Farmer Literacy Education Strategies for Achieving … AGWU'S FINAL PhD...Farmer Literacy Education...
-
Upload
truongkhanh -
Category
Documents
-
view
250 -
download
4
Transcript of Farmer Literacy Education Strategies for Achieving … AGWU'S FINAL PhD...Farmer Literacy Education...
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
Results of Research Question 2 141
Results of Research Question 3 142
Results of Research Question 4 144
Results of Research Question 5 146
Test of Hypothesis 1 148
Test of Hypothesis 2 148
Test of Hypothesis 3 149
Test of Hypothesis 4 149
Test of Hypothesis 5 150
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
poverty and hunger reduction.
(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
among rural farmers.
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.
2.85 0.96 High Extent
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
1.64 0.51 Low Extent
5. Farmer Literacy education programmes are essential components of all forms of rural
1.75 0.47 Low Extent
143
agricultural development planning.
6 Government rural development programmes have expanded the educational horizons of rural farmers enabling them cope with modern farming challenges.
1.61 0.49 Low Extent
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.
3.29 0.96 High Extent
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.
2.02 0.88 Low Extent
10. Farmers insist on maintenance of pricing policies and the grant of higher producer prices as means dealing with middlemen.
1.59 0.65 Low Extent
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
poverty and hunger reduction.
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
among rural farmers.
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
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 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.
1.87 0.58 Low Extent
2 Accelerated agricultural production schemes
(NAFPP, OFN, DIFFRRI), have laid solid
foundation for achieving increased and
sustainable self-sufficiency in food production.
2.87 1.03 High Extent
3 Linkage between Agricultural Institutions
(research, Extension etc) and rural farmers have
been strengthened to stimulate efficiency in
agricultural production systems
2.85 0.96 High Extent
4 Government land reform programme has
provided easier access to land including
acquisition of land rights to peasant farmers
1.64 0.51 Low Extent
5 Government farmer education and literacy
campaign programmes are basic to all forms of
rural and agricultural development planning.
1.75 0.47 Low Extent
6 Government farmer education initiatives have
expanded the educational horizons of rural
farmers especially in the management and
1.61 0.49 Low Extent
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.
1.47 0.51 Low Extent
8 Affirmative action in education rural women
farmers to increase their participation in all
agricultural and rural development programmes
has received government official endorsement.
3.29 0.96 High Extent
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.
2.02 0.88 Low Extent
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
1.59 0.65 Low Extent
11 Gender equality in agricultural production
activities has been adequately taken care of in
research and extension packages for rural
farmers.
2.71 1.13 High Extent
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
technologies, research findings and changes in farm
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