ASSESSMENT OF IFAD / FGN POVERTY REDUCTION PROGRAMME AMONG FARM HOUSEHOLDS IN ONDO STATE OF NIGERIA

Household poverty, especially among the farm families which are the highest population in Nigeria is still a major issue of discourse among policy makers and analysts. This study assesses the International Fund for Agricultural Development and the Federal Government of Nigeria (IFAD/FGN) poverty reduction programme among farm households in Ondo State, Nigeria. The study employed a multi-stage sampling procedure. A total of 60 beneficiaries and 60 non-beneficiaries were interviewed using a structured questionnaire. Data were analyzed using a combination of descriptive statistics and Foster, Greer and Thorbecke poverty measure. The study shows that poverty incidence, depth and severity among the respondents were lower among IFAD/FGN beneficiaries than among the non-beneficiaries. Poverty incidence for beneficiaries was (0.66) against (0.79) for non-beneficiaries. This implies that about 66% and 79% of beneficiaries and non-beneficiaries were poor respectively. The poverty depth was (0.16) for beneficiaries compared to (0.24) for non-beneficiaries. The severity of poverty was mild among the beneficiaries (0.017) while it was severe among the non-beneficiaries (0.072). However, the study showed that the poverty measures (incidence, depth and severity) of beneficiaries were lower compared with non-beneficiaries. Poverty related indices were still noticeable among the beneficiaries with poverty incidence of 66%, depth of 10% and severity of 1.7%. This implies that only 34% of the beneficiaries could be said to be non-poor compared with about 20% of the non-beneficiaries. This study recommends that IFAD/FGN project effort should be intensified at reducing poverty rates in the study areas using other measures such as income diversification and establishment of small scale agro-industries. More funds should also be made available for such programme and the programme should be extended to other states and rural areas of the country.


Introduction
National Bureau of Statistics (NBS, 2011) documented poverty rates in Nigeria to be about 69.0% in 2010 with 30.3% and 38.7% in the moderately and extremely poor categories respectively.Agriculture has been described as a viable way to tackle the poverty menace in Nigeria.Agriculture, an important sector in Nigeria, remained relevant to Nigeria's food and raw material supplies, rural employment since improved agricultural productivity has been associated with reduced incidence of poverty (Phillip 1996;Thirtle et al., 2003).
Similarly, Omotesho et al. (2010) conceded that more than two-thirds of Nigerian people are poor, despite living in a country with vast potential wealth.It has been observed that the most important aim of development efforts is to reduce poverty, which can be accomplished by economic growth and/or by income redistribution (Ogujiuba et al., 2011).Poverty, a multi-dimensional concept, involving limited access to many types of assets (for example, physical, human, natural, and financial capital), and not simply a shortfall in current income or consumption is still a major issue in Nigeria.The asset approach to poverty is consistent with recent research on poverty dynamics and poverty traps, which emphasizes the importance of defining poverty in terms of asset levels (Reardon and Vosti, 1995;Carter and Barrett, 2006).However, household endowments (assets) which help households to diversify their sources of income and thus reduce the risk of overall income failure have been identified as important determinants in poverty reduction efforts (Ellis, 1998).It has also been documented that the rural poor account for 80% of African poverty, but urban poverty is substantial and appears to be growing which makes poverty a major challenge to the continent (Collier and Gunning, 1999;World Bank, 2000).It is necessary to understand the dimensions of poverty and the statistics to implement effective poverty reduction programme.
Empirical evidence has it that the path out of the poverty trap in poor countries, therefore, depends on the growth and development of the agricultural sector.It is important for a number of reasons: 1) to alleviate poverty through income generation and employment creation; 2) to meet growing food needs driven by rapid population growth; 3) to keep food prices low, both for urban households and the many rural households who are net food buyers; 4) to stimulate overall economic growth in agriculture-based economies; and 5) to conserve natural resources (de Janvry and Sadoulet, 2001;Alwang and Siegel, 2003;Moyo et al., 2007).
The roles of the Nigerian agricultural sector, according to the Nigerian Agricultural Policy document, FDA/ FMANR (2001), include provision of food for the growing population, foreign exchange earnings, employing a significant part of the labour force, and providing income for farming households.Also, as documented by IFAD (2001), agriculture constitutes the single largest contributor to the well-being of the rural poor, sustaining 90% and 70% of the rural and total labour force, respectively.
In meeting these goals, the sector over the years has been characterized with diverse programmes and policies.In 1970s, the National Accelerated Food Production Programme (NAFPP) and the Nigeria Agriculture and Cooperative Bank (NACB) now Nigerian Agricultural Cooperative and Rural Development Bank (NACRDB) were established to improve performance in the nation's agricultural sector.The impacts of these programmes were felt on the Nigerian economy as the sector's contribution to the total Gross Domestic Product (GDP) was about 54.3% between 1965 and 1970.Thereafter, a downward trend in the agricultural sector's contribution to GDP has been documented (FDA/FMNAR 2001).
A larger portion of Nigerians live in rural areas.These areas are characterized with bad road network, poor electricity and portable water supply and poorly equipped health centers.Poverty, a direct consequence of poor welfare, has therefore become evident in these rural areas.According to the Human Development Index (HDI), score (0.391) for Nigeria in 1998 places Nigeria at number 142 out of 174 countries.In 2000, the HDI score for Nigeria increased to 0.433 and the country ranked 151st.In 2003, the score was 0.453 ranked 158th among 173 countries (Okunmadewa, 2001;UNDP, 2005;UNDP, 2006).This is a reflection of the poverty status of the Nigerian citizens.
A sequel to the prevailing poverty conditions across the nation, the past attempt to ease the scourge among the rural dwellers in Nigeria has taken the form of various programmes and policies.These include the National Accelerated Food Production Despite the several programmes addressing poverty in the country, especially at the rural level, poverty still wears a rural face in the country.This is the case considering the lofty objective and financial commitments associated with these programmes.For the International Fund for Agricultural Development (IFAD)/Federal Government programme option, many agricultural and rural development programmes, capacity building programmes and projects for rural empowerment have been embarked upon while some are still being implemented.It was against this background that this study seeks to assess the IFAD/FGN poverty reduction programmes among farm households in Nigeria.

Material and Methods
The study was carried out in Ondo State, Nigeria.The state lies on latitude 6°35'55'' North and longitude 4 o 37'12'' East.The 2006 National census gave the population of Ondo State as 3,523,536 (Nigerian Population Census (NPC), 2007) with an annual growth rate of 3.2 against the 1991 National census (2,184,569).Ondo State is a predominantly agrarian economy.A multi-stage sampling procedure was adopted to select respondents for the study area.A total of 60 beneficiaries and 60 non-beneficiaries were interviewed using a structured questionnaire.The major tools for analysis included descriptive statistics (such as cross tabulation, frequency, percentages, means, and standard deviation).Inferential statistics used are the Foster, Greer and Thorbecke Index (Foster et al., 1984) and Poverty Status Index.
The p-alpha measure of poverty captures incidence, depth and severity of poverty.This measure is referred to as the poverty gap index or the Foster, Greer and Thorbecke Index (Forster et al., 1984).The index is calculated using the following formula: (1) Where: q = poverty headcount, Z = poverty line; q = number of respondents below the poverty line, N = total number of respondents, Y i = income of farmer i (N), α is the Forster-Greer-Thorbecke (FGT) parameter, which takes the values of 0, 1, or 2 depending on whether we are measuring the incidence, depth or severity of poverty.

Results and Discussion
Analysis in Table 1 shows that age of the respondents ranged between 20 and 60 and above with a mean age of 43 years for beneficiaries and 45 years for nonbeneficiaries.Sixty-two percent of the beneficiaries and 66.1% of the nonbeneficiaries were married.The study also shows that most of the respondents were male, 72.9% and 78% for beneficiaries and the non-beneficiaries respectively.The distribution of respondents based on household size indicates that the respondents had between 2 and 10 members in their household, the mean household size of nonbeneficiaries and beneficiaries was found to be 6.0.
Large percentage (88.1%) of the beneficiaries and (79.7%) of the nonbeneficiaries were educated.More of beneficiaries (93.2%) had formal education of at least primary education in comparison with non-beneficiaries (79.7%).The mean education year for the beneficiaries was 7.28% as compared to the mean education year of non-beneficiaries which was 7.18%.Table 1 indicates that mean number of years of farming experience for both the beneficiaries and non-beneficiaries was 13 years.The study revealed that 5.10% of the beneficiaries and 10.2% of nonbeneficiaries acquired their land through leasehold and 42.4% of beneficiaries and 18.6% of non-beneficiaries purchased and 52.5% of beneficiaries and 55.9% of non-beneficiaries got their land through inheritance.About 15.3% of nonbeneficiaries rented their land while none of the beneficiaries rented his or her farm land.Also, the analysis shows that more of the beneficiaries (52.5%) belonged to cooperative societies as compared to 40.7% of non-beneficiaries that belonged to cooperative societies.Most of the beneficiaries (66.1%) did not use loan facilities and 86.4% of non-beneficiaries did not use loan facilities as well, they selffinanced their farms.Furthermore, average monthly income of beneficiaries was N42, 835 and N35, 631 of non-beneficiaries.The maximum monthly income of beneficiaries was N99, 000 while that of non-beneficiaries was N 58,000.The minimum monthly income of the beneficiaries was N 19,000 while that of nonbeneficiaries was N 12,000.

Identified benefits of IFAD/FGN programmes
Table 2 shows the frequency distribution of various benefits that accrued to the beneficiaries of IFAD/FGN and how it acted as an agent of change to improve their household welfare.About 10% agreed that IFAD improved their standard, and 10% claimed the programme provided better access to loan for them.On the other hand, 7% claimed they had shared experiences and learnt from other farmers.Some, 15% had better accesses to farm input, 8.5% claimed that they had more access to better infrastructure, 13.5% were empowered or given skill acquisition training, 13.5% acquired or had access to processing machine and equipment.Furthermore, 8.5% had better access to sources of innovative information through IFAD agents, 7% had access to technical services for repair of damaged equipment, 7% had a reduction in loss as a result of delayed market, preservative and processing problem and inadequate packaging.These findings show that beneficiaries have benefited in one way or the other from the programme.

Poverty index, incidence and severity
The results of the FGT model as indicated in Table 3: the poverty measures show that the beneficiaries had Po of 0.661 while the non-beneficiaries had Po of 0.7966.This implies that 66% of the beneficiaries and 79% of the nonbeneficiaries were poor.The above-mentioned proportion represents the poverty incidence among each sample of respondents.
P 1 measures the depth of poverty in the study area.The P 1 value for the beneficiaries and non-beneficiaries of IFAD/FGN was 0.106 and 0.241 respectively.This implies that 10% of beneficiaries and 24% of non-beneficiaries were very poor, respectively.The proportion of the poverty depth among the nonbeneficiaries is relatively comparable with earlier studies in the state and region using farming households respectively (see Igbalajobi, Fatuase, and Ajibefun 2013;Babatunde, Olorunsanya, and Adejola 2008).
P 2 measures the severity of poverty in the study area.The value of the poor using FGT model was 0.0172 for the beneficiaries and 0.072 for the nonbeneficiaries.Poverty severity among the both category of respondents in the study area was 1.7% and 7.2% respectively.This implies that the severity was more pronounced among the non-beneficiaries compared to the beneficiaries.Lower incidence, depth and severity of poverty among the beneficiaries of IFAD/FGN signified that the incentives distributed by the programme have a positive influence on the poverty status and welfare level of the farmers.

Conclusion
The study established that IFAD/FGN programme has improved the beneficiaries' welfare generally by reducing their poverty level compared with nonbeneficiaries in the study area.Though, the study showed that the poverty measures (incidence, depth and severity) of beneficiaries were lower compared with nonbeneficiaries.Poverty related issues were still noticeable among the beneficiaries with poverty incidence of 66%, depth 10% and severity 1.7%.This implies that only 34% of the beneficiaries could be said to be non-poor compared with about 20% of the non-beneficiaries.The recommendations from the study are as follows: efforts should be intensified at reducing poverty rates in the study areas using other measures such as income diversification and establishment of small scale agroindustries.More funds should be made available for one such programme and the programme should be extended to other states and rural areas of the country.
Program (NAFPP) in 1972, Operation Feed the Nation (OFN) in 1976, The Green Revolution of 1972, Back to Land Program in 1983 and the Directorate of Food, Road and Rural Infrastructure (DFRRI) in 1986.Other programmes were the Better Life Program (BLP), Family Support Program (FSP) in 1993 and the Family Economic Advancement Program (FEAP).A very recent effort to alleviate poverty is the National Poverty Eradication Program (NAPEP) which undertakes its scheme in collaboration with the State Governments, Local Government Area councils.In a further attempt at addressing poverty issue International Fund for Agricultural Development (IFAD) developed a specialized programme targeted at farmers.

Table 1 .
Distribution of respondents by socio-economic characteristics.

Table 2 .
Frequency of identified benefits accrued to the beneficiaries of IFAD programmes.

Table 3 .
Poverty incidence, depth and severity among respondents.