INTRODUCTION
A livelihood comprises the capabilities,
assets (including both material and social resources) and activities required
for a means of living. A livelihood is sustainable when it can cope with and
recover from stresses and shocks and maintain or enhance its capabilities and
assets both now and in the future, while not undermining the natural resource
base” (Carney, 1998). Climate change is a major challenge for agriculture, food
security and rural livelihoods for billions of people including the poor in
most developing countries (Carney, 1998).
During
the past 30 years, agroforestry has progressed from being a traditional
practice with great potential to the point where development experts agree that
it provides an important science-based pathway for achieving important
objectives in natural resource management and poverty alleviation (Lin, 2010).
Despite its ubiquitous use by smallholder farm families, there is inadequate
awareness about the potential of agroforestry to benefit millions of households
trapped in poverty. We need a global ‘agroforestry transformation’ to mobilize
science and resources to remove the socio-economic, ecological and political
constraints to widespread application of agroforestry innovations. Building on
three decades of work with smallholder farmers in Africa, Asia and Latin
America, coupled with strategic alliances with advanced laboratories, national
research institutions, universities and non-governmental organizations (NGOs)
across the globe, the World Agroforestry Centre and its partners are poised to
foster such an agroforestry transformation (Lin, 2010).
Trees play a crucial role in almost
all terrestrial ecosystems. They provide a wide range of products and services
to rural and urban people. As natural vegetation is cleared for agriculture,
trees are integrated into productive landscapes – this practice is known as
agroforestry. Agroforestry is practiced
by millions of farmers and has been a feature of agriculture for millennia
(Lin, 2010). It encompasses a wide range of working trees that are grown on
farms and in rural landscapes and includes the generation of science-based tree
enterprise opportunities that can be important in the future. Among these are:
fertilizer trees for land regeneration, soil health and food security; fruit
trees for nutrition and income; fodder trees that improve smallholder livestock
production; timber and fuel wood trees for shelter and energy; medicinal trees
to combat disease, particularly where there is no pharmacy; and trees that
produce gums, resins or latex products (Garrity,
2004). Many of these trees have multiple uses, each providing a range of
benefits. An estimated 1.2 billion rural people currently practice agroforestry
on their farms and in their communities, and depend upon its products (World
Bank, 2000). Their tree-based enterprises help ensure food and nutritional
security, increase their income and assets, and help solve their land
management problems. Agroforestry is a collective name for
land-use systems and technologies where woody perennials (trees, shrubs, palms,
bamboos, etc.) are deliberately used on the same land-management units as
agricultural crops and/or animals, in some form of spatial arrangement or
temporal sequence. In agroforestry systems, there are both ecological and
economical interactions between the different components (Schoeneberger,
2009).There are many types of agroforestry systems that are employed in a
number of regions of the world and at different levels of complexity (Montagnini and Nair, 2004). Silvi-pastoral
systems are agricultural systems where trees are planted within a pasture field
to provide feeds and shade as well as food and fuel for the farmer. Another
type of agroforestry is the intercropping of crops within hedgerows of trees
called agrosilvicultural system to provide windbreaks/shelterbelts
for the crops and increase the soil stability of the region. Mixed-use forests
are a type of agroforestry that allows for multiple crops to be produced in a
small physical land area, increasing
the temporal and structural diversity of the ecosystem, and the net benefits or
negatives are largely based on the design of the system. The range of
agroforestry systems possible can potentially allow for many different types of
adaptation under a range of conditions (Schoeneberger,
2009). However, levels of co-benefits depend on the amount of diversity
integrated into the system, as more diversity within the agroforestry system
will lead to greater co-benefits.
According to Rogers
(2003), adoption occurs when one has decided to make full use of the new
technology as a best course of action for addressing a need. Adoption is
determined by several factors including socio-economic variables such as
individual needs, knowledge about the technology and individual perceptions
about methods used to achieve those needs (Thangata&Alavalapati,
2003).
METHODOLOGY
Study
Area
The study
was carried out in Wamakko Local Government Area of Sokoto State. Wamakko is 10 km west of Sokoto city.
The LGA was created in 1991. The LGA has Ten (10) Districts: Dundaye, Wamakko, Gumbi, Gumburawa, Gedawa, Kalambana, Wajeke, Arkilla, Gwiwa, and GidanBubu. The study
area is located on latitude 13°-13°2′16″N and longitude 5°-5°5′37″E
(NGIA, 2016). It is bordered to the north by Tangaza
Local Government, to the south by Bodinga and Yabo Local Government Areas, west by Silame
Local Government, and to the east by Sokoto and Kware Local Government Areas. It has an area of
697 km˛ and a population of 208,250 (NPCN,
2011).
The major occupation of the people are farming, fishing and trading. The main
ethnic groups are Hausa and Fulani, other Nigerian tribes also reside and live
peacefully with the indigenes of Wamakko Local
Government Area (Roger, 2006; SSMIYSC, 2013).
Sampling Procedures and Sample Size
Four (4) districts
were purposively selected out of ten (10) districts in Wamakko
local government area, for the study based on the dominance of agroforestry
practices in the study areas. The districts selected are Dundaye,
Gumburawa, GidanBubu and Wamakko. Two villages were randomly selected from each of
the selected districts making eight (8) villages. From each village, 30 farmers
were conveniently selected given a total sample size of 240 respondents.
Data Collection
Two hundred and forty
(240) structured
questionnaires were administered, retrieved and analysed. Data collected were on the socio-economic characteristics of the
respondents,
usefulness of agroforestry practices and level of adoption of agroforestry in
the study area.
Data Analysis
Data collected were analyzed using both descriptive
statistics (frequencies and percentages). Statistical Package for Social
Sciences (SPSS) Version 20.0 was used for the analysis.
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
Socio-Economic Characteristics of
the Farmers
From table 1, the majority (70.8 %) of the farmers fell
within the ages of 15 to 30 years. In addition to this, 29.2 percent fell
within the ages of 31 years and above in the study area. This implies that the
majority of the agroforestry farmers were within the active age to provide labour force; younger farmers participated more than older
ones in the farming activities. This is supported by Ogungbileet al. (2002) who stated that younger farmers are more likely to
adopt an innovation than older farmers because of strength, better education
and more exposure to new ideas.
Gender
All of the farmers involved in agroforestry practice were
men. Men who were mostly the household heads had more access to land and
participated more in outdoor activities than women. The predominance of men in
agroforestry practice was due to the cultural and traditional practices which
restricted women from farming activities. This finding agreed with Angoet al. (2011) who reported that majority
of rural populace in the northern part of the country engage
in farming, while the female folk partake only in rearing of children, domestic
and other house chores and processing of agricultural produce.
Marital Status
Majority of the farmers (78.3%) were married while 21.7
percent of them were single. This could mean that the married individuals were
more committed to their responsibilities and worked very hard to earn a living
because of the responsibilities they shoulder. The finding is supported by Olarindeet al. (2008) who reported that one of the
most important factors which determine technical efficiency of a business is
the marital status of the individual.
Family Size
A total of 78.3 percent of the farmers had family size of 1
to 10 persons, this implies that the small family size
could be as a result of small income and poverty. Also the labour
was limited because of the small size of the family, this is in agreement with Adamu (1997) who stated that the plot of land which rural
populace possess are mostly small in size because of the nature of inheritance
in which the children share the land left behind when their parent die. On the
other hand, 8.8 percent of the farmers had family size of between 16 persons
and above. Other studies indicated that large family size is expected to enable
farmers to take up labour intensive activities (Anleyet al., 2007; Birungi,
2007 and Nyangena, 2007).
Usefulness
of Agroforestry Practice
Majority of the farmers (wms
=3.78) stated that agroforestry practice was highly useful in the provision of
food and it was ranked first, this implies that most of the agroforestry
practices are done purposely for products from trees such as fruits and seeds.
Similar finding by Aggarwal and Mall (2000) reported that agroforestry trees have many
uses in our environment ranging from provision of services such as purification
of air, production of food, fruits, fuel, timber, gums and other products,
they also ensure conservation of
soil, while provision of timber was ranked the least (wms = 2.59). This could be due to the fact that in rural
areas, trees are usually cut down or harvested for fuel wood before the trees
matured as such it makes it difficult for timber production, also because of
lack of timber-based industries in the study areas. This finding did not agree
with Glover and Elsiddig (2012) who reported that agroforestry
trees are grown in order to produce wood
which is cut into lumber (sawn wood) for use in construction of buildings,
bridges, track ways, poles for power lines, carts, farm implements, boats, etc.
Income
Generation
A total of 44.2 percent of the farmers
generated income through crop production, this implies that majority of the
farmers depend on agriculture for their livelihood. Similar finding by Parry et
al. (2007) reported that agriculture is the main livelihood system of most of
our people and along with allied sectors like livestock and fisheries,
contributes to the livelihood standard, though 11.7 percent generate income
through sales of timber. This is as a result of trees on farm lands which are
used for construction. Similar finding by Pandit and Thapa (2004) reported that, growing of trees on farmlands
contributes to household income.
Source of
Credit
Majority (57.1%) of the farmers did not have
any source of credit and depended on no one for credit, this implies that
farmers try to work with income obtained from the sales of farm produce. This
agrees with the finding of Parry et al. (2007) who reported that more than 60
per cent of the populations are directly or indirectly relying on agriculture
as a source of income in rural areas. Only 1.7 percent of the farmers stated
that they sourced credit from private individuals. This could be as a result of
their small scale or subsistence level of farming as such they needed private
source of credit to support the family. This finding disagrees with Palm et al.
(2005) who reported that agroforestry practice can also support wildlife and
provide another source of income.
Parts of
the Tree Used for Food
About 83.3 percent of the farmers used fruits
as food. This implies that farmers may obtain fruit from trees on their farm
for food either processed or fresh. This is in consonance with Padoch et al. (2008) who documented that fruits have been a
low-cost staple food source, while 7.9 percent stated that they used seed as
food, this is because some of the trees in rural areas produce edible seed
which are used for food. This finding is supported by World Bank (2000) who
reported that many trees bear edible nuts which can loosely be described as
being large, oily kernels found inside a hard shell. These include coconuts (Cocos nucifera),
Brazil nuts (Bertholletia excelsa).
They have high nutritive value and contain high-quality protein, vitamins and
minerals as well as dietary fiber.
Parts of
the Tree Used for Feed
A total of 36.7 percent of the farmers stated
that they use fruits as animal feeds, this could be due to the fact that
farmers use fruits from tree either directly or processed as animal feeds,
while 27.5 percent use seeds for preparing animal feeds. Similar finding by Neupane and Thapa (2001),
reported that some products of tree species grown on farmland are the main
sources of animal feeds.
Parts of
the Tree Used for Medicine
Majority (64.2%) of the farmers used bark for
medicine, this may be true in rural settlement where people make use of the
bark of tree to treat certain sicknesses such as malaria and typhoid fever,
this agrees with Lichterman (2004) who reported that,
the bark of some trees such as willow tree contains large amounts of
salicylic acid, which is the active metabolite of aspirin. Willow bark has been
used for millennia for medicine as an effective pain reliever and fever
reducer. Also, Muriukiet al. (2012) reported that many trees are
cultivated to provide medicine from bark, leaves, roots, etc., which are sold
to provide income and are used for self- treatment, supporting the health of
communities. Some 0.8 percent of farmers used seeds for medicine. This could be
so because some seed of trees contains medicinal properties. Similar findings
found that many of the seed of common trees and weeds that populate human
settlements, such as Balanites aegyptiana
and Acacia nilotica
have medicinal properties (Lichterman, 2004).
Parts of
the Tree Used as Raw Materials
Majority (99.2%) of the farmers stated that
timber is used as raw materials, this may include
stems of trees used in local construction. This finding is in agreement with
Shepherd et al. (2003) who reported
that wood has been an important, easily available material for construction
since humans started building shelters. Only 0.4 percent said leaves are used
as raw materials. This holds to the fact that some farmers are very poor to
purchase timber as such they use leaves to cover their small muddy huts.
Protection
from Trees
About 54.2 percent of farmers stated that
trees protect them by the provision of shade. This could be the reason why some
of the farmers plant trees on their farms so that
during the day when heat is high they will go under the tree and have some
shade. This is in agreement with Sileshi et al. (2007) who opined that trees and
shrubs in agroforestry systems can contribute to better microclimate by
providing shade and windbreak in farms and homes. Even though 7.9 percent
stated that trees protect them by purifying the air. This is because trees
produce oxygen during photosynthesis thereby purifying the air in an
environment. This finding is in agreement with Lin (2007) who reported that,
tree on farm bring about favorable changes in the microclimatic conditions by
purifying air, influencing radiation flux, air temperature and wind speed.
CONCLUSION
Many of the farmers maintained trees in
their farmland in form of agroforestry practices, and collect fuel wood, and
fodder from these trees for their sustenance. This type of management system
has contributed to the improvement of soil fertility in the study area. Agroforestry
practice is strongly adopted in the study area.
RECOMMENDATIONS
Based
on the findings, the study recommends several ways in which policy and
regulatory practices can be improved to support farming communities in the
practice of agroforestry. The following
recommendations are hereby made:
.
1. Many smallholder farmers do not have the
knowledge and skills to manage agroforestry, therefore government should find a
way of educating and training the farmers.
2.
Government
should distribute improved tree seeds and seedlings suitable for agroforestry
freely to every farmer who shows interest to go into agroforestry practice.
This will also encourage other farmers to adopt the practice.
REFERENCES
Adamu, S.S. (1997).
Socio-economic factors associated with rural-urban migration in Nigeria. A case of Maiduguri. Sixth Urban Symposium: 74-76.
Aggarwal,
P.K. and Mall, R.K. (2000). Climate change and rice yields in
diverse- agro environments of India. II. Effect of uncertainties in scenarios
and crop models on impact assessment’ Climate Change. 5(2): 331-343.
Ango,
A. K., Abdullahi, A. N. and Abubakar,
B. B. (2011). Role of socio-economic parameters in Determining the
Efficacy of Urban Agriculture in
providing Food Security in Birninkebbi Metropolitan
Area, Kebbi State, North Western Nigeria. International research.Journal of Agric Science. 1(6): 185- 192.
Anley,
Y., Bogale, A. and Haile-Gabriel, A. (2007). Adoption
decision and use intensity of soil and water conservation measures by small
holder subsistence farms in Debo district, western
Ethiopia. Cited in Abdullahi A. S. (2014).Production
and marketing of honey and shear butter in Zuru local
Government Area Kebbi State, Nigeria. M.Sc. Dissertation, Department of Forestry and Environment, Faculty
of Agriculture, Usmanu Danfodio
University, Sokoto State Nigeria.
Garrity, D. (2004). World Agroforestry and the achievement of the millennium
development Goals. Agroforestry systems. 9(61):
5-7.
Glover,
E. K. and Elsiddig, E. A. (2012) The
causes and Consequences of Environmental Changes in Gedaref,
Sudan. Land Degradation & Development Journal. 23(4): 339–349.
Lin, B.B. (2007). Agroforestry management
as an adaptive strategy against potential microclimate extremes in coffee
agriculture. Agricultural
and Forest Meteorology. (144): 85-94.
Lin, B.B.
(2010). The role of agroforestry in reducing water loss
through soil evaporation and crop transpiration in coffee agroecosystems.
Agricultural and Forest Meteorology. (150) 510-518.
Montagnini,
F. and Nair, P.K.R. (2004). Carbon sequestration: An
underexploited environmental benefit of agroforestry systems. Agroforestry Systems. 5(61): 281-295.
NGIA,
(2016):(National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency) Map of Wamako Local
Government Area in Sokoto, Nigeria
www.cartographic.info/names/map.php?id=763520&f=5 Retrieved 4/5/2016
NPCN (2011).National Population Commission of
Nigeria. Sokoto (State, Nigeria) -
Population Statistics and Location in Maps.
http://www.citypopulation.de/php/nigeria-admin.php?adm 2id=NGA034021. Retrieved 3/08/ 2016.
Nyangena,
W. (2007).Social determinants of soil and water in rural Kenya environment,
development and sustainability. Cited in Abdullahi A. S. (2014).Production and marketing of honey
and shearbutter in Zuru
local Government Area Kebbi State, Nigeria. M.Sc. Dissertation Department of Forestry and Environment, Faculty
of Agriculture, Usmanu Danfodio
University, Sokoto State Nigeria.
Ogungbile, A. O., Tabo, R. and Rahman, S. A.
(2002).Factors affecting the adoption of ICSVIII and ICSV400 Sorghum varieties
in Guinea and Sudan Savanna of Nigeria.The plant
Scientist. 4(3): 21-32.
Olarinde, L. O., Ajao, A. O. and Okunnola, S. O.
(2008).Determinants of technical efficiency in beekeeping farms in Oyo State, Nigeria.A Stochastic frontier approach. Research
Journal of Agriculture and Biological Science. 4 (1): 65 – 69.`
Onubuogu, G.C., Chidebelu, S. and Eboh, E. C.
(2013). Enterprise type, size and allocative
Efficiency of Broiler production Imo State, Nigeria. International Journal of Applied Research
Technology. 2(6): 10-19.
Rogers,
E. M. (2003). Diffusion of Innovations (Fifth ed.).
New York: The Free Press. (7): 67-68.
Roger,
B., Longtau, S., Hassan, U. and M. Walsh (2006). The
Role of Traditional Rulers in Conflict Prevention and Mediation in Nigeria:
Interim Report. Prepared for DFID, Nigeria Prepared for DFID, Nigeria. 51-60.
Schoeneberger, M.M. (2009).
Agroforestry: working trees for sequestering carbon in agricultural lands. Agroforestry Systems. 6(75): 27-37.
Sokoto
State Ministry of Information, Youths, Sports and Culture, (SSMIYSC) (2013).Sokoto State Diary.Sokoto State
printing press Sokoto.1-29.
Thangata,
P. H., and Alavalapati, J. R. R. (2003).
Agroforestry adoption in southern Malawi: the case of mixed intercropping of Gliricidiasepium and maize. Agricultural
System. 78(1): 57-71.
World
Bank.(2000). World Development
Report 2000. Oxford University Press, Oxford 68-69.
