Impact of International Institute of Tropical Agriculture Banana (Musa sp.) Production Technologies on Small Holder Farmers in Southern Nigeria
Musa sp. hybrid based technologies developed by International
Institute of Tropical Agriculture to reduce harmful effect of Black Sigatoka
disease Mycosphaerella fijiensis and increase food production, farmers
welfare and promote enterprise development in Musa sp., were massively
disseminated through the network of Agricultural Development Program in Southern
Nigeria. Five farmers in each of the three states were randomly selected in
year 2000 for delivery and evaluation of Musa hybrids and associated
technology (sucker multiplication, agronomic and post harvest utilization techniques).
As a result of farmer-to-farmer spread, the technologies was expected to have
spread to other farmers in the project farmers neighborhood within the
six years period from initial dissemination; this study was designed to evaluate
the social impact and income profile from the technologies on the primary farmers
and others who received the technologies from them (secondary farmers). Data
were collected with validated structured questionnaires and interview schedule
from 165 farmers (15 primary farmers and 50 other randomly selected beneficiary
secondary farmers from each of the three study states). Data analysis involved
the use of frequency distribution, percentage, means and Chi-square statistics.
Statistical significant socio-economic status increases, were recorded in eleven
out of thirteen social impact variables evaluated and a positive relationship
was established between awareness and utilization of new varieties the null
hypotheses tested were rejected. Two major sources of income (suckers and fruits)
were identified; sucker sales from 74 respondents who specialized on sucker
production was 2,
158,220 in 2005-2006 while income realized from fruit sales rose from 24,
920 ha-1 in 2000 to 174,
263.20 in 2006. Total sales from Musa sp. fruits increased from 7,
002,754 in 2000 to 48,
967,952 in 2006. Moreover, land under Musa sp. production increased from
99 ha-1 in 2000 to 281 ha-1 in 2006. The study concluded
that the project impacted positively in increased food, enterprise development
and increased Musa sp. production in the study area.
The objectives of the International Agricultural Research Centers (IARC) such
as the International Institute of Tropical Agriculture (IITA) are to generate
appropriate technologies for improving productivity, farmers welfare and
household food security (CGIAR, 1995). Food security is
defined as access by all people at all times to enough food for active and healthy
lives (FAO, 2002). There has been increasing need to
assess the impact of agricultural research at farmers level in Sub Saharan
Africa where social concerns are higher and more pressing than anywhere else
in the world to determine who benefits from technological change and in what
specific ways (Derman and Whiteford, 1985; FAO,
1990; Demery et al., 1993). Musa sp.
is among the most important staple food crops in the humid forest zone of West
and Central Africa. The possibility of maintaining continuity of supply throughout
the year makes Musa sp. a basic component of the farming system in many
areas of Sub Saharan Africa (Obiefuna, 1991). Malnutrition
rarely occurs in areas where Musa sp. is widely grown, since they are
rich in many essential nutrients such as iron, zinc and beta-carotene; it can
also be processed to substitute many staple crops such as yam (Discorea
sp.) and cassava (Manihot sp.) (Thompson, 1995).
The outbreak of Black Sigatoka disease Mycosphaerella fijiensis (a Musa
leaf spot disease) in the early 1980s threatened the livelihood and welfare
of the millions of Sub Saharan Africa of which Nigeria is inclusive (Gauhl
et al., 1993). The market price of the crop in Nigeria has gone up
dramatically as a result of reduced production caused by the disease. Yield
loss of 30-50.0% was recorded in Nigeria and Cameroon making the disease a major
threat to the farm economy in West and Central Africa (Jeger
et al., 1995; Craenen, 1998). To counteract
the serious threat posed by Black Sigatoka disease to Musa sp. production
in Nigeria, the International Institute of Tropical Agriculture (IITA), in collaboration
with other International Agricultural Research Centers (IARCs) embarked on the
development of high yielding and disease resistant varieties that yielded 100%
than the best landrace (Tenkouano et al., 2002).
In the year 2000, IITA launched a large-scale delivery of improved plantain
and banana hybrids to smallholder farmers in 11 states of Southern Nigeria (Abia,
Akwa-Ibom, Bayelsa, Cross River, Delta, Edo, Imo, Ogun Ondo Oyo and Rivers)
in collaboration with numerous public and non-public extension bodies such as
Agricultural Development Program in the states Shell Petroleum Development Company
(SPDC) and National Agip Oil Company (NAOC). Apart from disseminating the hybrid
planting materials, this study also disseminated improved agronomic practices
such as, manuring, weed control, pruning, propping and sucker multiplication
as well as post harvest processing, utilization and packaging of products like
chips, flour, confectioneries beverages and alcohol. The project adopted farmer
participatory and community based technology delivery approach (Coxhead
and Buenavista, 2001). Fifteen thousand seedlings of the improved varieties
were released into farming system in the Nigeria plantain-growing belt through
the Agricultural Development Agencies in the 11 states from 2000-2003 (Lemchi,
2003). The 11 states were later zoned into three operating zones called
Plantain Resource Training Centers (PRTC) for ease of coverage by the disseminating
institutions with zonal headquarters at Abia, Edo and Ogun state covering the
three Southern geo-political zones of Nigeria represented in the 11 states (South-east,
South-south and South-west). These PRTCs have a high volume of innovations
supply and back stopping from the disseminating institutions, therefore, the
impact of these hybrids and associated technologies on the income profile and
the social impact in these three resource centers need to be evaluated. Impact
in this study is defined as change in status or situation of the respondents
attributable to the programme over time. The study relied on social impact assessment
as proposed by Campell (1990), Carley
and Derow (1980) and Cernea (1991), in response to
the limitations of the traditional economic analysis. Social impact analysis
represents an effort to analyze the real or potential impact of technologies
on specific groups of people. It was stated further by Campell
(1990) that it requires analysis of changes that occur in the lives of people
as a result of adopting innovations or new policy interventions. It helps to
determine how far a technology has been successful in meeting social and economic
objectives and how well such technologies satisfy the needs and aspirations
of households or other larger social units in the target population.
An evaluation model called Targeting Outcomes of Programs (TOP) presented by
Bennett and Rockwell (1995), as an integrated approach
to planning and evaluation. TOP uses a single model to target outcomes, track
the extent they are achieved and evaluate program performance towards achieving
them. It measured impacts by collecting information on people reaction, changes
in knowledge, attitude, behaviors and ultimately the social, economic and environmental
condition, which are targets of the social impact approach used in this study.
This study therefore set out to assess the social impact of the IITA Musa based technologies in three Southern states of Nigeria.
Specifically, the study was designed to:
||Describe the personal characteristics of the small-holder
farmers who were involved in the IITA banana and plantain improvement programme
||Determine the impact of the IITA banana and plantain improvement
programme on the social status of the small-holder farmers
||Determine the relationship between awareness and utilization
of banana and plantain hybrid technologies
||Determine the income profile of small-holder farmers who are
involved in the IITA banana and plantain improvement technologies
||Determine the major constraints to the effective utilization
of the IITA banana and plantain improvement programme
||There is no significant increase in respondents status
and income profile before and after the project
||There is no significant impact of the IITA Musa sp.
hybrids based technologies on the respondents
||There is no significant relationship between awareness and
utilization of Musa sp. hybrids among the respondents
MATERIALS AND METHODS
Dissemination of International Institute of Tropical Agriculture (IITA) Musa
sp. hybrids, improved agronomic practices and post harvest processing and utilization
in eleven states of Nigeria targeted the Musa sp. growing belt of the
country, which can be classified into South-West, South-South and South-East
of Nigeria. The study was conducted in 2006 in three states of Nigeria (Namely,
Abia, Edo and Ogun), which were selected because of their being Plantain Resource
Training Center (PRTC) zonal headquarters established by IITA to facilitate
easy delivery of Musa sp. hybrids technologies, this gave them an edge
over other states in Musa sp. innovation development and dissemination.
The villages selected in each state are Abia (Etiti-Ulo, Ubakala, Ndoro, Ihie-Ukwu,
Nkata-Ibeku villages), Edo (Okada, Eyaen, Sabongida-ora, Irrua, Ivue villages)
and Ogun (Odeda, Okerala, Igbogila, Iworo, Egbe).
Population and sampling procedure: The population of this study comprised two sets of Musa sp. hybrids farmers, that is, primary farmers (5 farmers from each of the 3 states) and secondary farmers (who established hybrid plot from suckers purchased or received from primary farmers). The project started with 5 Musa sp. producer farmers in each of 3 states of Abia, Edo and Ogun, each farmer represented a village. Each Agricultural Development Program in their respective states selected the farmers from the list of 25 Musa sp. producer they compiled. Three criteria which guided the final selection of farmers are:
||Availability of enough land resources for trial design
||Membership of a farmer group to allow for easier spread of
||Strategically located site along areas frequently passed by
people and other farmers
Field days and field of the farmers visits were regularly (twice a year) organized at each of the 5 farmers site on the project (15 in 3 states, therefore it was hypothesized that within a short period of time (2-3 years), a primary farmer would have spread or introduced the new Musa sp. technologies to 30-50 other interested farmers (otherwise called secondary farmers). This indicated that within 2-3 years of the existence of the 55 pilot farmers, 1650-2750 secondary farmers should have been established in the 11 project states.
To select secondary farmers, each primary farmer had an obligation to the project
to record the quantity of suckers sold or given out and addresses of beneficiaries,
from this record with primary farmer a list of 25 secondary farmers in each
village were collated. From this list, 10 secondary farmers were selected from
each village through simple random sampling by the researchers and enumerators
from the Agricultural Development Program. Therefore, a total of 165 respondents
(15 primary farmers and 150 secondary farmers) were included in the study (Table
|| Composition of population and sample
|Source: Field survey (2006), Pop: Population
Instrument for data collection: Data were collected from the respondents through the use of structured questionnaire and Interview schedule. The instrument was divided into five sections according to the objectives of the study. Section one dealt with respondents personal bio-data and socio-economic characteristics, section 2 recorded the respondents social status before and after the project using recall technique and baseline data collected at project inception from the primary farmers. Questions in section 3 bothered on comparison of levels of awareness with actual practice or utilization while sections four and five ascertained the income profile from the technologies and major constraints to Musa technologies effective utilization, respectively.
Data analysis: Data collected were subjected to statistical analysis using the Special Package for Social Science Research (SPSS) version 10. Frequency distribution, percentage, mean statistic, t-test statistic and Chi-square statistic were used to validate the objectives of the study and test the hypothesis.
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
Personal characteristics of the respondents: As shown in Table
2, the respondents personal characteristics revealed that there were
more respondents in the productive class as 77.9% respondents were between the
ages of 31-60, while 22.1% were in the age bracket of 61-70 (retired or dependant
age). There were more male respondents (83.1%) than females (16.9%), with predominantly
single (66.9%) respondents. The household size revealed a relatively high frequency
for people with household more than five. Household size of 5-10 people is 67.5%,
while 1-4 people were 32.5%. There were more educated respondents 79.2% though
majority had only primary and secondary education. These characteristics have
implications on technology adoption and impact, as active, educated and large
family size have been found to favor adoption (Lemchi et
al., 2005; Faturoti et al., 2006).
Impact assessment variables: t-test statistics for comparison of mean
revealed significant statistical difference in the means of 11 out of 13 impact
related variables considered in the study.
|| Personal characteristics of the respondents (n = 154)
|Source: Field survey (2006), n = 154
||Differences in mean of farmers socio economic factors before
and after IITA plantain and banana based technologies
|Source: Field survey (2006). *Significant (p<0.05); $1
Eleven variables with significant
means are No. of dependants, family feeding pattern, savings in bank, estimated
annual income, No. of vehicles/motorcycle, loan funds, total hectares, No. of
farmlands, area of land used for plantain, sucker market and average bunch harvested,
their means were significantly higher in 2006 (after project life) than before
2000 (before project life). These have implications for impact, as more dependants may be an indication
of more expendable income and increased capacity to cater for more mouths. The
general increase in variables measured suggests an improvement in the social
and economic life of the respondents and increased resources (Jahnke
et al., 1987) especially when the condition in 2000 was related as
a ratio of 2006 (Bennett and Rockwell, 1995). Increase in variables such as
savings in bank, estimated annual income, land area increase and average bunch
harvested in 2006 over 2000 gave leading impact indices as more resources, funds
and social welfare improvement in terms of job increase and disposable income
are linked to the project. However, children school fees and number of wife
were not statistically significant among the respondents in the period under
review (Table 3).
|| Pattern of adoption of new varieties
|| Response to post harvest innovation
Relationship between awareness and utilization of plantain and banana hybrid
technology: Chi-square analysis revealed positive significant relationship
between awareness and utilization of some disseminated technology whose impacts
are being measured in the 3 states of this study, though this relationship is
inconsistent across variables and state. The two main technology disseminated
(new varieties and post harvest) showed that the relationship between awareness
and acceptance is evolving as there were differences but not significant enough
to be reflected statistically, however post harvest innovation was revealed
to be poorly utilized this is not unconnected with the generally low awareness
of this technology. The constraints encountered in the utilization of disseminated
technology also gave insight into the low ratio of utilization of post harvest
technology to awareness (Table 4, Fig. 1, 2).
Constraints in technology utilization: A number of constraints were
recorded as obstacles to practice of disseminated technologies, which explains
the close gap between awareness and utilization of most of the technologies
in the study. Four major constraints were identified as being common across
respondents class and states.
||Statistical relationship between awareness and utilization
of plantain and banana hybrid technology
|*Significant at 0.05. Source: Field survey (2006)
The constraints are capital (44%), labor (19%), skills (10%) and technology
complexities (19%) while 8% respondents had all the constraints against technology
practice (Fig. 3). In an earlier study, it was asserted that
major constraints to technology adoption also served as the main motivation
to adoption as drive to fulfil the constraints led to trial and eventual technology
adoption (Faturoti et al., 2006).
Plantain and banana income profile: Data revealed two major source of
income generation from the project in the study area.
|| Constraints to technology practice
|| Income profiles from sucker sales by respondents
The two income sources are plantain and banana sucker sales and sales recorded
from plantain bunch (fruit) sales. Clean planting material is central to profitable
plantain and banana enterprise and assist in further dissemination of the disease
resistant hybrids. The pilot project in 11 states disseminated 50,000 suckers
free during the project period (2000-2003), whereas in 2005-2006 alone the respondents
have sold 43,165 suckers at an average of 50;
this translates to 2,
158,220 recorded from sucker sales. This is no doubt a major impact as sucker
production has translated to an enterprise, thus engaging more people in agro-allied
business in the community. Area under plantain and banana production in the
study area increased from 99 ha in 2000 to 281 ha in 2006 (Fig.
6). Income realized from plantain bunch sales was 24,
920 ha-1 in 2000 that is a total of 7,
002,754. In 2006 income per hectare increased to 174,
263.20 ha-1 and a total of 48,
967,952, this showed about 700% increase in income profile over 6 years period
(Fig. 4, 5).
||Income profile from sales of plantain and banana bunch N =
119 (2000) and N = 130 ( 2006)
||Area of land used for plantain production 2000: before project,
2006: after project
Rapid social and economic growth linked to Musa sp. production, marketing, enterprise development and utilization were recorded in the study area. The general increase and or improvement recorded in the social indices evaluated, where eleven variables (no of dependants, family feeding pattern, savings in bank, estimated annual income, no of vehicles/motorcycle, loan funds, total hectares, no of farmlands, area of land used for plantain, sucker market and average bunch harvested) out of thirteen variables showed significant increase in 2006 over year 2000 attested to positive project impact.
A major impact of the project is increase in food supply as recorded through
improved family feeding, development of enterprise for sucker production and
the increase in land area used for plantain which led to increase in labor use
and consequently reduced unemployment rate in the community. Land under plantain
production rose from 99 ha in year 2000 to 281 ha in 2006; this increase was
attributable to increased rewards from Musa production that led to commensurate
income increase of nearly 700% in the 6 year periods. Income from fruit sales
per hectare also increased from 24,
920 in year 2000 to 174,
263.20 in 2006. Sucker sales also increased income profile, in 2005-2006 alone;
the sum of
2, 158,220 was realized from sales of suckers. The impact of this is not in
the income profile alone but a boost to dissemination of disease free high yielding
plantain and banana varieties that will further reduce disease spread, increase
yield and sustainability. Hartmann (2004), emphasized
that making choices that contributes to poverty alleviation along research for
development continuum is a sure way to eliminating poverty. He stated further
that, these choices should be brought together in an approach that focuses on
local production, wealth creation and risk reduction as an instrument against
hunger and poverty. Efforts should be made at counteracting the obstacles recorded
against utilization to allow for more usage of the technology and better impact
of the programme.
The authors appreciate the International Institute of Tropical Agriculture at Onne, Nigeria the plantain and banana breeding program for allowing us the use of their research facilities and personnel for the data and write-up of this study. We are particularly grateful to Dr. A. Tenkouano (who is a former plantain and banana breeder at IITA).
1: Bennett, C. and K. Rockwell, 1995. Targeting outcomes of programs (TOP): An integrated approach to planning and evaluation. University of Nebraska, Lincoln.
2: Campell, M.J., 1990. New Technology and Rural Development. The Social Impact Routledge. 6th Edn., Association of Development, London, UK., ISBN: 9780203168653.
3: Carley, M. and E. Derow, 1980. Social Impact Assessment: A Cross- Disciplinary Guide to the Literature. Cornerstone Planning Group, London, UK., pp: 183.
4: Cernea, M.M., 1991. Putting People First. Sociological Variables in Rural Development. 2nd Edn. Revised, The World Bank, Washington, DC, USA.
5: CGIAR, 1995. Criteria and framework for CGIAR priority setting. Consultative Group on International Agricultural Research. Technical Advisory Committee.
6: Coxhead, I. and G. Buenavista, 2001. Seeking Sustainability: Challenges of Agricultural Development and Environmental Management in a Phillipine Watershed. Phillipines Council for Agriculture, Forestry and Natural Resources. Research and Development, Los Banos. Laguna, ISBN: 1920812217.
7: Craenen, K., 1998. Black Sigatoka Disease of Banana and Plantain. 1st Edn., International Institute of Tropical Agriculture, Ibadan, Nigeria, pp: 60.
8: Demery, L., M. Ferroni and C. Grootaert, 1993. Understanding the Social Effects of Policy Reform. The World Bank, Washington, DC, USA.
9: Derman, W. and S. Whiteford, 1985. Social impact analysis and development planning in the third World. Westview Press, Social Impact Assessment series, No. 12, Boulder, Colorado. USA.
10: FAO, 1990. Report of the global consultation on agriculture extension. Author. Hortan, D., Rome.
11: Faturoti, B.O., G.N. Emah, B.I. Isife, A. Tenkouano and J. Lemchi, 2006. Prospects and determinants of adoption of IITA plantain and banana based technologies in three Niger Delta States of Nigeria. Afr. J. Biotechnol., 5: 1319-1323.
12: Gauhl, F., C. Pasberg-Gauhl, D. Vuylsteke and R. Ortiz, 1993. Multilocational Evaluation of Black Sigatoka Resistance in Banana and Plantain. 1st Edn., IITA, Ibadan, Nigeria.
13: Jahnke, H.E., D. Kirchkle and J. Lagemann, 1987. The Impact of Agricultural Research in Tropical Africa. The World Bank, Washington, DC, USA.
14: Jeger, M.J., S. Eden-Green, J.M. Thresh, A. Johanson, J.M. Waller and A.E. Brown, 1995. Banana Diseases in Bananas and Plantains. Chapman and Hall, London, UK., pp: 317-381.
15: Lemchi, J., 2003. Final progress reports on IITA plantain and banana hybrids delivery project sponsored by USAID. Report submitted to USAID Oct. 2003.
16: Lemchi, J., M. Tshiunza, U. Onyeka and A. Tenkouano, 2005. Factors driving the adoption of cooking banana processing and utilisation methods in Nigeria. Afr. J. Biotechnol., 4: 1335-1347.
Direct Link |
17: Obiefuna, J.C., 1991. Establishment and maintenance of plantain fields: Yield decline in plantain, farmers problems and prospects. An Invited Paper To Plantain Research Technology Transfer Course, IITA Onne, Port Harcourt, November 1991.
18: Tenkouano, A., J. Lemchi and S. Gilis, 2002. Developing germplasm adapted to key pest and disease constraints, while preserving market preferences: Hybrid delivery to farmers in Nigeria. In: Ajala, S.O. et al., IITA Annual Report 2002: Project E-Enhancing Livelihoods, Lmproving the Resource Base and Protecting the Environment Through Starchy Staple, Per-Urban and Tree Crops Systems of the Humid and Sub Humid Zones of West and Cent
19: Thompson, A.K., 1995. Banana Processing in Bananas and Plantains. Chapman and Hall, London, UK., pp: 481-492.
20: Hartmann, P., 2004. An approach to hunger and poverty reduction for Sub-Saharan Africa. International Institute of Tropical Agriculture, pp: 1-12. http://www.democracy-africa.org/Presentations/AfrICANDO2004/HartmannPres.pdf.
21: FAO, 2001. The State of Food Insecurity in the World 2001. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, Rome, Italy, ISBN: 92-5-104628-X.