university of nigeria socio-economic...university of nigeria research publications nor, mrumun lydia...
TRANSCRIPT
University of Nigeria Research Publications
NOR, Mrumun Lydia
Aut
hor
PG/M.Sc/00/27744
Title
The Socio-Economic Impact of Postharvest Innovations Transferred by the Women in
Agriculture Sub-Programme on Women-Farmers in Benue State.
Facu
lty
Agriculture
Dep
artm
ent Agricultural Extension
Dat
e October, 2006
Sign
atur
e
THE SOCTO-ECONOhY IC IlMPACT OF
POSTHARVEST INNOVATIONS TRANSFERRED BY
THE WOMEN IN AGRICULTURE SUB-PROGRAMME
ON W~OMEN - FARMERS CN BENLIE STATE
NOR, NIRUMUN LYDIA (MRS)
I'G I NI.Sc 1 00 127744
A "THESIS ,CUBMITTED TO THE DEPARTMENT OF
AGRICULTURAL EXTENSION, UNIVERSITY OF
NIGERIA, NSUKKA IN PARTIAL FULFILMENT OF
THE REQUIREMENT FOR THE AWARD OF MASTER
OF SCIENCE (IM.sc.)
OCTOBER, 2006
CERTIFICATION
Nor. hlrumun I.r;dia, a pnctyaduate student in the Dcpartmenr OF Agicul'rural
Extcnc;iun, University of Nigeria Nsukka i i . i~h the resistration number PG ,' h4.S~ d 00 J 27744
has aalisfactorily colnplctecl thc requirerncnt Tor bolh course and research nurk fbr the aisnrd
of the dcgtee of Master of Science (M.Sc) in Agricultural PIanning and Evaluation. I also
certify that h e cmbodinlcnt af this rrscnrch uork is original and has never bee11 suhmi~tcd in
II 11isle or i11 gar1 [or the rrnard of any other dipIoina or degree in this or any other University.
DEDICATION
Thiq bank is dd to m y Almighty God. h e brginning and i he end of n11,
pcirpnse. nly dear huskand (Peter. A. Nor) my children Sesugh-Iernl?~r-Min7idc30 Mhoonom)
my mother. Wt~na Tahithn A?. Akun~bur and to the memory of rn? heloved fa~hcl; Late Pctcr
H Akumbur.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
I am most thankful to thc Alniighry God through His special gracefid sustenance I
1m.e b m i 3 t k to finish 111k acndcmic programme. t ~ v i s h ro ack~~ou ledge u.itl3 gratilude t h t
cuidnnce and uncouragsrnent of In!; supei-visor. Prof, A.R. A-jay;. I-Xis close supervision has CI
ensured h e success of this work. I am indtbted to Prof, M.C. Madukwe, Prof. E.M. Igbokw,
Prof', A.C. Anyanwu, l?r. (Mrs.) E.A. Onwubuya and Dr. A,E. A g w of the Department of
A,gricultural Extension. University of Ni,gcrin. Wsukka, who w a c nl~vays ready and \\,illing to
discuss thc progess of' this research it-ark. M!; thanks go to other mcmbcrs of the
academic slaft' u f the department for their various fomms of contributions are noted with
special appreciation.
?+I? hewtfdt 1me goes to the Women Fclla~vsl~ip N.K.S.T. Church Unwt. Briston.
Gboko. Almighty God ~ v h o owns sessions and timer; has finally ansnwed your tireless
paws and granted mc %\?our at his appointed lime to success full^^ execute this proyxmmc.
h:b. d e q and sincere appreciation g o e ~ 10 my I.,ate h ~ l w r , Mr. Peter 1-1. Akurnbur who
\v35 I W T ~ tired of encouraging and si~pporting me financially: bur nrvcr nailed to see m~
acl~irvcnxn!,. Baba 1 lo\.e you, Renlain blessed in the bosom of the Lord t i l l I rncet you bvherc
we \\.ill part nn more. Mnmn T~bitha Akumbur, you are not lefi out. 1 appreciate so rnuch for
y i1r n~orlwly care and sv,,port.
To all othrrs tvho did contribute in one-way or the other encourage me through this
prngamme. you have a special place in my hem; God alone u,ill re\\-xd you accordingly.
Finall!. m y hcankll love goes to my spccial family. You iluserve special thanks for
morinnal and f?nancid contribution and endul-in_y my long absences during the course
of m ~ ' study. Gud Almiglity b l m yrw abundantly in Jesus name,
TABLE OF CONTENTS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . TITLE PAGE
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CERT'F ICATION
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . DEDICATION
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ACKN0wLEI)GEMEN
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1-AI3L.E OF C'OYTENI'S
LIST OF T A B L I 3 ..................................................................
................................................................... LIST OF FIGCJItFC
......................................................................... ABSTRACT
..................................................... CHAPTER OWE .* .............. ................................................. I . 0 I4TROI)lrCTION ..., , ............
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 . I B x k g m u n d Inf~mnation
.......................................................................... 1.2 Tlw problem
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.3 Purpose of the Study
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I H ~ p t k c s t ' s
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.5 Sign;iicmoc of the Sltldy
........... ..... .......... ................. ...... CHAPTER TWO ....... .... *. .*
..................*............................. ........ 2.0 LITEKATURE REVIEW ,
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.1 The RuTu of 1Yclrnc.n in A g k u l t u r a l Development
...................................... 2.2 \\;ornenL~ A C C ~ S 10 r2gricult~~ral Extension
.................................... 2 . Factors i4ssociatcd with Pos~harvesl Losses
................................. 2.4 1nlpac.t of Improved Posthawest Technologies
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.5 Adoption of I n n o i . a h n
................................................................... 2. 6 I tnp~~ct Evaluatio-?
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 Economic 1 1 1 i p ~ t Assessn~ent
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.6.2 Social Impact Assessn~ent
2.7 WIA's Collabor;~~ inn 115th other Development Agencies .......................
....................................... 2.8 Tlxorrtical Franwumk ......................
CHAPTER THRE15 ............................................... ,, .............. 3.0 FYKTI-I~.3 DC)LOC;Y ....,........ .......................... ...,.. ....-.... *......I...
...................................................................... 3 'The Stud; Area
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.2 Population and Sampling Procedure
1
i i
I i i
Iv
V-lfi i
Viii
Viii
Is
E
B
i
3
4
5
5
7
7
7
9
13
16
17
21
7? .
23
24
25
29
20
29
79 . .
I h t n C'ollcction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Mcnsurerncnt ~FVnriables . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Data Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
............................... C14APTCR FOUR ............................. .... .......... ..... ........................... RESULTS AND IIlSCUSSlON ... ...
Personal Characteristics of the Respondents .....................................
Agc (Years) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . blarita'l Sta rw
Educnlionnl Lcvcl . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Fami in? Espcrienci .................................................................
Household Size . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .,. Classification of Ii~nuvntinns .........................................
Yc ls t -hamst Linkages Between the Wcsmcn Farmers 3 1 ~ 1 t l ~ N~at ia~~n l Dcr:elnpment Agencier; .........................................................
Existence o f Poshan: A Linkages ................................................
The S~rength of the Linkages .......................... ... ..................... \apes of Assistance rieceivcd from che Agcncies ...............................
Spcciiic Assistnncc Provirlcd by a Specific Agency ............................. Adoption of Posrharvest Innavalions .......................................... Processing of Cassma Tubers under Clean Envil-omlent and use of M ~ l c r n Techniques ................................... ..,. .....................................
Fr~tification of Ca:;t;a\.n Tubers into Iliscilik Buns . Chin.chin. Brcad and h4car p e ...............................................................................
Processing of Soy-bean into Difkrent Products ................................ Fortification of So).-bean ~ v i t h Cassnx~a Flour into Sny.dou$nut . Buns . Biscuits, Puf -pf - Chin-chin and Mea-pie etc ....................................
............................................ Pr t sen4on of Fresh Cassava Tuhers
Prcsznation 01'1.. enfy and Fruit V q ~ t n b l ~ s ....................................... I m p x t of the Post5m:est In~lovations un the Socio-Econclniic Life of the 1l1omen Farnmers .......................................................................
I m d nl' Kno~vIcdge about Postharvest Innoua~ions and Extent of Posthan-csr Skill Acquisition ......................................................
l3rirnnkcI annual and Lclrel of Sa~isfaction \\.it11 the Estimated Annual Income 47
Marketing of Farm Prodrrce . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47
Accessibility lo Medical care, ease of Payment o r Chi!dren's School Fees . .. ................................ Rntc of Protein Consumption and I abour Source
I~roblerns Assnciated with the Postharvest Innovations Utilizalion ........... .................................................................... CHAPTER FIVE
SUMMARY. CONCLIISXON AND RECOMMENDATION .............. S urn mary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Recomrnendatians . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
APPFSI3IS I : Letter of Introduction and Structured Ii1t.cn1iew Schedule fclr M'IA Apcnts and Uv-~rnen . Farmers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1: Perctntagc distribulion of the- respondents according lo their personal . , 11 ...................................................................... charactenst~cs -75
Table 2: Psrce~ltage distribution of rcspondenrs accclrdinp to the identified ma-jor post-han~ost innovations ~ransfcrrcd to \vumm-Sartnurs by WIA sub- 35 prclpramnle . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Table 3: Perccnkige distribution of womcn fasn~ers accmding the post-har~ssf Iinkagcs thal existed between them and the national / intcrnahmtl developmenkt1 agcncics ............................................................ 36
Tahle 4: 5lcan scorrs of perceived dzgree of linkages that existed between women farmers and the nalionnl I intitrnati~nal devcloprl~cntal agcncies ............. 37
T a l d ~ 5 : Percsnlay bintrihu!ion of' ivomen farmers according the tlpcs or nssisrancs received from thc narional .i international agencizs ................ 38
Table 6: l 'hz t>.pe of assisrance provided by each c;f the national / in tc~~nat iond deidopment agencics ............................................................. 40
Table 7: Adoption nfpxthai-vest innovations transferred to women fanners b ~ ' the W I , Z sub-pr~y-arnmc.ni .............................................................. 44
7-able S: Chi-square nr;al>sis indicating the lcvel of association bctwcen the change in thc' S O C ~ O - - C C O ~ O ~ ~ ~ C l i f ~ of t h ~ w m e n -farmers and participation In the 46
.......................................... \VIA sub - pz-ogrammc in Bcniw Staie
Table 9: k1a.ior problzms associated n'ith the pmt-han.cst i~mrmvrth.ms utilimtion by the ~vorncn fi8rrnas .................................................................. 49
LIST OF FIGURES
Fig. 1 Concep t~~a l ?I rnc\wrk for asscssiny the socio-ecolmmic impact of posthar\*est innovations ~ransfcrrcd by I\JIA sub-programme on women fxrt~ers in Renue State .............................................................
ABSTRACT
This sludy IVX carried out to evaluate the socio-economic impact of posthalvest
iiinm.ations trmsfcncd by the Women In Agriculture sub-programmt. on women-farmers i ! ~
Bcnw State. Data was gatherd through the use of interview schedule and questionnaire,
Forly two copies of the quescionnaire were adn~inistered to the women-farmers by the
researcher and 1l1e extl:n40n agents. Mowever. only 35 out of 42 copies of the i n t e n k ~ \ -
schcdule were anaIyscd. Analysis of data was can-icd out usin? freqitency distriburicw,
ptrccntagrs: mean scores and Chi-square. Results show thal. the mean agc of the respondenrs
w a s 50.WL. r~h ich implies thar a mciiority of'the wornm-farmers in the s r ~ d y area are
old. Ma-jjority of the rtsspmdcnts were martied (?1,2%), 72% of [he respondents had no
formal educariun. The mean of farming cspcrience was 27.2 years whilc h e mean of
h ~ ~ ~ s c k n l c l size \ws 7. Identification of innovations tra.nsferrcd by \VIA sub-pro, oramnle on
women-fa~nzzrs s h o w !hat. introcluclion n f leafy and fi-uits vcgetilblcs: introducrion of wceE
c3ssai.a v:~rirtic.s: procct ;ins ~eclu~iques; foi~ification techniques packaginz techniques:
prescn~ztion techniques and storagc techniq~rcs were ti-ansiimed. There \ \xs indicalion that
the postharves~ linkage het\\,t.cn the agencies and its contact women fanners was mostly
strong, nrld the inbicaticm that they received various tjFpt"s of assistance from thc agencies.
The adoption level of innovations transferred by W l h sub-programme on women -Ihnners
shows tllat. [he respondents \ \ w e still at rhe trial level on the adoption scale, Dcspite the IOIV
le\.i.l adoption of innovation by thc wornen farmers, here WIS evidence that. thcir
participating in WIA sub-prog~arnn~e rzsults in high generation of annual incomc. 'This
inlplics that the \wmerL ~ar[icipation in postharvest innovations of \VIA sub-prograrn~ne
ncrually had sorns socio-economic inipact on them, Many factors constrained the adophlz of
innovations transferred on women - fmncrs by WIA psop-amme and post - harwst
t~tilizalion bj, the women -- farrzi ers. wme of them i ~ ~ c l u b e : improper handling of preser\,ation
C ~ ~ I ~ ~ I C ~ I S Icacling to ph\.sical nwlabolic s w s s . a n d rotting of i,egetables. high cost of agro-
chemicals, de\:eloprne~~t of resistanr strains and toxic residucs; leading to high cisst
praduction, some of thc postharvest tcchnolngies I equipment are not easily ndaptahlc to
various crops, difficull to operare and maintain by the women due 10 high illiteracy level:
unfulfilmenr / unlimely lid fill men^ of promises by the government. NGOs and other donors
and lack of readily availability of market for many of the post11a1-vest prucessed products.
CHAPTER ONE
1 . Backywind Tnforrrtation
I n Nipr ia . nomen constitute about GO - 80% ol'tlic agricultt~ral labour force.
dependins on the location. Tlmc wonicn produce about 67% of the b o d crop< and
they reside primarily in the rural areas, expEniting natural resources on daily basis.
Basicall>-, the), a e involved in the supply of labour. produc!ion o r fmxl crops
and livestock, processins and transportation of' Farm prodi~ce Tor effective sroragc and
inttrketing (Shannon. 1995: Ugwu and Agbo, 1999). Despite thc high Ict.cl of tlieir
in~.oI\.rment in apricr~ltt~ral acti\.ities. the>. arc. inadecparcly recognized a t ~ d
~indervalued (A-iayi, 1995: Hcnn. 1995: Nuachuk\i u and J i b o w . 2 0 0 : On i t~~buya ,
2002).
Refore 1990: agriculti~ral cstcnsion s e n ices in Miperia were concentmtcd on
nitn-farmers and LIIC inrmi1ation disscrninrt~ors (esrcnsion agents) \\ere mainly ~nales.
I-hc atni labl t extension messages [hat \verr largzted at i~miel-1 nere f o c u w l on their
do~ncstic roles in childcare house-keeping and family ~iutrilion (Jiggins,el a1,1996).
According to Saito and Wcidcniann (1 999), and S\vmiinathan ( 1 890). despite a
decade of the World Bank's assistance in buildingup a~ricu1t~r1-e in Nigeria. ~ o ~ u c n -
farrncrs arr still receiving minimal useful and practical infor~na~ion from [he male
cxlension agents.
Agricul~ural Dcvcloisment Programnm (ADPs) constiturc h c neuP s~rateg!-,
r~l l ich the Fcderd govcrnrncnt of Nigeria IFGN) Ilac adopted to implenient it5
agricul~ural developmm~ policy and the integration of iwnw into agricultural
ds\.elopment through hztrer extension r;erviccs and training (Glad11 in. 199 I : RADP,
1975: Eboh ct. al.. 1995; Amalu, 1998).
Therefore, in 1485, a pilot sludy on the acti~~ities of \\.omc=r~ in agriculrure was
carried out by thrcc ADPs (Imo State ADP. Kaduna State ADP and Oyo State AUP)
with different socio-cu;:ciral and agronomic conditions ( M R . 1992). TIIC ilpproxhcs
~1sc.d includcd gender-disaggrcsation (diagnosric field sunJejls to identify who does
\\hat [askc and u.ith u,hat lechnology) and hrr~instorming on gendcr issucs at
tbr~ni~litl; Training and V i d ('P 6t V) englightmcnt scssions (Saito and Spurling.
I992).
?he lessons learnt provided a basis for the modification or the existing
cntcnsiun programriles in the three pilot statcs and otl~er states of the federation.
Hence. in 1989. tlic National Council on Agriculture (NCA) institurtior\a!ized direct
cxknsion deli\-er) to uomen farrncrs. The M;omen-In-Agriculti~re ( W A ) component
cant i n ~ n full-existence in all the 36 states AI>Ps: including the Fcderal Capital
Territory ( K T ) . Abuja, in 1990. The establishnlcn~ of thc WIA sub-progranmc
\\,ithin the ADPs was tu address the necds o f ' ~ v o ~ ~ ~ c . n farmers n.ho were formerly side-
lined b. the n l a k evlensiorz agents and a t the sarne time, intqrare kmales inlo t l~c
rc ,g lar extension sen-ice. The \VIA Sub-Programnlc n.as also cstablishcd in the erst-
\\ hilc I'zderal AgriculturaI Co-ordinating Unit (FACU) which in collaboratiorl with
the World Bank gm7e necessary tecllnical guidclincs. co-ordinatcd and scipen4scd
extension services to h e \i,orlicn-farrlim. I t also devofopecl guidelines for effective
implementation of the sub-programme (Agu. 200 I ) ,
On a broad lmcic WIA nm prrl in place to address the pecidiar extension needs
of'thc \!'om~"il-h'arrnci-5. partict~larb,. in pdcr-specific issues ivilh emphasiq on 70.0%
production and 30.0% post-han~sl technolo~ies, I t aims alt hamasing the total on-
fann agricultural capaldities of farm-tvorncn so as to kuiId better lives for themselves.
their fan~ilieq. their ccm~nunities and tlic 1latio11 as a ivholc. Spxif ical l~~. \VIA \vas
e.;t:~blished to: ( 1 ) inipl-om cstension outrcach to r.ural women; (2) train and cncourragc
\tomen-farrners to adopt and use iniproved technologies in ngric~rltural producrion,
processing and utiliziltion: (3) source and dcvelop throupla research, suitalde
recommendation of tcchnoIogies for activities solely performed by wornen; (4) trnin
n80rncn in income generating activities by facilita~ing or motivaring n .o lwn-hrn~e~s rt6
form coopcrat i~.~ groups by strengthening and productii.c skills acquisition and ( 5 )
liaiw and c d l a b ~ r a t ~ ' \\it11 otlier nalional and internatiorial agencies that hauc
progrntnmc for \\omen (World Hank, 19%: Agu, 2001). To achievc lhese ub-jecriws.
thc kc? opcfiitors are the female cxtcnsior~ staff in tbz ADPs, placed at all Ievds [fronl
lieaclquartcrs to thc viilagcs). 'I'hey are expccted 10 interacl with women-fimnrtrs
(either as individu:d contact farmers or in groups), informing? tcaching and advising
on agricultural innovations and linking n.on1t.n n ith related agcncics such as national
and in~crnational donor%. NCOS and rural insfifutions (Apu, 200 1 j.
1.2 ThePrablern
Since 1990. WIA sub- programme of the Renuc ADP has cn~barkcd on the
dissemination of clifl'eront technologies such as ( I ) crop varieties (maize. saylmn,
rice. groundnuts? c.assava. bcniseeds. swect potatoes and c,owpea); (2) yam mini-set
technique: (3) crop ~nixture (yam/cassa~~a/niaize/e~ilsi dternate mw, soybenn/maize.
w!.beanI sorghum. groundnut/cassnva, groundnut/rnaizc. groundnutlsorghum and
r i d m i x ) ; (4) Livesrock prc.)duction (piggcry. rabbitary and poultry): ( 5 ) Fishen:
(homestead fish production-ponds construction. stocking and fcccting, cultural
practices, checking ol' overflow. checking of weds, fish feed formulation ctc): ( 6 )
ny-o-forestry (bee-kccping-managcme~it of beehives. honey haivcslinp, snail farming
and nlushroom producti m): (7) fadnrna agricul~ure(\~cpetable productiont management
sand use nt'tube ivells, was11 borcs and water pumps): and (8) postI1arvest innovations
(processing. packaging. storage and marketing strategies) to the women-farmers in
Renue state.
From ihc. foregoing, i t is evident that h e WIA sub-propramme uf [he Bcnue
Stnrc AUP has transferred many innovations to the ivomell-farmers in the slate and
each o f ~ h e w could t~ evaluated, 1-Ioi\:ever, it is the aim of this study to concentrate
dy on the post t iarw5i innuvations. Post harvest is an activity that centers mainly on
prwcssing and storage to reducc losses, increase storage life, refine crop quality and
add valuc to priinary produce (Knaku. 1999).
'Tk food insecurity. hunger and malnutrition which, can be seen in inany
African countries (for example, Nigeria) are linked lo poverty, u/hich is partly duc lo
food dcIicittj and low income (Foster et al, 1990 and Aiayi, 1995). Even as sub-
Saharan African countries continue to experience worsening food deficits, the sad k c 1
is that a considerable proporrion of currently produced foods is wasted. The reasons
for this i \~~s tage art. no1 difTicult to find and include: inappropriate policies !ha! rail rc,
adilrcss rhs chaneing socio-political and economic environment: failure to develop
policics to promote rnarheting and riistributlon of agrkuI!ural proclucc: failure of rum4
d r~dopmen t po1icic.c ~vhich hainu rcsultcd in acccleratcd rural-urban migration and the
inabilir! of go\~ernmcnt to stimulate rural ccononies (Oniang'o. 1999).
An cs~imatcd 25% of all had produced in Africa is lost through rotting ar well
;is insccl. ral and other pcst damage (Leisrritz. 1995). Some obscrvers have argued
that if most of' what is 'osl u:ls saved or presencd, Africm's food crises that arc SO.
much publicized ivould assume a different face (Oniang'o. 1999).
Strategies to zddress thc rrcurring food security prob\cms such as r#,vtfl>.
hunger and maInu!rition in Africa must involve posihanwst practices and
management. The pustharvest sector is supposed to fulfil 1 a number of ob iect ives
including to: ( I ) reduce food losses; (2) en!imce food security at househcrld.
comniun i~y and riaticma1 levels by providing affordable presenlcd food, csyecia4ly.
during the off-season: (3) promote economic grow11 Tor the farrncrs and ?he nation.
especially. th~-ous$ exports: (41 serve as R generalor of income. especially, for
households: ( 5 ) stimulate local production; (6) encourage and stimulate the i~dus t r id
sector and (7) facilitnte participation in national and international trade (Onianp'u.
1999).
l'he postlran est irinovations sector 01' [lie Benuc State WIA sub-prograrnnie is
supposcd to h a w n w l most of [he objectives stated above after a period of over 10
>cars of' i11110vatioa-transft't. lo fhc won~en-fanncrs. Thc arising qt~esrivn at this
juncture- is. h r t ~ the W1A sub-programmu's trarisferred postharvest innovations made
an)* i~npac l on the socio-economic lift. of womcn- farmers in Bcnue Sr atc'? To 2-tnswcr
this question. t h i s sti1c1y is desip~led lo evaluate the xocio-econoilric impact of' posr
h m v 1 innovations rransrerred by 11~2 CYonlcn in Agriculture sub-programme o n
\~ornen-farmers in Benue State.
1,3 Purpose of the Study
?'he purpose of the study is t o evahate the socio-economic impart or post
hanest innovations transfel-red by the Women in Agriculttrre sub-pogramrn~ on
\\oi-ncn-Sar~ncrs in J3en11e srntc. Specifically. the study was designed lo:
identif~. the various post hawest innovations that have been transferred b>. a k
WIA sub-programme in Bcnue State:
ascertain and determim the strcnglh of posthanmt linkages t41a1 have hem
built-up betn per: the wornen-farmers and development agencies by WIA sub-
programme i n thc stale:
determine the levels of adoption of the posthanrest innollations;
determine thc impact of [he post han.cst innovations on the socio-economic lifc
of \\ on~cn-fanners in the state; and
idenlify Ll~c major problems associated with he posthatws~ innova~ions
generarion. transfer and utilization in the slate.
H y p n t h ~ s ~ q :
I . Tllcrc is no significant difrcrence betivecn the adoption Icvcls af
p o s t h a r ~ w innovations by nrorncn - farmers from the three agricultural
zone? in be nu^ State.
2. T h e i5 no sipnificant differ-ence belneen the socio-economic life of thc
nomen fanners b&rc and a fk r participating in .the postharvest p a t ices
o f LWA 5uh-ptogram~i~c. in Benue State.
Siqaificgnm af the str~dy
W'IA sub-progr~~i~mc !\.as designed to address the policy priorilks in the Benue
A~r icu l tu ra l a - Development Programme b ~ . strengthening cxterrsion scn.iccs to women
fanners \vho othenviw were not reached by extension services. TIlc progrnlnme is
drsigncd spec i f i cd l~~ to source. adapt. generate and disscminatt. a@.~ltusal
information h r thc purposc of increasing food production, mainlaining food value and
raisincg, the incomes of the u.omcn-farn~ers. Thus. improving the standard of' living a i
the rural women in Bcnue State. One of the principles of prograinme evalua~ion is to
i~npro\,e and not to 'psovc' the programn~e's perfor~~~ance (Ihverc: 1998).
11 is hopcd that the findings of this study \vill r w a l the programmes impacl
and at ~ h c same time, c y m e its strcny~hs and weaknesses: and consequenrl!. help to
modif>., revise and re-direct pray-amme inputs for prescnt and future progranme re-
cj-cling. Besides, the findings of the study n-ill bc of i~nincnse use to t l ~ policy
makers on food dcficit rcdi.rction and poi-erty alleviation. The findings will also bc nf
good use to the donor agencies, NCOs: Comnunity-base. Organizations,
RNARDA and the extension agents within and outside Benue Stale. 'The findings \ t i l l
contribute to the dearth available reading nlaterials on postharwst itil~ovations, ~ h u s .
serving a s a source ol'inf'orn~ation to future resexcI~ers,
CHAPTER TWO
Liters ture Review
Literatitre tt as revicu ed undcr the Tollou ing headings:
The role of \\omen in agriculturzl develoylncnt
'~Vnmen's acccss to agricultural cstension
Factors associated n.it11 posthrlrvtrst lows
Impact of improved post11an.est ~echnoIogies
Adoption of p c t ' ~ a l ~ c s t innova!ions
impact evaIua!ion
WIR's collalwration \{.it11 olher d:vc.lopmcntal agencies , .. 1 heorctical fr.arnework
The Role o f V'omen in Agricriltrrral J)evclopmeat
Boserup (1990) described African Women as l'anncrs "par cxcellencc", tlcr
observation sparkcd ck'-atc on the role of nomen in agricultural production in sub-
Saharan Africa. In spite uF [his debate ajld pivcn Ihc culth~ral and economic variriy in
the iarious regions of t11c continent. the roIe of uontcn in agriculiural production in
Africa is gencrall~. not ilckno~14ed~cd. Women contribute in lhcir capacity as i'arm
onntrs. fiu-m partners, and farm laboreas. T'hcy are involved in crop prntluction to
Teed the family and also, lo gencratc cash
Ihere is a division of labor in the proshlcrim of crops. In Ghana. for instance.
men are rcsponsiblc fnr thc arduous uork like inifid. land clearing ;~nd land
prepamlion. Won~cn are mainly responsibk for plan1m3~ nccding. fertilizer-
application. 11nn.estin~. and transportation. 11.1 lkcctuck produdion. t h q are more
engaged in raisins poultr! and small run~inan~s Tor ~orlsunlption and for mk. Fowl
processing. preservation and marketing which are important aspects of agriculture: are
mainly. the responsibility of won~en (Ardayfin - Schandorf, 1997).
accord in^ to Kpohc770~1d~' ( 1 995). plant production. ecpccially of annual crops.
mrls nit11 preparing the land and it includcs soning. maintenance, harvesting,
consen,atian and rnarkting or consumption of agricuIt11ra8 products. Women
rradirionall). do the soning. nmintenance, I~arvcsting and conscn~~t ion 011 their awn.
bur snrnctinics ahc? .rtor.k together u i th Sann manap.x[s) and the childrm. Somethes
plant products are prr~cessed before they are marketed. 1iomc.n ace responsibk for ~ h c
prvrrssing in man? 'ifrican countries. The products {hat are com~nonlq jmxesscd arc
mabe. groundnut. cassava, prtlm nuts etc.
Wo~ucn ynel-a!l> maintain a fi=w I~erds of' goats, sheep and somc pultrl;.
Cattle arc often the property of tIlc famm manager. hut 11ie nomen and sometimes t l ~ .
childl-cn arc' re5ponqihIr Sor obtaining the necessary food for their maintenance and
production (fattenins t11c.m or obtaining milk products). men gcneraIIy fish 01) the
h i d l -- seas and the nornen are especiall! responsihk for processing fish prducls.
MJomen plal a ratha- negligible role u i th regard to forest artd h i t s products.
I-Ion~c\u-- the!, bccomc increasingIy involved bccausc the). are also concerned bj-
p m h l e n ~ s regarding cn\,ironmental protection and since most of thcnr use fire~vood for
cooking. ttxq must bc involved in producir~g lire~vmd (WID, 1991. IYID. 1W2:
Kpahdmudc, 1995: Tanko. 1995).
According to Williams (1997). the enorrnous c o n t r i b u k m of" nronlerl ro rht:
d z i eloprncnt rX agriculture in devclopiny countries have heen i\ idcly achnon Seclgcd,
l Ivo~ncn' \ h r c of foocl procluction is 80 pcrwnt in Africa, 60 percall in Asia. and $0
percent in Latin America (I-luston. 1993). Mromen are responsible for at least 70
percent of foocl staple production in Africa. h~li~jindadi (1993) reported that, in
Nigeria. tvomen are responsible for enuch as 70 pcrcent of actual farm n.ork and
consli~irte up to 60 p e r ~ e n t of the Fanling population. Of 111c 10 linkages in the food
p,~thclcaring and hiirrmvi~lg OF fields. planting. weeding. h a r ~ ~ s t i n g , t~insponation.
prowsing. distribution. marketing. q~o tag~ ' and co(~ki~la-, O I I I ~ !he firsl i l u ~ are
dominated by men. 'I he next IWO are snlcly done by x+omen, while 70 prcerlt of
other activities are carried out by i\wtwu along lvit1-e he i r usual domestic burtlcn
(Ogunlc\ne. 198 5 ) . I[ i s therefore no exageeration .- lo say ~ h a [ rwmen En dcwloping
collnrrics arc the backhone of food ~ e t u r i t y . For exa lnpk agriculture is tecominp
Strninbed (Saito and S, ruling. 1992). This agrees n i th Cosemp's cien (1970) 1bn1
Arrican iq a rqio1-1 of female farming pcr cscelIcnce.
In spite of the important rolcs uamcn p l a ~ in agriculture and the I~ooseholcI.
their contributions have no1 becn acknonlcdged for a ~mmber of rcasons; ( I ) the small
size and fragmented nature of thcir fwms; (2) thc nature of thcir workins tools and
equipment (3) thc considerable distmce of their Lla~n~s from thc village: (LC) the
numerous domestic chores the \vonien Imvc to pcrform; ( 5 ) the I1oat.y time budgel of
\wrnen: (6) tlic Imd tenure system: (7) limited labor' (8) lack of education.
information and technical skills: (9) nqlect and Iack of interes~ among planners on the
role or nwncn and (10) swierai a l h i ~ d e s . traditions. and cusroms in Alkican sac ie t~~
( A r d a ~ fio-Schundorf: 1997).
FF cnts of the rrccnt pnit ha\-e g i i m rise to a neis en in ~vhich lllc I r w position
of the \voinen in the production cxcle has begun to be xalixd. In rhc last decades of
international developv~nt. wornen have been recognized as vifal human resources.
Any development programme that procecds \vitlwi~t WOIIICII'S participati~n is self-
def'eating because of the Ioss of their uontribution (James and Trail. 1995).
2.2 W'n men's Access to Agrirrrllh~ral Extpnsion
In the norId in general and in Africa in particular. the United Nations Dccadc
for Women ( 1 975- 1985). alerted golwrnlnents, sovernnlental and n o n - p v e n ~ n i c n ~ l
organi7ation.s. political. socia1 econo~~ric and academic institutions, c ~ c . about t ! ~
problem of I\ omen in ~eneral . 'Thk icl~sprcad a\\ areness \\.as chonstrated in solale
c o u r ~ i c s b!.: (1) the creation of minis\ries responsible for \vomcn's issues: (2) the
creation of special offices responsible for p r o n ~ o h g nomen's activities: ( 3 ) the design
and i~nplementation of prqjects or ~nicm-prqjects ferndecl by such agencies a9
IINlCEF: UNDP. UNITEM. UNESGtS, OWAM and DANIDA; (4) studics on thc
participation and contribotion of \\.omen to ~ h c socio-ecconolnic development of 111~
countries: (j) the orgnrliza:ion of intcrfintiannl. regional or nationaI seminars and
\\orkd~ops or1 topics relaled to the prohkms of aorncu: (0) the establishment of
special ftmds. esp~cial'y. for \\.omen's activities: (7) the creation of inforination and
con~munications ne\v-orks 10 rcport and disseminate ncus 011 ~ . o m c n ; and (8) the
rati lica t i m s of Clnited Nations recolutinns (Kpo21clz0udt. 1985).
A major approach to the development of apicultt~re in sub-Saharan Africa is
the provision of' agritult~rral extension :;cnlices. Extension directed at n m w n farmrs
has generated consiiler~ble interest bq governmentl NGCJs. Private companies. and
religious organizalicns in recent yea r because of the inljmhnt contribulions it is
capable of niaking to food production ~',tVilliarns, 8997; Isife. 2 0 0 0 ~ Gormmments in
many developing ccimtries stnricd WiA ()\lumen-!l~-ag,ricuItt~re) pro,- ="lrlllltnt's as a
rncans of reaching women with technical inforn~a~ion. The primary ob.jective is to
incl-rtm thc productivity and inconies of \vomen Sariners. Othcr objecfives are to
identify thc conslraints Faced by ivomen farn~ers , to source and, Ivhcre necessary.
collaborate 1vit11 research ins~itutioils to develop suilable technologies, to ensure
timely cstension support to wornenl finners. The objtstives also include to prwidc
&ice ro women on group fi~nning (so that they can gain access to farm inputs a d
crdit): encourage ciivcrsifka~ion of wonien's farming artivilies t ~ l small-scale
protl~~ction enterprises and intrmlttce labor saving teclmologies in tlrc advi t ies of
n;ornen (Williams, 1907).
Thc advent of WIA programrue h ~ s resulted in recruitment of female extension
\J-nrkers n.110 ivork wi1.h female fari~ers and rhc use of a-omcn ;is contac.1 and contract
farmers. 'Thc iiicorporxtion of a WIA component into the extension progrnnime have
s11ar1c.d a new course for \voiileli farmrrs: evm t!~mgh i t is llat devoid of certain
constraints (Yjoku. 1P?& Chak, 1990; Onazi, et a!, 1992). Organizations that are
involved i n deliwring de st ens ion scn4ccs 10 rYomerb Fanners include UnEtd National
Development Programme United Nations Childl-en's Fund: Community women and
de\t.lopment: Ghristiai~ rut-a1 Dwcbpmenr association of Nigeria. and E\m_eelical
I_'\~~lt-ch of \Vest Africa, Their nclis~ities c o v c ~ areas such as hoiiie economics,
nutrition, training of lenders, child care, managelllent skills, operation sf loan scherncs
and extension advice through specialists and Rv5lirating input supply rhrough linkazes
to research centres (\Yi!liams, 1997; Isife, 2000).
~ 1 1 ovel- tile world. there is the awareness of the need 10 improve the socio-
economic status of women. In Nigeria, like in mosi sub-Saharan At'rican n a t i o m
\\ oIllcn are errolleorrslr considera1 as uneqml ro men: yet., they make significant
contributions to the gross domestic prodoch-m a~xl to the gcneml standard of living in
all economies $oball5.. Kc\,crthelrss, rcsearchcrs have yublishcd reports indicating
t lm tirolnen are prinsip i! pmclucers of subsistence agricuhural productioll (MrilIiarns
and Nnuen. 1999: IC1.A.. 2000). Some of the few slrldirs that have becn carried out on
the role of j\Jornen in agriculturaI de\dopmenl are gij-en bclow: ( 1 ) crcdit lssucs
afrecting iifomen its agricuhurc in Oyo state of Nigcria by Adekanye (E99C)). The
I-warcher pointed out that Nigwia also has a fwd prablcln, as is the case s\ ith many
t j ~ l ~ c ~ dci.elopinp co i~~t r ics . The food problem in Nigcria has tu do z i i t l l aspect of
undcr-dc.veloplncn~. uhich includes lo~v-income nutritional deficiencies. low
education, Iow life el p t a n c ; and Io\s agricultural output. According to the
researc11c.r. Nigeria's problclns are typicill of Africa's devctopnlent problcn-rs. 'Thug in
grneral. i t is not just that Africa has a low basc for developnlc.nt but comoarcd u i t h
o h r de\nt.lopinz areas Africa's g o i i ti1 pcrf'orma~~ce has Lxen least iinprcssivc and
dci.tlopment projections arc still $cmn~y.
The researcher thcreforc. rt-conimended that. since womcn constitute a b u t
tiyo-thirds of the agricultural Labour Fr~rcc: (a) svomen should be given preference
and concessions by commercial and othl-.r banks. A good e x m p l u is IIBA's ' c ~ d i ~
Lbr r u r ~ ~ l i~orncn ' scheme and .uomen forum'. More b a n h should urnuIa!e th is
lauciirblz geslure. [b) t'ornlation of more \vomn co-operatlvc societics, ~ ~ h i c l i can be
given low intcrcst for spccial Ioans.; (c) a special schcmc for w m c n can be
established b ~ . the CcntraI Rank with minima1 conditions attacl.ied and Id) more
lvomen organizations should bc involvai in Loan schemes.
Akinrinadc ( 1 W O ) assesscd thc involvcn~ent and participa~ion sf I) omcn in
ngriculture in Nigeria. The researcher emphasized that, whenever there is an>- sr11dy
on agriculture. agricultural production. food processing, food preservation. food
storage. animal husbantl~y. hrnl.; and farmers, i~ is v e p import an^ to remember that
w o m i ~ are equal partrters in agricul~ul-al developlilcnt. Me further p i n ~ c d out that.
worncn's roles i n food production hiwe Pecn hidden from ~ h c Iristoq. by a icrcal of
cultural m),lhs about male gnllan~r>* and Ccr~mle dclicacy C ~ ~ ~ I I tvhcn i l is
achnon !edged that uameu have roles in agriculture. It is u s ~ ~ d to say Ihat nlzn fann
and u-omen only help. I-Io\vever. the findings af llle study established that.. women are
the main prodr~cers of n i l thc food cmps. fiuits and i egerabks on which the famil!. and
111c' Sam1 v. o r k m ar.2 fed. Their ii ork iivAudcs cullivation, SON in?. planting.
h a r v c s t i ~ ~ ~ . food processing. food preservation. food storage and. markctine of farm
products. Women faced lot constraints in agricultural prodrrction. Such probIcms
include lack of land. lack of modern tecIinology. lack of access to credit alrd lack nf
agicultural inputs i n general, The rescsrcher therehre, reconmtended rh:~t n o n w n
need cncouragemcnt from both the State and Federal Governnients and the socie~y as
rt n holc (ldcmuiiia. 19'3 I ; T'anko. 1995: Taiu o: 1996).
Sinlihrl!, a stud;. br Snaminahal-I (1990): OlmvasoIa (1998): Ugwu 2nd A g h
(1999). orr makin5 agricdtural progress susrainablc - "role of new tsch11ologics'-.
r e~ ta l ed t h t . despite thc fill1 i n v o l ~ w n e n t and participa~ion of uonlrrl in crop
pnjduclion- animal husbandr>-. lisheries. forestr!' and pnsthan~est tcclinology both in
fh2 past and non. those in charge of formulatin? packages of technolopies. services
and public policies for ntral arcas !lave aflcn tenclcd to l~eglcct the pr0ducth.c role of
\wmen. Constqrrenilg. the dcsdopi~ient of ~cchriologics that are tailored lu nomen-
specific-occupatio~is ail : thc iiivolwmcn~ of 15 omcn i11 tcullnology development and
transfer hat e reccivcd inadequak attention from both scientific and administrative
depnrtmrn~s of the govemmenls (Oluwasola, 19%)
The rwearchers finally commcnrled that, in o r d a to aehievc agricuIttiraI
sector's pod, (i) technolo~y blending ccnlres shoolcl be organized at uillagc, local and
%rate ,govc~nmmt levels in order to combine t l ~ ' sood fcalr~rcs or traditionrtl and
frontier technologies. Such tcchno1ogy blcnding cerltres skould primarily- aim 10
~ l p ~ l ' i ~ d ~ the producth'c rolc of women, nhile the recerst: nil1 not be true. as past
esperiencc? shous. For cxamplc demonstration of postharvest technologics to the
small-scale farmers could also help the big rarmers, whilc the reverse \\ill not al\va~.s
be tnie. ( i i ) there is need for a &nrtinic training progtmnme of nrrnl women in skillcd
cmplo~-mcnt The training rncthods used shodd be ad.justed lo the lwcl OF liternc>-
and the domestic o b l i g i ~ i o n s of thc t r a in~cs and ( i i i ) there is need to fostcr the gro\\frh
of numen's organiz:ltions nhich can sen ;- as ~ h c link bet\vt.en laboratory 10 land ;~nd
!and to laboratorj.
2.3 Fnctnrs Associated \a it11 Postharvest Losses
The magnitude of losses of agricultural producc during posthancst and
marketing operntiotls are ii.idely ackno\\kdgcd to be considerable alrho~rgh Feif
st~tdic\ 11:n e acciimtel!. quan~iliccl thesc losses. Part of thc difficult!' i n qrrantif i ing
pr~s than .e~1 chain nhsre the loss 113% induced,. I t is not unconmon fbr a ph>.sicai or
metabolic strcss to be imposed on produce. but the visual dcklerious acliori may not
be e~rident until Iater in the t ~ ~ a r k c ~ i n g chain (Wills, et a]. 1998).
Gittinger. et a l (1990) cctin~ateil IIIRI, about 15 - 20% cereals and 40 - 50% nT
\~c.~etabIes are iimted in Africa. Produc~ion increascs residting From irnprovcd
?ro\i ing practices are cliininishcd by irnpmpcr handling of the crops a f ~ c r h,m esf. In
cassava. postharvest Iosses can be as high as 45%. nith about 14% occurring d u r i n ~
I~mesting and 22% during processing. Qualitative and Quantitative ~ L N hanrest
Iossrss in cereals and g r a i n k g u m c s have k c n estirnatcd at about 30 - 5096 (Jean and
J-kilos-Kim. 1999). 7'1 , rse from en\ ironmental condi~ions. untimel> han7es~ing.
in~propcr dn i r q . insecl damage. opcra~vrc' attitudes. and lack of processing tools and
cquip~nenr (,\lticri and Wechr. 1990).
Nigerian Stored P r d ~ r c t s Research h ~ ~ i f l l k (2002) stated that, the 1oc;s of food
?I-aim during storage due br, insects pest5 has long been 3 serious problem to farmers.
Tn many tropical countries. Sor warnplc, maize, guinea corn and beans are staple crops
arid 5 . Zcamais is the maior pest in storalge. Perc~nlagc Lieight losws (3 - 800,'u)havc
been c s h a ~ e d using d i 11agc.d grains and a coni~crsion factor. Loss of maize, guinea-
corn and bzans grains cai~scd by S, Zcalnais meanr (hat thc resources suck as time,
labour. land and mnnc>, spenr, in gro\i,ins lthc crops are ivilsted. Control of insects by
insecticides has seriow draubacks, such its the de~dopnwnt of resiqtant strains. lnxic
residues and increasing coctc. Recause of his f'aclor, there has bccn an experience of
.;c;~.;onal $ilt tinil i\ wtages. I\ hich accoulrs for over 4096 [NSPIII. 2002).
Traditional prr~ccssing techniques simply cannot keep pace mith increased
levels of production. A#-cording to Jean and I-lalos-Kim (1990). iilcrst oftlie rraditionaI
posthar-veqt operations are sloiv and therefore. timc-consuming. For csnmple. i t
nornlally takcs about 6h3 Inbourcr-hours to hawest and plnccss 10 t omes nC cassava
rontr har\+es~ed from a hectarc field In case of the cereal grains. r r a d i h a I
processing methods resiih in significant postharvest grain losscs, Traditional rice
processing for cxamplc, results in man). brokcn grains. often with stones n~ised n i th
thc srains. Women \ ~ h o rcl!. ripon tradilional processing and grains are unable to scll
their produce at colnpzlmliw prices to 111osc processed bv modern mills IOta~vn>~e.
1995).
Labour requiremmt by women for processing of agricultufirl products can he
estrttnlcI!. intensive and time-consuming. In Nigeria, for exampIc. thc grinclin_e of
p i n s requires an awragc of one and half hours pcr &I-. Also. thc preparation of gari
(cnouzh to Ikcd a f'anily of 6 fbr tilo to three \ \wks) requires 200 tubcrs, and a
procecsinz time of aro~ind 70 hours (Cashman. I99O).
Another factor clffecting agricultural produce is lack of nppropriatc processing
and storage facilities. According to O l a n ~ y e (1995), processing and sroragc facilitirs
are inadquate to catc for agricul~ural produce at present lwck of production.
Traditional storagc facilities are soMy rcficd upon in [he rural areas. Accordhg l o
Kossori ct nl (1992): in t l~c casc or maize, the usc of improved variclies and fcr-tilizer
has resulted in greater s~~sceptibiEily 10 pc51s in c o n d i ~ i o ~ ~ s of traclitionai storage.
Arrclllpts to improve storase conditions ha1.e oftcn been Crtis~raled Ry lack af agro-
chernicalc. Appropriare posthnt-wst tcchnolo~ies (incdern processing and ?;maps
equipment<) must be clc\ eloped to cope \I ith thesc dirfcrences (Iilemudia. I CP) I ).
Ihe major abncr.va1 postharvest cvcnl is rural-urban migration. I ' n p u l a h n ~
have ir~crensed fold. and i t is no longcr like the historical past nhen most Afiicans
rcnlaincd in thcir traditional rural con~munit ics and deriiwl livelilrood suppor~.
including food. from community groupings lo n+iich thcy belonged. T o d q . [hers is
an ac~iipu rum[ to 111-ban migration duc rnaidy to the !outh flccing nubd povect>. This
urban popi~lation has acquired wban taste5 and is eating Inore processed h ~ l s instead
of consuming traditional staples in their ranr fol-ms (Oninng'o, 1999).
iinother 1n3jor Ihctor associated 114111 food losscs is thc inabilitlr. 10 Irarlsflort
and market a large proportion of t 1 1 ~ product. A common s i ~ h t in remote r d arcas
during the time of abundant h i t s and t q e ~ ~ b l e s is largc mounds of producc. ~ t h i c h
cannot be c~acunted from tile xillagc [Olawn>-c. 8W5). A srudy on marketing farm
produce by IITA (1991). t-evealcd [ha1 ahour 45% of cassava hrnmers ~ 1 1 0 had their
farms close to access roads and n~arkct centres harvested tl~cir cassava tubers in lccq
than I2 months after ~ l a n t i n g . Wtlrreas, those who had theirs d o n s poor roads and
inxccwihlc market centres 11ai-i-cstcd their c3.;saita tubers in 2 or morc *cars (afier
over staying in the wi l j ull~eii a grcaler proprlion of the tubers had been damaged ant!
hence. causing a year 1me 10 tlx f a r ~ i ~ c r s in tcrrns of food shortage and low incoinc
Prnduction of staple foocfc could be increased to meel fuurul-c needs, but farniers
~ciid to l i m i t prmhrctiol~ in order to milrimire thc risk and uncertaintics associated with
fii~minp. For e sa~np lc when h n w s in thc North West province of C'arrw-0011
prnduced poratoes as n crop, they limitcd their production to the estimated quantity
that would be tnarketed bcfore the roads \wrr closcd By floods Sronr the rain, F a r r e r s
ivouId increase production if they had access lo i~npsovccl poslharves~ processing
tcchnolo$cs and guarnntced niarkeis for their prodrrce (higa 'u. 1999).
Saito er nl (1994). e\ aluated the role of w m e o in agriculture in Ni@a and
poilitcd out t h a ~ . processing activilies a rc an important stsiirce 01' n~ra l empbyment
and income.. Storage of b o d crops is critical to acl~ie\,ing fwd sccurit? at hoth
national and local leirrls. I t a s w e s more stable supplics and hence narrmvs price
variations. In. Nigeria storagc facilities are inndcquate and incffectivc. It is estiniated
the one-fi7urth of all food produccd is loci to spoiIage, insects, and rodents. The
Yiqcrian a- storcd Products Research Institute csti~natsq 1,osses in storage in 1991 as
being 30 to 50 perccnt of grains. roots and tubers. Lack of sufficient on-farm storage
also hastens the sale of food at I i a n ~ s t timc even if it iil~eans b q i n g back food latcr in
the seawn. often at higlxr price,
A revie\\; of' ~ror;lgz policies and m;lrke\ing of agricultural products by uolncn-
i'jmws in Kcnya pointed out some of the weaknesses in the ssskrn. CIght? percent
o f the producers did not h m ~ adequate storaze facilities to store their maize or coutcl
not afford to store m a i x for more than ti\o 11101lths. 'This resulted in a depletion of
their food reserves and irnited their abilitjr to bridpc the gap k t t veen iianwts. Largc
and rnediurll scale farmers sell almost a11 [heir maize 1hrougf.1 the government
parar~atal. but only 20 to 30 percent of sniall holdcrs' m;iizc was sold to he national
Ccrcals produce Dnud. Infonlial markcts handled nlost of the mire, b e a m olhcr
plllses and minor crops for snloIl11oldc1-s. Kenya agricuttural ~narkeling cooperative
handled the production. proc~ssing, and marketing of the main cash crops [Saito, et,
nl.. 1993). The issum raised abolre supgesf that postharnest operations. irlclrding Tmd
processin_r, arc mainly 'he responsibility of wornen. A ma jorily of these I+ omen use
inefficient traditional ~nethods, ivhich nerxssitate the developnmrt and infrmluction uf
imp-cnnrd pnct harvest tcchnolagic~ (Urasa. 1990: Scan and I-Ialos - Kim: 1999).
2.4 Tmpnct of l mprovcrl P o s h r v r s t Technologies
1'11e packages of tcclinologics developed by IITA arc bcing tc~ted and
introduced in iiIIages of Nigeria, Benin. and Ghana. Sonlc of the techi~olo~ies (such
ax a r n a ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ l l y opzrated cereal grindcr. a field cart. a par-i processing p a c k q c , and a
multi-crop tl~reshcr) are now being utilized by the larger users groups. Amonp the
fcatures of rhz cquipmcnt that lead to ready aclophn are adap~ability to various crops.
a range of capacities. ease o f npcration mil maintenance. and usc of locally availabIc
materials (dean and I-Ia!os-Kim. 1999).
In villaer opcr-ltions. these kechndogics reduced hat~dling and prucessinz
losscs b! 50 perccnt iind increased labor efliciency by 75 percent in the first six
months oi'utiliza~ion. Technologies for n la i~c processing reducal Irtbaur input by 23
pcrcent in tm-ves~ing. 70 pcrcent in handling, and 65 pcrcent in processing. V401nen's
handling and processing burden was significantlj. rcduccd. Timc savings rcsdted in
some intensiiee production and postharvest activities during thc succeeding cropping
season {Jean and Haios-Kim 1994)).
Impacts liere also notable among n~clruen's grotips using thc cassava-
processing package and among womciz a w l cl~ilrlren using the fanlily-ba.;ecl
processing p a c k q e for cercals and grain legumes. In 711s cassava-plcrcessinp
technolog! packaee. although part of the operations is mrchnnizcd, the control of rhc
enterprise remains in 111s hands of the numen. Women hire malc opmlors fur
.ranting and deiiatcrine (processing). In the classic appmach oT piecemeal
rcchnology de\.elopmcnt. Inen usually take o\w the control ol' the cnlei~ri.;c as i h ~
operations bccorne iilorc and more meclmnizcd brcause ihc typc rrf tccheolog~~ is
dif'fioult for women to operate. Anal5,sis of the cnshava-processing package used bj-
n*olllen's group in D o g h village, Benin, indicated that c v m af 30 percent utilizalion
capacity. the gari-processing enterprise done is capable of gcncraling proiits. I\ it11 a
llenefit-cost ratio of I .43 (Akalun~be, 1996). 111 Norlliern Nigeria where technologics
for hamlct-based food processing were introduced, even nlodcsl inno)-nlions such as
a l ~ r o n - ~ ' p c and knapsack-t~ye hnnvsters Tor conpea and maizc Imve heen quickljt
adopted by ivomen Irtrmers. Men farwers' intercst in mechanized processing is
explained by their need to process their produce for marketing and tlrc opportunity to
use the equipment for custom hiring tJcan and I-Idos - Kim. 1999).
2.5 Adoption OF Tnriov;~tinns
Looliing at tllc ~ t a t e of (IIC ad oh adoption sfwlies. Ruby (1999) stated h a t .
adoption studics gcn~?rdly trncc thc resulis o r inr~ovations (crop and 1,ivcstock relntcd
innoi~t~ions) trm5ferrecl from the research starions or o[~-fitrrn trials through a nettlork
of adopters. He point?d out that. this l ~ p c of cva1uation analj.srs thc under-lying
~EIUCT~IS of' adoption and the use of ncw practices. min? statisticn! and econometric
tools. Adoption sun7qvs are frequently used to see i l ' farniers arc wing (or arc no^
using) improved technology and to look at its efkcts on fhnn prrxlu~crion and food
swurity. ?'hey also Iwlp to find OLI[ thc lercl of sntisfactian of h e client with the
rcsenrch rcsdts and also determine hoij rl:search nctii ities can be re-oricntccl to make
tcchnulogies more nsel'id. These studics iltfen~pt eo delcrrnine \\.hjl a tecIinolupy is or
is nor being used and sometimes to amparc ~ h c lwnefirs of old vcisus new
technologies (GRDC. 1997).
As a resuh of increased scientific research and improved methods of
communication. a great variety of nc\v materials and idcris h a w been pmcrated and
brought to the doors of Nigerian farmers and othcr rural dndlers. The rates at which
these pcople Icam or in?oi,ntion and adopt them how\ cr dil'fcr greatly from onc place
and circumstance to anothcr (Ekong. 19X8), According to Onyebini~ma 43000). to
increase agricultilral output and productivity. m c h d o l production incoqx~ra~ing new
and improved technologics are often reconlmendcd to h m ~ e r s . In soinc cases. fanners
ha! e been found to adopt and use recomrr~ended kchn~logies readily. Farmers h a w
alqo been found to be reltrctant or mwillinc2, to c78~)pt and use some technolopirs~
-. 1 11c acceptance o r a ncu7 idca Is a complex process. 11 involws n scqwnce of
thought and action. Bene. et a!, (1984). clefinccl adoption process as a mcnlal process
nhich an individual goes through li-om first hearing about a new idea to thc complete
and lhll incorpuration of rhe i d m into thc total systcrn o r his bchavior~r. Reearch
studirlc ha1 e dcmonstr>tzd cIcarly the otlensi'r-c defa~.s, \\l~iola o l k n occur h ~ w e e n the
time hr~ners, Lirst hear a h ~ r t'avourabk innovahnr; and time [hey a d o p ~ them (Van
dcn Ban and IIatikins 1996). For example, it took four )cars on average for t41c
majority of Mid-nestma US Farmers to adopt recornmencled prx t ic th~. Rtlsearch
~t .orkers I\ cre keeraest tn h d out what happens during this timc. 'I'he following
s tays , nhich nwmk le the norn1ati1.e decision-making niodcl oIicn arc used to
;1111;11! scc the adoption pro~'ess:
A~varcness: firs1 hms ahout the innovatjon. IIe lacks detail inforrnatio~r about.
it. its special qualities, its potential usefirlncss. and so 011;
Interest: seek fiirther information about. Ife wants to n b t i t is. ho\\ i t
~vorks . and n h a ~ itc potcn1iaI is. Thc critical point at this stage is Ihal, initiatikt
i s taker1 b the recipient in sceking inforn~ation:
El aluation: tveigh LIP t l ~ ad~antages and disadvantages of using il. Ile begins
to ask question such as how can 1 do it? I[s i t more effective than \\,hat I a111
now doing? Wi'1 il Encrease m>- inco~nc o r make my work easier? MI r k s t :
questions flood his m i r d lic consickrs r h ~ pros and cons mentally and appl.ies
t l t m to his situation-
-lrial: test the inno\.ation on a srnall scale for h i n ~ l f . By Ibis rime thc
individurtl has weighccf the advantages and risks involved and makes a plq-sical
trial of it on his o n n farm.. At [his stilz~. he sceks competent assi~tance in
puttins the practice into rlsc on a small scak:
ildoption: appl!. the i n n o ~ ~ ~ t i o n on a small scalc in psdcrrnsc 10 old methods.
In large measure. 111ere is satisfaction nith the practice (Denc: el a!. l i 84 ; VZIII
cle Ran and Han kins. IW6).
Tl~ereforc diffusion is thc stag? in v:hich an innovation Is spreads to gncra ! US^'
and application or it is rhe process by which the adoprioo ol'a n w idea. pr;rricc, or
product spread throughot~t a group. comrnanity. or society. So. the difiision of
innovation is the spread of new idea; kaowledgc, material or thing through spccifk
channrls of c.um~i~unicntion, o v c r h e 11.i.iI1il-t n social systcm (Rlao. 1989). I'eople art:
often divided into h e cn~egor i c~ according to their scores or1 an adoplion index. - *
Ihese arc: (1) i~movators 2.5%; ( 2 ) Earl!. ndol~ters 13.5%; (3) Early rnqjority 34.0%:
(4) Late mnjnrity 34.0% and. ( 5 ) Laggards 16.0% T ~ c adopion index usually is
calculated by asking pcople if they lravc adopted 10 ro 15 innovations r c c o ~ n r ~ ~ c ~ ~ t l e d
by he I.,ocal extension service, They receive a pintlscore for each one adspled, The
difficulry is that there are orten w r y good reasoris wh!; a pcrson canrlot adopr a certain
innovalion. For example, use of a particular processing ~nacliinc mily indicate how
modtrn a farmer is. I-Iowever, use of this ~nachine by m a l l farmers [nay be an
indication that they have not worked out \!cry carefi~lly how profitable t . 1 ~ n~achine is
for them. Hence. if an adoption indes is used. i t should be based oil the percentaee .- of
innomtion adopted which are applicabk to a given situation (Van de Dan and
Haukins. 1996).
According to I j m (1992) and Nivaeze (19951, among the important factors,
economic characteristics. which could possihly influence adoption of innovation, wcrc
income status. labour ,ate. internal rcsource ~nobilization, investrnc-nt rate, saving
paten~isls and ~liarketing pnltrrns, Agu (2000). Agwu (200U) no1teA that j i i lurc of
iclcntit'ying rhe priori~y needs of the beneficiaries auton~atically resdts 10 the reiection
of'tllc innovations. According to Gautain (2000). Lack of estcnsion ivorkers, lack of
awareness and lack Q T appropriate technologies couId cause rhe reiection of
innovations. A d t ' t u ~ j i (2004) identified economic, social, political. socio-
ps!dmlogical factors r.hat could prevent many ycoplc fro111 adopting qyicuI1~1ral
innot:atims. Hussain, ef al. (1993); I'unde-Akinlund (2000); Agu (2001) and Abermji
(20041 pointcd o u ~ {hat, inadequate consideration of farmers socio-culttiral practices
and '~cchnulogicat incourpatibility with n~ ra l economic status constiluted imporrant
factors arlkt ing adoption of innovations and overall extension service.
For ~ h c Nigeriar agric~~ltural sector and the economy as a hale to dcvc~ojr
adequatelj.. there must be an increased level of posthal-vesl techrological:
de~.clopnicnt. ~ransfer m d adoplion p r o w s . This can only be ochievcd by the
cteveloptnent of appropriate pxtharvcst tecImoIogy (l'undc-Akin~unde. 2000). BcII
and Pan.it11 (1993). Adebc,.c (1996) arid Adctunji (2004) pointed our rhat. for the
technolo~.ics devclnpcd by raearch to have positive impact on the prudwtionl the
techno lo^\^ .- - generation dfort must be directed to social desir;tbililj., cconomic
viability, teclinoIogical feasibility and acceplnbili~,; withill existing culrurai practices
of 11ie receiving i-hrlners, I'aiwo (1996) opined that, in order to increase the Icrel of
w e or adoption u f nericulturrll. .- postharvest technology by the ~~omen-l'armcrs, a
11urnber of consider:itims on !echnologic;~I, social, cul~ural and political issues have to
bc made. The besisn, Eabsication and d i s t r i b u h of such technologies nlust involve
i n t e d i s c i p h a r y effort; as well :IS include and consiifcr users' perspcctives.
Tuncle-Akintundc (2000) siigpcstcd that. technology development ~nusE help
the producers and processors to inlproire upon existing traditional methods. It slwuld
also lend to thc use o r tools and techniq~.res that are carefitlly tailored to users' need
and are Fairly operatc"a?le: serviceable and repairabk. Similarly, Jean and I-hlos-Kim
(1999): Gautam (2000) noted that, a number of innovations or technologies introduced
into hbiican had h e n rmt nitla little success lmause the technologies did not f i t the
LLSC~S- needs. To ovcrionle [his. thc aiit!~ors sugpesled that tec,linolog!t development
;rpprnachcx s h o ~ ~ l d be re-oriented to full!. intezrate social. econo~nic and tecl~nical
consideratiorls. Such stratc~ies, they bdieved. wisuld lead to {fie propcr mgcting 0%
technology users and also contribute to full understanding rsf 111e conskrints and
opportunities for developing appropriate teclinolo~ies (such as modem processing and
storage equipment).
ln designing a n s manufacturinp postliarvest tecli~~ologies [or rural women ,
.lean and Halos-Kim (1999) wert of the opinion [hat. it is more important to pay
attention to such factors as the pattern, lype and naturc of fwd prwcssing and
consumption; the packaging and storage resources available: the technical and
ccollomic capabi!i(p of the rani~ers: and ;wailable r n a k e t h g opporlunilits. A study
11) Adesida (2002) on investment opportunities in h e ago-allied industry of slnall and
rncdiuI~~-scale enterprises. ~ \ , i l h focus on grain storage, rewaled that. rhe post- harvest
tccllnologies that are av ilable had no operurional handicaps as they werc sen' simple.
The only set back njas the capital required to set up he storage systems by the ~ l l d l -
scab lanncrs. considering the high interest rate of 25 - 35% k i n g eharpcd by thc
co~nrnercial banks. Due to this factor. the adoption of the technologics introduced tu
the fam~crs. by NSPN \\,as very lo\v.
2.6 Impact Evaluntion
Agricultural cxtcnsion programme impacts are the changes thal h a w rcsrrlted
from programme inputs, outpu~s and efrrcts, such as increases in fanliers income.
better living standards. improve literacy and favourable changes in lo~owIedge.
a~titudc. skills and aspiration (Ajayi, 14516). I~lipact evaluation is usualbr the broad
lu-qtrrrn rco~lornjc. social and environn~enlat effects r e s u l t i ~ ~ ~ from programme
dei.clopn~ent. Such cfl'ects maj8 be anticipated or unanticipated. and positive or
negative, at the le\*eI of the individual or the organization. Such effects gcncrally
invoIvc changcc in both cognition and behaviour (IAEG, 1996). While evaluation is
juclging. appraisiq. or clctermining the worth, vaIuc. or quality of a progralnrnc in
tern15 of it,? reIei;ance, r k t i v c ~ l e s s . efliciency. and impact (Horton. et. 31. 1993).
lnlyacl asccssnimt is an eslablishcd practice in programnies, According lo
IIED (1998). there are many types of impact assessment 1 evaluation. Among thcrc
are: ( 1 ) a n ironmental impact assessment (EIA): (2) social impact assessment (SIA):
(3) environmental health impact assessment (EHIA)' (4) strategic ci~vifi~iimelr~d
n s w s m c n t (SEA): and I 5 ) ccononiic inipacl el aluation (AEE) . Impact assewwnt is
done for sevmI practi,aI reasons: ( I ) accountabiliry-to evaluate how ncll 1i.e h a t ~
done in the past, lo report to stakc I~oldcfi on Z ~ C rctzrrn to t lwir i~ivcstment, and LO
tindcrpin political suppurl. fur continued investment: (3) I~nprovity programrrw dcsign
and i m p l e n ~ e n t a t i o ~ Fearn lessons from the past that can bc applied in improving
ellfi~ienc!~ of a dci.elopn~crif programnie: :tncI (3) Planning and prioritizing-to assess
lil;el! firture. impacts o f institufional a c t i o ~ ~ s and investment rcsourccs. \I i th results
beins uscd i n rcsourc~ allocation and prioritizing future progran~mcs and activities.
and designing poIicies. , m y a m n c s r t r d prqjects (GRDC. 1997).
There are se\.rral s t a g s of' programme evaluation aIong a h c contini~un~, and
impact assescrnent can 1x viewccl as occunaing in the design post-adoption stages.
1,ooking at t11c past. have es-post impact assessrncnt and evaltralion performance.
ach'te~~erncnts and impacts. The resulting idormation is rrscrl in accounting for the
past use o f resources, arid as a usefill input For planning Ihr LFX ruture. Da~ring thc
prwcni stagc along rhc continuum, r lwc is monitoring and evalilation of on-going
proyamme activities niwed at providing inrortnalion 10 p i d e prescnl activilties and
rcvision of on-going plans. hoking tanads thc fblure. there is cx-ante impact
assessment of likely Tuture environnlenrs and of expccled impacts frotu progranarnc
(GRDC. 1997).
Ales (1998) and IAEG (1997) stcltcd that, nMe Iraving a time cmtinu~rm from
past prog~-c?mn~i: outp-ds. through prcscnt progrnrnrne activities and on the expccted
futtire activities and output, rthe evaluation and asse.;sment activities and their outputs
fit into a broadcr d y n m i c cvaTuatim qc le . in which the rcsuIts of moni~oring and
cialuation (M Kr E) cimfit~rrousrly feed back hito the impact assensmcnt and priority
wttinp. 111~s. all threc poin~s don: the time continuum invahe evaluation or
assrcsment to provide. inforn~a~iou p l m k g h t u r e priorities. strategies and
activities. Even in the case of ex-post impact evaluatims for accountability prrrposes.
the resuhing outputs can be used to adjust future I i n d i n ~ alloca~ions and personnel
as ignments (IAEG. 1997).
,4griculturaI pro~ramme s!sreins nwlduide mderga various fonns o f reviews
and evaluaticms as is approprit~te IO ahcir perceived i m p ~ a n c c as pulslic seclor
in\,estments. Some of tliesc cvaluatiuns are ad1ninistr:ltive or financial; others are
fnnual but s u b j e c h r - p e r 1 ' reviews and ratings. Sonic reviews arc h n n d impact
evaluations that 3ii.e quantitative measures or impact assessment: which may he mot-c
acceptable to fullding agencies and/or useft11 i11 fairly sophis t icn~d aericeltural
dei eloprnent planning. In this ~ l d y , emphasis 51 i l l be on [he statc ol' the orl pracqioes
related to cconomic and social impact nscessmci~t.
2.6.1 Econnmic Inlpact Assessment
Hornby (2001) defined economic as the colmcction p i th the trade. i n d ~ s i q ~ and
de\elopnicnt of u.ealth of a country. an m a or a smie~)-. In orher words. it is a
proccsa or an acti\,it!. ptoducing enough profit t c ~ continue. While inipnct assessment
is ~ i c u e d as a type of programme elduation which irnolrcs judging, appw:sing ar
framework, it is not restricted to this. and SIA as L-I process and methoclology has the
poten1i:tl to contribute greatly 10 rhe planning process of other tjrpes of' development
projects (Rurdge and Vancla;. 1 VfG). For apicu[tural dcv~lopmcnt. it can assist in
[he prncejs o r t v a l d o n of' alteniati\es. and to help in their u~lderstanding and
m ; ~ n q e m e n i of the process of social c2iange. However. based on a revicw of available
studies. it i.5 evident that S I h has rarely bcen applied to agricultr~ral development
pro,ermrnes. The e4['mates of swia l surplus in impact studies of aericulturd - vrogammr.c are based on cost% and benefits that are nlcasurable in monetary i~nits ,
'The c l w r ~ t . such studies have gone in including social inlpacts ic through qualilative
nswssmunts. In ox-antc evaluations, social impact indicators (such as gendcr impacts)
are snmeti~nes included as one of the criteria in scoring lnodeIs (Rurdge and Vanclay,
19%: Rccker. 1997).
2.7 WIA's Cdlnhorqtion with other Development Agencies
Collaboration is the act of working with anulher person or group of people in
ordcr to create or produce son~ething tangiblc (I-Iornby, 2000). It involws linking a
particular agcncy l i i t l i another agency, i t ; i t brings about perfect connection vr
rclationshir, betuzcn scveral o~~,~~~iza l ions /agencies from which rnuti~al bc$-tefits arc
dcrived (The New Webhtcrs Dicrionoq. 1992; Nor nnd Maduk\ve, 2002). I t is one of
the polert! reduction strategies. 11 is a s!ralcg. that calls for (a) broadl\ - based
labour-absorbing and cconomic growrh ro gcncratc incornc-earning opportuni~ies for
the n r a I poor and (b) improved accttrs trs rrai11i113 on programme$ h a t address the
food nesds ofthe poor peoplc and other social sewiccs (WotId Bank, 1994).
Collaboration between W A sub-pmnramrne ,- of the ADP and other
dr, clopliicnral agencies \I i l l help ~ h e women-~armcrs to take the advantage or rhe
socio-economic opportuuitizs aLailalsli. ro thcm and 111erel7y raising their producti~ity
and incomes (Abcda. 2000). I-lcncc. collaboration is serving as a poverty reduction
mcchsnism. The Linliagcs between WIA and other ngcncics are cspected to
encourage the entr~prcr~eurship and sclt'-cmplo>ment of the women-famum (World
Bank. 1994).
For instance. 11iu World Bank (1994) rcportcd that, a rccenr co~i~prehcnsir,c
ctaluation of Glamlx Bank in Ghana is a financial institution that provitles credit to
the poor among women-made a significant cconon~ic impact among the uamcn -
participates. Similar!! . in Indonesia, Lendinp under the KUPEDES rural credit)
progranlrne of' the B m k Rakyni Indonesia dropped the povedv ratio of first-rime
horroucrr from about I5 to 24 percent after three >cars of' participation as their
incomes row t~w-wd-a-hal f timcs. There was evidence also that, as worncn gained
access to income. they shifted their social position both inside and outride illr fi~mil!..
1 o this uztent women'z colrepreneursbip is an ..c'mpo\\.erment" strategy (World Bank.
l994: Oluwasols. 1998: Ogbimi and Williams, 2001).
Enhancing nomw's financial base through organized group and individual
1oans;credir is fimktmental to [he success of m y business whether private or
coopcrate. There is atclanche of evidence in literature that women are the bedrock of
agricultural activitizs especially as it concerns food production and processkg but that
the!? are under-rcsourcod. Several attempts have been madc to ei~kanw women's
ncceqs to Gnaiicc especiall_\: through p~mhc t ion . post harvest (processin2 and slarage
eql1ip1rii.nt.s) and coI!agc. industries. 11 is pertinellt ho~-ever to rlotc that \!'[A sub-
progr;~rnmo. can and hall: been playing substantial rolcs in improving wc-)rnci''s access
to financc. through non-govcnl~ncntal ivomcn organization.
2.8 Tlrcoretic:~l Framework
In discussing the .-role of theory. Raker (1999); Adcdoyin and k k o k u n (2004)
de1inc.d theory as a philosophical cum scientific exercise aimed at creating
gcneralirations or v d i l a s s u m p h v i for the purpose of either testing some
assut~~prions ( lqpotk~is) . establishing a model o f the relationships betuccn the
phmomm;t. or c s p l a i n i ~ y a hct . In o h r \\-ords. n thcory attcmpts to prcsent reality . .
adec]uatcl\.. a d r11eref01-z. theoiy nttr~npis ro create by deduction ansmg rrom
obsen-ntions. the conditiuns. relationships, circumstances or principles under which a
phanimcna occurs.
Accwrdin~ lo Adcdoyin and hdeokun (2004) some of the major i i~nctio~~s of
lh~or!; in research include: ( I ) creati~lg adequate or appropriate rrij;lmc. work for
csplainine or csarnining the occurrence of things; (2) 11elping ini:estieator to view
his problem as a complex or simultai~eoasly varying or interacling factors: (3) theory
i s beurislic, and so. i t points to a problein calling for solution and leads to suggestions
that can motivate and guide inquiry into the p b l e i n .
Impact waluation is the assessment of progammes eff'ecti~eilcss in achieving
irs ultimatc purpose. accord in^ to Walks (1999). in any evalwttion, therr. 31-e about
fix.? qucsiions that are 11;ua1ly asked. 7'11~~s ft~ndnmcntal questions include: (1) Social ---
Proglamme: What arc the imporlanl p~vblems h i s progrmnme could address? Can the
programme be impsored? 11 is north doin3 so? I F not- what is i t wol~h doing? (2)
K n o w l e d ~ e Use:- h o ~ can 1 make sure that my results ge$el used quickly to llelp this -.--- -
progra~nt-ne? Do I want 10 db SO? If not. can m y evaluation be use l i~ l in ol71er fvays?
( 3 ) Va1uin.r:- is this o good progmmn~c.? By \vhicli notion of '-good"'? IJ%:.t jrrstifieu
thlz conclusion? (4) Krlrwledge Const~mtion: - 11ow do 1 know all this? Wlu t counts
as a confident ans\verO What causes that confidence and ( 5 ) e a l u a t i o n Practice:-
%ken limited skills? rime, and resources. and given the seemingly ~~nlirnitcd
p ~ s s i b i l i t i c ~ how can I narrow my options to do a f'casible evaluation? Whal
q rc r t io~x do I ask, 3rd what methods should I use? Answers to the forcgoiy
qutstions tnuld be obtained through a n analysis of changes on the basis of "bc:forc and
aftsr-' progrun~me/projec~ intenrention (Ladele, 199 i 3-
Pos~harvest ~ ~ k n o l a g y development, introcluc\ion and adoption rates arc
mpssures to increase aq-icultural productivity. The pmblcm.; associated with post
l1amcsl operations can n\.ercome by introducing appropriate tools and eql-lipmenr.
11 also apprqjrin~c for rht intended users. l:nless proposed technological
innOvaiion~ are bcrrer \ban \s;hat is atready in US< they wilt llot be acceptable, (lean-
Halos-Kim. 1999). In Nigeria. most post harvest acli\;itjes are centered almWnd
storage and processing. 11 is not exactly known how n~uch fie praluceti is
LIsed for home conwlmp-.ion: but on-hmll storage i s essentia! for fOOd sfcurit) at
k ~ r m le\.eI.
The conccptrnl fran~eivork for assessing the socio-economic impact of post
hanwt inno\:ations rans sf erred by WIA sub-progratnme on worncn-fi~rnwrs in Bcnue
Sta~c is shoiin in Fis. I below. Before the intervention, the postharvest co~lditions
(lack of technical skills: lack or storace L and proccssi~~g teclmology oppoflunilq- For
utilization; high physics1 and physiological food losses: Imk of crop resistant
wrietics: inefficient !~~ansporta!ion and marketing activities) of [hc wolmx-farnmen ns
idcntiflcd b!- \VIA suh-progranme (Block A) are indicated in 13lock B. 'To stem IRC
recurring food securily problems such as povcrty, hunger and rnalliutrilion as a n'suh
of h e above identified postharwst l~roblerns. WIA sub-programme OF Bcnue State
ADP came up with some basic acI~icvnble objectives (Circle 1) and then dewloped
some strategies {programme orrtpl~ts) as indicated in circle 2. The target cliel-rtelc (the
i t omm-fanners) is illustrated in circlc 3 ,
(In the basis of ~ h c . WIA sub-programme outputs, postharvest innirva~ions were
transfcrrcd'dissm innt ions to he M onren-farmers (Block C). The irnovations
trmsferred are espectct, to have been adopted or ejected by the women-fam~ers. If
howvet-! the i n m w t i ~ n s llave becn adopted. they are expcctcd to have had some
etti.cts (programmc effects) on the women-famers (D!ack D). The positive effects of
~ h t \VIA sub-prograninw over a pcriod of time would have yiel.dcd sorue socio-
I ) C O ~ O I ~ ~ C irnpacb on :he women-farmers {Block T:). The gcneralion, \railsfer and
utilization of postl~arvcst innovation could not go without some proble~ns (IHock F).
For the purpose of alleviating the problem of lack of resources (for cxamplc. capital);
which norinallv c.onfro1 :cd postharvest innovation generation. ~mnsfer and ulilization
the 1VI.A sub-propmnlne created some linkages between the svorncn-Sarnmers and
clill-crenl dcvelopmenlal a~ rnc ie s (Blocks Ci and H). After many years of inlmwelrtioa.
a n inlpact assessment is needed,
CHAPTER T H R E E
3.1 The Study Area
The study was conducted in Benue State. Renue State derives its name from 111e
Rivtr Renue. tllc second largest rirm in Nigeria. upith Makul-di as the State Capital. Tlle state
is a d m i ~ ~ i z ~ n t i ~ ~ s l y div:rleci into 23 local government Area (LGAs) politically, the state is
ciividtd into t11ri.e a ~ r i c ~ ~ l t u r a l zones: nanzely, A, R. and C and shares boundarit:~ w:itl~ five
5131r;'S. 'The states are Nasal-awa to the Nmh. Taraba to the East, Cross River LO the
Southeast. Enugu to the Southwest and Kogi to the Southwca. The South Eastern part of \he
State also shares boundilry with the RepirhIic of Camcroon. 'The state is also bordered on the
i.:or-th by ISOkm of river Renue. and is traversed by 202kn1 of River Katsina-Ala i l l rhe il~lancl
arras. There are tu.o main ethnic g~~oups in B e n ~ ~ c State: namclji. the Tiv. who represents
ah0111 7216 of thc total popularion and Idoma, who consti~ules sIightly ova. 21% of the
population.
The state is referred to as the tbod basket of Nigeria b e c a ~ ~ s e of Ihc abundance
of its ngricuI~ut-al resorr-xs. Thc slate is located in Guinea Savannah Zone elf Nigcria
ii hic.11 coritnins vcr!; sizh agriculture Imd. The soil and climate of the State holds a
hi$ pvtenlial for the production of crops. such as yam, cocoyam, cassava, and sweet
potatoes. Othcrs inc~ucle rice: maize. sorghum. milIet, hcnisced, beans and a widc
range of other crops like groundnuts, Soyabcans. gingcr and sugar cane. The State is
tllc 0111y notable p r o d i u r of soybeans in the country. The state also produce a great
d e d of Litrestock. Li~rcs~rl/ and fisheries \iith a population of about 7600 f7shermen
111riIs up ul' Juk~in . Tiv :.nd l d o m i ~ h o li1.e~ along the rivcr bank. The state women
for~nrd the phj-sical capacitj- in agricultural production. The women fanners clcar the
hush. till ihc ground. sow, apply fcrtilim-s, weed, harvest. process. store, and market
rhc pmdilcr of (he crops stated above. They also manage the small livestock. such as
yoat.;. slieep and pigs. (I IUARDA. 1995).
3.7- Popr~lntinn and Sampling PI-occdure
'hc \VIA particip:lting \yomen-far~ncrs formed the ppula t ion of the s t d ~ . The
list of the active participating womsn-fiirmers in WIA sub -p ropmmc in each of the
three mncs \\as ccmp~lcd. From cnch list a saiilple n l I 4 Women-F;~rrners uese
solccted through simple random sanlpling technique. That is, a m a 1 of 42 worncn-
fjrnmers nut of 120 u ~ o m e n farmers nere iiivoli.ed in the study.
Data it-cre gathered through the clevclopment and use of intcniiew schedule aad
questionnaire. Copies of Ihc questionnaire were administered la thc Womcn- Farmers
by the researchers and t x estcnsiorl agents. I-Iowcver, only 38 out of 42 mpies of the
herview schedule wcrt found aiinlyzable.
'The instrument (interview schedule) was divided into sections on tlic basis of
tlic o!J-~cc\~\.cs of the sluct>. Each scclicn contained relevant itcms for thc puqwse of
eliciting reliable information from (he respondents. Both the dependent and
independent variables u-cre measured appropriately.
3.4 M ~ ~ s n r r n a ~ n t of VariabIcs
Objective I. To 'iighlight and classify thc various postharvest innov:i~ions h E
h x l becn trmsfcrred by WIA - sub-programme in Bcn~ie State. To achieve this
pxticular objective. (1) Thc Wornen-Farmers wcre asked to idcntify the various
posthaiwst innovations that had been taught to them by the \VIA - cxltcnsi~jn agents.
(2) The identified postl~nrvcst i~rnovations w r t ) then classified.
0h.jcctivr. 2: l a a s c c ~ a i n the posrhai-vest linkages t h a ~ had been brdt-up
~ h c slate. 1'0 achicve tl:;.;. [!) Thc ivoliie~~-l'arrners were asked to state or illliicalc r h ~
\m-ious dcr~elop~nmtal ngcncics they had associated with, and the type of sssi,rancc
rcccivrd from them. Ihe strength of the linkages were also determined. using a 4
point Liked t?pc scale: Very stronp = 4; Strong = 3; Weak = 2 and V c v \ ~ e a k = 1.
The + p i l i t LIkci?.
Objcctive 3: To determine the lcvel of adoption of the pxrhntvcst
inl?omrions. 7 ! ' ~ achieve this objective, the adoption le\7el9 of some of tht nrious
innovations transfcrrcd by WIA sub-propramme were detcrntined. The wornal
filr.nrrs i re re askcd to indicate their adoption ctaee on a 5-point Likert t)pe idoption
scale. -['heir rcqmnse categories and the conrsponding \\eishrhred vn l rm were as
fo l lo~~s : awarc (AW) = 1: interest (1N) = 2: evaluation (EV) = 3: lrifi\ (TR) .= 4;
a d o ~ l i @ n (AD) = 5 . 1.k adoption level of the respondents \yere c a l c i ~ l a t ~ as follol,.s:
i ) Computation ~f the rota! adoption score:
i i ) Co~nprltalion o f the mean adoption score: and
ii i) Compuration ol' thc grand mean adoption score,
Ohjertive 4: T O dcbmline thu impact of the posiharuest inlloxiatlons on the
soci@-Wonomic life of ~ o ~ ~ a ~ - f n n n e r s in tllc state, impact of ille wlnqs postbanest innovations on !he ~ o ~ i o - ~ ~ o n o m i c life of Wollleo-Farlntls lneasared
in t c m of what they had bcen able ti3 acbicvc as a result of their pafiiciparion i n the
sub-programme. Data were collecred on their socio-economic chsmctcrstics (e.g.
income level, Knowledge Attitude Skill and Aspiration (KASA), and ~LIII-ition etc.)
bcfore and after getting involved in the sub-pl-opramme.
ObJcctive 5: dctennine the nia.~or problen~s associated with posthan.esZ:
inrii~i~ntions utilizatinn. To achieve this objcctiire, the \~~omen-fimncrs were asked to
itcn~isc the problems, :vhich had been miliialing against t l x i r tffectivc utilization of
111~' transferred posthavcst i~inovations.
t 5 Rat3 Analysis L . C
Objective 1 was al~alysed by using pel-centage. Objective 2 was analysed
111rouel1 [he lrse of frquencv distribution. percentage and ~ n e a n shristit.~. ~ h c
of the 1,inkage \yere determined, using 4 point Likcrt type scale yew stron3
= 4: slrona = 3 ; weak := 2 a1ld very weak = 1. The 4 - point Liked s c a k w a s later 3
converted to two lc~&; namely s t r o n ~ and weak, To do this, the following procedure
ivas fol lowcd:
1 ; t z l - I : . l O
1hi- :\' cut-off poini 2.50
4
any mean s c c c 52.50 Lvas regarded as slrona .- linkage, while an!. nwln
score 2-50 \\.as legarded as wcnl; lillkage, Objeclive 3 Was achieved tllmllgh -he use
of Rcqnensy distribution ; ~ n d nlean statistic. Objeclive 4 was snalped through h e usc
CHAPTER FOUR
RESULTS AND DTSC'USSION
4.1 Personal Chnracteristics of the Raspond~nts
4.1.1 Age (years) 7 - l able I shorvs that majority (50.0%) of the respondenls l v u e be[i~relqn 40 to 49
>ears age bracket. rvhi!e 27.5% were between 30 to 39 years iige bracket, Those
fell 11 ithin the age bra&e( of 20 - 29 !.ears and 50 - 59 years accor~nted for 1 1.3% and
1 1.3%. respectively. Their mean ape w a s 50.6%, \\hi& implies h a t majority of thc
nomen prclject farniers in the strrdy zlrca. are If'nirl? old.
4.1.2 Marital status
Entrics in Table 1 rcvcal {Rat nniiority (91.2%) or the rcsyc~ndcnrs u e r e
married. 2.3% n'c're single. u.hile the remaining (7.3% were w i d o v d .
4.1.3 Erlrrcation:~l Iwcl
Tahle I firrthcr sh0n.s that 72.5% o f the respondents had no formall etlzwaliork
whilc 23.8% had primary edtrcation. On[? 3.7 of them had secondary edr~cntiol~.
4.1.4 Farming expcricnce
According to Table I . 36.5% of the rerpondcnts had 30 -- 39 gears of hmrin@
eupcrience, n.hilc 3 1.6% had 10 - 19 ye;m of fanning experience. hhot~t 21% had 20
- 29 years of fanning experience. while those \ ~ h o had 40 -- 49 y n r s of farming
experience accounted for 10.5%. Their mcan farming cxperimce was 27.2 J cars.
4 1.5 Houschnlrl size
It is evident from l-able 1 thal majority (65.7%) of [he respondents had 6 - 10
h o u s & ~ l d members, while 26.3% had 1 - 5 household size. About 3% had 16 - 20
houschold she, whik + ' ~ e rmaining 5.3% had I I -- I3 houschold mel-lbers. Their
mcan househo!d sizc was 7.
Table I : Purcentag~ distrib~rtinn of the respontlrnts accsrrlirig to their
Frlucati~nfi l lwei So formal education Prirnary education Sccondaq- ed~rcation Farming c s p c r i ~ n c ~ 10 - I9 20 - 29 30 - 39 30 - 49 Househnld size 1 - 5 6 - 10 I I .- 15
Entries in Table 2 shoiv that various innovntions were transferred by W1A sub-
programme of the Bcnuc State ADP. The idenrified innovations were classified into
new varieties of crops and processing fortification packaging preservation and stornee
techniques. In the introduction of improved new crops and processing, 26.3% of
woinen-farmers in~roduced to leafy vegetables (tclferia. spinach, bitter leaf) for
planting and consumption. While those introduced to fruit \~_ectahlcl; (okra, tomatats.
L;nder the process in^ tcchnicpes. (26.3%) \vomci~-farmers were introbuccd into
pmcessing o l cussav.1 rlibcrs into gnri. chips. flour. starch, akpu and f u f ~ and h s e
into procsssinp of >sms lubers into chips flour and profcssing oil palm fiuit into red
oil, using modern machines was (18.4%) and (15.8%) respectively. also the
processing of gromrlnut oil usins n~odern machines and processing OF soy-huan inro
so?,-~pice. so)--milk, so:,-custard and mai-soy (10.5%) and (28.9%) r q e c t i ~ d y .
Under for~i l icat io~~ techniques (47.4%) of thc u-omen farmcrs were into fonification of
cassava tubers into biscuits, buns. chin-chi11 and meat-pie, and the fortificaiion of so);-
bean and cassava flour combine into soy-doughnut. suy-biscuit, soy-buns soppuff.
soy-chin chin. so).-milk/cassava flour nas (52.6%). Various packaging techniques
\\.ere introduced. as (28.9%) of [he uomcn rnrmcrs u w e ini,olvetl in packaging of
i.assa\a [lour. srarch. gari and chips using polythcnc or Hessian sacks and (13.2%)
packnsinp leaf). and fi r d vegetables using cdlnphane. TIE Women fanners who were
orlto packaging of grain and their products using pol\ithene/Hessian sacks and
packaging of soybean and soybean and soy-flour Tor marketing ~ w - e (31 .G%) and
(26.3%) respcclively.
Dil'fercnt preseT!ation techniques were transferred 173 the wornuc~ fartalers
(3 I .6%) uas into preservation of fresh vcgctables (trlferia, spinach, bittcr I c ~ f ctc) by
hl~nching and sun drying. Preservation of fruit vegetables (okra. tomatoes and pcppcr)
by slicing. blanching and sun drying had (23,7%') women farn~ers. 011E?r (2.16%)
\yomen farmer cycre introduced to the rise or solar dryer and 1 l8.il%) of fhetll were
into timely h a n ~ s ~ i n ~ of mature grains ( rice. groundnuts. beans. maize and
so:.bL.ans).Dr!ine of grains to acceptable moisture content and pl-ovisiorl r d rodent
ellards on cribs I C ~ S recorded ( 1 5.8%) and (7.9%) respectively. L
The table further revealed different storage techniques d ~ a ~ rhcy rscrc raught.
The number of women fmners introcluced illto storing of fresh cassava luben, i l l most
saw dust. inside boxes. cartons. baskct and Mcscions sacks was (26.3%) am1 !ha[ of
slorapc 1224; \w$ables in evaporotivc uoulanl structures (such as pot-in -pot. mcra! - in -t&xh and block-in-block) was (10.5%). Also storage o r dried okra. lomi~lws and
pepper using ccllophanc. airtight phstic containers and storage uF seed and grains
using neem. potash. phostoxin and acetylic-dust was (15.8%) and (26.3%)
respectively. only ( 2 I . I %) of the niomen farmers were introduced to the ~echnique of
airtight jerry cans as storage technique,
Clessifir:ltion of the identified Post harvest innovations transferred m women-
hrmers hj. WIA s111-t-~rogramme.
-. I I 2 : Percel~tnpc distributions or respondents nccording to tLr p m r - h ~ n ~ ~ ~ innorfitions
- tr-anl~fc~-r'etl tu wol programme. (n=38)
I . leaf! I ~:setahlcs - intrrl+iuction of tclrcria. spinach. bincr JraFfor planting and wnsumpt ion
blanching and sun-drying. 3 . 1 irncl? harvertinp or mat[ rc grains (lice, gl-oundnuts, beans, maize and
4.3 Post harvest Lirllrages 13etween the Women Farmers and the National I Irlterriatioiial Dc.veloprnent Age~ieies
4.3.1 Exister~ce of Post hi~rvest Linkages
TabIc 3 indicalcs tliat a nlajorily (57.0%) of tIlc women fa'ar~ners Ilad post
hxvesl Iinkagcs with the k t t e r ILifc 1 Fimily supporl Programme in the State. whilc
47.4% had linkages with NGOS such as OXI-'APl, About 34% of tlie~ii had linkagcs
I\ it11 FAI)U. \ ~ h i I e 18.4%. I S.X(l/o. 13.2% and 13.2% hacl linkages nit11 FAO, UNJ)P,
SG 2000 ancl LJNICEF, respeclively. Thosc [hat had linkages wi th NFDP and I1,O
accor~nted for 7.9% and 2.6%: respectivdy.
Table 3: Percentage clistrib~~tioa of'worncn farmers accorcling to the post harvest linkages that existed betwccrl tlieni and the national 1 intei-rii~tion;~l develop~ncnt agencies (n = 38)
iVationa1 1 Intern;-tional Development A - g ~ c y . .. - --
(No) (lh ) A
I:AO 7 18.4
FrWU
Better Life. 1 Family Support
NGOs ( e g OXFAM) 18 47.4
Multiple responses.
F A 0 I LO UiVDP SG 2000 IJNICEF NFDP FADU YGOs OXFAN1
Food arid Agricultural Orga~iization; Intcrrintiorinl L ~ b o u r Orga~i imt io~i ; I l~ii ted Natiorls Developinen t Project; Sasskmva Global 2000; IJnited Nations Interniltional Childrer~ Education Fund; Natiorlrll F N ~ ~ I I T I ~ I ~)eveloprnent 1'1-ogramnw Farmers AgriculturaI Dcvcloprnent Union Nor1 G o v e r ~ ~ l n e ~ l t a l Organizations Oxfo i~ l Co~ilnlittce for Fallline Relict'
4.32 The S t r e n ~ t l i of the Linkages
I11 table 4. FAO's contact uunlen farnlers pcrceiwd that the posthanrcst
linkager; het.n.een them and the agency was strong ( X - 3.3). Also. 1LO had strong
post harvest l i n k a p ( S - 4.0) jt ith its contact women fanners. l'hc U W P also had
strong Linkages (X - 3.8) nilh its contact farmers. The table filrther rwcals rhat, SG
2000 had strong linkapes (;? - 3.6) too with irs contact Brrncn. Similarly, NFDP (7 - 3.5) and PADU (X - 3.5) had strong linkngcr ivith their contact fanners. The
women farmers perceived rhar their liirkapcs (F - 3.8) with BL/FS and NGO -
( A' -3.2)is strong Iinkagcs
S t r e n d - - of Linknjies Agency ( S o ) VS Y W VFI: Total Strength
(4) (3) (2) (1) Score Lin kagc Mean Scnre ( \'I
rl\o 7 1 6 2 o 24 3 ,LC+
ILO I 4 0 0 0 4 4.Q5 U.J D P 2 0 3 0 0 23 3.8% UXICEF 5 12 6 0 0 18 3.6* SG2000 5 12 6 0 0 18 3 .G* NI DP 3 8 3 0 0 I I yi*
FADCl 13 32 9 4 0 45 3.5" BL.TS 22 72 9 2 0 8 3 3 .X* NCO 18 36 15 6 1 58 3.2* -
=Strong Linkape (F> 2.50) VS = Very st ran^ S = Strnng \V = \Vpa k V\V = Very \'en k
Table 5 shows t l ~ a t 42.0% of 1he responden~s received donation of cassava
planting materials. pecks, grtttcrs, processors and r~yers from different agencies.
nhilz 36.8% r z c c i ~ d soft loans to start off busincsscs and trades. Those rhn t received
and \ \ , am pumps accounted Tor 28.994: 26.3%. 23.7%. 21.1% and 21.1%.
It is also widen1 rrom Table 5 U1al 13.2% of the Women - Farmers receircd
donated generators frcm the agencies. rvliilc 7.9% rcceivcd guinea corn ~hresherr.
About 5% received fabricated solar d r ~ w s . whilc palm oil prcsscrs wcrc received b>-
5.3% ol the 41 omen - hrrners. Chh 2.6?/0 received groundnut oil pressel. from an
agcncl.
Tnhlc 5: Percentage distrihr~tion uf \yomen farmers according to the ty pcs of assistnncc rcwivpd from the nntiniial 1 internntionnl clevelopnient
Donation 01' ca.;saJa p lmt i t~g nlnterials. peelers. graters.
prcssers and fl-yxs
Guinea corn ~I~resIiers
Corn grinding nlacllincs
Tomato / peppe- grinding machines
Lhnation of' generators
Groundnut oil prcsser
Palm oil presser5
Maizz shelters
Vrrater pumps
Fish kilns
1.nbricated solar dr!-ers
4.3.4 Specific Assistnnre Provided by a Specific Agency
Entries in Tablc 6 iridicate that the spccific assistance' given l o thc Women -
Farmers bl' TAO i~lcluded prr>irlsion of soli loans to start off' busillesses and trades:
donation sE' cassava plnnting nialerials i p e c h / graters / pressers and Fabricated
dwm: corn grinding n~uchincs; tomato / pepper grinding n i ac l~ i tm: maize grains and
shrlten: t i ater pumps and fzbrica\cd dryers.
On Ihe othcr hand. 11.0 providcd only soft loans trJ start of[ businesses and
tradss, ivhile UNDP donated cassava planting materials / peelers I graters 1 pressers /
k e n : machil~es: tomato pepper grindins ~nacliines: generators: grou~~dnut oil
prrswr: m i r e grain skcltcrs: lvatcr pumps and fish kilns.
TJNICFF proikled soft loans to start off businesses aud ~racics. ~ t h i l c SG 2000
prmlided makc grains for planting. NFDP and FAnlJ also pmvicied soft loans to start
off brisincsscs and rradss. \vhile B L F S provicfd nssistancc such as soft loans. cassava
planting materials/l~cclcrs/graters/prcsscrs/fiyer; guinea cvrri rkrcshc1.s; corn grinding
machines: ton~aroipepper srinding macliines: spmatorls) and palm oil presser. Soft
loans nere a h provided b). thc NGOS such as 0x1-'AM.
3.4 Adoption of Post hnrrerst Jnnwations
4.4.1 Processing of cassava tuhers a n d w clean environment and ilse of madern
tw hniqlws
Cntrics in l'ahlc 7 reveal that rlle psoccssinp of cassava tubcrs into chips (7 =
5.0) x i as at the adoption on thc 5-p0ir.t Likert type scale. 11 h i l t processing of cassava
tubers into gari ( 2 =4.2). akpo or santana (S=l. I ) and fu f i~ (F=-1.0) werc at trail
1evcl on the adoption scale. The gmnd mean adoption scorc by thc womcn fartl~crs
ovcr the six cassa a products proeesscd under clean environmenf and inodcrra
techniques nere 4.3 of a maximum of 5-poin~s. This imp!ia that a mqiorlt: of' thc.
respondmts nere at the trial Ic \d on h c adoption scare.
4-42 Forlit?c;~tion of cassirvn tuhprs into biscuits, buns, chin-chin, bread and
meat - pie
Table 7 further shon-s that the mean adoption scores for the fortification of
cassava tubers into biscuits, buns, chin-din. bread and meat - pie wcre 4.1, 4.2. 4.4:
4.0. and 4 2 r~sp~cfively. This implics that their adoption was still at the trial level on
tlic scale on a 5 - poi111 Likcrl -- type adoption scale. The grand rrlcan adoption score
for thc fortification of cassava roots into biscuits, ~ U I I S ~ chin-chin. bread and meat -
pi? was 4.2, imgIj;ing that their overall adoption was still at the trial Ie\:el on the scale.
44.3 In trodtiction of Icaf? and fririt vcgetnblcs
I t is also evident from Table 7 that the mean adoption scorc for telrcria was 4.0.
n,hilz those of spinach and bitter - leaves were 4.0 and 4.0. each. The grand mean
adoption score of' the women farmers over the three vegetables was 4.0 out of a
maxiruum of 5 Likert - points. This impIies that a majority of the respondents were at
the trial level on the adoption scale, while fruit vqctables, the table filrtlier indicates
that tomato. pepper and okra were 4.4: 4.0, and 3.1 respectively. The grand mean
adoptions score of the respondents over the three h i t sregetab1c was 3.8 out of a
masirnum of 5- points Liken adoption scale. ?'his implies that the rospo~ldents are still
on evaluation skill.
4.4.1 Processing of soy-bean into different prodi~cts
According to TabIe 7. the mean adoption scores for t l ~ c processing of so)#-bcan
inlo s o ~ ~ - ~ p i c e r . sol--soup. soy-moi moi. sop- yogurt, and so) -oats / c ~ ~ s t a r d ncre 4.2,
4.2. 4.5, 4.1 and 4.2. respectively. ivhilc that of the soy-milk was 5.0. the grand Inem
adoption scorc by the I\-orncn-fanners over the five so).-bean products rr as 1.3 out of a
maximum of 5 points. This implies that a prcater proportion of the nomcn-farmers
riaere at the trail levcl on the adoption scale.
44.5 Fortific.n~Ion o f say-bean with c n s s ; ~ ~ ~ : ~ flour into soy-doughnnt, hrrns,
hisrt~its, pf-put , chin-chin and meat - pic etc.
Table 7 also reveals that the mean adoption scores for the fortification of soy-
bean into soy - dou~hnit t , soy - buns, so!. - biscuits, soy - puf-pi&. soy - chin -chin and
soy - meat - pie were 4,4. 4.5. 4.0, 4.2. 4.4 and 4.2 rcspecltivcly. n.hile fortification OK
soy - bran n.ith bamhsranut and guincla corn v a s 3 . 2 , so! - maize eassai7a f lor~r had a
n w n \core of 4.0. [he grand mean score fix- lie forti!icntion ol' so! - bean hito
various products \\,as 4.2. incaning that a ina.iorit>, of the warnen - farmers i iwe still at
the trial I z i d on the ad(. >tion scale.
44.6 Prcswvwtinn of fresh cassava trrbers
Iable 7 f11rrhc.r indicates that thc dippins of t'rcsli cassava rtlthcrs into a
lilngicidc for prcscriantir?n prrrpcsses had a maan adoplion scorc oS 2.0. Keeping or
hesh cassat2n tubers in 1nois1 sarr -dust and kceping of Urcsh cassava tubers in ehe soil
in a Clr! c m l area t ~ad mean adoption scorcs of 2.2 and 3.0. rcspec~ ivd~~ . 'Fhe grand
mean adoption score r l the ivomcn-farmers over 11te three innovalions \rpas 2.3:
impl>ing that major i l~ of 1 1 1 ~ i\'om~"n-i'anners iiere still at the intcrest level on the
adoption scale.
4.4.7 Pruservrrtian nf leafy and fruit vcgetnblcs
'Iable 7 indicates that the mean adoption score for blanching of leafy and fruit
jqctables b!. using s a l ~ and hot w t c r was 3.0: while slicing blanching and s m -
d r j i n g of fruit vegetablcs (okra. tomatoes and pepper) had a mean adop~ion score of
j.4. The grand 111eal-r adoption score by the nm1c1-r - farn'tets over the t\vo innovations
wcre 3-1. This implics that preservation of leafy and fruit vegelabIes by blanching and
slicing ancl s u n - d ~ i n g was still at the evaluation IewI on the scale.
4.5 Impact of the post hnrvwt innovations on the swio-econrrrnic life of the 11. omen-farmers
4.5.1 Level of knot! ledge nhont post-harvest innow tions and extcnt of post h n n w t skill acqnisition
From Table 9. [here was a significant association ( x 2 = 11.4; P _< 0.05: df =
3) hetnecn the level of krmilcdgc of the nomen-farmers ilboul post harvest
ini~o\~ations and their participating in the \VIA sub-programme. Plme was a similar
significant association IX' = 11.2: P 5 0.05; d l = 3) betuwn the extcni of posl hamest
shill acquisition by tl.12 ~~~o~ncn-Tarnrncrs and their paflicipating in the \VIA sub -
programme. Possession of kno\vled~e about the different post - h a n u t innovatio~ls
and extcnt ol' ski11 acquisition could make no~iicn--farmers become good managcrs
who \ ~ m l d al\vaj#s t a k the most appropriate processing and marketing decisions
(Ajayi. 2002 and Igben. 1988).
Table 8: Chi-sqltare analysis indicating change in the socio-rronomic I a h - their pnrticipatim in t h prnzrarnrnc in Brnrre Statc
the level of associa tion hctwrrn the ife of the women-farmers Iwfnre and le pstlr:~rvcst practices of \VIA sub-
4.5.2 Estimated anill at income and l m v e I of satisfaction w i t h the cstimstcd annrra! income
Entries in Tnhle 8 also show that there \vas n signifkant association (x' =
7.5: P 5 0.05: d f = 4) betn.een the estiniafed annual income of the \vo~nen-farmrs and
thcir participating in 111s \VIA sub-prosramme. Tlic inlplimtion of h i s finding is that
thc \\omen farmers _generated more annual income as a result of their participating in
the sub-prograrntne uhich implies that the progmnme facili ta~cd genctalion of more
annunl income. Hcnce. mjor i ty of the ~ ~ . o n c n - f a r were. more saiisfied with their
currenr level of annual income (x2 = 2.7: P 5 0.05; df = 3). Generation of morc annual
income n i l 1 enablc the v,omcn farmax to nlect nlanjp of their socio-ccononik
dc.nlancts.
4.5.3 Marketing of fi';lrm prodrlre 3
Table 8 reveals that there was a significant association ( X - = 6.8: P 1 0.05; dF - 2) bet\veen thc? time of marketing f a ~ m prucfuce by thc vmrncn -- Farmers and thcir
participating in the sub-,xogjarnme. This finding inplies 1hat mqjorit? of the womcn-
ramlers did not sell their rarm producu 21 Iian csl bm sfored and sold o!T season for t l w
purpose of makin3 morz incorm (r2jayi. 2002 and Igben 1988).
4.53 Accewihil ie to medical care, ease of payment of children's school f ~ e s ,
rate n f protein consumption a n d labour source
The hypotl~esis n-hich states that there is no significant difference bztncei~ ithc swio-
economic life of the women farmers before and after pat-ticipation i n post-harvest
inno~*;ltions 01' Wlh sub-programme in Benue State. On all the variables considcred
nns rejeacd based on the X' result. AII the variables were sigoificnnt at 0.05%
probabilit let el. Iicnce, the alternative hs-pot11el;is is accepted that there is signiticant
difiercnce bet'~s.een thc socio-economic life of wornen-farmers before and after
paflicipariosl in post-htnrcst practices.
4.5.5 Problems awxiat lrr l with the post hnrveslt innovations ntiikation
Accorclin~ to Table 9. a greater proportion (92,1%) of the ~vo~nen-farmers one
of their major pmblerns to effective ittilization of the disseminated post liar~cst
innovations was lack of decision - making power as a rcsult of over dependence on
their husbands. According lo the women. (here w r e some postharwst isst~cs that
nreded urgcnf decisior - making but bccause the), could not take such decisions
II ithout the conwm of their husbancls. many wluable acrions Fverc always being
tlcla!cd A1 tE~nc.i. i t nrwilally took time bcfore heir Iiusbands uerc persuxkd arid a1
times. their Rusbancls objected to the idea.
Other major problems assclciatcd rvith rhe pos~ l i an ;cs~ innovations utiIization
b: thc omen-Farmers included [ I ) imprrqm handling of prescr~ation chcniicals.
Ic;tding to phj4cal and ~netabolic stress. and rotting of vegetables. especialty, leafy
and rmit i.eget:~blh (84.2%): (2) high cost of ago-chcmkals, deidopmcnt of
resistant 5trnins and t o d c residues. leading to high cost of production (73.7%): (3)
trarlsportatioir prablcnis in terms of poor road nctt~ork and lack of x a d i l , a i d a b l e of
irehicles (73.7%); ( 4 ) high intcrest ri~tc on loan (71.1%); and ( 5 ) unfulfillnent i
un~imd!. firltillmcnt of p r o ~ n i s ~ ~ by the goi.ernmc.nts, NGOS and other donor agencies
(73.7%).
It n a s shonn that Iack of readily available marltel for many of the post -
harvest procmsed products such as starch. flour and chips (65.8%); loss of grains due
to iniproper application OF processing and d r ~ i n g techniques, and negnhhe attitude of
thc operators (57.4%); rim1 - urban migration of youth 1+hic11 Id 10 ! ~ S S p l rc l~~~s ing
and consumption of priccssed hods (55.3%): some of the post hawcst i n n u ~ , a ~ i o n s /
equipl-ner~t are not easiI) adaptable lo i;arious cmps. dillicult to operatc aild inainilain
by the \\omen-farmers due to high illiteracy Ievcl (53.3%): poor performance and
short life - span of equipment (5.3%): and produc~io~t of telfel-ic? and spi~li-lch
t.egctc?bles onl> during rain!, scason due to Iack of w a k r during dry scason (47.3%).
Majority O F the ~romcn~fanners were of the opinion that if many of these problcms
cotrld he eliminated, adoption / util iza~ion of post hnn~cst inncwartions will improve.
Table 9: Ma,ior prohlems nwociatetl with the post - harvest innosrations
Improper handling of prescnlation chernfcals lending lo ph~sical and metaboli~ ?tress. and ro~iing of \ qetables (cspccially. the Icdy vegetables) 1,oss of g r h s due to improper application of tlrc processing and drying tcchr~iqitcs, a i d negalivc attitudc of thc Dperators High cost of agro - cheniicds. development of resistanlt strains and toxic residues. leading to high cost of praduc~,o~r I k a l - urball migralion of o u h \ ~ h i c h Icd to Itss purclrasing and col~sump~ion 01' processed I'ooAs 1.l-ansportation problems I terms of poor road nctn ork and l x k of readil: availability of vehiclcs Somc of t l~c post-harwst technalogics / equipment are not casil!* ndaptabk to various crops. ciifficul[ to opcrate and ~nairitain 2>> the women clue to high i l l itera? let rf 1'~csr pcrhr1nanc.e and short life-span of equipment Pack of decision - making power of the women- fmners fovcr uepcndcnt on husl~ands) L:nfiilfiIment i unti~nely SuIfitlmen~ of promises by the ~ovenments. UGOS and other donor agencics C
Lack of rcadi;!. availability of market for many of thc post-!rmfcst procesccd producrs such as ~1orc.h. flot~r and c h i p Yroductioi~ of fellr ia atid q%nxh ~ ~ ~ g ~ i i l b l e ~ only rlurine r a i n season h e to lack o f ua tc r during dry seas011 High intercst rate on loan 73.7
hlirltip!~ responses
CHAPTER FIVE
5.0 Summary, Conclusion n ~ i d Recommendations
5.1 Srrn1m;lr-y The study cvahnted the socioeonomic impact uf postharvest i~inovatio~w
prograrnine in the State: (3) dctermine the levels of adoption of some major
p o s h r ~ . c s t ir~ncn.atians trniisfcircd: (4) detel-mine ~ h c impact of ~ h c pos~flnrvcst
innmatio~ss on ~ h c soci; -economic life of'zvornen-F~nners in the Slate and ( 5 ) idcntiry
the s p e c i h nnior pmblc~ns associated with the post-harvest i ~ ~ n o v a ~ i o n s i~tilization in
the State. I t !\.as hypoihcsized that thew is no significant relarionship bctwcen the
socio-ccono~uic life of [lie ivomen-farmers bcfarc and after their p;~rtkipa~ion in rhts
major post A a n a t pracriccs of WIA sob-progmmnic irl Bsrnre Statc. The Chi-squarc
rt 'wlt on the S O C ~ O - ~ C O ~ O ~ I ~ ~ C life of' the numcn-hrmers Ixf'oct. and afrer their
participation in posaharvest practices shows that [here is significant diffb-encc bctir een
the socio-economic Pif- o r ~~omen-Tarrners. The significance of thz study to the
nppropriiitc stakeholders !!.as expressed.
Tile 1iterar;rire re\ ien was carried out under h e follo\\ing headings: thc role of
\i.onlcn in agric~iitura! dacIopinc"nr: ~tomcli 's access to agricultural cxtension; factors
associated ~ i t h px1-han;est losses; impact of improved post-harvzst technolopirs;
adoption oT inr~ovations; impact evaluation: I s collabora~ion n i l h other
dcvekrpmcn~al agencies and tlieorcrical frarnenork. A conceptual framework for
ae rc~s inz the mcio-ecorwmic impact ol' posthalvest innovatio~ls ttansfel~ed by WIA
sub-propa~i in~e C ~ R t \o i l lc~~-farn~e~-s i n Benue Statc Jvas developed.
l l ~ e str~d) n a s ionrluckd in Benue State. The WIA participating \vorncn-
farnlcrs Ibrmed the population of the study, The list of the active participating \vomcn-
farmers in \VIA sub-progranme per each of the three ag~icultural mncs (A. B and C )
\r ere compiled. From each of t k 7oncs. a sample of 1-1 worncn-far~ucrs nere selected
t h r o q k simple random sampling tcchniquc. That is. it told of 42 w c m c n - f h n e nere
invohted in the study. Yowever, only 38 oul of 42 copies 01' [he interviw sc l~eddc
u ere found analyzablz.
l'hr tindings of h e study rcvcaled hat the \VIA sub-programme transferred
s o m innovations such as ncun variety of crops; processing techniques: fortification
techniques: packaging: prcscrvation ar~d slorage techniques lo the tvomcn-fwmcrs.
Tlw stud? fi~rlher slim\ ed that there n w e linkages bctwcen [he \voma~-farmers and
thc national ! international agencies. Very strong linkages exisled bet\\e,-cn tlw n on~cn-
farmers and agencics such as ILQ (100.0%): I,%lDP (83.3%); BI, / FS (81 -8%). SG
2000 (60.0%): FADU (6 1.6\5%) and r A O (57.1 %). The tjrpes of assislar~ce rcceived
from the agencies by the women-famcrs included donations nilh various aspect of
oari prixlrlctiorr (42.Q0/o) and soft 'loam to start - off small - scale businesses (36.8%). 2
Apart liom thc introdwtion of leafy ~cgetahles fbr planling and constimption n a s at
the ci,aluntion l c ~ ~ e l (K = 4.0). o~hcrs liere a t evaluation ( 2 3.0) and / or interest ( 2 = 2.0) Icvel(s). I t was mident ji-om the findings of the study rhat rhere u a s a dose
association betiyeen the socio-econoniic lifc of he uainen-fanners and their
participation in LVlR sub-progmrnme. The major prohlcms raced by thc ivomcn-
farincrs in tho c F f t . c h ,~ri;li~arion of posthanest inno\ ations included Iaok of dccision
- making poucr of the womcn-!'armers (over depcnderit on husbands) (32.1%):
improper 'handling of preservation chemicals, teading to pliysical and mctaholic strcss.
and rot~ing of wgetables (54.2%: high cost of ago-chen~icals. devchpment of
rcsistanl $trains and toxic residues. leading 10 high cost of producrio~s (73.7'%) and
lack of readil! avnilabil i~ of ~narkct Tor nlanj, of the porthawest prt~.'csscx! prodi~cls
such as starch. flour ana chipc (65.8%) eta.
5.2 Cmcltisinn
1, The identified pustharvest innova~ions transrcrred by [he WIA sub-prograll-rme
\\ere classified into 5 catesorics: narnel>., nmv variety oU crops; processing.
rw-iification, packsging. presewafio~r and storapc techniq~res.
3 - . Some strong postharvest linkaycs cvisted bet\\-ecn the wornen-farmers and ihc
variou? a p c i e s . 3 . The levels of adoption of man), of the major posllinrvcst innovations
\ransferred were lo\\.
4. There was a significant relationship hchrcen the swio-economic life of thc
women-fnrrllers and their pal-~icipntiolrl in sonre major postharvest practices of
the W A sub-programme in the state.
> - . T11rrc n err certain m j o r problcms militah~g against ckc t ive utilization of the
postllar~,est innol!ations tra~afcrred to the women-fmncrs by the WI A sub-
programme.
5.5 Recommendations
1 . To irnpro~lc upon the 1ci;els of adoprion of rhe variorrs ma-jor postharwst
innova'tions and hence, sustairr the established significan~ rslafionship bet\\:ecn P
the socio-economic life of the uromc -farnlcrs a d he i r pdcipa t ian in the J
WIA sub-progrmr~~e. solu~ions have to be provided to sotre of the identilied
inajor probIems.
? - For proper handling of presen.a&m chc~nicals and proper application of
processing and ds!.ing techniques. wrkshops should be organized t'or rhc
\\.omen. The worksIagf; will 1101 orrI>- improve upon their k~on ; Ied~e and skills
hut change their negative attitude and aspirations. 7
3. The go\~en~~nents should endcavor to improve the existing niral infrastructure
such as n~ral road network and other otnenkies ~ l i a l will make the rural
communities \vorth living in.
4. L)urnbIu and adaptal-de technologies l equipment should be developed. Besidcs
material and / or economic pronliscs made bg the govzrninents, NGOS and
other donor agcncics, sl~ould be timely rdfillcd.
Abeda, F. (2000) i\/lanagcincnt and sustainability of farmers' groups. The Farmers' Friend: monthly ncws bulletin of Benue State Agricultural and Rural Developrmcnt A u ~ f ~ o r i t y . Issue No. 5: 2 - 3 .
Abecla. F, (2000) Wonlen in a_gricuItme status, 1999 Annual Report. Rcnue Statc A p i c d l u r a l and Rura! Ucwlopmcnt Aulhorily (BNAKDA) Makurdi : 34.
Adebayo. K . (1997) Coli~i!lzilzicirtir>r~ r'r7 Agricriirrire. Ibadnn Green Links International: 102.
Adehayo. K. (1997 "A. critical revien OF adoption and diffilsion sludies in Bigeria". PhD. Pn. Scmitlar. Dcparin~ent of Agricultural Extension. Universily uT Nigeria. Usuklia
A d c k a q e. T. 0. ( 1 990) Credit issucs affecting u.ornen in agriculture: Women and access to credit facililj. Special issue No. 4 Jorow~1 of' lnstilzite of Africnn Studies. Univt'r-sit? of Ibadan20 - 23.
A p . V. C. ( 1994) Gcndzr considerations in irrfor~iintion generation and disscminnlion. h p s r presented c t thc Nipxfnn 'cvorncn in ngrkculfure Revicu. 'Jforkslrop (rACC;) Enugu 30" May to I"' .lunc: 3.
Aenu. L A. E.. (3000). I)i ' fusion of In~provzd Cowpea Production T ~ h n o l o p i c s Among I-armcrs ira the Northeast Savanna Zone of N i p - i a Ph.D. Thesis. Dcparln~cnt of Ay-icultura! Extcrlsion. Univcrsilj of Niscria, Nsukka:30 - 32
A i A I t (2002). I twpra t i n~ ? cnms farmers- clubs into the actill hiel; or :Igricul[ura! dcirlopnicnt prograralmes ro'nr technology transfer in Nigeria. Stakehokless parricipation for strengthening agricultural cxtonsion practicc and food security in Nigeria. Proceedings of the 8'" Annual National C'onfercnce of the Agricullural Extension Society of Nigeria. ( 1 8"' - 19"' Septumber): pp. 23 - 29.
Akinj.clc?. I , 0. (1996) Situation analysis of rural development and incomc p ~ c r a t l n _ e NGOs in N i p - i a . A Consultancy Report of Food Baskc1 Intcnrational. Ibadan: 20
AIticri, hii. A. & Hccht (1990) Agro-ecology and snzdl f m n cletdonment. Women's role in snrall farm agricdlui-c: Retrieved cd. C h Ocltobcr 7, 2902 from htp. ~V.W..rC\i. 2 e<ic.org NCIP Library.
Anjanlvu. A. C. (2002). A module on Comrnunicatiotl in Extension Depastmtnt of' Asricultural extension. Cn ivc~s i t )~ of Nigeria. Nsukka:37 - 40.
BNATWA (1995). Annual Rcport. Benue Stotc Ayiculttrral and Rural Development Authori~!~. Makurcii.
BNARDA (2003). Annual Repoll, Dcn~le State Agrieulturnl and Rural Dcvclopment Al~lhorit;. Makurdi
Chalc. I-'. U. (1990). Strengthening Agricul~nml Eutci~sicm in Nigeria. A S t u d z of Pr0131ms and Co~tslrainfs i n Extension Srl-n~cgies and Methods of Reaching Rural Women. R w l e INRPFAO. C I ' A 121K)O) Development and Cooperation: Fac~s on Africa: '7.
Dauda. R. !-I. (2006) Women as a Focus of CEC/IFPWB Projccr Activity. A paper prescntcd fit the joint CIX/I FPREB/BNARDAILGA stdiehoIders w orkshop. Rock \.-ietv Ibtrl. A bida 4"' - 8"' Seplenibcr: I - 5.
Gau!am. M. (20003 Agricultural cxtcnsion. !hc Ken>-an experience: An Impact t-valuation- WorM Hank Operalions E1,aluation Ikynrt~ncni (OED). Tlic World Bank. 'AJashing~c~n TI.€.: 23 - 26.
Glatluln. C. 11. (1991) Structurnl Adjustnlcl~l and African Worncn Fanners. GainesviHe. University of Florida Press center for Africa11 Studies: 13 1 - 133.
Hassain. S.- Bycrelc U. Rc Heisey. P. (1993) Impact of the training and visit uxtensinn s>.stem on f a r m m ' knowlcdip and adoplion o f tc.chnoIogit:s. Evidence froill Pakistan Agrict~ltural Ecor~omics Paskistan: 39 - 47.
IAR (1995) Institute of Apricultural Research Bulletin 85/40. Zaria: ICescarch Institute. ABU: 4 - 5
I g h m M.S. (1988): F a r r n d s capability/prolile5 in: M.S. lgbm (cd). the higeria Farnler and Agriculttrral Institu~inn. An assessment NISEK. Ibadan Nigeria. Pp. 67 - 9s.
[jzre. 34. 0. ( 1993). Lem'irg issues irt m - a l d~\;eiopnze/~r. En~rgu: Acena publishers:
Internahnal Instilute for Topical Agriculture (IITA) [ I 99 1 ) Cassava inlo Bread. I badan: 1 -. I I .
IntcrorpnnizationaI Comniittcc on Ciuidelii~-5 i ~ n d Principles for Social lnipact Ascessinent (1994) Guidelines and Principles for Social Impact Assessment. NOAA Technical Rfcmorandum U S . Department of Commerce: 3 1 - 38.
James. C, & Trail T. ( i 395) Ernpo\4crnnent of nml nlomen in India through literaql education. JOzir~uI of l ~ ~ ~ m m t i o i d ~ !gr i c~~! l r~rn l n17d Extensiou Ed7!ct~tion: 18 - 19.
Jcnn. Y. 147. & 1,ittaIos - K. L. (1994). Gender itnplicalions fix post production ~ccl11101ogy development. Paper 948004 Presented at lhrs 1994. Anmica Sociely of Aericuitural .- Engineering Sumrner Meeting Kansa, June 19 - 22.
Sean. Y. iV, & Littalos -- K. L. (1997). Improving pos lha~~es t ~ccl~nology deilelopinent in -4kica. Women. agricultural intensification and house11oId food security. Proceeo'ings of [he I4for.ks.lzop held or tkc. S'OSQ~OIV~ C ' P ~ I ~ P C i n i ~ ~ e r s i ~ ~ of C q x Coo.st. Ghcri?~ June 25 - 28, 140 - 14 1.
Jiygins. J. S,, Samauta, R. L, and Olowoye, J. (1996) Improved wonlen far~ners' access to extension services. In Snlanson, 15. R, (ed.) Improving A$-icl!lrr!raf Ex-te1~sioi7. A Ref ireme Mrrrtml, F A 0 Rome: 27 - 3 6.
Ktib),. T. (1899). lnnot,atioi~ is ri socia l process. P a p Preparcd Tor the CiAT Conference on A ,sessing rhe lmpacl of Ap-icuItural Research on Powrty Alleviation. Costa Rica: 3 1 - 47.
Kwalai, N. (1999). Advanccs in the Developmenr of Posthan-est Technologies in Ghana: Sasakawa Global 2000. Mexico City Sasakaw Africa Association: 4 - 5 .
Leistritr, F. L. (1995). Economic and fiscal impact a s s s s r i i en~ In: F. Vanclay (ed.) Enviro,7i1?~1'1tal nrd Socictl Impact A.WPS.SIIWIII. Chichater-: John Wiley Publishers,
Mi.jindadi. N. R and J. E. N.ioku (1985). Adop~inn or ~ c w farm technologics by apricultural co-operatives - rice societics in Knno. Nigeria, ln~e i .mi iond 1 , f ~ ~ 1 ~ / 7 1 7 0 / 0 c ~ ) ~ (3): 22 1 - 2 10.
Mijindadi, N. R. (Fq93). Agricullural extension for rs'omen. Ikperiencc from Nigcria. Papcr prcrenled at 13'" World Dank Agricultt~re Symposii~m on Women In Apricultilre Resource Menagc~ncnl Washington; D.C., January 6Ih - 7"'.
Nigerian Stored Products Research Institute - (N, S. I-'. R.1). (2002). A guide to the s to rqe of yam tutxrs. Advisor>- leailet: P.h4 .El. i 2543. Barikisu Iyede strecl, Yaba. Lagos.
Ntialie-ji. H. U. Nor. M. I . Allagc12 i. I,. Abugu. R. 8. Asopva. I.'. C. & Ugwoke. C. C. (2002). Rekien of rcccnl rcsarch on adoptio~i and diffusion of innovation \f!orId uide (1995 - 2000>, Seminar paper rjubmit~ed to th,n Department of Agricuftural Extension, Univcrsi[>. of Nigeria Nsukka: 1 - 2.
Ogbirn, G. E. & bTillia.ns. S. (2001). Gendcr Ser~sitiviry and Margina1izc.d Groups: Assesw~enl of' the At~ailubility of' Producrivc Assets to \Vomrn in Agricul~ura! I)ci~lop~nent. Tnkn~ationrtl Colloquirlm Gcnder, PopuMcrn and Bewloprnent in Af'rica. UEPIZKJAPS. INEZ). ENSEA. IFORD Abid-iair: I - 8
Opmleye. B. ( 1 985) Inttpration of Kurd Woraicta in AgricuIturaR Dct:elopmcnt. Paper p r w n t c d at the Fourth Annual Crrnferonce on Wo~nen in Dei.elopmcnt, Ilorin. Nigeria: 2 1 .
Ogunwale, B. A. (1998). Problen~s ~i~ilitating against the dissemination a ~ l d acceptance of research findings and improved farm technologies. Implications for agricultural development progranitne in Nigeria. Ji.vtr.m/ of mi-ul D~w/opiucnr lid A ihii?i.~~rc//ioi7 3 0: (2): 54 - 62.
OIawo!c J. E. (1995). The Role of Wornen in On-farm Food loss Prevention. Departmcnl of Apricullural Extension Scwiccs. University of Ibadan: 5 - 8.
01mzi. 0.. !ViIlianis, C. E &. Adumi. A. E (1992) Eutcnsicrn Services and Women in Agsicul!urc. Hascline Reported 1992 - 1996 submitted to AgricrrEture and Rum1 rlwcloprnent Sector, UNDP Fourth C'smmwnity Programme for Nigeriil: 76.
Saito. K. A. & Spurling. D, ( 1992). T/?v ~ : I / o I I I c ~ ~ , ~ ~ Y ~ C ' Z / / ~ L ! I " O P I ' o ~ ~ o I I ~ I ? ~ ~ h 7 Nigei-k?. Devclopir7g ilgric~i~lrlwirl E-~rrrnkw j?fi,i* Pf'onw~1 F(a-/i~u~:r. World Hnnk V'ashington D.C.
Ugnu. S. & A g h , 1-1. C. (1999). Adoption of Agricultural Tcchnolcyies by Rural IVornen under the Women In hgriculturc Programme in Nigeria. b en up^ state Agriuirlt~u.al Dc~elopinent Programme. ATPS \ V o r k i n ~ papcr Yo. 17: 2 - 3.
WID ( 19%). Programme Support Docurncn~. Government of Nigeria. Abijn: 5 - 9.
Williams. S. R & Nancn, C. E. (1999). Gender in fishcrics devefopn~ent and trade in West Africa. Jo:ii-m-d q f ' Wesr r 1 f i . i ~ ~ Fisheries.
brorld Rank ( 1994). Mncrocconornic Impact of Economic Adjustment on Worncn. 111: S. Tniwo (ed) Women and econsznic reforms in Nigwia. WORTIOC. Ins~itute of African Studics. Uriiversil; oT Ibadalr.
Wcdd Bank (1996). The World Bank Participation Sourccbook. Environmental Department Papers. 0 19". N. W. Washington D.C.
Department OF AgriculturaI Extension Faculty of Agrirulturc Llni~ersity of Nigcria, Nsukka
Topic: The Socio-Economic Impact of post harvest s Innovations trnnsfcrrcd By the Worncn In Agriculture Prograrnnre On FVomen-Farmers In R m u c State.
Irttm4ex schedule/ Questionnaire For BNARDA Estcnsion r;taffAnd WIA \Vomrn contact Farmers
Initructirm: Please. fill-in ths black space or tick [vI your choice as applicable tmdcr each section
S K I ION I : Denmgrapt-ic: Characteristics 1. Zone: A( ); B( ); c [ )
4. Cell:.
HES - V EA- Farmer
7. Gender: - MaIc ( ) Female ( )
5. Age (years): 20 -- 2.9 ( ), 30-39 ( ) 40 -49 ( ).N -59 ( ) 6( - 69 ( )
9. bI?,rital S t a ~ s : Single ( ),k!arricd ). Divorced [ ). Widoued ( ), Widower ( )
10. Level of Education: No formal education ( ), Primary edtmtion ( )I, Secondary education ( ). ?'crlia~?- educariun ( j
12. Fmrning experimce (farmel.; only) 10- IL) years ( ) 21) -29 years ( ) 30 - 39 years ( ) 40 - 49 years )
14. Psimar! occupaiion
15. Secondary occi~pa~ion
I Posl L1an:est experience ycars
17. Type of post-basest prxtice(s) esposcd to: a. I'roczssing ctf crop products b. Prcscn alien of' crop/Ii~mtoi: k c , Pachaging of processed product d. Storage of provssorl products c, I~nprovc nciv crop I arictics and process in^ f. A11 of the above g . Othcrjs) speci tj :
18. Sourcc(s) of txiznsion infor~narion: (a) WIA -- -
(h) Village Ext. Agents (c) Sciphbour.; -
(d) Friends
19. [f scurac nf infornmation is from WIA, please indicate thc type of contact: (a) Group contact ( ). (b) Indi\.idual contact ( )
Rcsponscs . - -- (Women) I WIA
I Aeent Fanners (Yes)
(1) (No) (01 --
(Yes) ( 1 )
-
[a) Processing of cassava r u b m (under clean environment and use of 1noc1c.m techniques) into:
(i? gar1 (ii) chips [i i i ) flour (iv) starch
Akpu or "Santana"
(vi) Fu fu (h) fortification of cassava luhers into:
I;) biscuits ( i i ) buns ( i i i ) chin-chin (iv) bread
I
I Crops(s): jlarn into:
- Introduction OF t i ) telferia for planting and ccmsumption ( i i ) spinach for planting and con iumplion. (i; 1 bi~ter leaf for planting and consuinpticsn.
1 Leafy vegetables
I I
i 2. Friiit 1 cgetablz~
i I
3, Introduction of 1 nen s r c c t cassava I VPI-ic'ties
Introduction ofi f i ) new varielp oFokra ( i i ' new variety of tornaloes ( i i i ) t~cw variety fif pepper
Tins 92 : 0057. Tms , 92, fi326. SR SO82 and NIC
I ex~raction to obtain pure and I -
Legumes: Groundnuts
S ~i!-hean
high .- quality honey. Proccssinc 01' croundnuts into: -.,.-
Groundnut oil.
P r o c c v i n ~ f - Sovhean ~nto : -- (i) soy spices (ii) soy soup (iii) soy milk (iv) so!; yourghur (\,' say oakslcustard (\.i) mai-soy-dele
' I'RESERVATIOX I Root R: Tobcr I I Crop(s):
I I I ! cassava tubers b~ dipping in
[ii) Prescrvatinn of' fresh cassava tubers by keeping in nloist saw-dust.
i 1 2. Fruil wgetables
I I I I Grains:
Prcscrvation of frcsh vegetables (lelferia. spinach a d biter Icaf etc.) by bhnching-using s a l t and hot water
Pizscrvation of fresh h i t xqetable (okra: tomatoes and pepper) by slicing and st; '-drying
I mature grains (rice. G.nuts.
I beans. maize and sqbean )
:ii) Dr).inp of grains to meptablc moisture conten1 :35%, 45% and 60%. depending on grain type) .
(iii) Proper cleaning of st^ rcs. cribs and silos before storage of grains.
t iv) Provision of rclcienr guards 011 crib's 'lcgs"
(v) Use of solar dryers
i i \ packaging of cassava tlc .r, starch. gari and chips. ~-iqin_c polycth~~lene~hcssian sacks
I i ) p c kaging of leafy and friiit vegcfables, usjng cellophanr
[i) packaging uP grains and t h r i r products. using I polycthylcnc/hessinn sacks.
i
Fruit vegetables
eds:
ji) Storing of fresh cassava 1 uhcrs in specially prepared r rench(shed).
( i i ) Storing of fresh cmsava tubers i n rnoist saw dust by the use of :
C ' oxes F ~ a ~ ~ o n ~ *baskets
*otllers(speciSy). ........... ................. .)
Storage of fresh vegetable
(!elkria. spinach and bitter
leaf' etc). by using
( i ) pot-in-pot. ( i i ) metal-in-pot ( i i i ) metal-in-block ( i \ . ) Islock-in block
Srorape of dried okra. tolnato:~. and pepper by the wcl of c e l l o p l ~ a ~ ~ d air- tight plastic contniners -- -----
r- S~oragz nf maire. guinea cilrn. millet, sqbcan and
! yarn on indoor shelvts after packaging in poIyctl~!;le~~efl~cssinan sacks.
Storage of: guinea corn, n ~ n i x . cmrpca. nliIlet- g r o u n d n ~ ~ ~ , soybem, rice etc. by the use vf: (i) ~utdnnr brick mascry structure,
(ii) illdoor brick masory Structnrc. ( i i i ) outduor ut~der- grn~md reinforced. cement concrctc ~~~~~~~~~~c. (i1.1 indoor rnctal bins. ( i n )
jvrrl; cans, ( p l a s t ~ air-tisht). (vi) steel clnms. (vii) silos (v. i i ) o1ht.r~ (specify). . . . , . .
SFCTION 3: Post-hanest Linkages B c t ~ ~ e t n the n.orncn Far~ncrs and I)ewlopmental Agencies.
I NO. l h eloprnentnl A - en cv - - -t
I
I 7. FEAP );I lifcffamilv P U P P O ~ I (DL ASD FS )
I I - - - _ .
19, 1 XGOS (e. g . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . a + , . . . . . . . . . .
(b). Ii~dicatc ~ h c ' sla-eng111 of' linkrqcts) that csistc.d/esisting I fanners and tach of' thi: follc)\ving dc\ clopmental agencies in y Luns: VS = \:cr~ Strong; S = S~rung: \V = Weak: VIV = Very \:
(c). Indicate the typc of assistance given to the wo~nen-farmers bj- the fol1owing de.i,elopmcnt agencies in your agicultural zonc.
SECTTIOS 4: Adoption level of major post-harvest int~ovations transfcrrcd to womctl 181-merh by the ]VIA Sub-pro~rmik11e. + \;\:clnic.n-farmers only" Note: Anar r (AW) = I , ~nterest (IN) = 2, Evaluation (EV) = 3, Trial (TR) = 4. Adopiion
PIIOCESSING
I Root &Tuber
I Cryl ' s ) : C a w v a
( 2 ) Procrssing of cassava tubers (under clean mr.,m:anmt and i ~ s e of modem tcchniqurr] into:
t i ) p r i ( i i ) chips (iii) flour (iv) starch
(vj Akpu cr "Santana" (vi) E: .ISLI
( h ' ~ F~rtificarion of cascava tubers into: biwuits
buns chin-chin
bread meat pie
Stem ruber Crops(5): yam
Processing of >,am tubcrs into: c h i [ ~ s flour
Vegetxbles: 1 .Leafy vrgetables
Introduction of: (i) telferia for planting and consumption
[ i i ) <pinach for plantins and consumption. ( i i i ) birter leaf for planling and consumption
2. Fruit \,egc.tables Jntrocluct;3n of:
(i) new variety ofokro (ii) new varietj. of tomatoes
(i i i ) ncnr variety of pepper
PKCSER\'XTIOS Root k Tuber Crop(,<): Cassava [i) Prcseneation of fresh cassava tubers by
dipping in fi~ngicide
( i i i ) prcse~-valirm of frrl,sh cassava tubers 17.?
keeping in the soil under dry-cool area.
1. Leafy vegetables Prescon;ation of fresh ccge~nbles (tell'cria, spinach and biter Ieafctc.) 6). b!anching-using salt and Iiot water
2. F'ruit vegctablcq I'rcsen~ation of' fresh fruit I ~ C table (okra, tomatacs and pepper) by rlicing and sun-drying
Grains: (1) 1 inicl!. IMPI esting of mnlurc groins (rice.
G.11~11~. 'hean>. m a i x and >1)> bean)
(ii) Dr) ing of'gnrins to acccptahle moisture conLent ( 3 5 % , 35%~ and GO%, depending on grain type).
(iii) Proper clcaning af s tom. cribs and silos kfore stora2e uf grains.
(ir) Pro\ i4nn of rodent ~ L I L ? T ~ S on crib's 'lcgs"
(I.) Use of' colat- drycrs
(I-i) use of phos~oxin
:\>ii) Usc of acrc.111~ dust on cribs and jute bags.
:viii) usc of nccm po\\dcrkolution
' ix) use ol'.lfr-icm black pepperfl~ot pepper
(s) use of potash.
I !-
C'rop(s): 1 Cassa.a ' ( i ) packaging o i cassava flour. I I
starch. gari and chips, using pol~~othylenc./fiessim sacks
1 Vegetables i Packaging of leady and fruit
vegetables., ming cellophane. P 8
I .-rraIns
i j packaging of g a i n s and their products. using p o ~ ~ t h ~ ~ l c n c / hessim sacks
I C;TOR..I€;E SYSTEM
I Root P: Tuber
I Crop(s): €'asLr\.a
I I
li) ?\()ring of frcsh cassa5.a tubers in I
; i i ) Storing of fresh cassaqJqI rubccs in moist saw dust by the 1155 of *I~OSC'S *cartons *baskets $ i~licrs(spc?ci fy). . . . . . . . . . . . . .. , . . . . . . . . . , ...I
1 . Leaf!- vegstable: Storage of fresh ucgc!ablc (telfcria,
spinach and bilter leaf w). by using
eiqoratii:? coolan1 structures
( i ) pot- in-pt . ( i i ) metal-in-pot (iii) metal-in-block (it.) block-in block
2. Fruit ~ q c t a b l c s ( S~orage of dried oklo. tom.~loes, and
pepper b! the i~sc of czllophanel I 4 911- . _ tight . plastic container..
I
GraindLe, "urnes Flour: S torape nF maize. guinea corn, millet. so!-hem and yam on indoor shelves a J i u prrckaoing in polyr~hylcne hrw~nan c x k s .
Seeds: Storage of: puinea corn. rnaize. conpea, millet, groundnu t. soybenn, rice etc. by the use of: Ci) outdoor brick masor? structure, ( i i ) indoor brick mason structure.
SECTIOV 5 : Rating o f tlie Impact of the 'Transferred Post harvest Innovations nn thc Socio- Economic lifc of' the ivnman - farmers (Women-fanners only).
Note: Each respondent must a n s w r adequately hot11 before 1991 and I99 1 till - date.
1 Such-Economic Impact 1 ariable 1 Socin-Economic Status j
wcrdarc able to purchase. * Radio only V T V onl? * Eicfi-igeratw * Deep frcezer * Radio plus I'V " rY pluc Radio plus Fridge
(xiif) Acccss ro cornnlunicaliun Sacllitics Nil
* L~tnd li11cs * Post office * DHL * hlobilc Phone (GShll)
(xi.) Payment of school f'ces * Vcry diflicult * Difficult A Easy
* Very casy
pachg ing n ~ a c l ~ i n t ~ did; do ou posscss? 1 " Scal~iiy lnachine * Rice >li!lmng machi~le
Cawava grater
I C : a ~ ~ a v a fryer
I * Pcppcr / tolnato / melon grinding machine * Maize I bcnns grinding machine
I * None
I l j 'hat \vas/is !our major cookins fuel?
" Moulded smokeless s\ot.c
I Firc tvood
I * Kerosine I * Electric cooker
Gas cooker I
I-Iousing s tat:!^ I I I
+ None * Built of mud / finc roof'
I * Buih ~ 3 f mud bE(!ck?; 1 zinc rcmf plus plaster with
C - ? l l l C l l ~
I " i3uilt of ce1nentr:cl blwks plus n i r~c roof + BLI~II of mud / thatched roof
I (sii) Accesr;ibility to nr~dical I health care
I I I I I
(mi) Sources of credit facilities * t l~ i sband * Friends * .']v;fj
* Co-operalive society " Comrnercinl Rnnk(s) * Ski,c-lop~nent agencics
(s\.ii) Hou would I ~ I rate the prrformance \VIA sub-programme of the ADP in tsnns of postliarvcsl innovations transfer'!
+: V C ~ high lJIiZ.h
* M,lcrderil~e " Cow * Very low
x i To ~ . h ; l t cxlenl did!do }.oil losc farm prod ucdfoocl stuff
* Nocxrent * Litlle exrent * Some extent " Great estcnt
(xix) In ~\..hicla of he CoLlo\ving social organizations did!do ,nu p:ir kipatc*?
s: 'fIlYif[ Co-opcmtive society Cassava grating association
* Rice Ylilling association * !'epptx!tomaro grinder association
(XX) Hoii: regular didlcln ~ O L I fakc processed protcin containing food (moi - nmE7 fried akara etc)
*: Once pr week * 7'\viri. per week * 'I'luicc per lvcck " :;\:eI.).day
(sxi) Hou, miunj: tinies cWdo !air take meal per day :? Ot1cc I:: -[.,\.ice
-[ iuice (xsii) Frequency of consuming animal protcin (meat
/ milk / fish / eggs etc) per wcek. " h t c * - I'\vicc
'E'\i.icc
* F wryday (xxii i j 1Hon Inan): of !he follo~uing small agro-based
industries ~\,*ri./afe located within the community? * Gari industry P o ) ;: Tomato ,' fxppcr grinding indus~ry (No) " Ciroundnut oil processing industry
I * Soya bean oil processing industry (30) ---I--V * klrtizt I sorghum1 alcbo grinding i n d u s p (No) I ,
1 ( x i \\'hich u f - ~ h c I'ollo\\ing wasiis your point of sales
I * At 1101ne
I " Road sidc " In local markct
I * Agents/middl~.men
i * Ha\\king
I * Urban market ............ I * Others (spcclfi, ).
................................. / (nx, iil O\\ncr;hip of rncans of iransponatmn
Source of watcr
Bicycle Motorcycle Car Picktip van Lorn None
Fadatna wlls O\vn nell (home) Neighbour's \yell Own boreholc Cornn~uniry borehole Pipe born? n ater Spring Stream River
(ssis) Whar ish:ns your ..:vel of incomekost of living cpn7parc.d to \VIA progl.an-inie non-participants
'"Worse than them : No difference * Better than them * Don-t know
(xss) Source of labor for post h a i ~ c s t operation + Fanlily labor
Wiredlabor * Coni~nunal or group labor
SECTION 6 : Major problems i l ~ ~ o c i i ~ t ~ d with Post-llanlcst lnnovi~tion Generation, Tr:rnsfcr arid Utilization
(a) Ins11-uction: F'leasc, inclicatc thc exlent to ivllich you perccivcd ~Ilat cach of thc fidlowing problems has contributed to low Post-harvest innovation, generation (The \ V I ~ - A ~ i n t s only)
No. Extent = NE, I . , i~ l e Extent = LL. Some Estcut = SF, Great Extcnt = GE,
I Problem
1. Poor capacity building (WIA staff lack [he capacity to clearly diagnosc \vomen-fhrrncrs problcms and to ilcvelop prc>grarnnles that address tllc problems).
2. Non-involvement of ':As a1 the development stase by Researchers.
3, Farnlers becn skeptical lo invest into list of tllc i~ulovations gcncrated.
4. Lack of fund.
5. Inconsistency f w strong support of the WIA progrnmrnc activities by the govelmnlent.
6. Socio-cultural. polilical. econolnic and cnvi~-o iu i~cnt inhibiticn.
C)thcrs (specify) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Extcnt of contribution
(b) Instruction: To \vhnl estcnt do you pcrccive Illat each of the follc!\ving problems has limited Post-harvest innovation transkr to the ~votnen-farmers'! (WIA Agents only)
No. Extent = NE. Little Extent = LE: Somc Extent = SE; (ireat fklcnt =(;I::
Problem
1 , Lack of fronlline staff ( I ladequate females extension stafi).
2.Area of coverage by RFJI is too u-id?.
4. Fcar uEj& insrcurity [Inzards Faced b? EAs in thc rural areas).
5 . Poor capacity building.
6 . Tnconwitency for strun? support ~f the WIA p r r y m m e s activities b>- the Gnvcrnm ntrAgencies.
7. Lack nrcorntniitncnt 61- the n~rstneil-farmers.
8. Hiyh mte of f h ; ~ l e - s illiteracy in thc rural areas.
9. Lack n f vehicles.
lr). Difficulty in attaching t:alue to esknsion scrr-ices.
1 1 . Pmr nctivorL roads (wpecinlly during rainy season).
[ 7. Lack of p run~ot io i~ of t l~e t~chnologies p a n t e d (Resistance to change hecause ot-non ii~volvernent a t [he planning and
1
d c t . e l o p e n t stage),
O~liers (specify). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I I ..............................................................................
(c) Instniction: To v.-hat extent do you perceive that each do the foI1cwing problem has contribute? to poor Pw-liarvest innovaion u ~ i l i ~ a t i o n among [he women- farnirrs'' (Both \\']A Agents and ~vonwn-fam~ers )
Y17 Extent = hT. L tllc Extent = LE. Some Exlent = SE. Great Extcnr = GE
'Extent nf cc I
- I
2 . Lack nr awareness.
3. Lack of technical skills.
3. I-Ii?h coats of inputs.
5. 1-liyh interest on loans.
9. High w i t af cliernical and inaccesqibili~y of hm.
1 O , I d a d of adequate transportation facilities.
1 1. Lack nF adequate /pr~t I table mnl-kcts.
I?. Lack of appropriatz te.:hnologies .
1 G . Poor pxfor~nance of the machines in~rnd~~ct 'c l .
17. Lack cjf dcci.~ion-making power ( w e r dependence on h u s k nds).
18. S o n privatization of \ \wnzn- farmers priority nerds.
19. C u l t u r d . traditional, re igious. silciirl. ccon~mlic. politica1 and en~r i run~nsnt factors combine to retard 10 \* urnen's participation or patronizing exlensinn cervices.
20. 1.hfulfjlled promises fram Coircrntnml.