to Agricultural Extension Planners, the Ministries of Agriculture and Rural

Development, and other stake holders in evolving literacy programmes as means to strengthen

the Research-Extension-Farmer-Linkage System (REFLS). In so doing, the traditional roles of

these institutions in agricultural technology generation and transfer to rural farmers will

incorporate literacy components that will make farmers self-reliant in the 3Rs – Reading, Writing

and Arithmetic, which will enhance their ability to understand and adopt new technologies

emanating from research and extension. Consequently factors and situations that make rural

farmers vulnerable to poverty and hunger as identified in this study will form basis for action on

the part of Research Institutes, Extension and other relevant agricultural institutions.

In its traditional role of technology generation and transfer, research and extension must

start where the farmers are, and must be geared towards their immediate and future farming

problems and needs. In addition, research findings and extension messages should be packaged

in the language rural farmers can read and understand Udo, (2005). The study will highlight

relevant and functional farmer literacy education strategies for reaching these goals.

Information generated by the study on the causes and indicators of poverty and hunger

among rural farmers will bring to the fore, the various strands of poverty and hunger afflicting

the rural populace within the area of study. A knowledge and recognition of such information

will play a crucial role in tailoring community-based poverty reduction programmes (CPRP) and

Community and Social Development Programmes (CSDP) to the specific needs of the benefiting

communities.

International Donor Agencies (IDA) such as the IMF, World Bank, FAO, IFAD, and

other Social Funding Groups (SFD) need good and wholesome information and data to be well

informed and in a better position to direct their research and rural development programmes to

11 the poor and needy. This is the basis of the “Demand-driven” approach to rural development and

agricultural intervention programmes as advocated by Mafeje (2011).

The study will bring to the front burner the general questions, the limitations and

obstacles in expecting too much of government patronage and assistance in providing the many

answers to the challenges of poverty, hunger and illiteracy confronting the rural communities.

Such an understanding will propel and compel Non-Governmental Organizations (NGOs) both at

the international and national levels in deciding when, how and what programme initiatives and

interventions will be most appropriate and relevant in complementing government efforts in

alleviating and ameliorating rural poverty and hunger through farmer literacy education

strategies and other human and social development synergies.

The findings of the study including, suggestions and recommendations, will not only

provoke the interest of students but also provide a pool of data for researching students. Students

of Agricultural Education, Adult Education Planners and implementers, agricultural research and

extension will gain greater insight into the levels and problems of illiteracy among rural farmers

and how this have inhibited economic, social and agricultural progress in rural communities.

Students will derive general educational benefits, especially on issues dealing and relating

directly and indirectly with the teaching and learning of rural farmers.

Research Questions

The following questions were stated to guide the study:

1. What are the causes of poverty and hunger among rural farmers?

2. What roles should farmer literacy education play in reducing poverty and hunger among

rural farmers?

3. What farmer literacy education strategies will be functional in teaching literacy skills and

modern agricultural knowledge to rural farmers as means of achieving poverty and

hunger reduction?

4. What extent has the influence of government rural agricultural intervention programmes

affected farmer education strategies in the context of poverty and hunger reduction

among rural farmers?

5. What are the benefits of farmer literacy education to rural farmers as means to achieving

poverty and hunger reduction at the threshold?

12

Research Hypotheses

1. There is no significant difference in the mean responses of enumerators of the National

Bureau of Statistics (NBS) and facilitators of the Abia State Agency for Poverty

Reduction (ABCPRP) on the causes of poverty and hunger among rural farmers.

2. Agricultural extension managers and agents do not differ significantly in their mean

ratings of the role of farmer literacy education in reducing poverty and hunger among

rural farmers.

3. There is no significant difference in the mean responses of agricultural education experts

on farmer literacy education strategies for achieving poverty and hunger reduction among

rural farmers.

4. Significant difference does not exist between mean responses of agricultural extension

agents and enumerators on the extent of the effect of government rural agricultural

intervention programmes on farmer education strategies in the context of poverty and

hunger reduction among rural farmers..

5. Enumerators and extension agents do not differ significantly in their mean responses on

the benefits of farmer literacy education in achieving poverty and hunger reduction at the

threshold.

Scope of the study

The study was conducted in Abia State of Nigeria. The state for purposes of

administration of agricultural production activities is zoned in to three broad agricultural

ecological belts (Agriecozones), namely: Aba, Ohafia and Umuahia with the component

Local Government Areas (Abia State Hand Book, 1991-1997), (see Appendix L, P.201).

The study focused attention and was delimited to the Ohafia agriecozone located in the

Abia north geo-political zone and comprising of five local government areas as indicated

in Appendix A. The economy of this zone is rural based with peasant agricultural

occupations as the primary economic activities. There is paucity of rural finance, and

often the necessary infrastructure is not available (Abia State Hand Book 1991-1997).

According to ABCPRP (2000), the rural populace of the zone constitutes a fair

representation of the Nigeria rural poor with illiteracy, hunger, mal-nutrition and poverty

as development challenges. Ohafia agricultural ecological zone was therefore adopted for

13

the study because it offered, in greater degrees than the other two zones, the peculiarities

of rural communities relevant to the general purpose of the study, namely, the prevalence

of poverty, hunger and illiteracy (Abia State Hand Book 1991-1997).

The content scope of the study focused attention on identifying farmer literacy

education models and strategies that can be used to teach literacy skills and improve

agricultural knowledge and impart modern farm management techniques. The key issue

was to assist rural farmers not only to be able to identify their farming problems but to

respond to them effectively through farmer literacy educational procedures. In addition,

this form of farmer education was operationally conceptualized as means to empower

rural farmers to acquire modern agricultural production technologies and literacy skills;

the ability to harness and utilize resources; locate and use information necessary for the

farm business, leading to an enhanced capacity to produce more, ensure food self-

sufficiency and attain decent livelihood. The content coverage explored the promotion of

farmer literacy education among rural farmers as means to enhancing poverty and hunger

reduction through the acquisition of modern agricultural knowledge and literacy skills.

Assumptions of the Study

The following assumptions were made for the study:

(1) Facilitators were ad-hoc staff trained and used by the Abia State Community-based

Poverty Reduction Programme (ABCPRP) for sensitizing rural communities on the

identification and implementation of rural development projects. The enumerators

were also ad-hoc workers trained and used by the National Bureau of Statistics (NBS)

in poverty and core welfare surveys of rural communities. These part-time workers

are conversant with matters concerning government rural agricultural and poverty

intervention programmes. There were therefore assumed to have established cordial

relationship with rural farmers and were conversant in dealing with rural farmers in

matters concerning their socio-economic problems and welfare.

(2) Rural farmers were assumed to be in a better position to appraise the roles of farmer

literacy education in the management of their production systems; the adoption and

application of modern farm technologies, and sustainable utilization of resources to

enhance farm production and general living standards of rural farmers.

14

(3) Vocational agricultural educators and agricultural extension managers were adjudged

to posses the professional knowledge needed to identify functional farmer literacy

education strategies that can effectively teach both literacy skills and modern

agricultural knowledge to rural farmers, including the application of science and

technology in their farm production process.

(4) Agricultural Extension Agents (EAs) were regarded as the rural farmers’ closest

partners in the Research-Extension-Farmer-Linkage System (REFLS). Therefore,

extension agents were assumed to be better informed in appraising the extent of

government rural agricultural programmes on farmer education in the context of


(5) The inclusion of basic literacy education in all farmer education strategies will not

only sharpen the comprehensive faculties and understanding of rural farmers but also

improve their productive capacities through easy adoption of improved agricultural

technologies. Farmer Literacy Education was assumed to facilitate the attainment of

all other strategies targeted at poverty and hunger reduction at the threshold of rural

farmers.

15

CHAPTER TWO

REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE

The review of relevant literatures is presented under the following sub-headings:

1. Conceptual Framework of the Study

2. Theoretical Framework of the Study

3. Causes and Indicators of Poverty and Hunger among Rural Farmers.

4. Approaches to Poverty and Hunger Reduction.

5. Impact of government rural agricultural interventions on farmer literacy education

programmes in the context of poverty and hunger reduction.

6. The Issue of Farmer Education and Rural Literacy: The Paradigm Shift.

7. Review of Related Empirical Studies.

8. Summary of Literature Reviewed.

Conceptual Framework of the Study

Education and acquisition of knowledge as dimensions in human development are

measured by adult literacy rates and the combined enrolment ratio in formal and non-formal

educational institutions (Okafor, 2004). In this study, both education and literacy shall often be

used for the same purpose in meaning. And this will be referred to as the ability to read and

understand and communicate with others in any language. It implies the acquisition of

knowledge and skills required to locate and use information in different formations such as

pictures, sketches, diagrams, maps, graphs, records or decode printed words. It includes

knowledge and skills needed to count, apply arithmetic operations, complete an order form and

other transactions in farm business. Such knowledge and skills acquired through education are

enormous but imperative for human capital development and the improveement of the rural

sector economy (Okafor, 2004).

The Egg Model as a conceptual framework has been used to illustrate the major human

capital development aspects of a functional farmer literacy education in the context of improving

agricultural productivity, increased food production, and in the long run reduces poverty and

hunger through the acquisition and application of modern farm technologies and basic literacy

skills. The Egg Model concept consists of three inter-related components that can produce and

16

influence poverty and hunger reduction goals and targets through farmer literacy education

procedures. These components are:

(1) Human Capital Development as encapsulated in Farmer Education and Training synergies.

(2) Farm Technology Generation and Transfer (FTG & T), which produces the “Change

Agents” that improve farmers productivity and;

(3) Improved Decent Livelihood (IDL) – which flows from the socio-economic benefits

accruing to rural farmers as beneficiaries of the new paradigm in farmer education.

These three components are intricately interwoven in the Egg Shell, Egg Membrane and the Egg

Albumen. The Albumen further presents these components in greater details by highlighting

their various key elements as follows:

Human Capital Development as the central focus of Farmer Education and Training exposes

farmers to the acquisition of literacy skills and modern agricultural knowledge and occupational

competences. These elements create neo-literate farmers with the ability to read, write and count

in any language; develop the capacity to locate and use agricultural information and decode

printed matter; possess good knowledge of nutrition and becomes employable in other service

areas within and outside the farming community [ off-farm employment].

Farm Technology Generation and Transfer (FTG &T) represent the efforts of agricultural

research in providing answers to the many problems confronting the rural farming enterprise and

dissemination of modern farm inputs, research information, innovations and new ideas through

extension. The adoption and utilization of these technologies enhances the ability of the farmers

to identify their farming problems and seek solutions to them. Knowledge and application of

such technologies enhances the farmers’ ability to intensify and diversify their farm production

systems; develop entrepreneurial skills and better management of resources.

Improved Decent Livelihood:The combined effects of human capital development and

adoption of modern agricultural technologies result in improved linkage between research,

extension and rural farmers. Cumulatively, this will lead to improved farm production,

generation of physical and financial capital; sustainable use of resources; and improved living

standards of rural farmers. These constitute the socio-economic benefits accruing from exposure

of rural farmers to functional farmer literacy education as would be manifested in improved

decent livelihood.

The Egg Yolk represents the broad goals of the new paradigm in farmer education. These

include achieving rural development and agricultural transformation; enhanced income earning

17

capacity of rural farmers; food self-sufficiency; poverty and hunger reduction and overall

economic recovery. The current study is greatly influenced by the Egg model, because it clearly

reflects the purpose and objectives of the study. That is, achieving poverty and hunger reduction

and improved rural agricultural production holistically through functional farmer education

integrated with fundamental literacy.

Rural development including improved rural agricultural performance constitutes one of

the most intractable aspects of rural economic development, including poverty and hunger

reduction, in rural communities (Obibuaku, 1983). Though there is no consensus as to what

constitute the right way to develop rural people, Obibuaku contended that rural development

essentially implies the improvement of the agricultural and rural sector performance and the

physical and social development of rural communities which contain not only the over whelming

majority of illiterate people, but also the most ill-fed, ill-clothed and ill-housed sector of

Nigeria’s population. Yet as Youssoufou (1988) observed, in the hands of these rural farmers rest

the key to rural economic rehabilitation and to any successful rural agricultural development

programmes. In his considered opinion, Youssoufou maintained that rural agricultural

development is the cornerstone of any economic recovery strategy targeted at the rural people.

He further remarked that among the many factors that go into weakening the productive capacity

of rural small-scale farmers, illiteracy is in the forefront. He went further to input that rural

farmers must be educated if they must improve their living conditions.

In the same vein, Castle (1972) had expressed the view that education and training is a

good thing, intrinsically essential to human well-being, even if not of high quality or of the right

kind. He asserted that in any development situation, education should be regarded as good in

itself, and the more of it, the better. Dorr (1992), quoting Pope Paul VI and stressing the

importance of basic education in human capital development, stated that this is the key that

enables people to assume responsibility for themselves, their lives, and their world (community).

In essence, to be able to read and write, and to get training for a profession, is to regain

confidence in oneself (Pope Paul VI in Dorr 1992). The Papal view is that basic literacy

education is the privileged instrument of economic progress and development, which on the long

run could facilitate the movement from poverty alleviation to poverty eradication. This study

shared and agreed with the Papal view (1999) and the views of Youssoufou (1988).

In their perception of rural economic development process, Brown and Tomori (1979)

were of the view that the chances of many citizens to contribute to nation building, in either

18

family or village, in productive employment or in civic matters, are generally hampered by

illiteracy and poor basic education. They contended that in the context of modern Nigeria, very

rapid social and technological changes demand acquisition of basic literacy education, including

constant updating and renewing of skills and knowledge by workers in various sectors of the

economy, including rural farmers too. This, they asserted, will enable rural farmers to acquire

new techniques and develop new attitudes. Both scholars advanced reasons for basic education

and training for rural farmers to include:

(i) The need to inspire both a desire for change, and the understanding that change is possible.

(ii) To learn how to participate in and influence the decision making process; and

(iii) To teach basic literacy, health education; improvement of personal well being, resource

conservation, good nutrition and environmental management.

All three reasons are most relevant to the study because in agricultural change, and in all rural

development programmes, the most important factor is the human element (Okafor 2004).

Although materials and institutions are needed; research and technology are needed; but all these

will not lead to results unless rural people are motivated to and educated in ways of improving

themselves, their farms, homes and communities (Kumar, 2003).

Obviously, the fight against rural poverty, hunger and illiteracy requires the concerted

efforts of all change agents. In this regard, conscious rural development plans and farmer literacy

education programme initiatives need to be undertaken to bring about the improvement of the

agricultural potential of the rural areas as well as its human resources, such that the rural

people’s capacity is enhanced to produce more, earn sufficiently, and consume optimally. Farmer

literacy education revolution in the present circumstances of the rural people seemed imperative

as panacea for achieving poverty and hunger reduction. This was the position of the present

research effort.These facts underlined the reasons for adopting the Egg Model concept as a

relevant framework of the study.

19

Fig. 1: An Egg Model Concept of Farmer Literacy Education in the context of Poverty and Hunger Reduction.

• Acquisition of literacy skills

• Acquisition of Modern Agricultural Knowledge and Skills

• Better Nutrition Education

• Ability to decode printed matter

• Ability to locate and use agricultural information

• Ability to keep farm records and fill order forms

• Full and Productive Employment + Off-Farm Jobs

• Increased agricultural productivity

• Generation of physical and

financial capital

• Sustainable use of resources

• Membership of Farmers’

Associations

• Environmental conservation

• Enhanced research-extension

linkage

• Adoption of modern farm Technology

• Use of new farm inputs

• Identification of farming problems

• Intensification and diversification of production systems

• Better use of labor and capital

• Entrepreneurial!

Overall Goals and Objectives

• Rural Development

• Agricultural Transformation

• Enhanced income earning

capacity

• Food self Sufficiency

• Poverty and hunger reduction.

Socio-Economic Benefits

Change Agents

Farmer Education and Training Model

20

Theoretical Framework of the Study

Theories of Adult Learning

Farmer education is essentially an adult education strategy directed to rural farmers. Swanson in

Ukonze (2005) refer to farmer education as a service or system which assists farm people

through educational procedures in improving production efficiency and income as well as

improving their standard of living through uplifting their social and educational standards. But

according to Brookfield (1995), there is no single explanation or an all-encompassing theory that

explains how adults acquire knowledge or learn. According to him, education and learning

generally, occur in a number of ways, but all learning has basically two central features:

• Learning involves change; and

• Such change is permanent in that it leads to altered behavior.

In addition, Brookfield (1995), noted that contexts in which such learning, and such permanent

behavioral change can occur are as well many and varied – homes, churches, work places farms

and even adult education classes. According to him, permanent behavioral change is usually

identified in terms of newly developed and acquired skills. However, literacy is replete with a

variety of models, set of assumptions and principles, theories and explanations that form the

basis for understanding how adults learn. Such theories, principles and assumptions that are

fundamental to adult learning, especially those in occupational settings, were reviewed to guide

the study.

Theory of Experiential Learning

Scholars in the field of adult education have two contrasting views of the experiential learning

theory. On one hand, experiential learning is described as that learning type undertaken by adult

learners who are given the opportunity to acquire and apply skills and knowledge in an

immediate, relevant, and meaningful setting (Brookfield, 1995). This setting according to him

could be familial, recreational or occupational through which adults are continually acquiring

new skills and knowledge. In this perspective, Brookfield views experiential learning as Life

Long Learning (LLL) process which offers the opportunity for individuals to engage in

purposeful and systemic learning activities during the periods of their lives when this opportunity

is most relevant. The second school of thought regards experiential learning as the educational

21

type that occurs as a result of direct participation in the events of life (Houle 1980, in Brookfield

1995).

In joining issues with these two schools of thought, the American Research Institute (2008)

viewed experiential learning as being made up of continuous education processes which consist

of the following basic principles:

• Concrete experiences.

• Observation and reflection.

• Forming abstract concepts, and

• Testing (learning) in new situations.

Explaining these principles further, Brookfeild (1985) noted that the immediate or concrete

experiences are the bases for observations and reflections. These reflections are internalized to

get the essential meaning or ideas from experiences, from which new implications for action and

decisions are made.

Essentially adult learning, as explained in the two schools of thought of experiential

learning theory, achieves basically the same objectives. The major difference is that in the first

school of thought, adult learning is institutionalized, formal and accidental; while in the second,

learning is informal and incidental. In line with this, Lovell in Brookfeild (1995) observed that

besides the formal learning that adult learners may undertake in farm schools or field studies,

there is an even greater amount of learning of an informal or incidental type through which

adults learn and accumulate new ideas, facts, attitudes and skills as a result of day to day

interactions among themselves and with their environment. Supporting this view point, Cross in

Brookfield (1995), asserted that all learning begins with experiencing; and real learning begins

when a response is called for in relation to an experience.

These postulations by eminent scholars about experiential learning, informed the

inclusion of this theory as a framework for the study. The principles and assumptions underlying

this theory lend support to the maxim that experience is the best teacher. According to Borzark

in Brookfeild (1995), learning from an older or more experienced mentor- a master farmer or

craftsman or someone possessing some specialized skill, for instance, provides an incredibly

value learning forum. Experiential learning theory supports the idea of networking among adult

farmers and farmer associations. Networking is essentially experiential sharing (Knowles, 1994).

Rural farmers need to compare notes as means to learning from each other.

22

Transformational Learning (TL) Theory

Transformational learning (TL) theory describes learning as change in the way

individuals think about themselves, and their world, involving a shift in consciousness (Taylor,

1996). To Mezirow (2000), Transformational Learning (TL) is a rational process through which

adults reflect on and discuss their assumptions about their world (Environment) and prevailing

circumstances, their family life and occupations. And during discussions on matters affecting

their livelihood, learners often experience change in their understanding and perceptions or

views. Merriam and Caffarella (1999) in American Research Institute (2006) identified three key

principles of Transformational Learning Theory to include:

• Experience

• Critical reflections, and

• Development

Commenting on these principles, Taylor (2000) suggested creating opportunities that support

transformation learning among adult workers and argued that experience is an important factor in

ones ability to create, retain and transfer knowledge. In Taylor’s view, learning opportunities

need to be relevant and applicable to a person’s set of experience and current needs. Taylor

(2000) therefore recommended the development and use of learning activities that explore and

expose adult learners to different view points. Consequently, the Transformational Learning

Theory (TL) was adopted as suitable framework of the study because of its emphasis on

experience as a critical factor in creating an effective learning opportunity for adult learners.

The Theory of Androgogy

Knowles (1980) popularized the theory of Androgogy, which refers to the art and science

of assisting adults to learn, and contrasting it in the process, from pedagogy, which is the art and

science of teaching children less than 18 years. Knowles (1980) labeled Androgogy as an

emerging educational technology which facilitates the development and implementation of

learning activities for adults. This emerging technology according to Knowles is based on five

androgogical assumptions of the adult learner, namely:

• Adult move from dependence to increasing self-directedness as he/she matures;

• Draws on his accumulated repertoire of life experiences to aid learning;

• Is ready to learn when he/she assumes new social or life role;

23

• Is problem oriented and wants to apply new learning immediately; and

• Is motivated to learn from internally motivated rather than external factors.

Inherent in these assumptions are implications for practice by adult educators which Knowles

(1984) summarized to include: the assessment of the learner’s specific circumstances, needs,

interest and skills; and the methods, materials and resources for instruction. Rogers (1979) in

support of this learning theory asserted that adults who have been out of touch with learning can

often improve their educational performance dramatically if they are assisted and helped by

learning to learn. The theory was adopted for the study because the basic principles of learning-

by-doing, learning on-the-job and the application of accumulated life experiences to aid learning

are important structures in assisting illiterate farmers to learn.

The Theory of Self-Directed Learning (SDL)

Self-Directed Learning (SDL) is a process in which adult individuals take the initiative,

without help or assistance of others, in planning, implementing and evaluating their own learning

experiences (Knowles, 1975). Cross (1981) in analyzing the significance of SDL, asserted that

approximately 70% of adult learning is self-directed and about 90% of all adults conduct at least

one self-directed learning project in a year. In an extension to this, the American Institute for

Research (2008) outlined the following principles as strategies to facilitate Self-Directed

Learning;

• Identifying a starting point for a learning project.

• Conduct needs assessment to determine learning objectives;

• Match appropriate resources and methods to learning objectives;

• Negotiate a learning contract that sets learning goals, strategies and evaluation criteria;

• Acquire strategies for decision-making and key to evaluation of work;

• Develop positive attitudes and independence relative to self-directed learning; and

• Reflect on what is being learnt.

Collaborating with these principles, Rogers (1979) in Brookfield (1995) maintained that the only

learning which significantly influences behaviour is self discovered, and self-appreciated

learning. Such learning, insists Rogers, engenders personal involvement and often self-initiatives

and brings about permanent change in behaviour. Since the principles of Self-Directed Learning

fit in well with the other theories of adult learning already reviewed, the theory was therefore

24

adopted as a framework for this research work, especially with its emphasis on the leaner taking

the initiative in deciding what is to be learnt.

Typically, adult learning theories encompass the basic concepts of behavioural change

and experience which are the essential elements of all learning activities. Brookfield (1995)

summarized the essential elements of adult learning in the community as follows:

i. It is deliberate and purposeful in that the adults concerned are seeking to acquire

(occupational) knowledge and skills;

ii. Such purpose and intention may not, however, always be marked by closely specified goals.

Learning thus, may be apparently haphazard and therefore unsuccessful at times;

iii. It occurs outside of classrooms and designated educational institutions and does not follow

the strict timetable of the academic year;

iv. It receives no institutional accreditation or validation

v. It is voluntary, self-motivated and self-generating.

According to Brookfield, adults choose to engage in this learning modes although the

circumstances occasioning that choice may be external to the learner’s control e.g. farm

innovations and emerging new farm technologies from research; an outbreak of diseases and

pests in the farm and other unforeseen circumstances. Acknowledging that the term ‘learning’ is

a gerund – a word which can stand as a noun or verb, Brookfield (1995) concluded that adult

learning involves the principles and processes of acquiring skills and knowledge that are relevant

and of immediate application in dealing with the adult’s felt needs and prevailing circumstances,

rather than an internal change of consciousness.

Similarly, Mao Zedong in FarmerFieldSchool (FAO/UNDP 1989) noted that one of the

important characteristics of good adult education is that it is based on problem- posing. He

posited that the role of the adult educator is to act as a facilitator and to present to the adult

leaner, in a challenging way, the issues confronting them and which they are already discussing

but in a confused manner. Contributing, Knowles in FarmerFieldSchool (FAO/UNDP, 1989)

suggested that adult learning psychologists and facilitators must take cognizance of the following

facts about how adults learn:

25

1. Adults have a wide experience and have learnt much from life. They learn most from

their peers. So facilitators should help them to share their own experiences and dialogue

with one another;

2. Adults are interested to learn quickly about those things that are relevant to their lives. So

facilitators need to create a situation in which they can share in the planning, choose the

topics and participate in regular evaluation of what they are doing;

3. Adults have a sense of personal success and dignity. They must be treated with respect at

all times and never feel humiliated or laughed at before others.

4. As adults grow older, their memories may get weaker but their powers of observation and

reasoning often grow stronger.

In summary, Knowles (1989) organized the principles of adult learning into nine broad areas as

follows:

i. Learning is an experience, which occurs inside the learner and is activated by the learners

themselves;

ii. Learning is the discovery of personal meaning and relevance of ideas.

iii. Learning as behavioural change, is a consequence of experience.

iv. Learning is a co-operative and collaborative process.

v. Learning is an evolution (gradual change and development) of ideas.

vi. Learning is sometimes a painful process (may be difficult to achieve its objectives).

vii. One of the richest resources for learning is the learner himself and the learning

environment (the farm and community).

viii. The process of learning is emotional as well as intellectual.

ix. The process of problem solving and learning is highly unique and individualized.

These theories, principles and facts about adult learning have been adopted to guide the research

work and to facilitate in discarding old stereo-types in farmer education procedures, and to put in

place functional farmer literacy education strategies as the new paradigm built on these

principles. A shift from agricultural extension education models to other approaches based not on

instructing farmers what to do but on empowering them through farmer literacy education to

handle their on-farm decisions, using experiential learning techniques, should be the purpose of a

functional farmer literacy education as conceptualized in this study.

26

Conventional Forms of Farmer Education

Farmer education strategies currently in use in educating rural farmers can be

categorized into four sub-concepts namely: Extension Education, Agricultural Education,

Adult Education, and Community Education (Ukonze 2005). These concepts have often

been used interchangeably to refer to all educational procedures aimed at improving the

socio-economic and political landscape of the rural people, whose main economic

activity is farming. This has been achieved through research information and agricultural

technology transfer (Ukonze 2005). In practice, improved agricultural production and

increased food production were the prime concerns of these farmer education strategies.

Today, similar results are expected from rural education programmes but with broader

goals to prepare rural farmers for the challenges of globalization and other socio-

economic problems, and in particular poverty, food shortages, undernourishment and

illiteracy.

Most writers refer to Extension Education as the process of getting useful information to

farm people and then in assisting them to acquire the necessary skills, knowledge and attitude to

utilize effectively this information or farm technology (Swanson, 1984). Ukonze (2005), defined

extension education as the primary machinery through which the farmer can learn the reason for

change, the value of change, the result that can be achieved and the process of change. In another

dimension, Garforth (1997) noted that originally, agricultural extension is an educational process

used in the diffusion of useful knowledge emanating from research with the objective of

imparting useful information to all classes of people in the community, particularly to those that

are unable to avail themselves of experienced teachers, or may prefer learning by themselves. In

this sense, it may be regarded as an out-of-school education programme for rural farmers and

other farm workers.

In modern times, Agricultural Extension has been described as the organized exchange of

information and the purposive transfer of skills and technology emanating from research to rural

farmers (Nagel in Peterson, 1997). According to Nagel, agricultural extension bridges the gap

between research and the farmer. Among the major output of research work is the availability of

improved genetic materials which include new plants varieties and new breeds of animals with

higher yields and resistance to pests and diseases. Peterson (1997) argued that rural farmers need

to know when these varieties and breed are available, how they perform under different farm

conditions, and where to obtain seeds or breeding animals. In his opinion, agricultural extension

27

is responsible for disseminating such information through appropriate media and contact

methods to rural farmers. In effect, the major role of extension is to link the farmer to research

and vice versa. For decades, this Research-Extension-Farmer Linkage System (REFLS) has been

based on the simple farmer education model of technology generation and transfer as means to

building the capacity of the rural farmer to adopt and adapt to new technological changes or

innovations in farming (Nagel 1997).

The transmission of research information on new farm technologies to farmers is a vital

factor in the transformation of rural agriculture and in rapid development of the rural economy.

Obibuaku (1983) therefore viewed Agricultural Extension as a strategy for agricultural

transformation and rural development. In order to achieve these, Nagel (1997), observed that

“modern” research results have to be transferred to the “traditional” farmer and extension

seemed to be the appropriate means to do so. In this way, agricultural extension has now become

recognized as an essential mechanism for delivering information and advice as an ‘input’ into

modern farming (Garforth 1997). Several approaches to the management of Agricultural

Extension services in Nigeria have been identified (Fajanaat, 2005). These include:

The Co-operative Extension System (CES)

This involves the Universities in direct extension work through their Faculties of

Agriculture. It is often referred to as the University-based Extension. The Universities integrate

their faculties of Agriculture and related institutions and affiliates (Schools and Colleges of

Agriculture, FarmSchools), into practical extension work. According to Nagel (1997), the main

contribution of these institutions to extension is the training of qualified and responsible

extension personnel. In the field, the institutions have taken over the functions which are

inadequately performed by the Ministry of Agriculture. In addition, these institutions have

provided unique systems of processing research-farmer-and extension experiences. These, the

universities achieve through regular workshops and exhibitions which unite the universities and

departmental staff from research and extension together with outstanding farmers. New findings

and feedback are presented, evaluated and published as a ‘package of practices’ or new

technologies to be used by all extension staff in educating rural farmers (Nagel 1997).Important

features of the Co-operative Extension System include direct assessment of farmers’ needs, user-

oriented research, quality training, and a strong linkage between academic education and field

practices.

28

Ministry-based General Agricultural Extension

This operates on the ‘trickle-down’ theory, with its ‘top-down’ bureaucratic system.

Nagel (1997) observed that in many ways, the hierarchical and highly bureaucratic way in which

extension services are organized hamper the full realization of its potentials. Decision making

and management issues are highly centralized and formalized. As a result, this system has not

been able to reach a majority of its potential clientele – the rural farmers. Information and

innovation packages for rural farmers are based on generalized farming problems rather than on

specific farmer need. This is the oldest form of organized non-formal system of educating rural

farmers through the transfer of new technologies and innovations from research.

Training and Visits Extension System (T & V)

This system is operated under the Agricultural Development Projects (ADP) and partly

funded by the World Bank. This is one way to organize the Ministry-based Extension System to

solve some very specific problems of farmers and farming communities. It is one of the

conventional extension services, but concentrates on “contact farmers” who are expected to pass

information on to fellow farmers with similar problems. It ensures regular field contacts,

facilitates supervision and communication and sets clear and attainable objectives (Nagel, 1997).

Additionally, regular sessions for extension workers to receive training are held. Thus, costly

refresher courses are avoided. In the process, knowledge may be enhanced step by step, and up

to date information can be fed into the system. Nagel (1997) remarked that if this approach is

applied less rigidly and combined with the tools of human-resources development, (basic

education) as well as the concepts of participation, it may constitute the value base for reforming

extension organizations. This system recognizes the need for human capital development and

hence the call for the integration of literacy programmes in the process of extension and other

forms of farmer education as being advocated in this study.

The Integrated Approach

The integrated Project Approach (IPA) has a central objective of influencing the entire

rural development process. Hence, some writers refer to it as the Integrated Rural Development

Approach (IRDA). According to Peterson (1997), Extension is only one often though crucial

element in this strategy which targets the entire farming population in a given area but

emphasizes work with disadvantaged groups, the rural poor. Integrated approach are generally

29

implemented in the form of large-scale and foreign funded projects aiming at alleviating mass

poverty in rural areas on the basis of simultaneous improvement in the utilization of natural

resources and of human potential (Rauch 1993 and Nagel 1997). According to these rural

sociologists, measures to promote agricultural production are fused with a strong emphasis on

self-help Community-based Poverty Reduction Initiatives (CPRI). The on-going Community-

based Poverty Reduction Programmes (CPRP) and Community and Social Development Projects

in various states of the Federal Republic of Nigeria are examples of this approach in action. The

major financiers are mostly NGOs, International Development Partners and Donor Agencies. In

Nigeria the Central Bank (CBN), Federal, State and Local governments, churches and

Community-based Organizations (CBOs) have made notable contributions in this regard,

especially in the provision of counterpart funds and rural infrastructure.

Nagel (1997) quoting the International Bureau of Rural Development (IBRD), revealed

serious short comings in reaching the goals of mass poverty alleviation through this approach.

According to Nagel, in more than a decade of operation, sizeable numbers of the poor are yet to

be reached by project activities, nor are positive effects consolidated on a sustainable basis.

Project deficiencies, he concluded, are often due to a serious under-estimation of the great

complexity of multi-sectoral programmes with ambitious goals and poor projects

implementation. These factors are the major challenges of the Integrated Approach.

The Farming System Research Model

Farmers typically view their farms as systems in their own right. A typical farming

system shows the variety of natural resources and normally includes different classes of land

capabilities, various water sources, and access to property resources such as ponds, grazing area

and forests, including climate and biodiversity, as well as human, social and financial capital

(Dixon et al, 2001). Dixon and colleagues further maintained that each individual farm has its

own specific characteristics arising from variations in resources endowment and family

circumstances. The household, its resources and the resource flows and interactions at the

individual farm level are together referred to as a farm system.

Regardless of their sizes, individual farm systems are organized to produce food and to

meet other family goals through the management of available resources (Lightfoot et al, 1991 in

Dixon et al 2001). According to the authors, the challenge in the Farming System Approach

(FSA) for developing countries like Nigeria is to identify specific agricultural and rural

30

development needs and opportunities, and to focus investment where the greatest impact on food

security and poverty reduction will be achieved (Jones and Garforth 1997). The recognition of

the locale-specific nature of farming systems and the agricultural information systems which

support them is an important source of the quest in this study towards the universalization and

integration of basic literacy with agricultural extension services to the benefit and advantage of

the poor resource farmer. This model is based on the demand – driven approach. Educating rural

farmers based on their circumstances and felt needs, form a major objective of the study.

Animation Rurale (AR) Model

This is the old form of modern Community Education. Peterson (1992) described this

approach as originating in Francophone African countries, notably Senegal, Ivory Coast and

Madagascar; and was regarded as an answer to the authoritarian and often repressive nature of

colonial interventions in agriculture in these countries. The central aim was the integration of

rural areas into the national system by initiating dialogue between rural communities and the

government, thus increasing the chance of villagers to express their own views and identify their

needs. In order to initiate and perpetuate this process, AR relied on a large number of voluntary

collaborators, so called ANIMATEURS. Selected by villagers themselves, these animateurs had

to be experienced and well-respected farmers but not traditional rulers (Peterson 1997). Training,

supervision and support of animateurswere organized by the Ministry of Agriculture and Rural

Development. Their task was to initiate discussions with the community on local needs and

objectives, thus empowering the local people for a dialogue with government. At the same time,

animateurs interpret government policies and plans to the villagers and acquaint them with

services available. Peterson (1997) noted that the long-term perspective was a replacement of

traditional institutions and community-based organizations with “development cells” able to

generate the creation of and negotiate community contracts with government and other agencies.

Though the original approach is no longer pursued, some of its elements are now being re-

introduced into Community Education and Rural Development Programmes.

Community Education in its present practice is an aspect of extension education arising

from the need to involve local residents in the formation and implementation of agricultural

development programmes affecting them (Ukonze 2005). In her contribution, Ukonze (2005)

highlighted the aims of this approach to include:-

31

(i) Ensuring the involvement, participation and mobilization of individual resources to help

improve agriculture in the locality; and

(ii) Encourage the development of local leadership and decision-making farmers on issues

concerning the development of agriculture in their locality.

The philosophy of empowerment widely employed by NGOs and government

organizations in community and agricultural development programmes in derived from the

concept of Animation Rurale (AR). The present study found favour in this approach because it

helped in the development of local leadership who can act as early adapters of rural agricultural

innovations and transformation as well as facilitators in farmer literacy education campaign

programmes.

From the forgoing discussions, agricultural extension, especially the ministry of

agriculture-based system and its various forms has been playing and continues to play central

role in the education of the farmer. Indeed all forms of farmer education approaches and

concepts have often revolved on the various dimensions of extension. But Benor (1977)

expressed fear that agricultural extension services may be rapidly running out of anything to

“extend”, because with their top-down bureaucratic approach (Trickle-down policy) and the

hierarchical relationship among rural farmers and extension agents, most extension models have

little possibilities for participation and initiative, both from farmers and villager extension

workers. In further evaluating the deficiencies of the extension systems, Benor and Harrison, in

Nagel (1997), found out an inadequate internal organizational structure; inefficiency of extension

personnel; inappropriateness or irrelevance of extension content; and dilution of extension

impact, as the many problems militating against the successful use of the various extension

models to educate the rural farmers as means of raising their socio- economic status. The authors

maintained that whichever extension impact that is reached serves a few favored farmers in

favored areas rather than the bulk of the farming community. Again, Nagel (1997) contended

that the contact farmer concept – implying two-step flow of information from the extension

worker to the contact farmer and from there to other farmers has frequently failed. Benor,

Harrison and Nagel (1997) therefore called for new paradigms for educating rural farmers that

will integrate basic literacy skills as vital components of agricultural knowledge system

generation, transfer and adoption. Educating rural farmers to be receptive to modern farm

technologies, improve their production capacities, earn more income and achieve quality living

32

standards is the key to achieving poverty and hunger reduction. The study expressed this view

point as the core role of a functional farmer literacy education.

Indicators of Poverty and Hunger among Rural Farmers

Poverty is an anathema and an antithesis of human development (Okafor, 2004). It is a

phenomenon that everybody strives to avoid. It runs counter to any meaningful efforts directed

towards human development and decent livelihood. Poverty has many strands and faces,

changing from place to place, and across times, and has been described in many ways. The

World Bank (2001) defined poverty as hunger; as lack of shelter; poverty is being sick and not

being able to see a doctor; is not having access to school and hence not knowing how to read and

write; is unemployment; it evokes fear for the future. Poverty is living one day at a time; is

losing a child to illness brought about by lack of food to eat and unclean and unsafe waters;

poverty is powerlessness, lack of political representation and freedom. In line with these

assertions, World Bank Report (2001) viewed poverty as a situation people want to avoid.

In an extension to this, the World Bank Report (2001) contends that poverty can be

measured in terms of whether a household has enough resources or ability today to meet their

future needs. In furtherance to this idea, the World Bank maintains that poverty has to do with

inequality in income distribution, asserting that the poor accordingly becomes very vulnerable

because they have greater-risk of being poor today, and falling deeper into poverty tomorrow.

Annan (2001) commenting on global poverty as an aspect of Human Rights dimension, noted

that poverty and hunger inflict comprehensive assault on human rights and dignity as no other

social phenomena. Clarifying this standpoint, Annan contended that poverty erodes and nullifies

economic and social rights of the individual such as right to health, adequate housing, food and

safe drinking water, and the right to education.

Uzuegbunam (2005) reflecting on poverty in Nigeria along the line of the World Bank

Report (2001), noted that poverty has many dimensions and manifestations which include,

joblessness, over-indebtedness, economic dependence, lack of freedom and inability to provide

the basic needs of life for oneself and family. Additionally, Uzuegbunam noted that lack of

access to land and credit and inability to save or own assets are more characteristics of poverty in

Nigeria, especially among rural farmers. Furthermore, he observed that the poor tend to live in

dirty environments with hunger, poor income, illiteracy, poor health and lack of rural

infrastructure as major poverty related challenges.

33

In yet another dimension, the United Nations’ General Assembly (UNGA 2001) posited

that the term poverty is applied with respect to those people living on less than one US Dollar per

day (About N130-N150, depending on the exchange rate of Naira to the Dollar). But in Nigeria,

the per capital income is estimated at about 300 US-Dollar, far below the average for many

developing countries (Central Bank of Nigeria (CBN) Report, 2006). The same CBN report

observed that Nigeria is rated one of the 20 poorest countries in the World with a worsening

poverty incidence of over 70 per cent among its population. The National Bureau of Statistics

(NBS-2006) asserted that N83.00 is Nigeria’s official poverty line using Abuja and Lagos as

benchmarks. On a similar note, Ogbu (2006) opined that anyone who lives on less than N83.00

per day is below the Nigeria poverty line. Obviously, this poverty statistics is misleading and has

the tendency to mask the realities of poverty among rural farmers. Similarly, the use of Abuja

and Lagos and similar cities as benchmarks for poverty assessment for Nigeria, is erroneous and

myopic in a country where the greater majority (65% - 70%) of its citizenry live and work in the

rural communities (NBS, 2006). However, N83.00 is far below the world poverty line and that is

why rural Nigerians are considered living in extreme poverty and hunger.

According to Food and Agricultural Organization (FAO 2005), every family at the

poverty level should be able, first to all, to satisfy its physiological needs of food, shelter, and

clothing, sufficiently for physiological survival. This translates to the fact that such a family

should have sufficient income to be reasonably free from disease or death caused by inadequate

food intake and malnutrition, deficient shelter and clothing. The availability of food has always

been a central preoccupation and burning issue of mankind. FAO (2005) reported that although

world population has doubled during the last century, farmers have produced sufficient food to

allow a gradual increase in average food consumption per capita. Yet, FAO observed that despite

the efforts of these farmers, hunger and poverty persist and World food reserves have plummeted

during the last four decades of the 20th century and beyond, often fluctuating to critical levels.

Endless food crisis and nutritional deficiencies carry implications which are far more serious

than the discomfort and misery which hunger evokes (Igbozuruike, 1982). For instance, Nleburg

in Igbozuruike (1982) found evidence suggesting that a relationship exist between malnutrition

and metal retardation. He noted that malnourished children may emerge from childhood lacking

the ability to reach their full genetic intellectual potential. The implication of this is that hunger,

malnutrition and mental retardation are precursors to poverty. Igbozuruike (1982) therefore

urged government, rural development experts, agricultural policy makers, farmer educators and

34

rural sociologist to be concerned and weary of these facts in all efforts targeted at rural poverty

and hunger reduction. Therefore ensuring self-food sufficiency requires significant

improvements in human capital development of the rural people and rural agricultural

productivity.

Basic Indicators for Monitoring Welfare and Poverty in Nigeria

The Core Welfare Indicator Surveys undertaken by the National Bureau of Statistics (NBS

2004), spanning 13 states of the Federation and across the six geo-political zones, (1999 – 2004)

provided core indicators for assessing and monitoring poverty in Nigeria. Information and data

gathered from these surveys had identified seven indicators that are relevant to the present study.

These include:

Difficulty Satisfying Household needs

The major need considered included Food. The survey indicated that less urban households

(12.9%), had difficulty satisfying their food needs compared to (14.6%) in rural areas.

Self Classified Poverty

Of the six geo-political zones, the South East (76.8%) and the North East (77.5%) had the

highest percentage of households which considered themselves poor.

Use of Recommended Agricultural Input and Credit

Households in the northern zones use improved and recommended agricultural inputs more than

their southern counterparts, with the highest use in the North West (70.5%) but lowest in the

South South Zone (13.1%). Majority of rural farmers source agricultural inputs from the open

markets (82.8%), while insignificant number (0.1% and 0. 8 %) source agricultural inputs from

Donor agencies and Co-operatives respectively. Throughout the six geo-political zones, fertilizer

remains the largest agricultural input in use by most farmers (82. %) but least in use in the South

West and South East. In a related study, the National Agricultural Sample Census

(NASC1993/94) observed that only a small proportion of farmers use improved input

nationwide. About 40% use fertilizer while only 6% use credit (NASC 1994). The use of credit

by rural farmers is slightly higher in the southern than in the northern zones. Furthermore, the

survey noted that poverty incidence is less among farmers who use improved seeds; while

extreme poverty incidence exists among farmers who do not use fertilizer (about 50 .08%), as

against 38.43% for those who used improved seeds. (See Appendix A for Table 1 on Poverty

Incidence and Farm Practices).

35

Use of credit seemed to be a critical factor in rural agricultural production performance. Data

form the table indicated that farmers without access to credit have poverty incidence of close to

77% and extreme poverty incidence of about 49%. Poverty incidence is lowest among farmers

with access to credit through Commercial banks (62%); Cooperatives (64%); Local money

lenders (69%); Agricultural credit banks (69%); Friends (73%); and Community/Peoples Bank

(75%); in that order (NASC 1993/94). Again, the extreme poor were worse hit in accessing and

utilizing improved agricultural input. These issues have far reaching consequences on the

farmers’ level of production and yield and consequently on food availability and income

generation.

Access to Land

According to the National Bureau of Statistics (NBS, 2006), ownership of land in Nigeria

is gender biased with males holding 5 times more land (7.8%) compared to (7.2%) held by

females. The urban-rural breakdown also showed that 22.9% rural area and 62.8% urban areas

did not own lands. All southern zones (SW, SE and SS) recorded having a higher estimate of

lack of land ownership compared to northern zones with South West the highest (63.6%). In the

same vein, the National Agricultural Sample Census (NASC. 1993/94) noted that most farmers

in the rural area cultivated small farms close to 50% of rural farmers, had farms of less than one

hectare in size. According to the Sample Census, only about 37% had farms of between 1-5

hectares; indicating that more than 85% of farmers had less than 5 hectares of farmland, with the

proportion of small farm sizes per farmer higher in the south where more than 90% had less than

5 hectares each; more male holders had larger farms than females. Inadequate access to land for

agricultural purposes was therefore considered a major constraint to increased food production

among rural farmers nationwide.

(See Table 2 in Appendix B: Farm Size Distribution by Region and Sex of Holder)

Education

At the national level in Nigeria, male adult literacy rate was about 1.5 times higher

(74.64%) than the female rate (55.8%). Adult literacy rate in any language at the national level

was estimated at 65.7% for persons aged 15years and older. By area of residence over twice as

many rural population (43.6%) had no education when compared to urban population (21.7%).

The higher proportion of household heads in the rural areas with no education was 51.7% when

36

compared to the urban 27.6%, (Core Welfare Indicator Questionnaire Survey, 2006). Indication

from the National Agricultural Sample Census (NASC) 1993/94), showed that a farmer with

education had lower proportion of poor family members. The prevalence of poverty among

farmers with below primary education training was about 82%, while for farmers with post

secondary education was less than 42%. These figures depict that levels of educational

attainment has profound consequences on the incidence of poverty among rural farming families.

(See Table 3 in Appendix C: Poverty Profile of Farmers in Nigeria).

Data from the table depict that farmers between 16 and 30 years of age have relatively

lower proportion of poor - less than 67%; whereas farmers within 41-56 years of age have close

to 80% poverty incidence, indicating that age has relevancein poverty consideration among rural

farmers. On educational attainment, those below primary education level (54.54%) were in

extreme poverty, while 27.34% were moderately poor with non-poor at 18.21%. The percentage

in extreme poverty was on the decrease as the educational level rose from primary level

schooling (38.22%) to (29.02%) at the secondary education level. The inference is that poverty

level decreases as educational attainment increases. These facts had far reaching implications for

the present study. In furtherance to this, the Core Welfare and Agricultural Sample Census

Surveys (2006) made the following findings in relation to the poverty profile of rural farmers:

i. Poor families are higher in proportion in farming households who are mainly domiciled in the

rural areas.

ii. Most poverty incidence is prevalent in the rural communities as well as in the rural

Agricultural sector.

iii. Most rural farmers have limited access to farming lands, cultivate small farms, use less of

improved inputs, and have limited access to credit.

iv. Farmers with education have lower incidence of poverty than farmers without education.

These findings were instructive to the purpose of the study and underscored the need to

seek to educate rural farmers in modern farming technologies and impart literacy skills as

necessary conditions for achieving hunger and poverty alleviation among them.

Poverty Measures in Terms of Consumption Levels

Globally, a common method used to measure poverty is based on income or consumption

levels or patterns (World Bank 2006). Any person is considered poor if his or her consumption

or income level falls below some minimum necessary to meet basic life needs. This minimum

37

level according to World Bank (1990) is usually referred to as the poverty line and has been set

at one US dollar (USD) per day or its Naira equivalent.

By definition, poverty line is a measure that divides the poor from non-poor. The World

Bank uses benchmarks set at precisely 1.08 United State of American Dollar (USD) for

developing countries and 2.15 USD for developed economies in purchasing power parity terms

to assess poverty levels. In its estimates, the World Bank (2004) stated that in 2001, 1.1 billion

people of the world had consumption levels below one USD a day and 2.7 billion lived on less

than 2 USD a day. In the same report, the World Bank (2001) noted that in Sub-Saharan Africa

(SSA), where gross Domestic Product (GDP) per capita shrank by 14 per cent, poverty rose from

41 per cent in 1981 to 46 Percent in 2001, with an additional 150 million people living in

extreme poverty. Destremau (2001) in his own survey and corroborating the World Bank report

(1990) observed that the developing World’s population living in extreme economic poverty

(living on less than 1 USD a day) in 1993 had fallen from 28 percent in 1990 to 21 percent in

2001. He argued that though these figures were lower than earlier estimates, indicating that some

progress had taken place with a dramatic rise in living standards over the last decades; these

figures still remained too high in terms of human suffering.

In Nigeria, the lower, middle, and upper income wage owners, especially in the public

sector are represented by grade levels GL 01, GL 08 and GL 15 respectively. Real income wages

declined all through the 1979, 1983 up to 1994 and 1998 periods before it bounced substantially

in the period 1999 – 2003 and rose astronomically in 2004 for all categories of wage earners

(NBS, 2005). This rise in wages was due to upward review of national minimum wage and

introduction of enhanced salary scales for civil servants; and also due to the monetization policy

of government in 2005. In all these, the rural farmer and large majority of rural populace and

non-wage earners were not considered in any form. Rural farmers were by-passed with no

incentives to motivate theme (NBS 2005). Destremau (2001), reviewing similar situations in

Morocco remarked that the inequalities accompanying such great wealth on the part of wage

earners were huge. According to the National Bureau of Statistics (2005), the Nigeria situation

has been a country divided into a handful of economic giants in a sea of poverty-stricken

ruralites. Moreover, these higher incomes introduced inflationary trends into the economy which

led to higher pricing of services and food commodities. This in effect not only reduced the

purchasing power of the ordinary Nigerian, the rural farmer inclusive but also increased their

vulnerability.

38

Even if poverty is measured as living on less than 1 USD or N150 or so a day,

(depending on the exchange rate of Naira to Dollar), the true levels of poverty in Nigeria will

still be under-estimated (UN-NDHDR, 2006). According to the UNDP (2006), if this was tied to

purchasing power parity, the actual poverty level would be much higher, and poverty will be

seen as being pervasive than conventional measurements reveal. Aigbokham (1998) in NDHDR

(2006) using the Food Energy Intake measure, put the incidence of national poverty at 38 percent

in 1985, 43 percent in 1992 and 47 percent in 1996. Evidence from the National Bureau of

Statistics (NBS, 2005) collaborating with the findings of Aigbokham (1998), suggest that using

the Food Energy intake measure yield a figure of 34.9 percent in 2004, which showed only

minimal decline in poverty levels.

Additionally, a United Nation Development Programme Report on Niger Delta Human

Development (NDHDR 2006) based on the eight component states of the Niger Delta, found

similar situations to that of the national level: increase in poverty level between 1980 and 1996,

and decline between 1996 and 2004.

However, the concept of poverty goes beyond how many dollars or naira per day

individuals have to spend or consume. It encompasses all the social services available and their

easy accessibility to the rural people – education, housing, health care, transportation and food

products. In this connection, the study by Destremau (2001) is instructive. Using the Social and

Human Poverty approach to poverty indicators, he focused attention on the satisfaction of basic

life needs, and included not only food and shelter, but also health, education as well as sanitation.

According to him, this approach includes goods and services satisfied on a collective basis and

considered the satisfaction of these needs basic at the level of their access (i.e. whether they exist

or non-existent) and their impact on people’s lives (i.e. using social indicators such as longevity,

mortality rates, educational attainment) and not at the level of their income potentialities.

Furthermore, Destremau rested the strength of this approach upon three premises namely:

i. Chances of dying before the age of forty years. ( Adults life expectancy and

longevity)

ii. Literacy rate among adults (education, knowledge attainment)

iii. And the deficits in terms of living conditions measured by a combination of access to

health care, portable water and nourishment or quality food.

The UNDP Human Poverty Index (HPI) and Human Development Index (HDI 2006) offered

more elaborate indicators within the Social and Human Poverty approach. A summary of the

39

findings in the UNDP-NDHD report (2006) on the various social indicators included: health,

portable water, education/ literacy, sanitation and environmental pollution, transport and

communication facilities, and social exclusion and isolation

Poor health and health care service delivery manifest in poor hygiene; little or no health

information and health education; a grossly inadequate capacity for health service delivery and

operational plans for holistic health care management. Doctors, nurses and other health personnel

are in critical supply, including drugs. Modern health care facilities are largely absent and the

few existing ones are all in critical need of repair, or moribund and offering little or no assistance

to the rural populace. A few privately run clinics charge exorbitant fees for their services. The

costs incurred in dealing with health problems are very high. Beyond hospital fees and the costs

of drugs, sick people and their relations spend a lot of money on transportation. This is due

largely to the fact that health care facilities are few and widely dispersed. In terms of medical

services, there is evidence of a significant difference in accessibility to health facilities between

rural communities and urban areas with 47.8% in rural area as against 70.9% in urban areas. As a

result, rural community members resort to local and traditional remedies to deal with their health

conditions. The UN-HDR (2006) argued that poor access to healthcare impairs productivity and

reduces people’s quality of life, in addition to increased vulnerability.

Data from the Federal Office of Statistics (FOS, 1999) revealed that water in the majority

of rural communities come from unsafe supply facilities including rivers, lakes or ponds,

unprotected wells, boreholes, and other categories, usually in untreated forms. UNDP (2006)

reported that poor access to adequate and safe drinking water has had serious implications for the

general health, the environment, economic activities and sustainable livelihoods. Guinea worm

infestation is endemic and a major health challenge to communities confronted with lack of good

domestic water source. According to UNDP (2006), it was estimated that only about 20% to 24%

of rural communities have access to safe drinking water. Water-borne diseases, such as cholera,

typhoid, guinea worm, malaria are debilitating health challenges which reduce the rural farmer’s

productivity.

The national average of those completing primary schools in Nigeria had been put at

12%, while the national average for those completing secondary education was estimated at 20%

(Abdulahi 2007, in Ijaiya 2009). It can therefore be assumed that majority of those who drop out

of school in rural areas find their way into farming with no skills and with little or no knowledge

of modern agricultural practices and farm transactions. Yousoufou in African Farmer (1993)

40

observed that illiterate farmers have to rely on friends or other persons to fill and sign vital

documents related to the farming business. Beyond such practical considerations, African Farmer

(1993) observed, that the reward of literacy extends to family dynamics and self esteem. When

one is not educated, one is not so self- confident. Again, there seems to be a correlation between

the level of literacy of farmers and the tendency to educate their own children. Farmers with high

level of literacy have the highest percentage of children attending school (Obibuaku, 1983).

According to NBS (1990) the inability to read and write in English language could determine the

voicelessness and powerlessness of the population. The correlation of levels of education with

level of poverty served as a good measure of the manifestations of poverty among rural farmers.

The literacy scenario in Nigeria as depicted also by the Core Welfare Indicator

Questionnaire Survey NBS (2006), not only corroborated well with estimated literacy rates of

UNESCO (2000) but showed very little progress in educational attainments at the national level

(see table 5). Table 5 further shows that gender disparity and variations has persisted with a

higher proportion of literate males recorded. Again total non-literate population 5+ in Nigeria

stood at 22.80, coming after Mexico, Brazil, Indonesia, and Egypt. The import of these figures is

that literacy rates are still low in developing countries. In the Nigerian situation illiteracy is

worse among rural women. (See Table 5 in Appendix E: Literacy Status in Nine Most

Populous Countries of the World).

In the area of sanitation and environmental pollution, rural communities are confronted

with problems related to waste management. It is common knowledge that rural farmers live in

dirty surroundings. There are the combined effects of environmental pollution due to

indiscriminate dumping of wastes and poor waste management. According to the National

Bureau of Statistics (2005), the most widespread method of waste or refuse disposal are disposal

within household compounds (an average of 56.9%) and disposal in authorized sites 34%. UNDP

(2006), found evidence to show that the adverse consequences of waste generation and improper

disposal have been severe on both people and the environment, thus increasing the misery and

impoverishment of the rural environment and the populace, due to the high incidence of disease

outbreak.

Air pollution is a serious health problem for the poor people across the developing world,

particularly the countries of sub-Saharan Africa. The UNDP (2006) observed that while air

pollution is normally considered outdoor, more than 80% of its casualties are from indoor

sources. Another misconception was that air pollution mainly occurred and affected towns and

41

cities, but more than two-thirds of the resultant mortalities are in rural areas because poor people

in rural communities are at the bottom of the energy ladder. UNDP Human Development Report

(2006) asserted that the rural poor must burn dung, coal, wood and crop residues indoors for their

cooking and heating. The use of such traditional fuels is much more polluting than modern

alternatives such as kerosene, propane, biogas and electricity. Studies culled from Jahan in

Fukuda-Par and Kumar (2003) and quoted in UNDP-NDHD Report (2006) indicated that the

burning of fuel wood for domestic cooking was the predominant practice in rural communities,

often in conditions of housing congestion, poor ventilation and poor nutrition. Similarly, UNDP

(2006) in its findings with regards to local air pollution noted that burning such traditional fuels

filled houses with smoke swirling with hundreds of toxic substances, killing 2.2 million people a

year, mostly in rural areas, where most of the poor live. In a Household Survey carried out by the

NDDC (2006) on the issue of environmental pollution, respiratory diseases were found to be the

third most serious health problem (mentioned by 12.13% of households), coming after malaria

(73%) and diarrhea (19.4%). The survey observed that until very recently, respiratory diseases

were never a serious health problem of the Niger Delta region (Vanguard Aug. 16,

2066:46).According to Jahan (2003), poor nutrition increases susceptibility to health problems

such as respiratory infections, and lung and heart problems.

The rate of waste generation in rural communities has risen astronomically. Both liquid

and solid wastes are sometimes carelessly discarded on land, and in swamps and water bodies

leading to the contamination of both surface and ground water. There is very little or no

treatment of either liquid or solid wastes before disposal. Disposal methods remain very

rudimentary and do little to reduce attendant health risks. Raw sewage water runs into wells and

streams and rivers. Sometimes communities use open toilets or floating toilets constructed on

slopes bordering streams and rivers. While these facilities meet the basic needs of the people,

they represent another source of water pollution (Oluwoye et al 2003).

Solid wastes are also indiscriminately disposed off in most rural communities. There are

no formal solid waste management practices. What obtains is the dispatch of refuse in the bush,

at the backyard and in case of edible wastes like cassava, yam and plantain peels; they are left for

goats and such small ruminants to feed on. Other forms of wastes are either buried or left to rot

away. The rural communities are therefore at risk not only from the contamination of domestic

water supplies by liquid and solid wastes, but also from waste dumps that become breeding

grounds for diseases, vector and parasitic organisms (Vanguard Wed. August 16.2006:46). In

42

effect, the final disposal of solid wastes take place in the form of open dumps, accompanied by

burying, burning, and more frequently, disposal into water bodies or open drains including

erosion sites. Niger Delta Development Commission (NNDC) Regional Master Plan Final

Report (2006), noted that about 55% of refuse collected in the rural communities naturally end

up being burnt in dumpsites most of which are illegal and dangerously very close to living

quarters. This constituted a major health hazard to the rural people. Coupled with conditions of

poverty, hunger and undernourishment, rural farmers are at greater risks to catch infectious

diseases which adversely affect their health and productivity.

Transportation and Communication Facilities present yet other formidable challenges.

Roads in rural communities are mostly bad and impassable during the rainy season. Efforts by

Local Government Authorities to repair the roads have worsened them and left the local people

with more hardship (NDHDR, 2000). Transport and communication in the rural area is therefore

a source of misery requiring people to trek long and excruciating distances due to the high cost

of motorcycles (Okada) transport, a popular means of transport within rural areas. Some roads

are dented with potholes which constitute death traps that motorist avoid, either to prolong the

life span of their vehicles or to avoid the risk of accidents. The Niger Delta Human Development

Report (2006) notes further that the dearth of telecommunication infrastructure in the rural

communities makes difficult the advancement of information technology and its development as

well as technical empowerment of the rural populace in this regard. Most rural communities are

largely unconnected and consequently unable to take advantage of modern trends in

telecommunication and information technology as tools for accelerated rural development and

agricultural transformation. The report states that the number of telephone lines in the Niger

Delta worked out at about 38 per 1,000 people. The near absence of these modern facilities,

together with bad network of roads, creates social exclusion and isolation among rural

communities and alienates rural farmers from accelerated information dissemination.

In addition, transportation, distribution and marketing of produce are affected leading to

spoilage, wastage and low profits.

Social Exclusion and Isolation is another dimension of the concept of poverty afflicting the

rural populace. Notions and analysis of social exclusion are built on the basic premise that social

and economic well-being constitutes rights (Destremau, 2001). Social exclusion refers to a

process of social disintegration and concerns itself with the idea of inadequate realization of

social rights (Gore 1995). Poverty reduction approaches in terms of social exclusion are not

43

quantitative; they do not attempt to measure poverty, but rather among other things, attempt to

understand how people fall into and get out of deprivation and social marginalization (Destremau

2001). The social exclusion paradigm therefore takes very subjective data into consideration,

such as political representation, feelings, and other psychological symptoms. However, the

paradigm is often associated with a set of symptoms that are close to those of absolute poverty,

material deprivation, literacy rates, housing problems, vulnerability to disease and even hunger

or under-nourishment (Wilson et al, 2001). Therefore a critical and realistic assessment of

poverty among rural communities using the approach of social exclusion focuses attention on

key consideration such as access to basic amenities as well as the extent to which rural people

are involved in decision that affect their lives. In response to this approach, the UNDP in its

report on Niger Delta Poverty Index (2006) summarizes the practical implications of social

exclusion and marginalization to include:

• The poor person is one who cannot pay school fees for his children and therefore cannot

afford to send his children to school; cannot take part in age-grade activities and similar

community assignments;

• Wears tattered clothes; is very lean, and has no house to live in. In short, a poor person, using

the social exclusion index, is one who has nothing and consequently he has no voice in the

community;

• When you wake up hopeless as to where the next meal is coming from; you cannot attend

certain social functions because you don’t have clothes;

• When your roof leaks and you cannot change it;

• When you cannot travel because the transport fares are high and unaffordable;

• When the school fees and family demands are too much to bear, then poverty is the cause

(Vanguard, August 4, 2006:45).

These socio-economic deprivations constitute indices of social exclusion; and collectively they

increase the rural farmers’ level of marginalization and vulnerability.

Poverty, Hunger and Rural Agricultural Productivity

In Nigeria, a cancerous food supply crisis exists and is present in diverse and often more

difficult forms. The symptoms of this crisis have been summarized by Igbozuruike (1982) as

follows:-

i.The rural school child who is restless with hunger to pay attention in the classroom;

44

ii.The policy maker incapable of clear and critical thinking;

iii.The adult farmer unable to survive a bout of fever;

iv.The pregnant woman giving birth to a physically challenged and mentally retarded child;

v.A less than active baby starring at its mother out of watery eyes and running nose;

vi.The weaned child with fluffy hairs, distended stomach, flattened bottom and tiny legs (all

symptomatic of undernourishment and malnutrition); and

vii.A farmer unable to run a full twelve to fifteen regular working hours a day.

The list is endless. These are few samples of seemingly harmless but dangerous effects of

poverty and inadequate food intake, malnutrition and under-nourishments, which are not

publicized. Igbozuruike (1982), therefore queried the existence of the National Food Security

Programmes (NFSP) and the National Strategic Grains Reserves, and described them as mere

official jargons and disclamations having failed in their mission of ensuring food security. He

argue that whatever official expressions of concern about the state of poverty, hunger and food-

insecurity in Nigeria, are mere modern and more scientific re-statement of the thesis of Robert

Malthus expressed nearly three centuries ago. Though there has been no dramatic announcement

in most rural areas of food crises, famine has already begun. Igbozuruike (1982) observed that in

rural communities of Nigeria, malnutrition is chronic with indigenous food demand already out-

stripping levels of rural agricultural production and domestic food supply.

African Farmer (March, 1993), writing on the issue of nutrition in the African continent,

declared that a hard-working adult farmer, for example, needs approximately 3.5 kilocalories and

5 grams of protein per day; one-year-old child needs about 1 kilocalorie and 15 grams of protein

per day. Yet these quantities of essential nutrients, the magazine observed, are missing in the

diets of many rural households which are based on staples of grains such as maize, rice, millet or

tubers such as cassava, yam, potato and cocoyam. Moha (1993) in African Farmer magazine,in

studies carried out in Niger Republic, provided ample evidence showing that staples such as rice,

millet and sorghum (Guinea corn) contain approximately 330 calories per 100gram and 10gram

of protein; starchy tubers such as yam, cassava, and potato contains 320 calories per 100gram,

with only 1.5gram protein. These crop products which are the major food staples in Nigeria have

little nutritional values when eaten on their own. In two other separate studies reported in Africa

Farmer magazine (1985), evidence was found that in Tanzania, where maize is the food staple,

30 to 50 percent of children under the age of five were estimated to suffer from general

malnutrition, while half of all children in Niger Republic were chronically undernourished.

45

These revelations simply and clearly show that African staples – grains and tubers – do not

furnish adequate protein or micronutrients. Senghor (1993) therefore assert that although lack of

food and ignorance of available food substitutes are part of the problem of malnutrition, the

bottom-line is the inability of rural farmers to purchase other nutritive commodities and food

substitutes to add to ones own production.

The situation is not so different in Nigeria. Without enough food to eat, rural farmers are

caught in a vicious cycle, which African Farmer (1993) summarized as follows: “farmers are

weak because there is not enough food to eat; can’t produce enough food because the farmer is

hungry and weak”.

In essence undernourishment is caused by poverty, which makes it difficult for people to take in

adequate food in quantity and quality on regular basis. Inadequate food in-take lowers labour

productivity (Senghor, 1993). Low rural agricultural productivity invariably leads to hunger and

poverty.. In conclusion, Senghor maintained that hunger and malnutrition were in dissociable

from poverty

In proffering solution to this state of affairs among rural farmers, Mellor (2000) in Dixon

(2001) observed that there is overwhelming evidence that it is essential to accelerate rural

agricultural productivity and growth if poverty, hunger and undernourishment were to decline

rapidly. Dixon (2001) in his contribution, maintained that broad-based agricultural development

can provide an effective means of both reducing poverty and accelerating rural economic growth.

To achieve this, Dixon (2001) suggested the creation of local goods and services and re-

emphasized the need to increase incomes of primary producers (peasant farmers), and farm

workers, as the only means to achieve rural economic growth. In an extension to this, Datt and

Ravallion (1998) and Dixon (2001) posited that rural agricultural transformation and growth can

even reduce urban poverty more rapidly, largely because of the consequent reduction in urban

food costs and lower rates of in-migration from rural areas.

While overall agricultural growth is undoubtedly an effective engine for rural economic

development and poverty reduction, the form that this growth takes has a bearing and impact

on its effectiveness in reducing rural poverty and hunger. Dixon (2001) maintained that

raising agricultural productivity within labour-intensive small farms, which generates extra

demand for local products, goods and services can have a broader effect on rural poverty and

hunger reduction than equivalent productivity increases on large mechanized farms, which

typically generate less additional demands for local goods and services. In effect, reducing

46

poverty and hunger among rural farmers entails rural agricultural transformation and

increased productivity.

One major factor militating against rural agricultural development and economic growth

in Nigeria has been ascribed to the continued neglect of rural agriculture in favour of large

mechanized farms. Rural agricultural neglect has been described as failure to give enough

attention or care to rural farming (Idachaba, 2006). The consequences of such neglect as

identified by Idachaba (2006) included the following:-

Food Insecurity

Generally, rural agricultural neglect results in food insecurity and hunger, whereby

majority of the rural people do not have access to food that is adequate, both in quality and

quantity, consistent with decent existence at all times. Food insecurity leads to food import

dependency, especially at the national level, by increasing dependence on foreign sources of

food or raw materials needed for agro-industrialization. Food import dependency results in huge

government expenditure of scare foreign exchange on food imports that could be economically

produced locally were it not for rural agricultural neglect. For instance, Nigeria spends a lot of

foreign exchange in importing close to 2.0 million metric tones of rice annually to meet domestic

requirements. This figure amounts to about 1.0 billion US-Dollar per annum (Fajaanat 2006).

Rural Unemployment

Agricultural neglect results in pervasive rural unemployment that compounds and

complicates existing urban unemployment. Rural unemployment is responsible for the massive

rural-urban drift of our youths and its attendant evils and other socio-economic implications such

as loss of rural agricultural labour force for the rural farm enterprise; and congestion of urban

centres, including increasing crime rates; and the over stretching of urban infrastructure due to

unplanned and sudden influx of rural immigrants.

Agro-Industrialization

Agricultural neglect leads to stunted growth of agro-industrialization because of inadequate

raw material supplies from agriculture (Idachaba, 2006). For example, Floor Mills, Textile Mills,

Oil mills and other Agro-allied industries, have severally closed down or many operating at

below installed capacities on account of shortages of domestic supplies of raw material – cereals,

cotton, vegetable oils. Also stunted agro-industrial growth leads to underdevelopment of the

downstream sector of the agricultural production chain such as on-farm processing, marketing

47

and distribution of agricultural produce. This further compounds rural economic backwardness,

unemployment and poverty.

Endemic Poverty

More than four-fifth or 86.5% of rural house-holds are engaged in agriculture (NBS 2006).

The poor ruralites participate more in agricultural related occupations than non-agricultural

activities with an estimated 25% of core poor house-holds completely engaged in agriculture and

no other economic activities (NBS 2006). So, neglect of rural agriculture results in endemic

poverty of the rural majority because of depressed farm yield and poor incomes.

The challenge, therefore, for rural agricultural growth in Nigeria, and relying on the

contributions of Obibuaku (1983), FAO (1996), Dixon (2001) and Idachaba, (2006), is to

identify specific agricultural and rural development needs and opportunities available in various

agriethnoecozones with a view to focusing investments, in both human and physical resources, in

the areas where there is comparative advantage in agricultural production and where the greatest

impact on food security and poverty reduction can be best attained. This calls for a shift in policy

concerns towards small scale farmers. Policy changes and institutional reforms should be

channeled to the rural sector with a stronger emphasis on educating small-scale farmers through

rural literacy programmes; the provision of rural infrastructure; and support to the growth of

agro-based Small and Medium Scale Enterprises (ASMES), (Idachaba 2006). He refers to these

synergies as constituting enduring strategies for rural agricultural transformation and economic

growth as will bring about sustainable poverty andhunger reduction in rural farming

communities.

Problems of the Small – Scale Farmer

Agricultural transformation is the corner stone of rural economic recovery strategy for

rural communities in Nigeria for the foreseeable future (Idachaba, 2006). Consequently, in the

hands of peasant farmers rest the key to rural agricultural development, economic recovery and

rehabilitation leading to poverty reduction and improved standards of living. But these farmers

are faced with extraordinary circumstances and confronted by formidable challenges. The many

factors that go into weakening the productive capacity of these small-scale farmers and put them

at greater risks and vulnerability as summarized by Akenson (1984) and Yousouf (1988) are as

follows:

i. Poor technical know-how;

ii .Natural disasters and diseases;

48

iii. Lack of credit and incentives;

iv. Ineffective political drive and policy instability/ policy summersault;

v. Poor attitude of urban dwellers and young school leavers towards agriculture;

vi. Inefficient agricultural research and extension; and

vii. Illiteracy, ignorance and rural backwardness.

Farming in Nigeria is still subsistent and at minimal level of mechanization. And farming of

any sort is hard work, and ploughing is one of the hardest, yet most important production tasks.

Ajayi et al (1990) observe that rural farmers in general have achieved all cultural practices in the

farm by hand with simple tools, and in places, with animal driven ploughs. There are indications

that among rural farmers, only 1 percent of farm power is provided by mechanical means, 10%

by draught animals, and 89 percent by human power (FAO-1985). Ajayi et al (1990) describe

this situation as unfortunate and argued that the issue at stake is more than just the convenience

of the farmer or the drudgery attendant to this. Rather Ajayi and colleagues note that the success

of ploughing affects the success of the harvest which in turn affects how much food is produced

and how much income is earned. Ajayi and associates (1990) assert that inappropriate ploughing

and other pre-planting operations can quickly degrade the soil, threatening national productivity

and food security.

Odigboh (1990), reacting to the low level technology in Nigerian rural agriculture observed

that, were our ancestors to suddenly come back to life, they could pick up the same old familiar

tools and go to farm on equal terms with our present-day farmers, because nothing much has

changed since their time. He furtherobserved that the agricultural machinery in use by over 95%

of rural farmers in Nigeria consists essentially of the traditional hoe, the wooden digger, the

machete, the sickle, wooden hooks (Go-To-Hell) and similar ancient tools in their pristine shapes

and forms, and in the same conditions as they were originally made. The main criticisms leveled

against these cowry tools included:

i. The use of hoe in ploughing makes farm work slow and tiring. Tillage requires more time

and energy.

ii. Farm drudgery occasioned by use of traditional tools is one reason young people are

shunning farming and heading for the cities, creating scarcity in rural labour force and

adding to the social problems of urban cities such as unemployment and overcrowding, and

in recent times escalating crime rate.

49

iii. The use of traditional tools has a serious limiting effect on the sizes of farm plots that rural

farmers can operate (Odigboh 1990).

This summarizes the gory situation of Nigerian rural agricultural technology

The use of Draught Power or Animal Traction and Tractors are other farm technologic

options open to rural farmers who have a choice and can afford them. These two are faster and

easier farming methods when compared to ploughing with hoe. With animal traction, the soil is

deeply turned and produces five times as much as when hoe is used (Oumarou, 1990). He

affirmed that the work is not difficult and in less than a week whole farms would have been

completed. But even when animal traction was available, it has a variety of disadvantages, which

Odigboh (1990) identified as follows:

I. It not feasible in southern Nigeria infested with tse-tse fly, which transmit sleeping

sickness to livestock;

ii. Its application is limited to ploughing and a few other land preparation operations.

iii. Attachments for planting, weeding, fertilizer application or harvesting neither do not exist nor

not widely available;

iv. .For many farmers, the increase in productivity with animal traction is barely enough to cover

the cost of hiring and maintaining the animals.

v. Renting draught animals and plough from neighbours or borrowing them form relatives are

not always reliable because they will come only after the farmer-lender had fulfilled his needs.

The tractor on the other hand can cultivate more land in less time than animals can. The

speed with which tractors can plough large areas of land is the magic and lure of mechanization.

Thus, governments see mechanization as the key to increasing agricultural out-put. But

according to (IITA 1990) in African Farmer magazine, mechanization is not only expensive, its

indiscriminate use could create severe ecological problems, such as reduced land fertility and soil

erosion. Other problems militating against mechanization by rural farmers in Nigeria had been

identified to include:

i. Structural Adjustment Programme of the 1980s, which included eliminating government

subsidies on agricultural inputs, not only increased sharply the prices of farm machinery but

also made it very difficult to acquire spare parts.

ii. Tractor- Hiring Units (THU) established by state and local government agencies served little

purpose, as tractors were absent or out of order for the greater part of the farming season..

50

iii. Fragmentation and dispersal of farm plots due to land shortages and prevalent communal land

tenure systems lead to small farm plots limit the prospects of mechanization in the rural

communities (Agboola, 1979 and NBS, 2005).

In all, low level farm technology has been regarded as a major cause of the persistent low

farm yields and food shortages in Nigeria. Small-farm holdings and use of traditional tools limit

the prospects of intensification and diversification of existing production patterns. Intensification

and diversification of agriculture form important components of the FAO special programme for

food security (FAO 1990). Dixon (2001) defined intensification as increased physical or

financial productivity of existing pattern of farm production and increased yield as the result of

external inputs or may arise from improved labour productivity. Diversification on the other

hand, refers to an adjustment to the farm enterprise pattern in order to increase farm income or

reduce income variability. Diversification may take the form of completely new farm enterprise

or expansion of existing ones. Both intensification and diversification of rural agricultural

production systems require appropriate farmer education, modern farm technologies and

competences, which presently are out of reach of rural farmers (Dixon 2001). Traditional modes

of farming, with low technical know-how and attendant drudgery and disincentives are the

challenges of future transformation of rural agriculture in Nigeria.

The very nature of farm work means that a large portion of the farmer’s daily life such as

weather conditions, diseases and pest outbreak, market prices, credit and interest rates,

equipment breakdown, and input supplies are not under their control. Even the farmer’s choice of

when to grow, land acquisition and timely input supplies create farm crises and stress, and the

outcomes can adversely affect the farmer. Awake (Oct. 2003), quoting Canadian Government

Website, noted that when these factors are factored by the threat of diseases, pests, or crop

failure or losing an entire farm, farm stress can become overwhelming.

In many areas in Nigeria, especially in the south east and south south geopolitical zones,

erosion and flooding have devastated much of the farm lands, and in many cases ruining farm

harvests. Those who live in the oil and gas producing areas suffer yet another form of

environmental disaster which affects farming, fishing and even hunting. The negative

environmental impact of oil exploration and exploitation activities, for instance include:

i. Seismic surveys of land which lead to deforestation and the destruction of vegetative cover

over the land.

ii. Oil drilling which introduces toxic effluent fluids and mud to the environment.

51

iii. Human error or equipment failure during production may lead to oil spillage.

iv. Petroleum refining and gas flaring introduce environmental concomitants that pollute air,

water and soil. (Olagbede, 1997).

Olagbede asserted that all these petroleum derived pollutants have adverse affects on the

ecosystem. The ecosystem and sub system constitute the physical base of all farming activities.

Collaborating issues with farming and the physical environment, Igbozuruike (1983) observed

that any agricultural success depended to a large extent on the degree to which the environment

was in harmony with agricultural operations and practices.

Despite the danger to the ecosystem, land clearing by fire has been a common practice

among rural farmers in AbiaState, where shifting field agriculture is the dominant farming

system (Abia State Official Hand Book, 1991-1997). The use of fire in farming had over the

years upset the natural balance between man and his environment. According to Stiles (1990),

frequent use of natural and man made fires over a long period create ecological conditions that

favour savannah and grasslands. Prolonged use of bush fire in cultural operations has been

regarded as being responsible for unreliable and erratic rainfall, soil erosion, desertification and

floods (Ngoye, 1990). Burning encourage erosion because it removes the soil’s protective

covering. Run-off or flood is very much higher from burnt than from unburnt areas. Flood

accelerates erosion and leads to decreased supplies of underground water; cause gully erosion

and loss of soil fertility. Gully erosion and flood ravaging the rural communities of Abia state

and elsewhere has been attributed to such farming practices and land use patterns (Abia State

Official Handbook, 1991- 1997). Fire, though helpful in land clearing, destroy the peculiar

habitat necessary for many valuable wild animals and frequently the animals themselves.

Oftentimes, wild life move off to other areas when their habitat is destroyed (Ngoye, 1990). Loss

of wild life further aggravate nutritional conditions and limit the source of protein in the rural

farmer’ diet with its grave consequences on malnutrition. Loss of wildlife also implies loss of

revenue to village hunters.

Other natural disasters such as the outbreak of disease and pestilence add to the farming

problems faced by rural farmers. Disease occurrences exert tremendous financial and emotional

stress on them. The Awake magazine (Oct 2003), noted that disease outbreak and the fear they

generate do more than wreak economic damage to farmers. For instance, the outbreak of the

Avian Influenza in the Northern part of Nigeria in 2006 saw many farmers watch in tears as their

poultry farms were shut down and entire stock eliminated. Not only were the economic losses

52

enormous but farmers suffered emotional stress. In another dimension, HIV/AIDS has already

depressed population growth rates in the African continent, and is causing immense contraction

of rural labour force in the prime working age group of 19-35 years (Dixon, 2001). HIV/AIDS is

having profound effects on farming communities in Nigeria, with rising incidence in the rural

communities. Also rising mortality rates due to its infection has led to a rise in the number of

female headed households, thus placing considerable burden on women’s capacity to produce,

provide and prepare food for the family, thus driving rural farming families further into poverty

(NBS, 2005).

Furthermore, drought and desertification especially in the arid and semi arid agricultural

ecological zone of Nigeria add to human suffering and impaired agricultural production. Ajayi et

al (1990), referred to these twin phenomena as the gradual drying up of once productive land

either as a result of rainlessness (drought) or due to desert encroachment. Their tell-tale signs

include decline in rainfall, loss of vegetation, soil erosion and deforestation. While some of these

changes are caused by natural forces, most are the direct result of human actions and activities,

as man tinker and despoil the environment in search of what to eat. Drought can be a double

edged sword. It affects crops and livestock alike. For without pasture to graze or crops to harvest,

animal feed will need to be purchased and that reduces the farmer’s income and profit margins.

The drought incidences of 1971-73 in Nigeria discouraged and frustrated farmers as it rendered

farming enterprises more precarious and less lucrative, leaving rural farmers more vulnerable to

poverty and hunger (Ajayi, 1990). Recurring incidences if diseases and pest outbreak, soil

erosion and drought collectively frustrate many farming household heads who head to the cities

to make ends meet and irk a living. Natural disasters are therefore major causes of hunger and

rural poverty and must be recognized and included in the content of farmer literacy education.

Credit is a key agricultural input. It may come in the form of cash or kind. In kind, it may

reach farmers in forms of free seeds, or other subsidized inputs. While an investment in

improved seeds and livestock breeds, fertilizers or other forms of modern farm inputs will

usually produce enough profit to pay back a loan or credit, without the initial credit, rural farmers

cannot afford the switch to more productive but more expensive techniques and innovations.

Morna et al (1990)cited several reasons why rural farmers hardly obtain loans from banks or

access credit from other sources, namely:

i. Credit from financial institutions is usually administered only to farmer groups, unions, associations or societies (Co-operatives). This, according to lending agencies

53

is because many credit schemes have found that peer group pressure is the best method of ensuring loan repayment.

ii. Credit institutions cite the small sizes of rural farm plots which they consider uneconomic for investment purposes.

iii. Small-scale farmers often lack the assets that commercial banks require as collaterals for loan.

iv. Illiteracy among rural farmers often hinders their ability to source and apply for credit and to undergo the rigours of banking formalities involved;

v. Bank that specializes in agricultural loans tend to favour large-scale commercial farmers which they consider as safer investment and.

vi. Although no collateral may be required per se for agricultural loans to rural farmers, an applicant for a loan must be credit worthy or be a member of registered farmers’ association

As a result of these factors, Ajayi et al (1990) is of the view that rural farmers are

reluctant to take out loans, fearing what will happen if they cannot pay them back in time. To

add to the list of factors that limit rural farmers’ access to loans, is the hijacking of government

guaranteed agricultural loan schemes by large numbers of unintended beneficiaries (Idachaba,

2006). These include absentee farmers, politicians and highly placed government officials who

hide under the guise of farming to secure and divert such loans to non-agricultural enterprises.

Such actions deprive rural farmers of much needed farm credit. The farmer’s greatest need for

credit is for labour and the purchase of seeds and other items of input; but most importantly for

transportation to markets of produce, and the provision of storage and farm-gate processing

facilities. Most often, rural farmers resort to borrowing from local money lenders despite

extreme high interest rates and near impossible conditions for repayment, but such farmers who

pay back at harvest time often have little money or produce left for the family. Ajayi et al (1990)

maintain that without some form of guaranteed credit, small scale farmers have little chance of

substantially increasing their production, let alone making profit to enhance the farming

enterprise and to improve their living standards. And without basic literacy education, rural

farmers may be at a loss and lack understanding of where, when and how to obtain and fill the

loans forms correctly, let alone access such credit facilities timely.

\A farmer’s most important agricultural input and factor of production is land, without which

farming is of course impossible. Traditional community-based land tenure systems continue to

54

be the basis of land allocation and distribution among rural farmers in Nigeria (Agboola, 1979).

He further identified the land tenure systems operating in different parts of Nigeria and

categorized them into two broad tenure arrangements:The first were the systems of land

allocation by traditional authorities such as village and family heads. Closely related to these is

inherited land. The former and the latter are jointly referred to as communal land tenure. The

second group relates to land tenure system which represents modifications of the communal type.

These include land ownership through lease, pledge, loan, rent and purchase. By and large,

communal land tenure is the most predominant land tenure pattern practiced in the south east of

Nigeria. Agboola (1970) quoting FAO (1966) noted that about 80 percent of cultivated land in

Nigeria is communally operated with about 65.3% held by family allocations, and 7 percent

held be inheritance; the rest are land arrangements under pledge, rent, loan, and lease or by

government acquisition.

Communal land tenure practices have been regarded as limiting factors to rural agricultural

development and productivity. It limits both the scale of farm operations and therefore the

volume of output in agriculture. Traditional methods and systems of land tenure and land

acquisition inhibit extensive use of land for farming as well as hinder efficient agricultural

development. Agboola (1979) identified the major factors which lead to inefficient use of

communal land for rural agricultural purposes to include.

• Lack of security to land titles.

• Restriction on the mobility of farmers

• Sub-division of holdings into extremely small plots and fragmentation of holdings (FAO

1966) in Agboola (1979).

Other adverse effects of land tenure systems on rural agricultural development and land use are

as follows:

• Resistance of land allocating authorities to tree-crop planning;

• Misdistribution of land among adjoining communities and;

55

• The problem of discrimination in land allocation to non-indigenes or stranger elements

by host communities and the denial of women to land titles.

By and large, the issue of land tenure is technically one of access to land. Rural farmers

who migrate from one location to another where they have no claim to local land titles are not

allowed to inherit or purchase land. Rent, pledged or leased land arrangements which migrant

farmers are subjected to, do not provide absolute security nor guarantee regular access to land for

farming. Tenant farmers regard such tenures as insecure to allow them to develop their plots.

Moreover, such tenancy agreements could be revoked without notice (Agboola 1979). This is the

plight of rural farmers in the Abia state where communal land tenureship is the major land use

pattern (Abia State Ministry of Info; Youth &Culture, 1977).

Under communal land tenure, land is regarded as common property of the community,

family or an individual’s inheritance. Individual members have a right to part of the family or

community land for their home-stead, gardens and farms. Fragmentation and dispersal of land in

the area of study is due to widespread inheritance practices. This results in the fragmentation of

land into small farm plots to meet family demands. According to Ajayi (1990), the consequences

of land fragmentation are:

• The resultant small farm plots limit the prospect of mechanization and large scale

farming

• There is the tendency among rural farmers to own more than one plot often separated

by long distances, and

• There is considerable dissipation of energy and time among rural farmers in moving

from one plot to another.

Population growth, increased population densities, and massive internal rural migration

have not only often led to further excessive land fragmentation but to an alteration of the

man/land ratio which hitherto existed in rural communities (Agboola, 1979). This has in turn

resulted in a more limited amount of land available to rural farmers and also in shorter duration

of fallows, which are essential to the traditional cycle of shifting cultivation. Disturbance of the

delicate balance between the length of fallow and the extent of cultivated land undermine the

56

whole farming system through soil fertility deterioration and increased soil erosion, all of which

reduce farm productivity. In the final analysis, landlessness and poor access to land is an

important cause of low agricultural productivity with great consequences on to poverty and

hunger among rural farmers in Nigeria.

For decades, rural dwellers have been flocking to the cities in Nigeria seeking for greener

pastures-jobs, money or even adventure. Araka et al (July, 1990), quoting United Nations

Population Fund (UNPF 1996) stated that Africa was still the least urbanized among the

continents of the world. Only about 30 percent of its people live in cities. UNPF (1996) observed

earlier that urban population was growing by 5 percent annually and estimated that in about 30

years (1990-2020), more Africans will live in cities than rural communities. This prediction is

already the trend of urbanization in Nigeria today. The principal reasons adduced for the massive

drift of rural dwellers to cities include:

• Poor state of rural infrastructure – such as roads, portable water, electricity, health

systems delivery services, unemployment, hunger and poor educational opportunities;

and

• Low prices of farm produce which makes it difficult for farmers to make their ends meet

(Araka et al, 1990).

These have become the millennial problems and challenges of rural agricultural transformation

and economic growth. For several of these reasons, some rural farmer long for real or imagined

opportunities to enhance their living standards by thronging to the cities. Able bodied youths are

the easier preys to the lure of the cities where they resort to engaging in menial jobs such as

security guards and janitors. Since street crime and robbery have become serious problems in

cities, private sector security now forms one of the biggest employment sectors of the economy,

as property owners try to protect themselves and their possessions. This sector offers unlimited

employment opportunities to youths and adults alike that flock to cities with no marketable and

employable skills (African Farmer Magazine 1990).

Geoffrey in Newsweek Magazine as quoted in Awake (October 2003) noted that

unemployment, underemployment and poverty rates are much higher in the rural than in our

urban areas. According to him, economic instability had forced many families- especially

younger ones to move to the city. This drift, he noted was already causing a run out of people

willing to farm the land. Rural-urban migration is therefore another form of brain drain in the

57

rural sector. For according to Sheila in Awake magazine (2003), because of the massive drift of

the younger generations to cities, the population of many rural communities had become

noticeably older. These rural communities, she observed, have not only lost the vigor of the

youth but also the availability of support for the elderly.

Migration in addition, could also be regarded as a form of community loss and loss of

farm labour. The adverse effects of rural-urban migration on rural agriculture were summarized

by Araka et al (1990) to include:

• Rural-urban migration takes a toll on agricultural production by leaving fewer olderly

people in the rural areas to farm the land. This constitutes a depletion of viable

agricultural rural labour force.

• A larger number of migrants stay away permanently, often times, abandoning children

and wives. In this instance, experts said that one of the greatest charms of agrarian life, its

close-knit community life, was fast disappearing;

• In its broader perspective, migration contribute to the social ills in the cities such as

unemployment and over-crowding, increased crime rates and the stretching of urban

social services to breaking points; and

• Many cities have become dented with slums; new migrants unable to find housing erect

make-shift dwellings in obscure corners of cities.

Dixon et al (2001) reflecting on the other side of migration noted that it however

provided off-farm incomes which is an important source of livelihood for many poor rural

farmers. Seasonal migration according to them had become one traditional strategy for reducing

poverty and hunger as remittances are often invested in land or livestock purchases. In places

where there is vigorous and thriving off-farm economy, many poor households augment their

incomes with part-time or full-time off-farm employment. Where opportunities for improved

livelihoods were perceived, a proportion of farm households will abandon their land altogether,

and move into other farming systems or into off-farm occupations in rural or urban locations.

The road construction and urban housing sectors, including the down-stream sector of the oil and

gas sector, furnish unlimited employment opportunities in this regard. These various means of

getting rid of rural poverty is referred to as “exit from agriculture” (Dixon et al 2001).

In the final analysis, information on poverty, hunger and rural agricultural productivity

was considered vital to the present research work. The facts of their interdependency and the

variable factors influencing their inter-relatedness guided the study in fashioning out relevant

58

farmer literacy education contents needed to improve rural agricultural performance and the rural

farmers themselves.

Economic Instability and Unstable Agricultural Policy Reforms have been other factors

affecting rural agricultural performance. There have been dramatic changes in the economic

landscape of Nigeria with policy reforms dating back to 1980s. With the introduction of

Structural Adjustment Programme (SAP) in 1985/86, rural farmers in Nigeria experienced and

are still experiencing unprecedented economic pressures. SAP loans from the World Bank and

the International Monetary Fund (IMF) were given to participating countries to make their

economics “more efficient, more flexible and better able to use resources” (Araka et al, 1990).

The programme had five major components, namely;

i. Ending government subsidies and government control on prices.

ii. Devaluation of the local currency-the Naira

iii. Increasing exports;

iv. Privatization and; v. Cutting budget deficits.

In their analyses of the consequences of SAP on rural agriculture and the farmers, Araka et al

(1990) observed as follows:

(i) With government withdrawal of control on prices and eliminating subsides and letting

prices rise and fall to market levels, rural farmers often ended up receiving more for their

produce, and at least in theory, were encouraged to produce even more. However, rising

prices Araka et al contended, were forcing many Nigerian poorest (rural farmers) to go

hungry because farmers must buy at high prices goods and other basic needs to round out

their diets and meet other family needs. Removal of subsidies benefited input producers

but adversely affected consumers who had to pay more for food stuff. Rural farmers were

also faced with high cost of inputs e.g. machinery, fertilizer, agro-chemicals as a result of

removal of subsidy.

(ii) The devaluation of the local currency, the Naira, made Nigerian products less expensive

and therefore more attractive in the International Market. These encouraged farmers

engaged in export crops-Cocoa, rubber, cotton, palm produce and groundnut- to grow

more cash crops. But due to an increase in output from other producing nations,

International prices for export crops declined steadily. Moreover, import quotas are not

usually under the control of exporting nations. Thus there is usually prices fluctuation to

the detriment of rural producers.

59

(iii) Devaluation brings down the prices of export crops but also increase the prices of

imported good. This brings about high inflation rates .whereas devaluation results in

increase in prices paid for export crops, the same farmers must pay more for improved

inputs. This renders the farmers more vulnerable.

(iv) emphasizing increased efficiency in production of export crops is difficult in economies

with poor infrastructure and where pricing policies encourage output while impeding the

purchases of vital imported inputs; and finally.

(v) Removal of excessive government involvement in agricultural production (privatization)

such as the scraping of Community Marketing Boards brings farmers face-to-face with

independent buyers and to exploitation by middlemen. Commodity Boards usually dictate prices

paid to farmers. But with Structural Adjustment Programme (SAP) conditionality,

farm production costs had become high, capital purchases too exorbitant, interest rates doubled,

farm profits fell, the number of farmers decreased, and nearly every farming community lost

population, business and economic stability (Awake October 8. 2003).

Writing on the topic “Farming in crises”, Awake (Oct, 2003) noted that with SAP, farm

profits failed to keep pace with rising farm and family expenses due to inflation and food

importation. Thus the magazine asserted that rural farmers were subjected to forces of

international markets and competitions from exporting countries which have adversely affected

their income. According to the editor (Awake, 2003), international trade has the capacity to open

up new markets for farm produce but such global markets can be dangerously unstable to the

detriment of the farmer. In the final analysis, SAP not only impoverished the rural farmers but

also led to reduced agricultural and food production activities.

Commenting on the issue of agricultural institutional policies in Nigerian, Idachaba

(2006) stated that when government policies are mere buttery of disincentives that discourage

new investments in agriculture, rural agriculture suffers severe neglect. Another factor identified

as influencing the agricultural policy agenda in Nigeria is weak agricultural stakeholder capacity.

According to Idachaba (2006) the weak capacity of stakeholders of Nigeria agriculture prevents

rural farmers from determining or influencing the policy agenda. He adduced reasons for the

weak agricultural stakeholder capacity to include the high transaction cost of organizing and

mobilizing widely dispersed small scale farmers for the defense of their cause either along

specific commodity lines or across the agricultural sector as a whole. Other factors identified as

60

weakening the capacity of stakeholders include (i) illiteracy; and (ii) the primitive state of rural

infrastructure, such as roads and other modes of transport.

Nurudeen (1990) in Idachaba (2006), re-enforced these points when he noted that

policies and not weather (climate), were at the root of rural agricultural problems in Nigeria. In

taking this position, Nurudeen and Idachaba (2006), maintained that political instability was a

major factor in the problem of rural agricultural development and noted with grave concern

incessant changes in government which often lead to changing agricultural policies. In reference

to this, Idachaba (2006) asserted that a farmer working under a situation of such changing

policies was likely to be decisionless and will not therefore be able to make any concrete plan in

his farming enterprise. The concomitant effect was that rural farmers resort to traditional farming

practices for lack of proper policy reform guidelines. In addition, illiteracy makes it extremely

difficult for rural farmers to understand, interpret and apply agricultural policies let alone their

assessing their implications on the farming enterprise.

With reference to the unsavory state of rural infrastructure, rural farmers are very familiar

with the time consuming energy sapping and exhausting task of walking to markets with loads of

produce. Morna (1990), and quoting a World Bank Report, noted that there was evidence that

reliance on head loading is a significant constraint on small-scale farmers output, marketing and

distribution of produce. Transportation in particular can make or break the ability of farmers to

turn a profit (Araka et al 1991). This is true throughout the length and breadth of rural

communities in the Ohafia agriecozone which constituted the area of study. The experience is

that roads and vehicular transportation off and into rural these communities are often scarce.

Araka et al (1990) argued that lack of improvement in rural infrastructure in the area of feeder

roads was one of the small-scale farmer’s biggest challenges. For they reasoned that, no matter

how producer prices were, such prices are useless if farm produce cannot be collected and

marketed.

The opportunities for higher and better producer prices that trucks and good roads can

offer to rural farmers are evident. Agboola (1979) asserted that farm produce attract higher prices

in urban towns than in villages and centers of production. According to him, the difference was

usually pocketed by middlemen who go directly to rural farmer’s homestead to buy produce.

Even at that, and under deregulation of agricultural marketing, especially the scraping of

Commodity Boards, most private traders would not go to the rural areas because the roads are

often non-existent or not so good and often seasonal. (Morna, 1990) therefore argued that

61

transportation difficulties have often acted as a deterrent to agricultural marketing, supply,

distribution and profit maximization of the rural farm enterprise.

It has also been established that a strong relationship exists between production, supply and

consumption patterns of local food stuff around cities. Commenting on this relationship, Morna

(1990), asserted that one major feature of the flow of food-stuff into major cities is that more of

the bulky produce (yam, cassava, potato, tomato, onions) comes from nearer locations than from

more distant ones. However, this trend has changed with the development and construction of an

efficient net-work of roads connecting various cities between Northern and Southern Nigeria.

This good net-work of roads has been responsible for the huge bulk of internal commercial

activities between these regions. Agricultural produce remain the major items of commerce

between Northern and Southern Nigeria. This underscores the very important role of

transportation in agricultural production, supply and distribution, and emphasizes the need to

open the rural areas with network of durable feeder roads and markets (Araka et al 1991).

However, with increasing distance from the centres of production to the markets,

transportation costs must go higher which may adversely affect the profitability of the rural

farmer in certain crops, especially the perishable ones. This situation may lead to a

corresponding decline in the crop’s production intensity. In all, farmers in remote rural areas,

with poor roads, often receive low prices for their produce than those near the railways or

important roads. Low producer prices means low income, little or no savings and low prospects

of future and further investments in the rural farming enterprise. All these contribute in

relegating the rural farmers to the bottom-line of poverty with chronic hunger.

Rural farmers today feel that much of the “town man” is out of touch with farming and the

important role of rural farmers in the national economy. The generality of the urban populace are

pretty complacent about where the food they consume comes from. Beye (1990) in African

Farmer Magazine observed that there was often a systematic bias against small-scale farmers,

although they produce most of foods consumed in urban centres. Rural farmers are often looked

upon as backward and resistant to change. Thus they end up being isolated by the very people

who were supposed to help them - research institutions, agronomists, bureaucrats, engineers,

extension agents, urbanites and traders. Beye, in his analysis of the African situation observed

that the son of a farmer goes to school not to become a farmer but to escape from the farmer’s

world which is considered a world of losers and drudgery. Eisenhower in Awake (October. 2005)

62

critically assessed the validity of this situation and submitted that farming looks pretty mighty

easy when your plough is a pencil, and when you are thousands of kilometers away from farming

areas. Office workers hardly recognize the contributions of rural farmers to the economy let

alone appreciating their stronghold in the general welfare of the citizenry.

In another dimension Horst (1980), reflecting on the inadequacy of farmer education in

influencing peoples attitude towards farming, noted that the present situation was creating

unemployment because we were not teaching the young people practical farm skills in our

schools. He noted that there was no interaction between the national needs and its supply of

university graduates. Horst argued that while policy makers were looking to the agricultural

sector as the arrowhead of economic growth, school curricula and textbooks had little to do with

farming. Nigeria’s education system is a victim of this situation. Agriculture has never been

considered a core subject at all levels of the educational system. As a result, farming has become

unattractive to the youths, and other expected new comers into the farming business including

retirees and businessmen.

In an extension to the undesirable attitude of people towards agriculture, the

unrecognized role of rural women in farming has been identified as part of the problem at stake.

Morna in Africa Farmer Magazine (1990) observed that women are rarely given the benefits of

agricultural training. He noted that when the extension worker visits rural areas to explain

improved techniques or offer access to inputs, they usually interact with men, not women. And

most often inputs such as credit that were accessible to men were denied women farmers. In

effect, policies aimed at improving the productivity of small-holders appeared to pass women by.

Yet women labour-force constitutes about 86% of rural farm labour-force in Nigeria. And taking

into account the contributions of women in agricultural operations, women are responsible for

twice as many tasks as men (UNICEF, 1990). Therefore, the continuous gender bias in the

policies and programmes of agricultural changes in Nigeria remain a major set back in rural

agricultural transformation.

In addition rural women farmers were further relegated to the background in the food

production chain. They were more often than not consigned to the planting and husbandry of the

so called minor crops – cocoyam, melon, pepper and other vegetables. These crops were not only

grown on marginal lands or as boundary crops, but were cultivated only after their male

counterparts got done with planting the major crop, principally yam (Araka et at, 1990). This

63

form of gender discrimination and women marginalization in agricultural production activities is

common in all farming communities in AbiaState.

In summary, the fight for sustainable end of hunger and poverty reduction among rural

farmers cannot be achieved by simply devoting resources and efforts towards the development of

the rural agricultural sector alone (Strong, 1990). Strong feels strongly that rural women farmers

must be brought into the mainstream of agricultural production activities; and due recognition

accorded to their contributions in rural agricultural production activities. He also advocates for

the extension of other services and educational endeavors relevant to human capital development

and socio-economic improvement of the rural people. According to Strong (1990), there is no

area in which sustainable development in rural communities is more important, in terms of

human welfare and economic wellbeing, than in the agricultural production sector. In his

opinion, there will be no more important test of success in the achievement of sustainable rural

development than in our ability to eliminate illiteracy, poverty and hunger among rural farmers.

This task of ending hunger is inevitably linked with the need to eradicate poverty, hunger and

illiteracy among rural farmers. This fact should be the prime purpose of functional farmer

literacy education models which is of major concern to the study.

Approaches to Poverty and Hunger Reduction

Poverty reduction or alleviation has its own social history and genesis. Hill in Wilson et al

(2001), collaborating issues on “Improving Farmer’s Livelihood in a Changing World”, noted

that the eradication of poverty is another International commitment made originally in 1995 at

the Social Summit +World Summit. This commitment was translated into the target of halving

the proportion of people living in extreme poverty and hunger by the year 2015. Hill asserted

that eradicating the suffering of the rural people was to focus upon the creation of dynamic rural

communities founded upon prosperous farming. From another perspective, Mafeje (2001) noted

that the concept of poverty and hunger reduction is a reflection of social imperatives in

developed countries and a culmination of the rise of the welfare state ideology as encapsulated in

integrated rural development schemes. Consequently, poverty and hunger reduction programmes

borrow heavily from and are dependent on the objectives of rural development. These objectives

as identified by Kumar (2003) included:

i. Improved income distribution,

ii. Full and productive employment

64

iii. Increased productivity

iv. Improved food self-sufficiency and

v. The provision of basic social needs and amenities – education, housing, health, as well as

the accompanying infrastructures.

Kumar argued that only if these goals and objectives be achieved, can the level and standard of

living of the rural people be improved, and poverty and hunger eradicated. This constituted the

basic premise of this study: that is poverty and hunger reduction through farmer literacy

education procedures.

Global Strategies in Poverty and Hunger Reduction

A new global development paradigm conceived poverty and hunger alleviation not just as

mechanism to get the poor to cross a given threshold of income or consumption level but as a

sustained increase in agricultural production (GDP) and an integration of the process of social

and economic growth (International Fund for Agricultural Development – IFAD, 1992). In

support of this standpoint, Mafeje (2001) notes that poverty breeds poverty and abject and

pervasive poverty is not a problem of amelioration but of human capital and sustainable resource

development.

Poverty reduction or alleviation are used interchangeably as a developmentalist approach

to lessen or make less severe pain or suffering attendant to poverty and hunger and advocates the

mobilization of the rural poor for enhanced farm production. To achieve this, IFAD (1992)

argued that the poor must have access to resources, and that polices and institutional frameworks

should be such as to enable them to utilize these resources effectively. In line with this position,

the Central Bank of Nigeria (CBN, 2006) affirmed that the key to any poverty and hunger

reduction strategy in Nigeria is the provisions of specially tailored financial services, to enable

the poor rural farmer engage in economic and social activities such as farming, education,

processing, marketing and distribution of farm produce. CBN (2006) is of the view that by

empowering the rural poor to engage in such social and economic activities, knowledge and

skills will be acquired, employment would be created, earning capacity will be increased and

standards of living improved.

Millennium Development Goals (MDGs)

The various international and national policy pronouncements aimed at poverty and

hunger reduction, have currently been articulated in the Millennium Declaration adopted by

United Nations General Assembly (UNGA) in September, 2000. This declaration which later

65

transformed into a document known as the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) provided

the current framework for poverty and hunger reduction globally, especially in developing and

under-developed countries. The Millennium Development Goals are eight goals to be achieved

by year 2015 in response to the world’s main development challenges, as illustrated in figure 2.

The goals were drawn from the actions and targets contained in the Millennium Declaration

wholly adopted by 189 nations of the world in September 2000. The essence of MDGs was to

promote poverty and hunger eradication, achieve the universalization of education, promote

gender equality and women empowerment; reduce infantile mortality and improve maternal

health; combat HIV/AIDS and other endemic diseases; promote environmental conservation and

sustainability; and develop global and regional partnerships and cooperation for sustainable

development (Abia State Planning Commission, March 2006).

The Eight Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) and Targets (Fig.2 page 67)

The MDGs embraced most of the International Development Targets (IDTs), which were

set in1996 to improve globally the economic well-being, social and human development of

individuals, including environmental sustainability and regeneration. The Millennium

Declaration committed UN-member states to achieving the following Millennium Development

Goals (MDGs) and targets by year 2015 (National Planning Commission, 2004). (See table 6 in

Appendix F: Millennium Development Goals and Targets)

The table shows that MDGs take a holistic approach on human development, poverty and

hunger reduction. The goals were built on the principles that are fundamental to economic

recovery and development by promoting economic growth, poverty and hunger reduction,

education and a global partnership based on time-bound and measurable targets accompanied by

indicators for monitoring progress (Abia State Planning Commission, Mar. 2006). The

commission held the view that the achievement of Millennium Development Goals (MDGs)

should be a collective responsibility, involving all sectors of the economy, all stakeholders and

change agents concerned with rural development, human capital development of the rural

populace and agricultural transformation. Figure 3 below provided the framework for the holistic

achievement of MDGs.

66

Figure 3: Shows the Conceptual Framework for the Achievement of MDGs

Achievement of Millennium Development Goals is a collective responsibility. Everyone must participate.

International Development Partners

& Diplomatic Community

STATE GOVERNMENT

• Executive

• Legislative Judiciary

Local Government Chairman & Key

Executives

MEDIA - Radio - TV - Press - Print

INTRODUCTION

- Primary - Secondary - Tertiary

PRIVATE SECTOR

ORGANIZATION

Civil Society Organization - NGOs - FBOs - CBOs

-GENERAL PUBLIC

-Children - Youths -Students - Parents -

PROFESSIONAL

• Bodies &

• Unions

CHURCHES. MOSQUES

& Other Groups

Source: AbiaState Planning Commission (March, 2006).

67

The above figure illustrates the framework showing full stakeholder participation in the

achievement of the MDGs. According to Abia State Planning Commission (2006), success of the

MDGs can be attained from a powerful mix of good policies, effective commitment of relevant

authorities, effective mobilization of the people, provision of essential infrastructure and relevant

institutions and co-operation with International Development Agencies (IDA). In addition, this

framework sought to facilitate and harness synergies between all implementing agencies and

provide interactions between all stakeholders. In essence, government agricultural policies and

interventions that support food self-sufficiency and security; rural literacy education campaign

programmes and education for all initiatives (EFA); rural infrastructural development and

primary healthcare delivery system; resource management and environmental conservation, must

be woven together and seen as the arrowheads in the achievement of the Millennium

Development Goals (MDGs).

Above all, achieving the educational goal of MDGs will provide the springboard for the

achievement of all other goals (NPC, 2004). By implication, literacy education tailored to the

needs of rural farmers seems a critical factor in the realization of the goal of poverty and hunger

reduction which collectively will facilitate the achievement of all the other Millennium

Development Goals.

Nigeria as a signatory to the Millennium Declaration has declared its commitment to

transforming and placing the country and her rural communities on steady path of progress and

economic recovery; with policy pronouncements on poverty and hunger reduction, and thus

making life more meaningful to all Nigerians. The government intends to achieve these goals by

translating the MDGs into positive actions (NPC, 2004). Accordingly, the Federal government of

Nigeria has put in place the National Economic Empowerment Development Strategy (NEEDS)

as Nigeria’s home-grown version of the MDGs. The MDGs and NEEDS are relevant to this

research work because their general purposes and goals deal directly with poverty and hunger

reduction; the universalization of education and the general socio-economic well-being of the

people. These policy thrusts are in tandem with the general purpose of the present study.

68

The National Economic Empowerment and Development Strategy (NEEDS)

To achieve the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs), Nigeria has embarked on a

National Economic Reform Agenda (NERA) which seeks to commit the three tiers of

government (Federal, State and Local) and make them become more sensitive and responsive to

the yearnings and aspirations of the rural people. The National Economic Empowerment and

Development Strategy (NEEDS), as the response to the millennium development challenges of

Nigeria, are adapted from the MDGs. The broad goals of NEEDS are to mobilize the resources

of Nigeria to make a fundamental break with the failures of past government efforts in rural

development; lay a solid foundation for sustainable poverty and hunger reduction; employment

generation, wealth creation and value re-orientation among the populace (Obasanjo 2004).He

further notes that NEEDS is about the Nigerian people, their welfare, health, employment,

education, political power, physical security and economic empowerment. According to the

National Planning Commission (2004), NEEDS specifically addressed the International

Development Targets (IDTS) set in 1996 as adopted by MDGs. However this study was

concerned with the various targets identified and those oriented towards hunger and poverty

reduction and the improvement of economic-well-being of rural farmers, including the social and

economic development of rural communities through farmer educational procedures.

The NEEDS document recognized that poverty has many faces and strands and must

therefore bee tackled from several different directions at once. It recognized that government

must work not only to improve incomes but also to address the many other social and political

factors that contribute to increase the incidence of poverty, food insecurity and illiteracy among

rural farmers. In effect, meeting the needs of the people and the nation is the primary aim of the

plan for prosperity as enunciated in NEEDS (NPC, 2004). In order to achieve this, NEEDS

therefore insist that every Nigerian has the right to adequate food and quality nutrition, basic

education, water and sanitation, including clothing, shelter and healthcare. These policy

initiatives had necessitated the adoption and review of the NEEDS document for the study.

Nigerian in the past had made enormous strides in many socio-economic areas. But at the

same time, millions of Nigeria’s rural people continue to lead lives trapped in a vicious cycle of

hunger, poverty and illiteracy (Obansanjo, 2004). In his opinion, recent advances in technologies

to achieve economic growth without consequent advances in overall nutrition, health,

employment and education of the rural people, have underscored the importance of a holistic

69

approach to improving the quality of life of the rural poor, defined in more positive human terms

than mere economic growth. The point to note and the shared vision is that there is a point at

which the well-being of a society becomes qualitatively improved, in which the vast majority of

the people can direct their energies beyond daily survival (The Hunger Project 1996). The

NEEDS document collaborating issues in this regard, presents the elements of coordinated

strategies designed to ensure that all Nigerian people have chance to lead economically healthy

and productive lives.

Recognizing the position of agriculture as Nigeria’s second largest source of national

wealth after oil, and surpassing solid minerals, NEEDS advocated the promotion of the

cultivation of improved, high yielding crop varieties and provide extra support to agricultural

research and training (education). Its objective aims to encourage farm business interests,

provide credit, supply and distribute agricultural inputs and refurbish storage complexes to

increase the capacity of food reserve programmes and move closer to food security (NPC, 2004).

Leaning on the objectives of NEEDS, Obansanjo (1999) expressed the view that a return to

agricultural programmes meant to boost agricultural output by various measures, including

enhanced provision of modern inputs, and modernization of farming practices with relevant

farmer education, ought to be part of the poverty reduction agenda.

It is the position of this study that these objectives as enunciated in the NEEDS document

among others, can be achieved through a greater emphasis on improved agricultural production

and human capital development of the rural labour-force through farmer education. Furthermore,

to achieve these commitments and lift the rural communities out of poverty and hunger, experts

direct and force attention back to land (Farming); pointing to an agrarian revolution in which

farmer education and fundamental literacy must become the weapon of renewal and success

(Curle, 1972, FAO 2005 and Idachaba 2006).

Generally, literacy education provided people with the knowledge and skills they need to

improve their quality of life. Education is regarded as a great leveler since it provides a means by

which the poor and other disadvantaged groups can improve their socio-economic conditions

(Kerapeletswe et al, 2001). The authors contend that the more educated a person is, the easier it

is to make use of information, health and other social services which enhance personal

productivity and well-being. A functional farmer literacy education programme is therefore what

is needed to empower rural farmers to become dynamic partners in rural development and

agricultural transformation leading to poverty and hunger reduction (FOS, 1999).

70

From another perspective, education and training in occupations have long been

acclaimed as the most powerful process for reducing poverty, hunger and illiteracy. And

deservedly, lack of education undermines productivity; employment and earning capacity,

leading directly to poverty and hunger (FAO, 2005). To meet the needs of poor rural farmers

who need and seek strong basic literacy skills and modern agricultural knowledge and

technologies, Akenson and Knowles (1984), stressed the need to create more effective and

accessible learning models and options for them. This suggestion by experts have further been

buttressed by research findings which showed that a farmer with four year primary education is

on average, almost nine percent more productive than a farmer with no education at all

(FAO,2005). This finding further endorses the need for a new and functional approach to

educating rural farmers which this research work sought to provide.

In adducing reasons for functional and relevant farmer education in the context of

poverty and hunger reduction, Peterson (1997) observed that modern knowledge about

agriculture is acquired through education. Similarly, Nagel (1997) asserted that rural populations

will need to be progressively better educated; and maintained that rural farmers’ exposure to

agricultural education will give them a voice of their own and thus reduce their isolation from

information, and ideas; improving their social inclusiveness and integration in the development

process. Pradervand (1987), making a case for farmer education, notes that training and

education was above all else; it is something that stays with the farmer, it is the activity that

guarantees the autonomy and the cultivation of confidence and self esteem of the rural farmer.

The World Bank (1990), in assessing the role of farmer literacy education in the African

situation, argues that if Africa was to end hunger and alleviate poverty, its economies needed to

grow by at least 4-5% annually, with the bulk of the growth coming from the rural agricultural

sector. In order to achieve this quantum growth, the Word Bank (1990) maintained that rural

farmers must have access to good education and healthcare. The World Bank Report (1990)

further maintain that better educated and healthier farmers were more likely to aim for higher

productivity and to conserve resources.

In yet another dimension, Kerapeletswe and Moremi (2001) note that there was usually a

multidimensional inter play between government provisions and peoples’ participation in these

provisions. They referred to these provisions as activities of government that affect people such

as policies, social services, education, community development projects and legislation.

Kerapeletswe et al (2001) observes that the general outcomes of popular participation in these

71

provisions depend to a great extent on levels of literacy of the participants, especially those

affecting rural development. This standpoint was a basic assumption of this research work.

Literacy education was thought of as having the potentials of enhancing rural farmers’ full

participation in any development process and programme.

In an earlier presentation, UNESCO in Castle (1972) defined the objective of community

development as the fusion of services in such fields as education, agricultural extension,

nutrition, and farming into a coordinated effort in each rural community; and to stimulate

popular initiative, self-help and mutual aid among rural dwellers. Curle in Castle (1972) regarded

this fusion in community development as admirably designed to break the vicious circle (at the

village level) of poverty, hunger, popular superstitions and illiteracy. A good farmer education

according to him provided the beginning of technical situations in which proto-technological

conventions and traditional practices are dissolved as new skills were taught and leant. This

declaration by Curle, underscored the cardinal goals of farmer literacy education as

conceptualized is this study.

Developmentalist Approach to Poverty and Hunger Reduction

Poverty and hunger reduction have officially remained the first priority of the World

Bank since 1990s. The current and more explicit concern with poverty reduction emerged in the

latter half of the 1980s’ (Kanji 2001). Kanji noted that the central focus of poverty reduction

strategies was to counteract the severe disruptive social, economic and political impacts of the

early 1980’s Structural Adjustment Programmes (SAPs) in Africa and other developing regions.

The World Bank in its intervention programmes to revamp and turn around the stagnated and

dwindling economies of countries that embraced SAP formulated a three pronged

developmentalist strategies to achieve this, namely:

I. Broad-based Economic Growth;

II. Human Capital Development; and

III. Safety-nets (Kanji, 2001).

Broad-based economic growth deals with labour-demanding growth patterns that can

provide increased employment and income (Kanji 2001). The main approach to achieve this

objective involve the application of methods that will bring about social, economic, institutional

and technological changes for the development of human capital and natural resources

72

(Obibuaku, 1983). The main focus of this strategy is an increase in production and productivity

in the rural areas, increased employment as well as improved levels of food security, shelter, and

the provision of educational opportunities and healthcare delivery systems.

Human capital or resources development is achieved primarily through the provision of

primary healthcare, education and other basic services (Kanji 2001). The main premise of and

rationale for this approach is hinged on the fact that developing the asset base of the poor

through improving their knowledge and healthcare through education, increase the ability of the

poor to gain access to labour markets and employment opportunities. Education as a means of

human capital development was seen not just as a basic human right but as an instrument to

increased labour productivity and earning power, and better health. Obibuaku (1983) declared

that farmer education in particular, is usually valued as a means for acquiring knowledge about

farm technologies and as the harbinger of other change agents which bring about increased

agricultural production and the generation of physical and financial capital to the rural farmer.

Safety- netsare basically income maintenance and food security programmes that protect

a person or households against adverse outcomes such as chronic incapacity to work and earn,

and a decline in this incapacity caused by diseases, shocks and stress through economic

depression and recession, very poor harvests, crop failure, or death of breadwinners or household

heads (Kanji 2001). A new set of poverty and hunger reduction concepts, the Social Action

Programme (SAP) and Social Funds (SF), are more modern and recent versions of the safety-

nets approach. Kanji (2001) quoting Mare et al (1995) described these new approaches to

poverty reduction as multi-sectoral programmes implemented parallel to economic reforms.

According to Kanji (2001), these programmes were undertaken in recognition of widespread and

structural poverty pervasive in developing countries. These approaches were justified as having a

broader mandate than safety-nets to reduce poverty and hunger, and reintegrate vulnerable

groups (the poor) into society. As Kanji (2001) observes, Social Funding approach was intended

to be a demand-driven mechanism that channeled resources to the poor and supported such sub-

projects that responded directly to their priority needs. Furthermore, Kanji remarked that the

units managing this fund ought to have a special autonomy outside government and should have

their power to select or reject projects which should be formulated and implemented by

community-based organizations (CBOs), village unions, farmers’ co-operatives, women

associations and commodity associations. In practice, he asserted that emphasis in terms of the

content of the projects should be the improvement of economic, infrastructure and social services

73

which were usually the responsibility of government to its people. The Abia State Community-

based Poverty Reduction Programme (ABCPRP) and the Community and Social Development

Programmes (C&SDP) are examples of the Social Fund strategy in action. These programmes

have made considerable impact in the provision of social goods in various rural communities in

the state. (See table 8 in Appendix H)

Ononamadu (2004) leaning on the ‘three pronged strategy’ of the World Bank on

poverty and hunger reduction, agreed that agricultural transformation is a key to integrated rural

development (IRD), which he affirmed was a developmentalist approach to poverty and hunger

reduction. Addressing the issue of Integrated Rural Development (IRD), he argued that rural

development itself is a conglomeration of strategies that might be effective in moving rural

agriculture forward from predominantly traditional and primitive state, to a more modern sector.

Ononamadu (2004) opines that rural agriculture in Nigeria can be seen as not providing adequate

and sufficient livelihood to the people due to the scatter-shot approaches adapted to its

development. In conclusion Ononamadu (2004) states that rural development and agricultural

transformation require consistent, stable and sustainable policies. Nnonyelu, Nkemdili and

Obiajulu (1997) agreed collectively that any genuine Rural Development Programmes (RDP)

must be concerned with peoples’ development. Or as Obibuaku (1983) puts it, rural development

implies among other things, human capital development of rural farmers. In the opinions of these

rural sociologists, if rural inhabitants were to improve their living conditions and contribute their

quota to overall national development, they must not be denied essential amenities of life that

will enable them to improve their human capital. Olatunbosun in Nkemdili et al (1997) also

argue that the development of human capital in the rural sector will improve the quality of

labour, which if efficiently utilized will enhance rural productivity and improve the quality of

life in rural communities.

Nkemdili et al (1997) in summary cautioned that if the present state of poverty, hunger,

illiteracy and socio-economic deprivations and rising frustration among rural farmers continued

unabated, then all efforts towards rural development and economic integration of rural farmers

will as well remain illusive. From these standpoints, it is obvious that poverty and hunger

reduction therefore cannot be achieved without the empowerment of the poor-rural people

through education, with due considerations given to human resources development. The study

relied heavily on the developmentalist approach to poverty and hunger reduction because of its

commitment to human resources development and socio-economic empowerment of rural

74

dwellers through educational procedures. This approach seemed a veritable means of achieving

poverty and hunger alleviation among rural farmers.

Institutional Approach to Poverty and Hunger Reduction

Rural farmers in Nigeria have been severally described as being among the poorest of the poor

(Okafor 2004). Urban incomes in Nigeria are several times, four to eight times, higher than

incomes in agriculture (FOS, 2005). Income poverty makes it difficult for a person so afflicted to

provide or enjoy the basic needs of life. In proffering strategies for income poverty reduction

Annan (2000) drew attention to the recognition and understanding of the many facets and

dimensions of poverty as fundamental and critical to the understanding of the subjective daily

assaults on human dignity which poverty breeds. For Annan,, poverty reduction should not be

tied to equitable distribution of income and other resources alone but should also aim at

improving the capabilities, choices, security and power needed by persons for the enjoyment of

an adequate standard of living, and other fundamental civil, cultural, economic, political and

social rights. In effect, a broadened and more current outlook of poverty and hunger reduction

strategies calls for close attention not just on the economic aspects of society which affect the

livelihood of rural farmers (Wolfensohn 1998 in Kanji 2001) but also on all socio-political and

institutional issues which affect poverty and hunger. These have to be discussed and addressed

holistically as part of poverty reduction strategies.

These institutional factors are interwoven and reinforce one another. In his analysis of

these issues in the Nigerian context, Idachaba (2006) noted that rural agricultural suffers severe

neglect when it is virtually abandoned or given very little attention by government with little or

no infrastructure in the rural areas to support agricultural production. In addition, he made

reference to weak agricultural stakeholder capacity which implied the lack of capacity to

articulate the problems and view points of rural farmers with the aim of being part of the

determinants of rural agricultural policy agenda. The weak capacity of stakeholders of Nigerian

agriculture (farmers, extension agents, research institutes, consumers, industrialist, traders and

financial institutions) prevent these stakeholders from determining or influencing agricultural

policy agenda in favour of rural farmers. The reasons for this state of affairs include incessant

changes in government agricultural policies and political instability, weak agricultural

institutional framework, mass illiteracy among rural farmers, and primitive state of rural roads

and other rural infrastructure (Idachaba, 2006).

75

Political instability diverts the attention of transient government officials away from the

serious programming needs of rural agriculture to the requirements of political preservation and

survival (Idachaba, 2006). Under such conditions, rural agriculture will suffer chronic neglect. In

another dimension, political instability breeds policy instability. In this circumstance, a new

regime in government often replaces existing agricultural policies and programmes with its own

regime policies. This new regime’s policies may reflect genuine changes in priority as

perceived by the new regime or they may reflect merely cosmetic changes that are only

meant to give a semblance of change, when in actual reality there is no change in substance.

Idachaba (2006) observes that in all these instances, the fate of the rural farmer and the

consequences of these changes on the farmers’ production systems are never taken into account.

Secondly, Idachba, pointed out that these frequent changes in policies and high executive

turnover in government appointments cause conflicting signals that end up paralyzing

agricultural administration and policy implementation strategies.

Another institutional factor hampering rural agricultural transformation is what Idachaba

(2006), referred to as ‘Nigerian Dutch Disease’. This is a situation by which the discovery of

petroleum and gas has resulted in near total dependence by government on oil for her foreign

exchange earnings. This has caused serious harmful consequences for Nigerian agriculture.

Thus, little real and nominal attention, in the past three decades (1980-2010), has been paid to

rural agriculture in Nigeria (Idachaba, 2006). Other institutional issues that have undermined

rural agricultural transformation, include heavy taxation of rural farmers by marketing boards

and local market officials, exploitation by middlemen; and persistent dumping of cheap

subsidized food imports from developed countries. Though commodity marketing boards have

been scrapped officially, indirectly the activities of produce inspectors and marketing unions

have continued to impose heavy taxation on farm produce to the detriment of the poor rural

farmer. Additionally, the activities of market masters and government revenue agents on rural

market days have added to the financial burdens of rural farmers. Furthermore, the persistent

influx of cheap imported food items, at prices that are lower than domestic production costs,

discourages production of local food import substitutes. In effect, the sustained assault on

domestic agriculture by cheap food imports and uncontrolled taxation on farm produce not only

impoverishes the farmer but collectively constitute major challenges for rural agricultural

progress in Nigeria.

76

The problem of addressing such sensitive socio-political and institutional issues was

central to all strategies geared towards poverty reduction and improved rural agricultural

productivity and development. In what Kanji (2001) called a ‘Country Assistance Strategy’

(CAS), he advocated the building of stakeholder capacity as means to incorporating the voices of

local leaders and of the rural people affected by rural development policies and agricultural

transformation programmes. This strategy, Kanji (2001) asserts is a critical step in allowing

changes initiated by farmers and other stakeholders to occur in the content of rural agricultural

development policies. In essence, rural farmers and other agricultural stakeholders need to be

involved in the formulation of policies affecting their livelihood. Idachaba (2006) in his

contribution on the way forward, calls for higher advocacy roles of the media on behalf of rural

farmers. He observes that low attention paid by the Nigerian media to the problems and activities

of rural farmers, in editorial opinions, need be reversed. Idachaba (2006) suggested that

agricultural stakeholder capacity be vastly and dramatically improved. In addition, rural farmers

and producer associations should organize their members strictly along commodity lines to

protect their interests. Idachaba advised that the influx of cheap, imported and subsidized foods,

in the guise of trade liberalization and balance of trade deficits in compliance with World Trade

Organization (WTO) rules, must urgently be reviewed in favour of local agricultural production.

(See Table 7, Appendix G: Federal Government of Nigeria Capital and Recurrent

Expenditure and Allocation to Agriculture and Water Resources for the Period 1977 –

2005)

The table presented allocations to the Ministry of Agriculture and Water Resources by

the Federal government during 1977-2005, and showed low priority accorded Agriculture as

evidenced by Sectoral Allocation to Agriculture as compared to Total Budgets for the Period

1977 – 2005. Capital Budget Allocations to Agriculture ranged from a low 1.37% of total

Federal Government Capital Budget in 1977 to a high 13.49 percent for 2005. The share of

Agriculture in total capital budget averaged 9.67% during 1977-1986; 9.97% during 1987-1996;

and 9.23% during 1997-2005. These figures depict severe neglect of Nigerian agriculture as

shown by government dwindling budgetary provisions, especially in the period 1997-2005.

These short falls in sectoral allocations to agriculture manifest not only in poor institutional

framework for rural agriculture transformation, but also in low incentives to rural farmers

culminating in depressing productivity and food-insecurity.

77

Threshold Approach: Transforming Traditional Farming Systems

Rural farmers produce most of the developing world’s food, yet these small-holders are

generally poorer than the rest of the population (FAO, 2001). Dixon (2001) therefore advice that

for the foreseeable future, dealing with rural poverty and hunger means confronting the problems

that small-holder farmer and their families face in their daily struggle for survival. Dixon argue

further that since the resources on which these poor farmers draw, their choice of activities,

and in fact the entire structure of their lives are associated intricately with their biotic,

economic and cultural environment in which they live and work , and over which they only

exercise limited control, rural farming systems or the environment in which the rural farmers

live can provide insight into the strategic priorities for the reduction of poverty and hunger now

affecting so much of their lives. All agricultural activities cause environment disequilibrium

(Igbozuruike 1982). Through the medium of his low level technology, traditional system of

farming and with the aid in particular of fire, the small-holder farmer has seriously tampered

with his environment.

The natural balance in the ecosystem is upset whenever man works and stirs the soil,

especially in relation to farming activities. With time, and under these circumstances, the quality

of the soil degrades and deteriorates (Igbozuruike, 1982). He observed that the problem of

discordance between agricultural practices and the natural environment is one of adverse

consequences. This disequilibrium causes a disharmony between traditional farming systems and

the ecosystem. Igbozuruike (1982) noted that this situation has created an urgent need to re-

examine the traditional farming system concept, and to re-appraise established production

activities. He argued further that rapid and radical actions were also needed to teach relevant

environmental knowledge and to create ecological awareness among rural farmers, with

behavioural and attitudinal changes which flow there from. According to Igbozuruike (1982),

this was the only way to ensure that in adopting new farm technologies, injurious practices were

discouraged, while healthy and harmonious farming procedures and progressive techniques were

redefined and preserved.

There is also clear evidence that broad-based rural agricultural development with the

relevant farmer education can provide an effective means for both reducing poverty and

accelerating rural economic growth (Dixon, 2001). Furthermore, a study by Mellor (2000) in

78

Dixon (2001) noted that there is overwhelming evidence to assert that it is essential to accelerate

rural agricultural growth if poverty and hunger were to decline rapidly among rural farmers.

While overall agricultural growth is undoubtedly an effective engine for rural economic

development and poverty reduction, the form that this growth takes has a bearing on its

effectiveness in reducing rural poverty and hunger. Thus, Dixon (2001) suggested that raising

productivity within labour-intensive small farms required knowledge-based farm practices. The

challenge therefore for developing economies like Nigeria is to identify specific agricultural and

rural development needs and to focus attention on farmer education programmes that will

facilitate the achievement of these needs. This challenge is what the present research work

sought to resolve.

Community-based Poverty Reduction Initiatives (CPRI)

A review of the efforts targeted at poverty and hunger reduction globally, revealed that

current rate of progress, especially in Sub-Saharan Africa (SSA), was too slow to improve the

lives of the poor in the next decade or two. Worst still, the gap between the rich and the poor

keep growing not only in income but in education, health and other social outcomes (Mafeje,

2001). In the rural communities in Nigeria, other disturbing indices of poverty and hunger still

prevalent at endemic levels include high mortality rates (infantile and maternal), malnutrition,

illiteracy and lack of basic infrastructure (ABCPRP, 2001). This national experience and the

international consensus on a number of fundamental principles to strengthen the fight against

rural poverty and hunger gave rise to the new National Poverty Reduction Initiative (NPRI). The

World Bank, the International Monetary Fund (IMF), United Nation’s Agencies, Regional

Development Banks, and NGOs are supporting and promoting these new initiatives, which are

Community-based Poverty Reduction Initiative (CPRI). This initiative ensured that rural poor

communities take control of micro projects targeted resources and are empowered to build up

the institutional capacity to analyse their needs, initiate their own projects and implement them

(ABCPRP, 2001).

The Abia State Community-based Poverty Reduction Programme (ABCPRP) is an

example of this approach in action. The ABCPRP as a social funding agency is targeted at

providing and executing micro projects that will impact directly on the well-being of the rural

communities. It was expected to increase awareness of all about the new trend and effect of

poverty and hunger as well as the need for concerted and sustained efforts by all stakeholders

79

towards their alleviation. The agency functions to increase the capacity of rural communities to

work together and participate in developing poverty and hunger reduction strategies,

programmes and activities at the threshold. The agency was a channel for the provision of

funding, control, monitoring and evaluation of community projects. To achieve this, a demand-

driven, bottom-up approach is employed (ABCPRP 2001).

The projects covered by the agency include provision of :

i. Portable drinking water (Borehole)

ii. Healthcare Facilities

iii. Classroom Blocks (educational)

iv. Electricity

v. Feeder roads and Culverts.

vi. Any other justifiable common social good that will benefit the poor rural

communities.

These projects were expected to have far reaching impact on the socio-economic

improvement of the rural populace, especially in the provision of vital rural infrastructure.

The criteria on which projects are approved include:

i. There must be demand for the project by the benefiting community, (must be demand

driven).

ii. Technical feasibility of such projects in that area (proposal);

iii. Proposed plan for maintenance and sustainability.

iv. Evidence of community contribution and counterpart funding (10% of estimated cost

of project);

v. Constitute the Project Management Committee (PMC) from trusted members of the

benefiting community; and

vi. Opening of bank account specifically for the project (saving culture).

Unlike other past government rural intervention programmes, the current poverty

reduction initiatives behoves on rural communities to take their fate in their hands. They conduct

social – institutional needs assessment by themselves, which serve general social good and are

gender sensitive. The communities plan and execute the project and ensure its maintenance and

sustainability through the Project Implementation Committee (PMC) constituted or elected by

them or selected persons of integrity which must include women and youths. In this way, rural

communities are brought into the main stream of the decision-making process. They become

80

active participants in the formulation and execution of projects affecting their lives; as well as

enabling them exercise voices of their own and contributing their own ideas in matters of

common concern.

ABCPRP as a social funding agency commenced and approved the first community-

based projects on 9th October, 2002; and so far 132 various projects have been executed

throughout 132 communities in the three agriecological zones of AbiaState. A summary of

ABCPRP projects, showing the benefiting communities, the date of the commencement and

completion of projects are shown in Appendix H(See table 8, Appendix H).

Out of the 724 recognised autonomous communities in Abia state, only 132 communities

(18.12%) have so far benefited from these projects. Worst still, projects executed in most

communities have no safety – nets in terms of maintenance and sustainability. Water projects in

most places have ceased to pump water soon after commissioning. In the same vein most health

centre project are empty structures with no medical personnel and equipment; completed roads

collapse few months after use. Apart from these lapses, the projects however have both direct

and indirect influences on hunger and poverty reduction efforts because of their impact on social

infrastructure which is essential to the upliftment of the lives of rural dwellers. Efforts must

therefore be made to ensure high quality execution and equitable distribution of projects to

communities.

Moreover, a careful study of these projects suggests that ABCPRP has not only lived up

to its mandate of uplifting the socio-economic life of the rural people but has prompted various

rural communities to be actively engaged in providing social goods for themselves. By leaving

the communities free to decide what projects to choose and how to use the funds, the

Community-based Poverty Reduction Initiative (CPRI) approach stimulates creativity and

encourages the peasant farmers to learn basic management principles and accounting skills.

Furthermore, by empowering village groups and Community-based Association (CBAs) to

define development in their own terms, it gives them the tools for success even at their individual

project levels (Predervand, 1978).

Peasant farmers are really creative when they are put in charge of their own development

(Obansanjo, 1987). Thinking in this line, and articulating the need for this kind of partnership

between government, International Donor Agencies (IDA) small-scale farmers and community-

based organizations, Diouf (1987) observed that it is the duty of every government to eliminate

any obstacle that might hinder the realization of the objectives of community-based poverty

81

reduction initiatives and instructed that what should direct and inform the actions of government

in this regard are the basic needs of rural people, noting that government should especially take

the lead in anti poverty and rural literacy campaign programmes. Therefore, the Community-

based Poverty Reduction Initiatives (CPRI) have been adapted for the study because it has

proven to be an effective strategy for mobilizing the rural populace for developmental purposes.

Promoting Gender Equality in the Context of Poverty and Hunger Reduction

Demographic experts have indicated that the population of developing regions of the

World namely East Asia, South Asia and the Pacific, and Sub-Saharan Africa (SSA) had

approximately doubled to 5.1 billion in 1990 (Dixon, 2001). Presently about 60 percent of this

people inhabit the rural areas, of which 85 percent are agrarian, engaging in farming and related

activities (fishing, hunting, forestry, and black-smiting). In furtherance to this analysis of the

demographic situation, Dixon (2001), observes that women constitute 44 percent of this number.

This information translated to the fact that women constitute significant proportion of rural-

labour force. They dominate the downstream sector in the farm production chain, specially, in

such production activities as processing, storage, marketing and other domestic responsibilities

including cooking, firewood and water fetching.

According to studies on gender and poverty, the National Bureau of Statistics (NBS

2005) there evidence showing that in male-headed households, relative incidence of poverty

varied increasingly from 29.2 percent to 58.2 percent from 1996 to 2004. The corresponding

results for the female-headed households also varied increasingly from 26.9 percent to 43.5

percent for the same period. These facts point to, and acknowledge the significant roles played

by women farmers in poverty and hunger reduction. African farmer (#1: 1988) commenting on

gender, poverty and agriculture remarked that rural farmers are the small-holders of land; two-

thirds of all land holdings on the African continent being under two hectares and nearly 96

percent are fever than ten hectares. The same trends have been observed among rural

communities in the south east ecological zone of Nigeria (NBS, 2005). These small-holders are

overwhelmingly women. African Farmer (1988) maintained that rural women working on small

farms now produce 90 percent of the food consumed locally. In South east zone of Nigeria, more

than 80% of those who earn their living as farmers are women (NBS, 2005). Ocloo (1991) in

African Farmer therefore suggested the need to acknowledge the value and impact of rural

82

women farmers in rural agricultural production and economic growth. Furthermore, Ocloo

cautioned that food security of African countries and nay Nigeria must start with women

farmers, for in her assessment, women farmers cultivate over 63 percent of small farms in the

rural areas planting, processing, distributing and retailing of all foods grown by themselves and

others. Ocloo noted further that rural women achieve these feats with unsophisticated tools and

with little education and knowledge about the economics of production. Yet but for these rural

women farmers, Nigeria would have been in a worse food crisis than what is being experienced

today (Araka et al, 1989).

In highlighting the role of rural women farmers as the main producers of food in Africa,

Savane (1987) in African Farmer asserted that in anywhere in Sub-Saharan Africa (SSA), at least

80% of the food in majority of the areas is produced by women. Yet, despite this significant role

and despite the fact everybody talks about food crisis and the need for food sufficiency and

poverty eradication, one of the main problems is that there is hardly any government agricultural

policy that has really emphasized the need to strengthen women’s capacity in farm production.

Savane, therefore called for a political will to acknowledge and recognize the reality that one

of the most effective and positive interventions that can be made in the rural agricultural sector

and by implication the transformation of rural economies, is designing programmes – farming,

educational and healthcare delivery, specifically to empower the majority of rural women

farmers. In the long run, Savane contended that strengthening the capacity of rural women must

be seen as an accomplishment that will benefit not women alone but of their communities and

families. In effect, the power of rural women as agricultural producers will not only be increased

but the overall food security and food sufficiency of rural communities and beyond, will be

dramatically improved.

In rural areas in Nigeria, women have no access to political power and fair representation.

And as long as they are not participating in the decision making process, their problems will

always be forfeited and left with them. In such circumstances, Ocloo (1991) therefore advocates

unlimited access to agricultural education and training as an important factor in providing rural

women farmers with the opportunity they need to become more informed and productive.

According to Ocloo (1991), agricultural education and basic literacy can help rural women

increase productivity and earning capacity and in the long run reduce poverty and hunger at their

individual family levels. Literacy has often been regarded as a spring board for acquiring other

skills. Improving the basic skills of rural women can play important part in the adoption and

83

utilization of new farm technologies, general infrastructural facilities and improved nutritional

knowledge. Widespread education among rural women leads to better understanding of

agricultural innovations, policies and programmes of government (Ocloo 1991).

But in Nigeria, for far too long, general agricultural extension education as means of farm

technology transfer has been done through men only, while the women are still producing with

traditional techniques. Mahana (1988) in African Farmer Magazine, advises that policy makers

and rural development experts should recognize the impact of farmer literacy education for rural

women on the pace and progress of rural development and agricultural transformation. Mahana

asserted that the empowerment of rural women, equipping them with literacy skills and special

skills in better farming methods, marketing skills, nutrition and healthcare were crucial to

poverty and hunger reduction efforts. Similarly, Boutros-Ghali (1993), commenting on the issue

of gender in agriculture states that rural women contributions to agricultural economy are

essential to both food security and economic emancipation of rural farming families.

Government Rural Agricultural Interventions and Farmer Literacy Education

It has been contended that it is the responsibility of government that food shortages are

anticipated and responded to effectively and efficiently (Africa in Print #314). According to

Cohen (1993) in African Farmer, this argument was made more strongly for African Countries

where the majority of the population was rural and poor, and where the key sector of the

economy was agriculture. Africa in Print (#314) noted that up till now, individual nations in the

African continent have dealt with the specter of hunger, poverty and worsening educational

facilities and opportunities as unexpected crises; as something to react to when they occur rather

than as likelihood to be planned for in advance. The document asserted that prevention had been

the exception rather than the rule. Africa in Print (No.314) expressed the view that hunger and

poverty reduction strategies needed to be integrated with rural development programmes and

policies that would assure food-sufficiency, economic well-being, improved literacy rates and

higher productivity of the rural population. The document further called for priority actions in

each of the five critical areas of the rural economy viz: Agriculture, Education, Health, Food and

W omen Empowerment.

From the late 70’s Nigeria agriculture had begun to show signs of its inability to cope

with national food demands and the supply of industrial raw materials for local agro-based

84

industries. The concomitant effects of dwindling agricultural production began to manifest on

poor farm incomes, rural degeneration and slow agro-industrialization (Obibuaku, 1983).

Decreasing agricultural production in this period meant food shortages, with attendant hunger

and poor standard of living on the part of rural farmers. Arising from this situation was the

launching of several governments’ rural agricultural intervention programmes, namely:

The National Accelerated Food Production Programme (NAFPP 1974).

This programme laid emphasis on agricultural research and extension support for rural

farmers. The central position of research and extension in agricultural technology transformation

cannot be overemphasized. Both generate improved agricultural technology and information and

ensure feedback that the research carried out was relevant to farmer’ needs (Fajaanat, 2005).

However, with the massive exploration of crude oil which provided up to 90% of the countries

foreign exchange earning, the programme was executed clumsily and was actually abandoned by

succeeding administrations (Fajaanat, 2005).

The Operation Feed the Nation (OFN, 1976) was launched with the focus on cultivating

the spirit of dignity of labour and re-engaging hands back to the land. The programme was

embarked, especially to:

(i) Increase food production as a response to food deficits experienced in the 1970s;

(ii) To fight inflation resulting from food deficits; and

(iii) To popularize agriculture among the youths especially young school leavers.

By 1979, the Green Revolution (GR) was launched to replace OFN, with a major

emphasis on agricultural mechanization and large scale farming through co-operative

combines and commercial farms. In addition, its objectives included:

(i) To improve rural infrastructure; and

• To improve quality of life in rural areas.

Between 1970 and 1980 more agricultural institutions were created and more projects were

launched than in any other corresponding period in the agricultural history of Nigeria (Fajaanat,

2005). Other such agricultural institutions and programmes included:

• Agricultural Development Programmes (ADP) 1975.

These constituted the delivery agencies in the dissemination of improved information to

farmers under the ministry of agriculture. The projects provide agricultural extension

services to farmers.

85

• River Basin Development Authority (RBDA) 1978.

The objectives of this authority included:

(i) To provide water and irrigation facilities for all year round agricultural

production

(ii) To provide facilities for inland fisheries, and

(iii) To open up agricultural land within riverine areas for increased all year round

crop production activities

Directorate for Food, Roads and Rural Infrastructural (DFRRI 1987).

The main objective of the Directorate was to provide rural infrastructure such as road,

electricity, and water that will facilitate food production and evacuation, including supply of

farm inputs to farmers (Togun et al 2005).

National Agricultural Land Development Agency (NALDA 1992).

This was established to:

(i) to provide strategic support for land development to farmers which would involve

helping farmers to perform land preparation operations;

(ii) to encourage the growth of village settlements;

(iii) to provide gainful income and employment opportunities for rural people;

(iv) expand productivity capacity in agricultural export; and

(v) Facilitate cost effective mechanization of agriculture (Olaitan in Ukonze 2005)..

• Better-Life for Rural Women Programme (BLRWP 1987).

The programme had the following objectives:

(i) to stimulate and motivate rural women towards achieving high level living

standards, and sensitize the rest of Nigerians to their problems;

(ii) To educate rural women in simple hygiene, family planning, child-care and

increase literacy rates; and

(iii) to inculcate the spirit of self-development particularly in the field of education,

business, and agriculture among others. (Obasi, Oguche 1995 in Ukonze 2005).

The primary aims of government involvement in these agricultural intervention programmes as

identified by Togun et al (2005) include:

86

(i) Increase and improve farm family’s income and living standard;

(ii) Diversify and intensify agricultural production; and

(iii) Encourage efficient production methods and create employment.

These objectives are to be achieved through the following policy targets:

(i) Provision of financial assistance such as loans, credits, subsides, and insurance

schemes to rural farmers.

(ii) Establishment of farm settlement schemes and other rural agricultural programs.

(iii) Provision of farm inputs: Tractor Hiring Units (THU), improved seeds, fertilizers;

agro-chemical (pesticide, herbicides, insecticides).

(iv) Provision of basic amenities: electricity, healthcare, water supply (pipe borne, deep

well and bore holes).

(v) Establishment of effective road and transportation network, marketing outlets and

quality control measures.

(vi) Processing of agricultural produce; cottage industries, and processing machines.

(vii) Provision of adequate storage facilities, granaries and silos.

(viii) Provision pf pests and disease control services-vaccine and quarantine services.

(ix) Provision of extension services, agricultural education,

(x) Provision of research facilities; and

(xi) Price Control Community Boards (Togun 2005 et al).

In assessing the challenges militating against the implementation and achievement of the

goals of government intervention programmes in agriculture, (Obasanjo 1987) notes that

duplication and proliferation of policies and programmes have been a major focus of inefficiency

and a serious obstacle to the success and progress of government rural agricultural intervention

programmes in Nigeria. Consequently, in spite of huge government interventions and

investments to improve rural agricultural performance, the sector deteriorated visibly between

1970 and 1985. This is evidenced in the following areas as collated by New Partnership for

African Development (NEPAD) in the document “Comprehensive African Agricultural

Development Project” (CAADP 2004):

(i) Decline in the agricultural sector share of the Gross Domestic Product (GDP) to

about 20% in the 1981-1985 periods.

87

(ii) Increasing shortage of food to Nigerians as evidenced in increased food imports and

high rates of increase in food prices particularly since 1975 (CBN, 2003).

(iii) The disappearance of agricultural commodities from the country’s export trade.

(iv) Increasing shortage of agricultural raw materials required by local industries;

(v) Decline in labour–force devoted to agriculture since 1960 without increasing

productivity; and

(vi) Frequent change in government policies and implementation strategies (Idachaba

2006).

From the foregoing analysis, it is evident that the objectives of past government rural

agricultural programmes clearly acknowledged and emphasized the need to improve and

accelerate agricultural production as the sure way to alleviate poverty, increase food production

and reduce hunger. But most unfortunately, farmer education and literacy programmes which

would have acted as the spring board for understanding programme contents and the vehicle for

transmitting the necessary information and relevant knowledge required for the success of

these programmes were not only grossly ignored but left out in all government rural

agricultural intervention programmes. Consequently, part of the assumptions of the present

study was that the absence of farmer education relevant to such programmes, packaged and

delivered to rural farmers in the language they can understand, was at the root of the poor

performance and often times failure of these rural agricultural programmes. This situation

needed to be redressed by ensuring that farmer literacy education must be fused into rural

agricultural development programmes to facilitate good understanding and engender full

participation by target groups- the rural farmers, both at the planning and implementation stages.

The unsatisfactory performance of Nigerian agriculture with regards to production levels

and stability of production further suggested inadequate holistic attention paid to rural

agriculture. Idachaba (2006) used another two indicators to illustrate the inadequate attention by

government to rural agriculture. Firstly, is the Food Import Dependence Ratio (FIDR), which he

referred to as the share of food import to total imports. (See Appendix Ifor Table 9: Nigeria

Food Import Dependency Ratio (FIDR) 1986-2005)

From the table, there was increasing food import dependency made necessary by the

inability of domestic production to equilibrate domestic demand for food at prices that were

lower than prices for food imports (Idachaba 2006). The 2002-2005 periods marked the highest

88

period in food importation with the maximum rise in food import occurring in 2003. The

increasing food import dependency of the period was a further reflection of declining food

sufficiency in Nigeria with its concomitant effects on hunger, poverty and low standard of living.

This is further evidence that government direct intervention programmes in agricultural

production was yet to achieve its desired goals.

The second indicator employed by Idachaba (2006) to assess the level of dismal failure of

rural agriculture in contributing to National Gross Domestic Product GDP) is the Share of Oil

and Agriculture in Nigeria’s Foreign Exchange Earnings for selected periods.(SeeTable 10,

Appendix J: Share of Agriculture and Oil in Nigeria’s Foreign Exchange Earnings (2000-

2005). From the table, it is clear that the Oil and Gas sector had assumed the centre stage in

Nigeria’s foreign exchange earnings with agriculture playing the second fiddle from a widening

distance. This near total dependence on petroleum for foreign exchange earnings and

government tax revenue in this period under review, has relegated agriculture to the background

with serious harmful consequences for national food supply, rural development and general

livelihood of the Nigerian people, especially the rural poor (Idachaba, 2006).

Another indicator to assess the poor performance of agriculture in the National economy is the

share of government budgetary allocation to agriculture by both Federal and State governments

in the periods 1962 to 1985. (See Table 11 in Appendix K)

Table 11 examines Agriculture’s share of government budgetary allocation by both

federal and state governments in the period 1962 to 1985. From the table, it was evident that the

Federal government allocation to agriculture increased from N40.6 million in the 1962/68 period

to 5.4 billion in 1985, representing a 132- fold increase. On the other hand, state allocations

increased from N116, 2 million in the 1962-1968 to N3, 427.5 billion in the 1981/85 period

representing a modest 30 fold increase. In real terms, Federal government capital allocation to

agriculture rose from about 5% of the total budget in 1962-1968 periods, to 13% in the 1981/85

periods; while the state government’s allocation dropped from 22% to 13% in the same period.

As a result, overall allocation by Federal government and State government to agriculture rose

only marginally from about 12% in the1962-1968 periods, to about 13% in the 1981-1985

periods (CAADP. 2004 in Idachaba, 2006).

This trend was a disturbing one and not only spelt doom for food security and the future of

farming in Nigeria but also aggravated the poverty and hunger situation among rural farmers.

89

Presidential Initiatives in Agriculture and Rural productivity (PIA)

The new Federal Government Agricultural Policy (2001) provided for special

government intervention programmes in agricultural production. Five priority areas were chosen

and code - named Presidential Initiatives in Agriculture (PIA). These initiatives were based on

the need to curtail huge foreign exchange involved in the importation of food products and also

based on the need to revive ailing local agro-based industries. The areas of concern are as

follows:

• Rice

• Cassava

• Vegetable Oil

• Livestock and Fisheries

• Community Seed Development Programme

These initiatives were in consonance with the objectives of NEEDS which recognized

agriculture as the engine room for rural development and the major springboard for rural

socio-economic recovery and growth (NEEDS, 2004).

Reasons for Presidential Initiatives in Agriculture (PIA):

Rice Production

Rice is economically a very important cereal not only in Nigeria but the entire Africa and the

world at large. It ranks as the fourth major cereal crop in Nigeria following sorghum, millet and

maize in terms of cultivated land area (PIA 2005). Nigeria is the largest producer and consumer

of rice in sub-Saharan. Africa. In spite of the comparative advantage for production, Nigeria

spends about $1.0 billion annually for rice importation. This translates to annual foreign

exchange expenditure to importing close to 2.0 million tonnes of rice to meet the national and

domestic requirements (Fajanaat, 2004). The presidential initiative on rice production and export

intends to correct this trend. The objective of the programme is to realize an output of 9.0 million

tonnes of milled rice by 2007 from the cultivation of 3.0 million hectares of land and use of short

duration, disease-resistant and high yielding varieties (Fajanaat 2004).

Presidential Initiative on Cassava Production and Export

Cassava has for a long time been one of the major staples in Nigeria. The Presidential

Initiative on Cassava Production (PIC) has as its target to increase substantially the current level

90

of cassava production to meet both the home level consumption and industrial needs and also to

produce excess for export to earn the much needed foreign exchange. It aims at broadening the

economic base of the country which today hinges precariously on oil export (Adebowale 2005).

Strategies to achieve the estimated target in production levels included empowering small-scale

farmers to increase their acreage through easy access to Tractor Hiring Service and credit

facilities as well as subsidized production inputs such as fertilizer, herbicides and pesticides, for

weeds, pests and disease control and to bring their prices within the reach of the poor-resource

farmers across the county. In addition, an efficient marketing system was to be put in place that

will ensure profitability to the producer farmers.

Seed Promotion and Community Seed Development programme (CSDP)

The concept of seed promotion and community seed development programme (CSDP)

has the overall objective of ensuring that seeds, the most important input in any agricultural

production system and which contributes not less than 50% of any agricultural output, is made

available to rural farmers, irrespective of their location in the country, in order to boost

agricultural production (Ojo, 2006). According to him, seed promotion and community seed

programmes are so important in Nigeria because not more than 5% of improved seeds were

being used by local farmers. The rest 95% he asserted, were obtained from farmer’s saved-seeds

or seeds borrowed from neighbours or grains purchased from the local market. Ojo (2006)

therefore instructs that it is imperative for any agricultural system that has this characteristic to

ensure that seed promotion and the concept of community seed development (CSD) be given a

pride of place in order to meet food and fiber requirements of the nation. He further observed

that CSDP is essentially a demonstration of the efficacy of improved seeds over local ones, and

was designed to make good quality and improved varieties of seeds available in all farming

communities and ensures lateral spread of seeds among rural farmers to replace old and

weakened seeds that have been in circulation for long among rural farmers.

Ojo, (2006) categorizes the seed systems of Nigeria into two broad categories, namely:

the formal seed sector and the informal seed sector. The formal seed sector comprised of

organized agencies, public and private, that are involved in seed production and marketing of

improved seeds developed by research.

The informal seed sector was the largely unorganized individuals and groups that rely almost

entirely on traditional varieties, farmer-to-farmer seed exchange and farmer’s saved seeds for

91

their production. This sector harbors a large majority of the Nigeria farming population (Ojo,

2006). To improve and change the attitude of this large majority of rural farmers and thus enable

them to adopt and use improved seeds required adequate seed promotion through seed

demonstration and community seeds production and relevant farmer literacy education attendant

to them.

Vegetable Oil Production

The main objectives of government in this sub-sector were to reverse by 2008, the supply

demand shortfall in vegetable oil production through small holders’ estate development

processors and other stakeholders. The activities included the development of one million

hectares of palm oil, production of 5 million tonnes of groundnut, one million tonnes of seed

cotton and 0.67 million tonnes of Soya beans (FMARD, 2005). Other vegetable oil crops to

receive attention included, cocoa, sheanuts, castor oil, melon, sun-flower, benniseed and coconut.

The National Special Food Security Programme (NSFSP)

The national special programme for food security in Nigeria is a Federal Government

project jointly implemented by the Federal Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Development

(FMARD) and the Food and Agricultural Organization of the United Nations (FAO/UN). This

programme was aimed at raising agricultural productivity in food production to eliminate rural

poverty and attain food security. The programme focused on:

(i) Assisting rural farmers to achieve their potentials for increased productivity and output,

hence their income on a sustainable basis.

(ii) Strengthening the effectiveness of Research and extension services, and

(iii) Promoting simple farm technologies for self-sufficiency and surplus production among

small-scale farmers.

The field operational guideline of the programme provided a summary of the objectives and

activities of National Special programme for Food Security (NSPFS) as follows:

Long-term Programme Objectives

These included (a) contributing to the improvement of national food security by

increasing food production on an economically and environmentally sustainable basis; and (b) to

reduce year-to-year variability in agricultural production, and improve peoples’ access to food

(FMARD, 2003).

92

In addition to the long term objectives, the programme had four types of concrete immediate

objectives and activities:

A .Preparatory Stage: immediate objectives

This stage described the preparatory activities which were classified as follows:

Collection of base-line data which is achieved through the following activities:

(i) Group formation of all participating farmers,

(ii) Registration of the groups under the Co-operative Society Act;

(iii) Opening data card for each farmer to ascertain number and size of farms,

(iv) Types of crops grown and yield, including number and types of livestock kept.

(v) Identification of major constrains to farm development and agreement on solutions

in a democratic and participatory manner.

B. TheImplementation Stage 1: Immediate Objectives:-

Increase the efficiency of existing irrigation schemes and develop low cost irrigation

techniques by training of farmers on improved irrigation practices, and other aspects of

irrigation.

C. Implementation Stage 2: Immediate Objectives:-

Intensification of crop production by assisting farmers to increase output of major crops;

increase productivity and household income. These will be achieved through:

(i) Increasing yield and productivity through better agronomic practices;

(ii) increased efficiency of farm mechanization through the introduction of improved land

preparation techniques;

(iii) Facilitate access to credit for farm production through formation and support to

savings/self-help and co-operative societies; and

(iv) Increase the efficiency and profitability of tree crop production by:

(a) Replacement of old cocoa, oil palm, and rubber trees with high yielding varieties;

(b) Promote the use of fruit trees as wind break/shade plants and of apiculture as a farm

economic activity;

(c) Participatory establishment of community nurseries of fruits and tree crops adapted to

given agro-ecological conditions;

(v) Increased food processing, storage and marketing efficiency by, among others:

(a) Promotion and training on:

(i) Local methods of food processing and preservation;

93

(ii) Post-harvest techniques and equipments;

(iii) Formation of and support to marketing groups and maintenance of market

Information and;

(vi) Increase in the level of human nutrition by; (a) training women on food combinations for

improved nutrition (b) support for local nutrition education campaign (c) making nutrition

information available on common but scarcely consumed food.

(vii) Increase the efficiency of research and extension services through regular technology

Transfer meetings between farmers, research and extension (T & V System);

(viii) Introducing simple soil conservation and fertility improvement practices through, among

others: (a) Application of organic fertilizers (b) plating of cover crops and wind breakers on

lands prone to soil erosion (c) terracing and contouring on hilly lands (FMARD, 2003).

Implementation Stage 3: Immediate Objectives

Diversification of production through promoting efficient, innovative and profitable

livestock and fishery production activities adapted to local conditions. This was to be achieved

through, among others: (i) demonstrating and supporting interventions aimed at increasing

livestock production and increasing ownership of short-cycle farm animals; (ii ) introducing and

strengthening inland fishery and aquaculture activities and supporting the establishment of

homestead fish farms (Ega 2006).

Other government initiatives towards poverty reduction through agricultural intervention

programmes included:

CBN Interventions in Development Financing and Improved Agriculture

The Central Bank of Nigeria (CBN) collaborates with the Government, Foreign Development

Partners (FDP), Companies and other Private entities to:

• Improve bank lending to Agricultural sector

• Empower small-holders

• Alleviate Poverty and

• Ensure food security (CBN,2006)

The current focus of Development Finance activities of the CBN in agriculture are

• Agricultural financing and

• Rural Development

94

Under Agricultural Financing, the major schemes are the:

Agricultural Credit Guarantee Scheme (ACGS). The scheme guarantee covers:

• Loans granted to the agricultural societies by Banks (Universal and Community

Banks);

• Pays 75% of the net balance in the account of the client in the event of default;

• Target clienteles included individual farmers, co-operative societies and corporate

entities,

• Limits of lending are:

Individuals

(a) N20, 000.00 (without tangible security)

(b) N1, 000.000.00 (with tangible securities).

(c) Co-operative Societies and Limited Liability Companies – N10.0 million (with collateral)

The CBN initiated these products and services to encourage financial institutions to continue to

participate in Agricultural Credit Guarantee Scheme Financing (ACGSF)

The innovations initiated under the ACGSF are in five categories, namely:

• Self-Help Group Linkage programme with participating Banks (SHGLP);

• Trust Fund Model (TFM);

• Interest Drawback Programme (IDP);

• Community Banks’ (CB) participation under the ACGSF.

• Agricultural Credit Support Scheme (ACSS).

(i) The Self-Help Group (SHG) Linkage programme

This programme was fashioned in 1992 as a mechanism for the promotion of savings

mobilization and credit delivery. Farmer groups were required to save in Banks where they

intended to take loan and the saving account served as cash security for the intended loan. Over

time, savings culture is entrenched and capital is accumulated which enables the group to fully or

partly support members’ operational activities. The CBN assist in the linkage of the banks and

the farmer groups and in building their capacity for a mutually beneficial business relationship.

(ii) Agricultural Credit Schemes

The Central Bank of Nigeria (CBN) in its introduction to its microfinance policy noted

that the key to any poverty reduction strategy in Nigeria is the provisions of socially tailored

95

financial services to enable the poor engage in economic activities such as faming. And by

enabling the poor to engage in such economic activities, employment will be generated, earnings

(income) will be increased and standard of living improved. Ultimately, this will lead to

economic growth and development (CBN, 2006). In order to achieve this and to create financial

institutions to serve the economically active poor and low income households, the policy

provided for setting up of Micro-Finance Banks / Community Banks and Agricultural

Development Banks to improve financial services and assistance for the poor and low income

groups and thus bring them into the economic mainstream of the nation (CBN, 2006). The policy

objectives included:

• Make financial services accessible to a large segment of the potentially productive

Nigerian population which otherwise would have little or no access to financial

services.

• Promote synergy and mainstreaming of the informal sub-sector (farming) into the

National financial system.

• Contribute to rural transformation.

The policy targets included:

• Cover the majority of the poor economically active population by the year2020

• Promote the participation of at least two-thirds of state and local government to

Micro credit financially by the year 2015.

Agricultural Credit Support Scheme (ACSS)

ACSS is another credit scheme initiated by the government and the Central Bank with the

active participation and support of the Bankers’ Committee. The scheme has a prescribed fund of

N50.0 billion. The purpose was to:

(i) Enable farmers exploit untapped potentials of the country’s agricultural sector;

(ii) Reduce inflation and lower the cost of food items; and

(iii) Diversify Nigeria’s revenue base, generate export and earn more foreign exchange

through agriculture.

To access fund through ACSS, farmers are encouraged to approach their Banks through their

respective state chapters of Farmer Associations and their State Implementation Committee

96

(SIC). Large scale funds are disbursed at 8.0% interest rate to farmers. However, at the

beginning, banks will grant the loans at 14% but recipients who pay back on schedule will be

allowed to enjoy a 6.0% rebate, thereby reducing the effective rate of interest to 8.0% (CBN,

2006.

These various credit schemes, programmes and innovations of the CBN in collaboration

with Federal Government represent some of efforts of government to bolster the socio-economic

growth in the rural agricultural sector and to improve its overall performance. These schemes

and programmes have been down-streamed from the national level to governments at other

levels (state and local government) who should adopted these programmes to either achieve

growth or alleviate poverty and hunger in their respective domains (CBN,2006).The adaptation

of the CBN development financing schemes for the study was predicated on the fact that these

innovations have the potentials to bring about rural agricultural transformation and increased

productivity. But it has to be stated from onset that without basic and fundamental literacy, rural

farmers would be unable to access these products and services. Therefore, farmer literacy

education should be seen as the starting point in the timely adoption of these innovations by rural

illiterate farmers.

The FarmerFieldSchool (FFS)

This approach was developed by an FAO Project in South East Asia as a way for small-scale rice

farmers to investigate and learn for themselves, the skills required for, and benefits to be

obtained from adoption of improved practices in their paddy fields. The programme was

prompted by the devastating insecticide-induced outbreak of Brown hoppers that destroyed

several hectares of rice in Java in 1989. Since then, this approach has been replicated in a variety

of settings and also extended to several countries in Africa and Latin America, including Kenya,

Uganda, Zimbabwe, Ghana, and Nigeria Arokoyo (2007).

Approach and Concept of Farmer Field School (FFS)

According to Arokoyo (2007), a Farmer Field (FFS) is defined as a platform and “school

without walls” for improving decision-making capacity of farming communities, and to stimulate

local innovations for sustainable agriculture. Arokoyo, described FFS as a participatory approach

to extension, and a way by which rural farmers are given opportunities to make a choice in the

97

methods of production through discovery-based approach. A Field School he maintained, is a

Group-Extension method based on adult education methods and referred to it as a “school

without walls” that teaches basic agro-ecology management skills that make farmers experts in

their own farms. FFS he asserted aims at increasing the capacity of groups of farmers to test new

technologies in their own farms, assess results and their relevance to their particular

circumstances and interest, on a more demand-driven basis. Farmers look up to the researchers

and extensionists for help where they are unable to solve specific problems amongst themselves

Objectives of FieldSchool

The broad objective of FFS is to bring rural farmers together to carryout collective and

collaborative inquiry with the purpose of initiating community action in solving community

farming problems.

Specific Objectives 1 To empower farmers with the knowledge and skills to make them experts in their

fields. 2 To sharpen the farmers’ abilities to make critical and informed decisions that render

their farming business profitable and sustainable.

3 To sensitize farmers in ways of thinking and problem solving; and

4 Help farmers learn how to organize themselves.

In summary Arokoyo (2007) noted that FFS is a forum where farmers and trainers

(extension) debate observations, apply their previous experiences and present new information

from outside the community. The results of the meeting are management decisions on what

action to take. Thus FFS as an extension methodology is a dynamic process that is practiced and

controlled by the farmers themselves to transform their observations to create a more scientific

understanding of crop or livestock agro-ecosystem. Hence, FFS is built on the bottom-top

approach to extension and, therefore is a process and not a goal.

Principles of FarmerFieldSchool

(1) According to Sneyer in PCU/MARD (2007), in the FieldSchool, emphasis is laid on

growing crops or raising livestock with the least disruption in the agro-ecosystem. He posited

that the training methodology is based on learning by doing through the discovery approach,

comparisim, and a non-hierarchical relationship among the farmers and trainers with the farm as

the learning environment, learning resource or classroom. The four major principles within the

FFS process are: (a) Grow a healthy crop, (b) observe fields regularly (c) conserve a healthy

98

environment for sustainable farming and, (d) farmers understand ecology and become experts in

their own field.

From the foregoing discussions, the concept of FarmerFieldSchool including its

objectives and principles collaborated well with the general purpose of the study and the theories

of adult learning, which formed the major theoretical framework of this study. The FFS

recognized the central role of extension in the education of the farmer but goes a step further by

explicitly underling the importance of farmer literacy education in the areas of improving the

farmers’ understanding of environmental management and conservation for sustainable

agricultural production. Its non-hierarchical relationship between trainers (extension agents) and

farmers stands it out as a more educational procedure than extension. This again supported the

need for other paradigms for educating rural farmers that will integrate human capital

development with basic literacy skills as vital components of agricultural knowledge system

generation, transfer and adoption of modern farm technologies.

However, government rural agricultural interventions and programmes, including

presidential initiatives and its micro finance services are well intended to transform rural

agriculture and to improve the living conditions of rural farmers. The successful achievement of

the objectives of these programme initiatives depend to a large extent on the socio-economic

conditions of the rural farmers, especially their educational attainment (Akenson 1983). In

essence, if rural farmers were to benefit from these agricultural reform programmes, the

interwoven nature of the knowledge and technologies inherent in these programme initiatives

must guide efforts towards their implementation. What is needed is pragmatic and functional

farmer literacy education relevant to the understanding of programmecontents. This knowledge

of content and procedures must be, as of necessity, made an integral component of all

government rural agricultural intervention programmes. But to the contrary, government in all its

rural agricultural intervention programmes appeared to have ignored the need for functional rural

literacy as the corner stone for all rural development programmes. Farmer literacy education will

not only enhance good understanding of programme needs but engenders effective participation.

Experts and policy makers believe high rates of literacy among rural farmers to be a condition

for rural economic development and recovery. Undoubtedly, literacy or lack of it is a major

condition that support or limit the widespread influence of effective programmes in rural

communities. Kozol (1985) stressed the role literacy plays in cultivating human potentials and

noted that all political, economic and social improvement of the rural people depended on

99

universal literacy of the rural populace. Therefore programmes in rural areas with enduring

economic influence should better view the development of literacy as a determinant of the

success or otherwise of the programme and in terms of improving quality of life of the rural

people (Fingeret, 1984).

As a consequence, functional farmer education inclusive of literacy should be introduced

as part of any community development programme and rural agricultural extension packages.

The concern of this study, logically, attempted to address the issue of literacy of rural farmers

with the most visible purpose of improving their economic well being and making them more

receptive to new ideas. Educating farmers in a wide variety of techniques and strategies in

agricultural production is a way forward to hunger and poverty reduction. According to Akenson

(1984), valuable new skills are desirable only when farmers can read, write and acquire

proficiency in numerical literacy. This standpoint collaborated well with the position of this

study which noted that all government rural intervention programmes with the aim of achieving

poverty and hunger reduction among rural farmers must go with relevant farmer literacy

education.

The study made a strong assumption that the rural population was the backbone of

Nigeria’s agricultural sector. However, the National Bureau of Statistics (NBS, 2006) in support

of this noted that with literacy education relevant to their farming needs, the right incentives and

assistance, and appropriate farm technology, the rural farmers can indeed produce even more

than they can consume. But for far too long, these farmers have been neglected and bye-passed

by this technological advancement in agriculture due to low educational attainment (Idachaba,

1996). Quite simply, what is needed at this point in time is a kind of political that will

acknowledge the reality that one of the most effective and positive interventions that government

can make in the rural sector is designing functional and relevant farmer literacy education

programmes specifically to empower adult rural farmers in their chosen field of livelihood.

It is a well known fact that rural farmers are the main producers of food. At least 80% of

food consumed in Nigeria originally was produced by them (Nwosu, K.I. et al, 2005). Yet

despite this significant role, and despite the fact that everybody talks about food insufficiency

and insecurity, one of our main problems is that there is hardly any conscious effort to strengthen

the capacity of rural farmers through literacy education. Okafor (2004) noted that strengthening

the human capacity of the rural work force, through relevant farmer education, will benefit not

only the rural populace but the entire nation. This position is in agreement with the purpose of

100

the study. In view of this, of all the various needs of rural farmers for scientific agricultural

production and profitable marketing of produce, the need for literacy seems dominant.

Government should direct its rural agricultural interventions and socio-economic development

programmes above all else to educating rural farmers and eradicating illiteracy in the first

instance. The study was highly influenced by these suggestions on the need to promote rural

literacy as preconditions for rural agricultural transformation.

Agricultural Research, Extension and Rural productivity

Agricultural research institutes have been recognized as the most important organs that

can initiate and husband agricultural revolution. Another and perhaps a more important factor is

the role of the agricultural extension and agents. Udo (2005), in explaining the relationship

between research and extension noted that no matter how well research had done its work in

providing answers to rural farming problems, the farmer may not benefit from them unless the

agricultural extension agent proves to and convinces the farmers about the potentials of a new

farm technology. Agricultural research organizations were therefore regarded as agricultural

extension’s closest institutional partner in the agricultural technology generation and transfer

system (Peterson 1990). Agricultural extension, Peterson noted had the task of providing a two-

way flow of improved technology and information respectively between research and the end

users- primarily farmers. It also had the task of improving rural agricultural production. Yet, the

majority of rural farmers have remained impoverished and all indices of food production and

availability are worsening (Nagel, 1997).

However, the effectiveness of agricultural extension is dependent or limited by the way

research is structured and organized, and the planning and management of Agricultural-

Research- Extension-Farmer Linkage System (REFLS). Idachaba (1987)and Peterson (1997)

observed that Agricultural Research Organizations in developing countries are confronted by

many problems, namely; lack of financial resources, acute shortage of well trained agricultural

scientists, lack of farmer feedback to ensure relevance of research results; inadequate research

facilities and equipment; lack of access to external sources of knowledge; low staff morale,

inadequate operating budgets; and poor staff incentives and remuneration. Peterson (1997) noted

that these problems can impede the generation of agricultural technologies, resulting in fewer

outputs for extension transfer.

101

Poor linkage between agricultural research and agricultural extension has been identified

as major constraints in agricultural technology flow (Kaimonstiz, and Engel, 1990). Eponu

(1993) and Peterson (1997) categorized these linkage problems into two broad types, namely:

(a) Those affecting feedback from farmers to research and extension; and

(b) Those relating to coordination and cooperation between research and extension

Nagel (1997) put these problems squarely on the ministry of agricultural-based general extension

model operative in most developing countries, which according to him has been unable to reach

a majority of its potential clientele for economic, socio-psychological and technological reasons.

In addition, he noted the existence of unmanageable client-to-agent ratio as part of the larger

problem. In AbiaState this ratio is estimated at about 1490: 1; while the recommended official

ratio is 1000: 1 (Abia – ADP, 2006). This ratio remains a major constraint in the Research-

Extension-Farmer Linkage System (REFLS), considering the dispersed nature of rural

settlements. Peterson (1997) commenting on the clientele to agricultural extension agent

relationship note that extension has little to offer in terms of messages to large sections of the

rural populace and may even become prejudiced against a target group. He states further that

adequate and location-specific answers to a farmer’s problem were often not available because it

had not been a research concern or the solution had simply not reached the field or the farmer.

Udo (2005), reviewing the Nigeria situation, observed that some of the technologies and

recommendations emanating from research and passing through extension agents to rural farmers

lost steam en-route the target of improving the productivity of rural farmers. Udo noted further

that the technologies were either not taken or were diluted in some ways. He noted also that

some agricultural technologies were impositions on rural farmers which invariably interfered

seriously with their farming system and taboos. These and many other problems in agricultural

technology generation and transfer constituted major constraints that reduced the effectiveness

and efficiency of research and extension in building and promoting the productive capacity of

rural farmers.

Agricultural extension services whether public or private, should operate in a context or

an environment that influences its organization, its form or mode, and the content of technology

transfer activities (Moris 1991). The dominant characteristic of the context of agricultural

extension is change in the farmer’s attitude and general outlook. But as Peterson (1997) reasoned

out, because the change affected all aspects of agricultural production activities, the context

should be examined and understood so that extension can be better managed. Peterson therefore

102

places Agricultural Extension within a System Approach to agricultural technology generation

and transfer as means of improving its effectiveness.

A System Approach Perspective: Towards Improving Research-Extension–Farmer-

Linkage System (REFLS).

The usefulness of a system approach for understanding and analyzing agricultural

technology generation and dissemination is widely acknowledged as offering holistic vantage

points for understanding the factors that impede or enhance the two-way flow of agricultural

technology and information between farmers and the public organizations that constituted the

system (Nagel. 1979), Swanson and Peterson (1997). Peterson (1997), in discussing a Systems

Approach to Extension in the context of agricultural technology generation and transfer,

organized this approach into a conceptual framework consisting of two major sections or

perspectives. One section described the Macro Context Factors, such as government agricultural

policy and intervention programmes; extension and training, including farm technology

utilization in farm management. The other perspective looked at the Institutional Factors,

namely: agricultural research and technology generation; and the technology transfer

methodology (extension) and procedures used in planning and management of extension.

Peterson noted that Agricultural Research organizations (technology generation) and Extension

(technology transfer) are the major actors in the System Approach.This conceptual framework

was designed to influence agricultural extension organization and rural farmers’ involvement as

well as for the implementation of rural development programmes. In his presentation, Peterson

(1997) postulated that the context of extension for agricultural and rural development, applying

both the macro and institutional factors, should bring about agricultural change and increased

farm production

103

Fig 4: The Conceptual Framework of Agricultural System Approach to Extension

Source: Agricultural System Perspective adapted from System Approach to Extension by Warren Peterson (1997

The Macro context consists mainly of various problems and factors affecting extension

service delivery to rural farmers. These factors have been identified by Peterson (1997), to

include: Agriecological, Political-Economic, Socio-cultural, Policy and Infrastructure. These

were the major factors inhibiting agricultural technology transfer to rural farmers in the System

Approach. Reflecting on the issue of gender as a socio-cultural factor in agricultural production,

Government Agricultural Policy and Intervention Programmes

1

Technology Transfer, methodology & Procedure, Planning and Management Knowledge Transfer Input Transfer Message Development Technology Back Multiplication Training Stopping and and Processes Delivery Technology Strategy Distribution 4

Technology Generation Research: Planning and Management

Technology Technology Technology Development Assessment Testing and Dissemination and Adaptation Adoption 2

Macro-Context

Institutional Context

Institutional Context

Extension & Training Technology Utilization

Farm Management Awareness Information Farm-level Technology Trial Adaptation Adoption

3

Macro-Context

104

Peterson (1997) argue that the division of labour in farm production between the sexes can differ

along cultural lines and influences the nature of farming system in different locations.

For instance in many agriecozones, the men seek employment off-farm, leaving farming

operations to the women. This is particularly the case soon after the planting season in most rural

communities in Nigeria. In agricultural extension organization, Peterson (1997) remarks that

women farmers were often left out, and asserts that such under-representation of women on the

extension force means that the production responsibilities and needs of women at the farm level

may not be adequately addressed.

In addition, cultural differences among farmers, as well as differences in their resources

endowments in particular, was reflected in land use patterns as manifested in various forms of

land tenure systems. Peasant farmers whose production activities are hinged on mixed cropping

systems, for example, will require different types of subject-matter expertise, and agricultural

extension will need to use different strategies to transfer technology to them than to plantation

farmers. The resources endowment of different categories of farmers also affects technology

adoption levels. Subsistent farmers usually adopted mainly ‘low-cost’ farm technologies. For

these reasons, Peterson (1997) suggests that extension service that focuses on cultural practices

and affordable farm technologies may be more appropriate in ecozones with large number of

resource poor and illiterate farmers.

Policy Component of the System Approach

The policy component of an agricultural technology system can enable or limit extension

in ways beyond the reach of extension managers. Policy making bodies of government set

development goals and objectives such as achieving food security or surplus agricultural

production to stimulate economic growth; or providing health care and education for rural

development. It is the task of government extension organization to help meet these goals by

formulating discrete objectives and strategies to achieve them. Government often enact policies

on consumer and producer commodity prices, subsidies for inputs, credit availability and even

import substitution, export restrictions and natural resource management. These send direct and

indirect price signals to farmers and influence their production decisions. High fertilizer prices,

for example, cause farmers to use less of this input. Extension organizations should be aware of

such policies and market information to ensure that they are recommending technologies that

105

meet farmers’ current needs. They also require feedback from farmers to ensure the continued

relevance of their activities

Infrastructure Component

Infrastructure, particularly the conditions of roads, transport, communication, and market

facilities, affect both farmers and extension. The capacity to move people, input, and produce

and to send and receive information influences extension activities and capacity. Market

infrastructure itself can be lacking or inadequate. And this can affect both farmers and extension

activities adversely. In transportation, there may be many areas that cannot be reached by road;

or transport vehicles may be in short supply. In either case, farmers under these conditions are

difficult to reach with improved technology and they will have problems transporting inputs and

farm produce.

On the other hand, Communication Infrastructure can impose additional constraints for

extension organizations. Radio or television may be limited, thus reducing the options available

to extension for communicating its messages. At the same time, extension itself may have little

or no access to telephone and radio services for long range communications. This can severely

hamper the ability to organize and carryout field operations. Two aspects of a country’s media

organizations both print and audio – visual affect the flow of extension message to farmers

(Peterson 1997). It is crucial that extension considers the capacity of mass media organizations

as part of its strategy and plan communicating with farmers. The use of print media is more

precarious in situations of mass illiteracy as is the case in most rural communities in Nigeria.

Institutional Factors in the Systems Approach

Agriculture research organizations (technology generation) and extension (technology

transfer) are major factors in the flow and feedback of technologyand information in the systems

approach and these constitute the institutional factors. These factors also include the technology

utilization aspects, involving farm level trials, adaptation and adoption of innovations.

• Technology Generation Component

This consists of planning, administration and implementation of research activities that

develop, assess, adopt and test improved agricultural technologies and innovations for

farmers and other users. These tasks, as well as the organization of dissemination

activities are carried out by agricultural research organizations (Peterson 1997).

106

• Technology Transfer Component

This aspect deals with agricultural knowledge and input transfer to different target

adapters (farmers) by extension. The transfer component consists of two major phases

namely (i) knowledge transfer and; (ii) inputs transfer. In both phases, farmer coverage is

more limited especially to contact farmers, while input transfer plays the biggest role in

extension (Peterson, 1997). The transfer component in the System Approach, constitute

the bedrock of extension activities.

• Technology Utilization Component

This phase encompasses the users of agricultural technology, mainly farmer. User’s

awareness, adaptation and adoption of improved technology from various sources affect

farm level productivity and profitability and ultimately economic growth both at local

and the national levels. Peterson (1997) noted that the interactions and feedback between

farmers, research and extension services improve co-operation among the various

components of the System Approach and the relevance of technology to farmers.

Among the output of the technology generation subsystem (research), is improved genetic

materials – new plant varieties and breeds of animal - with high yields and or resistance to

pests or diseases (Peterson 1997). Extension is responsible for educating rural farmers through

appropriate contact methods on their availability and access to them, including their

performance and cultural practices; and even their multiplication and distribution. An efficient

extension has the task of establishing effective linkages with all stakeholders involved in the

process to ensure that genetic materials are available to farmers. Furthermore, the performance of

new genetic materials is often enhanced or even dependent on the use and availability of

agrochemicals and other inputs at the farm level. Educating rural farmers on the use of these

chemicals, types and amounts to suit local conditions and for the control of plant and animal

pests and diseases constitute an indispensable aspect of good extension. Corollarily, lack of

access to such information and materials prevent farm production maximization .Extension needs

to ensure that farmers are informed on the availability and use of modern inputs (Peterson,

1997).

The System Approach has been adopted for this study because its framework with its

various components can be replicated and applied to influence and enhance the effectiveness of

farmer literacy education programmes for rural farmers. Just as formal education is important for

the success of the agricultural research scientist, so would the effectiveness of extension workers

107

in persuading rural farmers to adopt new farm practices be improved by good farmer literacy

education. Functional farmer literacy education for rural farmers is needed to enable them

understand scientific research information and extension messages which make for easy and

timely adoption of new improved farm practices (Peterson, 1997). In addition, he asserts that

education increases the farmer’s stock of knowledge and enhances his capacity to learn.

Furthermore, Peterson noted that the farmer’s level of education determines the amount of efforts

and time required by extension workers to teach him new farm technologies, and observes that

with improved educational attainments on the part of rural farmers, the rate and ease of adoption

of farm innovations accelerates.

However, in the past, this general commitment to agricultural modernization and faith in

the efficacy of science based agricultural knowledge and practices have led to discrediting

indigenous farmers’ knowledge and traditional farm practices. Although this view is still held by

many, it is now being seriously questioned (Chambers et al, 1989). Chambers and his colleagues

assert that rural farmers possess immense knowledge about their farming systems and the

environment in which they operate; and are experimenters in their own rights. What is needed, in

their opinions, is to sharpen their comprehensive faculties for better understanding and

adaptation to modern farming practices and technologies. This underscored the need to adopt the

System Approach not only as means to improving agricultural extension but also as a strategy for

enhancing farmer literacy education delivery to rural farmers.

According to UNDP (1991), improved technologies are packages of inputs and practices

that usually come from many sources. For developing countries like Nigeria, the UNDP

observed that accelerated growth and spread of demographic and other social problems are

seriously affecting the lives of rural people and their problem solving abilities. In the view of

UNDP (1991) a functional and relevant farmer education has become imperative as means to

setting new priorities and building knowledge systems based on problem solving abilities of rural

farmers and which enhances their capacity to adopt new farm technologies. Leaning on this

viewpoint, Fingeret (1984) argues that if farmer literacy education is to be worthwhile, it must be

functional and relevant to the farmers’ needs, noting that the popularization of modern farm

technologies and the introduction of high yielding varieties and breeds of livestock, through well

structured farmer literacy education programmes, will be the right step in the right direction

towards farmer capacity building. In order words, education for rural farmers must go beyond

extension education.

108

It has been observed that illiterate people in the rural communities speak mainly

languages of their own and do not understand English and cannot communicate with it (NBS,

2005). Engish unfortunately is the official language of agricultural extension in Nigeria. In

addition most rural people do not understand what are being talked about on TV and Radio, or

what are written in publications or posters. These again are the main extension methods in

information dissemination. As a result, rural farmers are ignorant of and isolated from the world

beyond their ethnic communities (Fingeret 1984). This situation has provided some of the several

reasons for this study with the general purpose of finding new paradigms for educating rural

farmers in modern agricultural practices, including the acquisition of skills in reading, writing

and numeric skills. This has become imperative since extension has failed to inculcate literacy

skills to its clientele. This literacy gap created by extension, and which has tended to hamper

rural agricultural growth and progress, is what the present study sought to bridge if rural farmers

must modernize their production capacity for improved productivity and the enhancement of

their economic situation.

The Issue of New Paradigm in Farmer Education

Issues in farmer education are unresolved but very topical matter that concern strategies

and procedures for providing relevant and functional basic education with fundamental literacy

to rural farmers. The educational procedures adopted in pursuance of this could make or mar

rural development policies, rural agricultural transformation programmes, and the adoption of

modern farm technologies which facilitate increased farm production leading to poverty

andhunger reduction in the long run. By focusing constant attention on such matters,

Nwachukwu (2005) asserts that policy makers, research institutes, extension planners and

managers, and rural development experts are enabled to reach meaningful consensus on how best

to deal with contemporary issues confronting rural farmers. Questions of agricultural

productivity, poverty and hunger, environmental sustainability, family health and nutrition, food

self-sufficiency,healthy, hunger-free, and active rural population, fundamental literacy and mass

participation in the development process may each appear isolated and may be expected to

demand individual solutions. Yet, these issues are closely related and interdependent in human

capital and resource development and management. If the rural people are to benefit from the

109

development process, the interrelated nature of these issues must guide rural development

policies, and programmes in rural agricultural transformation, including poverty and reduction

strategies. African Farmer (#8: Mar 1993) points to Farmer Education with fundamental literacy

as the only sustainable strategy to achieve these goals.

Education has long been acclaimed one of the most powerful engines for reducing

poverty and hunger (FAO, 2005). Emphasizing on the need for paradigm shift in farmer

education, FAO (2005) points to pervasive illiteracy among rural farmers as being responsible

for their low farm productivity, and poor incomes, resulting in poverty, hunger and malnutrition.

In the opinions of Smith (1953) and Obibuaku (1983), rural populations, which ordinarily have

higher concentrations of adult people, are most likely to be illiterate and conservative, and

consequently the low capacity of the rural people to harness and utilize resources a round them

for improving oneself economically. UNDP (1996) also affirms that education and training in

occupations have long been recognized as powerful tools for reducing poverty and hunger.

Therefore, to meet the needs of poor rural farmers, who need and seek strong basic literacy skills

and modern agricultural knowledge, FAO (2005), advocates the need to create more effective

and accessible learning modes and options for rural farmers. This advocacy by FAO (2005)

aroused the interest of research in this direction with the aim to find new paradigm for educating

rural farmers in modern farm techniques integrated with the acquisition of basic literacy skills.

This paradigm shift in farmer education was assumed to produce the change agents that would

facilitate the achievement of poverty and hunger reduction among rural farmers through

educating rural farmers in modern agriculture, and improving their capacities to adopt and apply

science and technology in the farm production process.

Farmer Literacy Education: Approach and Concept

The concept of Farmer Literacy Education as a strategy for creating more effective and

functional learning modes for rural farmers in the context of increased agricultural productivity

and enhanced farm incomes leading to poverty and hunger reduction, seeks to identify non-

formal strategies that will teachmodern agricultural knowledge and competencies to rural

farmersin addition to basic literacy skills. Rogerson (2001) argue that such an educational

strategy should increase rural farmers’ access to resources utilization and enable them develop

110

creativity and to exercise greater voices in the decision making process in the family, community

and public arena of politics.

The philosophy guiding the concept and principles of farmer education in this new

direction, in addition to other theories of adult learning, is encapsulated in the term, “Lifelong

Learning” (LLL). The tenets of this philosophy include the fact that adults are continually

acquiring new skills and knowledge in a variety of ways and in many situations, and in

particular, in occupational settings (Brookfield, 1995). UNESCO in Lengrand as quoted by

Brookfield (1995) referred to lifelong learning as the opportunity for individuals to engage in

purposeful and systematic learning activities during periods in their lives when the opportunity

presents itself and is most relevant to the individual. In the same vein, Jones and Garforth (1994)

asserted that such an educational procedure for the ‘modern’ rural farmer should include skills in

negotiation, conflict resolution, farm stress management, international communication

technology (ICT), environmental conservation and entrepreneurship; in addition to modern

agricultural knowledge and basic literacy. These issues, experts contended, are beyond the scope

and content of agricultural extension services as currently packaged and delivered to rural

farmers (Ahmed and Combs, 1999). In addition, these issues are beyond the problem solving

abilities of illiterate farmers (Negal, 1997).To overcome these challenges; Akenson (1984) calls

for the need to include basic literacy in all farmer education strategies.

To be able to read, write, count and communicate in any language and to receive training

in various agricultural occupations and production techniques are central to the solution of the

problems of poverty and hunger reduction. This entails paradigm shift in farmer education and

farm production technologies as currently being conceptualized in this work. The key issue is to

use such farmer education paradigm to assist and empower rural farmers to acquire basic literacy

skills and modern knowledge relevant to their chosen means of livelihood so as to improve their

production competencies as means to enhancing their socio-economic well-being. This new

concept in educating non-literate rural farmers offers them a second chance as they missed the

opportunity of or were denied access to mainstream formal education (Akensons, 1984).

Obibuaku (1983) asserts that literacy education has the potential to effect desirable attitudinal

changes among rural farmers and make them more receptive to innovations in the farm business.

This new approach to Farmer Education for rural farmers is based on the assumption that

rural farmers as continually seeking to acquire new skills and knowledge in their various

occupations and vocational settings throughout their working life (Brookfield, 1995). Such

111

knowledge is needed to meet daily challenges and changes in the farm production process. In

support of this view, Nagel (1997) notes that the accelerated growth and spread of such problems

as hunger, malnutrition, food shortages, poverty, illiteracy and degradation of the total

environment; and the outbreak of diseases and pests, require rapid and effective responses. Negal

(1997) therefore calls for the building of new knowledge and information transfer systems that

will transform rural farmers from passive recipients of information and technologies to active

recipients and adopters of modern farm technologies. In the long run, rural farmers would

develop the capacity to ask questions even in writing, and demand answers to their farming

problems. Dixon et al (2001), in proposing the features and characteristic of the new paradigm

in farmer education programmes for rural illiterate farmers suggests the following:

(a) Must be specific to the farmer’s present interests and future needs of the farmer and of

the society;

(b) It must be based on research information;

(c) The unit of instruction for teaching and learning must be, in most cases, particular new or

changed practices;

(d) It reflects farmer’s most important educational problems or opportunities; and

(e) The outcomes of the programmes are profitable to individual farmers and the community.

As a consequence, the concern of this study was to use these criteria to attempt to address the

problem of illiteracy as a major socio-economic problem confronting rural farmers in the context

of increased agricultural productivity, improved income generation, awareness creation and

efficient utilization of resources. Dealing with these problems bear direct relationship to poverty

and hunger reduction efforts.

According to the national policy on Adult and Non-formal Education, functional literacy

is directly related to dealing with the immediate and crucial problems of rural dwellers in their

daily activities’ and focuses attention on their socio-economic needs and interests (NPE, 1981).

Both the National Policy on Adult and Continuing Education (1981) and the criteria for new

paradigm in farmer education suggested by Dixon et al (2001), including the postulations of

Nagel (1997) were of great significance to the study because they provided another useful

theoretical framework and principles that guided the study.

112

Perspectives on Literacy Education for Rural Farmers in Nigeria

It is often argued that technical and agricultural education cannot alone be the cause of

development. Just as the horse must pull the cart, so shall agriculture as the productive activity

be propelled by educational procedures necessary to make farming activity more productive

(Curle, 1972). Idachaba (1986) in supporting the need for rural agricultural transformation argues

that agrarian backwardness always inhibits any possibility of rural economic growth and

expansion. According to Idachaba, if agriculture is stagnant, it offers only a limited and often

stagnant market and noted that in all efforts to achieve balanced growth in all sectors of the

economy, be it rural or urban; any neglect to transform rural agriculture makes it difficult to

develop anything else. Idachaba (1986) therefore instructed that only by increasing agricultural

productivity, through capacity building of the rural labour-force, can agricultural productivity

and rural buying power be increased sufficiently to offer new industries sufficient outlets,

creating wealth, generating employment opportunities and enhanced standards of living. (Araka

et al 1988), in their view on farmer capacity building, noted that farmer education in the context

of poverty and hunger reduction, apart from imparting modern agricultural knowledge and

improved technologies should also include the acquisition of proficiency and competency in

the use of language and number. In addition, Araka et al (1988) argued that farmers knowledge

could be improved through the medium of ancillary activities necessary for practical farming

such as in simple book-keeping, marketing and records of crop production; animal, milk and

poultry yields. Such utilitarian use of basic literacy skills does contribute to some form of

literacy culture among rural farmers and enhance productivity.

Obviously, and undoubtedly too, farming today is such that it is very difficult to get by

without fundamental literacy. Rural farmers encounter a lot of difficulties in procuring farm

inputs, in marketing of produce, in accessing credit; monitoring and evaluation of production,

and even in the utilization of research and extension packages due to illiteracy (Araka et al

1991). And in recognition of the fact that rural economic viability efforts are inevitably linked to

the success of rural agricultural sector performance, Araka et al further suggested that conscious

efforts have to be geared to making literacy education of rural farmers priority of priorities in

rural agricultural development. In so doing, they noted that not only will rural agricultural

performance be enhanced but will also lead to the socio-economic emancipation of the rural

population and subsequently to poverty and hunger alleviation in the long run (NEEDS, 2004)

113

Generally speaking, inefficient education, low literacy rates and consequently unsatisfactory

quality of the rural labour force stand as major reasons for rural poverty. Akenson (1984) notes

that low comprehensive faculties of the poverty stricken rural populace weakens their ambition,

confidence, self-esteem and skill for improving their own living conditions, which in turn causes

or intensifies their poverty. He further observed that poverty hinders the improvement of their

comprehensive faculties due to inability to access educational opportunities. (Akenson 1984),

therefore suggests that in an era of knowledge-based economy, what determines the speed of

economic and social development for a country or a community, are human resources or the

quality and quantity of the productive labour force rather than materials, institutional or natural

resources. Akenson (1984) assert that economic and social development of the rural populace,

including poverty alleviation and end to hunger initiatives must depend on improvement of the

rural production labour force - the small scale farmers, through functional literacy education.

In a similar vein, Annan (2005) was of the opinion that educating and empowering rural people

is the greatest weapon in the war against poverty and hunger. The same could be said of the

critical importance of eliminating rural illiteracy for efforts to reducing poverty, hunger and

malnutrition among rural farmers. As a result, Akenson (1984) recommends that all rural and

economic development efforts should take the major responsibility in anti-poverty campaigns,

incorporating literacy promotion, poverty alleviation and improved agricultural productivity as

the major priority activities.

Rural development experts were of the same opinion that basic literacy education is both a

tool for social justice as well as a fundamental driver of socio- economic development.Obubaku

(1983), Akenson (1984), and Kozol (1985) contend that education empowers the individual and

determines his or her worth in a competitive economy. In this regard, Fingeret (1984) is of the

opinion that efforts should be made to first of all reform the traditional idea and practice of

“economic before literacy’. Explaining this viewpoint, Fingeret suggests that literacy education

should take the precedence of economic development so as to enhance the capacity of rural

farmers to understand development issues and be enabled to get rid of the vicious cycle of

poverty, illiteracy and rural backwardness. He further notes that in remote rural communities, it

is unwise to depend on economic development for literacy promotion; instead, investment in

programme for literacy education promotion should be prior to rather than in parallel with

economic development. Fingeret (1984) maintain that the basic approach to the eradication of

poverty and hunger among rural people is to consciously impart the rural people with the

114

awareness of enterprising creativity, self-reliance, and survival skills through fundamental

literacy and continuing education. In his opinion, farmer literacy education should be closely

related to practical agricultural techniques in compliance with socio-economic development

needs of the community. These views were expressedly incorporated in the National Literacy

Mission of India (NLM 1999) which enunciated broad goals of functional literacy education for

the rural populace, which in qualitative terms implied:

• Self-reliance in 3R’s (Reading, ‘Riting and ‘Rithmetic)

• Participation in the development process;

• Skill improvement to improve economic status and general well being; and

• Imbibing values of national integration, conservation of environment, gender equality and

observance of small family norms.

The NLM (1999) set out to achieve these objectives by:

• Creating an environment conductive to the teaching–learning process in rural

communities;

• Provision of good and relevant teaching materials and facilitating teaching-learning by

good training media communication;

• Improving the pace of learning and injecting confidence among the learners about their

potential to learn and by ensuring the process is not drudgery; and

• Integrating basic literacy with post-literacy and continuing education.

These approaches and principles guiding the National Literacy Mission of India could be

adopted to serve as blue print for any core farmer literacy education model for peasant farmers in

Nigeria. The national Policy on Adult and Continuing Education (NPE, 1981) and the objectives

of the National Literacy Mission of India (NLM, 1999), have provided invaluable information

that would form the basis for defining and determining functional literacy education model for

rural farmers in Nigeria.

Operational Elements of Functional Farmer Literacy Education

The effectiveness of any adult education programme depends on its relevance and

functionality (Brookfield, 1995). The need to increase knowledge and raise the literacy level of

rural farmers,improve agricultural productivity, enhance rural farmers’ income, improve their

115

living standards, and thus reduce poverty and hunger, have collectively placed much emphasis

in the nature and quality of the form of farmer education packaged and delivered to rural farmers

as the primary producers of food. The rural farmer needs to acquire clear understanding of all the

forces and factors which affect his production systems and which contribute to agricultural

transformation and socio-economic development (Obibuaku, 1983). Figure 5 below, illustrates

the general objectives and operational elements of Farmer Literacy Education as conceptualized

in the present study. The broad goals are:

(i) Change in farmer outlook;

(ii)Change in attitude and behaviour; and

(iii) improved social, cultural and economic status.

To achieve these objectives, farmer literacy education has the tasks of raising the literacy

levels of rural farmers to a point where they can:

(i).Read, write, count and communication effectively and do simply arithmetic operations in the

farm business;

(ii). Develop ability to understand research content and extension messages;

(iii)Adopt and adapt new farm technologies;

(iv) Read and understand instructions and interpret labels on farm inputs utilization;

(v) Read or learn and understand government policies and reform programmes;

(vi) Learn and use ICT;

(vii) Undertake farm business transactions unaided, such as fill order forms and write application

letters and keep farm records;

(viii)Respond effectively to farm crises, market demand and supply issues; and.

(ix) Develop marketing strategies for enhanced income.

116

Figure 5: Operational Elements of a Farmer Literacy Education Strategy

$$ The major element of any farmer literacy education strategy is the provision of the functional

linkage between the rural farmers, research and extension, rural sociologists and other

stakeholders in the rural agricultural production sector. Just as formal education is important for

the success of research scientist, extension agents and farmer educators, so is farmer literacy

education in non-formal setting necessary for rural farmers to acquire literacy skills, understand

modern scientific agriculture and to adopt new and improved farm practices emanating from

agricultural research and other sources and thus be empowered for greater productivity and

increased incomes.

Illiterate farmers are the dominant group among rural dwellers in Nigeria. Because of

their inability to read and write, Nwosu et al (2004) observe that it is often difficult for them to

remember the details of farm practices which require several steps to accomplish. Akenson

(1984) maintain that a functionalfarmer literacy education should therefore aim at improving the

- Undertake farm business transaction - Keeping farm records - Fill out application forms - Process loan forms etc.

Ability to read, understand and ask question relating to the farm business

Ability to count and do simple arithmetic

operations

Read and understand - Govt. Polices and - Programmes - Innovations

Ability to write and communicate

in writing

Understand Research Content and message --Adopt Innovations - Intensification, and - Diversification of - Production system - Use modern input.

Respond effectively to

• Market demand and supply issues

• Farm stress

• Develop marketing strategies for enhanced income

Farmer Literacy Education - Change in farmer outlook - Change in attitude and behaviour - Improved social-cultural and economic status

-Read and understand and used new farm technology from other sources - Learn ICT - Understand instructions and interpret labels on farm inputs Utilization.

Source: Conceptualized and Developed by the Researcher (2009)

117

farmer’s literacy abilities, enhance his capacity to learn and to improve his comprehensive

faculty. This view is in line with operational elements of farmer literacy education strategy as

conceptualized in the study. In support of this standpoint, Oyedeji et al (1982) assert that

becoming literate implies a transformation of the learner from a passive being to an active,

critical, and creative one. The authors posits that the neo-literates must not be expected to be

only at the receiving end of information and new technologies, rather, they must be encouraged

to view and express opinions on all issues of their interest and needs; be able to share their own

views and experiences in Newsletters and other agricultural publications. Furthermore, Oyedeji

et al argue that the economic impact of farmer literacy education programme would be evaluated

in the light of whether farmers have produced more and better quality produce; have gained more

income; upgraded their livingconditions; and can exercise voices of their own.

Increase in agricultural production and productivity comes at the hand of rural farmers -

the poor resource farmers. To achieve this objective, it is the farmer who must be supplied with

scientific, technological information and know-how, and convinced that he can use them

profitably (Araka et al 1988). Achieving this task is enormous since it involves communicating

with an illiterate majority and also involves changing their attitudes and mental outlook to bring

about continuous improvement in their total life. Corroborating issues in this regard, Brown and

Tomori (1979) assert that this task is most important for agricultural progress and called for new

strategies in farmer education to achieve this. Similarly, Elliot W.H. (1940) in Oyedeji (1982)

advises that any minimum farmer education must prepare rural men and women to live as

workers, citizens, and individuals in a changing world. In assigning the minimum acceptable

standards of the paradigm shift in farmer education, Elliot instructs that rural farmers should be

educated to a point, where:-

(a) As workers, to control their physical environment, and to conserve their natural resources

endowment so as to raise their standard of living;

(b) As citizens, to live together in harmony in their communities, families and eventually in the

wider society;

(c) As individuals, to bring out the best that is in them, to achieve physical health, self respect

and esteem through spiritual, moral and mental progress and fulfillment of noble aspirations.

For Oyedeji et al (1982), these goals constitute the underlying principles of a functional farmer

literacy education which have been adopted and integrated into the framework of the study.

118

In another dimension, Oyedeji, Omolewa and Asiedu (1992) noted that the majority of

illiterates in Nigeria live in the rural areas and are involved mainly in farming and therefore

instructed that these people need to become literate. Literacy education for rural farmers in their

opinions is to show them how to:

(i). increase their farm yields so that they can improve the quality of their lives and that of their

families by having more money to buy essential commodities for better living;

(ii). to enable them read planting instructions for example, and understand the techniques of

increasing their farm yields;

(iii). to enable them to starve less, have some clothing and know how to be borrow and pay

back money when needed.

Adult Education experts argue that farmer literacy education is for the general good of

rural farmers: to help them understand the laws of nature which govern their production

activities; and to understand to take part in the functions of government, especially in making

decisions that affect their lives. In conclusion, they assert that the more literates there are in a

society, the more rapid the development of that society. Oyediji et al (1992) further posit that a

60 percent literacy rate is required for development. In other words, societies that have literacy

population of less than 60 percent remain underdeveloped. In Nigeria, rural literacy rate is below

52% with the majority being farmers (NBS, 2006). These positions and submissions of experts

underscore the need for greater attention to be paid to mass rural literacy campaigns and to

sustain rural farmer’s interest in literacy education. The present study relied heavily and drew

lots of inspirations from these assertions by experts in making a case for the integration of basic

literacy skills and knowledge-based agriculture in all farmer education programmes. This

constitutes the benchmark of the new paradigm in farmer education.

Review of Related Empirical Studies

Indicators for Monitoring Welfare and other Social Trends among Rural Farmers

In addition to several references already cited in the review of literature, other empirical

studies related to the study were examined. These included the Core Welfare Indicator

Questionnaire Survey (CWIOS) conducted by the National Bureau of Statistics (NBS, 2006) for

assessing and monitoring welfare indicators and poverty in Nigeria.

The Core Welfare Indicator Questionnaire (CWIO) was the instrument used for the survey and

119

was designed to collect minimum information not only for providing basic indicators of poverty,

but more specifically for providing indicators for monitoring welfare and social trends among

different sub-population groups across the country and to rapidly inform programmes and policy

decisions targeted at poverty alleviation in Nigeria. The main objective of the survey was to

provide policy makers, planners and programme managers with core simple indicators for

monitoring welfare and poverty and the effects of government development policies,

programmes and projects on the living standards of rural populations in the various states and

local governments areas of Nigeria.

The survey covered all the 36 states of the Federation and the Federal Capital Territory

(FCT), Abuja. All 774 local government areas in the country were canvassed with the coverage

cutting across both the urban and rural areas. The survey was designed with the Local

Government Areas (LGA) serving as the reporting domain. Basically, a 2 – stage cluster sample

design was adopted in each LGA. Enumeration Area (EA) formed the first stage or Primary

Sampling Units (PSU), while Housing Units (HUs) formed the second stage or Ultimate

Sampling (USUs). The Enumeration Area as demarcated by the 1991 National Population

Census served as the sampling framework for the selection of Enumeration Areas (EAs) and

Housing Units.

In each LGA, a systematic selection of ten EAs was made. A complete listing of Housing

Units and Households within each Housing Unit was also done. These lists provided the

framework for the second stage selection. Ten Housing Units were then systematically selected

per Enumeration Area and all the households in the selected Housing Units (HUs) were

interviewed. The projected sample size was 100HUs at the LGA level. The overall sample

drawn was 77,400 Housing Units. A total of 77,062 households were covered giving the survey

coverage rate of 99.6 percent. However only 75.929 households were completely enumerated

and this gave a response rate of 98.5 percent; the remaining 1.5 percent were recorded cases of

respondents not at home, refusals, household not located, moved away, among others.

Nationally, 59.567 households were covered in the rural areas with a response rate of 98.7

percent.

The survey finding on educational achievements among rural farmers showed that about

one-third of rural household members had no education (36.7) percent; 16.5 percent partially

completed primary school, while 10.8 percent had completed primary school at the national

level. By area of residence, over twice as many rural population (43.6 percent) had no education

120

when compared to urban population (21.7 percent) nationwide. Further results of the survey

showed that four in every ten heads of household had no education. The highest proportion of

household heads in the rural areas with not education was 51.8 percent when compared to the

urban 27.6 percent. At the national level, the male adult literacy rate was about 1.5 times higher

(74.6 percent) than the female rate (56.8 percent). However, nearly 1.5 times more urban adults

(79.9 percent) were literate compared to 58.6 percent in the rural areas. The finding also showed

that the highest literacy rate was for the age group 15-19 years for both rural and urban areas

irrespective of gender. In the rural areas, however male adult literacy rate was highest for age

group 20-29 years (80.0 percent) while female age group was highest for the 15-19 years (71.8

percent). These figures indicated that literacy levels decline with age for both sexes and even by

rural urban classification.The other implication of these findings was that there was high rate of

illiteracy in rural communities with rural farmers as the major culprits.

Another major finding of the survey was in relation to household size. Evidence from the

survey showed that rural families with larger household sizes and small farm holdings were the

worst hit in meeting household food needs. Another welfare and poverty indicator depicted in the

survey concerned area of land owned by households and on the basis of gender. Findings showed

that 22.9 percent rural area and 62.8 percent urban areas did not own land. All southern zones

(south south, south east, south west) recorded having a higher estimate of lack of land ownership,

with south west the highest (63.8 percent) in the country. The survey further noted that land sizes

are small with about three in every ten households owning less than a hectare, followed by 14.2

percent owning between 2-3 hectares of land. The survey revealed further that land ownership is

heavily gender biased with more females without land and less than 3 percent owning over six

hectares.

These findings are instructive in identifying causes of low agricultural productivity and

poverty among rural farmers. The findings implied that limited amount of land available to rural

farmers may have resulted in shorter duration of fallows leading to progressive land degeneration

with accelerated erosion. In consequence, agricultural land is fast becoming a scarce factor in

agricultural production. In addition, not only do small plots, often scattered over great distances,

limit the prospects of mechanization, but there is considerable dissipation of energy and time in

moving from one field to another, The lessons from the study in relation to rural agricultural

practices and traditional systems of land organization and ownership, is that raising agricultural

121

productivity and consequently improved farm incomes in rural communities would require

structural changes in land organization, land ownership and use in rural farming communities.

The survey was found relevant to the present study because it provided ample evidence

that showed that poor access to educational opportunities and non-easy availability of land for

farming were core poverty indicators among rural farmers in Nigeria. In addition, the survey

identified comprehensive functional literacy and continuing education oriented to the basic needs

of rural farmers as the sustainable approach to poverty and hunger reduction among rural

farmers. These issues constituted the assumptions of the present research work. Thus policies,

programmes and factors that help to increase access to and the proper utilization of educational

opportunities and agricultural resources by rural farmers are effective in reducing poverty and

hunger.

Classification of Farmers based on Literacy Status

In another study carried out in North Central Region of the United States and reported by

the Central Region Publication, N0.13 (1961) and reviewed by Obibuaku (1983), farmers in a

rural community were found to fall into five categories based on their differences in educational

attainments and other characteristics such as rates of adoption of farm innovations recommended

and introduced through agricultural extension service. Figure 6 below is a graphic representation

of the classification of rural farmers into categories based on their levels of education and easy

adoption of new farm innovations emanating from research and packaged for delivery by

extension.

Fig 6: Classification of Rural Farmers According To Time of Adoption of New Farm Practices

% O

f fa

rmer

s h

avin

g

Ad

op

ted

2.5

EARLY ADOPTORS

13%

EARLY MAJORITY

34%

LATE MAJORITY

34% LAGGARDS

16%

-00Time Required for Adoption +00

Source: Agricultural Extension as a Strategy for Agricultural Transformation\by Obibuaku L.O. (1983)

122

The first group called “INNOVATORS” was made up of about 2.5% of the total farming

population. The farmers in this group have more education than the rest. They read more, were

more knowledgeable and experienced, were in constant contact with research stations and

information, took great risk in trying new ideas, quickly adopted potentially profitable

innovations and had highest incomes.

The second category designated “EARLY ADOPTERS” had more education than average, were

not as competent and versatile as the innovators in their farm operations, but were quick to adopt

an improved practice as soon as it was introduced to them. This constituted 13% of the

population of rural farmers.

The other two groups “EARLY MAJORITY” and “THE LATE MAJORITY” together make

up the majority (68%) of the farming population. Early majority had more education than the

average while the late majority had less education. The sizes of their farms and income from

farm operations were about average. They were found to be generally receptive to new ideas, but

may not go out of their way to seek information. They tended to be local in their contacts and

may read articles on farming matters from newspapers and magazines, but did not read research

or technical papers. They listened to the radio and television for agricultural information but

remained aloof from agricultural agencies.

The last group was called “LATE ADOPTERS” or “LAGGARDS” These had the least

education and were poor and least economically well off. This group repose more confidence in

agricultural “magic” and in traditional beliefs than in modern agricultural science. They neither

read nor attend educational meetings. Farm practices which innovators adopted the first year they

were known were not adopted by laggards 10 years after. The laggards made up 16% of the

farming population.

The important lesson drawn from this study is that there is a close relationship existing

between the level of education of a farmer and his ability to adopt new farm technologies and

innovations. The same factor affected the farmer’s capacity to utilize new farm technologies.

These lessons were significant to the present the study which was predicated on the premise that

improved educational attainment among rural farmers was the right step in the direction towards

improving agricultural productivity which enhances poverty and hunger reduction, and the

eradication of illiteracy.

123

The literacy status of rural farmers in Nigeria has already been established as low. The Core

Welfare Indicator Questionnaire Survey (NBS,2006), affirms that illiterate and pre-literate

farmers are the dominant groups in most rural communities in Nigeria, especially among whom

are the elderly of the age bracket (45-65 years). This fact of low standard of education and

illiteracy, when matched with the time of adoption of new farm technologies, mean that these

farmers would tend to be tradition-bound, resisting agricultural change and adopting improved

farm practices more slowly than farmers with high literacy levels. Such disposition increases

the farmer’s vulnerability and leads them deeper and deeper into of poverty and hunger.

The results of this study reviewed are in consonance with the present study which sought to

strengthen the farmer’ capacity to understand and use new farm technologies and innovations,

and improve their means of livelihood through functional literacy and continuing farmer

education procedures. A major finding of the study clearly specified the crucial role of farmer

literacy education as constituting the driving force in the development of the capacity of the rural

farmer to utilize modern farm technologies which is crucial to increased farm productivity.

Enhancing Rural farmers’ Capacity through Functional Literacy

In yet another study on Literacy Education Campaign for Rural Women carried out by the

Adult Literacy Organization of Zimbabwe (ALOZ), as reported in African Farmer Magazine

1993, it was noted that although literacy was a key component of rural women’s education, it

can best be described as building - bloc and a springboard that enabled rural women to become

active informed participants in all areas of development. According to the Director of ALOZ

(African Farmer, 1993), literacy education for rural women farmers should not be taught in

isolation, but must be linked to community development needs and taught as part of human

activities. Its methodology is of the psycho-social literacy model and starts with a discussion of

an everyday problem, such as sources and availability of farm inputs and credit; problems of

marketing and distribution of farm produce, better nutrition and health education; pest and

disease control. This methodology according to ALOZ is based on the use of illustrations and

skits, from which new words are learned. In the same manner, numeric lessons are geared

towards keeping simple farm accounts, cost of inputs against the likely outputs, profit margins

and how these can best be used to meet household needs. The present research borrowed heavily

from these principles as constituting the new paradigm in farmer education.

124

Evidence from a beneficiary of ALOZ indicated that through literacy classes, she had

learned to give her children a balanced diet everyday, using the ordinary foods available at home.

She also agreed having learnt to grow a variety of new vegetables. In another dimension, the

same beneficiary affirmed her new ability to read and write; and can also read sewing patterns

and recipes, sign up for agricultural loans, read and understand the letter codes on seeds and

fertilizer packs, and budget for the family needs and farming activities. These feats were not

possible as an illiterate farmer (African Farmer 1993). As a neo-literate, this beneficiary

recalled with regrets her predicament before she learned to read and write. According to this

beneficiary, she used to rely on a friend to fill in and sign her loan forms. That, according to her

made her nervous for not being sure what she was signing for. Similarly, when grains were sold

to the Grains Marketing Board, she could only sign for the cheque with an “X” That could be

very dangerous as well, since anyone can sign with the “X” and take away the cheque. These

misfortunes emanating from illiteracy were typical of illiterate rural farmers in Nigeria. Hence

the study sought to identify educational procedures that will facilitate the elimination of illiteracy


Again the study noted that fertilizers, seeds and other farm inputs are letter-coded. Another

beneficiary of ALOZ noted that if one doesn’t know numerals and the alphabets, one might buy

the wrong thing (African Magazine, 1983). Other benefiting farmers from the farmer Literacy

Education Programme(ALOZ) saw training and literacy as means of finding employment and

increasing ones income. The jobs available in the rural areas, such as training with the Ministry

of Health to be a village health worker, or training for electoral and national census jobs and

other such ad hoc employments, are only available to people who can read and write. Such jobs

often provide off-farm income which augments the farmers’ earning.

The study also provided evidence to show that there was a link between women’s education

and a reduction in infant mortality as well as improved natural resources management.

Furthermore, the study noted that investment in women’s education has an important impact on

the economy and enhances the development process. In conclusion, managers of ALOZ asserted

that literacy education classes can help rural farmers increase their farm productivity and in the

long reduce poverty. Again the study also noted that literacy education also improved rural

farmer’s self steam and confidence, especially in public places, and gives them a voice in

community affairs. Both the objectives and methodology of the Literacy Education Campaign

for Rural Women were in tandem with the purpose of the study. These strategies adopted by

125

ALOZ can be replicated and adopted as a farmer literacy education option for rural farmers in

Nigeria.

The Relevancy of the Empirical Studies to the Research Work

Causes and indicators of poverty and hunger

Generally, inefficient farmer education and high rate of illiteracy among rural farmers

weaken the productive capacity of the rural labour force.Low farm productivity and

consequently poor income causes poverty and hunger among rural farmers. Other cultural and

environmental reasons causing poverty and hunger include small-farm holdings, rudimentary

traditional farm practices, landlessness and shortened fallow periods.

Role of farmer literacy education in poverty and hunger alleviation

Facts gleaned from the review, indicated that functional farmer literacy education consist in

not only continuing education for achieving self-reliance in the 3R’s among rural farmers, but

education to enhance farm production and teach life surviving skills includingapplication of

science and technology in the farm production system; sanitation.

FarmerLiteracy Education Strategies in the Context of Poverty and HungerReduction.

The review of empirical studies found evidence that demonstrated the effectiveness of the

psycho-socio and the androgogical methods as farmer education strategies suitable for assisting

rural illiterate farmers in the learning to learn process. Empirical studies have also shown that

these methodologies have been proven to be efficient and successful in imparting literacy skills

to non-literate adult farmers as well as teaching modern agricultural knowledge and skills in an

integrated approach. This fusion of modern farm knowledge and literacy skills not only dent the

vicious cycle of poverty, hunger and illiteracy among rural farmers but also empower them with

greater capacity to produce and generate more income.

Impact of Government Rural Agricultural programmes on Farmer Literacy Education for

Rural Farmers

The empirical studies reviewed revealed that rural literacy education initiatives and poverty

alleviation were considered mainly, the responsibility of government at all levels. References to

this assertion were drawn from the Adult Literacy Organization of Zimbabwe (ALOZ) and the

National Literacy Mission (NLM) of India. The successes of these farmer educational

programmes initiated and promoted by the national governments of these countries further

emphasized the fact that government at all levels should take the initiatives in anti-poverty and

126

rural literacy campaigns as major steps towards rural economic development and growth. The

responsibility for sustainable rural agricultural development and poverty alleviation require

creating new ways of thinking and entails the satisfaction of not only basic needs of the rural

poor but also enhancing their participation in social, cultural and other economic activities.

These experts argued that government must not only provide the institutional framework for

educating rural farmers but also co-ordinate efforts in timely provision of funds, personal, and

material resources to facilitate the process (Akenson, 1984).

But evidence from past government rural agricultural intervention programmes in Nigeria,

reveal an over emphases on projects tailored toward increased food production, with little or no

attention paid to the human capital development aspects of rural farmers. Hence experts in

community development have ascribed the failures of such programmes to the inability of

farmers to keep pace with the technical know-how involved in programme content which are

often regarded as impositions on rural farmers (Udo, 1990). These experts point to the

bureaucratic and high technological nature of the programmes which were often out of touch

with the means and realities of the farmers’ felt needs (Mafeje, 2001). In addition, most

government rural agricultural programmes have often come under severe criticisms for the

nature of their ‘big time’ technologies which rural farmer fail to adopt due to high rate of

illiteracy among rural farmers and scarce resources (Udo,2005). As a result government rural

agricultural intervention programme over the years have not exerted any appreciable impact on

increased rural agricultural productivity. For these reasons, it has become imperative that

government must promote rural literacy programmes as one of its priority activities in poverty

and hunger reduction efforts.

Benefits of Farmer Literacy Education (FLE) to the Poor Rural Farmer

The review had underscored the need for rural farmers to acquire basic literacy skills

significantly for its central focus on enhancing the capacity of rural farmers in the adoption of

improved farm practices leading to poverty alleviation and their general well being. As basic to

farmer education, literacy promotion was seen to be directly concerned with the production

needs and living conditions of rural farmers. And when combined with improved farm practices

relevant to their immediate farming needs and other rural economic activities, FLE helps to

enhance the productive capacity and improve the living conditions of rural farmers. Above all,

farmer literacy education facilitates the adoption and application of science and technology and

innovations in the farm production process.

127

Obviously, empirical evidences abound to the effect that farmer literacy education with

emphasis on the acquisition of literacy skills and modern agricultural knowledge is necessary

for rural farmers, men and women, to enable them understand scientific agriculture and adopt

such new ideas and improved farm technologies as will propel them for greater productivity,

improved income generation and the attainment of decent standards of living. These facts were

found relevant to the present study and have been included as the core issues in poverty and

hunger reduction discourse among rural farmers. Hence these facts and ideas have been adopted

to guide the study. The challenge of the study was therefore to harmonize these unique ideas,

experiences and strategies in farmer education into a universal trend, thus building on them to

enhance the quality of the study. The adoption of these facts for the study was based on the

premise that it is significant to learn from the successes and failures of past anti-poverty and rural

literacy education programmes, and to apply such knowledge in appraising future endeavors in

this regard.

Summary of Literature Review

Various related literatures were reviewed on the causes and indicators of poverty and hunger

among rural farmers. The review included the role of farmer literacy education in poverty and

hunger reduction among rural farmers; and the need to identify functional farmer literacy

education strategies that can empower rural farmers to acquire basic literacy skills in addition to

modern agricultural knowledge and improved practices. It also examined the impact of

government rural agricultural intervention programmes on farmer literacy education. The review

identified the critical role of farmer literacy education in breaking the vicious circle of poverty,

hunger and illiteracy confronting rural farmers and how this can aid them in achieving poverty

and hunger reduction at the threshold.

Furthermore, literature review explored extensively various concepts, theories and principles

of adult learning, and various forms of adult literacy education approaches for educating and

training illiterate rural farmers. The review included a conceptual framework of farmer literacy

education strategy as illustrate by an Egg Model. In addition, adult learning theories and

convectional forms of farmer education as exemplified in agricultural extension and the Research

– Extension – Farmer Linkage – System (RFELS) model were reviewed. Furthermore, a System

Approach to improving the role of extension as a farmer education strategy in the light of the

changing circumstances of the rural farmer and farming systems was highlighted. Finally the

culmination of ideas from the review of literature, led to the conceptualization of another

128

framework of the operational elements of a new paradigm shift in farmer education. Farmer

Literacy Education was therefore identified as the new paradigm in imparting modern farm

knowledge, basic literacy skills and improved farm techniques as means to enhancing the

productive capacity of rural farmers. In all, the review of literature provided the guidelines and

direction to the study and in providing the strategies needed to deal holistically with the

problems of poverty and hunger reduction among rural farmers through the educational process.

Literature review indicated that the problem of food insufficiency, hunger and malnutrition

is linked to poverty and economic insecurity on one hand, and to poor educational attainment and

illiteracy among rural farmers on the other. In other words hunger, undernourishment and

malnutrition cannot be dissociated from poverty and economic deprivations, with illiteracy as the

rider. Shortage and insufficiency of foodstuff and ignorance of available substitutes were also

identified as causal factors to hunger, malnutrition and undernourishment. But the bottom line is

the inability of the individual to purchase other substitute commodities to add to ones own

production due to poverty. Without enough and quality food to eat, rural farmers are caught in a

vicious circle of poverty, hunger and disease. In this regard, the generally accepted idea was that

poverty refers to inability for an individual or a family to maintain the minimum living standard

required for comfort and healthy living.

Furthermore, the review noted that functional literacy education was urgently needed as a

necessary pre-condition for economic development and recovery of the rural communities. It was

asserted that literacy education increases the farmer’s stock of knowledge and enhances his

capacity to learn, adopt and apply modern farmer practices more readily. Moreover, with basic

literacy, there was a diminishing time in efforts required by extension agents to teach farmers of

and transfer new farm technologies to them Experts therefore argued that if rural poverty and

hunger reduction goals were to be achieved; and if tremendous strides were to be made in rural

agricultural technological advancement, then the gap between research and extension on one

hand and fundamental literacy for rural farmers on the other hand, must be bridged. The

challenge of the present study was to bridge this gap. It was the general purpose of the study to

identify relevant and functional farmer literacy education models that can teach modern

agricultural knowledge and basic literacy skills in an integrated approach to rural farmers, as

means to facilitating poverty and hunger reduction.

Contrary to age old misconception, traditionally teaching the basic skills of literacy and

numeracy has not been an agricultural extension activity. Information from literate review

129

revealed that the limited success of rural adult literacy programmes in Nigeria organized and

packaged as part of rural agricultural extension services has made a case for a paradigm shift

from extension to a more functional approach to farmer literacy education for rural farmers. In

the new paradigm, agricultural extension only has an important part to play, that is, agricultural

technology transfer and information dissemination. Traditionally, agricultural extension focuses

mainly on agricultural (mainly food) production. But today , literature is replete with reasons

why agricultural extension has failed to solve the myriad of problems confronting rural farmers;

and why rural agricultural has failed to keep pace with the challenges of rapidly increasing

population, growing food shortages, and other socio-economic deprivations. These problems

according to experts require more highly trained specialized and technically competent farmers

and farm workers who also must know where to obtain relevant information needed in the farm

production process. This situation has provoked interest in research in this direction.

Consequently, the present study sought to identify functional approaches to educating rural

farmers to build their capacity to respond effectively to modern farm production and

management techniques; and the adaptation and utilization of emerging modern farm

technologies. In this way, rural farmers would achieve improved agricultural production,

increased food self-sufficiency and decent livelihood, and in the long run alleviate poverty,

reduce hunger and acquire basic literacy skills. This was the main thrust of the study.

In another dimension, sufficient evidence from the review of literature lent support to the

idea that farmer literacy education should primarily be devoted towards increasing the literacy

statusof rural farmers and improving their occupational competences as conditions necessary to

achieving poverty and hunger reduction. From another perspective, the review of literature also

expressed the idea that farmer literacy education for rural farmers is not only a process of

increasing rural productivity and income, but also a betterment of ideas and values so as to

empower the rural people in their struggle to get rid of poverty. In a similar vein, Agricultural

Education Experts are in agreement that functional literacy has the potential to beat rural

poverty. The mission of the current research work was therefore to explore the use of Farmer

Literacy Education to promote rural literacy which will facilitate the achievement of poverty and

hunger reduction among rural farmers through improved farming.

130

CHAPTER THREE

METHODOLOGY

This chapter described the procedures adopted for the study and are presented under the

following sub-headings: Design of the study; Area of the Study; Population of the Study;

Sample and Sampling Technique; Instrument for Data Collection; Validation of the Instrument;

Reliability of the Instrument; Method of Data Collection and Method of Data Analysis.

Design of the Study

The Descriptive Survey Research Design was adopted for the study, Osuala (2005) asserted

that this mode of research design is not only versatile and empirical but also helps to identify

present conditions of a phenomenon and to point to future needs. He further stressed that this

design deals with phenomena in their actual settings. Therefore the descriptive survey design and

procedures were deemed appropriate and relevant to the research process. This is because the

present study involved direct and physical interactions with rural farmers in their communities.

Generally, surveys are field-based activities involving the first-hand collection and presentation

of data to give a clearer picture of a particular situation; and are oriented towards the

determination of the status of a given phenomenon (Eboh, 2009). He further justified this

technique when he noted that it is fact-finding in nature and focuses on selective dimensions of a

phenomenon. In view of this, the descriptive survey research design was used in assessing the

poverty and hunger status of rural farmers and to provide information on the use of functional

farmer literacy education for educating rural farmers towards enhanced agricultural productivity

leading to poverty and hunger reduction, and improved literacy rates among rural farmers.

Area of the Study

The study was carried out in AbiaState of Nigeria. The state has seventeen Local

Government Areas (LGAs) and three geo-political zones. But for purposes of agricultural

production administration and management, the state is divided into three agricultural ecological

zones namely: Aba, Ohafia and Umuahia zones (Abia ADP, 2005). Agriculture remain an

important economic activity and a major means of livelihood throughout Abia state, with the

majority of the people in the rural communities engaged in subsistence farming as the economic

activity (Abia State Official Hand Book, 1991-1997).

131

The major economic crops produced by rural farmers in all three agriecozones include cocoa, oil

palm, rubber, kola nuts and timber species; while arable crops such as yam, cassava, maize, rice,

cocoyam, plantain and banana including a wide variety of vegetables, all at the subsistence

level. Therefore the economy of the rural communities in all the three agiecozones is purely

agrarian (Abia State Official Hand Book, 1991-1997).

However, the study focused on rural farmers in the Ohafia agriecozone. The zone is a

typical representative of the other two zones - Aba and Umuahia, sharing in common with

them the same characteristics in terms of climatic regimes, agricultural production systems, and

land use patterns, including rural economic activities; and such demographic problems as rural-

urban migration and low educational attainment. But in all, little differences do exist in economy

among the zones, especially as a result of intense administrative, commercial and industrial

activities in the Aba and Umuahia zones, with petroleum exploration activities in Aba zone in

particular (Niger Delta Human Development Report-NDHDR 2006). In addition, Umuahia is the

administrative headquarters of AbiaState and so is heavily influenced by civil service structures

and other governmental activities. These factors have severally and collectively exerted great

influence on the socio-economic structure and activities in rural communities of these two zones.

Consequently, there is high rate of agricultural exit among rural farmers in the two zones when

compared to the situation in the Ohafia agriecozone. Additionally, industries and commercial

ventures in Aba and Umuahia zones offer unlimited off–farm employment opportunities to rural

farmers (NDHDR, 2006). As a result, Ohafia agriecozone with a larger population of active rural

farmers when compared to other two agriecozones; and being the least urbanized,

commercialized and industrialized was adopted and used as the area of the study

Population of the Study

The population of the study was 4370. This was made up of rural farmers, extension agents,

enumerators, facilitators and lecturers as follows: 4239 registered rural farmers under the

Farmers’ Multi-Purpose Co-operative Societies (FMPCS) in Ohafia agriecozone; 76 extension

staff of the Abia State Ministry of Agriculture and Agricultural Development Programme (ADP);

25 enumerators from the National Bureau of Statistics (NBS), Abia State Office; 20 facilitators

from the Abia State Community–based Poverty Reduction Programme (ABCPRP); and 10

lecturers from the Departments of Agricultural Education; and Agricultural Extension and Rural

Sociology, Michael Okpara University of Agriculture , (MOUA), Umudike.

132

Lecturers from the Federal University of Agriculture, Umudike, were included because of

their professional knowledge in teaching and designing appropriate learning models for

educating various interest groups in the agricultural sector and for their involvement in

programme planning in University Co-operative Extension Work. The enumerators were ad-hoc

field workers engaged by National Bureau of Statistics (NBS) for core welfare and poverty

survey studies in rural communities. They were involved in the study because of their experience

in this regard. The facilitators were also ad-hoc workers of the Abia State Community–based

Poverty Reduction Programme (ABCPRP). They were used for the study because of their roles

in assisting rural communities to determine and identify their development needs. The rural

farmers were included in the study to appraise and evaluate the benefits of farmer literacy

education to them, individually and collectively in enhancing their productive capacity and

improving their standards of living through increased farm production. The extension agents

were involved because of their long standing role as the closest partner to rural farmers in the

research – extension linkage through which research information and innovations are passed on

to farmers.

Sample and Sampling Technique

The sample size was 1483 respondents, comprising 25 enumerators, 20 facilitators, 76

extension staff and 10 university lecturers, and 1352 rural farmers. The Snowball Sampling

Technique was used to select the enumerators and facilitators respectively. According to Osuala

(2004) this method is used when there is no formal listing of staff which can serve as a sampling

framework. In such circumstances the management of the institutions concerned is requested to

recommend the staff with the requisite characteristics for use in the study. The strength of this

method is that it is used when the potential respondents are likely to be skeptical about the

intensions of the researcher (Osuala, 2004). In the circumstance, management will attest to the

legitimacy of the study and recommend the subjects to be used. Both the enumerators of the

National Bureau of Statistics (NBS) and facilitators of the Abia state Community-based Poverty

Reduction Programme (ABCPRP) were all ad-hoc workers and not usually included in the

official staff nominal rolls of these institutions

The extension staff included all staff in the extension department of the Ministry of

Agriculture and Agricultural Development Programme (ADP) deployed within the Ohafia

agriecozone (see Table3 in Appendix N: ADP Field Staff Disposition 2005). They were made

up of two groups namely 57 Extension Agents (EAs), and 19 Extension Managers (EMs). The

133

entire population of extension staff and all 10 lecturers from the department Agricultural

Extension and Rural Sociology of the Michael Okpara University of Agriculture Umudike were

used for the study. These two populations did not require any sampling because of the smallness

of their numbers.

The Ohafia Agriecozone had 9 registered Farmer-Multi-Purpose Co-operative Societies

(FMPCS) with 4239 rural farmers located in 9 communities of the zone (see Table 2 in

Appendix B). The Cluster or Area sampling method was applied in the selection of male

farmers from the 9 communities. The Ministry of Co-operatives and Poverty Reduction provided

the characteristics which served as the sampling framework. Of the 4239 registered farmers in

the zone, 3360 were male farmers and 879 females (See Appendix B). Using the Cluster

sampling technique, a sample size of 1352 male farmers was achieved and used for the study.

Cluster sampling was necessitated by the fact that the populations of the male farmers were very

large and widely dispersed and would be cumbersome to deal with the entire population (Nkpa

1997). Cluster sampling, according to Eboh (2009), is suitable for use when relatively common

conditions are being investigated, which in this instance included the incidence of poverty,

hunger and illiteracy among rural farmers and the strategies needed for their alleviation.

Instrument for Data Collection

Questionnaire was the instrument designed for data collection. The instrument consisted of

two major sections: section one was designed to obtain information on the demographic

characteristics of the respondents; while section two consisted of items based on the purpose of

the study. Section two had five sub-sections: Sub-section 1 was designed to elicit information on

the causes of poverty and hunger among rural farmers; Sub-section 2 comprised items that dealt

with the identification of the roles of farmer literacy education in enhancing their agricultural

production capacities of rural farmers as means to achieving poverty and hunger reduction. Sub-

section 3 examined various farmer literacy education models that can effectively be adopted to

teach modern agricultural knowledge and new farm technologies, and impart basic literacy

skills in an integrated approach as means to improving farm productivity, changing the

outlook of rural farmers and enhancing their living standards. Sub-section 4 dealt with items

designed and structured to garner information on the impact of government rural agricultural

intervention programmes in promoting rural literacy as means to facilitating poverty and hunger

reduction among rural farmers. Sub-section 5 sought to obtain data on the benefits to rural

134

farmers of farmer literacy education in the context of eradicating illiteracy and achieving poverty

and hunger reduction at the threshold. In all cases, a 4-point scale code of graduated response

categories was adopted for each questionnaire item. The response options were of two types:

viz: (i) Strongly Agree (SA= 4); Agree (A=3): Disagree (DA=2); and Strongly Disagree (SD=1)

and, (ii) Very High Extent (VHE=4); High Extent (HE= 3); Low Extent (LE=2); Very Low

Extent (VLE=1) (for sub-section 3 only). The use of scale codes not only permitted varied

responses to the items, but also indicated the level or extent of agreement or disagreement with

the items (Nwanna, 1981).

Validation of the Instrument

The questionnaires developed for the study were subjected to face validation. This procedure was

applied to determine whether or not the instruments on their face values can appropriately

measure the attributes they set out to measure. The cardinal objective was to ascertain the extent

to which the items of the questionnaires were relevant to the purpose of the study and to the

research questions and hypotheses (Nwanna, 1987). In carrying out the exercise of instrument

validation, draft copies of the questionnaires were presented to 3 lecturers in the Department of

Vocational Teacher Education (Agricultural Education) of the University of Nigeria, Nsukka.

The essence was for these experts to vet, check and appraise the items contents and their

relevance to the specific purposes of the study; and the level of appropriateness of the items to

the respondents in terms of clarity of language. Recommendations and suggestions by these

professionals were adopted and used in writing the final copies of the questionnaires.

Reliability of the Instrument

The reliability coefficient of the instrument was tested and computed using the Cronbach

Alpha Technique. The technique provided a measure of internal consistency of the instrument.

This technique is most appropriately used to estimate the reliability of multi-item instruments

(Mkpa, 1997).This method provided an estimate of expected correlation of one instrument with

an alternative form composed of the same number of items To achieve this, copies of the

questionnaires were administered on 10 lecturers from the department of Agricultural Education,

Abia State University,(ABSU) Uturu, on two different occasions, within an interval of two

weeks and the items presented in reversed order on each occasion. Drawing the trial group from

outside the area of study was to ensure that the subjects used for testing the reliability of the

135

instruments were excluded from the target group used for the actual study. This guaranteed that

the target group had no pre-knowledge of the instrument and hence enables the respondents to

exercise high degree of independence in their reactions and responses to the questionnaire items.

Data obtained (x and y) from the alternative forms of the instruments in the two separate

administrations were correlated using the Cronbach Alpha formula (α). The result gave an

average Cronbach alpha value of 0.82 reliability of the instrument (See Appendix J for details

on computations).

Methods of Data Collection

The major technique used in data collection was the use of questionnaires. These

instruments were administered to respondents through personal contacts. The services of

professional colleagues, notably teachers of agricultural science in the senior secondary schools

and extension agents within the area of the study, were engaged to facilitate the delivery and

administration of the instruments to rural farmers. This procedure ensured proper filling and

prompt return of completed copies of the instrument, especially those administered on rural

farmers. This administrative procedure also ensured prompt and high rate of return of completed

copies of the instrument from the population of the study. Interactive sessions were also held

between the researcher and professional colleagues engaged for instrument administration during

which briefs and tutorials on the correct and proper ways to fill out the questionnaire were

outlined. In this way, these research assistants were empowered to function effectively as

facilitators in providing proper guidance to the respondents.

Methods of Data Analysis

Parametric statistical tests and measures of association were used in data analysis.

Specifically, analysis of data involved the application of frequency distribution table, the mean

score, standard deviation, t- and z-tests. The frequency distribution table was used to summarize

the distribution of responses to each item of the questionnaire. It assisted in organizing and

summarizing the scale values assigned to the response categories and subsequently used to

compute the mean. The mean (x) represented the average of responses to each item of the

questionnaire and indicated the items to which respondents agreed to or disagreed with. The

Standard Deviation (SD) was computed to determine the extent of the degree of variability of

each item mean from the standard mean of the scale values. The product was used to determine

136

the degree of extent of agreement and disagreement to the items. Both the t-test and z-test were

computed to test the null hypotheses of no significant difference at 0.05 alpha levels. The values

obtained were used to establish the significance or no significance of the meanratings of

respondents. The t-test was applied to small sample sizes of less than 30 (n < 30); while the z-test

was applied to larger sample sizes of more than 30 (n >30). To reach conclusion on the level of

agreement or disagreement to any item, a mean value of 2.50 and above was regarded as Agreed,

whereas any mean value of less than 2.50 was equated to imply Disagree. (See Appendix D for

computation of real number limits).

The null hypotheses (Ho: 1-5) of no significant difference were tested at the 0.05 alpha level

of significance The null hypothesis (Ho) was rejected if the calculated t-value or z-value was

greater than the critical or table values. Ho is accepted when the calculated values are less than

the critical value or table values both for the t- and z-tests.

137

CHAPTER FOUR

PRESENTATION AND ANALYSIS OF DATA

This chapter presented data collected for the study. The summary, analysis and

interpretation of these data was done to provide answers to the research questions and to test the

hypothesis. The results of the analyses of data were presented in tables based on the research

questions and the hypotheses, with brief discussions on the findings.

Research Question 1:

What are the cause of poverty and hunger among rural farmers?

Data for answering the research question are presented in Table 1.

Table 1: Means ratings of the Opinions of Respondents on the Causes of Poverty and

Hunger among Rural Farmers

S/N Causes of Poverty and Hunger Enumerators

N=25

Facilitators

N = 20

__

X

SD

__

X

SD

DECISION

1. Land rights and uncertain land tenure-ship which limits access to farming lands

3.12 0.76 3.50 0..47 Agreed

2 Landlessness and fragmentation of farm holdings resulting to small farm plots and low farm productivity.

3.00 0.74 3.20 0.40 Agreed

3 Depletion of rural agricultural labour force due to rural-urban migration of able bodied youths

3.20 0.56 3.10 0.53 Agreed

4 Further depletion of rural labour force with the introduction of Universal Basic Education (UBE)

2.84 0.73 3.10 0.83 Agreed

5 Chronic incapacity of adult farmers to work and decline in this incapacity due to endemic and pandemic diseases – Malaria, Guinea worm infestation HIV/AIDS etc.

2.88 0.99 2.90 0.84 Agreed

6 Poor access to credit facilities which limits rural farmers’ ability to acquire and use new farm technologies and other inputs.

3.60 0.49 2.25 0.44 Agreed

7 Poor rural infrastructural base, which adversely affect transportation and distribution of farm input and output.

3.00 0.63 2.95 0,74 Agreed

138

8 The exploitative activities of middlemen in the marketing and distribution of farm produce which reduced profit margins of rural farmers.

3.28 0.44 2.40 0.66 Agreed

9 Obsolete farming skills and lack of training in farm entrepreneurship among rural farmers

3.24 0.42 3.50 0.59 Agreed

10 The high farmer-extension ratio, which reduce the effectiveness and efficiency of research information and technology dissemination to rural farmers.

2.80 0.84 2.95 0.73 Agreed

11 Failure of agricultural extension service to improve the literacy c competences of rural farmers

3.40 0.48 3.1 0.83 Agreed

12 The incapacity of rural farmers to adopt new technologies, research findings and changes in farm production systems due to illiteracy.

3.00 0.80 3.25 0.62 Agreed

13 Gender disparity and discrimination in agricultural production activities, which undermines the contributions of rural women farmers in the production process.

3.16 0.42 3.25 0.94 Agreed

14 Poor rural infrastructural base and inadequate access to social goods such roads, transport, which limit access to markets.

3.32 0.61 3.25 0.64 Agreed

15 Backwardness in values and ideology among rural farmer due to popular superstitions.

3.12 0,86 3.35 0.65 Agreed

16 Poor application of science and technology in the farming process and low technical know-how.

3.28 0.72 3.35 0.65 Agreed

17 Unsatisfactory quality of rural agricultural production labour force and poor skills.

3.12 0.76 3.25 0.43 Agreed

18 Abandoning of rural farming families by make household-heads for off-farm employment and in search of greener pasture leaving house wives with family burden.

3.16 0.46 3.50 0.50 Agreed

19 High rates of illiteracy among farming family heads. 3.12 0.76 3.42 0.48 Agreed

20 Poorly educated human resources and poor human capital development of the rural communities

3.24 0.70 3.70 0.46 Agreed

21 Environmental degradation and soil degeneration due to poor utilization of agricultural resources and traditional farming practices.

3.28 0.44 3.40 0.66 Agreed

139

The data presented in table 12 showed that all 21 items depicting the causes of poverty

and hunger among rural farmers had means ranging from 2.80 to 4.10. These means are above

the cut-off point of 2.50. This showed that respondents agreed with these items as factors causing

poverty and hunger among rural farmers. Also these items had standard deviations ranging from

0.44 to 0.94, indicating that the respondents were in close agreement in their opinions and not far

from the mean.

Research Question 2

What role should Farmer Literacy Education play in the context of achieving poverty and hunger

reduction among rural farmers?

Data for answering this research question are summarized and presented in table 2. The data are

based on the mean opinions of rural farmers.

Table 2: The mean opinions of rural farmers on the role of farmer literacy education in the

context of achieving poverty and hunger reduction among rural farmers

N = 1210

S/N Role of farmer literacy education in the context of poverty and hunger reduction among rural farmers

__

X

SD DECISION

1. Raise the literacy levels of rural farmers and thus enabling them to read, write and count.

3.28 0.45 Agreed

2 Enable rural farmers to acquire the skills of transmitting and receiving message in an intelligible manner in written forms

3.16 0.40 Agreed

3 Provides means of modifying attitudes and behaviour of rural farmers towards modern farming techniques and technologies.

3.33 0,47 Agreed

4. Enable and improve farmers’ capacity to adopt and adapt new farm innovations

3.31 0.45 Agreed

5 Serve as means for obtaining information and pivot for further learning

03.26 0.55 Agreed

6 Empower rural farmers with the ability to judge and choose farming systems with the best prospect of improving their lives.

3.29 0.49 Agreed

7. Systematize the way farm technologies and farmers transform agricultural knowledge and research

3.32 0.51 Agreed

140

information into effective and useable field messages.

8. Offset the literacy imbalance inherent to the ministry of agriculture -type extension education.

3.48 0.50 Agreed

9. Educate farmers in resources management and efficient utilization of the factors of production for increased productivity.

3.32 0.51 Agreed

10. Development of better insight by rural farmers into the network of problems resulting from increasing complexities of changing socio-economic situations

3.30 0.77 Agreed

11. Strengthen the capacity of rural women farmers in the consolidation of the economic stability of rural farming families through active participation in farm production activities.

3.56 0.41 Agreed

12. Empower rural farmers in the management of farm crises and thus help reduce the effects of farm crises and farmers vulnerability to stress due to unexpected occurrences.

3.48 0.52 Agreed

13. Give farmer a voice of their own and thus reduce social and political exclusion of rural farmers in their communities and in decision making process.

3.50 0.52 Agreed

14. Give impetus for the quest not only of agricultural knowledge and facts but also for clearer understanding of issues.

3.47 0.51 Agreed

The mean values of the responses to these roles ranged from 3.16 - 3.56, all of which are

above the cut- off-point of 2.50, showing that all 14 items were accepted as the roles expected

of new approaches to Farmer Literacy Education. There is an overwhelming agreement among

respondents on these items as depicted by the standard deviation which ranged from 0.40 to 077.

This confirmed that the respondents are in close agreement with one another in their opinions.

Research Questions 3

What Farmer Literacy Education Strategies will be functional in teaching modern

agricultural knowledge and literacy skills to rural farmers in an integrated approach as means to

achieving poverty and hunger reduction among rural farmers?

141

Data for answering research question 3 are presented in table3. These data are based on the

ratings of agricultural educators on functional Farmer Literacy Education Strategies for

improving rural agricultural productivity and promoting rural literacy as approaches to achieving

poverty and hunger reduction among rural farmers.

Table 3: Mean opinions of respondents on functional Farmer Literacy Education Strategies (FLEMs) for educating rural farmers in the context of poverty and hunger reduction.

S/N

Farmer Literacy Education Models

Agric. Ext.

Managers: N=19

Voc. Agric.

Educators: N=10

__ X

SD

__ X

SD

DECISION

A The Traditional /Conventional Model 3.31 0.46 3.60 0.48 Agreed

B Functional/Relevant Model 3.47 0.25 3.20 1.14 Agreed

C Lyceum /Community Study Group Models 3.36 0.28 3.00 0.77 Agreed

D Group Study by Correspondence Model 1.26 0.43 1.90 0.20 Disagreed

E Mass Media Model (Electronic and Print

Media)

3.63 0.24 3.40 0.48 Agreed

F Liberal Education Model 2.89 0.45 270 0.78 Agreed

The data presented in the above table show six Farmers Literacy Education Models

(FLEMs) for teaching modern agricultural knowledge and functional literacy to rural farmers

who need literacy abilities and skills for the understanding and adoption of modern farm

technologies and entrepreneurial skills research. The means for the models ABCF ranged

between 2.89 to 3.63. This implied that these five models were rated high as farmer literacy

education models that can effectively teach modern agricultural technologies and basic literacy

skills needed by rural farmers to enhance their productive performance and living standards. The

value of standard deviation of the various models showed that respondents were close to the

mean and also to one another in their opinions.

Each farmer literacy education strategy has its content elements and objectives as indicated

in Appendix E. There are 42 content elements, out of which 36 elements had mean ratings of

above 2.50, indicating that respondents agreed with these strategies as possessing the educational

potential to upgrade the farmer’s knowledge and improve their literacy skills. However, six

content elements had means ranging from 1.26 and 1.90. These fell below the cut off-point of

2.50, indicating that respondents disagreed with these elements. The standard deviations also

142

ranged between 0.22 and 0.94, showing that the respondent did not differ widely in disagreeing

the item elements.

Research Question 4 What is the extent of the effects of government rural agricultural intervention

programmes in promoting farmer literacy education among rural farmers in the context of

poverty and hunger reduction?

Data for answering research question 4 are summarized and presented in table 4. The data are

based on rater’s assessment of the effesct of government rural agricultural interventions on

farmer literacy education programmes in the context of poverty and hunger reduction.

Table 4: Mean ratings of Agricultural Extension Agents (AEAs) on the extent of the effects of government rural agricultural intervention programmes on farmer literacy education programmes. N =57 S/N Effects of government rural agricultural

interventions on farmer literacy education.

Item Statement __ X

SD DECISION

1. Long term government capital investment and budgetary provisions in farmer literacy education programmes has taken rural agriculture to the desirable level of development

1.87 0.56 Low Extent

2 Farmer literacy education campaigns have been included in all government rural agricultural interventions as means to laying solid foundations for achieving increased and sustainable self-sufficiency in food production

2.87 1.03 High Extent

3 Linkage between agricultural institutions (Research, Extension) and rural farmers have been harnessed to stimulate efficiency in agricultural production through educational procedures.


4. Rural farmers are aware and properly educated on government land reform programmes thus enabling them easier access to land and acquisition of land rights


5. Farmer Literacy education programmes are essential components of all forms of rural


143

agricultural development planning.

6 Government rural development programmes have expanded the educational horizons of rural farmers enabling them cope with modern farming challenges.


7. Rural agricultural programmes have often included educating rural farmers on safety nets through providing early waning and response systems to anticipated farm disasters – disease and pest outbreaks, and drought.

1.47 0.51 Very low extent

8. Affirmative action to educate rural women and engender their participation in all agricultural and rural development programmes has received government official endorsement.


9. Rural farmers are involved in co-coordinating agricultural data collection at local levels to act as data bank for addressing their problems is a regular feature of the research-extension-farmers linkage system.


10. Farmers insist on maintenance of pricing policies and the grant of higher producer prices as means dealing with middlemen.


11. Women’s roles in agricultural production activities and their problems have been adequately taken care of in farmer education programmes.

0.44 0.51 Very low extent

The above table presented data on the extent of the impact of government rural agricultural

intervention programmes on farmer literacy education delivery to rural farmers. Eleven impact

assessment statements (IAS) were presented to the respondents for assessing the educational

impact of these intervention programmes on rural farmers. In all, only 4 items statements

recorded means ranging from 2.71 to 3.29, depicting that respondents agreed to a high extent that

government rural agricultural intervention programmes have exerted desirable educational

impact on rural farmers to a high extent. On the other hand, 7 items had means ranging from 1.47

to 1.87, indicating that raters agreed with these items as having very low educational impact on

rural farmers.

144

Research Question 5 What benefits would rural farmers derive from farmer literacy education as means to

achieving poverty and hunger reduction at the threshold?

The data for answering the research question is presented in table 5. These data are based on

rural farmers’ assessment of the benefits of farmer literacy education to them in achieving

poverty and hunger reduction at the level of the individual farmers’ household.

Table 5: Mean ratings of rural farmers on the benefits of farmer literacy education as means to achieving poverty and hunger reduction at the threshold N= 1210

S/N Benefits of farmer education to rural farming households in their production systems:

Item Statements. -- X

SD DECISION

1. Enable farmers to adopt various methods of intensification and diversification of existing and old farm production systems to provide satisfactory income for the farmer and family.

3.24 0.46 Agreed

2 Acquaints farmers with desirable knowledge needed to increase farm-holdings through better land acquisition strategies.

3.15 0.36 Agreed

3 Acquisitions of non-agricultural skills, through the educational process, to enable rural farmers engage in off-farm employment within particular seasons for extra income.

3.34 0.54 Agreed

4. Rural farmer develop capacity to seek and obtain agricultural loans from rural finance institutions guaranteed by government and Non-Government Organization (NGO).

3.81 0.41 Agreed

5. Developing capacities for networking among farmers through engaging in group activities such as co-operative farming, rotational saving, and joint marketing.

3.14 0.35 Agreed

6 Develop interest in seeking membership into national, state and local farmers’ unions as means of increasing farmer representation in the development process.

3.17 0.75 Agreed

7. Enables rural farmers to choose and adopt new farm technologies with local contents relevant to the farming system and avoiding the temptation of big time technologies.

3.66 0.45 Agreed

8. Increases awareness and the commitment of rural farmers to the use of extension inputs - improved varieties of seed and

3.91 0.30 Agreed

145

breeds of animals, including advice and counseling services

9. Rural farmers learn and develop ability to undertake initial farm-gate processing of produce to attract higher producer prices

3.34 0.49 Agreed

10. Acquire knowledge of better and efficient storage and preservation systems to minimize spoilage and waste and for product availability for the greater part of the year.

3.58 0.55 Agreed

11. Acquire knowledge and skills in soil, water and environmental conservation for sustainable productivity.

3.30 0.46 Agreed

12. Rural women farmers learn to and adopt modern technologies in the production of minor staples- vegetables, coco yam, maize, melon etc; and husbandry of poultry and small ruminants , as means of diversifications of production and generating additional family income.

3.70 0.51 Agreed

13. Male farmers to recognize and regard women farmers as equal partners in the production process.

3.33 0.49 Agreed

14 Rural women farmers to embrace farmer education and counseling services on “Eating Right” as means of improving family nutrition and essential needs.

3.41 0.54 Agreed

15. Strengthens women capacity in agricultural production through creating awareness for access to land, credit, extension services, and other inputs.

3.49 0.48 Agreed

16. Rural adult farmers acquire knowledge, skills and farming competences needed to face the challenges of population increases, urbanization, and environmental change.

3.32 0.51 Agreed

17. Acquisition of functional literacy which enables rural farmers to understand the language and content of research and farm technology transfer messages.

3.48 0.50 Agreed

18. Assist rural farmers to establish direct link with consumers and thus reduce the exploitative role of middlemen in the marketing and distribution of farm produce

3.75 0.45 Agreed

19. Acquisition of skills of reading, writing and counting and thus be able to sign confidential documents and keep simple records.

3.30 0.46 Agreed

20. Acquire literacy skills as means to seek employment opportunities outside the farming enterprises for extra income.

3.17 0.76 Agreed

146

The data presented in table 5 showed various strategies for achieving poverty and hunger

reduction at the individual farming family’s level through farmer literacy education procedures.

The mean scores of the item statements ranged from 3.14 to 3.91 indicating that rural farmers

were deriving benefits from farmer literacy education as means to facilitate poverty and hunger

reduction at the individual farmer’s household. The standard deviation of these strategies ranged

from 0.30 to 0.75. This implied that the rural farmers were close to one another in their responses

and to the mean.

Hypotheses 1: Significant difference does not exist between the men ratings of respondents on the causes of poverty and hunger among rural farmers at the α level of 0.05 and 2 degrees of freedom (DF) Table 6: Summary of z-test analysis on the mean ratings of respondents on the causes of poverty and hunger among rural farmers, at 0.05 alp level of significance and 2 degrees of freedom (df)

Sample Size df Mean Std

Error

Var z-cal z-tab

Enumerators (NBS)

25

43

65.2 7.17

850.20 1.02

1.96

Facilitators (ABCPRP)

20

57.9

347.89

The z-cal is less than the z-table, and so the hypothesis of no significant difference (Ho) between

the mean ratings of Enumerators and Facilitators is accepted at the 0.05 level of significance.

(See Appendix P for details of item by item analysis).

Hypothesis 2:

Experts do not differ significantly in their means ratings on the roles of farmer literacy education

in the context of poverty and hunger reduction among rural farmers.

Table 7 : Summary of z-test analysis on the mean opinions of respondents on the role of farmer literacy education in the context of poverty and hunger reduction among rural farmers Sample Size df Mean Std

Error Var-iance

z-cal z-tab

Agric. Extension Manager (AEMs)

19

74

47.00

12.45

810.42

1.02

1.96

Agric. Extenstion Agent

57

45.52

6409.86

147

The null hypothesis of no significant difference in the means responses of the raters is upheld

since the z-cal is less than the z-tab at the 0.05 level of significance (See Appendix Q for

detailed item by analysis).

Hypothesis 3:

There is no significant difference in the mean rating of experts on functional farmer literacy

education strategies for teaching agricultural knowledge with functional literacy to rural farmers

in an integrated approach.

Table 8: Summary of t-test analysis of the mean responses of experts on Farmer literacy Education Strategies for teaching modern agricultural knowledge with literacy skills to rural farmers in the context of achieving poverty and hunger reduction. Sample Size df Mean Std

Error Var-iance

z-cal z-tab

Agricultural Extension Manager

19

28

16.7 7.49

7.49

688.90 0.39

2.05

Agricultural Educators

10

13.8

198.20

Since t-cal is less than t-tab, the null hypothesis of no significant difference in the mean opinions

of the respondents is accepted at the 0.05 level of significance. (See Appendix Q detailed item

by item analysis).

Hypothesis 4

Respondents do not differ significantly in their responses on the extent of the impact of

government rural agricultural interventions on farmer literacy education programmes in the

context of poverty and hunger reduction.

Table 9: Summary of t-test analysis of no significant difference in the mean opinions of respondents on the extent of the effects of government rural agricultural intervention programmes on farmer literacy education delivery to rural farmers. Sample Size Df Mean Std

Error Var-iance

t-cal t-tab

Agricultural Extension Manager

19

27

26.96

9.80

976.79

-0.024

2.05

Voc. Agricultural Educators

10

27.43

3251.63

The data on table 9 indicate that all items reflecting the effect of government rural agricultural interventions on farmer literacy education programmes have t-calculated value less than the t-

148

table value of 2.05. The null hypothesis (Ho) of no significant difference is therefore upheld at the 0.05 level of significance (See Appendix S for detailed item analysis). Hypothesis 5 There is no significant difference in the mean ratings of respondents on the benefits of farmer

literacy education in achieving poverty and hunger reduction at the threshold of rural farmers.

Table 10: Summary of z-test computation of the opinions of rural farmers on the benefits

of farmer literacy education as means of acquiring literacy skills and modern agricultural

knowledge to facilitate the achievement poverty and hunger reduction at the individual

farmer’s household.

Sample Size Df Mean Std

Error Variance z-cal z-tab

NBS-Enumerators

25

80

66.44 13.97

1158.97 -0.08

1.96

Agricultural Extension Agents

57

67.56

8579.94

Since the calculated z-value (-0.08) is less that the critical z-value (1.96) at the 0.05 level of

significance and 2 degrees of freedom, Ho is accepted. (See Appendix T for detailed item

analysis

Findings of the Study

Based on information obtained from the analysis of the research questions and the results of

the hypotheses tested, the following findings emerged.

Causes of Poverty and Hunger among Rural Farmers

1. The study found an indication of a link between poverty, hunger, and rural agricultural

production performance.

2. Paucity of finance, poor access to rural agricultural credit, and poor utilization of modern

farm inputs were found to be significant factors to low rural agricultural productivity; and

therefore important in poverty and hunger considerations among rural farmers.

3, Illiteracy and low level educational attainment undermines the productive capacities of rural

farmers by inhibiting their capacity to adopt new agricultural technologies.

149

4. Poor rural infrastructural base adversely affect transportation, marketing and distribution of

farm inputs and outputs, which invariably affect production and capital returns to rural

farmers.

5. Rudimentary, traditional and labour intensive production practices among rural farmers are

major constraints to increased food production and improved income generation.

Role of Farmer Literacy Education in the Context of Poverty and Hunger

Reduction

The study made the following findings:

1. Farmer literacy education is needed to enable rural farmers acquire modern agricultural

knowledge along withliteracy skills.

2. Agricultural extension as a farmer education strategy has never been concerned with

imparting literacy skills needed by rural farmers to understand and apply research and

extension information to enhance their productivity and socio-economic conditions.

3. Functional farmer literacy education enhances rural farmer’s capacity in better resource

utilization of resources and environmental management.

4. Functional farmer education makes rural farmers active recipients of research findings and

extension messages rather than passive recipients.

5. Functional farmer literacy education programmes give rural farmers a voice of their own in

the decision making process and in public arena of politics.

6 Improved educational attainment and an enhanced agricultural knowledge are significant

factors in the fight against poverty and hunger reduction among rural farmers.

7. Basic literacy as component of all forms of farmer education programmes make rural

farmers dynamic partners in progress in agricultural and rural development planning

processes.

8. Fundamental literacy improves the farmer’s ability to adopt and apply new farm

technologies readily and with ease in the production process.

Functional Farmer Literacy Education Strategies for improving rural farmers’ scientific knowledge and literacy skills as means to poverty and hunger reduction. Six Farmer Literacy Education Strategies were found to be functional and relevant in

teaching knowledge-based farm technologies and basic literacy skills to rural farmers, in an

integrated approach. The Farmer Literacy Education Strategies with their contents and

150

methodologies were identified to possess the potentials needed to achieve poverty and hunger

reduction through improved literacy rates among rural farmers and the application of modern

farm technologies in their farming systems

These farmer literacy strategies were:

A. Traditional /Conventional Farmer Education Strateg:

• Directed to adult rural farmers who never had the opportunity and advantage of any

formal education.

• It is work-oriented – deals with, and teaches farmers on-the-job.

• The contents include learning skills in reading, writing and arithmetic (3Rs), taught as in

the first year of formal schooling.

• Methodology involves the use of pictures and pictorials as aids to the design of primers

(letters of the alphabets), recognition of words and formation of sentences in that

sequence (Frank Laubach method).

• Learning numeric skills covers the concepts of addition and subtraction, division and

multiplication.

B. Functional/Relevant Farmer Education Strategy:

The contents and meth0dology of this strategy include:

• It is both selective and intensive in approach; that is, directed to specific farming

occupations and the related agricultural knowledge and competences.

• The contents are centered on learning programmes and activities that are of immediate

use to rural farmers in their production systems (functionality)

• Enables farmers to learn to read, write and count and so be able to keep simple farm

records and other transactions.

• Teaches farmers to form sentences to ask for services when they need them.

• Restricts itself to selected vocabularies that are peculiar but relevant to the farmer in his

farming business, such as farm inputs, subsidy, varieties, breeds and such other concepts.

• Facilitates the improvement of farmer’s vocational and occupational knowledge and

skills.

151

• Offers training in entrepreneurial skills.

These knowledge and skills depicted in this model are what rural farmers need to identify their

farming problems and to seek solutions to them; improve productivity and enhance the farmers’

ability in the better management of their affairs and resources which in the long run will assist in

poverty and hunger reduction, andgetting rid of illiteracy.

C. Lyceum (Community Study Group) Strategy.

This model focuses attention on developing learning net-works based on farmer

associations, co-operatives, community-based unions, and other neighborhood groups,

including those with specialized local skills. The strength of this model lies in the fact that:

• Farmers determine the content of the learning and discussion sessions based on current

problems and issues confronting them; and therefore involves experiential sharing.

• Develops problems-solving and problem-posing skills and abilities among rural farmers.

• Enables rural farmers to come toghether to resolve a problem or problems confronting

the farming enterprise.

• Pedagogically, it involves “Anyone can learn, anyone can teach” approach. Group

members are both learners and teachers.

• A given member becomes the teacher if he possesses specialized skills and knowledge

adjudged to beneficial to neighbourhood farmers.

• Facilitates the extension and transfer of farm knowledge, innovations, skills and

competences from master-farmers to other farmers.

• The model uses the community and neighborhood farms as teaching – learning aids or

resources and living learning laboratories.

The model was adopted for the study as a strategy in assisting rural farmers to learn in groups

and in sharing useful knowledge and experiences from one another.

D. Group Study by Correspondence Strategies

The strength of this model in educating rural farmers includes the fact that:

i. The model allows adult rural farmers to study at a time and place of their choice (Androgogy).

152

ii. Individual farmers meet in groups to explore some matters of mutual concern and other

problems especially in situations where there is lack of qualified personnel and facilities to

deliver the education process.

iii. Individual farmers study correspondences at home before a group meeting.

iv. Group meetings serve as “Clearing House” for ideas, opinions, comments and problem solutions.

The model was adapted and used in the study because of its potential in promoting the element of collectivity and networking which rural farmers need in tackling farming problems with different sources of information.

E. Mass Media (Electronic and Print) Strategy.

This strategy was adopted for the study because of its universal application in educating and

delivering information to all farmer groups. It has wider coverage than other models, reaching

farmers in distant places within short periods of time. Its major characteristic are: i.used as a

strategy of mass adult education for rural people through sharing experiences, information and

ideas with many people in often distant places by means of technological devices - Radio, TV,

Video, and other Tele-communication facilities.

ii. Creates awareness and stimulate thinking and understanding of contemporary issues among

rural farmers.

iii. The instructional Radio-TV breaks barriers of literacy requirement since the spoken language

is the main vehicle for interpersonal communications.

(iv) Farmer Forum series of Radio programmes give farmers new incentives to group action and

neighborliness and provide opportunity for continuing education.

(v) The print media help to develop and sustain literacy and compliment other literacy

programmes especially, reading skills and data collection.

(vi) It is the fastest way of alerting and educating farmers about disease and pest outbreaks and

their remedies.

F. Liberal Education Strategy

The content scope of this model consists of elements relevant to the purpose of the study and

hence adopted to guide the study because of its emphasis on post literacy activities and the

updating of farmers’ knowledge. The characteristics of this model are:

i. Keeps adult literate farmers up- to date and in tune with current events and issues in the

field of agriculture.

153

ii. Assumes the character of an in - service or post literacy programmes to upgrade farmers’

knowledge and skills.

iii.Provides adult farmers with necessary aesthetic, cultural and civic education for public

enlightenment and for leisure.

iv. Provides learning opportunities and stimulates learners to learn and think for themselves.

The study found these Farmer Literacy Education Strategies as having the potentials for

exposing rural farmers to a wide range of agricultural knowledge and information; modern

agricultural technologies and literacy skills needed to improve their production, become neo-

literates and active participants in rural development and agricultural transformation

programmes. These strategies and procedures were adopted from Adult Education models and

adapted for the study because of their functional and relevant approaches to teaching improved

agricultural knowledge andfundamental literacy. Above all, the content elements and

methodologies of these models share in common the same principles, assumptions and

methodologies with the operational elements of the human capital development synergies as

illustrated in the Egg - model concept of farmer literacy education, including the theories of adult

learning, both of which formed the conceptual and theoretical frameworks of the study

respectively.

Effects of Government Rural Agricultural Interventions on Farmer Literacy Education

programmes in the context of poverty and hunger reduction among rural farmers.

1. Government direct involvement in agricultural production schemes and programmes

(DIFFRRI, NAFPP, OFN, Fadama Project) have laid solid foundation for increased and

sustainable agricultural and food production in the rural communities.

2. Indications are that the successes of these programmes are dependent on the level of

application of knowledge of science and new farm technologies which are inhibited often

due to high illiteracy rates among rural farmers.

3. The general absence of elements farmer literacy education as major components of

government rural agricultural intervention programmes has limited the adoption and full

realization of the objectives of programmes.

4. Hence rural agricultural productivity has remained subsistent with rural farmers becoming

vulnerable and falling deeper and deeper into poverty and hunger.

154

4. The general absence of anti-illiteracy initiatives in government anti-poverty and rural

agricultural development programmes has severely inhibited rural farmer’s capacity in

adopting profitable farm innovations which aim at poverty and hunger reduction

5. There is evidence of the failure of government to educate rural farmers and provide early

warning systems and safety nets on the incidence of disease and pest outbreak, including

weather forecasts and other natural hazards which disrupt farm production and expose

farmers to uncertainties and farm losses.

In the final analysis, the study noted that these lapses and deficiencies inherent in

government rural agricultural intervention programmes, are part of the factors inhibiting

rural agricultural transformation and progress, a situation which has worsened the

vulnerability of poor rural farmers

Benefits of Farmer Literacy Education to rural farmers in achieving poverty and hunger

Reduction at the threshold

These benefits accruing to the rural farmer as a result of his exposure to farmer literacy education

include:

1. Rural farmers derive modern scientific agricultural knowledge and technologies that enables

them to intensify and diversity their production systems for increased farm production and

income generation.

2. Acquisition of fundamental literacy which enhances rural farmers’ understanding of the

language and content of research, including farm technology adoption and utilization.

3. The acquisition of knowledge and competences needed for initial farm – gate processing of

produce, including the application of modern storage and preservation methods bring about

higher producer prices and enhance farm incomes and product availability all year round.

4. Fundamental literacy is essential to the acquisition of other non- agricultural skills

(carpentry –masonry, black-smiting), which rural farmers need to enable them engage in off-

farm employments for extra increase incomes.

5. Acquisition of basic literacy skill is needed by rural farmers to be able to read and

understand instructions on farm input utilization; sign vital documents and keep simple

records and other farm transactions.

These findings were significant to the study because the educational benefits of farmer

literacy education are what are needed to empower rural farmers to increase their farm

155

production, improve their income generating capacities, raise their living standards and in the

long run reduce poverty and hunger. The findings also indicated that farmer literacy education

offers rural farmers a second chance, having missed the opportunity or were denied access to

mainstream formal education

Discussion of Findings The major findings of the study were discussed as follows:

Causes of Poverty and Hunger

In its findings on the various expressions of the concept of poverty, the study noted that the

generally accepted idea is that poverty refers as the inability for an individual, or a family to

satisfy average life requirements and expectations and maintain minimum living conditions.

There is evidence of the interrelatedness of poverty to hunger, starvation, food shortage, poor

living conditions, lack of access to education, and poor access to healthcare delivery. These

findings depicted the fact that poverty not only refers to lack of income and access to good and

quality food but also the absence of the basic requirements for the survival and to an extent, the

comfort of man. Various strands of poverty were identified to include absolute or abject poverty,

relative poverty; income and material poverty as the various classes of poverty afflicting rural

farmers.

Absolute or abject poverty was defined as a situation by which rural people live on less

than one US Dollar ($) a day, which is equivalent to between N150 - N160 per day, or even

less depending on the exchange rates of dollar to the naira. On the other dimensions of poverty,

the study noted that poverty not only manifests in forms of economic and material deprivations

but also as violation of human rights and dignity; lack of political power and representation;

marginalization and social exclusion.

Further findings on the multiple dimensions of poverty showed that sluggishness in

culture and tradition, backwardness in values and ways of thinking, poor application of science

and technology in rural farming systems; low educational attainment and illiteracy; and low

comprehensive abilities are other aspects of poverty among rural farmers. There is evidence of

the existence of a vicious circle of poverty, hunger and illiteracy among rural farmers as

identified by Akenson (1984) and Kozol (1985). These three factors have severally and

collectively inhibited rural agricultural productivity with their concomitant effects on

156

aggravating poverty and hunger among rural farmers. But of all the factors that interplay to

weaken the productive capacity of the rural farmers, illiteracy and low educational attainment are

in the forefront.

On the nature of the effects of illiteracy on rural agricultural production systems, the study

found out that rural farming systems are more or less static, generally supported by age-old

habits and inherited systems, and largely faced by several socio-economic problems which cause

poverty or intensify it. This finding agreed with the views of Odigboh (1990), and NDHDR

(2006) who observed that rural farmers in Nigeria have remained primitive in their production

methods with declining yields, poor incomes and endemic poverty.

Other problems identified included land tenure and poor access to land; technological

obsolesce; poor rural roads and transportation system; poor access to credit and paucity of fund;

natural disasters; and rural-urban migration. These problems contributed to low rural

agricultural productivity, food insecurity confronting rural farmers. These factors were

collectively identified to intensity the vulnerability of rural farmers. Consequently, the study

found that poverty and hunger reduction entail guaranteeing a decent livelihood for the rural

farmers, especially those living in extreme poverty and hunger. To achieve this, the study forces

attention not only to rural agricultural transformation, but also the involvement of other change

agents, social and economic, with fundamental literacy education as the driving force.

The Role of Farmer Literacy Education in the Context of Poverty and Hunger Reduction

Illiteracy and unawareness of the rural populace weaken their ambition, confidence, self-

esteem and skills for improving their socio-economic living conditions. It was noted that in an

era of knowledge-based economy, what determines the speed of economic and social

development of rural communities are human resources or the quality of the rural labour force

rather than institutions, materials or natural resources. The study found compelling evidence to

assert that social and economic development and growth of rural communities, including poverty

and hunger reduction depended on empowerment of the rural labour-force through farmer

literacy education strategies. These findings agree with the views of Obibuaku (1983), Adult

Literacy Organization of Zimbabwe (ALOZ, 1993), and the National Literacy Mission of India

(NLM, 1999). The shared views were that among the various needs of rural farmers for scientific

farming and profitable marketing of produce, the need for fundamental literacy seems dominant.

157

Some roles of functional farmer literacy education relevant to the needs of the resource farmers

were:

• Acquisition of agricultural knowledge and skills through sound research and farmer

educational procedures.

• Acquisition of functional literacy and self-reliance in the 3R’s;

• Promotion of economic productivity through application of science and technology;

• Enhancement of quality of life though increased productivity and improved income

Generation; and

• Increasing social equity and stimulating political awareness through participation in

development planning and decision making processes.

These are in line with the objectives of the National Literacy Mission of India (`1999) which

acknowledged the fact that literacy education for the rural populace, to be functional and

relevant, should include these elements. In an extension to this, the study instructed that literacy

education should take preeminence in all rural agricultural development efforts so as to get rid of

the vicious circle of illiteracy, poverty, hunger and rural backwardness.

The fact was established that the gap between the rich urban dwellers and poor ruralites is

fundamentally that between population quality, knowledge or educational level. This finding is

in accord with the findings of a survey on the effect of literacy on farming households by the

National Bureau of Statistics (2006). The survey had noted that functional farmer literacy

education should provide rural people with basic knowledge and skills needed to improve quality

of life, and help to increase access to and the proper utilization of educational opportunities

which assist in reducing poverty and improved welfare of rural farmers through increased

capabilities, assets and activities. These points are in line with the views of Kozol (1985) and the

National Literacy Mission of India (1999), which respectively stressed the role literacy plays in

cultivating human potentials and argued that all political, economic, and social improvement of

the rural people depends on universal basic literacy.

Farmer Literacy Education Strategies for Rural Farmers

In the past, all core concepts of farmer education programmes revolved and were centered

on the agricultural extension model. There is ample evidence of the inability of extension to

impart literacy skills to its clientele - the rural farmers. In the opinions of Combs and Ahmed

158

(1974) the teaching of basic literacy skills and numeracy to rural farmers has never been an

extension activity. This literacy deficiency in extension activities as a teaching –learning model

for imparting farm technologies to rural farmers, underscored the need for a paradigm shift in

educating rural farmers. However it was upheld that agricultural extension remained an essential

mechanism for the delivery of information, farm technology and advice from research as inputs

into modern farming. Accordingly, extension remains the key actor in the Research-Extension-

Farmer-Linkage-System (REFLS), through which rural farmers acquire new agricultural

knowledge and skills.

However, further evidence showed that in much of the world, rural agriculture faces

challenges of keeping pace with rapidly increasing population, increasing urbanization, policy

changes and market requirements. In the foreseeable future, rural farming population will require

to be educated in ways that will improve prepare them for global challenges in an information

age. In the light of the findings, the study not only called for new approaches for educating rural

farmers but also emphasized that poverty reduction should be the current focus of farmer

literacy education which should centre on practical problems faced by rural farmers. The

underlying reason is that lifting a rural community out of poverty and hunger called for an

agrarian revolution in which functional literacy education and knowledge-based agricultural

practices shall become the agents of renewal and change.

Effect of Government Rural Agricultural Interventions on Farmer Literacy Education Programmes On the extent of the effect of government rural agricultural intervention programmes on

rural literacy campaign, it was observed that despite past and present country-wide government

rural interventions in agricultural programmes and projects, there is still high rates of illiteracy

among rural farming families. This finding is in conformity with the view of Idachaba (2006),

who observed that rural farmers are still largely illiterate and live in a state of unawareness;

cultivate small farm plots, using traditional and rudimentary tools and methods; use less of

improved inputs and has limited access to credit due to ignorance and lack of knowledge. This

situation of affairs was ascribed to government’s failure to take anti-illiteracy campaigns as

priority in its rural agricultural intervention programmes. The finding was in line with the

recommendation of FAO (2005), who called for the integration of farmer literacy education with

all rural development programmes as a sure way helpful to poverty and hunger alleviation

159

programmes. It was the contention of the study that Government not only should engage in

relevant policy-making and investments in rural agricultural transformation but should take

priority actions and initiatives on spearheading anti-poverty and literacy campaigns for rural

farmers.

Benefits of Farmer literacy Education to rural farmers in the context of achieving Poverty and Hunger Reduction at the Threshold

The benefits that rural farming families could derive from farmer literacy education towards

achieving poverty and hunger reduction at the household levels, included improved farmer

productivity and outlook. Other benefits achievable through literacy education strategies of rural

farmers within farming families and the community at large were:

(i) Enhanced utilization and application of modern farm technologies and innovations for

increased farm productivity;

ii. Acquire competences needed in intensification and diversification of production systems.

iii. Acquisition of basic literacy skills and self-reliance in the 3Rs useful for farm business

transactions;

iv. iv Acquisition of knowledge and techniques in farm-gate processing, storage and

preservation of produce;

v. Develop marketing strategies and grading systems;

vi. Acquisition of skills in resource utilization and entrepreneurship; and

vii. Knowledge of environmental conservation and sustainability.

In all, the findings of the study corroborated well with information obtained from literature

review and the stated objectives of the study. The study therefore, held the view that functional

literacy education for the poor rural farmer should be seen not only as a process of improving

agricultural knowledge, rural productivity and income, but also leads to attitudinal changes,

betterment of ideas and values. The study noted that strengthening rural farmer’s capacity

through educational procedures contributes to awakening their internal drive to get rid of poverty

and hunger. Above all, farmer literacy education prepares rural farmers for active participatory

roles in rural socio-economic development processes and in poverty and hunger reduction

programmes. The findings therefore have lent strong support to the research premise and

assumptions that poverty and hunger reduction, and improved literacy among rural farmers is

achievable through functional farmer literacy education.

160

CHAPTER FIVE

SUMMARY, CONCLUSION, AND RECOMMENDATIONS FOR IMPLEMENTATION AND SUGGESTIONS FOR FURTHER RESEARCH

This chapter presented the summary of the statement of the problem; procedure used;

recommendations and suggestion for further research. Conclusions based on the findings and the

implications of the study a

were also included.

Re-Statement of the Problem

Poverty and hunger is a rural phenomenon. Empirical evidence showed that poverty and

hunger is concentrated in the rural areas despite the fact that these are the epicenters of

agricultural production activities (FAO, 2008). In Nigeria, extreme poverty and hunger is most

prevalent in rural communities harboring more than 65%-70% of the population (FOS, 1999).

There are further indications that rural farming families have the highest poverty levels and

suffer severe undernourishment when compared to non-farming families (FOS, 1999). In his

view of the poverty situation in the rural communities, Idachaba (2006) observed that rural areas

in Nigeria still connote and are synonymous with poverty, hunger, illiteracy and low standards

for living.

Also compelling evidence from the review of related literature indicated that illiteracy and

inefficient farmer education, and consequently unsatisfying quality of rural labour force stand

out as major reasons for rural poverty and food insecurity {Akenson, 1984). Similarly, FOS

(1996) in a House hold Consumption Data Survey (1986-1996), reported a strong link between

agricultural production performance, food security, poverty and low educationalattainment

among rural farmers. On the on the basis of low educational attainment and illiteracy, the study

noted that the prevalence of poverty is higher among rural farmers with below primary

education. In another dimension, evidence was found that farmers with primary school level

education were nine times more productive than farmers with no education at all (NBS,

2006).This scenario underscored the need to explore farmer literacy education strategies to

enhance the knowledge and productive capacity of the rural farmer. Hence the present study.

Farmer literacy education was conceptualized as having the potential to provide the spring

board to achieve poverty and hunger reduction. Rural farmers know little or nothing about input-

output calculations, budgeting or other relationships in the farm production processes (African

161

Farmer (1987). Furthermore, African Farmer (1988) argued that a functional farmer education,

along with literacy skills is where we must start if we must want rural farmers to understand

what needs to be done to alleviate poverty and hunger. This was the problem and the challenge

of the study. Thischallenge was predicated on the premise that economic and social development

of the rural people, including poverty and hunger alleviation depends to a larger extent on

empowerment of rural farmers through modern agricultural knowledge and literacy skills.

Specific Objectives

Specifically, the study sought to achieve the following objectives:

1. Find out the causes of poverty and hunger among rural farmers;

2. Determine the roles farmer literacy education should play in the context of poverty and

hunger reduction among rural farmers;

3. Identify farmer literacy education strategies that can teach modern agricultural knowledge to

rural farmers, and impart literacy skills in an integrated approach as means to achieving


4. Find out the extent of the effects of government rural agricultural interventions on farmer

literacy education programmes in the context of poverty and hunger reduction among rural

farmers; and

5. Identify the benefits of farmer literacy education to rural farmers as means to facilitate the

achievement of poverty and hunger reduction at the threshold.

Summary of the Procedure Used for the Study

The Descriptive Survey research design was adopted in carrying out the study. The study

was carried out in Abia state of Nigeria, with specific reference to Ohafia agricultural ecological

zone. The population of the study was 4370, comprising of rural farmers (4239); Enumerators

(25); Facilitators (20); 76 extension agents; and lecturers/ agricultural educators (10). A total

sample size of 1483 was used for the study.

The Snowball sampling technique was used to sample the Enumerators and Facilitators.

While the Cluster sampling method was used to select rural farmers used in the study. The

questionnaire was the instrument used for data collection. This was validated by five lecturers

from the Department of Vocational Teacher Education (Agricultural) of the University of

Nigeria, Nsukka. The Cronbach Alpha technique was used to establish reliability of the

162

instrument which yielded an overall coefficient of 0.91 at the 0.05 level of significance. This

showed high degree of internal consistency.

Data collection involved the administration of instrument through personal contact and

direct interactions with the respondents. This method helped in identifying the present socio-

economic conditions of the rural farmers. This procedure ensured high rate of return of

completed copies of instrument. Out of the 1352 copies administered, 1210 copies were properly

completed, returned and used for the study. This gave a response return rate of 89%. The

remaining 11% were recorded cases of void copies due to mutilations, refusal and or

unwillingness by some farmers to be part of the exercise. However, 100% rate of return was

recorded for the other populations. In all 1341 out of 1483 copies of the questionnaire

administered were returned. These gave a total return rate of 90%.

The frequency distribution table, mean scores, and standard deviation were the statistical

operations used to analyze data generated from the administration of instruments. The

interpretation of these data provided answers to the research questions. The t-test and z-test were

used to test the hypotheses at the of 0.05 level of significance. The null hypothesis of no

significant difference (HO) is accepted where the calculated t-value and z-value are less than the

table or critical values.

Major Findings of the Study

1. Evidence from the study showed that the poor concentrate in rural areas with agriculture as

the major occupation. Yet the rural farmers suffer acute food shortages and extreme poverty.

The causes of poverty and hunger among rural farmers were multi-dimensional, ranging

from socio-economic factors to ideological backwardness.Poverty and hunger among rural

farmers was directly related to low farm productivity, food shortages, generally low standard

of living and lack of competitive spirit.

In addition, poor application of science and technology in farm production activities,

illiteracy and inefficient farmer education are part of the problems intensifying poverty and

hunger among rural farmers. These problems were the major development challenges in

rural communities in the Ohafia agricultural ecological zone of Abia State today, in the

context of poverty and hunger reduction.

163

Efforts geared towardspoverty and hunger reduction, including the socio-economic

development and economic recovery of the rural communities in the Ohafia agriecozone

require human capital development of rural farmers through functional farmer education

along with basic literacy. Furthermore, the study identified farmer literacy education as the

driving force to facilitate the adoption of modern farm technologies by rural farmers which

will enhance their productivity and lead ultimately to poverty and hunger reduction.

2. The study affirmed that poverty and hunger reduction among rural farmers, as the current

Six Farmer Literacy Education Strategies consisting of 42 variables in terms of programme

contents and teaching methodologies were identified. These strategies were considered more

efficient and effective the teaching-learning processes than agricultural extension for

educating rural farmers in the context of achieving poverty and hunger reduction among rural

farmers.

3. Findings of the study indicated that government rural agricultural intervention programmes

have in principle, promoted the Research-Extension-Farmer Linkage System (REPLS) as

means to improving rural agricultural efficiency in food production. In addition, government

efforts in rural agricultural transformation were yet to evolve long term capital investments

and budgetary provisions for sustainable human capital development of the rural populace.

Government’s efforts in this regard, through farmer literacy education procedures, were

found to be grossly inadequate.

4. Farmer literacy education is a veritable instrument for improving rural agricultural

productivity through facilitating the adoption of modern agricultural technologies and

innovations. The prevalence of extreme poverty and hunger in the Ohafia agriecozone had

been worsened by constant changes in government agricultural policies, poor institutional

framework for farmer literacy education; and failure of government to provide basic rural

infrastructure. These factors aggravate poverty and hunger conditions of rural farmers in the

area of study. The study found evidence to assert that it is the responsibility of government

to provide the institutional framework and the enabling infrastructure for anti-poverty and

hunger reduction programmes for rural farmers and their communities.

164

5. The study identified the benefits of farmer literacy education to rural farmers in Ohafia

agriecological zone in their individual efforts to achieve poverty and hunger reduction. Of great

significance was the need for these rural farmers to acquire modern agricultural knowledge for

improved productivity; and fundamental literacy to enable them decode and understand the

language and context of research-extension messages; develop skills for on-farm processing,

storage and preservation of produce including marketing skills. These strategies constituted the

functional tools of a modern farm operator

6. There was no significant difference in the means opinions of respondents on the causes of

poverty and hunger among rural farmers in the Ohafia agricultural ecological zone of Abia state.

7. Expert opinions showed no significant difference in their mean ratings on the role of farmer

literacy educationin promoting improved agricultural knowledge andrural literacy as means to

facilitating poverty and hunger reduction among rural farmers.

8. Opinions of respondents did not differ significantly on six Farmer Literacy Education Strategies

identified by the study for imparting modern agricultural knowledge with functional literacy in

an integrated approach to rural farmers in the Ohafia agriecozone.

9. Raters’ opinions were not significantly different on the extent of the effects of government rural

agricultural interventions in promoting and supporting farmer literacy educationprogrammes for

rural farmers in the context of poverty and hunger reduction.

10. There was no significant difference in the mean ratings of respondents on the benefits of farmer

literacy education to rural farmers in their individual efforts to achieve poverty and hunger

reduction at their immediate farming households.

Implications of the Study

Findings of the study have profound implications on the understanding of the causes and

various dimensions of poverty; the role of farmer literacy education in poverty and hunger

reduction strategies; and functional and relevant farmer literacy education strategies that can be

165

used to build the human capacity of rural farmers as the basic framework for anti-poverty and

hunger reduction initiatives.

Causes of Poverty and Hunger

The processes of poverty and endemic hunger are in a vicious cycle resulting from low

agricultural productivity, illiteracy, poor comprehensive ability, and lack of competitive spirit

among rural farmers in the Ohafia agriecological zone. Understanding this cycle and how it can

be broken through a pragmatic farmer literacy education strategy, will create the desire among

rural farmers for improving their own living conditions. In this way, Farmer Literacy Education

carry the potential to facilitate the process of poverty and hunger alleviation. By implication,

rural farmers in Ohafia agriecological zone must be educated to appreciate the causes of poverty

and hunger among rural frmers as identified by the study.

Role of Farmer Literacy Education in Poverty and Hunger Reduction

If it is realized, as depicted in the study, that farmer literacy education is needed as the

engine to drive the processes of increased rural agricultural productivity,improved educational

attainment in the rural communities and the enhancement of standards of living, then all core

concepts of farmer education should not only be focused on the acquisition of agricultural

knowledge and skills but also impart fundamental literacy skills needed to function as a modern

farm operator.

This implies that rural agricultural transformation and rural economic growth, together with

improved literacy rates of the rural populace, have greater impact on reducing poverty and

hunger. Poverty and hunger decrease when farm productivity and literacy increases.

Farmer Literacy Education Strategies for Rural For Achieving Poverty and Hunger Poverty and hunger reduction have undergone a process from financial and food aids from

donor agencies and international organizations to comprehensive human capital development

synergies as forms of alleviation. This is to enhance the ability of the poor in self-reliance and

self-development. The implication is that functional literacy education model should go beyond

agricultural knowledge and skills acquisition to the next level where rural farmers become

inspired, motivated, and develop creativity, initiative and competitive spirit. When farmer

literacy education strategies are integrated with agricultural extension services, the research-

166

extension-farmer linkage will not only be strenghtened but also correct the educational

inadequacies of agricultural extension as a farmer education strategy.

Extent of effects of government rural agricultural interventions on farmer literacy

education programmes

This study contended that it was the responsibility of government that factors that inhibit

rural agricultural progress, and contribute to weaken the productive capacity of rural farmers,

leading to food shortage and poor incomes are identified and responded to effectively and

efficiently. This argument is made more strongly for communities in the Ohafia agriecological

zone where the population is rural and poor; and where most rural farmers in these ethnic

communities are illiterates. The implication of this argument was a clarion call on government to

increase efforts in investments in all round development of the poor rural communities and its

populace.

This entails several dimensions of good governance by the local government authorities who

are closest to the rural communities. The expectation is that government and its agencies will

strive to achieve this through timely provision of improved agricultural production inputs,

provision of public goods and rural infrastructures; including support for essential human rights,

and promotion of adult and non-formal continuing education programmes. These factors which

inhibit rural agricultural progress should be well husbanded through government institutional

reforms and relevant farmer educational framework.

Benefits of Farmer Literacy Education to Rural Farmers in the Context of Poverty

Reduction

There were ample evidence to compel rural farmers in Ohafia agriecozone of Abia state to

acquire modern agricultural knowledge and fundamental literacy. This will enable them among

other things to understand the language of research and extension, apply science and technology

in their production processes; intensify and diversify their production systems; and develop

entrepreneurial skills. In this way, farmer literacy education could expose rural farmers to a wide

range of information and knowledge needed to improve the rural farming enterprise. This implies

that rural farmers as a matter of necessity must not only desire these technologies and changes in

their production systems but accept them as necessary conditions for the achievement of poverty

and hunger reduction at their individual farming systems.

167

Conclusion

When the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs, 2000) were framed, the halving of

people who live in extreme poverty and hunger was listed as number one goal. The causes and

connection between poverty and hunger, and their combined effects on the socio-economic well-

being of rural farmers were identified in the study.

Hunger is both one of the most painful symptoms and one of the important causes of

extreme poverty; and poverty on the other hand perpetrates hunger by reducing productivity. Of

all the factors that contribute to undermine the productive capacity of rural farmers, illiteracy is

in the forefront. This is because illiteracy inhibits the rural farmer’s ability to acquire and utilize

modern farm technologies. Hence, the MDG contrived universalization of education as number

two goal. These two goals were closely tied because literacy seemed to be the driving force in all

efforts to achieve poverty and hunger reduction. For far too long, poverty, hunger and illiteracy

have driven on internal engine of frustration and deprivation among rural farmers of the Ohafia

agricultural ecological zone, leading to human suffering and poor standards of living.

The Nigerian government translated and adapted the objectives of the MDGs and expressed

them into positive actions through the National Economic Empowerment Development Strategy

(NEEDS, 2004) and pledged its commitment to achieving poverty reduction and food security.

The NEEDS blue-print also indicated efforts to improve access to functional literacy education,

and to achieve Education for All (EFA), by the year 2015. The MDGs and the NEEDS were the

antecedents that provoked interest in the current study. The study therefore called for recognition

of the critical importance of eliminating rural illiteracy as the pivot of efforts geared towards

poverty and hunger reduction among rural farmers.

The study highlighted the literacy inadequacies of Agricultural Extension and advocated a

paradigm shift from this mode of farmer education to a more inclusive paradigm that integrates

modern agricultural knowledge with functional literacy skills in educating rural farmers. Given

the significance of illiteracy as a cause of poverty and hunger, and given the fact that poverty and

hunger are most prevalent in the rural communities of Ohafia agriecozone, then it has become

imperative that priority attention in anti-poverty and hungerreduction efforts be given to human

capital development of rural farmers with farmer literacy education as the engine house.

There was empirical evidence to assert that basic literacy, integrated in all farmer education

programmes is both a tool for improved agricultural productivity as well as a critical factor in

rural socio-economic recovery strategies.

168

In the light of this, it was the conclusion of the study that rural farmers with education are

better off economically, socially and very progressive in the farming enterprise than those

without education; and that poverty and hunger are on the decrease with increasing literacy rates


It was the contention of this study that poverty falls significantly when government rural

agricultural intervention programmes are situated where enabling conditions have been created

through farmer literacy education and where human resources development of the rural labour-

force have been achieved, and other institutional frameworks have also been put in place. The

study noted that it was the responsibility of government to ensure these provisions for successful

and sustainable poverty and hunger reduction programmes. Similarly, there was a convincing

evidence to assert that farmer literacy education could generally facilitate the speed of rural

agricultural transformation and technology transfer and adoption. These synergies accruing from

farmer literacy education ultimately can raise farm productivity and incomes, leading to

economic recovery of rural areas, and culminating in poverty and hunger reduction. This view,

which provided the impetus for research in this direction, has therefore remained conclusive.

Recommendations for Implementation

(i). Rural farmers should be educated on the causes and indicators of poverty and hunger so that

they can understand and appreciate their circumstances and the need for change.

(ii). The knowledge, skills, and strategies necessary to make progress in poverty and hunger

reduction efforts, are the values and educational activities that should govern the objectives and

planning of functional farmer literacy education.

(iii) Farmer education and rural literacy management systems should be organized so as to

benefit all categories of farmers, men and women.

(iv) Fundamental literacy for rural farmers should be considered a priority and a first step in all

rural economic development programmes and poverty reduction strategies.

v. Learning materials and teaching methods oriented to identifying guiding principles, especially

those helpful to poverty and hunger reduction should be geared towards achieving the objectives

of farmer literacy education.

169

Limitations of the Study

Limitations of the study included difficulties and short comings encountered in the process of the

research. These difficulties could have introduced measurement errors which in one way or other

ways could affect the validity and hence the acceptability of some of the findings. For instance:

1. Dealing with rural farmers in matters relating to their means of livelihood and which

demand cultural change could be regarded as an invasion of privacy. This may have

accounted for the reluctance and outright refusal of some of them to be part of the study.

This affected the administration of the instruments, some of which were voided and

discarded.

2. The use of research teachers in the administration of the research instrument may have

introduced some errors and biases which adversely may have influenced the responses of the

subjects of the study due to faulty interpretations and guidance. This might have introduced

some faulty responses leading to the voiding of some questionnaire.

3. Many rural communities remain inaccessible especially during the rainy season. This tended

to affect the depth of coverage of the area of study. Therefore research to be conducted in

rural areas may be best carried out during the dry season for easy of reach and coverage of

those disadvantaged communities.

Suggestions for further Studies

The flowing areas were suggested for further studies.

1. Improving literacy skills of rural farmers: A panacea for easy farm technology transfer and

adaptation

2. Development of relevant farmer education strategies for specific farming systems: necessary

conditions to enable rural farmers intensify and diversify their production systems.

3. Educating rural youths to be farmers: A way forward towards ensuring quality labour force

for rural agricultural transformation

4. Human capital development of the rural labor –force: Imperative for sustainable food

security and rural poverty eradication.

5. Farmer education: current issues and the new direction

170

REFERENCES ABCPRP (2002).Abia State Community-based Poverty Reduction Programme Profile.

Umuahia: Abia state Abia State Hand Book (1997).Abia State official Hand Book 1991-1997. Umuahia: Ministry of

Information, Culture, and Sports. Abia State Planning Commission (2006).Millennium Development Goals:Know your MDGs.

Umuahia: Abia State Planning Commission. Adebowale, R.A. (2005). Train the Trainer Workshop on Cassava Production:Presidential

Initiative on Cassava. Nigeria: Institute of Agricultural Research and Training (IART). Adedeji, A. and Kaunda, K. (1988).Structural Adjustment Reforms and the Impacts on African’s

Small-scale Farmers. New York: African Farmer Magazine.

Adesina, A. & Zinna, M. (1992).Technology Characteristic: Farmer’s Perception and Adoption

Decisions: A Tobit Model Application in Sierra Loene. Amstedam: Agricultural Economics Elsevier Science Publishers BF.V

Agboola, S.A (1979).An Agricultural Atlas of Nigeria. Britain: Oxford University Press. Akenson, J.E. (1984). “The Southern Literacy Campaign 1910-1935: Lessons for Adult Learning

in an Information Society”. A Paper presented at the National Adult Education

Conference.Louisville: ERIC Document Reproduction, Service No. ED 25272. Akpa, N. (1997).Educational Research for Modern Scholars. Enugu: Fourth Dimension

Publisher. Albercht, H. (1980). Agricultural Extension vol.1: Basic Concepts and Methods.Eschborn:

Deutsche Geselschaf for Technische, Zusammeaserbeit (GTZ). Anaekwe, M. C. (2007).Basic Research Methods and Statistics in Education and Social

Science.Onitsha: Sofie Publicity and Printry Ltd.

Annan, K. (2001).Human Rights Dimension of Poverty. New York: United Nations General Secretary.

Araka, J. Nduru, M. Mukela, J. Morna, L. and Mbalaka, B. (1991). Finding the Right prices for

Farmers and Consumers. New York: Africa Farmer Magazine. pp15-20.

Araka, J. Morna, L. Ehpson, B. Amakoye, S. Mukela, J. and Horst, S. (1990).Farmers Adjust to

Economic Reforms. New York: African Farmer Magazine. PP 5-15.

Araka, J. Anza, S. Ephson, B. Morna, C.L. and Seck K.M.(1990)Tools of the Trade: Do farmers

have the Right ones? New York: Africa Farmer Magazine. pp5-15

Araka, J. Machus, W. Bidan, W. (1990).Getting produce to market. New York: Africa Farmer Magazine. pp5-15

171

Ahmed, A. (1982).The Role of Information System in Development. Studies Series, No. 314. Baghdad, Iraq: Minister of Culture and Information

Arokoyo, T. (2007).Training of Nigeria Farmer Field Schools: National (Master Trainers)

Project on Food Security.Abuja: Teaching Manual.

Awake (2001). Can we grow Enough Food? Is Man Destroying His Own Food Supply?

New York: Awake Magazine. pp3-11.

Awake (2003). Farming: Why in Crisis?The Crisis Farmers Face. New York: Awake Magazine pp3-11

Bar-On, A. (2001)Providing so Little for so Few. Botswana’s Social Assistance Scheme. CROP (2001) International Studies in Poverty Research. London - New York: Zed Books. pp246-262.

Behrstock, J. (1981).Reaching the Rural Reader. New York: Journal of Reading, 24 (8) 712 – 718.

Benor, D. and Harrison, J.Q. (1977).Agricultural Extension: The Training and Visit

System.Washington D.C: The World Bank. Beye, I. (1990).Correcting Enduring Agricultural Errors for Achieving Future Food Security.

NewYork: Africa Farmer Magazine. Blumberg, R.L (1994).Reaching Africa’s Invisible Farmers. New York: Africa Farmer

Magazine. Bonasasa, M. and Ayisi, R.A. (1990). Helping Farmers Resist the Pull of the City.New York:

Africa Magazine. Braathen, E. and Palmero, A. (2001). Towards pro-Poor Governance:The Case of Mozambique.

CROP International Studies in Poverty Research. London – New York: Zed Books. Brookfield, S. (1985).The Continuing Educator and Self-directed Learning in the Community. In

Brookfield (Ed), New Directions for Continuing Education. San Francisco: Jossy-Bass.

Brookfield, S. (1995).Adult Learners, Adult Education, and the Community.London: Hutchinson and Co. (Publishers) Ltd.

Castle, E.B. (1972).Education for Self-help: New Strategies for Developing Countries. London: Oxford University Press.

Central Bank of Nigeria (2006).CBNMicro Finance Policy, Regulatory and Supervisory

Framework for Nigeria. Abuja: Development Finance Department, Central Bank of Nigeria.

Central Bank of Nigeria (2006).Development Finance Activities of the CBN. Abuja: Development Finance Department, Central Bank of Nigeria.

172

Chambers, R. (1993).Challenging the Professions: Frontiers for Rural Development. London: IT Publications.

Coombs, P.H. and Ahmed, M. (1974). Attacking Rural Poverty: How Non-Formal Education

can help. Baltimore and London: John Hopkins University Press. Comprehensive African Agricultural Development Programme (CAADP 2004) NEPAD: New

Partnership for Africa’s Development.

Cranton, P. (2000).Teaching for transformation. In Ross-Gordon (ED.) Contemporary view points on Teaching Adults Effectively: New Directions for Adults and Continuing Education. (93) 63-71. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Cross, P. (1981). Adults as Learners: Increasing Participation and Facilitating Learning. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Destremau, B. (2001).Poverty Discourse and State Power: A case Study of Morocco.London-New York: CROP International Studies in Poverty Research.

Dorr, D. (1992). Options for the Poor: Catholic Social Teaching. Golden Bridge – Dublin: Gilland Macmillan Ltd.

Dixon, J. Gulliver, D. and Gibbon, D. (2001).Farming Systems and Poverty: Improving

Farmer’s Livelihood in a Changing World. Rome - Washington D.C: FAO/World Bank

Department of Education (2005).Adult Education and Literacy: Helping Adults Become Literate. Washington D.C. – USA: No Child Left Behind. Agric. (2005) Systems and Management.

Ega, L. (2006).National Programme for Food Security (NPFS):The Proposed Expansion Phase,

(2006-2010). Abuja: FMARD &FAO/UN. Eboh, C. Eric (2009).Social and Economic Research: Principles and Methods. Enugu-Nigeria: African Institute for Applied Economics.

Ezulike, T. O. Udealor, A. and Aham, J. (2002).Funding Agriculture for Food Security through

Strengthening Research and Extension Activities of the ADP System. Umudike: FMARD / National Root Crops Research Institute (NRCRI)

Federal Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Development (FMARD, 2001).New Agricultural

Policy for Nigeria. Lagos, Nigeria: Federal Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Development.

Federal Ministry of Education and Youth Development (1993).Better Schools Managements:

Head Teacher Education and Resource Material. Lagos: Federal Ministry of Education and Youth Development.

Fingeret, A. (1984).Adult Literacy Education: Current and Future Directions. Columbus: OH: Eric Clearing House on Adult, Career, and Vocational Education (Eric Document Reproduction Service No. ED 24 308)

Food and Agricultural organization (FAO, 1989).Approach and Principles of the Farmer Fields

Schools (FFS).Indonesia - South East Asia: FAO/UNDP.

173

Food and Agricultural organization (FAO, 1987). World Bank Experience with Rural

Development 1965-1986. Washington D.C: The World Bank

Food and Agricultural Organization (FAO, 2005).The State of Food Insecurity in theWorld. Rome: FAO.

Food and Agricultural Organization (FAO, 2005).Education and Undernourishment: The

Vicious Cycle of Feeding Bodies and Minds.Rome: FAO.

Garforth, C (1998).Mass Media and Communications Technology.In G.E Jones (Ed.), Investing in Rural Extension: Strategies and Goals. (P.1185-192).London and New York: Elsevier Typlied Science Publishers.

Gellen, K. (1994). Unleashing the Power of Women Farmers: Africa’s vast hidden Resources

hold the key to Development.New York: Africa Farmer Magazine. Good, K. (2001). Democracy and Poverty: Links and Associations. In: Poverty Reduction: what

Role for the State in today’s Globalized Economy? London- New York: Zed Books.

Gwyn, E. J and Garforth, C. (1997).The History, Development and Future of Agriculture

Extension. Rome: FAO. Harrison, P. (1991). Farmers lead the way in Improving the Environment. New York: Africa

Farmer Magazine.

Harrison, P. (1984). Role of Government in combating Food Shortages: Lessons from Kenya

1984)-1985. Africa in Print (No. 314). New York: Cambridge University Press.

Harrison, P. (1988). Hunters and Farmers of the African Forest.In: People of the Tropical

Rainforest.Africa in Print-Los Angeles: University of California Press.

Harrison, P. (2000/2001).Poverty Reduction Strategies: Poverty Analysis, and Poverty and

Social Impact Analysis (PSIA). New York: World Development Report.

Hayward, I. (1990). Agricultural Extension: The World Bank’s Experience and Approaches. Rome: In FAO Report of the Global Consultation of Agricultural Extension.

Horst, S. Morna, C.L. Jonah, D. O. (1990).Educating our Children to become Farmers.

New York: Africa Farmer Magazine (July 1990, 19pp 17-21).

Idachaba, F.S. (2006). “Why Nigeria Agriculture continues to be neglected”.Inaugural

Distinguished Lecture Held at the Michael Okpara University of Agriculture, Umudike (Unpublished).

Igbozurike, U. M. (1983).Agriculture at the Cross – Roads. Ile-Ife, Nigeria: University of Ife

Press.

174

Ijaiya, N.Y.S. (2009). “Implementing Sound Basic Education as a Tool for Sustainable National Development”. A Paper Presented in ANCOPSS 52nd Annual National Congress in llorin –Kwara State.

Ingawa, S.A. & Sneyers, G. (2003).National Special Programme for Food Security (NSPFS) in

Nigeria: Field Operational Guidelines. Abuja: (PCU) FMARD/FAO. Jeorges, B. (1967). Animation Rurale in Africa –Bie method ender RAM Zeitshcrift fiir

auslaadische Landwrtschaft. Jones, G.E. (1979). “The Original Agricultural Advisory: Lord Clarandon’s Practical Instructors

in mid-nineteenth Century Ireland”. In proceedings of the 4th

International Seminar on

Extension Education.Department of Agricultural Extension:University College, Dublin.

Kanji, N. (2001). “PovertyReduction and Policy Dialogue: The World Bank and The State in Zimbabwe, Zambia, and Malawi”. Crop International Poverty Studies. London - New York: Zed Books.

Kerapeletswe, C.K. and Moremi, T. (2001). “Poverty and Democratization: The Case of Botswana - South Africa”. CROP International Poverty Studies. London – New York: ZedBook

Knowles, M. (1980).The Modern practice of Adult Education:Androgogy versus

Pedagogy. Revised and updated Education Englewood .Cliffs, NJ: Cambridge Adult Education.

Knowles, M. (1975).Self-directed Learning: A Guide for Learners and Teachers. Chicago: Follet

Publishing Company.

Knowles, M. and Associates (1984). Androgogy in Action: Applying Modern Principle of Adult

Learning. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publisher. Kozol, J. (1985).Illiterate America. New York: New America Library

Mafeje, A. (2001). Conceptual and Philosophical Predispositions: From Poverty Alleviation to

Poverty Eradication. London – New York: Crop International Studies in Poverty Research, Zed Books.

May, J. (2001).Meeting the Challenges: The Emerging Agenda for Poverty Reduction in Post-

Apartheid South Africa. London-New York: Zed Books. Mensah, M. (`1988).We must listen to the Farmers. New York: Africa Farmer Magazine (No. 1:1988).

Merriam and Caraffela (2008). “Adult Learning Theories: Professional Development Fact Sheet No. 5.” California: Adult Literacy Professional Development Project.

Mezirow, J. (2000). Learning to think like an Adult: Core Concepts of Transformation Theory. In Mezirow J. (Ed.): Learning as Transformation - Critical Perspective on a Theory in Progress. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publishers.

175

Moremi, T (1990). RaisingRural Incomes in Botswana.New York: Africa Farmer Magazine

Moris, J. (1991).Extension Alternatives in Tropical Africa. London: Overseas Development Agency.

Morna,C.L. (1993). When Women learn every one Benefit. New York: Africa Farmer. Morna, C.I. Ephson, B. Kawule, G. Quattera, S. and Horst, S. (1990)Credit: A key Agricultural

Input.New York: Africa Farmer Magazine Nagel, U.J. (1992). Developing a Participatory Extension Approach:A Design for Siavanga

District, Zambia. Berlin: Centre for Advanced Training in Agriculture Development. National Bureau of Statistics (2005). “The Nigerian Statistical Fact Sheets on Economic

Development”. Abuja-Nigeria: Nation Bureau of Statistics (NBS).

National Bureau of Statistics (NBS 2006). “Executive Summary: Core Welfare Indicators Questionnaire Survey (CWIQ)”. Abuja – Nigeria: NBS

National Economic Empowerment Development Strategy (NEEDS 2004). NEEDS Manual. Abuja-Nigeria: The Presidency, National Planning Commission.

Niger Delta Human Development Report (2006).Niger Delta Poverty Index. Apapa Lagos:

Vanguard Media Limited. (Vanguard August 2, 2006: vol.22 no 60129 pp 45). Niger Delta Human Development Report (2006).Pollution in the Niger Delta. Apapa Lagos:

Vanguard Limited. (Vanguard August 14 2006. vol. 22 no 60136, pp 48). Niger Delta Human Development Report (2006). Poverty amidst Oil Wealth in Niger Delta.

Apapa Lagos: Vanguard Media Limited. (Vanguard August 16 2006:Vol. no 60136, pp 48).

Nwosu, K. L, Udealor, A., and Ezulike, T.O. (2004).Strengthening Agricultural Research and

Extension towards achieving National Food Security. Umudike: FMARD –NECRI. Obansanjo, O. (2006). Obansanjo Economic Direction 1999-2003. Nigeria: Dawn Functions

Nigeria Ltd. Obasanjo, O. (1991). Agriculture: The Bedrock of Development. New York: Africa Farmer

Magazine. (pp 41-431).

Obibuaku, L.O. (1981).Agricultural Extension as a Strategy for Agricultural Transformation. Nigeria: University of Nigeria Press.

Ogbazi, N. J. (1985). The Role of Co-operative Education in the Preparation of the Nigerian

Youth for Employment in Agricultural Occupations. (Pp 83-93), in Trends In Vocational Education in Nigeria. University of Benin: Nigeria Educational Research Association.

176

Ocloo, Esther Afua (1991). Empowering African Women to End Hunger. New York: Africa Farmer Magazine (pp 39-40)

Odhiambo, Thomas R. (1987).New Direction for Agricultural Research. New York: Africa

Farmer Magazine (pp.28-33).

Ojo, O.P. (2006). Guide for NERICA and other Rice Varieties Seed promotion Umudike: National Root Crops Research Institute (NRCRI)

Okafor, A.A (2004).Poverty and Human Development in Nigeria: Challenges of the MDGs.

Nsukka, Nigeria: Great AP Express Publisher Ltd. Okereke, O.O. (2005).Poverty and Corruption: A Focus on Lower Class Public Servants in Abia

State.Unpublished M. Ed Thesis. Uturu: Department of Government/public Administration, Abia State University.

Okoye, Rosemary N. (2006).Misgovernance, Poverty and Societal tension: The Nigerian

Experience. Onitsha Nigeria: African First Publishers Limited. Olisa, S.O. and Obiukwu, J.I. (1992).Rural Development in Nigeria: Dynamics and Strategies.

Awka: Mekslink Publishers (Nig). Omolewa, M and Fasokun, T.O.(1982). Adult Education in Nigeria: Special issues On Distance

Education in Nigeria, Vol. 7. Ibadan: Evans Brothers (Nig). Omolewa, M. (1981).Adult Education Practice inNigeria. Ibadan: Evans Brothers (Nig). Onunkwo, G.I (2002). Fundamentals of Educational Measurement and Evaluation. Owerri-

Onitsha: Cape Publishers International Ltd. Qumaorou, M. (1993). Women’s Key Economic Role. New York: Africa Farmer Magazine Osakwe, J. O. and Ojo, M.O. (1986).An Appraisal for Public Sector Financing of Agricultural

Development in Africa with Particular Reference to Nigeria. Central Bank of Nigeria: Economics and Financial Review. Vol. 24.no 2.1986

Osuala, E.C. (2005).Introduction to Research Mythology: The Millennium Edition. Enugu –

Nigeria: Cheston Agency Ltd. Oyedeji, O. Omolewa, M. and Asiedu, K. (1982).A Handbook of Literacy Education

For West Africa. Ikeja - Ibadan,- Owerri - Zaria: Longman.

Peterson, W. (1997).The Context of Extension in Agricultural and Rural Development. Rome: FAO-UN.

Pradervand, P. (1988).Listening to Africa. New York: Africa Farmer Magazine. Quedraogo, B.L (1990).West African Villagers Fight Hunger. New York: Africa Farmer

Magazine.

177

Raftopoulos, B. (2001).The State and Poverty Reduction Policies in Zimbabwe,1980-97.London-

New York: Crop International Poverty Research, Zed Book (pp196-214).

Rogerson, M.C. (2001). Redressing Urban Poverty in Post-apartheid South Africa.London –New York: Crop International Studies in Poverty Research. Zed Books (pp.341-360).

Schulz, B. (2001). Poverty and Development in the Age of Globalization: The Role of Foreign

Aids. London –New York: Crop International Studies in Poverty Research. Zed Book (pp.9 -106)

Sen, A. (1990). Public Action to Remedy Hunger.New York: Africa Farmer (No, 5 Nov. 1990 pp41-44)

Shekarua, I. (2006). “Community Participation in Education in a Dwindling Economy”. A paper

presented at the 4th

African Convention of Principals (ACP) of Secondary Schools In ANCOPSS International Congress 2006 Held in Abuja, Nigeria 2006.

Smith, V. (1994, Summer).A Learner Centred Approach to Social Skills for Technical Foresters:

Field Rural Development Forestry Network Paper (p12-20). London: Overseas Development Institute.

Swaminathan, M.S. (1990). “Achieving the Threshold”. The chance for all our People to Lead

Healthy and Productive Lives. Madras-India: The Hunger project.

Swanson, B. E. et al (1990):The Current Status of Agricultural Extension World Wide. In: Report of the Global Consultation on Agricultural Extension. Rome: FAO.

Taylor, E. (1998). The Theory and Practice of Transformative Learning: A critical Review. Columbus Oh: Centre on Education and Training for Empowerment (Eric Document Reproduction Services Service No. ED 423422).

Ted,R. (1988).Agricultural Price Policy for Development Countries. Baltimore, Washington D.C: Africa in Print, John Hopkins University Press.

Ted, R. (1985).Role of Government in Combating Food Shortages. Lessons from Kenya 1984. Baltimore-Washington D.C: African in Print John Hopkins University Press.

Tough, A. (1971).The Adult’s Learning Projects. Toronto: Ontario Institute for Studies In Education.

Udealor, A. Ezulike, T.O. and Nwosu, K. (2003).New Initiatives in Agricultural Development

and Rural Poverty Reduction: A Pragmatic Approach to Good Governance. NRCRI-Umudike: Project Co-ordinating Unit (PCU) and Agricultural Development Programme (ADP) in the S/E Agro-Ecological Zone of Nigeria.

Udo, E. J. (1990).Improving Small Scale Farmers’ Productivity through Research and

Extension: Challenges for 90’s. Umudike: National Root Crops Research Institute (NRCRI).

178

Ukonze, J. A (2005). Non – Governmental Organization Intervention Capacity Building and Constraints in Farmer Education Progrmmes in South Eastern Nigeria.Unpublished Ph.D

Thesis. Nsukka: Department of Vocational Teacher Education, University of Nigeria. Udom, A U. (2005).Essentials of Statistics. Enugu: Magnet Business Enterprises Publishers.

United Nations Development Programme (UNDP, 1991).Agricultural Extension Programme. Advisory Note.New York: United Nation Development Programme.

Uzuegbulam, A. O. (2005)Population and Development in Nigeria: Inter-Relation. Enugu-

Nigeria: MagnetBusinessEnterprises.

Wilkie,D. S. (1988). Hunters and Farmers of African Forests.Washington D.C: Africa in Print, John Hopkins University Press.

Wilson, F. Kanji, N. and Braathen, E. (2001).Introduction: Poverty, Power, and the State:

Impact of Global Trends. Crop International Studies in Poverty Research. London- New York: Zed Books (pp 2-14)

Wilson, F. Kanji, N and Braatheen, F. (2001).Poverty Reduction:What role for the State in

Today’s Globalized Economy?London –New York: Zed Books Ltd.

World Development Report (WDR, 2000/01). Attacking Poverty. Rome: FAO. Youssoufou, O. (1988).The African Farmer. New York: Africa Farmer Magazine.

179

APPENDIX A

Table 1: POVERTY INCIDENCE AND FARM PRACTICES

Use of Improved

Input

Extreme Poor Moderate Poor Non-Poor

Improved Seed 38.43 29.17 32.40

Pesticides 43.95 29.35 26.70

Fertilizer 50.08 28.37 21.58

Access of Credit

Friends and

Relations

48.74 28.48 22.78

No Credit 38.00 35.86 26.78

Community/People 44.99 29.76 26.14

Community/People

Banks

40.58 28.58 25.23

Agricultural Credit

Bank

35.99 26.99 30.87

Other Commercial

Banks

28.77 35.52 37.02

Coop Society 43.12 25,73 35.71

Local Lenders 35.34 32.83 31.16

Traditional

Contribution

31.83

Source: National Agricultural Sample Census 1993/94

180

APPENDIX B

Table 2: Farm Size Distribution by Region and Sex of Holder

<1ha. 1 to <ha 5 to<10ha 10 to<20ha 20ha &

Above

All 46.60 37.23 0.56 4.64 1.89

Regions

North East

10.24 49.41 23.48 12.32 3.93

North West 49.04 36.88 9.25 3.98 1.86

South

Central

73.34 42.64 7.70 3.53 2.54

South East 43.58

22.97 2,58 0.88 0.24

South West 49,94 41.14 2.58 0.84 0.25

South South 43.58 36.88 3.24 3.238 0.86

Male

Holder

73.34 24.41 7.62 5.02 2.93

Female

holder

54.53

38.55 10.32 0.85 0.42

63.83 24.23 2.93

Source: National Agricultural Sample Census (NASC) 1993/94

181

APPENDIX C Table 3: Poverty Profile of Farmers

Extreme Poor Moderately Poor Non-Poor

Educational Level

Below Primary

54.54

Primary 38.22 27.34 18.21

Secondary 29.02 33.35 28.44

Post Secondary 17.63 23.96 39.82

Age of Holder 16-

20

38.73 27.42 58.42

21-30 41.12 29.61 33.85

31-40 49,30 28.612 22.09

41-50 50.68 28.62 20.70

51-60 47.98 28.94 23.08

Source: NASC 1993/94

182

APPENDIX D

Table 4: Incidence of Poverty in Niger-Delta 1980-2005

LOCATION-SPECIFIC 1980 1985 1992 1996 2994

National 28.1 46.3 42.7 65.6 54.4

Abia State 14.4 33.1 49.9 56.2 22.27

Bayelsa State 7.2 44,4 43.4 44.3 19.98

Cross RiverState 10.2 41.9 45.5 66.9 41,61

Delta State 19.8 52.4 33.9 56.1 45.35

Edo State 19.8 52.4 33.9 56.1 33.09

Imo State 14.4 33.1 49,9 56.2 27.39

Ondo State 22.9 47.3 46.6 71.6 42.15

Rivers State 7.2 44.4 43.4 44.33 29.09

Source: National Bureau of Statistics (2004)

183

APPENDIX E Table 5: Literacy Status in Nine Most Populous Countries of the World

Country

Total Literate

Population 5+

Age (in million)

Literacy Rate 15+ (%)

Total

Male

Female

Mexico 5.96 91.0 93.1 89.1

Indonesia 19.24 87.0 91.9 82.1

Brazil 17.91 85.3 85.1 85.4

China 144.96 85.0 92.3 77.4

Nigeria 22.80 64.1 72.3 56.2

India NA 58.5 72.3 44.4

Egypt 19,83 55.3 66.6 43.7

Pakistan 51.67 43.3 57.6 27.8

Bangladesh 49.62 0.8 51.7 9,5

Source: UNESCO 1999 Statistical Year Book. (Estimated Literacy Rates for the Year, 2000)

184

APPENDIX F Table 6: Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) and Targets

GOALS TARGETS

1. Eradicate Extreme Poverty

and Hunger

Reduce by half the proportion of people living on less than

one USA dollar a day and also those who suffer from

hunger.

2. Achieve Universal Primary

Education

Ensure that all boys and girls complete a full course of

primary schooling and achieve education for all by 2015.

3. Promote Gender Equality

and Empower Women

Eliminate gender disparity in primary and secondary

education, preferably by 2005, and al all levels by 2015.

4. Reduce Child Mortality Reduce by two-third the mortality rate among children under

five.

5. Improve Maternal Health Reduce by three quarter the maternal mortality

6. Combat HIV/AIDS, Malaria

and other disease

Halt and begin to reverse the spread of HIV/AIDS. Halt and

begin to reverse the incidence of malaria and other disease

7. Ensure Environment

sustainability

Integrate the principles of sustainable development into

country policies and programmes; reverse loss of

environmental resources, and reduce by half the proportion

of people without sustainable access to safe drinking water.

Achieve significant improvement in lives of at least 100

million slum dwellers, by 2020.

8. Develop a global partnership

for development

Develop further on open, rule - based predictable non-

discriminatory trading and financial system which includes

a commitment to good governance, development and

poverty reduction both nationally and internationally etc.

Source: AbiaState Planning Commission, Mar. 2006.

185

APPENDIX G

The Table 7: Sectorial Allocations to Agriculture as Compared to Total Budget for the Period 1977 to 2005

Year Total

Budget

(Recurrent)

Total

Budget

(Capital).

Total

Budget

Agric.

Budget

(Recurrent)

Agric.

National

Resource

(Capital)

Total

Agric.

Budget

Water

Resources

Budget

(Capital)

% Agric.

Recurrent in

Total

Recurrent

Budget

%Agric.

Budget

(Capital

in Total

Capital

Budget)

% Agric.

Budget

(Total) in

Total

Budget

%Water

Resources

Capital

Budget in

Total

Capital

Budget

%Water

Resources

Capital

Budget in

Total

Budget

1977-

1973

Total 851298 7034.2 125470 301.7 6117,2 6418,9 14368..1 4.16 90.69 46.87 196.87 95.39

Mean 8512.98 7034.02 155.47 30.17 611.72 641,89 1436.81 0.42 9.07 4.69 19.69 95.39

1987-

1996 6506.8 18219.6 24726,4 18836.4 8.23 99.68 32.14 94.02 25.76

Total 536753,8 19443.26 751186.4 6506.8 18219.6 24726.4 18836.4 0.23 9.97 3.21 9.40 2.58

Mean 55675.35 19443.26 751186.4

1997-

2995

Total 6710.473 234205 905.2570 905259.1 95449.9 2266633.3 320982.2 487582.2 22.91 35.52 63.71 83.11

Mean 3462.3 250227.9 1005836 10605.46 23059.23 35664.69 5417.21 2.55 9.23 3.95 7.08 1.27

Source: Underlying data Central Bank of Nigeria Statistical Bulletin (volume 14) Annual Report for the year Ended December, 2005

(Adopted from Idachaba 2006)

186

APPENDIX H

Table 8: ABCPRP Projects Executed for the Period 2003-2006

Community Project Type L.G.A. Commencement

Date

Completion

Date

Amuke Health Centre Ohafia 17/12/02 15/5/03

Asaga School Block -do- 12/11/02 20/11/03

Elu Akanu Item Electricity Bende 10/03/03 01/02/04

Etiti Amavo Electricity Osisioma 13/12/02 05/07/04

Etiti Ndoki School Block Ukwa East 10/10/03 23/12/04

Amangwu Road Ohafia 25/5/03 21/3/05

Isiegbu Item Electricity Bende 19/12/02 27/4/03

Amuke Ohafia Health Centre Ohafia 17/12/02 15/5/03

Nkata Afaraukwu Ibeku Health Centre Umuahia North 10/12/02 27/6/05

Agbozu Uzuakoli Road Bende 16/12/02 30/6/03

Idima Ohaeke Abam Road Arochukwu 17/12/02 25/9/03

Umueso Abriba Road Ohafia 10/10/02 26/9/03

Umueze Amafor Ohiya Water Umuahia South 10/12/02 16/10/03

Apuami Item School Block Bende 9/10/2002 20/11/03

Otamkpo Isiukwato Electricity Isiukwuato 9/10/2002 20/11/03

Asaga Ohafqia School Block Ohafia 12/1020/02 20/11/2003

Amuzukwu Health Centre Umuahia North 14/4/2003 2/12/03

Umuka Aro Electricity Osisioma 27/1120/03 23/12/03

Umukabia Health Centre Umuahia North 14/4/2003 27/12/03

Obohia Health Centre Ukwa East 26/3/2003 30/12/03

Amakpoke Health Centre Umunneochi 27/3/2003 6/01/2004

Umuode Ikenna Nsulu School Block Isialangwa North 11/12/2002 16/02./2004

Elu Akamu Item Electricity Bende 10/3/2003 1/02/2004

Atah Ihechiowa School Block Arochukwu 23/4/2004 13/2/2004

Okporo Ahaba Electricity Isialangwa South 22/4/2004 22/04/2004

Ike Ahaba Water Isialangwa South 16/04/2003 23/04/2004

Umunna Ndume Health Centre Umuahia North 29/03/2003 27/05/2004

Ofofia Igbere School Block Bende 09/12/2003 2/06/2004

Ossah Ibeku Electricity Umuahia North 29/3/2003 13/06/2004

Okai Item Electricity Bende 16/12/2002 15/06/2004

Akwukankwu Umuhu Electricity Bende 25/03/2003 16/06/2004

187

Amuhu Umuhu Electricity Bende 25/03/2003 16/06/2004

Etiti Amavo Electricity Osisioma 13/12//2002 05/07/2004

Umulau Ntigha Electricity Isialangwa North 22/02/2003 13/07/2004

Umueleghele School Block Isialangwa North 20/03/2003 27/07/2007

Umuasua School Block Isiukwuato 27/03/2003 30/07/2004

Ugwuakuma School Block Arochukwu 28/02/2004 20/10/2004

Oganihu Umuehihie Electricity Umunneochi 24/04/2004 01/11/2004

Egbeigiri Umuhu Electricity Bende 25/03/2003 02/12/2004

Amaechichi Umuhu Electricity Bende 25/03/2003 02/12/2004

Amabia Uku Umuhu Electricity Bende 25/03/2003 02/12/2004

Achi Amugwu Umuhu Electricity Bende 25/03.2003 02/12/2004

Okagwa Ohafia Water Ohafia 22/10/2003 18/12/2004

Iberenta Electricity Ikwuano 08/01/2004 23/12/2004

Eti Ndoki School Block Ukwa East 10/10/2003 23/12/2004

Ikeaha

School Block Umuahia North 28/11/2003 27/12/2004

Amuto Igbere Electricity Ikwuano 12/05/2003 03/01/2004

Umunneise Ohafor Abam Electricity Arochukwu 24/02/2003 01/02/2004

Umusi Igbere Health Centre Bende 28/04/2003 08/02/2004

Isiala Okpu Civic Centre Osisioma 08/06/2004 10/02/2005

Umunyere Alayi Health Centre Bende 18/05/2004 15/02/2005

Ndi orieke Ohafia Electricity Ohafia 10/03/2003 01/03/2003

Mbutu Amaiteghete Electricity Isialanwga South 22/02/2003 09/03/2005

Umuokwo Electricity Ikwuano 20/05/2004 21/03/2005

Amangwu Ohafia Road Ohafia 05/05/2003 21/03/2005

Agboji Abiriba Road Ohafia 04/10/2003 31/03/2005

Okwulaga Health Centre Umuahia North 15/12/2003 05/04/2005

Ekwelu Water Ikwuano 24/02/2003 15/04/2005

Ugwu Nkpa School Block Bende 09/10/2004 30/04/2005

Amurie Nkporo Road Ohafia 24/02/2004 15/05/2005

Eziukwu Ebem Health Centre Ohafia 29/10/2004 19/05/2005

Akpaa Umunne Electricity Osisioma 10/06/2004 26/05/2995

Nabu

Nsukwu Ubakala Road Umuahia South 07/01/2004 17/06/2005

Obieketa Electricity Isialangwa North 07/10/2004 06/08/2005

Umuagwula Electricity Obingwa 16/12/2004 10/08/2005

188

Akpa 1 Electricity Osisioma 21/05/2004 11/08/2004

Amaba Ugwueke Electricity Bende 24/06/2003 12/08/2005

Ndielu Ugwueke Electricity Bende 24/06/2003 12/08/2005

Etiti Ugwueke Electricity Bende 24/06/2003 12/08/2005

Amaokai Ugwueke Electricity Bende 24/06/2003 12/08/2005

Amaeze Ugwueke Electricity Bende 24/06/2003 12/08/2005

Umungere Ugwueke Electricity Bende 24/06/2003 12/08/2005

Eziukwu Ugwueke Electricity Bende 07/07/2003 12/08/2005

Isiala Amaelu Electricity Bende 24/06/2003 12/08/2005

Ntalakwu School Block Bende 24/11/2003 15/08/2005

Mgboko Omeni Electricity Obingwa 16/12/2003 05/09/2005

Umuezeigbe Electricity Obingwa 12/10/2003 05/09/2005

Umuobiala Electricity Isiukwuato 18/06/2004 06/09/2005

Oboro School Block Bende 11/11/2004 10/09/2005

Ngodo Ohaukwu Amairi Electricity Isiukwuato 16/06/2004 12/09/2005

Okagwe Item Water Bende 09/10//2003 12/09/2005

Isiadu Amafor Health Centre Umuahia North 04/11/2004 14/09/2005

Okwuta Isieke Health Centre Umuahia North 17//5/2004 14/09/2005

Obayi Ovim Health Centre Isiukwuato 27/02/2003 15/09/2005

Isingwu Ofeme Water Umuahia North 06/10/2004 16/09/2005

Mbom Afaranta Health Centre Umuahia North 13/05//2004 09/09/2005

Umuajuju Electricity Isialangwa South 03/09/2004 21/09/2005

Umosi Electricity Isialangwa South 03/09/2004 21/09/2005

Okpuala Umuawa Alaocha Water Umuahia North 27/09/2003 21/09/2005

Amuike Isihaba Electricity Isialangwa South 12/05/2004 21/09/2005

Amavo Nkwuogu Electricity Osisioma 05/10/2004 21/09/2005

Obizi Amakama

Water Umuahia North 07/10/2004 21/09/2005

Amafor Isingwu Road Umuahia North 03/11/2004 21/09/2005

Umuoriko Water Umuahia North 16/02/2005 21/09/2005

Mba Isi Ahaba Electricity Isialangwa South 02/09/2004 21/09/2005

Isiaku Alayi Health Centre Bende 13/01/2004 29/09/2005

Amaiyi Igbere Water Bende 18/11/2004 06/10/2005

Afugiri Federated Union Market Umuahia North 17/11/2003 12/10/2005

Ndi Nko Nkporo Road Ohafia 11/12/2002 14/10/2005

Ndi Uduma Awoke Health Centre Ohafia 02/05/2003 20/10/2005

189

Nkata Alie Water Umuahia North 17/05/2005 08/11/2005

Obuba Isiala Nvosi Electricity Isialangwa South 07/03/2005 11/11/2005

Amizi Awomnuzie Health Centre Ikwuano 09/12/2004 18/11/2005

Isiala Ezere Health Centre Isiukwuato 09/01/2004 23/11/2005

Iyalu Electricity Ikwuano 09/11/2004 24./11/2005

Umuorinkoku Agriculture Umuahia South 12/10/2004 29/11/2005

Amaba Abiriba School Block Ohafia 22/10/2004 30/11/2005

Umuejea Umunna Nvosi Electricity Isialangwa South 26/10/2004 01/12/2005

Amaekpu Electricity Isialangwa North 04/10/2004 02/12/2005

Ihie Isuochi Road Umunneochi 05/03/2004 02/12/2005

Obinihu Road Umunneochi 09/03/2005 02/12/2005

Nkwebi Ohafia Water Ohafia 06/10/2004 05/12/2005

Amaba Isiukwuato Water Isiukwuato 30/04/2003 06/12/2005

Obaji Water Ukwa West 10/11/2003 07/12/2005

Inyila Ugwu Ibere Electricity Ikwuano 05/11/2004 05/01/2006

Binyam Abiriba Road Ohafia 10/10/2002 18/01/2006

Atani Road Arochukwu 10/10/2002 13/02/2006

Obuofia Ofiavu Ozuitem Electricity Bende 19/04/2005 14/02/2006

Amaeke Isiegbu Electricity Bende 19/04/2005 04/03/2996

Okafia Igbere 2 School Block Bende 07/05/2005 28/03/2006

Ohnja Water Isuikwuati 25/02/2005 03/04/2006

Nkpa Amaediaba Water Bende 09/05/2003 04/04/2006

Ekwereazu Ngwa Electricity Obingwa 04/11/2004 05/04/2006

Leru School Block Umunneochi 18/11/2003 05/04/2006

Obohia Agburuke Electricity Isialangwa North 08/10/2004 05/04/2006

Umuezeagwu Water Umuahia North 17/11/2004 05/04/2006

Isiygwu Health centre Ohafia 12/11/2004 18/04/2006

Ebemogu VIP Toilet Ohafia 21/10/2005 11/05/2006

Amaigwu Alayi Water Bende 18/03/2004 11/05/2006

Oberete Asa Electricity Osisioma 22/03/2005 15/06/2006

Umuihuonu Road Umunneochi 26/10/2004 19/06/2006

Umuajata Olokoro Road Umuahia South 29/10/2004 20/06/2006

Umuntu Olokoro School Umuahia South 15/04/2005 28/06/2006

Umudinja Amaeke Ovim Skills Acquisition Isiukwuato 03/03/2004 30/06/2006

Obeaku Health Centre Ukwa East 23/11/2004 30/06/2006

190

Ugwuele Health Centre Isiukwuato 18/03/2005 17/07/2006

Isieketa Electricity Isialangwa South 18/04/2005 21/07/2006

Amamiri Isi Eleocha Health Centre Arochukwu 05/01/2004 01/08/2006

Umuda Ngodo Water Umunneochi 11/10/2004 09/08/2006

Ibina Ukwu Igbere Water Bende 20/11/2003 09/08/2006

Oboni Water Ikwuno 01/11/2004 15/08/2006

Obiukom Ututu Water Arochukwu 23/06/2005 12/09/2006

Amaise Electricity Isialangwa South 19/11/2003 20/09/2006

Umuemenike Electricity Ikwuano 31/03/2005 20/09/2006

Amaekpu Umuamainta Electricity Isiala Ngwa North 30/08/2005 30/09/2006

SourceAbiaState Community-based Poverty Reduction programme (ABCPRP 2006).

191

APPENDIX I

Table 9: Nigeria Food Import Dependency Ratio ((FIDR) 1986-2005

Year Food Import (N. Billion) Total Import (N Billion) Food Import Dept. Ratio

1986

1987

1988

1989

1990

1991

1992

1993

1994

1995

1996

1997

1998

1999

2000

2001

2002

2003

2004

2005

Mean

Standard

Deviation

Minimum

Maximum

Sum

0.8019

1.8738

1.8916

2.1089

3.4745

3.0457

12.8402

13.9524

13.837

88.3499

75.392

100.7283

102.1651

103.4898

113.6305

160.2091

179.9935

222.5529

197.36137

173.00216

43.92322

68.50441

0.0577

222.5529

1581.236

5.9836

17.8612

21.4457

30.8602

45.7179

39.4882

143.1512

165.6294

162.7888

755.1277

562.6294

845.7166

837.4189

862.5157

962.9639

1357.675

1580.527

2295.89

2193.967

2496.421

431.3079

717.5901

0.7564

2496.424

15527.03

0.13

0.10

0.09

0.07

0.08

0.03

0.09

0.08

0.08

0.12

0.13

0.12

0.12

0.12

0.12

0.11

0.10

0.09

0.07

0.111243

0.035785

0.034035

0.197794

4.004766

Source: CBN Annual Report Dec. 2005 and adopted from Idachaba (2006).

APPENDIX J

192

Table 10: Share of Agriculture and Oil in Nigeria’s Foreign Exchange Earnings 2000- 2005

Year Oil Export Non-Oil

Export

Total

Export

Agric.

Export

%Oil

In

Total

Export

% Non-

Oil

in Total

Export

%Agric

In Total

Export

%Agric. In

Non-Oil

Export.

2000

2001

2002

2003

2004

2005

Mean Std.

Dev.

Minimum

Maximum

1920900.40

1973222.20

1787622.10

2969600.60

4446867.60

6157856.70

3209344.93

1760219.79

1787622.10

6157856.70

24822.90

28008.60

950.46.10

95092.50

113735.33

92310.78

74836.04

38292.08

24822.90

113735.33

11350.00

11344.06

12342.42

12840.78

37532.60

38567.44

20746.22

13416.67

11350.00

38567.44

194573.30

2001230.80

1882668.20

2889846.70

456052.993

6250167.48

325029.90

1787637.81

1882668.20

6250167.43

98.72

98.60

94.95

102.76

97.51

98.52

98.51

2.52

94.95

102.76

1.28

1.40

5.50

3.29

2.49

1.48

2.50

1.47

1.28

0.05

0.58

0.50

0.66

0.44

0.82

0.62

0.62

0.12

0.44

0.82

45.72

42.29

12.99

13.50

33.00

41.78

31.35

14.79

12.99

45.72

Sum 19256069.60 449016.21 124477.30 19530179.1 591.07 14.99 0.72 189.00

Source: CBN 2005 and Adapted from Idachaba, 2006

193

APPENDIX K Table 11: Capital Allocation to Agriculture (#m)

Source: Economic and Financial Review; 1986 in Idachaba 2006.

Item 1962-68 1970-74 1975-80 1981-85

A FEDERAL GOVERNMENT

Agriculture

All sectors

Agric. Percentages share

40.6

825.0

4.9

79.5

1,931.7

4.1

1,668.8

33,921.1

49

5,400.0

42,500.0

12.7

B STATE GOVERNMENT

All sectors

Agric. Percentage share

116.2

528.6

22.0

252.2

1,418.3

17.9

1,421.2

9,391.8

15.1

3,427.5

27.776.2

12.7

C. TOTAL FED AND STATE

Agriculture

Al sectors

Agric. Percentage share

156.8

1,353.6

11.6

331.7

3,350.0

9.9.

3,090.0

43,312

7.1

8.827.5

70,276.2

12.7

194

APPENDIX L

AGRIULCTURAL ECOLOGICAL ZONES OF ABIASTATE WITH COMPONENT LOCL

GOVERNMENT AREAS.

AGRIECOZONES COMPONENT LGAs

1. Aba 1. Aba North

2. Abia South

3.Isialangwa North

4. Obingwa

5. Osisioma

6. Ugwulagbo

7. Ukwa East

8. Ukwa East

2. Ohafia 1. Arochukwu

2. Bende

3. Isiukwuato

4. Ohafia

5. Umunneochi

3. Umuahia 1. Ikwuano

2. Isialangwa South

3. Umuahia North

4. Umuahia South.

Total 3 17

Source: AbiaState – ADP, 2006

195

APPENDIX M

STATISTICS OF FARMERS’ MULTI-PURPOSE COOPERATIVE SOCIETIES

(FMCS) IN THE OHAFIA AGRIECOLOGICAL ZONE OF ABIA STATEAS AT 3RD

NOVEMBER, 2008

S/N LOCATION/CO,MMUNITY NO. OF

FMCS

MEMBERSHIP

TOTAL

Male Female

1. Arochukwu 58 697 637 1334

2 Abam 63 684 957 1641

3 Bende 57 847 726 1573

4 Isukwuato 99 3810 879 4707

5 Ohafia 117 3360 3806 4239

6 Umunneochi 92 1033 2806 3839

7 Umunna 35 688 214 902

8 Uzuakoli 28 70 1041 1,111

9 Abiriba 41 680 1174 1854

Total 600 11,869 10,057 21,200

Source: Ministry of Co-operatives and Poverty Reduction, AbiaState (3-11-08).

196

APPENDIX N ABIA STATE ADP FIELD STAFF DISPOSITON FOR YEAR 2005

ZONES NO

OF

SMS

NO.

OF

BES

NO.

OF

BEA

NO.

OFEAS

NO. OF

BLOCKS

NO. OF

CIRCLES

NO OF

CIRCLE

PLANNED

NO OF

VACANT

CIRCLES

ABA 6 12 11 58 12 96 57 39

OHAFIA 6 13 09 48 13 85 48 37

UMUAHIA 6 13 07 68 13 93 68 26

TOTAL 16 38 27 174 13 274 173 101

Extension to Farming Family (FFR): Ratio 1:1490. Source: ADPAbiaState (2005)

Key:

SMS = Subject Master Specialist

BESs = Block Extension Supervisor

BEAs = Block Extension Agents

EAs = Extension Agents

Total Extension Staff = 76

197

APPENDIX O

EVIDENCE OF VALIDATION OF INSTRUMENT

Department of Vocational Teacher Education

University of Nigeria Nsukka

Date: July, 2010

_______________________

______________________

_______________________

Dear Sir/Madam,

Request for Validation of Research Instrument

I am a postgraduate student of the above Department and University, currently undertaking a research project entitled: Achieving Poverty and Hunger Reduction among Rural Farmers in AbiaState through Farmer Literacy Education. The Study seeks to identify Functional Farmer Literacy Education Models (FLEMs) that can teach modern agricultural knowledge and technologies and impart literacy skills to rural farmers, in an integrated approach, as means to improving their productive capacities and enhance their socio-economic status. Specifically the study seeks: (i) to identify causes of poverty and hunger among rural farmers, in ABIA State of Nigeria; (ii) find out the role Farmer Literacy Education should play in the context of poverty and hunger reduction among rural farmers; (iii) identify Farmer Literacy Education Models that can teach modern agricultural knowledge and impart fundamental literacy skills as means to empower rural farmers for greater productivity and achieve poverty and hunger reduction;. (iv) Determine the extent of the impact of government rural agricultural intervention programmes on rural literacy education campaigns in the context of hunger and poverty reduction; (v). And determine the benefits of literacy education to rural farmers in the context of achieving poverty and hunger reduction at the threshold. Find attached draft copies of questionnaires for the study. Could you please vet the instruments for content, clarity of language and suitability for use in collecting data for the study? Specially, you are requested to: (1) Reward, delete or add to items as you deem appropriate. (2) Make general comments or suggestions for improving the instrument in line with the purpose of the study. Thanks. Yours faithfully, AGWU AUGUSTUS AMOGU REG. NO. PG/Ph.D/05/39641

198

June, 2008.

APPENDIX P

FINAL DRAFT OF QUESTIONNAIRE

UNIVERSITY OF NIGERIA NSUKKA

DEPARTMENT OF VOCATIONAL TEACHER EDUCATION

(AGRICULTURAL)

Project Topic: Achieving Poverty and Hunger Reduction among Rural

Farmers in AbiaState through Farmer Literacy Education.

Part One: Please complete the information below as appropriate

1. Your Locality …………………………………………………….

2. Age Bracket (a) 36-45 years ( ) (b) 46-55 years ( )

3. Can red and write and count in English? ( ) No ( )

4. Can read and write count in any other language Yes ( ) No ( )

5. Has never attended school Yes ( ) No ( )

6. if yes what is the highest grade complete

Primary 1-6 ( ) Secondary 1-6 ( ) other (specify) ( )

7. Marital Status (A) Single ( ) (B) Widow (C) Divorce ( )

(D) If married: No of wives ( ).

199

APPENDIX Q

RESEARCH QUESTION 1: Causes of Poverty and Hunger among Rural Farmers.

S/N ITEM STATEMENT

SA A D SD 4 3 2 1

Land Rights and uncertain land tenureship which

limits access farming land

Landlessness and fragmentation of farm holding to

farm loading to low farm productivity

Depletion of rural agricultural labour force due to

rural-urban migration of able bodies youths

Further depletion of rural labour force with the

introduction of University Basic Education (UBE)

Chronic incapacity of adult farmers to work and

decline in this incapacity due to endemic and

pandemic diseases – Malaria, Guinea worm

infection, HIV/AIDS etc.

Poor rural infrastructural bass, which adversely

affect transportation, marketing and distribution of

farm inputs and outputs

The exploitative activities of middlemen in the

marketing and distribution of farm produce which

reduce profit margins of rural farmers.

Obsolete farming skills, rudimentary practices and

subsistence level of production

The higher farmer-extension ratio, which reduces

the effectiveness and efficiency of research

information and technology transfer to rural farmer

Failure of Agricultural Extension Education to

improved the literacy competence of rural farmers

The incapacity of rural farmers to embrace new

technologies, research findings and changes in farm

200

production systems f due to illiteracy

Gender disparity and discrimination in agricultural

production activities, which undermine the

contributions of rural women farmers in the

production process.

Poor rural infrastructural bass and inadequate

access to social goods such as roads and social

amenities which limits access to market and

encourage agricultural exist.

Backwardness in values and ideology in among

rural farmers due to popular superstition and

illiteracy

Poor application of science and technology in the

farming process

Unsatisfying quality or rural agricultural production

labour force.

Abandoning of rural farming families by male

household-heads for off-farm employment and in

search of greener pastures in urban centre.

High levels of illiteracy among farming household

heads

Poorly educated human resources and poor human

capital development of rural communities.

Environmental degradation due to poor utilization

of agricultural resources and traditional farming

practices.

201

APPENDIX R RESEARCH QUESTION 2: Role of Farmer Education should play in the context of

Poverty and Hunger Reduction among Rural Farmers.

S/N

ITEM STATEMENT

SA A D SD

4 3 2 1

Raise the literacy levels of rural farmers enabling them

to read, write and count as an integral par of farmer

education and training

Enable rural farmers to acquire the skills of transmitting

and receiving messages in an intelligible manner in

written forms

Provide means of modifying attitudes and behaviour of

rural farmers towards modern farming technologies and

innovations.

Enhance and improve farmer’s capacity to adopt new

farm innovations

Serve as means for obtaining information and pivot for

further learning

Empower rural farmers with the ability to judge and

choose farming systems with the best prospects improving

their lives.

Systematize the way farm technologies and farmers

transform agricultural knowledge and research

information into effective and useable field messages

Offset the literacy imbalance inherent in the Ministry of

Agriculture-type of Extension Education

Educate farmers in resources management and efficient

utilization of the factors of production for increased

productivity.

202

Development of better insight by rural farmer into the

network of problems resulting from increasing

complexities of changing world order and socio-economic

situations.

Strengthen the capacity of rural women farmers in the

consolidation of the economic stability of rural farming

families through active participation in farm production

activities.

Empower farmers in the management of farm crises and

farm crises and thus help reduce the effects of farm

crises and farmer vulnerability to stress due to unexpected

occurrences

Give farmers a voice of their own thus reduce social and

political exclusion of rural farmers in their communities

and in the decision making process.

Gives impetus for the quest not only of agricultural

knowledge and facts but also of general illustration of

understanding.

203

APPENDIX S

RESEARCH QUESTION 3: Farmer Literacy Education Models for Rural Farmers.

S/N

THE TRADITIONAL/CONVENTION MODEL:

CONTENT ELEMENTS

SA A D SD

4 3 2 1

Directed to adult farmers who never has the advantage of

any formal education or were denied opportunity of formal

schooling.

The contents include reading writing, and numeric skills

though as in the first year of formal schools

Methodology includes the use of pictures and pictorials

leading to the design of primers (letters of the alphabets),

recognition of words and formation of sentences (Frank

Laubach Literacy method).

Pedagogically, involves the identification of the letters of the

alphabet, recognition of wards and construction of sentence

in that order.

Numeracy covers the concepts of addition, subtraction,

division and multiplication of figures, and other number

operations.

Vocabulary is universal, so also figures of numeric, which

include Arabic, and Roman figures.

It is work oriented: deals mainly with and teaches people on

the job

B FUNCTIONAL/ RELEVANT MODEL:

CONTENTS ELEMENTS

SA A D SD

4 3 2 1

It is both selective (directed to farming) and intensive

(teaches illiterate farmers how to read, write and count) in

approach.

204

In increases farmers’ productivity and improves their

vocational skills

Enable farmers better to manage their own affairs-

entrepreneurial training

The content is centered on programmes that are of

immediate use to the farmer in his production systems but

can also be used in other ways-involves transfer of learning

to similar situations.

Teachers farmers how to form sentences to ask for

services and farm requirements when they need them

Restricts itself to selected vocabularies that are relevant to

the farmers and to farming e.g. farm inputs, agro-chemicals,

agricultural credit and subsidy and related concepts

Enables farmers to read, write and count unaided do as to be

able to keep records whose contents remain personal and

confidential

C LYCEUM (COMMUNITY STUDY GROUP) MODEL:

CONTENT ELEMENTS

SA A D SD

4 3 2 1

Focuses attention on the development of learning based on

farmer association, niegbourhood groups, farmers unions

and local skills.

Farmers determine the content of the learning and discussion

sessions, which involves experience sharing

Group members are both learners and teachers; a given

member becomes a teacher if he/she possess specialized

skills and particular knowledge adjudged beneficial to other

(Any one can teach, Any one learn Approach)

Helps in the extension of farm knowledge and skills among

adult learners

Users the community as teaching aids or learning resource-

a living leaning laboratory

205

Enable farmers collaborate and work together to resolve a

problem facing the farming enterprise

D GROUP STUDY BY CORRESPONDENCE MODEL:

CONTENT ELEMENTS

SA A D SD

4 3 2 1

1 Allows the adult leaner to study at a time and place of their

choice (Androgogy).

Suitable in conditions of lack of qualified personnel; and

enabling facilities.

Individuals meet together in groups to explore some mutual

concerns or problems

Farmers are taught in groups using correspondence

materials.

Each group members studies the materials, sends in

reactions, which are then discussed by members in a group

meeting

The group meeting serve “clearing house” for ideas,

opinions, comments and problem solutions.

Group leader collect and submit group and individual inputs

to the correspondence thus encouraging networking among

farmers.

E MASS MEDIA MODEL (ELECTRONIC AND PRINT

MEDIA): CONTENT ELEMENTS

SA A D SD

4 3 2 1

1 Used as a model of mass adult education for rural people

through sharing information and ideas with many people in

many places by means of technological services.

The instructional Radio /TV breaks barriers of literacy

requirements since the spoken (native) language are the main

vehicle for interpersonal communication.

Provides national, state, community and farmer’s for

continuing education for rural farmers.

Farmer Forum series of radio programmes give farmers a

206

new incentive to group action and neighborliness

It stimulates thought and understanding among rural

listeners.

Instructional TV is effective in dissemination of

agricultural information through the senses of sight and

hearing (Demonstration method)

The print media help to develop literacy and compliments

literacy programmes for rural farmers.

Rural/Community Newspapers publish news and views from

rural farmers and have along lasting effects since farmers

can always refer to previous information.

F LITERAL EDUCATION MODEL: CONTENT

ELEMENTS

SA A D SD

4 3 2 1

1 Form of education given and acquired for leisure

Provides adult citizens necessary aesthetic, cultural and civil

education for public enlightenment

Stimulates and provides learner with opportunities to learn

and to think for themselves

May assume the character of an in-service training or post

literacy programme to update adult farmers’ skills and

knowledge in agricultural and contemporary issues.

May be provided by the mass media, or in group meetings in

agreed location

`keeps adult literacy farmers in tune with current events in

the field of agricultural and other contemporary issues

207

APPENDIX T

RESEARCH QUESTION 4: The Extent of the Impact of Government Rural

Agricultural Interventions on Farmer Literacy Education Programmes.

S/N Impact of Government Rural Agricultural Intervention Programmes on Farmer Literacy

Education: Stem of the Question

VHE HE LE VLE

4 3 2 1

1 Government capital investment and budgetary provisions for rural ./ agricultural development have always given due considerations to farmer literacy education

Accelerated Agricultural Production Schemes (NAFPP, OFN, GR, DIFFRRI Etc), have laid solid foundation for achieving increased and sustainable self sufficiency in food production

Linkage between agricultural Institutions (Research and Extension) and rural farmers have been strengthened through educational procedures.

Government land reform programmes have provided easier access to land and acquisition of land rights to peasant farmers

Farmer education and literacy programmes have expanded the educational horizons of rural farmers, especially in the management and utilization of resources.

Government rural agricultural intervention programmes have often included educating rural farmers on safety nets through providing early warning and response systems to anticipated farm disasters - disease outbreaks, pest and drought.

Educating rural women farmers to increase their participation in all agricultural and rural development programmes has received government official endorsement

Co-ordinating agricultural data collection and information at local levels as inputs to farmer literacy education programmes, is a regular feature of government agricultural policies.

Educating rural farmers on marketing strategies and pricing mechanisms, as means of increasing profitability and motivating farmers is a deliberate policy matter

Gender equality in agricultural production activities has been adequately taken care of research –extension packages for rural farmers.

208

APPENDIX U

RESEARCH QUESTION 5: Benefits of Farmer Literacy Education to Rural Farmers

as means to Achieving Poverty and Hunger Reduction at the Threshold

N=1210

S/NO

FARMER HOUSEHOLD

SA A D SD 4 3 2 1

Acquisition of competence for the intensification and diversification of existing and old production systems to provide satisfactory income for the farmer and family.

Increasing farm-holdings through undertaking desirable land acquisition strategies e.g. rent purchase, lease etc for increase farm production

Acquisitions of non-agricultural skills through the educational process to enable rural farmers engage in off-farm employment within particular seasons for extra income

Seek and obtain agricultural loans from rural finance institutions guaranteed by Government and Non-governmental Organization (NGO)

Understanding the dynamics and engaging in group activities such as co-operative farming, rotational, joint marketing as means of engendering bargaining power etc.

Seeking membership into national, state and local farmers unions as means of increasing their representation and participation in the development process

Rural farmers develop the ability to choose to and adopt new farm technologies with local content and those relevant to their present needs and avoiding the temptations of big time technologies.

Rural farmers understand the need to use extension-inputs improved varieties of seeds and breeds of animals; and advice and counseling on farm crisis

Acquire knowledge of better and efficient storage and preservation systems of product availability the greater part of the year and minimize spoilage and waste

Acquire knowledge and skills on soil, water and environmental conservation for sustainable productivity

209

Rural women farmers to learn and adopt technologies in the production of miner staples-vegetables, coco yam, maize, melon etc, as means of diversifications of production and generating additional family income

Male farmers learn to recognize and appreciate women farmers as equal partners in the production process.

Rural women farmers to embrace Nutrition Education and counseling services on “Eating Right” as means of improving family nutrition and essential dietary needs

Strengthen women capacity in agricultural production through easy access to land, credit and other input

Rural farmers acquire further knowledge, skills and farming competences needed to face the challenges of population increases, urbanization, and environmental change

Enhancing rural farmer’s ability to understand the language and content of research and farm technology transfer packages.

Farmers develop capacity to establish direct link with consumers and thus reduce the exploitative role of middlemen in the marketing and distribution of farm produce.

Acquisition of skills of reading, writing and counting and thus be able to sign confidential documents and keep simple record on farm transaction.

Acquire literacy education as means to seek other employment opportunities outside the farming enterprises

210

APPENDIX V

RELIABILITY TESTS OF RESEARCH INSTRUMENTS

USING CRONBACH ALPHA FORMULA

1. Reliability Test: Research Question One (Causes of Poverty and Hunger)

Items

SA A D SD Variance

1 2 4 2 2 1.15

2 4 3 2 1 1.11

3 3 5 2 - 0.54

4 3 3 2 2 1.34

5 3 5 2 - 0.54

6 4 3 2 1 1.11

7 2 4 2 2 1.15

8 2 4 2 2 1.15

9 3 3 2 2 1.34

10 5 2 2 1 1.21

11 2 4 2 2 1.15

12 3 3 2 2 1.34

13 4 3 2 1 1.11

14 2 4 2 2 1.15

15 3 5 2 - 0.54

16 3 5 2 - 0.54

17 5 2 2 1 1.21

18 3 3 2 2 1.34

19 3 3 2 2 1.34

20 2 4 2 2 1.15

21 4 3 2 1 1.11

∑Vi = 22 .62 From composite scores of each of the ten respondents on the instrument, the following scores emerged. 48, 62, 64, 48, 64, 48, 62, 72, 60, 42 Standard deviation of raw scores = 9.71 Variance of Raw scores Vt = 94.4

211

Applying Cronbach Alpha Formula:

α = K 1 -∑Vi

K – 1 Vt K = 21, ∑Vi = 22.62, Vt = 94.4

α = 21 1 – 22.62 20 94.4 1.05 0.76

α = 0.80

2. Reliability Test: Research Question two (Role of Farmer Literacy Education in

Poverty and Hunger Reduction)

∑Vi = 12.16

Composite scores of each of the ten respondents on the instrument, the following scores emerged: 38, 44, 58, 65, 58, 48, 74, 62, 65, and 60 Standard deviation of raw scores = 10.67 Variance of raw score (Vt) = 114.1

Items

SA A D SD Variance

1 5 3 2 - 0.68

2 2 6 1 1 0.77

3 3 4 2 1 0.98

4 2 4 2 2 1.15

5 1 6 2 1 0.68

6 3 3 2 2 1.34

7 5 4 1 - 0.49

8 1 6 2 1 0.68

9 2 5 2 1 0.84

10 4 3 2 1 1.11

11 4 3 2 1 1.11

12 2 6 1 - 0.67

13 3 5 1 1 0.89

14 2 6 1 1 0.77

212

Applying Cronbach Alpha formula

α = 14 1 – 12.16 13 114.1 = 1.08 1 – 0.1065 1.08 0.89

α = 0.96

3. Reliability Test: Research Question Three: (Functional Farmer Literacy

Education Models)

Items

SA

A

D

SD

Item Variance

1 4 3 2 1 1.11

2 2 4 2 2 1.15

3 3 5 2 - 0.54

4 3 3 2 2 1.34

5 2 4 2 2 1.15

6 3 5 2 - 0.54

7 1 6 2 1 0.68

8 5 4 1 - 0.49

9 2 5 2 1 0.84

10 3 5 1 1 0.89

11 2 6 1 1 0.77

12 3 4 2 1 0.98

13 3 5 1 1 0.89

14 2 6 2 - 0.67

15 5 3 2 - 0.68

16 3 5 1 1 0.89

17 4 3 2 1 1.11

18 2 4 2 2 1.15

19 1 6 2 1 0.68

20 3 5 2 - 0.54

21 2 6 1 1 0.77

22 5 4 1 - 0.49

23 2 6 2 - 0.67

24 4 2 2 2 1.22

25 5 3 1 1 1.03

26 1 6 2 1 0.68

27 5 4 1 - 0.49

213

28 3 5 1 1 0.89

29 2 4 2 2 1.15

30 6 2 1 1 1.06

31 4 5 1 - 0.67

32 3 4 2 1 0.99

33 2 5 1 2 1.06

34 1 6 2 1 0.68

35 3 5 2 - 0.54

36 4 3 2 1 1.11

37 5 33 1 1 1.03

38 2 44 2 2 1.15

39 - 7 2 1 0.69

40 3 5 1 1 0.89

41 4 2 2 2 1.22

42 5 4 1 - 0.49

∑Vi = 36.06

From composite scores of the ten respondents on the instrument, the following scores emerged: 60, 65, 62, 74, 48, 58, 65, 58, 36, 38, and 44 Standard deviation of raw scores = 10.67 Variance of raw scores Vt = 114.1

Applying Cronbach Alpha Formula 42 1 – 36.06 41 114.1 1.02 1 – 0.32 1.02 0.684

α= 0.70

214

4. Reliability Test: Research Question Four (Impact of Government Agricultural

Intervention Programmes on Farmer Literacy Campaigns)

Items

SA

A

D

SD

Item Variance

Item Mean

1 2 6 1 1 0.77 2.9

2 3 5 1 1 0.89 3.0

3 4 3 2 1 1.11 3.0

4 3 4 2 1 0.98 2.9

5 3 3 2 2 1.34 2.7

6 2 4 2 2 1.15 2.6

7 2 4 2 2 1.15 2.6

8 5 3 2 - 0.68 3.3

9 1 6 2 1 0.68 2.7

10 2 6 2 - 0.67 3.0

11 3 5 1 1 0.89 3.0

∑Vi = 10.31

From composite scores of each of the ten respondents on the instrument, the following scores emerged: 36, 42, 48, 52, 48, 60, 56, 52, 54, and 60

Vt = 57.9

Applying Cronbach formula:

11 1 – 10.31 10 57.9 1.1 0.82

α = 0.90

215

Reliability Test: Research Question five: (Benefits of Farmer Literacy Education to

Rural Farming – Households in the Context of Poverty and Hunger Reduction at the

Threshold)

The composite scores of each of the Ten Respondents on the instrument, the following scores emerged: 48, 36, 48, 50, 40, 56, 60, 48, 60, 52

Vt = 60.8 Applying Cronbach Alpha Formula:

18.84 60.8

1.05 0.70

α = 0.74

Items

SA

A

D

SD

Items Variance

Items mean

1 2 6 2 - 0.67 3.0

2 5 3 2 - 0.68 3.3

3 4 3 2 1 1.11 3,0

4 2 4 2 2 1.15 2.6

5 3 5 1 1 0.89 3.0

6 3 3 2 2 1.34 2.7

7 2 6 1 1 0.77 2.9

8 3 4 2 1 0.98 2.9

9 5 3 2 - 0.68 3.3

10 2 4 2 2 1.15 2.6

11 1 6 2 1 0.68 3.3

12 3 5 1 1 0.89 3.0

13 3 5 2 - 0.54 3.1

14 2 4 2 2 1.15 2.6

15 4 3 2 1 1.11 3.0

16 3 5 2 - 0.54 3.1

17 5 2 2 1 1.21 3.1

18 3 3 2 2 1.34 2.7

19 2 6 2 - 0.67 3.0

20 3 3 2 2 1.34 2.7

∑Vi = 18.84

216

SUMMARY

Research Question ∑Vi Vt α 1 22.62 94.4 0.80 2 12.16 114.4 0.96 3 36.06 114.4 0.70 4 10.31 57.9 0.90 5 8.84 60.8 0.74 Where ∑Vi = Item Variance Vt = Variance of total scores α = Cronbach Alpha coefficient . Av. Cronbach Alpha Coefficient = 0.82

217

APPENDIX W

HYPOTHESIS 1

MEAN RATINGS OF THE RESPONSES OF ENUMERATORS AND FACILITATORS ON

THE CAUSES OF POVERTY AND HUNGER AMONG RURAL FARMERS.

S/NO CAUSES OF POVERTY AND HUNGER Enumerators N=25

Facilitators N = 20

X

SD

X

SD

DEC

1. Land Rights and uncertain land tenure-ship which

limits access to farming lands

3.12 0.76 3.50 0.47 Agreed

2 Landlessness and fragmentation of farm holdings

resulting to law farm productivity.

3.00 0.74 3.20 0.40 Agreed

3 Depletion of rural agricultural labour force due to

rural-urban migration of able bodies youths

3.20 0.56 3.10 0.53 Agreed

4 Further depletion of rural labour force with the

introduction of Universal Basic Education (UBE)

2.84 0.73 3.10 0.83 Agreed

5 Chronic incapacity of adult farmers to work and

decline in this incapacity due to endemic and pandemic

disease-Malaria, Guinea worm infestation HIV/AIDS

etc.

2.88 0.99 2.90 0.84 Agreed

6 Poor access to credit facilities, which limits rural

farmers ability to acquire and use new farm

technologies and other inputs

360 049 2.25 0.44 Agreed

7 Poor rural infrastructural base which adversely affect

transportation and distribution of farm inputs and

outputs.

3.00 0.63 2.95 0.74 Agreed

8 The exploitative activities of middlemen in the

marketing and distribution of farm produce which

reduce profit margins of rural farmer

3.28 0.44 2.40 0.66 Agreed

9 Obsolete farming skills rudimentary practices, and

subsistence level farm production among rural farmers

3.24 0.42 3.50. 0.59 Agreed

10 Thee high farmer-extension ratio, which reduce the 2.80 0.84 2.95 0.73 Agreed

218

effectiveness and efficiency of research information and

technology transfer to rural farmers.

11 Failure of Agricultural Extension Education to

improve the literacy competence of rural farmers

3..40 0.48 3.10 0.83 Agreed

12 The incapacity of rural farmers to embrace new


production systems due to illiteracy.

3.00 0.80 3.25 0.62 Agreed

13 Gender disparity and discrimination in agricultural

production activities which undermine the contributions

of rural women farmers in the production process.

3.16 0.42 3.25 0.94 Agreed

14 Poor rural infrastructural base and inadequate access to

social goods such as roads, and other amenities which

limit access to markets.

3.36 0.61 3.25 0.64 Agreed

15 Backwardness in values and ideology due to popular

superstition and illiteracy among rural farmers.

3.12 0.86 3.35 0.65 Agreed

16 Poor application of science and technology in the

farming process

3.28 0.72 3.35 0.65 Agreed

17 Unsatisfying quality of rural agricultural production

labour force due to low educational attainment.

3.12 0,76 3.25 0.43 Agreed

18 Abandoning of rural farming families by male

household-heads for off-farm employment leaving

house wives with family burden.

3.16 0.46 3.50 0.50 Agreed

19 High levels of illiteracy among farming families heads 3.12 0.76 3.42 0.49 Agreed

20 Poorly educated human resources and poor human

capital development in rural communities

3.24 0.07 3.70 0.46 Agreed

21 Environmental degradation due to poor utilization of

agricultural resources and traditional farming practices

3.28 0.44 3.40 0.60 Agreed

219

APPENDIX X

The mean opinions of rural farmers on the role of Farmer Literacy Education in the

Context Poverty and Hunger Reduction

N =1210 S/NO Role Expectation of all Models of Farmers Education:

Item Statement X

SD

DECISION

1. Raise the literacy levels of rural farmers enabling them to read, write and count as an integral part of farmer education and training

3.28 0.45 Agreed

2 Enable rural farmers to acquire the skills of transmitting and receiving message in an intelligible manner in written forms

3.16 0.40 Agreed

3 Provides means of modifying attitudes and behaviour of rural farmers towards modern farming techniques and technologies

3.33 0.47 Agreed

4 Enhance and improve farmers’ capacity to adopt and adapt new farm innovations

3.31 0.45 Agreed

5 Serve as means for obtaining information and pivot for further learning.

3.26 0.55 Agreed

6 Empower rural farmers with the ability to judge and choose farming systems with the bet prospect of improving their lives

3.29 0.49 Agreed

7 Systematize the way farm technologies and farmers transform agricultural knowledge and research information into effective and useable field messages

3.32 0.51 Agreed

8 Offset the literacy imbalance inherent in the Ministry of Agriculture-type of Extension Education

3.48 0.50 Agreed

9 Educate farmers in resources management and efficient utilization of the factors of production for increased productivity

3.32 0.51 Agreed

10 Development of better insight by rural farmers into the network of problems resulting from increasing complexities of changing world order and socio-economic situations.

3,30 0.77 Agreed

11 Strengthen the capacity of rural women farmers in the consolidation of the economic stability of rural farming families through active participation in farm production activities

3.59 0.41 Agreed

12 Empower farmers in the management of farm crises and thus help reduce the effects of farm crises and farmers vulnerability to stress due to unexpected occurrences.

3.40 0.53 Agreed

13 Give farmers a voice of their own and thus reduce social and political exclusion of rural farmers in their communities and in the decision making process.

3.50 0.52 Agreed

14 Give impetus for the quest not only of agricultural knowledge and facts but also general illumination of understanding.

3.47 -.51 Agreed

220

APPENDIX Y Mean ratings of the opinions of Agricultural Extension Managers and Lecturers of

Agricultural Education on Farmer Literacy Education Models for imparting Modern

Agricultural Knowledge with Literacy Skills, in an Integrated Approach

S/NO Alternative Farmer Education Models

Item Statements

AGRIC. EXT.

MANAGERS:

N=19

VOC. AGRIC.

EDUCATORS: N=10

X

SD1

X2

SD2

DECISION

A The Traditional/Conventional Models 147/3.31 0.46 3.60 0.48 Agreed

B Functional/Relevant Model 3.47 0.25 3.20 1.14 Agreed

C Lyceum/Community Study Group Model 3.36 0.28 2.00 0.77 Agreed

D Group Study by Correspondence Model 1.26 0.43 1.90 0.20 Disagreed

E Mass Media Model (Electronic and Print

Media)

3.63

0.24 3.40 0.48 Agreed

F Liberal Education Model. 2.89 0.45 270 0.78 Agreed

221

APPENDIX Z

Mean ratings of Agricultural Extension (AEAs) on the extent of the impact of

Government Rural Agricultural Interventions on Farmer Literacy Education in the

context of Poverty and Hunger Reduction.

N = 57

S/NO Impact of Government Rural Agricultural

Intervention Programmes:

Item Statement

X

SD

DECISION

1. Government capital investment and budgetary

provisions for rural agricultural development

have always given due attention to farmer

literacy education campaign programmes.


2 Accelerated agricultural production schemes

(NAFPP, OFN, DIFFRRI), have laid solid

foundation for achieving increased and

sustainable self-sufficiency in food production.


3 Linkage between Agricultural Institutions

(research, Extension etc) and rural farmers have

been strengthened to stimulate efficiency in

agricultural production systems


4 Government land reform programme has

provided easier access to land including

acquisition of land rights to peasant farmers


5 Government farmer education and literacy

campaign programmes are basic to all forms of

rural and agricultural development planning.


6 Government farmer education initiatives have

expanded the educational horizons of rural

farmers especially in the management and


222

utilization of recourses

7 Government intervention programmes have

often included educating rural farmers on safety

nets through providing early warning and

response system to anticipated farm disasters-

disease outbreaks, drought etc.


8 Affirmative action in education rural women

farmers to increase their participation in all

agricultural and rural development programmes

has received government official endorsement.


9 Co-ordinating agricultural data collection and

information at local levels to act as inputs in

farmer education programmes is a regular

feature of government agricultural intervention

activity.


10 There is deliberate government policy on

educating farmers on marketing strategies and

pricing policies as means of increasing

profitability and motivating farmer through

granting higher producer prices


11 Gender equality in agricultural production

activities has been adequately taken care of in

research and extension packages for rural

farmers.


223

APPENDIX A1

Mean ratings of Rural Farmers on the benefits of Farmer Literacy Education to

Farming Families as means to achieving Poverty and Hunger Reduction at the

Threshold

N = 1210

S/NO Benefits of Farmer Literacy Education to

Rural Farmers:

Item Statement

X

SD

DECISION

1. Acquisition of competence needed for

intensification and diversification of existing

and old production systems to provide

satisfactory income for the farmer and family

3.24 0.46 Agreed

2 Increasing farm-holdings through understanding

desirable and acquisition strategies e.g. rent,

purchase, lease etc, for increase farm production.

3.15 0.36 Agreed

3 Acquisitions of non-agricultural skills through

the educational process to enable rural farmers

engage in off-farm employment within

particular seasons for extra income

3.34 0.54 Agreed

4 Develop awareness to seek and obtain

agricultural loans and other technical assistance

from governmental institutions and Non-

Government Organization (NGOs).

3.81 0.41 Agreed

5 Understanding the dynamics of engaging in

group activities such as co-operative farming

rational saving, joint marketing as means of

networking and engendering bargaining power

etc.

3.14 0.35 Agreed

224

6 Seeking membership into national, state and

local farmers unions as means of increasing their

representation and participation in the

development process.

3.17 0.75 Agreed

7 Rural farmers develop the ability to choose and

adopt new farm technologies with local content

and those relevant to their present and future

needs

3.66 0.45 Agreed

8 Rural farmers understand the need to use

extension-inputs-improved verifies of seeds and

breeds of animals including advice and

counseling services.

3.91 0.30 Agreed

9 Rural farmers learn to undertake initial farm-

gate processing of produce to attract higher

producer prices.

3.34 0.49 Agreed

10 Acquire knowledge of better and efficient

storage and preservation systems for product

availability the greater part of the year and

minimize spoilage and waste

3.58 0.55 Agreed

11 Acquire knowledge and skills on soil and water

management; and environmental conservation

for sustainable productivity.

3.30 0.46 Agreed

12 Rural women farmers learn and adopt

technologies in the production of minor

staples-vegetables, coco yam, maize, melon

etc, as means of diversifications of production

and generating additional family income

3.70 0.51 Agreed

13 Male farmers learn to recognize and appreciate

women farmers as equal partners,

complementing our in the production process.

3.33 0.49 Agreed

14 Rural women farmers to embrace Nutrition 3.41 0.54 Agreed

225

Education and counseling services on “Eating

Right “ as means of improving family nutrition

and essential dietary needs.

15 Strengthens women capacity in agricultural

production through easy access to land, credit

and other inputs.

3.49 0.48 Agreed

16 Enables rural adult farmers to embrace non-

formal literacy programmes as means of

acquiring knowledge , literacy skills and

farming competence needed to face modern

challenges’ affecting their production systems,

including environmental change.,

3.32 0.51 Agreed

17 Enhance rural farmer’s ability to understand the

language and content of research and farm

technology and extension messages

3.48 0.50 Agreed

18 Farmers develop the capacity to establish direct

link with consumers and thus reduce the

exploitative role of middlemen in the marketing

and distribution of farm produce.

3.75 0.45 Agreed

19 Rural farmers acquire skills of reading writing

and counting and thus are able to sign

confidential documents and keep simple records

on farm transactions.

3.30 0.46 Agreed

20 Acquire self-reliance in the 3Rs as means to

seek other employment opportunities outside the

farming enterprise.

3.17 0.76 Agreed

226

APPENDIX B1

T-test Analysis of the Mean Scores Respondents on Causes of Poverty and Hunger among

Rural Farmers

S/N

Causes of Poverty and Hunger:

Item Statements

Enumerators

N =25

Facilitators N = 20

X

S12

X2

S22

t-cal

t-tab

1. Land rights and uncertain land tenure-ship which limits

access to farming lands

3.12 0.57 5.50 6.22 -3.49 2.02

2 Landlessness and fragmentation of farm holdings leading

to farm productivity

3.00 0.54 3.20 0.16 -1.16 2.02

3 Depletion of rural agricultural labour force due to rural-

urban migration of able bodies youths

3.20 0.31 3.10 0.28 -0.62 2.02

4 Further depletion of rural labour force with the

introduction of Universal Basic Education (UBE)

2.84 0.53 3.10 0.68 -1.11 2.02

5 Chronic incapacity of adult farmers to work and decline in

this incapacity due to endemic and pandemic disease-

Malaria, Guinea worm infestation HIV/AIDS etc

2.88 0.98 2.99 0.88 -0.07 2.02

6 Poor access to credit facilities, which limits rural farmer’s

ability to acquire and use new farm technologies and other

inputs.

3.60 0.24 3.25 0.10 -2.55 2.02

7 Poor rural infrastructural base, which adversely affect

transportation and distribution of farm inputs and outputs

3.00 0.39 2.95 0.54 0.24 2.02

8 The exploitative activities of middlemen in the marketing

and distribution of farm produce which reduced profit

margins of rural farmers

3.28 0.19 3.40 0.43 -0.70 2.02

9 Obsolete farming skills, rudimentary practices and

subsistence level production common among rural farmers

3.24 0.17 3.50 0.34 -1.69 2.02

10 The high farm-extension ratio, which reduces the

effectiveness and efficiency of research information and

technology transfer to rural farmers

2.80 0.70 2.95 0.53 -0.64 2.02

227

11 Failure of Agricultural Extension Education to improve the

literacy competences of rural farmers.

3.40 0.23 3.10 0.68 -1.13 2.02

12 The incapacity of rural farmers to embrace new


production systems due to illiteracy.

3.00 0.64 3.25 0.38 1.18 2.02

13 Gender disparity and discrimination in agricultural

production activities, which undermine the contributions of

rural women farmers in the production process.

3..16 0.25 3.25 0.88 3.57 2.02

14 Poor rural infrastructural base and inadequate access to

social goods such as road transport and other social

amenities. Which limit access to markets and encourage

“agricultural exist”.

3.32 0.37 3.25 0.47 0.36 2.02

15 Backwardness in values and ideology among rural farmers

due to popular superstition and illiteracy

3.12 0.73 3.25 0.42 -0.03 2.02

16 Poor application of science and technology in the farming

process

2.02

17 Unsatisfying quality of rural agricultural production labour

force due to low educational attainment

3.12 0.57 3.25 0.18 -0.73 2.02

18 Abandoning of rural farming families by male households –

heads in search of greener pastures in urban centres.

3.16 0.21 3.50 0.25 -2.35 2.02

19 High levels of illiteracy among farming family heads which

inhibit competitive and enterprising spirit among rural

farmers.

3.12 0.57 3.42 0.23 -1.62 2.02

20 Poorly educated human resources and poor human capital

development in rural communities

3.24 0.49 3.70 0.21 2.65 2.02

21 Environmental degradation due to poor utilization of

agricultural resources and traditional farming practices.

3.28 0.51 3.40 0.43 -0.59 2.02

228

APPENDIX C1

Z-test analysis for differences of two Population Means (Agricultural Extension Managers and

Agricultural Extension Agents) on the Role of Farmer Literacy Education in the context of

Poverty and Hunger Reduction among Rural Farmers Agric. Extension

Manager N= 19 Agric. Extension Agents

N =57

S/N

Role of Alternative Farmer Education Models

∑fx

X1

S1

2 ∑fx

X2

S2

2 z-cal

z-tab

Decision

1. Raise the literacy levels of

rural farmers enabling them

to read, write and count as

an integral part of farmer

education and training.

71 7.73 0.19 213 3.78 0.18 -0.44 1.96 NS

2 Enabling rural farmers to

acquire the skills of

transmitting and receiving

message in an intelligible

manner in written forms

63 3.31 0.20 207 3.63 0.24 -2.66 1.96 NS

3 Provides means of modify in

3.36g attitudes and

behaviour of rural farming

techniques and technologies

65 3.42 0.25 196 3.43 0.90 -0.08 1.96 NS

4 Enhance and improve

farmer’s capacity to adopt

and adapt new farm

innovations

64 2.95 0.47 177 3.10 0.18 -0.18 1.96 NS

5 Serve as means for

obtaining information and

pivot for further learning

55 2.89 0.63 166 2.91 1.06 -0.09 1.96 NS

6 Empower rural farmers with

the ability to judge and

choose farming systems

with the best prospects of

improving their lives

54 2.84 0.35 166 2.91 0.99 -0.37 1.96 NS

7 Systematize the way farm

technologies and farmers

transform agricultural

knowledge and research

information into effective

64 3.36 0.53 180 3.15 1.99 -0.83 1.96 NS

229

and useable field message

8 Offset the literacy imbalance

inherent in the Ministry of

Agriculture type of

Extension Education

61 3.21 0.69 179 3.14 0.30 -0.34 1.96 NS

9 Educate farmers in

resources management and

efficient utilization of the

factors of production for

increased productivity

67 2.79 0.47 176 3.08 0.20 -1.67 1.96 NS

10 Development of better

insight by rural farmers in

the network of problems

resulting from changing

world order and socio-

economic situations.

67 3.26 0.32 177 3.10 0.36 1.05 1.96 NS

11 Strengthen the capacity of

rural women farmers in the

consolidation of the

economic stability of rural

farming families through

active participation to farm

production activities.

70 3.26 0.42 185 3.24 0.34 0.12 1.96 NS

12 Empower farmers in the

management of farm crises

and thus help reduce the

effects of farm crises and

farmers vulnerability to

stress due to unexpected

occurrences

61 2.95 0.88 190 3.33 0.37 -1.72 1.96 NS

13 Give farmers voice of their

own and thus reduce social

and political exclusion of

rural farmers in their

communities and in the

decision making process.

72 3.96 0.50 194 3.40 0.35 -0.23 1.96 NS

14 Give impetus for the quest

not only of agricultural

knowledge and facts but also

of general illumination of

understanding.

63 3.31 0.41 189 3.32 0.40 -0.10 1.96 NS

230

APPENDIX D1 t-test analysis of mean ratings of the opinions of Experts (Extension managers and

Lecturers of Agricultural Education) on Farmer Literacy Education Models for

teaching modern agricultural knowledge and literacy skills in an Integrated Approach

rural farmers.

N = 19 N = 10

S/N

Farmer Literacy Education Models (FLEMs) Item Statements

Agric. Ext. Managers

Voc. Agric. Educators

A THE TRADITIONAL/CONVENTIONAL MODEL: CONTENT ELEMENTS.

X1

S1

X2

S2

t-cal

t-tab

Decision

1 Directed to adult farmers who never

had he advantage of any formal

education or were denied the

opportunity of formation schooling.

3.68 0.22 3.50 0.25 0.94 2.05 NS

2 The contents include reading, writing

and numeric skills though as in the

first year of formal schooling.

3.44 0.27 3.30 0.21 0.90 2.05 NS

3 Methodology includes the use of

pictures and pictorials leading to the

design of primers (letters of

alphabets), recognition of words and

formation of sentences (Frank

Laubach Literacy Method)

3.26 0.21 3.70 0.21 -2.46 2.05 NS

4 Pedagogically, involves the

identification of the letters of the

alphabet, recognition of words and

construction of sentences in that

order.

3.21 0.14 3.60 0.24 -2-20 2.05 NS

5 Numeracy covers the concepts of

addition, subtractions, division and

multiplication of figures and other

number operations

3.36 0.23 3.80 0.16 -2.61 2.05 NS

6 Vocabulary is universal, so also

figures of numeric, which include

3.15 0.13 3.20 0.16 -0.33 0.05 NS

231

Arabic, and Roman figures.

7 It is work oriented: deals mainly with

and teaches people on the job.

3.31 0.21 3.90 0.09 -4.21 2.05 NS

B FUNCTIONAL/RELEVANT

MODEL:CONTENT ELEMENT

X1

S1

X2

S2

t-cal

t-tab

Decision

1 It is both selective (directed to

farming) and intensive (reaches

illiterate farmers how to read, write

and count) in approach.

3.26 0.21 3.10 0.09 1.12 2.05 NS

2 It increase farmers’ productivity and

improves their vocational skills

3.36 0.29 3.60 0.24 -1.21 2.05 NS

3 Enable farmers better to manage their

own affairs-entrepreneurial training

2.73 0.19 3.30 0.21 -3.24 2.05 NS

4 The content is centered on

programmes that are of immediate use

to the farm in his production system

but can also be used in other ways-

involves transfer of learning to

s\similar situation.

3.42 0.19 3.20 0.16 1.37 2.05 NS

5 Teachers farmers how to form

sentences to ask for services and

farm requirements when they need

them.

3.10 0.10 3.50 0.25 -2.31 2.05 NS

6 Restricts itself to vocabularies that are

relevant to farmer and to farming e.g.,

farm inputs, agro-chemicals, credit

subsidy and related concept.

3.05 0.05 3.00 0.09 0.47 2.05 NS

7 Enable farmers to read, write and

count unaided, so as to be able to

keep records whose contents remains

personal and confidential.

3.21 0.17 3.90 0.09 -5.19 2.05 NS

C LYCEUM (COMMUNITY STUDY

GROUP MODEL:

X1 S1 X2 S2 t-cal t-tab Decision

232

CONTENT ELEMENTS

1 Focuses attention on the development

of learning networks based on farmer

association neighborhood groups,

farmers unions’ and custodians of

local skills.

3.05 0.05 3.30 0.21 -1.63 2.05 NS

2 Farmers determine the content of the

learning and discussion sessions,

which involves experience sharing.

3.10 0.14 2.90 0.49 0.74 2.05 NS

3 Group members are both learners and

teachers: a given member becomes a

teacher if he possesses specialized

skills and particular knowledge

adjudged beneficial to other (Any one

can teach, Any one learn Approach) .

3.21 0.17 3.50 0.25 -1.57 2.05 NS

4 Helps in the extension and transfer of

farm knowledge and skills from

master farmers to neighdourhood

farmers.

3.15 0.13 3.90 0.09 -6.00 2.05 NS

5 Develops problems-solving and

problems-posting skills among adult

learners

3.10 0.12 3.80 0.16 -4.60 2.05 NS

6 Uses the community as teaching aids

or learning resources – a living

learning laboratory.

3.26 0.21 3.70 0.21 -2.45 2.05 NS

7 Enable farmers collaborate to resolve

a problems or problems facing the

farming enterprises.

2.68 0.42 3.60 0.24 -4.29 2.05 NS

D

GROUP STUDY BY

CORRESPONDENCE MODEL

CONTENT ELEMENTS

X1

S1

X2

S2

t-cal

t-tab

Decision

233

1 Allows the adult learner to study at a

time and place and facilities

2.89 0.72 2.90 0.88 -0.03 2.05 NS

2 Suitable in conditions of lack of

qualified personal and enabling

facilities.

3.05 0.15 3.10 049 -0.21 2.05 NS

3 Individuals meet together in groups to

explore some mutual concerns or

problems.

2.63 0.65 2.70 0.81 -0.20 2.05 NS

4 Farmers are taught in groups using

correspondence materials

1.73 0.41 2.10 0.75 -1.18 2.05 NS

5 Each group member studies the

materials, sends in reactions, which

are then discussed by member in a

group meeting..

1.73 0.19 1.80 0.16 -0.43 2.05 NS

6. The group meetings serve as “clearing

house” for ideas, opinions, comments

and problem solutions.

2.57 0.32 3.00 0.59 -0.56 2.05 NS

6 Group leaders, collect and submit

group and individual inputs to the

correspondence.

2.10 0.62 3.30 0.81 -3.56 2.05 NS

E MASS MEDIA MODEL

(ELECTRONIC AND PRINT

MEDIA: CONTENT ELEMENTS.

X1

S1

X2

S2

t-cal

t-tab

Decision

1 Used as a model of mass adult

education for rural people through

sharing information and ideas with

many people in many places by

means of technological services.

3.15 0.14 3.60 0.17 -2.88 2.05 NS

2 The Instructional Radio/TV breaks of

literacy requirements since the spoken

(native) language is, the main vehicle

for interpersonal communication.

3.15 0.14 3.20 0.16 -0.32 2.05 NS

3 Provides National, State, Community

and farmer’s forum for continuing

3.05 0.37 3.30 0.60 -0.88 2.05 NS

234

education for rural farmers.

4 Farmers’ Forum series of radio

programmes give farmers a new

incentive to group action and

neighborliness.

2.47 0.46 3.30 0.81 -2.56 2.05 NS

5 It stimulates though and

understanding among rural listeners.

2.42 0.24 2.80 0.16 -2.24 2.05 NS

6 Instructional TV is effective in

dissemination of agricultural

information through the sense of

sigh and hearing

2.63 0.23 3.60 0.24 -5.10 2.05 NS

7 The print media help to develop

literacy and compliment literacy

programmes for rural farmers

2.78 0.27 2.60 0.43 0.75 2.05 NS

8 Rural /Community Newspapers

publish news and views from rural

farmers and have a long lasting effect

since farmers can always refer to

previous information.

3.10 0.10 3.80 0.16 -4.79 NS

F LIBERAL EDUCATION MODEL:

CONTENT ELEMENTS.

X1

S1

X2

S2

t-cal

t-tab

Decision

1 Form of education given and acquired

for leisure.

2.10 0.51 2.10 0.88 0.00 2.05 NS

2 Provides adult learners necessary

aesthetic, cultural and civic education

for public enlightenment.

1.57 0.56 1.90 0.49 -1.17 2.05 NS

3 Stimulates and provides learners with

opportunities to learn and to think

for themselves.

2.21 0.27 2.30 0.60 -0.33 2.05 NS

4 May assume the character of an In-

Service training or post literacy

programme to update adult farmer

skills and knowledge in agriculture.

2.84 0.49 3.10 0.49 -0.95 2.05 NS

5 May be provided by the Mass Media, 2.15 0.36 1.80 0.36 1.49 2.05 NS

235

or in group meetings in agreed

locations.

6 Keeps adult literate farmers in tune

with current events in the field of

agriculture and other issues.

3.26 0.23 3.40 0.23 -0.74 2.05 NS

236

APPENDIX E1 z-test analysis of the mean ratings of Respondents on the extent of impact of Government Rural

Agricultural Interventions on Farmer Literacy Education Campaign programmes in the contest

Poverty and Hunger Reduction among rural farmers.

S/N

Extent of Impact of Government Rural Agricultural

Intervention Programmes on Farmer Literacy Education

Item Statements.

Agric. Extension

Manager N= 19

Agric. Extension

Agents

N =57

∑fx

X1

S12

∑fx

X2

S22

z-cal

z-tab

Decision

1. Government capital investment and burglary provisions for rural and

agricultural development have always given due considerations to

rural literacy campaign programmes

52 2.08 0.63 122 2.14 0.96 -0.33 1.96 Not

Significa

nt (NS)

2 Accelerated agricultural production schemes (NAFPP, OFN, GR,

DIFFRRI) have laid sold increased and sustainable self

sufficiency in food production

76 3.04 0.79 172 3.01 0.77 0.16 1.96 NS

3 Linkage between Agricultural Institutions (Research, Extension etc)

and rural farmers have been strengthened to stimulate efficiency in

agricultural production systems

66 2.64 0.71 135 2.36 0.99 1.47 1.96 NS

4 Government land reform programme has provided easier access to

land, concluding acquisition of land rights to peasant farmers

58 2.32 0.22 141 2.47 0.57 150 1.96 NS

5 Farmer education and literacy campaign programmes are basic to all

forms of rural agricultural development planning.

55 2.20 0.40 114 2.00 0.88 1.43 1.96 NS

6 Government farmer education initiatives have expanded the

educational horizons of rural farmers especially in the management

and utilization of resources.

51 2.04 0.52 131 2.29 0.83 -1.56 1.96 NS

7 Government intervention programmes have often included

education rural farmers on safety nets through providing early

warning and response systems to anticipated farm disasters-diseases

outbreaks, drought etc.

52 2.08 0.79 120 2.10 0.79 -0.10 1.96 NS

8 Affirmative action in educating women farmers to increase their

participation in all agricultural and rural development programmes

has received government official endorsement.

80 3.20 0.24 177 3.10 0.74 -0.91 1.96 NS

9 Co-ordinating agricultural data collection and information at local

levels as inputs to farmer education programmes is a regular feature

of government rural agricultural intervention activities.

2 2.08 0.87 135 2.36 0.79 -1.40 1.96 NS

10 Educating rural farmers on marketing strategies and pricing

mechanism as means of increasing profitability and motivating

farmers is a deliberate policy matter.

56 2.24 0.58 144 2.33 0.77 -170 1.96 NS

11 Gender equality in agricultural production activities and their

problems have been adequately taken care of in research – extension

package for rural farmers.

77 3.08 0.68 184 3.22 1.13 -0.78 1.96 NS

237

APPENDIX F1

z-test Analysis of the mean rating of Experts on the benefits of Farmer Literacy

Education to Rural Farmers in achieving Poverty and Hunger Reduction at the Threshold

S/N

Agric. Extension

Manager N= 19

Agric. Extension

Agents

N =57

∑fx

X1

S12

∑fx

X2

S22

z-cal

z-tab

Decision

1. Enable farmers acquire farming competences needed for the

intensification and diversification of existing and old production

systems to provide satisfactory income for the farmer and family

85 3.40 0.24 200 3.50 0.53 -0.91 1.96 Not

Significa

nt (NS)

2 Enable farmers increase farm-holdings through undertaking

desirable land acquisition strategies e.g. rent purchase etc, for

increase farm production

87 3.48 0.25 201 3.52 0.23 -0.40 1.96 NS

3 Improves farmer capacity in the acquisition of non-agricultural skills

which enable rural farmers engage in off-farm employment within

particular seasons for extra income.

76 3.16 0.13 181 3.47 0.37 -0.13 1.96 NS

4 Develop awareness to seek and obtain agricultural loans from rural

finance institutions guaranteed by Government AND Non-

Government Origination (NG0).

91 3.64 0.23 203 3.50 0.25 1.40 1.96 NS

5 Understand the dynamics of group activities such as co-operative

farming rotational saving, joint marketing as means of engendering

bargaining power etc

86 3.44 0.25 201 3.52 0.23 -0.77 1.96 NS

6 Develop interest and seek membership into national, state and local

and local farmers unions as means of increasing their representation

and participation in the development process

76 3.04 0.60 171 3.00 0.55 0.24 1.96 NS

7 Rural farmers develop the ability to choose and adopt new farm

technologies with local content and relevant to their present and

future needs.

89 3.56 0.25 198 3.47 0.27 0.90 1.96 NS

8 Rural farmers understand the need to use of extension-input-

improved varieties of seeds and breeds of animals, including advice

and counseling advices.

78 3.12 0.27 183 3.43 0.37 -0.82 1.96 NS

9 Rural farmers learn to undertake initial farm-gate processing of

produce to attract higher producer princes

90 3.60 0.24 196 3.49 0.24 1.70 1.96 NS

10 Farmers acquire knowledge and skills in better and efficient storage

and preservation systems for product availability the greater part of

the year and minimize spoilage and waste.

92 3.68 0.22 199 3.22 0.26 1.90 1.96 NS

11 Acquire knowledge in soil and water management, and

environmental conservation for sustainable productivity.

76 3.04 0.36 184 3.17 0.40 -1.38 1.96 NS

12 Rural women farmers learn and adopt technologies in the production

of minor staples-vegetable, coco yam, maize, melon, as means of

74 2.96 0.44 181 3.52 0.27 -1.50 1.96 NS

238

diversifications of production and generating additional family

income.

13 Male farmers learn to recognize and appreciate women farmers as

equal partners in the production process.

86 3.44 0.41 201 3.52 0.23 -0.62 1.96 NS

14 Rural women farmers embrace Nutrition Education and counseling

services on “Eating Right”. As means of improving family nutrition

and essential dietary needs

80 3.20 1.32 204 3.57 0.24 -0.61 1.96 NS

15 Strengthens women capacity in agricultural production through easy

access to land, credit and other inputs.

68 2.72 0.68 2.02 3.54 0.26 -4.82 1.96 NS

16 Rural adult farmers acquire further knowledge and skills needed to

face the challenges of population increases, urbanization, and

environmental change.

80 3.20 0.24 180 3.15 0.58 0.45 1.96 NS

17 Enhances rural farmers’ ability to acquire fundamental literacy in

enable them understand the language and content of research and

extension message.

73 2.92 0.15 177 3.10 0.60 -2.0 1.96 NS

18 Farmers develop the capacity to establish direct link with consumers

and thus reduce the exploitative role of middlemen in the marketing

and distribution of farm produce.

86 3.44 0.40 198 3.50 0.34 -0.40 1.96 NS

19 Acquisition of skills of reading, writing and counting and this is

able to sign confidential documents and keep simple record on farm

transaction.

75 3.00 0.56 196 3.43 0.31 -2.70 1.96 NS

20 Farmer acquires literacy education as means to seek other

employment opportunities outside the farming enterprise.

83 3.32 0.38 196 3.43 0.24 -0.85 1.96 NS

239

UNIVERSITY OF NIGERIA NSUKKA CAMPUS

DEPARTMENT OF VOCATIONAL TEACHER EDUCATION

TELEGRAM: UNIVERSITY NSUKKA AGRICULTURE TELEPHONE: NSUKKA 042/7711/771920 Ext: 39 BUSINESS COMPUTER EDUCATION

INDUSTRIAL TECHNICAL Your Ref:_________________________ Our Ref:___________________________ Date:______________ _________________________________

_________________________________

________________________________

_________________________________

Research Work

The bearer

_______________________________________ is an undergraduate/post

graduate student of the Department of Vocational Teacher Education of the University of

Nigeria, Nsukka. He/She is currently undertaking a research work on.

ACHIEVING POVERTY AND HUNGER REDUCITON AMONG RURAL

FARMERS IN ABIASTATE THROUGH FARMER LITERACY EDUCATION

It would be highly appreciated if you could supply him/her with the information

he/she may require from you. All information from you will be treated confidentially.

Thank you for your co-operation.

PROF. N. J. OGBAZI Head, Dept. of Voc. Tr. Education

AGWU AUGUSTUS AMOGU

farmer literacy education strategies for achieving … agwu's final phd...farmer literacy...

Documents