EVALUATION OF NON-WOOD FOREST PRODUCTS (NWFPS) TO FARM HOUSEHOLD’S INCOME AND FOOD SECURITY IN ENUGU STATE, NIGERIA


CLICK HERE TO GET THE COMPLETE PROJECT »

EVALUATION OF NON-WOOD FOREST PRODUCTS (NWFPS) TO FARM HOUSEHOLD’S INCOME AND FOOD SECURITY IN ENUGU STATE, NIGERIA .                                                                                                                                                                                                                ABSTRACT:               The study analyzed the contributions of plant and animal species of Non-Wood Forest Products (NWFPs) to farm household’s income and food security. Three agricultural zones, Nsukka zone, Enugu Ezike zone and Udi zone, were purposively selected for the study. One hundred and twenty (120) respondents were selected through multistage sampling technique. Descriptive statistics, and Probit model were used for the analysis. The results indicated that majority (63.33 %) were males, with a mean age of about 56 years. Most (53.3%) of the respondents were farmers. The average household size was about 5 persons. The respondent’s mean years spent in school was about 7 years (at least completed primary school) and belonged majorly (50.83%) to the medium wealth category. The most commonly collected plant species of NWFPs were bitter kola (Garcina kola), breadfruit (Treculia africana), bush mango (Irvingia gabonenesis and wombulu), kola nut (Cola nitida), cashew (Anacardium occidentale), Icheku (Dalium guinese), African star apple (Chrysophylum albidium), Avocado pear (Persea americana), African bush mango (Dacryodes edulis) and Oil bean (Pentaclethra macrophylla) while the most commonly collected animal species of NWFPs were bee products (Apis mellifera linneaeus 1758), flying termites (Reticulitermes flavipes) and fish (Ictalurus punctatus). Wealth category (p < 0.01) and occupation (p<0.01) positively and significantly increase the contributions of NWFPs to household food security. Educational level (p < 0.05) had negative and significant effect on the contributions of NWFPs to household food security. On the daily inclusion of NWFPs in respondent’s meals, NWFPs appeared in the meals of the households for a total of 2,150 times (78.5%). The result of the proportion of household food from NWFPs shows that 53.33% indicated that species of NWFPs constituted over 50% of their household food. Based on the food security analysis results, derived using the USDA (2000) approach, few of the urban farmers’ households (47.5%) were food secure, while most of them (52.5%) were food insecure at different levels of food insecurity. The result shows that 25.83% of farm households were food insecure without hunger, 25% were moderately food insecure with hunger and 1.67% was severely food insecure with hunger.  Household size and occupation positively and significantly (p < 0.01) increased the contributions of NWFPs to household income. On the market wares inclusion of NWFPs by households, NWFPs appeared in the market wares of the households for a total of 381 times (79.4%). The result of the proportion of household income from NWFPs shows that 54.43% indicated that species of NWFPs constituted over 50% of their household income. The extent of perceived impediments to the continuing use of NWFPs in the area was identified as underdeveloped market (3.44), lack of capital (3.26), lack of storage facility (3.33), poor transportation system (3.38), lack of adequate information (3.13), poor harvesting technique (3.56) and inefficient processing facility (3.2). Remedial measures such as the incorporation of NWFPs in national accounting systems in order to attract the deserved attention from policy makers, public enlightenment campaign on the economic and health benefits of NWFPs by the national orientation agencies and the provision of infrastructural amenities by the government and humanitarian organizations.                                                                                                                                                            TABLE OF CONTENTSTitle page                                                                                                                                iCertification                                                                                                                           iiDedication                                                                                                                             iiiAcknowledgement                                                                                                                ivAbstract                                                                                                                                 vTable of Contents                                                                                                                  viList of Tables                                                                                                                         ixCHAPTER ONE: INTRODUCTION                                                                            1.1    Background of the Study                                                                         11.2    Problem Statement     -    -    -    -    -    -    -        41.3    Objectives of the Study     -    -    -    -    -    -        61.4    Research Hypotheses    -    -    -    -    -    -    -        6    1.5    Justification of the Study     -    -    -    -    -    -        7CHAPTER TWO:  REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE     2.1    Conceptual Framework    -    -    -    -    -    -        92.1.1    Non Wood Forest Products in Rural Livelihood and Economy     -        92.1.2    Nigeria Forest Resources and Management    -    -    -    -                  182.2    Theoretical Framework                                212.2.1    Theories of Household Production Choices    -    -    -    -                 212.3    Analytical Framework                                 262.3.1    Probit Model     -    -    -    -    -    -    -    -                       272.3.2    Likert Scale Rating Technique …………………………………………...        282.3.3   Food security status using the USDA approach                     29CHAPTER THREE: RESEARCH METHODOLOGY 3.1   The Study Area     -    -    -    -    -    -    ……                     303.2   Sampling Procedure    -    -    -    -    -    -    ……         313.3   Validity and Reliability of instrument………………………………….      .         31-33.4    Data Collection     -    -    -    -    -    -    -                            313.5    Data Analysis……………………………………………………………….         32CHAPTER FOUR: RESULTS AND DISCUSSION4.1     Socioeconomic Attributes of the Respondents                        404.1.1      Gender of the respondents                                404.1.2      Age of Household heads                                 404.1.3      Occupation of household heads                             414.1.4    Household size                                    424.1.5    Years spent in school                                     424.1.6       Wealth category                                     434.1.7    Average income realized from spp of NWFPs                     444.2     Commonly collected NWFPs                                   454.2.1    Plant species of NWFPs                                 454.2.2    Animal species of NWFPs                                 `474.3    Perception of  the respondents on the extent of certain impediments to the continuing use of NWFPs                                             474.4    Contributions of NWFPs to household food security                       494.5     Contributions of NWFPs to farm household income                     52CHAPTER FIVE: SUMMARY, CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATION5.1 Summary                                             555.2 Conclusion                                         575.3 Recommendation                                         585.4 Suggestion for further Research                                 59        References                                                                                                                      LIST OF TABLESTable 2.1:    Nigeria Forest Land Statistics    -    -    -    -    -    -      18Table 3.5:        Wealth Definition of Households…………………………………………     34Table 3.6:    Structured survey questions on food security of the household              37Table   3.7      USDA food security scale                              39Table 4.1:        Distribution of the respondents according to gender                   40Table 4.2:        Frequency distribution of the respondents according to their age           41    Table 4.3:         Frequency distribution of the respondents based on their occupation.            41 Table 4.4:       Frequency distribution of the respondents according to their                           Size of households.                                   42 Table 4.5:       Frequency distribution of the respondents based on the number of                          years spent in school                                43 Table 4.6:       Frequency distribution of the respondents based on the size of their                            wealth category                                   43 Table 4.7:       Average income realized from species of NWFPs.                   44 Table 4.8:       Plant species of NWFPs often used, part used, form of use, and                           method of  acquisition.                               46 Table 4.9:       Animal species of NWFPs often used, and method of acquisition           47 Table 4.10:     Perception of the respondents on the extent of impediments to the                        continuing use of NWFPs.                               48 Table 4.11:     Result of the contributions of NWFPs to Farm household food security.       50Table 4.12:    Result of the distribution of the respondents according to their inclusion of              NWFPs in their breakfast, lunch and supper.                           51Table 4.13:     Result of the distribution of the respondents on their proportion of food and             income from NWFPs.                               51Table 4.14:   Result of the food security status of the respondents                             52Table 4.15:   Result of the contributions of NWFPs to Farm household income.                    53    Table 4.16: Result of the distribution of the respondents in their inclusion of NWFPs in                     their market wares.                                     54           CHAPTER ONE INTRODUCTION1.1 Background of the StudyA forest, also referred to as a wood or the woods, is an area with a high density of trees. Depending on various cultural definitions, what is considered a forest may vary significantly in size and have different classifications according to how and of what the forest is composed (Lund, 2006). Forests can be classified in different ways and to different degrees of specificity. One such way is in terms of the "biome" in which they exist, combined with leaf longevity of the dominant species (whether they are evergreen or deciduous). Another distinction is whether the forests are composed predominantly of broadleaf trees, coniferous (needle-leaved) trees, or mixed.  The contribution of forests to sustainable livelihood of the rural farmers around the world is immeasurable including the wood and non-wood forest resources. Forests which include all resources that can produce forest products namely woodland, scrubland, bush fallow and farm bush and trees on farms, as well as ecosystem dominated by trees (Arnold,1998), provide households with income, ensure food security, reduce their vulnerability to shocks and adversities and increase their well being. Research on non-farm rural employment and income as a whole has shown that small scale production and trading activities in forest products constitute one of the largest parts of rural non-farm enterprise employment (Liedholm & Mead 1993). It is in acknowledgement of the importance of forests for livelihood and environmental stability that its conservation is included in the Millennium Development Goals of the United Nations. In Nigeria, poverty has led to the dependence of over 90% of the rural population on forests for some livelihoods and economic survival (UN, 2002).Among the products obtained from forests are those classified as wood forest products and non-wood forests products (NWFPs). Non-wood forests products consist of goods of biological origin other than wood, derived from forests, other wooden land and trees outside forests (FAO, 1999). The United Kingdom's Forestry Commission defines non-wood forest product (NTFPs) as "any biological resource found in woodlands except wood (timber and other forms of wood), United Kingdom Forest Research (UFR, 2013). Part of the reforesting Scotland project, defines them as "materials supplied by woodlands - except the conventional harvest of wood, Scotland Forest Harvest (SFH, 2013). These definitions include wild and managed game, fish and insects, Center for International Forestry Research (CIFOR, 2013). When wood other than timber is included it is referred to as non- timber forests products (NTFPs). Generally NWFPs are grouped into: sponges, chewing sticks, tooth cleaners, fibers, bast fibers, jute, cloth, foodstuffs, water, beverage, wine, medicinal plants, latex, rubbers, gums and resins, and decorative beads (Wyatt, 1991). Furthermore, a large portion of NWFPs have medicinal properties. For at least three quarters of the world’s population, traditional medicine is the only source of medicinal treatment (70-80% in Africa) (Van Rijsoort & De pater, 2000). On the use of NWFPs in meals, observation of household in Western Burkina Faso identified that some thirty NWFPs were used, raw or cooked, and that they came from17 tree species of the savanna or traditional forestry parklands (Lamien &  Bayala, 1996). This study will focus on flora(plant) and fauna(animal) species of non-wood forest products. Some of the plant species of NWFPs found in Nigeria, according to Osemeobo and Ujor(1999) include Gnetum africanum , Gongronema latifolium, pterocarpus soyauxii, Ocimum gratisimum, Treculia Africana, Irvingia gabonensis, Dennettia tripetala, chrysophyllum albidium (white straw apple) , piper guineense, Afromomum spp and Garcinia kola. Fauna species include snails, bee product (honey), grass cutter etc.Non-wood forest products have attracted considerable global interest in recent years because of increasing recognition of their contribution to household economies and food security to some national economies and to environmental objectives such as the conservation of biological diversity. Some 80 percent of the population of the developing world use NWFPs to satisfy health and nutritional needs (UN, 2002). Indigenous population in Nigeria have benefited historically from natural ecosystems through the use of NWFPs. Although NWFPs typically lack statistics on official commerce, they provide a wide range of raw materials and inputs for a diverse array of rural enterprise. Non-wood forest products provide off-farm employment to a large segment of the rural population and account for an enormous share of household income. For example, in 1996 in southeastern Nigeria, 35.7% of the rural population collected NWFPs daily and it accounted for 94% of total income from minor sources (Nweze & Igbokwe, 2000).Bisong and Ajake (2001) found out that women in southern Nigeria depend heavily on NWFPs. In fact, many Nigerians depend on NWFPs for food, fiber and herbal medicines. In recent times, there has been a reasonable and noticeable shift from the earlier bias in favor of orthodox medicine to greater acceptance of traditional(herbal) medicines in Nigeria as in many other countries worldwide(Akunyili,2003). Over 90% of Nigerians in rural areas and over 40%  in urban areas depend partly or wholly on traditional medicine(Osemeobo & Ujor,1999). NWFPs also provide raw materials for large-scale industrial processing including processing of internationally traded commodities such as foods and beverages, confectionery, flavorings, perfumes, medicines, paints and polishes. At present at least 150 NWFPs are significant in terms of international trade; they include honey, gum arabic, rattan and bamboo, cork, forest nuts and mushrooms, essential oils, plant and animal parts for pharmaceutical products. Thus promotion of NWFPs can complement the objectives of rural development and appropriate forest management (Hammet, 1993). Since the early 1990s, the role of Non-Wood Forest Products for sustainable forest management and poverty reduction has received increased attention (Sheil & Wunder, 2002). They play an important part in supporting household livelihoods and therefore can be used to raise the perceived value of forest resources. In developing countries, including Nigeria, majority of rural household and a large proportion of urban household depend on NWFPs to meet some parts of their nutritional, health, construction material and income from selling these products. Elsewhere, NWFPs are the only source of income for the local communities (Wollenberg & Septianinawir 1998). Therefore, NWFPs form an integral part of the rural economy where the majority of the rural populations live especially around the forest resource base. In this perspective, sustainable forest management will be achieved through encouraging participatory management of forest and woodland resources. FAO, (2002) defined food security as a situation that exist when all people, at all times, have physical, social, and economic access to sufficient, safe, and nutritious food that meets their dietary needs and food preferences for an active and healthy life. Conceptually, food security is broken down into four different components – availability, access, utilization and vulnerability – each capturing different, but overlapping dimension of the phenomenon (Migotto, Davis, Carletto, & Beegle, 2007).  To date, a lot of people in the developing world are still suffering from malnutrition despite the efforts made and inclusion of food security as part of the Millennium Development Goals (MDG). Worldwide, approximately 840 million people are undernourished or chronically food insecure and as many as 2.8 million children and 300,000 women die needlessly every year because of malnutrition in developing countries (Guha-Khasnobis, Acharya, &, Davis, 2007).The Thrust of this research is to evaluate the contributions of Non-Wood Forest Products (NWFPs) to farm household income and food security in Enugu state. This is with a view to gain better insight into farm household’s income and food security and an attempt to strengthen the link between development policies and food security.1.2       Problem StatementThe need for increased vigor in striving to achieve food security became very prominent with the incessant food crisis, especially in the developing countries. World Bank (1986) defines food security as access by all people at all times to sufficient food for an active and healthy life.Conceptually, food security is broken down into four different components – availability, access, utilization and vulnerability – each capturing different, but overlapping dimension of the phenomenon (Migotto, Davis, Carletto, & Beegle, 2007).  To date, a lot of people in the developing world are still suffering from malnutrition despite the efforts made and inclusion of food security as part of the Millennium Development Goals (MDG). Worldwide, approximately 840 million people are undernourished or chronically food insecure and as many as 2.8 million children and 300,000 women die needlessly every year because of malnutrition in developing countries (Guha-Khasnobis, Acharya, &, Davis, 2007).In Nigeria, 65% of households in the Core Welfare Indicators Questionnaire (CWIQ) survey (NBS, 2006) had problems meeting food needs. In fact, the greatest percentage (25.27%) of the households indicated that the primary coping mechanism for poverty was reducing the number of meal, and 37% of the populations (47 million people) were unable to meet the 2,900 kcal food requirement in 2004 (NBS, 2004). Access to adequate and nutritious food is limited by low income and poverty especially as nutritious foods are sometimes expensive. Therefore promoting alternative sources and safety nets of food for the households is germane, although very little or no attention is being paid to Non-Wood Forest Products (NWFPs) by policy makers and analysts in Nigeria's quest for food security, NWFPs have been an important source of food in Nigeria. NWFPs are exploited mostly by the rural poor who often fall back to or rely largely on the products in meeting their food needs. They are also very critical in forest and biodiversity conservation. Despite the importance of NWFPs in household consumption and forest and biodiversity conservation in Nigeria, they have hitherto been given very little recognition especially by planners and natural resource managers in Nigeria (Adedoyin, 1995). Even in most forest sector policies, for instance in the Nigerian Environmental Policy, NWFPs is not mentioned. Wherever they exist, NWFPs get a mention in passing but without clear objectives, targets and strategies for development and conservation. National statistics hardly offer any reliable data to document their economic role. They are not taken into account in GDP calculations (Osemeobo & Ujor, 1999). It is important to note that indigenous knowledge of local use of species is a key issue in forest and NWFPs conservation and sustainable management (Nair & Merry, 1995).In Nigeria this is of utmost importance as 70% of Nigerians live below poverty line and the majority depend on forest resources especially NWFPs for their survival. Neglecting the resource may deepen poverty. Neglecting to adequately recognize non-wood values of forests often denies the socioeconomic benefits of forests to those who depend on them. Therefore, development of appropriate management and conservation of NWFP resource, either in natural forests or in plantations are of importance as part of strategies to meet the economic needs of people while maintaining biological diversity (Reis, 1995). Furthermore information on production and local domestic consumption is strikingly lacking for most NWFPs (Reis, 1995). Preliminary investigation showed that with few exceptions, the NWFPs have never been studied in depth, neither in aspect of quantities produced nor their socioeconomic importance to the people. There is considerable ignorance in many quarters concerning the optimal utilization of this resource base to uplift the rural poor, while at the same time protecting biodiversity and ensuring sustainability (Taylor, Butterworth & Matoke, 1996).There are several positive developments, which have been attained including the work by Chukwuone and Okeke (2012) Can non-wood forest products be used in promoting household food security: Evidence from savannah and rainforest regions of Southern Nigeria. Nzeh, Eboh, and Nweze(2015) Status and trends of deforestation: An insight and lessons from Enugu State. Despite that, there is still scanty information existing on the contributions of animal and plant species of NWFPs towards farm household income and food security and the perceived impediments to this role. Due to this knowledge gap, this research examines the contributions of NWFPs towards household income and food security and the limitations to this role in the study area. The research was therefore anchored on some questions; what are the Socio-economic characteristics that drive their collection of NWFPs? What are the NWFPs that drive the interest of the respondents? What is the contribution of NWFPs to household income? What is the contribution of NWFPs to household food security? And the extent to which certain factors impedes the development of NWFPs in the study area.The findings of this study will provide the benchmark information for the initiation of appropriate and sound strategies and policy issues on NWFPs towards farm household income and food security of non-wood forest resources.1.3     Objectives of the Study The   broad objective  of  this  research is to  evaluate  the contributions  of  NWFPs  to the income and food security  of  the farm household in Enugu State. The specific objectives were to: (i)  describe the socio-economic  characteristics of the farm households in the study area;(ii)  identify and characterize commonly used NWFPs;(iii) determine the contributions of NWFPs to farm household’s income;(iv) determine the contributions of NWFPs to farm household’s food security;(v) identify the extent of  perceived impediments to the continuing use of Non-Wood Forest Products(NWFPs) in the study area;1.4     Research Hypotheses This study was   guided by the following null research hypotheses:(i)    HO1:  There is no relationship between the Socio-economic characteristics of the farm household and the degree of contribution of NWFPs to farm household’s food security.(ii)    HO2:  There is no relationship between the Socio-economic characteristics of the farm household and the degree of contribution of NWFPs to farm household’s income.1.5     Justification of the StudyThe study was justified by the fact that most forest management strategies are focused on timber based products to the neglect of NWFPs. There is abundant  knowledge on managing forests for wood products but very little information exists on managing forests for edible medicinal or floral parts (Chamberlain et al., 1998). Although the great potential of managing NWFPs has been frequently emphasized, (peters, 1990; & FAO, 1993), rarely has this objective been achieved (Reis, 1995). Silvicultural prescriptions for natural forest ecosystems that include NWFPs are severely lacking. Notwithstanding some agro forestry systems are available, for example wind breaks and alley farming that includes a NWFPs component, much more work is needed to develop a comprehensive body of knowledge on how to manage forest resources for NWFPs (chamberlain, Bush & Hammet, 1998). There is need to enhance knowledge about NWFPs resources, promote the domestication and utilization of commercially viable NWFPs yielding plant species and conserve natural forests and their species richness (Reis, 1995). Analysis of the contributions of NWFPs in natural forests (in-situ) is justified by the fact that an estimated 80% of the plant species providing NWFPs are found only in biological richness and ecological complexity of primary/secondary forests; some of them can only thrive in natural habitat and do not lend themselves  to domestication(Reis,1995). Moreover, the major collection of NWFPs is not in pristine forests but in secondary forests, bush fallow or farm bush or from trees planted in farm. With shortened fallow periods due to increased agricultural activities, including land clearing, secondary forests, bush fallow and farm bush are likely to diminish hence there is need to conserve forests, and establish and manage common pool tree resources. To enable sustainable development of community forestry, it is thus important to consider what kind of indigenous community forestry systems exists in a specific region and what their dynamics are; such understanding will inform decisions about how to balance the local and professional norms and values(Wiersum,1999).Furthermore this study is justified by the fact that information on production and local domestic consumption is strikingly lacking for most NWFPs (Reis, 1995). Preliminary investigation showed that with few exceptions, the NWFPs have never been studied in depth, neither in aspect of quantities produced nor their socioeconomic importance to the people. There is considerable ignorance in many quarters concerning the optimal utilization of this resource base to uplift the rural poor, while at the same time protecting biodiversity and ensuring sustainability (Taylor, Butterworth & Matoke, 1996). Although, some efforts have been made since Rio earth summit and convention on Biodiversity, considerable effort is still needed at local, national and international levels for policy development for undertaking proper assessment of NWFPs, wealthy research for optimal use of such products as well as in-situ and ex-situ conservation. The situation of NWFPs in Nigeria would be improved through application of intensive research and smallholder farmer involvement in in-situ conservation (Osemeobo &  Ujor, 1999).It is equally important to gain understanding of the way the significance of NWFPs varies between the poor and wealthy sections of the population (Van Rijsoort, 2000). This makes it easier to determine which NWFPs should be focused or in order to help the poorer section of the population. It is also important to understand the effect of increased prosperity on NWFPs use so as to be able to estimate the consequences for forest management.

.

EVALUATION OF NON-WOOD FOREST PRODUCTS (NWFPS) TO FARM HOUSEHOLD’S INCOME AND FOOD SECURITY IN ENUGU STATE, NIGERIA


CLICK HERE TO GET THE COMPLETE PROJECT »


TESTIMONIES FROM OUR CLIENTS


Please feel free to carefully review some written and captured responses from our satisfied clients.

  • "I love what you guys are doing, your material guided me well through my research. Thank you for helping me achieve academic success."

    Sampson, University of Nigeria, Nsukka.
  • "researchwap.com is God-sent! I got good grades in my seminar and project with the help of your service, thank you soooooo much."

    Cynthia, Akwa Ibom State University .
  • "Sorry, it was in my spam folder all along, I should have looked it up properly first. Please keep up the good work, your team is quite commited. Am grateful...I will certainly refer my friends too."

    Elizabeth, Obafemi Awolowo University
  • "Am happy the defense went well, thanks to your articles. I may not be able to express how grateful I am for all your assistance, but on my honour, I owe you guys a good number of referrals. Thank you once again."

    Ali Olanrewaju, Lagos State University.
  • "My Dear Researchwap, initially I never believed one can actually do honest business transactions with Nigerians online until i stumbled into your website. You have broken a new legacy of record as far as am concerned. Keep up the good work!"

    Willie Ekereobong, University of Port Harcourt.
  • "WOW, SO IT'S TRUE??!! I can't believe I got this quality work for just 3k...I thought it was scam ooo. I wouldn't mind if it goes for over 5k, its worth it. Thank you!"

    Theressa, Igbinedion University.
  • "I did not see my project topic on your website so I decided to call your customer care number, the attention I got was epic! I got help from the beginning to the end of my project in just 3 days, they even taught me how to defend my project and I got a 'B' at the end. Thank you so much researchwap.com, infact, I owe my graduating well today to you guys...."

    Joseph, Abia state Polytechnic.
  • "My friend told me about ResearchWap website, I doubted her until I saw her receive her full project in less than 15 miniutes, I tried mine too and got it same, right now, am telling everyone in my school about researchwap.com, no one has to suffer any more writing their project. Thank you for making life easy for me and my fellow students... Keep up the good work"

    Christiana, Landmark University .
  • "I wish I knew you guys when I wrote my first degree project, it took so much time and effort then. Now, with just a click of a button, I got my complete project in less than 15 minutes. You guys are too amazing!."

    Musa, Federal University of Technology Minna
  • "I was scared at first when I saw your website but I decided to risk my last 3k and surprisingly I got my complete project in my email box instantly. This is so nice!!!."

    Ali Obafemi, Ibrahim Badamasi Babangida University, Niger State.
  • To contribute to our success story, send us a feedback or please kindly call 2348037664978.
    Then your comment and contact will be published here also with your consent.

    Thank you for choosing researchwap.com.