Indigenous Agricultural Adaptation to
Climate Change: Study of Southeast
Nigeria
African Technology Policy Studies Network

RESEARCH PAPER | No. 6
Anselm A. Enete
Ignatius I. Madu
Josephat C. Mojekwu
Anthony N. Onyekuru
Elizabeth A. Onwubuya
Fidelis EzeIndigenous Agricultural Adaptation to Climate
Change: Study of Southeast Nigeria

Anselm A. Enete
Department of Agricultural Economics,
University of Nigeria, Nsukka

Anthony N. Onyekuru
Department of Agricultural Economics,
University of Nigeria, Nsukka,

Ignatius I. Madu
Department of Geography,
University of Nigeria, Nsukka,

Elizabeth A. Onwubuya
Department of Agricultural Extension,
University of Nigeria, Nsukka,

Josephat C. Mojekwu
Anambra State FADAMA III Project,
ADP Headquarters Complex,
Awka, Anambra State, Nigeria

Fidelis Eze
No. 114A Ogurugu Road,
Nsukka, Enugu State, Nigeria.

The African Technology Policy Studies Network (ATPS) is a multidisciplinary network of researchers, private sector actors andpolicy makers promoting the generation, dissemination, use andmastery of science, technology and innovation (ST&I) for African
development, environmental sustainability and global inclusion.
ATPS intends to achieve its mandate through research, capacity
building and training, science communication/dissemination andsensitization, participatory multi-stakeholder dialogue,knowledge brokerage, and policy advocacy.
Published by the African Technology Policy Studies Network
P O Box 10081, 00100 GPO Nairobi Kenya
2011

Published by the African Technology Policy Studies Network

ISBN: 978-9966-030-00-9

Table of Contents
Acknowledgement

4

Abstract

5

1.

Introduction

6

2.

Study Methods

9

3.

Review of Related Literature

11

4.

Results & Discussions

18

5.

Conclusion

26

References

27

Tables32

Indigenous Agricultural Adaptation to Climate Change: Study of Imo and Enugu States in Southeast Nigeria | 3

Acknowledgement
This paper was produced as part of the implementation of the African Technology Policy Studies
Network (ATPS) Phase VI Strategic Plan, 2008-2012 funded by ATPS Donors including the
Ministerie von Buitenlandse Zaken (DGIS), the Netherlands, Rockefeller Foundation, amongst
others. The authors hereby thank the ATPS for the financial and technical support during theimplementation of the program. The Authors particularly thank the ATPS Climate Sense Program
Director, Dr. Kevin Urama (ATPS), and the program coordinators including Prof. Francis Mutua(ATPS Kenya), Dr. George Owusu Essegbey (Council for Scientific and Industrial Research (CSIR),
Ghana, Prof. Eric Eboh (ATPS Nigeria), Dr. Nicholas Ozor (ATPS), and Ms Wairimu Mwangi (ATPS)
for their technical support during the research process.

4 | Indigenous Agricultural Adaptation to Climate Change: Study of Imo and Enugu States in Southeast Nigeria

Abstract
Climate change has direct impact on agricultural production, because of the climate-dependent
nature of agricultural systems. This impact is particularly significant in developing countries where
agriculture constitute employment and income sources for the majority of the population. This
project was aimed at promoting understanding of the most cost-effective and sustainable
indigenous climate change adaptation practices in southeast Nigeria. The study was conducted in
two randomly selected states of the region namely Imo and Enugu, and in four randomly selected
agricultural zones, two from each state. The data was analyzed using descriptive and relational
statistics and tools. The result of the analysis shows that In the face of extreme weather events
occasioned by climate change, and apparently because of its tolerance to these conditions,cassava, has become the dominant food crop in the area. Virtually all the respondents reported that
extreme weather events and uncertainties in the onset of farming season have been on theincrease. In addition, they were also aware of the effect of climate change on agriculture, but were
not aware that some agricultural practices could exacerbate climate change. In general, it wasreported that uncertainties in onset of farming season and extreme weather events weresignificantly higher for Imo than for Enugu state. However, the overall impact (farm yield andincome) was significantly higher for Enugu than for Imo state. This is perhaps attributable to the factthat Enugu State has a drier weather; being closer to the North, and hence inherent insufficient rainwater for maximum crop yield.
The biggest effect of climate change in the region was reduced farm yield and income, drying up of
streams/rivers, reduction in storage quality of crops, loss of pastureland/vegetation and destructionof wildlife ecosystem. Some of the coping strategies adopted by the farmers with a relatively highprofitability index include multiple/intercropping, agro-forestry/aforestation, mulching,purchase/harvest of water for irrigation and use of resistant varieties. The major factors identified tobe driving farmers' investment in adaptation practices were age, level of formal education and levelof awareness of climate change issues. The major factors constraining them from adapting toclimate change were poverty; farmland scarcity and inadequate access to more efficient inputs,
lack of information and poor skills, land tenure and labour constraints. The findings underscore theneed for farmers' education, awareness creation, poverty alleviation and increased access to more
efficient inputs as potent tools for climate change adaptation in the area.

Indigenous Agricultural Adaptation to Climate Change: Study of Imo and Enugu States in Southeast Nigeria | 5

1. Introduction
1.1
Background information and Problem Statement
Climate change is perhaps the most serious environmental threat facing mankind worldwide. It
affects agriculture for instance in several ways, one of which is its direct impact on food production.
Climatic change, which is attributable to natural climate cycle and human activities, has adversely
affected agricultural productivity in Africa (Ziervogel et al. 2006). As the planet warms, rainfall
patterns shift, and extreme events such as droughts, floods, and forest fires become more frequent(Zoellick 2009), which results in poor and unpredictable yields, thereby making farmers more
vulnerable, particularly in Africa (UNFCCC, 2007). Farmers (who constitute the bulk of the poor in
Africa), face prospects of tragic crop failures, reduced agricultural productivity, increased hunger,
malnutrition and diseases (Zoellick 2009). It is projected that crop yield in Africa may fall by 10-20%
by 2050 or even up to 50% due to climate change (Jones and Thornton, 2003), particularly because
African agriculture is predominantly rain-fed and hence fundamentally dependent on the vagaries
of weather. As the people of Africa strive to overcome poverty and advance economic growth, thisphenomenon threatens to deepen vulnerabilities, erode hard-won gains and seriously undermine
prospects for development (WBGU 2004, Zoellick 2009).. There is therefore the need for concerted
efforts toward tackling this menace.
Much of climatic change agricultural research has tended to concentrate on assessing thesensitivity of various attributes of crop systems (e.g. crop/livestock yields, pest, diseases, weedsetc) - the bio-physical aspects of food production, with little or no regard to the socioeconomic
aspects. These partial assessments, most often consider climatic change effects in isolation,
providing little insight into the level of awareness of the farmers on the issue, what and how they are
doing to cope with climate change, etc. To better address the food security concerns that are
central to economic and sustainable development agenda, it is desirable to also address these
aspects of climate change and agriculture. Wisner et al (2004) reports that the vulnerability ofagriculture is not determined by the nature and magnitude of environmental stress like climatechange per se, but by the combination of the societal capacity to cope with and/or recover fromenvironmental change.
While the coping capacity and degree of exposure is related to environmental changes, they areboth also related to changes in societal aspects such as land use and cultural practices. This could
be at the root of the much talked about poverty alleviation and food security for the vulnerable
6 | Indigenous Agricultural Adaptation to Climate Change: Study of Imo and Enugu States in Southeast Nigeria

groups in Africa, who are most at risk when agriculture is stressed by climate change, as noted
before. In addition, there is need for increased awareness, teaching, learning and research by
Universities and Research Institutes so as to develop a multi-pronged capacity to tackle thisimminent danger which is slowly eroding the gains of the fight against starvation, hunger andpoverty among farming communities in Africa. This project aims to provide the most cost-effective
and sustainable indigenous climate change adaptation practices in southeast Nigeria.
1.2
(I)
(ii)
(iii)
(iv)
;(v)
(vi)
(vii)

The Objectives of the Study
Examine the awareness of climate change and its link with agriculture among farmers in
the area;
Identify the activities of farmers that contribute to climate change in the area;
Examine the patterns of climate change impact on agriculture in the area;
Identify the indigenous adaptation practices used by farmers in the area
Estimate the costs and returns of these adaptation practices;
Identify factors influencing the adoption of these adaptation strategies in the area; andIdentify the problems encountered by farmers in adapting to the effects of climate change.

1.3
Study Justification
The agrarian rural poor are the target group of this study as they are at the receiving end of climatechange impact. This is because they are the people most exposed to the risks involved, as they bear
the burden of losses in agricultural productivity. With appropriate cost effective adaptation practices
in place, the vulnerability of these farmers to climate change will be minimized. The findings will
therefore bring about increased outputs for farmers and hence enhanced income and reduced
poverty.
The findings will also be beneficial to researchers and academics because it will provide them with(i) improved capacity to deal with issues of climate change and agriculture; (ii) opportunities forfurther research in the area and linkages with colleagues, institutions and civil society organizations
working in the area. This is because, outside the research team, other academics will be involved in
the conferences and workshops to review the findings of the research and disseminate the results.
Moreover, the scientific publications that will arise from the study will also be directed at theacademic/research community.
Young professionals will also gain immensely from the study. For instance, the research team has
one graduate student member. The study has therefore not only improved his knowledge of thesubject matter, but also exposed him to practical research training including proposal writing.
Moreover, the improved capacity of the academics as noted above is also expected to enrich theirclassroom teaching on the subject, hence improved knowledge for the larger students on climatechange and agriculture.
The study will also particularly be beneficial to the research team in the areas of knowledge
acquisition/capacity enhancement, linkages and networking opportunities, publications for
professional growth, relevance and visibility.
The finding will be highly beneficial to the NGOs for evidence based policy advocacy and public
Indigenous Agricultural Adaptation to Climate Change: Study of Imo and Enugu States in Southeast Nigeria | 7

awareness creation on climate change adaptation and mitigation. This is because the information
provided by the study will not only make their (the NGOs) message in this area focused but also
garnished with concrete evidence on what the situation on ground is. In this way, their climatechange activities will be more relevant and with the desired impact of building the support of themasses, government and donor agencies, for sustainable adaptation practices, policy initiatives
and further research funding in the area.
Africa already has her hands filled with a lot of crises, such that we need to all work together toensure that policy makers map out strategies to tackle climate change. This can only be possible
with facts from research. This research therefore hopes to equip policy makers with the needed
information for appropriate legislation regarding agricultural adaptation to climate change.

8 | Indigenous Agricultural Adaptation to Climate Change: Study of Imo and Enugu States in Southeast Nigeria

2. Study Methods
2.1
The Study Area
Southeast Nigeria is located within Longitudes 5o 30I&9o 30I E and Latitudes 4o 30I &7o 00I N. It
occupies a land area of 75,488Km2. and comprises nine states namely Abia, Akwa Ibom, Anambra,
Bayelsa, Cross River, Ebonyi, Enugu, Imo, and Rivers. These states fall into two geopolitical zones
in Nigeria namely the south-south and southeast. While, Akwa Ibom, Bayelsa, Rivers and Cross
River are in the south-south, Abia, Anambra, Ebonyi, Enugu and Imo are in the southeast. The
region has a total population of 31,371,941 and an average population density of 416 persons per
square kilometer. This average however conceals the true picture of population pressure in theregion as Okafor (1991) noted that a prima facie evidence of population pressure has been
established and that the region stands out prominently on maps of Sub- Saharan Africa showing
population distribution and high crude densities. Similarly, Madu (2005) has shown that populationpressure is the most important problem of rural development in the region. The effects of populationpressure in the area have been recognized in a broad spectrum of livelihood activities such as
intensive agriculture, engagement in non-farm activities and migration.
2.2
Sampling Procedure and Data Collection
This study was done in southeast geo-political zone, comprising Abia, Anambra, Ebonyi, Enugu
and Imo. The zone is particularly vulnerable to ecological problems, especially soil erosion in all
forms (Ofomata 1985, Oti, 2002); two states were randomly selected from these for the study. These
were Enugu and Imo states. In each selected state, two agricultural zones were then randomly
selected. These were Owerri and Okigwe in Imo state and Enugu and Nsukka in Enugu state. In
each agricultural zone and with the assistance of the extension services Department, farming
communities were compiled, from which two communities were randomly selected making a totalof eight communities for the study. These were Ugwuene in Agwu and Amaechi in Nkanu, all in
Enugu agricultural zone; Umualumo in Okigwe and Okwe in Onuimo, all in Okigwe agriculturalzone; Ovoko and Akpa-Edem, in Nsukka agricultural zone; Amaigbo and Okpuala in Owerri
agricultural zone. In each selected community, a list of farm households was compiled, also with theassistance of extension agents, from which fifty farmers were randomly selected, bringing the total
sampled respondents to four hundred for the study. The data collected include status of awarenessof climate change and its link with agriculture, crops grown, animals kept, land use practices that
could exacerbate climate change, effects of climate change on the farmers' farm activities, theircoping strategies, estimated costs and returns of these strategies, problems encountered incoping with climate change, etc.
Indigenous Agricultural Adaptation to Climate Change: Study of Imo and Enugu States in Southeast Nigeria | 9

2.3
Data Analysis
Objectives (i), (ii), (iv) and parts of (iii) were achieved using descriptive statistics, the other part ofobjective (iii) was achieved using t-test. Objective (v) was achieved using partial budgeting
technique, while objectives (vi) and (vii) were achieved using Ordinary Least Squares regression
analysis and factor analysis respectively; while (viii) will be realized using training, workshops,
seminars and publications. Format for the partial budgeting: For each adaptation practice, the total
positive impacts, comprising of added returns and reduced costs were summed. In addition, thetotal negative impacts, comprising of added costs and reduced returns were also added up. The
later was then subtracted from the former to make the net returns from the practice.
Multiple Regression
A multiple regression analysis involving the use of Ordinary Least Square (OLS) estimation
technique was used to determine the effect of household socio-economic variables on the farmer's
level of investment in climate change adaptation practices. The implicit form of the regression
model used was:Y = f(X1, X2, X3, X4, X5, X6,X7,X8,X9) + U ……………( 1)
Where Y = Amount of money invested in adaptation practices (N)X1 = Age of farmer (years)
X2 = Gender of farmer (1, if male, 0 otherwise)
X3 = Level of education (years)
X4 = average annual return from the adaptation practices (N)X5 = Average annual income from farming (N)X6=Farm size (ha)X7=Household size (number of persons)
X8= whether climate change affects agriculture (1 if yes, 0 otherwise)
X9= whether farming contributes to climate change (1 if yes, 0 otherwise)
U = Error term.
The Exploratory Factor Analysis
Exploratory factor analysis procedure was employed to identify the major problems encounteredby farmers in adapting to the effects of climate change. The problems enumerated by the
respondents were grouped using principal component analysis with iteration and varimax rotation.
The model is represented as:
Y1 = a11X1 + a12X2 + * * *+ a1nXn
Y2 = a21X1 + a22X2 + * * * + a2nXn
Y3 = a31X1 + a32X2 + * * * + a3nXn
* =
*
* =
*
* =
*
Yn = an1X1 + an2X2 + * * + annXn
Where: Y1, Y2, …, Yn = observed variables / constraints to adaptation; a1 – an =constraint
loadings or correlation coefficients.
X1, X2, … Xn = unobserved underlying problems constraining farmers from adapting to climatechange.

10 | Indigenous Agricultural Adaptation to Climate Change: Study of Imo and Enugu States in Southeast Nigeria

3. Review of Related Literature
3.1
Awareness of Climate Change and Link with Agriculture
The awareness of climate problems and the potential benefits of taking action is important
determinant of adoption of agricultural technologies (Hassan and Nhemachena, 2002). Maddison(2006) argued that farmer awareness of change in climate attributes (temperature andprecipitation) is important to adaptation decision making. For example, Araya and Adjaye (2001)
and Anim (1999) stated that farmers awareness and perceptions of soil erosion problem as a resultof changes in climate, positively and significantly affect their decisions to adopt soil conservation
measures. It is expected that improved knowledge and farming experience will positively influence
farmers' awareness and decision to take up adaptation measures. Improved education anddisseminating knowledge is an important policy measure for stimulating awareness and local
participation in various development and national resource management initiatives (Anley, Bogale
and Haile-Gabriel, 2007, Tizal 2007). Farming experience improves awareness of change inclimate, the potential benefits and willingness to participate in local natural resource managementof conservation activities. However, Maddison (2006) stated that educated and experienced
farmers have more knowledge and information about climate change and agronomic practices thatthey can adopt in response.
3.2
Activities of Farmers that Contribute to Climate Change
Climate change is a natural process but recent trends related to climate change are alarming
mainly due to anthropogenic reasons (Khanal, 2009). Agriculture is an important contributor ofgreenhouse gas emissions at the global scale. According to World Bank (2008), agriculture
contributes about half of the global emissions of two of the most potent non-carbon dioxidegreenhouse gases: nitrous oxide and methane. FAO (2008) reported that agriculture contributes
over 20% of global anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions.
The ongoing build up of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere is prompting shifts in climate acrossthe globe that will affect agro-ecological and growing conditions. Application of fertilizers, rearing of
livestock and related land clearing are some agricultural activities that influence both levels ofgreenhouse gases in the atmosphere and the potential for carbon storage and sequestration(Mark, et al. 2008). The report of World Bank (2008) also showed that the use of livestock manure,nitrogenous fertilizers, irrigated paddy, burning of biomass and ruminant's centric fermentation andanimal waste treatment are responsible for producing most agricultural nitrous oxide and methane
Indigenous Agricultural Adaptation to Climate Change: Study of Imo and Enugu States in Southeast Nigeria | 11emissions. International Federation of Organic Agriculture Movement (IFOAM) (2007) highlighted
that conventional agricultural activities of farmers contribute to climate change because it: (a) uses
synthetic fertilizers and pesticides that require significant amount of energy to manufacture; (b)applies excessive amounts of nitrogen fertilizer that is released as nitrous oxide; (c operates
intensive livestock holdings that overproduce manure and methane; (d) relies on external soybased animal feeds that require the burning of huge amount of fuel that releases carbon monoxide
to the atmosphere creating climatic problems; (e) mines the earth of the nutrients needed to sustain
production thereby leading to the clearing of rainforest and slash and burn techniques that reducecarbon storage and release huge amounts of carbon dioxide from burning vegetation.
As a result, it is of interest to stakeholders in the agricultural sector to understand the kinds of impact
their agricultural activities will have on sustainable food and crop production due to effect of climatechange (Mark et al. 2008) There will undoubtedly be shifts in agro-ecological conditions that will
warrant changes in processes and practices and adjustments in widely accepted truths in order tomeet daily food requirements.
3.3
Patterns of Climate Change Impact on Agriculture
The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, IPCC's Fourth Assessment Report summary for
Africa describes a trend of warming at a rate faster than the global average, and increasing aridity(see Text Box). Climate change exerts multiple stresses on the biophysical as well as the social andinstitutional environments that underpin agricultural production (IPCC, 2007). That is, socioeconomic factors, international competitions, technological development as well as policy choices
will determine the pattern and impact that agro-climatic changes will have on agriculture (Brussel,2009). In all, Khanal (2009) classified the patterns of impact of climate change on agriculture into
biophysical and socio-economic impact. The biophysical impacts include; physiological effects oncrop and livestock, change in land, soil and water resources, increased weed and pest challenges,
shifts in spatial and temporal distribution of impacts, sea level rise and changes to ocean salinity andsea temperature rise causing fish to inhabit in different ranges. The socio-economic impacts result
in decline in yield and production, reduced marginal GDP from agriculture, fluctuation in world
market price, changes in geographical distribution of trade regime, increased number of people atrisk of hunger and food insecurity, migration and civil unrest. According to Khanal (2009), thepatterns of the effects of climatic change are however dependent on latitude, altitude, type of cropgrown and livestock reared. Mark et al. (2008) highlighted some of the direct impacts of climatechange on agricultural system as: (a) seasonal changes in rainfall and temperature, which could
impact agro-climatic conditions, altering growing seasons, planting and harvesting calendars,water availability, pest, weed and disease populations; (b) alteration in evapotranspiration,
photosynthesis and biomass production; and (c ) alteration in land suitability for agricultural
production; Some of the induced changes are expected to be abrupt, while others involve gradualshifts in temperature, vegetation cover and species distributions. However, when looking criticallyon plant production, the pattern of climate change has both positive and negative impacts. Rises intemperature for example helps to grow crops in high altitude areas and towards the poles. In theseareas, increases in temperature extend the length of the potential growing season, allowing earlier
planting, early harvesting and opening the possibility of completing two crop cycles in the same
season (Khanal, 2009). The warmer conditions support the process of natural decomposition oforganic matter and contribute to the nutrient uptake mechanisms. The process of nitrogen fixation,
12 | Indigenous Agricultural Adaptation to Climate Change: Study of Imo and Enugu States in Southeast Nigeria

associated with greater root development is also predicted to increase in warmer conditions andwith higher CO2, if soil moisture is not limiting (FAO, 2007). The increased CO2 levels lead to a
positive growth response for a number of staples under controlled conditions also known as the
carbon fertilizations effect (Mark et al. 2008). But when temperatures exceed the optimal level forbiological process, crops often respond negatively with a steep drop in net growth and yield.
Khanal (2009) stated that heat stress might affect the whole physiological development, maturationand finally reduces the yield of cultivated crop. The negative effects on agricultural yields will be
exacerbated by more frequent weather events. For example, Brussel (2009) stated that risingatmospheric CO2 concentration, higher temperatures, changes in annual and seasonal
precipitation patterns and in the frequency of extreme events will affect the volume, quality, quantity,
stability of food production and the natural environment in which agriculture takes place. Climatic
variations will have consequences for the availability of water resources, pest and diseases andsoils leading to significant changes in the conditions for agriculture and livestock production. In
extreme cases, according to Brussel (2009), the degradation of agricultural ecosystems could
mean desertification, resulting in a total loss of the productive capacity of the land in question. Thisis likely to increase the dependence on food importation and the number of people at risk of famine.
The developing world already contends with chronic poverty and food crisis. The estimate for Africa
is that 25-42% of species habitat could be lost, affecting both food and non-food crops (Khanal2009). Habitat change is already underway in some areas, leading to species range shifts andchanges in plant biodiversity which include indigenous foods and plant-based medicines. FAO(2007) reported that up to 11% of arable land could be highly affected by climatic change in thedeveloping world. There will be a reduction of cereal production in 65 countries and retardation of
about 16% of agricultural GDP. A decrease of up to 30% in world food production due to effects ofclimate change on agriculture is generally predicted (IPCC 2007).
In Africa, climate change is expected to, and in some parts, it has already begun to, alter the
dynamics of drought, rainfall and heat waves, and trigger secondary stresses such as the spread ofpests, increased competition for resources, the collapse of financial institutions, and attendantbiodiversity losses. Predicting the impact of climate change on complex biophysical and socioeconomic systems that constitute agricultural sectors is difficult. In many parts of Africa it seems
that warmer climates and changes in precipitation will destabilize agricultural production.
This is expected to undermine the systems that provide food security (Gregory et al., 2005). Whilst
farmers in some regions may benefit from longer growing seasons and higher yields, the generalconsequences for Africa, as reported in Text Box below, are expected to be adverse, andparticularly adverse for the poor and the marginalized that do not have the means to withstandshocks and changes. Evidence from the IPCC suggests that areas of the Sahara are likely toemerge as the most vulnerable to climate change by 2100 with likely agricultural losses of between
2 and 7% of affected countries GDP. Western and Central Africa are expected to have losses ranging
from 2 to 4% and Northern and Southern Africa are expected to have losses of 0.4 to 1.3%
(Mendelsohn et al., 2000). Maize production is expected to decrease under possible increased (ElNino-Southern Oscillation (ENSO) conditions which are expected in southern Africa (Stige et al.,2006).

Indigenous Agricultural Adaptation to Climate Change: Study of Imo and Enugu States in Southeast Nigeria | 13

A South African study undertaken by the University of Pretoria and focusing at the provincial level,
found a significant correlation between higher historical temperatures and reduced dryland staple
production, and forecast a fall in net crop revenues by as much as 90% by 2100. The study foundsmall-scale farmers to be worst affected by the decrease.
Text Box: Key attributes of the IPCC's Fourth Assessment Report for Africa

Warming is very likely to be larger than the global annual mean warming throughout the continent and inall seasons, with drier subtropical regions warming more than the moister tropics.
Annual rainfall is likely to decrease in much of Mediterranean Africa and the northern Sahara, with a greater
likelihood of decreasing rainfall as the Mediterranean coast is approached.
Rainfall in southern Africa is likely to decrease in much of the winter rainfall region and western margins.
There is likely to be an increase in annual mean rainfall in East Africa.
It is unclear how rainfall in the Sahel, the Guinean Coast and the southern Sahara will evolve.
Source: Christensen et al. 2007, p.850
A Nigerian study applied the Erosion Productivity Impact Calculator (EPIC) crop model to give
projections of crop yield during the 21st century. The study modeled worst case climate change
scenarios for maize, sorghum, rice, millet and cassava (Adejuwon, 2006). The indications from the
projections are that, in general, there will be increases in crop yield across all low land ecologicalzones as the climate changes during the early parts of the 21st century. However, towards the end of
the century, the rate of increase will tend to slow down. This could result in lower yields in the lastquarter than in the third quarter of the century. The decreases in yield could be explained in terms ofthe very high temperatures which lie beyond the range of tolerance for the current crop varieties andcultivars. An Egyptian study compared crop production under current climate conditions with thoseprojected for 2050, and forecast a decrease in national production of many crops, ranging from
–11% for rice to –28% for soybeans (Eid et al., 2006). Other potential impacts linked to agriculture
include erosion that could be exacerbated by expected increased intensity of rainfall and the crop
growth period that is expected to be reduced in some areas (Agoumi, 2003). Changes are also
expected in the onset of the rainy season and the variability of dry spells (Reason et al., 2005).
Thornton et al., (2006) mapped climate vulnerability with a focus on the livestock sector. The areas
they identified as being particularly prone to climate change impacts included arid-semiarid
rangeland and the drier mixed agro-ecological zones across the continent, particularly in Southern
Africa and the Sahel, and coastal systems in East Africa. An important point they raise is that macrolevel analyses can hide local variability around often complex responses to climate change.
3.4
Indigenous adaptation practices used by farmers
Adaptation is an adjustment made to a human, ecological or physical system in response to aperceived vulnerability. Specifically, IPCC (2001) described adaptation to climate change as
14 | Indigenous Agricultural Adaptation to Climate Change: Study of Imo and Enugu States in Southeast Nigeria

adjustment in natural or human systems in response to actual or expected climatic stimuli and theireffects which moderates harm or exploits beneficial opportunities. Adaptation is an importantcomponent of climatic change impact and vulnerability assessment and is one of the policy options
in response to climatic change impacts (Smith and Lenhart, 1996, Fankhauser 1996). Adaptation toclimatic change is therefore critical and of concern in developing countries, particularly in Africa
where vulnerability is high because ability to adapt is low (Hassan and Nhemachena 2008). In
agriculture, adaptation helps farmers achieve their food, income and livelihood security objectives
in the face of changing climatic and socio-economic conditions including climatic variability,
extreme weather conditions such as droughts and floods and volatile short term changes in local
and large-scale markets (Kandlinkar and Risbey, 2000). Farmers can reduce the potential damage
by making tactical response to these changes.
According to Brussel (2007) adaptive measures to climatic change in agriculture range fromtechnological solutions to adjustments in farm management or structures and to political changes
such as adaptation plans. Barry and Mark (2002) categorized agricultural adaptation options into
technological development, government programmes and insurance; farm production practices,and farm financial management. The first two categories are principally the responsibility of publicagencies and agri-business and adaptation here could be thought of as system-wide or macroscale. The last two categories mainly involve farm level decision making by farmers. In the short run,autonomous farm level adaptation may be sufficient but in the longer run, adaptation in the form oftechnological and structural changes will be necessary. This will require planned strategies basedon analysis of local and regional conditions (Brussel 2002)
At farm level, the practice of organic agriculture is one of the most important measures foradaptation to climate change by farmers. Organic agriculture according to IFOAM (2007) is aholistic production management system which enhances agro-ecosystem health, utilizing bothtraditional and scientific knowledge. It prevents nutrient and water loss through high organic matter
content and soil covers, thus making soils more resilient to floods, drought and land degradation
processes. In organic agriculture, soil fertility is maintained mainly through farm internal inputs(organic manures, legume production, wide crop rotation), rejection of energy demanding
synthetic fertilizers and plant protection agents with less or no use of fossil fuel (FAO 2008).
The process of organic agriculture, being a holistic approach in climatic change adaptation can beclassified as two major kinds of modification in the production systems: (a) increased diversificationand (b) protecting sensitive growth stages by managing the crops to ensure that these criticalstages do not coincide with very harsh climatic conditions such as mid-season droughts (Hassan
and Nkemechena 2008). Under these two modification techniques according to the authors, theadaptation strategies farmers perceive as appropriate include crop diversification using different
crop varieties, varying the planting dates, harvesting dates, increasing the use of irrigation,
increasing the use of water and soil conservation techniques, shading and shelter, shortening thelength of the growing season and diversifying from farming to non-farming activities.
Some strategies that serve as an important form of insurance against rainfall variability are:increasing diversification by planting crops that are drought tolerant and/or resistant to temperaturestresses, taking full advantage of the available water and making efficient use of it, and growing a
Indigenous Agricultural Adaptation to Climate Change: Study of Imo and Enugu States in Southeast Nigeria | 15

variety of crops on the same plot or on different plots, thus reducing the risk of complete crop failure
since different crops are affected differently by climate changes (Benhin, 2006). Such farm-level
adaptations aim at increasing productivity and dealing with existing climatic conditions and draw
on farmers' knowledge and farming experience. Kurukulasurya and Rosental (2003) noted that the
short-term adaptation measures for climate change by farmers include crop insurance for risk
coverage, crop/livestock diversification to increase productivity and protection against diseases,
adjusting the timing of farm operations to reduce risks of crop damage, change crop intensity andadjust livestock management to new climatic conditions, food reserves and storage as temporary
relief, changing cropping mix, permanent migration to diversify income opportunities, defining land
use and tenure rights for investments. On a long term note, the authors stated the following as best
adaptation options for climate change: development of crop and livestock technology adapted toclimate change stress, develop market efficiency, irrigation and water storage expansion, efficientwater use, promoting international trade, improving forecasting mechanisms, institutional
strengthening and decision-making structures.
Brussel (2009) highlighted the possible short to medium term adaptation practices to changes inclimate by farmers to include: (i) adjusting the timing of farm operations such as planting or sowing
dates and treatments; (ii) technical solutions such as protecting overheads from frost damage or
improving ventilation and cooling systems in animal shelters; (iii) choosing crops and varieties
better adapted to the expected length of the growing season and water availability and moreresistant to new conditions of temperature and humidity; (iv) adapting crops with the help ofexisting genetic diversity and new possibilities offered by biotechnology; (v) improving theeffectiveness of pest and disease control through for instance better monitoring, diversified crop
rotations, or integrated pest management methods; (vi) using water more efficiently by reducing
water losses, improving irrigation practices and recycling or storing water; (vii) improving soil
management by increasing water retention to conserve soil moisture and landscape management
such as maintaining landscape features providing shelter to livestock; (viii) introducing more heattolerant livestock breeds and adapting diet patterns of animals under heat stress conditions.
Individually or the combination of these adaptation practices by farmers have substantial potential
to counterbalance adverse climatic changes and to take advantage of positive ones.
3.5

Problems Encountered By Farmers in Adapting to Effects of Climate
ChangeRecognizing, most especially the negative impacts of climate change on agriculture, farmers as
victims of these impacts continuously try out some adaptation strategies to reduce the effects onyields and farm income. However, in carrying out adaptation measures to reduce the effects ofclimate variations on agricultural production, the farmers encounter some obvious challenges orproblems. Mark et al. (2008) argued that a lack of adaptive capacity due to constraints on resources
like access to weather forecasts or better seed varieties may result in further food insecurity. The
result of a study conducted by Centre for Environmental Economics and Policy in Africa across
African countries showed that lack of access to credit or saving, water, appropriate seeds, securityof property rights, market access and lack of adequate information about climate change are someof the major problems encountered by farmers in adapting to the effects of climate change (CEEPA,
2006). According to Deresso (2008), the analysis of barriers to adaptation to climate change in the
16 | Indigenous Agricultural Adaptation to Climate Change: Study of Imo and Enugu States in Southeast Nigeria

Nile basin of Ethiopia indicates that there are five major constraints to adaptation by farmers. These,as reported by the author are lack of information, lack of money, shortage of labour, shortage ofland and poor potential for irrigation. CEEPA (2006) added that farm size, tenure status, level of
education of the farmers and access to extension service are major determinants of speed
adoption of adaptation measures to climate change.
Most of the problems or constraints encountered by farmers in adaptation to climate change areassociated with poverty (Deressa 2008). For instance, lack of information to adaptation options
could be attributed to the fact that research on climate change and adaptation options have notbeen strengthened in the country and thus information is lacking in the area. Lack of money hinders
farmers from getting the necessary resources and technologies which assist in adapting to climatechange. Adaptation to climate change is costly (Mendelson, 2004) and this cost could be revealed
through the need for intensive labour use. Thus, if farmers do not have sufficient family labour or thefinancial capacity to hire labour, they cannot adapt to climate change. Shortage of land has been
associated with high population pressure. High population pressures forces farmers to intensively
farm over a small plot of land and make them unable to conserve from further damages by practices
such as planting trees which competes for agricultural land. According to FAO (1997), poor
irrigation potential can most probably be associated with the inability of farmers to use the alreadyexisting water due to technological incapability. Most African farmers are resource poor and cannot
afford to invest on irrigation technology to adapt to climate change in order to sustain theirlivelihood during harsh climate extremes such as drought which often causes famine.

Indigenous Agricultural Adaptation to Climate Change: Study of Imo and Enugu States in Southeast Nigeria | 17

4. Results & Discussion
4.1
Socioeconomic Characteristics of Respondents
Majority (69%) of the respondents were male heads of households, while about 31% of them were
women heads of households. Nweke and Enete (1999) made similar observation across six
countries of sub-Saharan Africa. Bukh (1979) reported that men are most often the heads ofhouseholds in Africa. They were aged about 52 years on the average with the oldest being 90 years
and the youngest being 25 years. This suggests that the farmers were within the economically
active age of below 60 years. This is contrary to the expectation that as a result of rural-urban
migration, farming has been left to the very old. However, with the current high rate ofunemployment, young people may have been resorting to farming. Their average years of farming
experience was 28 years with the most and least experienced farmer having 60 and 5 years
respectively. Majority (74%) of the respondents were married while the remaining 26% were
distributed between Single (8%), divorced (3%) and separated (15%).
About 23% of the respondents had no certificate to show for their level of education, while majority(26%) had First School Leaving Certificate. About 25% of them had secondary school certificate,
10% had Ordinary National Diploma, 10% had first degree, 1% had Master degree while another 5%
had other certificates. On the average, the respondents had about 10 years of formal education.
This is in line with the above observation that unemployment may have driven educated young
people back to the farm.
The average household size was about six persons with a minimum of one person and a maximumof 18 persons per household. Farming was the major occupation for 67% of the respondents while
2% reported that they were artisans as major occupation. Those who were traders were about 9% of
the respondents while 22% were public servants. This is not surprising as the study was targeted atfull time farmers. However, one is surprised at the high number of the respondents who were public
servants, but with the eroding purchasing power of the average public servant as a result of inflation,
farming is usually used to compliment the family's income..
Crop farming was the predominant activity for about 55% of the respondents. The remaining
percentage was shared between livestock farming (5%) and mixed farming (40%). Crop is generally
the most popular farming activity in the country, particularly in the Southeast.

18 | Indigenous Agricultural Adaptation to Climate Change: Study of Imo and Enugu States in Southeast Nigeria

4.2
Crops and Animals Grown/Reared In the Area
The first most important food crop in the area was cassava, as ranked by 64% of the respondents(table 1). Cassava is not only a major staple but also a major source of farm income for the Nigerian
farmers (Nweke 1996). And compared to other crops, cassava is the most resistant to extreme
weather events. It is therefore most often described as a hardy crop and may in this sense be themost adaptable crop to climate variations (Enete 2003). Benhin (2006) reports that one of thestrategies which serve as an important form of insurance against rainfall variability is increasing
diversification by planting crops that are drought tolerant and/or resistant to temperature stresses.
Cassava was followed by Yam and Cocoyam with about 23% and 4% respectively of the
respondents ranking them as the first most important crop. Yam is the second most important root
crop after cassava, especially in southeast Nigeria, where there is generally an annual celebration
in honour of the crop. This was followed by vegetables as ranked by 3%, maize and rice by 2% and
1% respectively, Oil palm by 1% and other unspecified crops ranked by 2% of the respondents as
the first most important crop. From the second to the fourth most important crops, the respondents
just listed variations of the above crops, hence discussions were limited to the first most importantcrop.
In terms of livestock reared in the area, 50% of the respondents' ranked goat as the first mostimportant domesticate animal (table 1). About 38% ranked poultry, 6% ranked sheep, 5% ranked
pig, while 1% each ranked Cattle and fish as the first most important animal reared in the area. Fromthe second through the fourth most important animals in the area, the respondents also listed
various combinations of the above animals.
4.3
Awareness of Climate Change and Its Link with Agriculture
The respondents were asked whether they have heard of climate change before. About 96% ofthem responded in the affirmative (table 2). This suggests a high level of awareness of the subject
matter in the area. The awareness of climate problems and the potential benefits of taking action is
an important determinant of adoption of agricultural technologies (Hassan and Nhemachena,2002). Maddison (2007) argued that farmer awareness of change in climate attributes (temperatureand precipitation) is important to adaptation decision making. For example, Araya and Adjaye(2001) and Anim (1999) reported that farmers awareness and perceptions of soil erosion problem
as a result of changes in climate, positively and significantly affect their decisions to adopt soil
conservation measures. On the source of information, majority (36%) of the respondents indicatedthat they heard from friends, about 26% of them heard from Extension workers, 24% fromradio/television, 2% from researchers, 1% from farmers' cooperatives, while 6% heard from othersources not specified in the survey instrument (table 2).
Similarly, on the question of whether climate change will affect agriculture, the respondents
overwhelmingly (97%) said yes. Most governments in Nigeria already have agencies charged withenvironmental issues including climate change and they most often sensitize the people throughthe radio and television. This may explain the high level of awareness of the respondents.
However, majority (52%) of the respondents do not agree that farming contributes to climatechange. The responses to these questions suggest that the farmers were aware of climate change
and its effect on agriculture, but were unaware that some of their agricultural practices could
Indigenous Agricultural Adaptation to Climate Change: Study of Imo and Enugu States in Southeast Nigeria | 19

exacerbate climate change. This underscores the need for educating the farmers on theconsequences of some of their actions. However, FAO (2000) reports that although climate change
affects agriculture and vice versa, a lot of uncertainties pervade each step of the logic from
economic activity to climate change.
4.4
Patterns of Climate Change Effects on Agriculture
The respondents were asked to indicate the direction of change (increasing, decreasing, nochange) of some climate change variables. The information collated from the field survey show(table 3) that those associated with uncertainties in the onset of farming season, except heavy/long
period of rainfall and no/reduced hamattan, have all been increasing as indicated by majority of the
respondents. These are unusual early rains that are not sustained, erratic rainfall, delay in the onsetof rain, long period of dry season, less rainfall, long period of hamattan and higher temperature. The
two exceptions are to be expected as all the other indices show predominance of dry periods.
For the variables associated with extreme weather events, responses from majority of the
respondents indicate (table 3) that heavy winds, drought and decreasing soil moisture have beenon the increase. This agrees with the above observation on the predominance of indices of dry
periods associated with uncertainties in the onset of farming season. The respondents however
suggest that thunderstorm, heat waves, desertification and loss of forest resources have shown nochange, while floods, heavy rainfall and soil erosion have been decreasing.. This is surprisingbecause, the indices of dry periods discussed above are supposed to drive the later variables in thesame direction, particularly for heat waves, which should be driven by the higher temperature as
noted above. We note however that the information being solicited from these individual farmers,
who keep no records, concerns more general weather change (and not farm specificcharacteristics) spanning over ten year period. There is therefore bound to be some elements of mix
up here and there. The inconsistency was further confirmed by looking at their ranking of the extent
to which climate change was contributing to the changes. The variable with the highest mean was
thunderstorm, which they earlier indicated above as having shown no change.
The information from our pilot survey/FGD was more consistent and realistic because the farmers
were brought together in a group, where they discussed at length before arriving at a conclusion.
We therefore adapt that result for this section. The information from that survey showed that those
associated with uncertainties in the onset of farming season, except heavy/long period of rainfall,and extreme weather events, except long harmattan, have all been increasing as indicated bymajority of the respondents. These include early rains that are not sustained, erratic rainfall, delay inthe onset of rain, long period of dry season, thunderstorms, heavy winds, intense heat wave and soon. This was also the same trend for pests, diseases, weeds and signals of land degradation suchas declining soil fertility and drying up of steams/rivers. Science in Africa (2007) observed that theeffects of these extreme weather events and uncertainties in the onset of rainy season on agriculture
are particularly more pronounced in the developing world. The elements of climatic change that
affects agricultural productivity includes prolonged drought, thunderstorms, flooding of crops
fields, erosion of fertile soil, landslides and falling of tender crop such as maize by wind (Magadza,
2000). The two exceptions are to be expected as all the other indices show predominance of dry
periods, accompanied with heat waves, erratic rainfall, thunderstorms and floods/erosion.

20 | Indigenous Agricultural Adaptation to Climate Change: Study of Imo and Enugu States in Southeast Nigeria

The respondents were asked to indicate the extent to which they think climate change was
responsible for the changes in the variables above. Their responses (table 3) show that all thechanges discussed above regarding uncertainties in the onset of farming season, extreme weather
events and pests, diseases, weeds and land degradation have all to do with climate change. IPCC
(2007) reports that there have been noticeable impacts of climate change on plant production,
insect, disease and weed dynamics. Moreover, rising atmospheric CO2 concentration, higher
temperatures, changes in annual and seasonal precipitation patterns and in the frequency of
extreme events are the usual features of climate change phenomenon (Brussel 2009). Mark et al.
(2008) observed that seasonal changes in rainfall and temperature, which are features of climatechange could impact agro-climatic conditions, altering growing seasons, planting and harvesting
calendars, water availability, pest, weed and disease populations;.
A t-test was also conducted on the mean responses of the farmers between Enugu and Imo states
regarding the extent to which climate change was responsible for the stated changes in the above
variables. The result (table 4) show that there was no significant difference between the two states
regarding the extent to which climate change was contributing to the following variables: early rainsthat were not sustained, long period of dry season, less rainfall, no/reduced hamattan, heavy
rainfall, soil erosion, decreasing soil moisture, pest, disease and weed infestation, and declining
soil fertility
However, in virtually all the other variables considered above, the considered impact of climatechange was significantly higher for Imo state than for Enugu State. This is to be expected because
Imo is closer to the sea than Enugu and climate change induced sea level rises and associatedinland effects will be more pronounced in Imo than Enugu. For example, Climate Institute (2010)
reports that the melting back of sea ice leads to a reduction in albedo (surface reflectivity) andallows for greater absorption of solar radiation, which will accelerate warming, thus increasing themelting back of snow and ice on land.
Although these variables were reportedly changing faster in Imo than Enugu , it may not necessarily
imply that the overall impact of climate change on food production for instance will be higher in Imo
than Enugu. Enugu is relatively closer to the Northern part of Nigeria than Imo, its climate istherefore naturally drier and more variable. The impact of further climate change induced variability,
no matter how small may therefore be more pronounced.
Using a 5–point Likert Rating Scale (LSR), the respondents were asked to indicate the extent towhich suggested farm characteristics have changed over the past ten years. Table 5 presents theresult of the analysis and it shows that the biggest effect of climate change on agriculture was
reduced income (mean = 3.90) and reduced yield (mean = 3.71). The other big effects of climatechange were streams/rivers drying up (mean = 3.58), reduction in storage quality of crops (mean =3.30), loss of pastureland/vegetation (mean = 3.22) changes in the population of fish (mean=3.17),
destruction of wildlife ecosystem (mean= 3.19) and reduction in farm size (mean = 3.14). Brussel(2009), who noted the usual features of climate change as stated above also reports that thesecharacteristics will affect the volume, quality, quantity, stability of food production and the naturalenvironment in which agriculture takes place. Khanal (2009) also noted that heat stress might affectthe whole physiological development, maturation and finally reduces the yield of cultivated crop.
Indigenous Agricultural Adaptation to Climate Change: Study of Imo and Enugu States in Southeast Nigeria | 21

A t-test was then conducted between the two states to determine whether there were differences in
the level of changes of these farm characteristics. The results (table 6) show that there was no
significant difference between the two states regarding decreasing soil drainage and reduced
production cycle. But, these two farm characteristics have generally not changed over the past ten
years. On the other hand, reduction in the storage quality of crops, destruction of wildlife
ecosystem, drying up of steams/rivers, reduction in the population of fish, loss of pastureland/vegetation and reduction in farm size were all significantly higher in Imo state than Enugu while
reduction in farm yield and income were significantly higher for Enugu than for Imo state. This is inline with our earlier observation above regarding uncertainties in the onset of farming season.
4.5
Activities of Farmers That Contribute to Climate Change
The respondents were asked to indicate the extent to which they practice some suggested farm
related activities that could contribute to climate change on a 3-point LSR. The informationcollected (table 7) show that the most often practiced activities by the respondents were burning ofwood fuel (mean = 2.70), the use of fertilizers (mean=2.16), and Bush burning (Mean = 2.07). With
the widely reported rising poverty in Nigeria, especially among farming households, and the also
rising prices of cooking gas and kerosene, burning of wood fuel as cooking energy has become thepredominant practice, not only in rural farming communities but also among the urban poor.
Moreover, decreasing soil fertility is one of the extreme weather events that nearly all the farmers(84%) said it has been on the increase in the past ten years. The natural tendency would therefore
be to increase the application of fertilizer in order to maintain soil fertility, which contributes togreenhouse gases. In addition, bush burning is generally the preferred traditional means ofclearing farmland for seedbed preparation, which increases the concentration of greenhousegases and particulate matter in the atmosphere (Wikipedia 2009). The International Federation ofOrganic Agriculture Movement (IFOAM)(2007) reports that conventional agricultural activities of
farmers contribute to climate change because it applies excessive amounts of nitrogen fertilizer thatis released as nitrous oxide and mines the earth of the nutrient needed to sustain production
through rainforest clearing and slash and burn techniques that reduce carbon storage and releasehuge amounts of carbon dioxide from burning vegetation.
4.6

Indigenous Climate Change Adaptation Practices and Their Cost andReturns
Table 8 presents the costs and returns from some of the adaptive measures using the results of the
field survey. The table shows that the adaptation measure with the highest profitability index (PI)was multiple/intercropping (mean = 3.01). Multiple/intercropping, though a tradition forsmallholder farming in Nigeria may have been intensified as a result of climate change. This isbecause different crops have different levels of resilience to weather variability, hence, planting
many crops in a field could ensure that the farmer get some output in the face of extreme weather
situations. Benhin (2006) reports that growing a variety of crops on the same plot is an appropriate
adaptation strategy for farmers because it helps to avoid complete crop failure as different crops
may be affected differently by climate change. It is also a measure of diversification by the farmers.
Hassan and Nkemechena (2008) had reported that increased diversification is a strong climatechange adaptation measure.
The next adaptation measure with high PI was the use of agro-forestry (mean = 2.69). Similarly,
22 | Indigenous Agricultural Adaptation to Climate Change: Study of Imo and Enugu States in Southeast Nigeria

Aforestation, with a PI of 1.91 ranks 5th in terms of profitability. One of the appropriate adaptation
strategies by farmers according to Hassan and Nkemechena (2008) is shading and shelter, which
can only be provided through agro-forestry and aforestation. In one of the focus group discussions,a farmer reported that he has planted trees around his farms to provide shade during dry periods,
which has become very regular. Agro-forestry and aforestation may therefore have become
particularly needed because of the prevailing predominance of dry periods, accompanied with heatwaves, erratic rainfall, thunderstorms and floods/erosion, as earlier observed. The foregoing also
explains the high PI associated with mulching (mean=1.89). Downing et al. (1997) reported that
increasing the use of organic matters such as mulch could prevent excessive soil moisture loss,
increase soil aeration and soil moisture holding capacity.
The next to agro-forestry is expansion of cultivated land area (mean = 2.64). This has always been
the traditional means of expanding production and augmenting output from impoverished land by
farmers. Yirga (2007) reported that farmers often moved to fertile soils to ensure better yield andescape the vagaries of weather accessioned by climate change.
The use of herbicides and pesticides also had a high PI of 2.08. As noted above, the farmers
reported that the attack of pests, diseases and weeds have all been increasing in the past ten years.
It is therefore logical that farmers who simultaneously raise the level of use of pesticides andherbicides may sufficiently be able to counter the offensive.
The next was purchase/harvesting of water for irrigation (mean = 1.86). Hassan and Nkemechena(2008) noted that one of the appropriate adaptation practices for farmers include the use of water for
irrigation and soil conservation practices. Use of resistant varieties was next in terms of PI(mean=1.77). High yielding and fast growing crops can easily escape the vagaries of climatechange by completing their growth cycle before storm and drought sets-in, thereby checking theimpact of climate change. Moreover, the use of heat tolerant and drought resistance crops is also
effective adaptation practices (Downing et al. 1997). In addition, some strategies that serve as animportant form of insurance against rainfall variability are: increasing diversification by planting
crops that are drought tolerant and/or resistant to temperature stresses (Benhin, 2006). Increased
use of fertilizers including organic manure, also had high PI (mean=1.45). Declining soil fertility is
one of the land degradation sources that was overwhelmingly (84% of the farmers) reported to havebeen on the increase in the last ten years. High fertilizer application is therefore expected as an
adaptation practice in order to maintain soil fertility. In addition, the above observation by Downing
et al. (1997) on the need for organic matter as an adaptation practice also refers.
4.7
Household Level Factors Affecting Investment in Adaptation Practices
In assessing the factors that influence the level of investment in climate change adaptation
practices, the ordinary least squares regression analysis was used. The result of the analysis (table9) show that the explanatory powers of the specified variables seem low (24%), but this is notuncommon in cross sectional analysis. Other works with similar coefficient of determination include
Nweke (1996) and Enete (2003). The overall goodness of fit as reflected by the F-value of (2.93) was
however highly significant at (p<0.01).
Four of the nine explanatory variables were significant. Age of the farmer was positively and highly
Indigenous Agricultural Adaptation to Climate Change: Study of Imo and Enugu States in Southeast Nigeria | 23

significantly related with the level of investment in climate change adaptation practices by thefarmers. This is surprising because older farmers are more likely to be risk averse, especiallyregarding climate change matters, than younger ones. However, age may likely endow the farmers
with the requisite experience that will enable them make better assessment of the risks involved(Panin and Brummer 2000) in climate change adaptation investment decisions. Enete et al. (2002)
noted that older farmers have more experience and are able to take healthier production decisions
than younger ones.
The farmer's number of years of formal education was also positive and highly significantly relatedwith the level of investment in indigenous climate change adaptation practices. This is to be
expected as educated farmers may better understand and process information provided bydifferent sources regarding new farm technologies, thereby increasing their allocative andtechnical efficiency (Panin and Brummer 2000).
The two variables on level of awareness of climate change effects were all positive and significantly
related with the level of investment in adaptation practices. These were “whether the farmer knowsthat climate change will affect agriculture” and “whether the farmer knows that agriculture
contributes to climate change” This underscores the importance of awareness in adaptation
measures. The awareness of climate problems and the potential benefits of taking action is an
important determinant of adoption of agricultural technologies (Hassan and Nhemachena, 2002).
Maddison (2007) argued that farmer awareness of change in climate attributes (temperature andprecipitation) is important to adaptation decision making. For example, Araya and Adjaye (2001)
and Anim (1999) reported that farmers awareness and perceptions of soil erosion problem as aresult of changes in climate, positively and significantly affect their decisions to adopt soil
conservation measures.
4.8
Societal Constraints to Climate Change Adaptations
Table 10 shows the varimax-rotated factors constraining farmers in the area from climate change
adaptations. From data in the table, five factors were extracted based on the responses of the
respondents. Only variables with factor loadings of 0.40 and above at 10% overlapping variancewere used in naming the factors. Variables that have factor loading of less than 0.40 and those thatloaded in more than one factors were not used (Madukwe 2004). The next step was to give eachfactor a denomination according to the set of variables or characteristics it was composed of. In thisregards, the variables were grouped into five major factors as; factor 1 (poverty constraints), factor
2 (land and more efficient input constraints) and factor 3 (information and training factor), factor 4(land tenure constraint), and factor 5 (labour constraints).
Under factor 1 (poverty constraints), the specific constraining variables against climate change
adaptation include high cost of farmland (0.580), high cost of irrigation facilities (0.483), nonavailability of storage facilities (0.648), limited income (0.782), non-availability of processing
facilities (0.668), high cost of processing facilities (0.808), and lack of access to weather forecast
technologies (0.751). With limited income (poverty), the acquisition of necessary facilities will bedifficult. They may not only be costly, but may also appear scarce for poor farmers. In addition, thefarmers may not also have the necessary facilities for current information like radio and television to
obtain weather forecasts. This underscores the problems of under capitalization of farmers (Enete
24 | Indigenous Agricultural Adaptation to Climate Change: Study of Imo and Enugu States in Southeast Nigeriaand Achike 2008) and suggests the need to improve the availability of credit to them. Benhin (2006)
reports that lack of access to credit or saving and adequate information about climate change aresome of the major problems encountered by farmers in adapting to climate change in Africa.
Deressa (2008) reported that most of the problems or constraints encountered by farmers in
adaptation to climate change are associated with poverty.
Under factor 2 (Land and more efficient input problem), the constraining variables against climatechange adaptation were: limited availability of land for farming (0.558), non-availability of improved
seeds (0.598), high cost of fertilizer (0.761), and high cost of improved varieties (0.725). Benhin(2006) noted that farm size is a major determinant of speed of adoption of adaptation measures toclimate change. Moreover, Downing et al (1997) reported that high yielding and fast growing crops
can easily escape the vagaries of climate change by completing their growth cycle before storm anddrought sets-in, thereby checking the impact of climate change. The use of heat tolerant anddrought resistance crops is also effective adaptation practices.
The factors that loaded under factor 3 (information and training constraints) include poor access to
information sources (0.588) and inadequate knowledge of how to cope (0.771). In the present
information age, information problems could pose serious challenges to the farmers coping
strategies as they may not be aware of recent developments regarding climate change adaptations
and the necessary readjustments needed. Mark et al. (2008) argued that a lack of adaptive capacity
due to constraints on resources like information may result in further food insecurity. In addition,
Benhin (2006) noted further that farmers' level of education and access to extension service aremajor determinants of speed of adoption of adaptation measures to climate change.
Under factor 4 (land tenure constraints), the constraining variables were inherited system of landownership (0.786) and communal system of land ownership (0.775). In traditional societies,
individual farmers do not usually have title to farmland but enjoy user rights, which could be
withdrawn at any time by the custodian of the communal land. One of the factors identified by
Benhin (2006) as determining the speed of adoption of climate change adaptation measures is land
tenure status.
Under factor 5 (labour constraints), only one variable loaded – high cost of farm labour (0.743).
Previous analyses of barriers to climate change adaptation show that shortage of farm labour is oneof the major constraints to adaptation by farmers (Deressa 2008, Adger 2001).

Indigenous Agricultural Adaptation to Climate Change: Study of Imo and Enugu States in Southeast Nigeria | 25

5. Conclusion
In the face of extreme weather events occasioned by climate change, and apparently because of its
tolerance to these conditions, cassava has become the dominant crop in southeastern Nigeria.
Virtually all the respondents were, not only aware of climate change, but also aware that some of its
variables like extreme weather events and uncertainties in the onset of farming season have beenon the increase. In addition, they were also aware of the effect of climate change on agriculture, butwere not aware that some agricultural practices could exacerbate climate change. Although there
was no significant difference between Enugu and Imo states regarding the extent to which climatechange was contributing to early rains that were not sustained, long period of dry season, lessrainfall, no/reduced hamattan, heavy rainfall, soil erosion, decreasing soil moisture, pest, disease
and weed infestation, and declining soil fertility, the considered effect of climate change on most of
the other variables were more pronounced in Imo than Enugu. However, the overall impact (farmyield and income) was significantly higher for Enugu than for Imo state, essentially because of
Enugu's inherently drier weather; being closer to the North. The biggest effect of climate change inthe region was reduced farm yield and income, drying up of streams/rivers, reduction in storage
quality of crops, loss of pastureland/vegetation and destruction of wildlife ecosystem.. Some of thecoping strategies adopted by the farmers with a relatively high PI include multiple/intercropping,agro-forestry/aforestation, mulching, purchase/harvest of water for irrigation and use of resistantvarieties. The major factors identified to be driving farmers' investment in adaptation practices wereage and level of education of the farmer as well as his/her level of awareness of climate change
issues. At the societal level, the major factors constraining them from adapting to climate change
were poverty; farmland scarcity and lack of more efficient input, information and training
constraints, land tenure and labour constraints. The foregoing further underscores the need forfarmers' education, awareness creation, poverty alleviation and the provision of more efficient
inputs to them as potent tools for climate change adaptation in the area.

26 | Indigenous Agricultural Adaptation to Climate Change: Study of Imo and Enugu States in Southeast NigeriaReferences
Adejuwon J. O. (2006) “Food crop production in Nigeria. II: Potential effects of climate change”
Climate Research Vol 32 229-245
Agoumi, A., (2003) Vulnerability of North African countries to climatic changes: Adaptation andimplementation strategies for climatic change. In Developing Perspectives on Climate Change:
Issues and Analysis from Developing Countries and Countries with Economies in Transition.
IISD/Climate Change Knowledge Network, 14 pp. http://www.cckn.net//pdf/north_africa.pdf
Agbugba, I.K. 2007. Economics of Charcoal Marketing in Abia State, Nigeria.
An M.Sc. thesis, Dept of Agricultural Economics, University of Nigeria, Nsukka
Anim, F.D.K. 1999. A note on the adoption of soil conservation measures in
the Northern Province of South Africa. Journal of Agricultural Economics, vol.50, pp. 336-345.
Anley, Y., A. Bogale and A. Haile-Gabriel. 2007. Adoption Decision and use intensity of soil and water
conservation measures by smallholder subsistence farmers in Dedo District, Western Ethiopia.
Land Degradation and Development, Vol. 18: 289-302
Araya, B. and J.A. Adjaye. 2001. Adoption for farm level soil conservation practices in Eritrea. Indian
Journal of Agricultural Economics, Vol. 56, pp. 239-252.
Benhin, J.K.A. 2006. Climate change and South African agriculture: Impacts and adaptation
options. CEEPA Discussion paper No. 21. CEEPA, University of Pretoria, South Africa.
Brussel, S.E.C. 2009. Adapting to climate changes: the challenge for European agriculture andrural areas. Commission of the European communities. Commission working staff working
document accompanying the white paper No. 147
Bukh, J. 1979. The village woman in Ghana. Centre for Development Research publications series
1. Scandinavian Institute of African Studies, Uppsala, Sweden.
Climate Institute. 2010. Consequences of climate change on the Oceans. Climate Institute,
Washington DC, USA
Christensen, J., Hewitson, B.C., Busuioc A., Chen, A., Gao., X., Jones, R., Kwon, W.-T., Laprise, R.,
Magana, V., Mearns, L. Menenedez, C., Raisaenen, J., Rinke, A, Kolli, R. K. and Sarr, A. (2007).
Regional Climate Projections, in IPCC Fourth assessment Report "Climate Change 2007: The
Scientific Basis”, Cambridge University Press.
Deressa, T. 2008. Analysis of perception and adaptation to climate change in the Nile Basin of
Ethiopia. An unpublished Ph .D. thesis, Centre for Environmental Economics and Policy for Africa(CEEPA), University of Pretoria, South Africa.
Indigenous Agricultural Adaptation to Climate Change: Study of Imo and Enugu States in Southeast Nigeria | 27

Downing, T. E., L. Ringius, M. Hulme and D. Waughray (1997) Adapting to Climate Change in Africa'.
Mitigation and Adaptation strategies for Global Change Vol. 2: 19-44.
Eid, H. M., El-Marsafawy, S. M. and Ouda, S. A. (2006): Assessing the impacts of climate change on
agriculture in Egypt: A ricardian approach. Centre for Environmental Economics and Policy in Africa(CEEPA) Discussion Paper No. 16, Special Series on Climate Change and Agriculture in Africa,
University of Pretoria, Pretoria, 1-33.
Enete, A.A. and Achike, I..A (2008). Urban Agriculture and Food Insecurity/Poverty in Nigeria; thecase of Ohafia-Southeast Nigeria. Outlook on agriculture vol. 37, No 2, pp 131-134.
Enete, A.A. (2003). “Resource Use, Marketing and Diversification Decisions in Cassava Producing
Household of Sub-Saharan Africa”. A Ph.D Dissertation Presented to the Department of Agricultural
Economics, Catholic University of Louvain, Belgium.
Enete, A.A., F.I. Nweke and E. Tollens. 2004. Gender and cassava processing in Africa. Quarterly
Journal of International Agriculture, 43(1): 57-69
F.A.O.2000. Two essays on climate change and agriculture. A developing country perspective.
FAO, Rome, Italy.
FAO .2007. Adaptation to climate change in agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries: perspectives,
framework and priorities. FAO, Rome.
FAO. 2008. Organic agriculture and climate change. Retrieved, arcj 8. 2010 fromhttp://www.fao.org/DOCREP/oo5
Fankhauser, S. 1996. The potential costs of climate change adaptation. In: Smith, J.B., Bhatt, N.,
Menzhulin, G., Benieff, M., Budyko, M., Campos, M. Jallow, B. and Rijsbevman, F (eds.), Adapting
to Climate change: An International perspective. Springer, New York, USA. Pp 80-96
German Advisory Council on Global Change (WBGU). 2004. World in Transition Fighting Poverty
through Environmental Policy. Earthscan, London Gregory, P.J., Ingram, J.S.I and Brklacich, M.
(2005). Climate change and foodsecurity. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B.
Vol. 36: 2139 - 2148.
Hassan, R. and C. Nhemachena. 2008. Determinants of African farmers' strategies for adapting toclimate changes: multinomial choice analysis. AFJARE, 2(1): 85-104.
IFOAM. 2007. Organic agriculture's role in countering climate change. IFOAM, Germany.
IPCC .2001. 'Climate Change 2001: Impacts, Adaptations and Vulnerabilities'. Contribution ofWorking Group II to the Third Assessment Report of the IPCC. New York; Cambridge University
Press.

28 | Indigenous Agricultural Adaptation to Climate Change: Study of Imo and Enugu States in Southeast Nigeria

IPCC .2007. Contribution of working Group II to the Fourth Assessment Report of the IPCC –Summary for Policy Makers. Retrieved March 8, 2010 from http://www.ipcc.ch:Jones, P.G. and Thornton, P.K. 2002. Croppers to livestock keepers: Livelihood transition to 2010 inAfrica due to climate change. Global Environmental Change, World Health Organization, Geneva,
Switzerland.
Kandlinkar, M. and Risbey, J. 2000. Agricultural Impacts of Climate Change: if adaptation is theanswer, what is the question? Climatic Change, vol. 45: 529-539
Khanal, R.C. 2009. Climate change and organic agriculture. The journal of agriculture andenvironment, vol. 10, pp 100-110.
Maddison, D. 2006. The perception of and adaptation to climate change in Africa. CEEPA
Discussion paper No. 10, CEEPA, University of Pretoria, South Africa.
Madu. I.A. (2005) “Population and settlement constraints to sustainable agricultural land use insoutheastern Nigeria,” in Okoko, E. Adekunle, V.A.J and Adeduntan, S.A. (eds). Environmental
Sustainability and Conservation in Nigeria. Environmental Conservation and Research Team,
Federal University of Technology, Akure Nigeria pp. 163-171.
Madukwe, M.C. (2004)."Multivariate Analysis for Agricultural Extension Research”. In: Terry. A. O.
(ed) Research Methods in Agricultural Extension. Pp 206 – 236.
Mark, W.R., E. Mandy, Y. Gary, B. Lan, H. Saleemul and V.S. Rowena. 2008. Climate change andagriculture: Threats and opportunities. Federal Ministry for Economic Cooperation andDevelopment, Germany.
Mendelsohn, R., A. Dinar and A. Dalfelt (2000) Climate change impacts on African Agriculture.
Preliminary analysis prepared for the World Bank, Washington, District of Columbia, 25 pp
Nwakpu, C.C. 2008. Economics of adoption and productivity of some recommended ricetechnologies in Ebonyi State, Nigeria. A PhD dissertation submitted to the Department ofAgricultural Economics, University of Nigeria, Nsukka.
Nweke, F.I. and A.A. Enete. 1999. Gender surprises in food production, processing and marketingwith emphasis on cassava in Africa. COSCA working paper No. 19, COSCA, IITA, Ibadan, Nigeria.
Nweke, F.I. 1996. Cassava: a cash crop in Africa. COSCA working paper No.14, COSCA, IITA,
Ibadan, Nigeria
Ofomata, G.E.K. 1986. soil Erosion Characteristics in the forest zone of southeastern Nigeria.
Proceedings of the National workshop on Ecological Disasters: Soil erosion, held in Owerri, April 812. pp 56-68

Indigenous Agricultural Adaptation to Climate Change: Study of Imo and Enugu States in Southeast Nigeria | 29

Okafor, F. C. (1991). Population pressure, agricultural change and environmental consequences inSouth Eastern Nigeria. New York: Social Science Council.
Oti. N.N. 2002. Discriminant Function for classifying Erosion Degraded Lands at Otamiri,Southeastern Nigeria. Agro-Science, Journal of Tropical Agriculture, food, environment andextension, Vol 3, No. 1
Reason, C.J.C., S. Hachigonta and R.F. Phaladi, (2005): Inter-annual variability in rainy season
characteristics over the Limpopo region of Southern Africa. International Journal of Climatology, 25,
1835-1853.
Reilly, J. 1996. Climate change, global agriculture and regional vulnerability. In: Global climatechange and agricultural production. Direct and indirect effects of changing hydrological,
pedological and plant physiological processes, Bazzaz, F. and W. Sombroek (eds.). FAO, Romeand John Wiley & Sons, Chichester. Chapter 10.
Science in Africa. 2007. Global climate change: Can Africa cope? Science in Africa, Africa's first online science magazine.
Smith, J. B. and S. Lenhont. 1996. Climate change adaptation policy options. Climate Research 6,
pp 193-201
Stige, L.C., J. Stave, K.S. Chan, L. Ciannelli, N. Pretorelli, M. Glantz, H.R. Herren and N.C. Stenseth(2006). The effect of climate variation on agro-pastoral production in Africa. P. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA,103, 3049-3053.
Thornton PK, Jones PG, Owiyo T, Kruska RL, Herrero M, Kristjanson P, Notenbaert A, Bekele N andOmolo A, with contributions from Orindi V, Otiende B, Ochieng A, Bhadwal S, Anantram K, Nair S,
Kumar V and Kulkar U (2006): Mapping climate vulnerability and poverty in Africa. Report to the
Department for International Development, ILRI, Nairobi, Kenya. Pp 171.
United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC). 2007. Climatic Change
Impact, Vulnerabilities and Adaptation in Developing Countries UNFCCC Secretariat, MartinLuther-King-Straat 8 53175 Bonn, Germany. www.unfccc.int
Wikipedia, (2009). “Climate change and agriculture.” Retrieved September 09, 2009, fromhttp://www.en.wikipedia.org/wiki/
Wisner, B., P. Blaikie, T. Cannon and I. Davis. 2004. At risk: natural hazards; people's vulnerability
and disasters. 2nd Edition. Routledge, London
World Bank 2008. Agriculture for Development Policy Brief: Adaptation and mitigation of climatechange in agriculture. World Development Report 2008 Retrieved March 8, 2010 fromhttp://www.steresources.worldbank.org/INTWDR

30 | Indigenous Agricultural Adaptation to Climate Change: Study of Imo and Enugu States in Southeast Nigeria

Yirga, C. T. (2007), 'The Dynamics of Soil Degradation and Incentives for Optimal Management inCentral Highlands of Ethiopia'. PhD Thesis. Department of Agricultural Economics, Extension and
Rural Development, University of Pretoria, South Africa.
Ziervogel G., A. Nyong, B. Osman, C. Conde, S. Cortes, and T. Dowing 2006 Climate variability andchange: implications for household food security. Assessments of Impacts and Adaptations to
Climate Change (AIACC) Working Paper No. 20, January 2006. The AIACC Project Office,International START Secretariat, Washington DC, USA.
Zoellick, Robert B. A Climate Smart Future. The Nation Newspapers. Vintage Press Limited,
Lagos, Nigeria. Page 18

Indigenous Agricultural Adaptation to Climate Change: Study of Imo and Enugu States in Southeast Nigeria | 31

Tables
Table 1: Percentage distribution of respondents by most important crops/
animals grown/reared
Most important crop

Percentage*

Most important animal

Percentage*

Cassava

64

Goat

50

Yam

23

Poultry38

Cocoyam

4

Sheep

6

Vegetables

3

Pig

5

Maize

2

Cattle

1

Rice

1

Fish

1

Oil palm

1

Others2

Note: * the number of respondents (N) = 382

Table 2: Percentage distribution of respondents by whether or not they areaware of some climate change issues
Questions on awareness of climate change

Yes*

No

Have heard of climate change before now?

96

6

Source of information:(i) Friends

36(ii) Extension workers

26(iii) Farmers cooperatives

1(iv) Newspapers

5(v) Radio/Television

24(vi) Researchers

2

Do you think climate change will have anything to do with your agriculture or with you?

97

3

Do you think that some of your farming activities can contribute to climate change?

48

52

Note: * Number of respondents is 382

32 | Indigenous Agricultural Adaptation to Climate Change: Study of Imo and Enugu States in Southeast Nigeria

Table 3: Data on direction of change of climate change phenomena and extent
of contribution of phenomena to climate change
Phenomena you think have been getting
worse over the past ten years

Increasing(IC)

Decreasing(DC)

No change(NC)

Mean extent ofcontribution ofclimate change tothe phenomenon

83
83
89
80

13
13
7
16

4
4
3
4

3.5
3.3
3.6
3.4

15
75
30
68
16

82
17
28
22
70

3
8
42
10
14

3.0
3.2
2.6
2.6
3.4

Extreme weather events(i)thunderstorms(ii)
heavy winds(iii) floods(iv) drought(v)heat waves(vi) heavy rainfall(vii) desertification(viii) loss of forest resources(ix)
Soil erosion(x)
Decrease in soil moisture

36
45
42
58
31
21
25
35
38
71

19
22
47
14
19
73
16
25
47
20

46
33
11
28
50
6
59
40
15
9

4.1
3.9
3.6
3.3
3.2
3.4
3.5
3.3
3.1
3.3

Pests

59

32

9

3.5

Diseases

58

27

15

3.5

Weeds

38

26

36

3.1

Land degradation(i)
Decreasing soil fertility(ii)
Drying up of streams(iii) Overflowing streams/rivers

84
77
23

9
16
70

7
7
7

3.5
3.7
3.2

Uncertainties in the onset of farming season(i)
Unusual early rains that are notsustained(ii)
Erratic rainfall pattern(iii) Delay in the onset of rain(iv) Long peri od of dry season(v)
Heavy and long period of rainfall(vi) Less rainfall(vii) No harmattan(viii) Reduced harmattan(ix)Long harmattan(x)High Temperature

Cut off point= 50% Cut off= 3.0

Indigenous Agricultural Adaptation to Climate Change: Study of Imo and Enugu States in Southeast Nigeria | 33

Table 4: Result of test of difference between the responses of respondents in
Imo and Enugu State on the extent to which climate change is contributing tochanges
Phenomena

i.
ii.
iii.
iv.
v.
vi.
vii.
viii.
ix.
x.
xi.
xii.
xiii.
xiv.
xv.
xvi.
xvii.
xviii.
xix.
xx.
xxi.
xxii.
xxiii.
xxiv.
xxv.
xxvi.
xxvii.
xxviii.

Enugu

Unusual early rains that are followed by weeks of dryness
Erratic rainfall pattern
Delay in the unset of rainLong period of dry season
Heavy and long period of rainfall
Less rainfall
No harmattan
Reduced harmattan
Long period of harmattan
Higher temperature
Extreme weather events: thunderstorms
Heavy winds
Floods and erosion
Drought
Heat waves
Heavy rainfall
Desertification
Loss of forest resources
Soil erosion
Decrease in soil moisture
Increase in pest problems
Disease incidence
Weed infestation
Decrease in soil fertility
Drying up of streams
Overflowing of streams/rivers
Introduction of new crop species
Extinction of some crop species

Imo

mean

S.D.

mean

S.D.

T

P -value

3.19
3.10
3.52
3.12
2.86
3.12
2.60
2.69
2.97
3.79
3.07
3.13
2.92
2.65
3.07
2.85
2.92
2.99
2.80
3.22
3.59
3.83
3.18
3.53
3.53
3.25
2.99
3.41

0.98
0.99
0.88
1.13
1.03
1.13
1.19
1.02
1.23
1.25
1.37
1.14
1.26
1.37
1.26
0.95
1.25
1.17
1.07
1.20
1.16
1.20
1.05
1.09
1.12
1.14
1.22
1.13

3.94
3.48
3.64
3.76
3.15
3.25
2.52
2.53
4.02
4.43
4.54
4.07
3.66
3.82
3.67
4.20
3.42
3.50
3.40
3.47
3.38
3.07
3.04
3.58
3.90
3.23
1.71
2.80

0.97
1.06
1.03
1.04
1.23
1.07
1.16
1.05
0.94
0.82
0.72
0.87
1.01
0.94
0.96
0.86
1.39
1.33
1.11
1.07
1.10
1.21
1.21
1.12
1.03
1.36
1.11
1.66

-6.60
-3.40
-1.08
-5.60
-2.20
-1.04
0.48
1.40
-8.78
-5.00
-10.45
-7.34
-5.94
-8.61
-4.05
-13.12
-2.84
-3.10
-4.77
-1.99
1.67
5.53
1.04
-0.41
-2.94
0.15
9.78
3.61

0.82
0.3
0.01
0.10
0.05
0.33
0.89
0.54
0.03
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.02
0.00
0.02
0.09
0.00
0.00
0.25
0.61
0.48
0.62
0.08
0.42
0.00
0.02
0.03
0.00

Table 5: Mean response of farmers on extent of change of farm characteristics
N

Minimum

Maximum

Mean

Std. Deviation

Extent to which soil drainage has
decreased

371

1.00

5.00

3.03909

1.17195

premature ripening of crops

376

1.00

5.00

2.96811.22378

Reduced production cycle

368

1.00

5.00

2.88041.13735

Prolonged production cycle

370

1.00

5.00

2.25681.25438

Reduced yield

382

1.0 0

5.00

3.7068.98434

Reduced income

380

1.00

5.00

3.9026.92088Reduction in storage quality of
crops

376

1.00

5.00

3.29791.16463

Destruction of wildlife ecosystems

371

1.00

11.00

3.18601.59744

Streams/rivers drying up

357

1.00

5.00

3.5826

1.15488

Education in the population of fish

300

1.00

5.00

3.17001.34180

Loss of pastureland and vegetation

362

1.00

5.00

3.2182

1.49214

Deduction in farm size

374

1.00

5.00

3.13901.31476

Increased farm size

372

1.00

5.00

2.24191.39524

Cut off point= 3.0
34 | Indigenous Agricultural Adaptation to Climate Change: Study of Imo and Enugu States in Southeast Nigeria

Table 6: Result of test of difference between the responses of respondents on
the extent to which farm characteristics have changed over ten past years in
Imo state and Enugu State

s/n

i.
ii.
iii.
iv.
v.
vi.
vii.
viii.
ix.
x.
xi.
xii.
xiii.

Farm characteristics

Enugu

Decreased soil drainage
Premature ripening of crop
Reduced production cycle
Prolonged production cycle
Reduction in yield
Reduction in farm income
Reduction in storage qualityof crops
Destruction of wildlife
ecosystems
Streams/rivers drying up
Reduction in fish population
Loss of pastures
land/vegetation
Reduction in farm size
Increased farm size

Imo

mean

S.D.

mean

S.D.

T

P-value

2.06
3.07
3.15
2.04
3.82
3.97
2.92

1.11
1.01
0.93
1.24
0.92
0.88
1.20

2.87
2.86
2.59
2.49
3.59
3.83
3.70

1.09
1.34
1.27
1.22
1.04
0.96
0.97

-7.09
1.61
4.85
-3.54
2.36
1.43
-6.98

0.90
0.00
0.00
0.45
0.01
0.00
0.04

2.49

1.69

3.91

1.09

-9.66

0.00

3.52
2.93
2.38

1.22
1.61
1.50

3.65
3.42
4.08

1.07
0.93
0.86

-1.12
-3.18
-13.26

0.01
0.00
0.00

2.96
2.33

1.38
1.48

3.33
2.14

1.22
1.30

-2.74
1.34

0.04
0.00

Table 7: Mean responses of farmers on extent of practice of activities that
could cause climate change

N

Minimum

Maximum

Mean

Std. Deviation

Bush burning

381

1.00

3.00

2.0682.70380Continuous cropping

348

1.00

3.00

1.7126.69012

Over grazing

323

1.00

3.00

1.1393.40467

286

1.00

3.00

1.3986.73642

357

1.00

3.00

1.8235.70289Burning of woodfuel

389

1.00

3.00

2.6967.54727The use of fertilizers

389

1.00

3.00

2.1568.76562

Use of insecticids/ pesticides

317

1.00

3.00

1.5710.74131The use of herbicides

316

1.00

3.00

1.5222.74075

Deforestation

312

1.00

3.00

1.5705.55689Extent to which Swamprice isproduced
Extent to which crop wastes
are burnt

Cut off mark = 2.0

Indigenous Agricultural Adaptation to Climate Change: Study of Imo and Enugu States in Southeast Nigeria | 35

Table 8: Mean and standard deviation of the responses of the respondents in
Imo state and Enugu state on climate change adaptation cost*s/n Adaptation measures

Cost/haRevenue/ha

PI

Mean

SD

Mean

SD

Mean SDi. Purchase of water for irrigation (liters)

12220.59 (17)6014.80

35118.06 (12)28694.81

ii. Mulching

15116.46 (55)31272.4233167.28 (47)71029.69

iii. Use of wetlands/river valleys (e.g
Fadama)iv. Aforestations: planting of trees

36874.8 (35)57737.74

93539.29 (21)100304.1

12543.01 (38)9963.942

29001.61 (37)15777.25v.

Use of resistant varieties

8702.284 (44)9654.234

22770.51 (26)20473.11vi. Expansion of cultivated land area

20687.5 (18)22296.39

55505.21 (16)33213.96

vii. Increased used of fertilizers

11704.36 (127)14356.89

32700.3 (68)34987.75

viii. Intensive manure application

13158.66 (37)28239.53

31285.71 (21)46531.45

ix. Use of chemical: herbicides,
pesticides, etc.
x. Multiple/intercropping

7370.24 (65)9426.0817395.83(24)15960.55

33222.83 (50)38004.95

118096.50 (47)291581.50

xi. Use of agro- forestry

8356.53 (41)8617.53

26371.58 (39)27284.35

xii. Change from arable to permanent
crops or vice versa

14972.31 (12)18440.50

37405.83 (15)37546.94

1.86
(12)
1.89
(39)
0.95
(21)
1.91
(37)
1.77
(26)
2.64
(11)
1.45
(67)
0.97
(18)
2.08
(22)
3.01
(46)
2.69
(39)
1.00
(10)

1.26
1.76
0.58
1.57
2.43
2.41
1.32
0.84
1.65
6.86
2.04
1.25

Note: Figures in parentheses are no of observations.
* Costs and revenues are calculated in Nigerian Naira (1$ = N150)

Table 9: OLS Regression result on factors affecting the farmers level ofinvestment in adaptation practicess/nVariables

Coefficients

t

i.
ii.
iii.
iv.
v.
vi.
vii.
viii.
ix.

Age (years)
Gender of household head (male=1, female=0)
Level of education (years)
Profit from adaptation practices
Av. Annual income from farming
Farm size (ha)Household size
Climate change affect agriculture (yes=1, No=0)
Farming contributes to climate change(yes=1, No=0)2716.444-5998.05
6453.965-25760.96
0.0418673
3145.585
1482.901
49687.81
91423.52

2.55*
-0.26
2.68*
-0.93
0.66
0.38
0.27
2.01
1.72

No of observations =94; R 2 = 0.2391; F= 2.93; Prop> F= 0.0045

36 | Indigenous Agricultural Adaptation to Climate Change: Study of Imo and Enugu States in Southeast Nigeria

Table 10: Constraints to adaptation (Rotated Component Matrix)

Constraints
Variables
Poverty

Land andefficient
input

Information Landand Training Tenure

LabourLimited availability of land for farming

.152

.558

.283

.384

-.010

High cost of farmland

.580

-.002

.388

.287

.105

Inherited system of land ownership

.086

.249

-.113

.786

-.178

Communal system of land ownership

-.110

.310

-.042

.775

-.139

Poor access to information sources

.353

.030

.588

-.045

-.354

Non-availability of credit facilities

.559

.378

.007

.141

-.496

High cost of irrigation facilities

.483

.244

.222

-.109

.357

Non-availability of farm inputs e.g.
improved seeds

.255

.598

.329

-.002

.368

high cost of fertilizers and other inputs

.158

.761

.003

.040

.043

Inadequate knowledge of how to copeor build resilience

.050

.267

.771

-.025

.091

high cost of improved varieties

.013

.725

-.076

.203

.021

Non-availability of farm labour

.404

.413

.371

.129

.219

high cost of farm labour

.042

.201

-.150

-.075

.743

Lack of access to weather forecast
technologies

.751

.146

-.267

-.200

.086

Government irresponsiveness toclimate risk management

.408

-.206

.683

.006

-.131

Non-availability of storage facilities

.648

.017

.348

.311

-.150

Limited income

.782

.146

.145

.139

-.002

Non-availability of processing facilities

.668

.196

.284

-.150

-.089

High cost of processing facilities

.808

.030

.278

.109

.109

Traditional beliefs/ practices e.g. on
the commencement of farming season
etc

.204

-.154

.179

.663

.408

Extraction Method: Principal Component Analysis.
Rotation Method: Varimax with Kaiser Normalization.

Indigenous Agricultural Adaptation to Climate Change: Study of Imo and Enugu States in Southeast Nigeria | 37

The African Technology Policy Studies Network (ATPS) is a multidisciplinary network of researchers, private sector actors andpolicy makers promoting the generation, dissemination, use andmastery of science, technology and innovation (ST&I) for African
development, environmental sustainability and global inclusion.
ATPS intends to achieve its mandate through research, capacity
building and training, science communication/dissemination andsensitization, participatory multi-stakeholder dialogue,knowledge brokerage, and policy advocacy.

African Technology
Policy Studies Network
Contact the Executive Director at
The Chancery, 3rd Floor, Valley Rd.
P O Box 10081, 00100-Nairobi, Kenya
Tel: (254 020) 2714092, 2714168,
2714498, 2723800
Fax: (254 020) 2714028
http://www.atpsnet.org

Science, Technology and Innovation
for African Development

ISBN: 978-9966-030-00-9