The study focused on the impacts of climate change on the farmer and the farming families in Niger Delta Region of Nigeria. The study specifically evaluated the perceived resultant situations attributed to climate change to determine the extent of impacts of climate change on the farmer and the farming families and also explored adoptable strategies for coping with the situations. The study adopted descriptive survey research design. Two research questions and two hypotheses guided the study. The population for the study was 246,909 respondents made up of farmers and extension workers who are registered with the State Ministries of Agriculture. Out of the nine Niger Delta states, Bayelsa and Delta states were randomly chosen for the study. Proportionate stratified random sampling technique was used to select a sample size of 5,038 respondents. Structured questionnaire and interview were used to collect data. The instruments were validated by three experts. Cronbach Alpha method was used to determine the internal consistency of the questionnaire items which yielded a coefficient of 0.81. The Statistical Product and Service Solutions (SPSS v 20.0) was employed for data analysis. The statistical tools used for data analysis were weighted mean to answer research questions and standard deviation to validate the closeness of the respondents from the mean and from each other in their responses while t-test was used to test the null hypotheses. The findings of the study revealed that the extent of impacts of climate change on farmers and the farming families in Niger Delta region of Nigeria are moderate. Findings further revealed that climate change has led to increased poverty level and raised cost of production (input and labour cost) as indicated by the farmers. The study recommends that farmers in the region should be encouraged by providing incentives and subsidizing inputs for them by Federal and State governments as well as other non-governmental organizations, as this will go a long way in improving production especially as most farmers agree to continue cultivation even with the observed impacts.
The environmental changes attributable to climate change are known to have direct and/or indirect effects on farmers thus on agricultural production in any region. Agriculture, for its numerous ecosystem services, has been an important component of human society. Agriculture generates revenue for the government at the federal, state and local levels and as well serves as a means of livelihood by providing employment for farmers, marketers and processors of agricultural products. Like many countries, agriculture is a major sector of Nigeria’s economy, engaging over 70% of labour force and contributing about 40% to Gross Domestic Product [
Niger Delta region of Nigeria is densely populated and occupies about 12% of the total land mass of Nigeria with a land area of about 70,000 km2 out of which 2,370 km2 consist of rivers, creeks and estuaries, while stagnant swamp covers about 8,600 km2 [
The major human related cause of climate change is the increase of Green House Gases (GHG) in the atmosphere resulting from gas flaring, fossil burning and deforestation arising from clearing of land for agricultural and industrial uses, in addition to other human activities that have led to increased concentrations of GHG especially carbon IV oxide (CO2) [
Drought, floods, severe weather and other effects of climate change have begun to threaten communities in many parts of the world. Sickness and death due to diseases such as diarrhea are projected to increase in East, South, and Southeast Asia as a result of expected alteration in the hydrological cycle and decrease in freshwater availability particularly in large river basins [
Africa is one of the most vulnerable continents to face climate change because of multiple existing stress and low adaptive capacity [
Climate change in the Niger Delta region has led to flooding, scorching temperature, change in rainfall pattern, coastal erosion, occasions of acid rain and increased water salination. Flooding in the region (between July and October 2012) forced rivers to overflow their banks and submerged hundreds of thousands of acres of farmland, led to destruction of buildings and blockage of transportation routes in the region [
Extreme storm events are likely to increase failure of floodplain protection as well as damage urban drainage and sewage systems [
The potential to adjust in order to minimize negative impacts and maximize any benefits from climate change is known as adaptive capacity [
Developed and developing countries alike are working hard to find solutions to the effects of climate change, as the impacts vary in extent and nature. In order to address the resulting impacts, adaption practices should lay emphasis on community interest to encourage sustainable development. It is suggested that adaptation strategies will be more successful if they are identified and presented to local users for vetting to ensure their consistency with local priorities, norms, goals and institutions [
Strategies aimed at adapting crop farming to climate change include adjusting planting and harvest dates, changing varieties grown, increasing water, fertilizer, herbicide and pesticide use and enhancing drainage systems [
Research Questions:
1. To what extent has climate change impacted on farmers and the farming families in the Niger Delta region?
2. What strategies can be adopted to alleviate the impacts of climate change on agricultural production to favour farmers and the farming families in the Niger Delta region of Nigeria?
Hypotheses:
H01: There is no significant difference in the mean ratings of farmers and extension workers on the extent to which climate change has impacted on farmers and the farming families in the Niger Delta region.
H02: There is no significant difference in the mean ratings of farmers and extension workers on the strategies that can be adopted to alleviate the impacts of climate change on agricultural production to favour farmers and the farming families in the Niger Delta region of Nigeria.
The study was carried out to determine the extent to which climate change has impacted on the farmer and the farming families in agricultural production in Niger Delta region of Nigeria. The study also presented available adaptation strategies as being suggested by various authors for testing of conformity with rural farmers, following the view that environmental knowledge and resilience to climate change lay within societies and cultures. The study which span from November 2012 to May 2014 adopted descriptive survey research design and was carried out in the Niger Delta region of Nigeria. The region which is located in the Southern part of Nigeria is made up of 9 states, namely: Abia, Akwa-Ibom, Bayelsa, Cross River, Delta, Edo, Imo, Ondo and River. Bayelsa and Delta were randomly chosen for the study. The population for the study was 246,909, made up of farmers (67,551 + 179,256 = 246,807) and extension agents (12 + 90 = 102) who are registered with the State Ministries of Agriculture in (Bayelsa + Delta) states, respectively. The farmers and the extension agents were involved in the study because they have experienced the perceived impacts of climate change and bear firsthand information for answering the research questions of this study.
Proportionate stratified random sampling technique was used to select 2 percent (4,936) of the farmers from each local government areas (strata) in both state, while all the extension agents (102) from both state were utilized due to their manageable size. Thus the total sample size for the study was 5,038 respondents. The instruments for data collection were structured questionnaire and interview developed from literature reviewed for the study. The use of the questionnaire was to generate quantifiable data while the interview was to enable the respondents to elaborate their view on each item and as well to state the nature of perceived impacts. The instruments were divided into two sections, each section corresponding to the research questions of the study. Each item in the first section of the questionnaire instrument had a four point response options of High Extent (HE), Moderate Extent (ME), Low Extent (LE) and No Extent (NE) while the second section had Strongly Agree (SA), Agree (A), Disagree (D) and Strongly Disagree (SD) and were all weighted 4, 3, 2 and 1 respectively. Three experts validated the instruments: one from Agricultural Development Programme (ADP) at Delta state Ministry of Agriculture and Natural resources and two lecturers from Agricultural Education Unit at the Department of Vocational Teacher Education, University of Nigeria, Nsukka. The reliability of the questionnaire instrument was established using Cronbach Alpha method and a co-efficient of 0.81 was obtained. The researchers with the help of 5 research assistants went around the geographical area of the study and physically administered and collected the completed instruments from contact respondents (see Appendix A) who were available to respond to the instruments. The administration of the instrument was done in bit with the researchers and the assistants covering a carved out area within a period of time through repeated visits. Out of the 5,038 copies of both instruments administered, 3,214 copies (representing about 64 percent of the total copies) were successfully retrieved. However, only 2,922 copies were duly completed and found useful for data analysis. The Statistical Product and Service Solutions (SPSS v 20.0) was employed for data analysis. The statistical tools used for data analysis were weighted mean to answer research questions and standard deviation to validate the closeness of the respondents from the mean and from each other in their responses while t-test was used to test the null hypotheses. The observation for the items for each research question was explained using real limit of number of the mean as follows:
In taking decisions for research question 1; any item with a mean value ranging from 3.50 - 4.00, 2.50 - 3.49 or 1.50 - 2.49 was interpreted as high, moderate or low extent of impact, respectively while any item with a mean value below 1.50 (0.50 - 1.49) was interpreted as no extent, meaning climate change has no perceived impact on the item. With reference to research question 2; any item with a mean value ranging from 3.50 - 4.00, 2.50 - 3.49 or 1.50 - 2.49 was regarded as strongly agreed, agreed or disagreed respectively, while any item with a mean value ranging from 0.50 - 1.49 (mean values below 1.50) was regarded as strongly disagreed. For the hypotheses:
If p ≤ a value at t value, then there is significant difference (S) in the compared means thus the decision was to reject the stated null hypothesis.
But if
p ≥ a value at t value, then there is no significant difference (NS) in the compared means thus the decision was to not reject but uphold the stated null hypothesis.
Where p is the *Sig (2-tailed) value of t-calculated,
a = 0.05 (significant level) and,
t is the t-test score (t-calculated).
The structured interview was analyzed qualitatively.
The results of the study is presented in Tables 1 and 2, and discussed according to research question and hypothesis.
Research Question 1: To what extent has climate change impacted on farmers and the farming families in the Niger Delta region?
Average response of the farmers indicated that the impacts of climate change on two items (No. 10 and 14) is to a high extent (HE) as their mean values fell between 3.50 - 4.00 real limit of number. Impacts on nine items (No. 3, 4, 6, 9, 12, 13 and 15 - 17) were to a moderate extent (ME) as their means were within 2.50 and 3.49, while impacts were to a low extent (LE) on four items (No. 5, 7, 8 and 11) as their means ranged from 1.50 to 2.49. Two items (No. 1 and 2) were not affected by climate change as their mean values were below 1.50 (0.50 - 1.49) thus climate change had no extent (NE) of impact. Responses from extension workers revealed that impacts were to a high extent (HE) on one item (No. 14) as its mean value was 3.53 which fell within 3.50 - 4.49. Impacts were to a moderate extent (ME) on eleven items (No. 3 - 10, 12, 13 and 15) as their means fell between 2.50 and 3.49. Four items (No. 1, 2, 16 and 17) experienced low extent of impact as their means values were within 1.50 and 2.49 while one item (No. 11) was not affected by climate change as its mean was 1.09 which was below 1.50 (0.50 - 1.49) thus climate change impacts were insignificantly.
On average response of farmers and extension workers, one item (No. 14) was highly (HE) impacted as its mean value was 3.74 which fell within 3.50 - 4.00 real limit of number. Impacts were to a moderate extent (ME) on fourteen items (No. 3 - 10, 12, 13 and 15 - 17) as their means fell within 2.50 and 3.49. Three items (No. 1, 2 and 11) had low extent of impact as their means were between 1.50 and 2.29. In summary, the extent of impact of climate change on farmers and the farming families in the Niger Delta region of Nigeria is to a moderate extent (ME) as indicated by the average mean response (2.68) of both farmers and extension workers. The standard deviation of all the items ranged from 0.11 - 1.54 with an average value of 1.03; indicating that the respondents were close to the mean and to one another in their responses.
The information from the structured interview complemented the data from the questionnaire as presented on
There was no significant difference (S) in the opinions of farmers and extension workers in twelve items (No. 1 - 5, 7 - 9, 11 - 13 and 15) as indicated in the data presented on
n1 = 2829 | n2 = 93 | NT = 2922 | |||||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
S/N: Effects on the farmer and the farming families | Respondents | Avg. Resp. | H01 | ||||||||||||
Farmers | Ext. Workers | ||||||||||||||
SD | Dec | SD | Dec | SD | Dec | t | *Sig | R | |||||||
1. Water availability for irrigation | 1.17 | 1.09 | NE | 2.09 | 1.18 | LE | 1.63 | 1.14 | LE | 2.253 | 0.025 | S | |||
2. Drying up of ponds and streams | 1.19 | 1.15 | NE | 2.07 | 0.98 | LE | 1.63 | 1.07 | LE | 3.752 | 0.000 | S | |||
3. Pollution of clean water sources | 3.42 | 0.89 | ME | 3.32 | 1.01 | ME | 3.37 | 0.95 | ME | 6.413 | 0.000 | S | |||
4. Increased risk of sickness | 2.52 | 1.11 | ME | 3.07 | 1.13 | ME | 2.80 | 1.12 | ME | −3.917 | 0.000 | S | |||
5. Spread of disease | 2.38 | 0.97 | LE | 3.04 | 1.06 | ME | 2.71 | 1.02 | ME | −5.733 | 0.000 | S | |||
6. Damage to buildings | 2.70 | 1.19 | ME | 2.94 | 1.16 | ME | 2.82 | 1.18 | ME | 1.339 | 0.120 | NS | |||
7. Damage to roads and bridges | 2.41 | 0.97 | LE | 3.02 | 1.09 | ME | 2.72 | 1.03 | ME | 6.087 | 0.000 | S | |||
8. Roof damage by acid rain | 2.15 | 1.00 | LE | 2.96 | 1.20 | ME | 2.56 | 1.10 | ME | −8.139 | 0.000 | S | |||
9. Drainage system damage | 2.87 | 1.12 | ME | 3.02 | 1.00 | ME | 2.95 | 1.06 | ME | 6.159 | 0.007 | S | |||
10. Difficulty in making ends meet (Poverty level) | 3.51 | 1.15 | HE | 3.22 | 1.01 | ME | 3.37 | 1.08 | ME | 0.817 | 0.570 | NS | |||
11. Loss of live (mortality rate) | 2.41 | 0.95 | LE | 1.89 | 1.23 | NE | 2.15 | 1.09 | LE | 2.699 | 0.000 | S | |||
12. Change in rainfall pattern affecting historical patterns of cultivation | 2.54 | 1.08 | ME | 2.94 | 1.11 | ME | 2.74 | 1.10 | ME | 9.195 | 0.000 | S | |||
13. Hotter environment leading to heat stress | 2.58 | 0.99 | ME | 3.04 | 0.94 | ME | 2.81 | 0.97 | ME | 4.591 | 0.000 | S | |||
14. Flooding of houses, farmland and animal houses | 3.95 | 0.11 | HE | 3.53 | 0.74 | HE | 3.74 | 0.43 | HE | 0.508 | 0.611 | NS | |||
15. Nature and difficulty of work done on the farm | 2.75 | 0.97 | ME | 2.93 | 1.20 | ME | 2.84 | 1.09 | ME | −6.915 | 0.000 | S | |||
16. Cost of production (input and labour cost) | 3.39 | 0.76 | ME | 2.26 | 1.54 | LE | 2.83 | 1.15 | ME | 1.953 | 0.144 | NS | |||
17. Net profit from farming | 2.94 | 0.92 | ME | 2.34 | 1.08 | LE | 2.64 | 1.00 | ME | 1.786 | 0.163 | NS | |||
Cluster Value | 2.64 | 0.97 | ME | 2.80 | 1.10 | ME | 2.72 | 1.03 | ME | 1.344 | 0.096 | NS | |||
Note: Dec—Decision; Avg. Resp.—Average Response; High Extent (HE = 3.50 - 4.00); Moderate Extent (ME = 2.50 - 3.49); Low Extent (LE = 1.50 - 2.49); No Extent (NE = 0.50 - 1.49); p = *Sig (2-tailed); R—Remark; NS—Non Significant; S—Significant.
their opinions was not significant (NS). The null hypothesis of no significant difference of the items with remark NS was upheld as p-value is greater than the a-value (p ≥ a) at the t-calculated value of the items.
At the cluster level, p = 0.096 and t = 1.344 while a = 0.05. Thus the null hypothesis (H01) of no significant difference was not rejected but upheld as p ≥ a.
Research Question 2: What strategies can be adopted to alleviate the impacts of climate change on agricultural production to favour farmers and the farming families in the Niger Delta region of Nigeria?
Farmers strongly agreed (SA) to two items (No. 19 and 20, as their mean values were 3.62 and 3.51 respectively which fell within 3.50 - 4.00 real limit of numbers) as suitable adaptation strategies for coping with the impacts of climate change in the region. As indicated in
On average response of farmers and extension workers, one item (No.20) was strongly agreed (SA) to as a coping strategy having an average mean of 3.66 which fell between 3.50 - 4.49 real limit of number, while they agreed (S) to twenty-four items (No. 1 - 7, 9 - 11, 13 - 19 and 21 - 26) as their means ranged from 2.50 to 3.49. Average response of the farmers and the extension workers however disagreed (D) to the remaining three items (No. 8, 12 and 28) as their means fell within 1.50 and 2.29. In summary, for the coping strategies as indicated in
n1 = 2829 | n2 = 93 | NT = 2922 | ||||||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
S/N: Suggested Adaptation Strategies | Respondents | Avg. Resp. | H02 | |||||||||||||
Farmers | Ext. Workers | |||||||||||||||
SD | Dec | SD | Dec | SD | Dec | t | *Sig | R | ||||||||
1. Using improved crop varieties and animal breed | 3.16 | 0.98 | A | 3.17 | 0.89 | A | 3.17 | 0.89 | A | 0.885 | 0.151 | NS | ||||
2. Change planting/stocking time | 2.89 | 0.92 | A | 3.35 | 0.79 | A | 3.12 | 0.86 | A | 1.598 | 0.111 | NS | ||||
3. Use of mulching materials for crops and shades for animals | 3.25 | 1.10 | A | 3.06 | 1.07 | A | 3.16 | 1.09 | A | 6.413 | 0.000 | S | ||||
4. Using early maturing plants/animals | 2.70 | 0.88 | A | 2.96 | 1.15 | A | 2.83 | 1.02 | A | 2.341 | 0.020 | S | ||||
5. Using nursery for transplantable crops | 2.75 | 1.10 | A | 2.60 | 1.29 | A | 2.68 | 1.20 | A | 3.585 | 0.000 | S | ||||
6. Mix cropping | 2.77 | 0.98 | A | 3.13 | 1.01 | A | 2.95 | 1.00 | A | 3.580 | 0.000 | S | ||||
7. Practicing land and/or crop rotation | 2.56 | 1.00 | A | 2.96 | 1.08 | A | 2.76 | 1.04 | A | 9.494 | 0.000 | S | ||||
8. Planting deeper than the usual planting depth to prevent scorching | 1.92 | 0.99 | D | 3.01 | 1.08 | A | 2.47 | 1.04 | D | 1.692 | 0.072 | NS | ||||
9. Intensive fertilizer/manure application for crop production | 2.72 | 1.06 | A | 2.99 | 0.92 | A | 2.86 | 0.99 | A | 2.229 | 0.026 | S | ||||
10. Change of harvesting date | 2.93 | 1.03 | A | 3.13 | 0.98 | A | 3.03 | 1.01 | A | 4.993 | 0.000 | S | ||||
11. Expansion of farming land | 2.54 | 0.98 | A | 2.93 | 1.05 | A | 2.74 | 1.02 | A | 3.793 | 0.000 | S | ||||
12. Sand filling water logged area to reclaim lost land | 2.28 | 1.14 | D | 2.65 | 1.16 | A | 2.47 | 1.15 | D | 1.947 | 0.058 | NS | ||||
13. Switching to intensive management of livestock | 2.72 | 0.90 | A | 3.20 | 0.79 | A | 2.96 | 0.85 | A | 5.507 | 0.000 | S | ||||
14. Skipping storage to processing and marketing immediately affect harvest | 2.95 | 1.05 | A | 3.33 | 0.93 | A | 3.14 | 0.99 | A | 3.882 | 0.000 | S | ||||
15. Changing from production of agriculture to marketing | 2.29 | 0.99 | D | 3.02 | 1.14 | A | 2.66 | 1.07 | A | 6.794 | 0.000 | S | ||||
16. Sinking of boreholes in farm to ensure water availability/artificial irrigation | 2.12 | 1.18 | D | 3.13 | 1.07 | A | 2.63 | 1.13 | A | 6.234 | 0.000 | S | ||||
17. Collection of runoff water in ditches for drought periods | 2.92 | 1.01 | A | 3.05 | 1.28 | A | 2.99 | 1.15 | A | 9.658 | 0.000 | S | ||||
18. Switching to fish farming rather than fishing | 2.77 | 0.91 | A | 3.06 | 1.11 | A | 2.92 | 1.01 | A | 3.058 | 0.002 | S | ||||
19. Construction of foot bridges with wood, stones and sand bags | 3.62 | 1.04 | SA | 2.75 | 1.27 | A | 3.19 | 1.16 | A | -1.986 | 0.024 | S | ||||
20. Raising walls with sand bags and/or blocks to divert flood water | 3.51 | 0.71 | SA | 3.81 | 0.98 | SA | 3.66 | 0.85 | SA | 1.551 | 0.112 | NS | ||||
21. Construction of drainage system or dam within farm/household | 2.75 | 0.90 | A | 2.89 | 1.17 | A | 2.82 | 1.04 | A | 1.831 | 0.052 | NS | ||||
22. Establishment and creation of food grain reserves at farm and community levels for safe-keeping and storage of harvested produce | 3.01 | 0.87 | A | 2.86 | 0.91 | A | 2.94 | 0.89 | A | 3.422 | 0.051 | NS | ||||
23. Subsidizing of agricultural inputs by relevant authorities | 3.38 | 0.86 | A | 3.23 | 0.83 | A | 3.31 | 0.85 | A | -1.605 | 0.076 | NS | ||||
24. Setting up of housing programmes for displaced farmers | 2.61 | 0.92 | A | 2.96 | 1.11 | A | 2.79 | 1.02 | A | 3.604 | 0.000 | S | ||||
25. Resettlement of communities from hazard zones | 2.59 | 0.98 | A | 3.18 | 0.91 | A | 2.89 | 0.95 | A | 3.627 | 0.000 | S | ||||
26. Giving the affected farmers financial support | 3.18 | 0.99 | A | 3.27 | 0.88 | A | 3.25 | 0.94 | A | 1.229 | 0.207 | NS | ||||
27. Vaccinating against diseases | 3.02 | 1.08 | A | 3.16 | 0.82 | A | 3.09 | 0.95 | A | 1.912 | 0.046 | S | ||||
28. Change profession entirely | 1.76 | 1.06 | D | 2.92 | 1.24 | A | 2.34 | 1.15 | D | -1.713 | 0.068 | NS | ||||
Cluster Value | 2.77 | 0.99 | A | 3.14 | 0.98 | A | 3.01 | 0.96 | A | 3.198 | 0.038 | S | ||||
Note: Dec—Decision; Avg. Resp.—Average Response; Strongly Agreed (SA = 3.50 - 4.00); Agreed (A = 2.50 - 3.49); Disagreed (D = 1.50 - 2.49); Strongly Disagreed (SD = 0.50 - 1.49); p = *Sig (2-tailed); R—Remark; NS—Non Significant; S—Significant.
The standard deviation of all the items responded to by farmers ranged from 0.71 - 1.18; indicating that the farmers were not far from the mean and from one another in their responses. While that of the extension workers ranged from 0.79 to 1.29; indicating that the extension workers were not far from their means and from one another in their responses.
The information from the structured interview complemented the data from the questionnaire as presented on
Data presented on
At the cluster level, p = 0.038 and t = 3.198 while a = 0.05. T-test has indicated a statistically reliable difference in the opinions of the respondent farmers and extension workers. Thus the null hypothesis (H02) of no significant difference is rejected as p ≤ a.
Niger Delta like most coastal low lying regions of the world is constantly faced with flooding of various degrees. However, due to increased and varying extent of precipitation attributable to climate change, the occurrence of flooding has increased with rivers and oceans easily overflowing their banks. This was observed in the 2012 flooding that impacted negatively on agriculture in the region. The flood ravaged farmlands, storage buildings and farmers houses. Climate change seems to have impacted to a low extent on water availability for irrigation as well as drying up of ponds and streams. This finding is true to the region as artificial irrigation is seldom practiced and increased precipitation has ensured constant supply of water to ponds and streams. This view is supported by [
Climate change has impacted negatively but moderately on most farming families though with some farmers reporting that the extent of impact is slightly high on cost of production (input and labour cost) as well as on net profit from farming thus impacting on poverty level of farmers in the region. This finding is in agreement with that of [
Findings of the study revealed that significant difference does not exist between the mean responses of the farmers and the extension workers on the perceived impacts of climate change on farmers and the farming families in the region, as indicated by t-test. Any observed difference is not a statistical difference, but a mere chance which could have resulted from sampling error.
The farmers and the extension workers strongly agreed to construction of foot bridges with wood, stones and sand bags as a coping strategy mainly due to its affordability and suitability and not waiting for government and foreign aid. This strategy is really in use in the region to divert flood water and create walk ways.
The respondents disagreed with planting deeper than the usual planting depth as a coping strategy likely due to the specified planting depth for various crops. If the depth is increased beyond the required, the plants may not germinate well (and die in the ground suffering the same fate as scorched germination) or results to scanty germination as some of the seedlings may not successfully pass through the increased depth to germinate. Sand filling water logged area to reclaim lost land seems to be an expensive and tedious practice as a coping strategy for an indigent farmer. Trips of sand to fill the vast water logged area could cost the farmer a fortune he may not be able to afford. This is the explanation given by majority of the respondents as to why they disagreed with this option as a coping strategy. For changing profession entirely, most farmers interviewed revealed that “farming is all they know and for the elderly, it is already late to change profession”.
The farmers disagreed to changing from production of agriculture to marketing due to the vital role of local farmers as producers. On further inquiry using the interview, the farmers simply reply “if everyone switches to marketing, who will do the production for supplies to be marketed?” For artificial irrigation as an alleviating strategy, most farmers in the region are too poor to own boreholes in their farms. The region being a coastal one does record high occasion of rainfall in a planting cycle. This was explained as the reason why most crop farmers in the region practice rain-fed agriculture. This view is supported by [
The farmers and the extension workers agreed to most of the suggested coping strategies. These findings are favoured by the views of many authors such as [
The opinion of the farmers and the extension workers is at variance with each other, may be due to varying degree of education, awareness and experience in farming as well as their geographical location.
Findings of this study served as a premise for making the following conclusions:
· The perceived extent of impacts of climate change on farmers and the farming families in the region were moderate.
· The opinion of the farmers and the extension workers on the perceived impacts of climate change on farmers and the farming families in the region is similar for extent of impacts but differ for coping strategies.
· Flood is a major threat to sustainable agriculture and livelihood in the region.
· Poverty level is on the rise as a result of low net profit from agriculture caused by the negative impacts of climate change in the region.
Implications of the FindingsThe results of this study have provided empirical evidence of the extent of impacts of climate change on farmers and the farming families in the Niger Delta region of Nigeria, and it is moderate. This will provide guide to the government and relevant authorities on the extent of help and information to be giving to the farmers to encourage production in the region. Most of the farmers reported that poverty level is on the rise. There is therefore the need for the government to re-assess the poverty level in the region or the country at large to provide current index.
Opinion of the farmers and the extension workers is at variance with each other on coping strategies. This is an indication that the farmers and the extension workers are information apart thus requiring re-orientation of the farmers and/or the extension workers in the region to generate and spread unified, teachable and adoptable strategies to combat the felt impacts of climate change in the region, in Nigeria and beyond.
Based on the findings of this study, the following recommendations have been proffered:
· Extension workers should be continuously trained and educated on current information about climate change and sent out to enlighten the farmers. This will enable them to update and synchronize ideas and strategies with the farmers.
· Farmers in the region should be encouraged by providing incentives and subsidizing inputs for them by Federal and State government as well as other non-governmental organizations. This will go a long way in improving production especially as most farmers agree to continue cultivation even with the observed impacts.
· Most crop farmers in the region practice rain-fed agriculture. With the altered rainfall pattern the farmers are unable to effectively predict the trend. Thus it is necessary for the government and other relevant authorities to constantly provide weather information such as rainfall distribution ahead of time to help the farmers plan. The information can be made available and updated through the extension workers, radio and/or television broadcasts.
Distribution of the Respondents (n = 2922).
Note: a = No Formal Education; b = Not Very Educated; c = Higher Education.