FUNDING EBONYI STATE AGRICULTURAL PUBLIC EXTENSION SERVICE IN A DEREGULATED ECONOMY

Table 15  Varimax Rotated Factor Matrix on Constraints Limiting Farmers’                 Willingness to pay for Extension Services in the Study Area.

Variables Code	Variables Names	Factors Financial Constraint	Factors Social Constraint	Factors Institutional Constraint
V01	Inadequate fund to pay for service rendered	0.457	0.145	-0.134
V02	Most farmers will be reluctant to pay for extension services	0.327	0.082	0.750
V03	High level of subsistence farming	0.279	0.640	0.000
V04	Exploitation by extension service providers will be high	0.728	-0.092	-0.587
V05	Tendency of extension agents to focus more on large-scale farmers to the determent of the small-scale famers	0.050	0.491	0.107
V06	Inadequate market to sell farm surpluses as a result of improved extension service	0.190	0.8330	-0.516
V07	Difficult in attaching monetary value to extension services	0.542	0.0252	-0.030
V08	Poor capacity building of extension staff	0.215	0.139	0.926
V09	Irresponsive of extension services providers to clientele needs	0.346	0.809	0.409
V010	Insufficient trained extension personel	0.234	0.221	0.392
V011	Inadequate government guarantee, regulations excesses and abuses	0.104	0.352	-0.216

Table 15 shows that varimax rotated constraints militating against farmers’ willingness to pay for extension services in the study area. From the data obtained, three major constraints were extracted based on the responses of the respondents. These were financial, social and institutional factors.

4.7 Hypothesis Testing

F- cal = 34.77 F-tab = 2.01

F – critical = Vi= N-K    – 240-8 = 232

             V₂ = K-1 8-1=7

             at 0.05 level  

F- cal (34.77) > F-tab (2.01). Therefore, the null hypothesis was rejected

while the alternative hypothesis was accepted. This implies that the socio-economic characteristics of the farmers had significant effects on their willingness to pay for extension services in the study area.

CHAPTER FIVE

DISCUSSION

5.1 Socio-Economic Characteristics of Respondents

Table 1 indicates that males were more than the females. The greater number of males does not infer that they out-number the females in the study area. Rather, it could mean that men headed more farming households than the women and thus, have more control over farm resources and the decision-making process of the households. This finding collaborates the observations of Bawa, D. B, Ani, A. O and Nuhu, H. S (2009), Edeh (2008), and Oladele and Obuh (2008) that males are mostly the household heads who take major decisions. Bawa et al (2009) further noted that the males are major decision takers when it comes to such issue like privatization and adoption of new technologies. In terms of age, the results show that the most (48.33%) of the respondents were between 21 and 50 years of age, and a mean age of 49 years. Hence, the respondents were still within the vibrant age class and still possess the strength for farming and according to Bawa et al (2009), could be more disposed to extension contact. Oladele (2008) also observed a mean age of 46 years for sampled farmers in Oyo State in the study of farmers’ willingness to pay for extension services.

Majority (71%) of the respondents were married. This stems from the fact that all the respondents were of marriage age. Though socially good, it has its negative implication on the respondents’ ability to fund extension services. Marriage means more financial demand and this will compete with the limited financial resources available to the farmer to pay for extension

services rendered. The results also show that the respondents maintained a relatively large mean household size of 8 persons. This is in line with Daniela, J. H, Smale, M, and Von Oppen, M. (2005) and Ezike (1999) which noted that the household size in southeast Nigeria is large particularly in Ebonyi State. Based on
the result in table 1, the level of education of the fanners is relatively low, as about 68% of the respondents had the first school leaving certificate (primary education) as their highest academic qualification. This trend was also observed by Edeh (2008) and Okoruwa, V. O, Ogundele O. O and Oyewusi, B. O (2006). However, Ogunlade et al (2006) noted that about 59% of the respondents on the potential of funding agricultural extension operations by farmers in Kwara state, Nigeria had opportunity to acquire formal education.

The low income generated from farming may not assist farmers to pay or fund extension services rendered to them. The dependence on personal saving to fund farming activities implies that the respondents were not commercial-farming oriented. Also, the high dependence on informal sources of funding indicates that the farmers are still operating at the subsistence level. This source of funding is in conformity with Amalu (1998) which noted that the cheapest and safest form of financing agricultural production is personal or family saving where these are available.

Further, table 1 shows that the average farm size of the farmers was 0.9ha. This is an indication of peasant level of farming among their respondents. Edeh (2008), Oladele (2008) and Idiong (2007) also noted that farmers in Ebonyi, Oyo and Cross River states operate on peasant level with an average farm size of 0.91ha, 4.0 ha and 0.42ha, respectively. Again, the results show that the farmers have long farming experience, having 31 years mean experience. This according to Clark and Akinbode (1968) can affect and influence the rate of adoption of new technology; and willingness to pay for extension services (Oladele, 2008). The style of visitation of extension agents is not inconsonance with the practice of Agricultural Development Programme (ADP) in Nigeria, which should be fortnightly. However, the result indicated that majority (74%) were visited once per month. This trend will unpair the monthly technical review meetings (MTRM) of ADP. The tenurial system could  favour investment on land as majority of the respondents own their lands. This has a positive implication for funding or willingness to pay for extension services by farmers. Farmers who own their land will be more willing to pay for extension services that help improve the productivity of their lands especially in the long-run.

5.2 Major Packages/Technologies and Services Extended to Farmers by Extension Agents

Results on Table 2 indicate that the most of the packages/technologies extended to farmers were those associated with crops dominant in the study area. As such, packages/technologies identified were those related to rice, cassava, maize and sweet potatoes. Ebonyi state is generally noted for the production of these crops, especially rice. According to Edeh (2008), rainfed lowlands (swamps) serve as a major source of paddy production in Ebonyi state. Also, F.A.O. (2005) noted that rainfed lowlands (fadama and flood plains) are the major source of rapid increase in paddy production in recent years. The extension of NERICA upland rice production technology as identified by 50% of the respondents shows that the innovation is becoming widely accepted and appreciated by fanners. Again, technologies associated with mixed cropping was dominant, conforming with the farming systems prevalent among smallhodler farmers in Nigeria. Mixed cropping

system helps to reduce the cost incurred per crop as the cost is spread across crops cultivated per hectare at a particular time. It also allows the farmer to efficiently utilize the limited land resource available. These technologies associated with swamp and upland rice and mixed cropping enterprises, especially cassava-maize-sweet potatoes can be used to arouse the interest of fanners to fund agricultural technologies for increased production.

Table 3 shows that most identified extension services were those that bother on communicating research findings to the farmers. This is expected because through agricultural extension services, dissemination of information on agricultural technologies and farmers’ capacity building are carried out (Oladele, 2008). Srivastava and Jaffe (1992) noted that extension serves as the link between farmers to transfer best practices from one farmer to another, to introduce or even enforce agricultural policies and report farmers problems back to research.

5.3 Trend in Funding of Agricultural Extension Services in Ebonyi State Between 2000 and 2009

Results on Table 4 and figure 1^A/1^B show dwindling funding of public agricultural extension services in Ebonyi State. This implies that government is not stable in the approval of budget estimate on agricultural extension service delivery The unsteady budget estimate follows the pattern of funding of the Nigeria agricultural sector. The results collaborates the finding of House Committee Policy brief on Agriculture (2005), which noted that over the years the agricultural sector has suffered inadequate and unstable funding from the government. It also opined that the patterns of agricultural sector funding hardly represent the best and most effective use of public resources. The dwindling trend could also be attributed to policy inconsistency of government, which has affected the agricultural sector negatively. Researchers (Bell and Satau, 2009; Madukwe and Eric, 1999) noted that Nigeria agricultural extension service has been experiencing dwindling funding from the government in recent years. This they observed, is very apparent in the sliding performances of the state wide ADPs.

This again reflects the budgetary allocations to the agricultural sector in the state and Nigeria in general. In the Maputo Declaration of July 2003, a minimum of 10% budgetary allocation to Agriculture was advocated to ensure adequate food security. However, House Committee Policy brief on Agriculture (2005) showed that the agricultural share of Ebonyi State budget was on average less than 10% minimum requirement. It noted further that the highest percentage share of the agricultural sector of 10.9% was recorded in 2004. This trend has not changed significantly afterwards.

            The result obtained in Table 5 and Figures 2^A/2^B indicated that the actual amount expended on agricultural public extension service is grossly inadequate since the highest expenditure made on this area was about N99.5 million. According to Mathnmi et al., (2008), agricultural extension service requires billions of naira for its operations.

            Table 6 and Figure 3^A/3^B show that there is a great difference between budget estimate and actual expenditure in agricultural extension service delivery. It is quite disturbing and regrettable that government can approve annual budget for Ministries, Departments and Agencies to carry out  her policies and programs, and yet  failed on the full  implementation of  budgets. This conforms to the work of Kali (2010) who opined that over the years, budget impl
ementation by the executive arm of government at the local, state and federal levels has sabotaged key public infrastructures. He further stated that it is very sad to note that no state or federal administration in Nigeria have been able to achieve up to a mere 45% annual budget implementation level in the last 12 years.       

5.4 Farmers Willingness to Pay for Extension Services Rendered by the ADP

The responses of the respondents as shown in Table 7 show that majority of them were not willing to pay for extension services, and more males were in this category than the females. Non-willingness of respondents to pay for extension services may not be unconnected with their income levels, weak performance of ADP extension service, and the peasant level of their farm operations. These factors among others tend to limit farmers ability to fund or pay for technologies and services rendered. Ali et al (2008) and Mwaura et al (2010) showed that most reasons which farmers unwilling to pay for extension services have indicated include inadequate income and financial ability for this purpose; vague process of payment for extension services, small and fragmented land holding. The findings however disagree with Bawa et al (2009) which showed that 61% of the respondents in Adamawa State indicated their readiness to pay for extension services is presently not encouraged.

The relative increase in the percentage of fanners willing to pay for extension services in the future (Table 7) is a boost for extension privatization in the study area. This opinion could be attributed to any future improvement in the farmers’ income level and scale of operation, and better performance of the extension service. Again, 21 – 40% degree of willingness to pay shown by 50% of the respondents is an indication of future success of public funding of extension services in the area. However, Ali et al (2008) noted that farmers may not pay this amount practically considering their conditions (Table 9).

Result obtained in Table 10 showed that the actual estimated amount farmers were willing to pay for some selected extension services delivery dwindled over the years. This dwindling in the amount farmers were willing to pay could be attributed to poor level of income of the farmers. Ali et al (2008), Ahuja and Sen (2006) observed a positive and significant effect of income on farmers’ willingness to pay for extension services.

The result obtained in Table 11 and Figure 5^A/5^B revealed that the amount expended by the government was higher than that the farmers are willing to pay in all the years. This implies that government should continue to sponsor extension service delivery in the study area since the farmers cannot afford the cost of the service. According to Bello et al (2009) majority of our farmers in Nigeria have weak capital base to be able to pay fully for extension services.

Results on Table 12 show a general positive perception of the respondents on effects of deregulated economy on extension service delivery. This agrees with Bawa et al (2008) and Matanmi et al (2008) who noted that most farmers agreed that privatization of ADP extension services will have a positive impact of extension service delivery. Respondents’ opinions may not be unconnected with the successes recorded in Nigeria’s telecommunication industry which was privatized some years ago. Hence, if eventually the private sector participation in extension services is increased, the programme will undoubtedly succeed. With the observed results, it is obvious that public extension is not performing as they should and there is need for reform.

The willingness to pay values as presented in Table 13 indicate that farmers are more enthusiastic about extension services that tend to help them improve on their income base such as access to farm machinery, farm input supply, home and farm visit, and processing of loan. This has implication for farmers’ ability to pay since it is always limited by income levels. Therefore, policies that enhance the provision of these farm services is expected to increase the willingness to pay values for extension services. Hence, this will enhance the funding of extension services in a deregulated economy. In effect, it is pertinent that some conditions which enhances the Income generating capacity of the farmers be put in place before deregulation of extension services is embarked upon. The low willingness to pay values for such extension services as participation in the establishment SPAT; scheduling of farm activities, providing of accommodation for extension agents, teaching of how to keep farm record; providing meal subsidy for extension agents among others, indicate that extension efforts should target farmers as groups rather than individuals. This, according to Daniela et al (2005) provides incentives for private participation in extension service delivery.

5.5 Effects of Farmers’ Socio-Economic Characteristics on their Willingness to Pay for Extension Services

Results presented on Table 14 indicate that respondents’ age had a negative and significant effect on willingness to pay for extension services. This implies that the older the farmer, the less willing to pay for extension services. The young people are willing to pay because they are ready to adopt new technologies that are provided in the extension services to improve their agricultural practices. According to Chebil et al (2009) age of famer is important in the utilization, adoption and willingness to pay for the service. The eagerness for information coupled with the socio-economic characteristics of the young farmers increase their probability to demand and pay for extension services either on crop or animal husbandry (Kaliba et at, 2007; Oladele, 2008; Muwamra et al₉ 2010). Similar negative and significant relationship exists between farmers’ household size and their willingness to pay for extension services. Large households tend to spend large proportion of their income on household food consumption with less to invest in such activities as extension services. The observation deviates from the finding of Oladele (2008) which noted a positive and non-significant relationship between household size and farmers willingness to pay for extension services.

Farmers’ educational level has positive effect on their eagerness to adopt technologies and willingness to pay for extension services. Hence, the more educated the farmers are, the higher their willingness to pay for extension services. Researchers (Daniela et al, 2005; Ogunlade, 2006, Oladele, 2008) showed similar result of a positive and significant effect of education on farmers willingness and ability to pay for extension services. Educated farmers can assimilate information and covert it into knowledge more effectively than farmers with limited education. Also, the more educated people are, the more enlightened they are about the importance of the extension services unlike the people with little formal education. Further, the significant positive influence of farming experience o
n farmers’ willingness to pay indicates that more experienced farmers are more willing to pay for extension services than those in the farming business for just few years. According to Daniela et al (2005) the extent of farming experience

generates relevant knowledge, which increases farmers’ willingness to pay for extension services.

The effect of farm income on farmers’ willingness to pay for extension services corroborates the findings of Oladele (2008), Ali et al (2008), Ahuja and Sen (2006) which observed a positive and significant effect of income on farmers willingness to pay for extension services. Households at higher income levels are more willing to pay for extension services. This is because the household will have more financial resources to take care of family needs and also pay for extension service. Forti et al (2007) also shwoed that farmers income among others significantly affect the demand for private fee-for-service extension in Zimbabew. The result also indicated that farm size has a positive and statistically significant influence on farmers’ willingness to pay for extension services. Thus, farmers with large farm sizes have greater probability to fund extension services in a deregulated economy. This is because farmers with large farm sizes tend to be commercial oriented, and this could lead to higher production and profit. This result supports the views of Oladele (2008), Ogunlade (2006) and Yapa and Ariyawaradana (2005). The frequency of extension contacts the farmers had positively influenced their willingness to pay for extension services. Frequent extension contact with farmers increases their level of technology awareness and utilization, and this tend to influence farmers demand for extension services positively. Hence, a well-informed farmer through adequnte extension contacts may tend to be more willing to fund/pay for extension services than those who rarely have extension contact. Farmers may be desirous of adopting new practices but may be constrained by inadequate information about that particular innovation, which may in part be caused by the inability of the extension personnel to reach the fanners (Ani et at, 2004). Apantaku and Fakoya (2000) also showed that length of contact with extension agents significantly correlates with farmers willingness to contribute fund for extension services.          

A test of the synergistic effect of farmers⁵ socio-economic characteristics on willingness to pay for extension services was done using the chi-square test. The chi-square value was 30.965 and probability value of 0.004 indicating that it is significant 5% level. Thus, the null (Ho)

hypothesis was rejected and it was concluded that the farmers socio-economic characteristics have significant effect on their willingness to pay for extension services in the study area.

5.6 Constraints against Farmers Willingness to Pay for Extension

Services in a Deregulated Economy

Constraints are critical to the success of extension service delivery in a deregulated economy. The result of factor analysis extracted three (3) major constraints limiting farmers’ willingness to pay for extension service in the study area as shown in Table 15. Based on the responses of the respondents, only variables with constraint loadings of 0.30 and above at 10% overlapping variance were used in naming the constraints. (Ashley, et al; 2006; Madukwe, 2004).Variables that loaded in more than one constraints as in the case of variable 9 was discarded; while variables that have constraints loading of less than 0.30 were used. The next thing to do as reported by Kessler 2006 was giving each constraint a denomination that best describes or characterizes the set of variables contained in the constraints. In this regard, the variables were grouped into three (3) major constraints as: Constraint l (Financial constraint), Constraint 2 (Social constraint), and Constraint 3 (Institutional Constraint).

Under constraint 1 (Financial constraint), the specific constraining variables against farmers’ willingness to pay for extension services were: inadequate fund to pay for the services rendered (Voi = 0.4), most farmers will be reluctant to pay for extension services (V0₂ = 0.3), exploitation by extension service providers will be high (V0₄ = 0.7), and difficulty in attaching monetary value to extension services (V07 = 0.5).All these factors are related to financial issue. Thus, it was named financial constraint. These agrees with the findings of Bello and Salau (2009) and Chukwuone et al (2006) who opined that inadequate fund to pay for extension services rendered by extension agents are major constraint to effective privatization and commercialization of extension services in Nigeria.

After careful examination, factor 2 was named Social constraint. This is because the variables that loaded high under this factor are related mostly to social problems that would likely occur due to deregulation. They include: High level of subsistence farming (V03 = 0.6), tendency of extension agent to focus more on large scale fanners to the detriment of the small scale farmers (V05 = 0.4), Inadequate market to sell farm surplus as a result of improved extension services (V06 = 0.8) and inadequate government quarantees, regulation and control over extension providers’ excesses and abuses (Vol 11= 0.3).

However, factor 3 (three) was named institutional constraint after critical observation. This is because the factors that loaded high under this constraint related mostly to the problems that would affect extension institutions. These include: poor capacity building of extension staff (V08 = 0.9), irresponsiveness of the extension service providers to clientele needs (V09 = 0.4) and insufficient trained extension personnel (V010 = 0.3).

All these constraints were equally identified by Ajieh et al (2008), and Rivera and Gary (2007).They noted that client needs which are not likely to yield profit may be excluded from services to be provided by extensionists in a deregulated economy. Furthermore, Chukwuone et al (2006), and

Rivera and Gary (2007) opined that the most obvious short coming in

Extension services privatization and commercialization is difficulty of collecting users fees and establishing cost accounting procedure to set charges at appropriate levels. Thus, financial, social and institutional constraints limit farmers’ willingness to pay for extension services in the study area.

CHAPTER SIX

SUMMARY, CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS

6.1 Summary

In this study, it was discovered that:

(i)                      Majority of the households were headed by the males, with a mean age of 49 years and maintained a relatively large household
size of eight (8) persons

(ii)                    Educational level was low, and farmers operate at the subsistence level with an average farm holding of 0.9ha and personal savings as major source of farm finance.

(iii)                 Government actual release of fund for ADP extension services dwindled throughout the period with peak of about N 99.5 million in 2004 and lowest of about N39.8 million in 2002.

(iv)                 A great difference was observed between the budget estimates and the actual expenditure on agricultural extension service

(v)                    Majority of the respondents were not willing to pay/fund extension services while a high proportion of those willing to pay in future indicated 21- 40% degree of willingness to pay.

(vi)                 There was a significant difference between the actual amount the farmers’ were willing to pay and the amount expended by the government in most of the years in agricultural extension service delivery in the study area.

(vii)               Main effects of deregulation on extension services were probability of specialized training for farmers to improve; and tendency of most farmers not to be able to afford payment for extension services.

(viii)            High proportion of the respondents were willing to pay for cost of arranging for input supply; cost of access to farm machinery; extension agents’ home and farm visits; and cost of processing loans.

(ix)                  Highest willingness to pay values of N8100, N6450 and N6100 were recorded for loan processing, cost to arrange farm input supply, and support for farm radio programme, respectively.

(x)                    Educational level, farming experience, farm income, farm size and frequency of extension contact had significantly positive effect on farmer’s willingness to pay while age and household size had significant negative effect on it.

(xi)                 Major constraints against farmers’ willingness to pay for extension services in a deregulated economy were: financial, social and institutional constraints.

6.2     Conclusion

According to the results of the study, it can be concluded that a major proportion of the farmers did not express high level of willingness to pay/fund agricultural extension services. It seems the farmers who found extension services useful to their production have not caught the vision of personal contributions to make the agricultural extension programme sustainable. The existing low willingness to fund extension services in the area is not unconnected with the farmers’ poor economic and educational backgrounds, and subsistence level of farming.

6.3 Recommendations

Based on the research findings, the following recommendations were made:

(i)                      The extension -agency of the state should educate farmers on cost of its operations and the need for their contribution.

(ii)                   Farmers with large farms and at least post secondary education could be the initial target for supports, while the farmer associations should be an avenue for effective education.

(iii)                 Extension services should be backed up with interest free loans, and supply of inputs to farmers at subsidized rate. The production of farmers can be monitored for between five (5) and ten (10) years and When the farmers are sufficiently and economically empowered, commercialization of extension services can be introduced.

(iv)                 The commercialization and privatization of agricultural extension services should be gradual process and in phases. First, government should commercialize extension services but retain partial privatization and monitoring of the services bearing in mind the food production inadequacies in Nigeria. It is therefore important that a workable fashion for the implementation of the policy is designed for the expected impact of improving extension services and farmers’ productivity.

(v)                    The country’s educational system should be substantially improved to raise the literacy level with the view to eliminating obstacle in the development of the poor who are mainly fanners.

6.4 Recommendation for Further Research

Future research should be focused on the comparative study of farmers and extension agents’ perception of funding agricultural extension services in a deregulated economy. Also, research should be done on the impact of budgetary allocations on agricultural extension service delivery in the study area.

REFERENCES

Afolabi, O. 2003, Effect of Deregulation should precede privatization. Guardian Newspaper, March, 2003. 15(16, 632), 28 – 29.

Agboti, O. 2004. Deregulation is the Answer. Nigerian Patriot Newspaper. March, 2004. 10(78). 3-4.

Agumagu, A. C. 2001. Privatization, Commercialization and Sustainable Agricultural Extension in Nigeria: Issues at Stake. Privatization and Commercialization of Agricultural Extension Services Delivery in Nigeria: Prospects and Problems. P. 119.

Ahuja, V. and Sen, A. 2006. Willingness to Pay for Veterinary Services; Evidence from Poor Areas in Rural India. Pro-Poor Livestock Policy Initiative Research Report (Online:www).

Ajieh, P.C., Agwu, A.E. and Anyanwu, A.C. 2008. Constraints to Privatization and Commercialization of Agricultural Extension Services as Perceived by Extension Professionals and Farmers. African Journal of Agricultural Research. Vol.3 (5);343 – 347.

Alfred, S.D.Y. and Adepoju, A.A. 2006. Fanners’ Perception of Agricultural Privatization on cocoa Production in Ondo State
, Nigeria. Proceedings of 11^th Annual Conference of Agricultural Extension Society of Nigeria (AESON), University of Agriculture, Abeokuta, Ogun State. April 3 -6, 2006.

Ali, S., Morteza, A., Hossain, S.F. and Amir, A. 2008. An Assessment of ‘. Farmers Willingness to Pay for Wheat Consultant Engineers Project in Iran. American Journal of Agricultural and Biological Sciences. Vol 3(4): 706 -711.

Amalu, U.C. 1998. Agricultural Research and Extension Delivery System in Sub-saharan Africa. The University of Calabar Press, Calabar, Nigeria.

Anderson, R.J. and Feder, G. 2003. Rural Extension Services:
Agriculture and Rural Development.      (On-line:http://econ.worldbank.org/ external/default/main? pagePK = 64165259 & the SitePk – 469382 & piPk -64165421    & menu Pk= 64166093 & entity ID – 000094946-03031111352821).

Ani, A.O., Ogunnika, O. and Ifah, S.S. 2004. Relationship Between Socio-Characteristics of Rural Women Farmers and their Adoption of Farm Technologies in Southern Ebonyi State, Nigeria. International Journal of Agriculture and Biology. Vol. 6(5); 802 –805.

Apantaku, S.O. and Fakoya, E.G. 2000. Influence of Community Based Associations in Promoting Community Development in Rural Areas of South Western Nigeria. Journal of Extension System. Vol 16/.47-60.

Aurelia, G. M. 1999. Prolitics of Economics Reforms in Japan. Collected Papers: The Politics of Deregulation and Japanese Agriculture, tittp-//www.free.defmition.com/Deregulation.html (22/05/2005).

Bawa, D.B., Ani, A.O. and Nuhu, H.S. 2009. Perception of Privatization and Commercialization of Agricultural Extension Services in Adamawa State, Nigeria. American-Eurasian. Journal of Sustainable Agriculture, Vol3(3):375-380.

Bello, M and E. S Salua (2009).A case for Participatory (Cost Sharing) Approach to Agricultural Extension Delivery in Nigeria. Journal of Agricultural Extension vol 13 (1) P. 85.

Bellow, M. and Salau, E.S. 2009. A Case for Participatory (Cost sharing) Approach to Agricultural Extension Delivery in Nigeria. Journal of Agricultural Extension, Vol 13 (1): 84-94.

Chebil, A., Nair, H. and Zaibet, L. 2009. Factors Affecting Farmers Willingness to Adopt Salt-Tolerant Forage Crops in South-Eastern Tunisia. African Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics. Vol 3(1): 19-27.

Chukwu, U.C. 2003. Accounting and Finance Terminologies. Cheston Publishers Ltd. Enugu. P. 26.

Chukwuone, N.A., Agwu, A.E. and Ozor, N. 2006. Constraints and Strategies Towards Effective Cost-sharing of Agricultural Technology Delivery in Nigeria: Perception of Farmers and Agricultural Extension Personnel, Journal of International Agricultural and Extension Education. Vol. 13(1): 1 – 13.

Clark, R.C. and Akinbode, L.A. 1968, Factors Associated with Adoption of Three Farm Practices in the Western State of Nigeria. Research Bulletin 1, Faculty of Agriculture, University of Ife, Ile-lfe, Nigeria.

Daniela, J.H., Smale, M., and Von Oppen, M. 2005. Private Participation in Agricultural Extension in Nigeria and Benin: Determining the Willingness to Pay for Information. Selected Paper 136774 Prepared for Presentation at the American Agricultural Economics Association Annual Meeting, Providence, Rhode Island, July 24 – 27, 2005.

Dimaelu, M.U. and Madukwe, M.C. 2001. Extension Workers’ Perception of Privatization and Communication of Extension Services in Enugu State, Nigeria. Privatization and Communication of Agricultural Extension Services delivery in Nigeria: Prospects and Problems, P. 34.

EBADEP, 2001. Annual Report. Annex, S.ii.

EBADEP, 2003. The 2003 – 2005 National Rolling Plan, and the 2003 Budget.

EBADEP, 2004. The 2004 – 2009 National Roiling Plan! Capital Budget. Annex, S. Vii.

EBMOI (Ebonyi State Ministry of Information). 2005.Diary. A Publication of the Ministry of Information, Abakaliki, Ebonyi State, Nigeria,

Edeh, H.O. 2008. Analysis of Environmental Risk Factors Affecting Rice Farming in Ebonyi State, Nigeria. M.Sc Thesis Submitted to the Department of Agricultural Economics, University of Nigeria, Nsukka.

Ekpe,1.1., Okpone, E.G., Ogbodo, E.N. and Nwite, J.N. 2005. Physico-chemical Properties of Four Ultisols under Different Vegetation cover in South-Eastern Nigeria. Journal of Science of Agriculture, Food Technology and Environment. Vol 5:74 – 78.

Eziakor, I.G. and Isitor, S.U. 1997. Financing Technology Adoption in Nigeria; The Role of a Development Bank Towards the Survival of Agricultural Extension System in Nigeria. P 7,

Ezike, K.N.N. 1999. Determinants of Borrowing and Saving Capacity of Smallholder Farmers in South Eastern Nigeria. Ph.D Thesis submitted to the Department of Agricultural Economics and Extension, Enugu State University of Science and Technology (ESUT) Enugu.

FAO. (Food and Agricultural Organisation). 2005. Nigeria: Latest F.A.O. Statistics. (On-line:www.riceweb.org/countires/Nigeria,htw.)

Forti, R., Nyakudya, I., Moyo. M., Chikuvire, J. and Mlambo, N. 2007. Determinants of Fanner Demand for “Fee-for-Service” Extension in Zimbabwe: The Case of Mashoinaland Central Province. Journal of International Agricultural and Extension Education. Vol.14 (1):95 -104.

Gbenga O. 1998. Contribution Towards Agricultural Development: The Experience of World Bank in Nigeria. Nigerian Agriculture and the World Bank. A partnership for Development ARMTI (c). P.8.

Hansra, B.S. and Adhiguru, P. 1998. Agriculture Transfer of Technology Approaches since Independence. India Journal of Extension Education. Vol 9:2168-2176.

Herbert. W. E. 1999.  Some Perspectives on the Structural Analysis of  Deregulation/Privatization. Nigeria Financial Review, 3(5).INFODATA Ltd. Lagos.

House Committee Policy Brief (2005). Sustainable Funding of Agricultural Sector inNigeria.(On-line:http://www.pak-nigeria.org/pdfs/14_AgPolicy_Brief_2-2 Funding.pdf).

Idiong, I.C. 2007. Estimation of Farm Level Technical Efficiency in Small-scale swamp Rice Production in Cross River State of Nigeria: A

Stochastic Frontier Approach. World Journal of Agricultural Sciences. 3(5):653-658.

IFAD, 1999. Nigerian Root and Tuber Expansion Programme Appraisal Report .EBADEP. P.4.

Ikhide, S. L 1990. Deregulation: Part of Structural Adjustment Programme. Nigeria Financial Review INODATA Ltd, Lagos. 6(3).

Kaiser, 1. (1958) Quoted by Madukwe M.  C. in Factor Analysis and Applications. Mimeographed UNN,1996.

Kali Gwagwa (2010). “Improved Budget Implementation: Key to Nigeria’s Recovery”. Retrieved from www.focusnigeria.com.

Kaliba, A.R., Featherstone, A.M. and Norman, D.W. 1997. A Stall-Feeding

Management for Improved Cattle in Seminal Central Tanzania: Factors Influencing Adoption. Agricultural Economics. 17:133 –146.

La-Anyame, S. 1998. The Agricultural Industry in West Africa. Ghana University Press, Accra. P. 70.

Liot, C.A., 1998. Agricultural Credit Administration by Commercial Banks: The United bank; for Africa Experience in Okorie, A. and Ijere M.O. Reading in Agricultural Finance. Longman (Nig.) Pic. Lagos.

Madu, O. 2003. Deregulation of Telecom. Sector Fetches Government N130 billion. Guardian Newspaper. May, 2003, 17(.16, 720), 37 – 38.

Madukwe, M, C. and Eric, A.P. 1999. Privatization and Commercialization of Extension Service in Nigeria: Prospects and Challenges. Proceedings of   the 5th Annual National Conference of Agricultural Extension Society of Nigeria. AESON. P.9.

Maputo Declaration on Agriculture and Food Security in Africa. 2003.(On-line:http://www.acpsec.org/summits/Maputo/Maputo declaration eruhtml).

Matanmi, B.M., Adesiji, G.B. and Omokore, D.F. 2008. Need for Privatization of Agricultural Extension Services in Nigeria. Global Approaches to Extension Practice. Vol 4(2):61 – 64.

Mwaura, F., Muwanika, F.R. and Okoboi, G. 2010. Willingness to Pay for Extension Services in Uganda Among Farmers Involved in Crop and Animal Husbandry. Contributed Paper Presented at the Joint 3^r African Association of Agricultural Economists (A/IE) and 48*’ Agricultural Economists Association of South Africa (AEASA) Conference, Cape Town, South Africa, 19-23 September, 2010.

NO A. 2003. Growing the Private Sector/Implementing a Social Charter. Nigeria: National Economic Empowerment and Development Strategy (NEEDS). Produced by National Orientation Agency, Headquarters, Abuja. Pp. 5-6.

NPC (National Population Commission) 2006. Population Census, (On­line: www .population.gov .ng/ftles/nationa.pdf).

Odili, M.A.C.A. 2001, Problems and Prospects of Privatization of Public Enterprises in Nigeria. Privatization and Commercialization of Agricultural Extension Services Delivery in Nigeria: Prospects and Problems. ARSON. P.27. 13.

Ogunlade, 1., Adekunle, O.A. and Akangbe, J.A. 2006. Perceived Usefulness and Potential of Funding Agricultural Extension Operation by Farmers, in Kwara State, Nigeria. International Journal of Agriculture and Biology. Vol. 8(3): 402-405.

Okoruwa, V.O., Ogundele, O.O, and Oyewusi, B.O. 2000. Efficiency and Productivity of Farmers in Nigeria: A Study of Rice Farmers in North Central Nigeria, Poster Paper Prepared for Presentation at the International Association of Agricultural Economists Conference, Gold Coast, Australia, 12-18 August, 2006.

Oladele, O.I. 2008. Factors Determining Farmers’ Willingness to Pay for Extension Services in Oyo State, Nigeria. Agricultura Tropica et subtropica. Vol41(l):165 – 170.

Oladele, O.I. and Obuh, J. 2008. Perceived Effect of Privatization of Extension Services Among Researchers Extension Agents and Farmers in Oyo State, Nigeria. Agricultural Journal. Vol 3(5):4Q9-413.

Orolugbagbe, I. 2004. Effect of Deregulation should precede Privatization. Vanguard Newspaper, March, 2004, 14(20,125). 43 – 44.

Oyedokun, A. O. 2001/Collaboration of Scientists in Agricultural Research Institute of Nigeria: Implication for Privatization and Commercialization of Agricultural Extension. Journal of Agricultural Extension. AESON. 5(31).

Philip, E.F, and Carl, S.W. 1984. Accounting Principle Von. Hoffmann Press. New York. P.85.

Rivera, W.M. and Cary, J.W. 1997. Privatizing Agricultural Extension. In: B.E. Swanson, R,P. Bentz and A.I. Sofranko (eds.) Improving Agricultural Extension – A Reference Manual, Rome; FAG: Pp 203 -211.

Srivastava, J. and Jaffee, S. 1992. Seed Systems Development, the Appropriate Roles of Public and Private Sectors. World Bank Discussion Paper No. 167, World Bank, Washington, D.C.

Tunde, R. 1998. The Food Problem in Nigeria: A challenge for the Agricultural Sector. The Nigerian Journal of Agricultural and Rural Management, Vol 2(10): 51 – 65.

Umali, D.I,, and Schwartz, L. 1994. Public and Private Agricultural Extension: Beyond Traditional Frontiers. World Bank Discussion Papers, No.236. Washington, D.C. (On-line:www.landfood. unimelb. edu.au/ dean/falveybk/refs.html).

Umeabali, E.E. 2003. The Role of Agricultural Extension Education in Poverty Alleviation; Lessons from the study of Agric Extension in Ohaji/Egbema Local Government Council of Imo Stale. The Nigeria Journal of Agricultural and Rural Management. 6(2). 1.

Umeh, G. N. 2003. Lecture Note on Agricultural Extension Administration. Unpublished. EBSU.

Yapa, K.D.AJ. arid Ariyawardana, A. 2005. Willingness to pay for Fee-Based Extension Services by the smallhodlers in GaleDistrict Online:www.sIjol.info/index.php/SJAE/ArticIe/view/l 824/1517).

Department of Agricultural Economics

Extension & Management

Ebonyi State University, Abakaliki.

Dear Respondents,

The student is conducti
ng a research titled: Funding Ebonyi State Agricultural   Public   Extension   Service   in   Deregulated   Economy.

Please, your assistance is highly needed in supplying appropriate information to the questionnaire. Any information given will be utilized only for the research, and will be treated as confidential, and your name will not be reflected in the field report. So, feel free to supply all the required information.

Sincerely, thanks for your anticipated co-operation.

QUESTIONNAIRE

            Section A: Socio-Economic Characteristics of Respondents please tick (√) where appropriate

1.      Sex:       (i)   Male      (ii) Female

2.        Age (years):  (i)    21-30               (ii) 31-40    (iii)  41-50                (iv) 51-60

                   (v) 61-70                  (vi) 71-80     (vii) 81-90                 (viii) 91-100

3.      Marital Status:    (i) Single       (ii) Married      (iii) Widow/widower           

(iv)      Divorced

4.      Household Size: (i) 1-3           (ii) 4-6        (iii)  7-9     (iv) 10 – 12

5.       Educational Level:   (i)   No Formal Education    (ii) Primary Education   

 (iii) Secondary Education  (iv) Tertiary (OND HND, First degree etc)  

6.      Annual Farm income:

     (i)  N21,000 – N40,000              (ii) N41,000 – N60,000

     (iii) N61,000 – N70,000             (iv) N71,000 – N80,000

     (v) N81,000 – N90,000              (vi) 91,000 – N100,00

7.      What is your major source of funding for farming?

(i) Personal savings (ii) Information Loan     (iii) Bank  (iv) Grant (v) Gift

8.      How many hectares of farmland do you cultivate yearly?

(i) 0.1 – 0.5                         (ii) 0.6 – 1.0                           (iii) 1.1 – 1.5

(iv) 1.6 – 20                       (v) 2.1 -2.5                 (vi)

9.      How long have you been in farming?

(i)  1 -10 year                    (ii)  11 -20                              (iii) 21 – 30

(iv) 31 -40 years   (v)  41 -50                              (vi) 51 – 60

10. How often do extension agents come to you?

(i) Once in 2 weeks                    (ii) Once in 4 weeks

(iii) Once in 8 weeks                                        

11. How do you acquire your farmland?

(i)  my own                                  (ii) Rental

Section B: Major Packages/Technologies and Services Extended to Farmers by Extension Agents

12. Which of these technologies have been extended to you by extension agents?

(i) Dry season vegetable production (exotic vegetable production, mulching, using organic manure and correct spacing)

(ii) Yam/maize/vegetable (Rapid seed yam multiplication, improved maixe varieties, spacing and fertilizer application)

(iii) Cassava/maize/sweet potatoes (use of improved varieties of cassava maize and sweet potato, and soil enrichment with potato)

(vi)           Late maize/melon (Row planting, spacing, improved varities and fertilizer application)

(vii)         Swamp rice production (improved varieties, early planting, line, planting and pest disease control in rice field with emphasis on African Rice. Gall midge

(viii)      Processing cassava/sweet potato into flour (peeling, wasting, grating, drying, milling, and sieving)

(ix)           Utilization of cassava/sweet potato flour (measuring ingredients, mixing, etc)

(x)              Production of fruit juices, processing and utilization of soyabean (selection, washing, blending, sieving, cooling and storage)

13. Which of these services have been rendered to you by ADP/extension agents?

(i)    Establishment of small plot adoption technique (SPAT)

(ii) Formation of women groups

(iii)     Providing information to women farmers

(iv)     Identify rural problems

(v)    Getting me involved in non-farm activities

(vi)     Supervising our women activities

(vii)   Assisted to arrange input supply to me

(viii)Helped me to prepare schedule of farm activities

(ix)     Assisted me in process loan

(x)  Initiated and promoted leadership among dewellers

(xi)     Helped source market for my farm products

(xii)   Assisted in organizing our group meetings

(xiii)O
rganized shows for us

(xiv) Communicate recommended practices to us

(xv)   Taught me new ideas in agriculture

(xvi) Taught me how to keep of any farm activity

(xvii)    Gave me advice on how to handle my agricultural problems

(xviii)  Paid visits to my home and farms to assist me

(xix) Helped me to access farm machinery

Section C: Farmers willingness to pay for Extension Service Rendered by the                   ADP

Preamble: funding has been identified as a major problems to EBADEP in its quest to deliver efficient and effective extension services to you. With adequate fund, it is expected that EBADEP will be highly efficient like most privatized establishments in delivering its services to you. However, to achieve this, EBADEP is proposing that its service recipients will pay some fees for services rendered.

14.  Are you willing to pay any extension services rendered to you by EBADEP?

(i)  Yes                 (ii) No

15. If you are not willing now, will you pay in the future? (i) Yes        (ii) No

16. If yes, please indicate you percentage of willingness to pay for any service?