ROLE OF BEEKEEPING IN POVERTY ALLEVIATION AMONG WOMEN IN KADUNA STATE

Transcription

1 ROLE OF BEEKEEPING IN POVERTY ALLEVIATION AMONG WOMEN IN KADUNA STATE ABSTRACT Ojo 1*, I. H., Omokore 1, D. F., Auta 2, S. J. and Hiikyaa 3, A. N. 1 Department of Agricultural Economics and Rural Sociology, Ahmadu Bello University, PMB 1044, Zaria, Nigeria. 2 National Agricultural Extension and Research Liaison Services, Ahmadu Bello University, Zaria, Nigeria. 3 Department of Agricultural Education, Federal College of Education, Zaria, Nigeria. Correspondence: helennvri@gmail.com; The study assessed the role of beekeeping in poverty alleviation among women in Kaduna State, Nigeria. One hundred and twenty eight women beekeepers were randomly selected from beekeeping extension society. Structured questionnaire and interview schedule were employed for data collection. Analytical tools employed were mean, percentages, mean per capita expenditure and Spearman s rho. Result showed that 74% of the beekeepers were within the age range of years, who are married with a mean household size of 9. The mean number of hives owned by the beekeepers was 12. Mean per capita expenditure of the beekeepers was N51,647, while the poverty line was N34,604. Poverty profile showed that 48% of the beekeepers were poor and income from beekeeping weakly alleviates poverty status of the beekeepers. The Spearman s rho correlation result showed that food, cloth and livestock respectively were positively correlated with income at 1% probability level. This implies that with increase income, the beekeepers ability to provide food, cloth and acquire livestock will increase. The study encourages beekeepers to increase production and process honeybee products into secondary products. Sales of secondary products will provide wider market, improve beekeepers earning and make beekeeping a better poverty alleviation strategy. INTRODUCTION Poverty is a global phenomenon, which affects continents, nations and people differently. It is multifaceted and has no single universally accepted definition (Barnes, 2010; Segun, 2010). Poverty can be regarded as the inability to adequately meet the basic human necessities, such as food, shelter, clothing and medical care (Ibrahim and Umar, 2008; IBRD, 2010). In Nigeria, poverty is a major contending force against the pace of development despite government initiatives through various programmes such as National Accelerated Food Production Programme, Operation Feed the Nation, Family Economic Advancement Programme, National Poverty Eradication Programme, among others. The poverty situation in Nigeria is quite disturbing to the extent that the country is now considered one of the 20 poorest countries in the world, as about 70% of the population is classified as poor, with 35% living in absolute poverty (Appah, 2010; National Bureau of Statistics, 2011). The concern over poverty and the need to alleviate it, is predicated on the fact that poverty is a social phenomenon with multifarious negative consequences such as hunger, malnutrition, disease, unemployment, destitution, increase in infant, child and maternal mortality rates, inability to provide basic needs or own assets. The most critical dimension of poverty is the lack of food (Central Bank of Nigeria, 2005). In Nigeria, studies (Eboh et al., 2006; Ayoola, 2009) have established that one of the major causes of poverty is the decline in agricultural productivity. Ojimba, (2012) found that poverty incidence spreads more with agricultural employment. In view of the high incidence of poverty in Nigeria and its scourge on the citizens, the search for sustainable forms of farming such as beekeeping has become imperative for economic emancipation of the lots of Nigerians that derive their main livelihood from agriculture. Beekeeping is the practice and management of honeybees in hives which leads to the production of valuable products such as honey, beeswax, propolis and bee pollen (Shu aib et al., 2009). It is a form of agriculture with an overwhelmingly positive impact on the natural environment. Beekeeping is also a valuable conservation tool that allows people to derive economic benefit from indigenous forests and other floral resources in a non-destructive way. Globally, honeybees play significant role in food production through pollination. About two-thirds of the crops used by humans for food production and majority of wild plant species depend on pollination by insects that are mostly bees and hoverflies. Crops pollinated by honeybees produce higher yields and better quality (Bee for development, 2012; Gidey and Kibrom, 2010). Honeybee produces many products that are used for food, medicine, and other purposes as part of subsistence livelihood strategy. Income from sales of honeybee products provides important safety net for resource-poor households, particularly when other income sources are unavailable. All these benefits play a critical role in poverty alleviation. It is against this background that this study was undertaken to assess the role of beekeeping in poverty alleviation among women. The specific objectives included description of socioeconomic characteristics of the women beekeepers in the study area, determination of their poverty line and the extent to which beekeeping has alleviated their poverty status. METHODOLOGY The study was conducted in Kaduna State using beekeeping extension society (BES). BES is a Non-Government Organization (NGO) based in Zaria, Kaduna State. Women in BES were purposively chosen for the study because NJAFE VOL. 12 No. 4,

2 of their active participation. Kaduna State is in the North-Western part of Nigeria. The State is located between latitude N and longitude 7 39 E. Annual rainfall is between 1500 mm and 2000 mm. A sample of 128 female beekeepers was selected from a sample frame of 256 using simple random sampling technique. Structured questionnaire and interview schedule were used for data collection. Data collected were analyzed using frequency, percentage, means, mean score, mean per capita expenditure (MPCE) and Spearman s rho correlation. Mean scores was used to determine beekeepers perception of the contribution of beekeeping to household basic needs and assets. Responses were measured on a 3 point (not at all, moderate and high for scores of 1, 2, and 3 respectively). A cut off point of 2 was used to determine whether beekeeping contributes to household basic needs and assets or otherwise. Responses of less than 2 implies that beekeeping did not contribute to household basic needs and assets while 2 and above implies that beekeeping did contribute to household basic needs and asset. Using income as a proxy for measure of poverty, poverty line was calculated based on two-thirds mean per capita household expenditure per adult equivalent concept. Adult equivalent was generated from Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) scale (Haughton and Khandker, 2009) and adopted as follows: AE = (N 1 1) + 0.5N 2... (1) Where AE = adult equivalent household size; N 1 = number of adult 15 years and above N 2 = number of children less than 15 years Therefore, mean per capita expenditure (MPCE) was calculated by MPCE=Total income for all beekeepers per annum Total AE for all beekeepers.... (2) From MPCE, poverty was categorized into non-poor and poor. The non-poor were households whose MPCE is equal or greater than 2/3 MPCE while the poor were households whose MPCE is less than 2/3 MPCE. Spearman s rho correlation was used to determine extent to which beekeeping has alleviated poverty status of the beekeepers and specified as follows: 2 Ƿ = 1 6 d i n(n 2 1) Ƿ = Spearman s rho coefficient; d=difference between the rank of x and y; y=accrued income from beekeeping; x= basic needs/assets; n=number of observation, 6 is a constant. A statistically significant correlation coefficient in the range of r = ± 0.10 to 0.29 is regarded as weak; r = ± 0.30 to 0.49 is regarded as moderate correlation and r = ±0.5 is regarded as strong correlation. RESULT AND DISCUSSIONS Socioeconomic characteristics of the beekeepers The socioeconomic characteristics of the beekeepers are presented in Table 1. Findings indicated that 20% of the beekeepers were between years whereas 33% were between the ages of years. The beekeepers that were within the age range of represented 21% while 26% were 39 years and above. A youthful age of years form a reasonable proportion cumulating to 74%, suggest that beekeeping is dominated by young females, and so their production should be relatively high. The mean number of hives owned by the beekeepers was 12. This show that majority of the beekeepers were small scale producers. Finding is supported by Ajao and Oladimeji, (2013) who found that majority of the beekeepers studied in Kwara State were small scale farmers. Result on marital status reveal that 77% of the beekeepers were married, with mean household size of 9 members. The household sizes of the beekeepers are large. Large household sizes especially with high percentage of dependents increases household poverty. Finding agrees with finding of Omonona, (2010) who reported that the larger the household size, the poorer the family. Result also indicated that 27% of the beekeepers had no formal education while 26%, 24% and 23% of the beekeepers had primary, secondary and post-secondary education respectively. This implied that the beekeepers are relatively educated and should be able to make rational decisions on issues that affect their households, especially standard of living. Quantity of honeybee products produced Findings on honeybee products produced by the beekeepers are presented in Table 2. Result indicated that 95.3% of the beekeepers produced < liters (L) of honey per annum with a mean of L. Majority (77%) of the beekeepers did not produce bee wax. Further analysis indicated that 9% of those that produce bee wax did not keep record of quantity produced. Finding also showed that 8% of the beekeepers produce <10kg of bee wax. Other beekeepers (4% and 2%) produce between 10-20kg and >20kg of bee wax respectively. Another 4% of the beekeepers produced pollen while 1% of the beekeepers produced propolis. The beekeepers had no record of quantity of both pollen and propolis produced. Furthermore, the two products were not sold. Finding suggests that apart from honey, beekeepers do not know the value of other honeybee products. It can also be inferred that NJAFE VOL. 12 No. 4,

3 beekeeping is underexploited as honeybee produces varieties of products that could significantly increase the economic benefits from beekeeping hence reduce poverty. Table 1: Distribution of beekeepers according to socioeconomic characteristics Table 2: Distribution of beekeepers based on honeybee production Socioeconomic Frequency Percentage Mean characteristics Age and above Number of hives and above 1 1 Marital status Single Married Widow 5 4 Divorced 2 2 Separated 4 3 Household size and above 2 2 Formal education None Primary Secondary Post-secondary Variables Frequency Percentage Mean Honey (L) < > Bee wax (kg) Did not produce Produce but not estimated 12 9 < > Pollen (kg) Did not produce Produce but not estimated 5 4 Propolis (kg) Did not produce Produce but not estimated 1 1 Table 3: Distribution of beekeepers based on income and poverty line estimate Adult equivalent household Frequency income per annum (N) < > Total USD per day 0.83 MPCE 51,647 2/3 MPCE 34,604 Category Poor Non-poor Total United State Dollar (USD) = N160 Percentage Income and poverty profile of the beekeepers Finding on adult equivalent household income of the beekeepers is shown in Table 3. It showed that majority (84.4%) of the beekeepers earned <N3,000 N100,000 per annum while the remaining 15.6% of the beekeepers earned more the N100,000 per annum. The mean per capita expenditure (MPCE) of N51,647 was obtained and discounted at the rate of N160/USD. This gave 0.83 dollar per day as at 2014 when the study was conducted. It therefore means that majority of the beekeepers can only provide each member of their household with 0.83 dollar per day. Result further showed that poverty line which is the two-third of the beekeepers MPCE was N34,604. Based on this poverty line, 48% of the beekeepers fell below the poverty line and were categorized as poor while 52% fell above the poverty line thus categorized as non-poor. Contribution of beekeeping to poverty alleviation Beekeepers perception on the contribution of beekeeping to basic household needs and asset acquisition were studied and results shown in Table 4. Results revealed that four (food, clothing, medical care and school fees) out of five perception statement on basic needs scored 2 and above and a grand mean of 2.07 was obtained. The implication of this result is that beekeeping has improved the beekeepers ability in meeting these basic needs hence it can be inferred that beekeeping has improve standard of living of the beekeepers. Ownership of assets such as land, livestock and houses serves as a surety and a fallback against transitory poverty because some of these assets could be sold to procure basic household needs in periods of temporary financial distress. Finding indicated that only one (livestock) out of four perception statements on asset scored 2.3 with grand mean of The grand mean implied that beekeeping has not improved the beekeepers ability to acquire assets. Finding is in consonant with Njuki et al. (2011) observation that women invest in food and child needs before they can make any investment in physical assets. Extent to which beekeeping has alleviated poverty status of the beekeepers Finding in Table 5 showed that food was positive and strongly correlated (r=0.89) with income while cloth was moderately correlated (r=0.29) with income. Both were significant at 1% probability level. This implied that food NJAFE VOL. 12 No. 4,

4 is one of the variables that take largest percentage of income obtained from beekeeping and followed by cloth. Finding agreed with Muriithi, (2015) that women ranked food and clothing as their first and second expenditure priorities for income obtained from vegetable sales. Livestock was also positive but moderately correlated to income (r=0.24) and implied that the beekeepers spent moderate amount of income obtained from beekeeping on acquiring livestock. Finding is supported by Oluwatayo and Oluwatayo, (2012) that livestock particularly small ruminant and poultry, are of economic importance to women farmers. Result further showed that land (r=0.15), saving (r=0.26) and house (r=0.27), respectively were weakly and negatively correlated with income. Implying that the more the income earned from beekeeping, the less the beekeepers spent on land, saving and house. The beekeepers expenditure on land and house decrease with increase in income probably because majority of them are married, who most of the time may not necessarily acquire land nor build house of theirs. Table 4: Beekeepers perception on household basic needs and asset Perception Statements Not at all Moderate High Mean score Food Clothing Basic needs Medical care Rent School fees Grand mean on basic needs 2.07 Land Asset acquisition Livestock Saving Houses Grand mean on acquisition 1.75 Medical care, school fee and rent were insignificantly correlated with income. The insignificant value for school fee was probably because of the relatively low educational level of the beekeepers, a situation which makes them rate education of their children as least of their expenditure priority due to their ignorance of the importance of education. The negative insignificant value of medical care with income can be attributed to apitherapy nature of honeybee products. Based on the weak (-0.27 to 0.29) coefficients of more of the significant explanatory variables considered in the study, it could be inferred that income from beekeeping weakly alleviate poverty status of the beekeepers. Table 5: Result of Spearman s rho correlation of extent to which beekeeping has alleviated poverty status of the beekeepers Variables r-value p value Remark Food 0.89** 0.00 S Cloth 0.29** 0.00 S livestock 0.24** 0.01 S Land -0.15* 0.04 S Saving -0.26** 0.00 S House -0.27** 0.00 S Medical care NS Rent NS School fees NS **p<0.01 (2 tailed) *p<0.05, S=Significant, NS= Not significant CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATION The study established that poverty is relatively high as 48% of the beekeepers fell below poverty line and beekeeping weakly alleviates poverty status of the beekeepers. The weak performance of beekeeping in alleviating poverty status of the beekeepers could be attributed to low output and income. All the beekeepers produce honey while only very few of the beekeepers produced bee wax, pollen and propolis. The study encourages beekeepers to increase production, produce other honeybee products aside honey and process them into secondary products such as candle, cream, soap, shoe polish. Sales of secondary products will provide wider market, improve beekeepers earning and invariably make beekeeping a better poverty alleviation strategy. REFERENCE Ajao, A. M. and Oladimeji, Y. U Assessment of contribution of apicultural practices to household income and poverty alleviation in Kwara State, Nigeria. International Journal of Science and Nature, 4(4): NJAFE VOL. 12 No. 4,

5 Appah, E Appraisal of poverty alleviation among local artisans in Adamawa State: A study of National Poverty Eradication Programme in Yola, Nigeria. International Journal of Economic and Development, Issues 9:46-47 Ayoola, G. B Prodigies of agricultural economy and policy. An inaugural lecture, University of Agriculture, Makurdi. Inaugural lecture series No. 9 Barnes, A Poverty eradication, millennium development goals and sustainable development in Nigeria. Journal of Sustainable Development, 3(4): Bee for Development, Press release on apiculture, Ethiopia. Central Bank of Nigeria, Statistical bulletin report, 16, CBN, Nigeria, Abuja. Eboh, E. C., Larsen, B., Oji, K. O., Achike, A. I., Ujah, O. C., Odu, M., Uzochukwu, S. A. and Nze C. C. P Renewable natural resources, sustainable economic growth and poverty reduction in Nigeria. African Institute of Applied Economics Research Paper 1, Enugu. Gidey, Y. and Kibrom, F Beekeeping for rural development: Its potentiality and constraints in Eastern Tigray Northen Ethiopia. Agricultural Journal, 5 Issues 3: Haughton, J. H. and Khandker, R Measuring poverty. World Bank Publications 2. Ibrahim, H. and Umar. H. S Determinants of poverty among farm households in Nasarawa State, Nigeria. 4:11-21 IBRD, Poverty estimates for developing world. World Bank Updates: World Bank Geneva, Switzerland. Muriithi, B. W Smallholder horticultural commercialization: Gender roles and implications for household well-being in Kenya. Paper presented at international conference of agricultural economists, Milan, Italy, August 8-14, National Bureau of Statistics, Annual socio-economic survey: Nigeria poverty profile report. Njuki, J., Kaaria, S., Chamunorwa, A. and Chiuri, W Linking smallholder farmers to markets, gender and intra-household dynamics: Does the choice of commodity matter and quest. European Journal of Development and Research, 23: Ojimba, T. P Socio demographic factors as determinant of poverty in crude oil polluted crop farms in River State. International Journal of food and Agricultural Economics, 1(1):13-25 Oluwatayo, I. B. and Oluwatayo, T. B Small ruminants as a source of financial security: A case study of women in Rural Southwest Nigeria. IMTFI Working paper Omonona, B. T Quantitative analysis of rural poverty in Nigeria. Segun, O Galloping poverty in Nigeria: An appraisal of the government s interventionist policies. Journal of Sustainable Development in Africa, 12(6): Shu aib, A. U., Kyiogwom, U. B. and Baba, K. M Resource use efficiency of modern beekeeping in selected Local Governments Areas of Kano State, Nigeria. Proceedings of the 23rd Annual National Conference of Farm Management Society of Nigeria, held at Usman Danfodio University, Sokoto Nigeria. 14th-17th December, 2009: NJAFE VOL. 12 No. 4,