Transcript EFFECTS OF GROUP FORMATION ON RICE PRODUCTION IN

EFFECTS OF GROUP FORMATION
ON RICE PRODUCTION IN EKITI AND
OGUN STATES, NIGERIA
C. A. Afolami; A. E. Obayelu; M. U. Agbonlahor and O. Adebowale-Lawal
Introduction
Nigerian Rice Economy
• Nigerians eat about 5.4 million metric tons of
rice worth $4 billion annually. Over 3.3 million
metric tons of that is imported, making
Nigeria the largest net importer of rice on the
African continent and the second largest
importer in the world
Nigeria has suitable ecologies for rice production, however,
rice production has not kept pace with local demand.
• Rice cultivation in the country is:
• highly labour intensive
• small-scale of production
• dispersed farm holdings and
• low resources capacities of farmers.
• Average national yield of rice is 1.47tons/ha
• Compared to the potential yield for the various agrozones
are
- Irrigated: 6.4tons/ha
- Rainfed lowland 3.7tons/ha
- Upland 2.8tons/ha
Rice challenges
Indicators
Trend
1961-1975 1976- 1983 1984-1995 1996-2007
Production
(million tons)
8.8
12.0
8.6
2.1
Import (million
tons)
7.4
15.6
22.2
34.6
Self-reliant
ratio(import/pdn
)
0.8
1.42
3.21
16.81
Total
Consumption
(million tons)
11.8
21.6
26.4
31.2
Per capita
consumption(Kg)
7.6
10.2
11.9
12.8
The rice challenges cont.
• Rice has become a strategic commodity in the Nigerian
economy
• Government has actively interfered in the Nigerian rice
economy over the last thirty years.
• Policy has not been consistent. It has included
oscillating import tariffs and import restrictions. For
instance:
- 1986 to the mid-1990s imports were illegal.
- 1995 imports were allowed at a 100% tariff.
- 1996 the tariff was reduced to 50% but increased to
85% in 2001.
. The erratic policy reflects the dilemma of securing cheap
rice for consumers and a fair price for producers.
Research challenge
We recognize:
The critical importance of the small-holder farmer in ensuring
food and agricultural security in NigeriaThat the rice production system is characterized by:
• the use of labour intensive production technologies
• high post harvest losses
• unavailability of appropriate processing and value adding
technologies
• Poor linkage of production to demand and lack of market
information to guide producers in making sound decisions as
well as problem of pest
Also, we know that:
Improving smallholder farmers’ access to agricultural services
has been a central policy target and challenge facing
governments in Nigeria
Research Challenge
Farm cooperative societies
- groups that seeks to promote members’ socioeconomic welfare through members
- participation in activities that broaden their local
economies-of-scale
- reducing transaction costs
- strengthen the market and bargaining power of
the farmers, and
- enhance their access to support services from
government and donor agencies.
Research challenge
• Against the backdrop of increasing import bill,
low local production and a high demand,
cooperatives were encouraged and formed as
a viable option to revert the trend.
• The study therefore seeks to assess the impact
of rice cooperative in raising the income of the
farmers through facilitating access to
agricultural inputs.
Study Objectives
Specifically, the objectives were to:
• investigate various government policies and
programmes affecting rice production in Nigeria
• examine the trends of rice production in Nigeria,
Ogun and Ekiti States
• examine the nature and degree of group
formation among rice farmers in the study areas
• determine the effect of group formation and
other factors on rice production in the study area
• describe the obstacles militating against group
formation system by rice farmers.
Methodology Adopted
• Study Areas: Ekiti and Ogun states
• Sampling technique: Multistage sampling
procedure was used to select a total of 310 rice
farmers (207 from Ogun and 103 from Ekiti).
• Data Collected: rice production, socioeconomic
characteristics, as well cooperative activities
were elicited from the respondents.
• Data Analysis: descriptive and inferential statistics
used in line with study objectives.
Results
• Average farm size cultivated = 1.71ha
• Average age of the farmers = 48 years
• Majority (92%) of the farmers produces upland
rice, with a single harvest per year
• Mainly owned resources are used. Family labour
is the most important source of farm labour in
rice cultivation
• About 60% of the members of the farm families
participate in the family rice farm.
• About 71% of rice farmers are members of rice
farmers cooperative.
Results…
• Farm size cultivated was found to be 1.13ha
and 1.72ha for cooperative members and nonmembers respectively.
• Rice farmers that are members of cooperative
earned higher profits compared to non
members. The profit realized was N423244/ha
and N367569/ha for members and nonmembers respectively.
Results…
• The probit model was used to predict how
cooperative membership affected rice
production activities.
– Result showed that cooperative membership did
not have any significant effect on rice yield and
profit
• Significant factors that encourages
farmers cooperative membership are:
rice
– Household size, no of rice farms, level of output
and extension access
Results…
• Disaggregated by state:
• It was found that sex of farmer, household
members involvement, level of production
and access to credit facilities were factors that
influence group membership in Ogun state.
• In Ekiti, number of extension contact/visit and
farm size were additional factors.
Conclusion
1. There are obvious economic and social benefits that can
be gained by participating in group collective action,
2. There is however the need for the groups to be proactive
and responsive to members peculiar production and
marketing problems.
3. Majority of the groups that presently exist, as production
and marketing cooperatives, are associations formed or
arranged to take advantage of external funding or input
supply opportunities.
4. This is accentuated by the fact that none of the groups
had any common self-generated, forward reaching
projects.
5. This poses a serious challenge of sustainability and ability
of the groups to survive in the absence of external
supports.
conclusion
6. The input-use structure showed that
cooperative members were more intensive
user of purchased inputs (fertilizer and
herbicide) per hectare.
Recommendations
• Need to build capacities of members and officials
on the tenets of modern cooperatives and
democratic principles through a re-education
programme.
• Multi-purpose cooperative groups should be
encouraged so as to provide the requisite prop
needed to sponsor self generated projects
• Government agencies and NGOs involved in input
and financial intermediations for rice farmers
should continue to patronize farmers in groups,
while newer ones should be encouraged.
Variables
Coefficient
Prob.
Marginal effect
Location (State)
-0.5065 (0.2130)**
0.017
-0.1436
Gender
-0.3733 (0.2907)
0.199
-0.1018
Age
-0.0091 (0.0136)
0.9506
-0.00276
Education
0.1166 (0.2219)
0.599
0.03631
Household size
-0.0875(0.0378)**
0.021
-0.0267
Rice farming experience
-0.0113 (0.0131)
0.386
-0.003456
No of farm locations
0.7178 (0.2446)*
0.003
0.21878
Area of land cultivated
-0.0506(0.0794)
0.523
-0.01544
Access to herbicide
-1.4462 (0.2196)*
0.000
-0.4843
Access to credit
0.3586 (0.2611)
0.170
0.09974
Access to extension agent
-0.61055 (0.2592)**
0.019
-0.2109
Quantity of rice produced
0.000216 (0.0006)*
0.362
0.0000658
constant
2.4148 (0.8158)
0.003
-
Prob< Chi2
0.000
Pseudo R2
0.2589
loglikelihood
-135.0498
Dependent variable predict
0.7634