Agricultural Innovations for Climate
Change Adaptation and Food Security
in West Africa: The Case of Nigeria,
Sierra Leone and Liberia
African Technology Policy Studies Network

WORKING PAPER SERIES | No. 61
Ekwe Agwu Agwu
Festus Onesimus Amadu
Teddy Amara Morlai
Emmanuel Topor Wollor
Leroy W. Cegbe

Agricultural Innovations for Climate Change
Adaptation and Food Security in West Africa:
The Case of Nigeria, Sierra Leone and Liberia

Ekwe Agwu Agwu
University of Nigeria
Enugu State, Nigeria
Festus Onesimus Amadu
Njala University
Freetown, Sierra Leone
Teddy Amara Morlai
Leonard Cheshire Disability, West Africa
Freetown, Sierra Leone.
Emmanuel Topor Wollor
University of Liberia
Monrovia, Liberia
Leroy W. Cegbe
University of Liberia
Monrovia, Liberia.

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: 978-9966-030-13-9

Table of Contents
Acknowledgement

4

List of Acronyms

5

1.

Problem Statement

7

2.

Definition of Terms

15

3.

Literature Review

20

4.

Methodology

67

5.

Results & Discussions

83

6.

Summary & Conclusions

126

References

129

Agricultural Innovations for Climate Change Adaptation and Food Security in West Africa: The Case of Nigeria, Sierra Leone and Liberia | 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 van Buitenlandse Zaken (DGIS) the
Netherlands, Rockefeller Foundation, amongst others. The authors hereby thankthe ATPS for the financial and technical support during the implementation of the
program. The Authors specially thank the ATPS Climate Sense Program Director,
Dr. Kevin Urama (ATPS); and the Program Coordinators including Prof. Michael
Madukwe (ATPS Nigeria); Dr. Musa Dube (ATPS Swaziland), Prof. Bob Orskov(ATPS, UK), Dr. Nicholas Ozor (ATPS), and Ms. Wairimu Mwangi (ATPS) for theirtechnical support during the research process.

4 | Agricultural Innovations for Climate Change Adaptation and Food Security in West Africa: The Case of Nigeria, Sierra Leone and Liberia

List of Acronyms
ATPS
ADB
AIDS
AEZ
AKIS
ACGS
IADPs
AGOA
AKIS
AIS
CAADP
CTA
CFSNS
DFRRI
DRR
ECOWAP
EIA

African Technology Policy Networks Studies
African Development Bank
Acquired Immune Deficiency Virus
Agro-Ecological Zones
Agricultural Knowledge and Information System
Agricultural Credit Guarantee Scheme
Integrated Agricultural Development Projects
African Growth and Opportunity Act
Agricultural Knowledge and Information System
Agricultural Innovation System
Comprehensive Africa Agricultural Development Programme
Technical Centre for Tropical Agriculture
Comprehensive Food Security and Nutritional Survey
Directorate for Foods, Roads and Rural Infrastructure
Disaster Risk Reduction
Economic Community of West African Agricultural Policy
Environmental Impact Assessment

EU‐ACP

European Union- African, Caribbean and Pacific Group of States

EEG
FGN
FAO
FMARD
FEPA
FSP
FAD
FGD
GRP
GDP
HIV
IPRSP
IITA
IPCC
ICTs
LDHS

Export Expansion Grant
Federal Government of Nigeria
Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations
Federal Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Development
Federal Environmental Protection Agency
Food Security Policy
Forestry Development Authority
Focus Group Discussion
Green Revolution Programme
Gross Domestic Product
Human Immuno Virus
Interim Poverty Reduction Strategy Paper
International Institute of Tropical Agriculture
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change
Information and Communications Technologies
Liberia Demographic and Health Survey

Agricultural Innovations for Climate Change Adaptation and Food Security in West Africa: The Case of Nigeria, Sierra Leone and Liberia | 5

MDGs
NSPFS
NDPs
NAPEP
NARS
NEEDS
NEPAD
NGO
NRS
NPC
NERDC
NFSP
OAU
R&D
SAP
STI
SLPMB
SSA
UN WFP
UNCED
UNEP
UNFCCCUNDP
USAID
UNISDR
PRSP
WHO
WTO

Millennium Development Goals
National Special Food Security Programme
National Development Plans
National Poverty Eradication Programme
National Agricultural Research System
National Economic Empowerment Development Strategy
New Partnership for Africa's Development
Non Governmental Organization
National Regulatory Services
National Population Commission
National Educational Research and Development Council
National Food Security Programme
Organization of African Unity
Research and Development
Agriculture in Structural Adjustment Programme
Science, Technology and Innovation
Sierra Leone Produce Marketing Board
Sub-Saharan Africa
United Nations World Food Programme
United Nations Conference on Environment and Development
United Nations Environmental Programme
United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change
United Nations Development Programme
United States Agency for International Development
United Nations International Strategy for Disaster Reduction
Poverty Reduction Strategy Programme
World Health Organization
World Trade Organization

6 | Agricultural Innovations for Climate Change Adaptation and Food Security in West Africa: The Case of Nigeria, Sierra Leone and Liberia

1. Problem Statement
In the Millennium Declaration, 189 nations resolved to halve extreme poverty by
2015 and all agencies involved in this paper are committed to contribute to thisaim. Hence, the Millennium Development Goal (MDG) agenda, to eradicate
extreme hunger and poverty, became one of the goals of nations as an effort to
reduce / eradicate food insecurity / crises. In the wake of this new push, the MDG
was launched, bringing together the international community to work together toachieve the set goals by the year 2015 (Migotto, Davis, Canetto and Kathleen,2005).
Despite international efforts, poverty has become more widespread in many
countries in the last decade, making poverty reduction the core challenge fordevelopment in the 21st century. Less than 5 years to the target year, available
statistics still cast doubt on whether this goal could be achieved by the year
2015.The incidences of food insecurity and poverty are particularly devastating in
the developing countries, and a lot of resources are being channeled toward
programmes aimed at eradicating food insecurity and poverty by various
international organizations and governments of developing nations (Millennium
Development Goals Report, 2006). According to MDG (2006) report, more than
1.2 billion people (28%) of the developing world's population lived in extreme
poverty as at 1990. By 2002, the proportion decreased to 19%. During that period,
the rate of extreme poverty fell rapidly in Asia, where the number of people livingon less than one dollar a day dropped by nearly a quarter of a billion people.
Progress was not so rapid in Latin America and the Caribbean, which has a larger
share of people living in poverty than South-eastern Asia and Oceania.
Chronic hunger measured by the percentage of people lacking the food needed
Agricultural Innovations for Climate Change Adaptation and Food Security in West Africa: The Case of Nigeria, Sierra Leone and Liberia | 7

to meet their daily needs has declined in the developing world. However, overall
progress is not fast enough to reduce the number of people going hungry, which
increased between 1995-1997 and 2001-2003 (Millennium Development Goals
Report, 2006). An estimated 824 million people were affected by chronic hunger
in 2003. The worst affected regions were sub-Saharan Africa and Southern Asia.
These regions though have made progress in recent years, but their advances
have not kept pace with those of the early 1990's and the number of people going
hungry is increasing. In sub-Saharan Africa, although the poverty rate declined
marginally, the number of people living in extreme poverty increased by 140
million. Many sub-Saharan Africa countries are now showing potentials for longterm growth that could bring up their standard of living (Millennium Development
Goals Report, 2006). Data in Table 1 shows the proportion of people inpercentage living in extreme hunger compared with the 2015 target of theMillennium Development Goals across different Sub-regions of the world.
Table 1: Prevalence of undernourishment in the world inpercentage for 1990-92, 1995-97 and 2001-03

Sub -regions
Sub -Saharan Africa
Southern Asia
Common Wealth of Independent States, Asia
Eastern Asia
Southeast Asia
Oceania
Latin America and CaribbeanWestern Asia
Northern Africa
Common Wealth of Independent State, Europe

19901992

19951997

20012003

2015
Target

33
25
16
16
18
15
13
6
4
4

34
23
N.A
12
14
14
11
9
4
N.A

31
21
20
12
12
12
10
9
4
3

18
14
9
9
10
8
7
4
3
2.8

Source: Millennium Development Goals Report (2006); N.A is data not available.

In many African countries, food security at both the national and household levelis a dismal. Africa has the highest prevalence of undernourishment. In 2004,
whereas 14% of the global population was undernourished, 27.4% of the
population in Africa as a whole was undernourished (Babatunde, Omotesho and
8 | Agricultural Innovations for Climate Change Adaptation and Food Security in West Africa: The Case of Nigeria, Sierra Leone and Liberia

Shotolan, 2007). In some countries, the rate of undernourishment is above 40%
while it exceeds 50% in those countries experiencing or emerging from armed
conflict (Todd, 2004). In West African sub-region, Liberia and Sierra Leone areamong those with the highest rate of undernourishment in the continent with 1.4
and 2.3 million undernourished people respectively in 2002 (Babatunde et.
al.,2007). In Nigeria, the most populous country in Africa, the majority ofhouseholds are food insecure, especially the rural farming households.
Climate change is a serious risk to poverty reduction and threatens to undo
decades of development efforts through direct negative effects on production
and indirect impacts on purchasing powers (African Development Bank (ADB)
Report (2003)). As the Johannesburg Declaration on Sustainable Development
states, “the adverse effects of climate change are already evident, natural
disasters are more frequent and more devastating and developing countries
more vulnerable.” While climate change is a global phenomenon, its negative
impacts are more severely felt by poor people and poor countries because of theirhigh dependence on natural resources, and their limited capacity to cope withclimate variability and extremes.

Fig 1: The Possible Effects of Global Climate Change

Agricultural Innovations for Climate Change Adaptation and Food Security in West Africa: The Case of Nigeria, Sierra Leone and Liberia | 9

Experience suggests that the best way to address climate change impacts on thepoor is by integrating adaptation responses into development planning (ADB,
2003). This is fundamental to achieve the Millennium Development Goals,
including the over-arching goal of halving extreme poverty by 2015, andsustaining progress beyond 2015. Figure 1 shows the possible effects of global
climate change.
Africa remains one of the most vulnerable continents to climate change becauseof multiple stresses (resulting from both politics and economic conditions), thecontinent's dependence on natural resources and its weak adaptive capacity.
According to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change 4th Assessment
Report (2007) between 75 and 250 million people may be exposed to increased
water stress due to climate change by 2020 in Africa and this will adversely affectlivelihoods in the region. The area suitable for agriculture, the length of growing
seasons and yield potentials, are expected to decrease due to climate change.
Yields from rain-fed agriculture in some countries could be reduced by up to
50%. Thus, climate change may have particularly serious consequences inAfrica, where some 800 million people are undernourished.
In the West Africa sub region, the report showed that agriculture is critical to theeconomy. While the world average contribution of the agriculture sector to theGross Domestic Product (GDP) is only 4.5 %, the sector's contribution is about 30% in West Africa. In addition to the above, over 65 % of the population in theregion is rural, and about 90 % of the rural population directly depends on rainfed agriculture for income and food security. Therefore reduction in rainfall as
predicted by various climate models translates to threat to livelihood of the
population and the economy of the sub-region.
Unfortunately, research data from Nigeria, Sierra Leone and Liberia show that theperformance of the agricultural sector continue to be relatively disappointing inthe sub-region as growth has been increasingly on the decline. Traditionally, theagricultural research systems in the region are characterized by a top-down,
centralized, monolithic and isolated structures. Linkages, interactions andlearning mechanisms among the component actors are notably weak and/or
often non-existent. Empirical evidence revealed several linkage gaps andmissing links among and between the actors in the systems (Agbamu, 2000;
Egyir, 2009). Institutions, for example, universities and research institutes
10 | Agricultural Innovations for Climate Change Adaptation and Food Security in West Africa: The Case of Nigeria, Sierra Leone and Liberiainnovate in isolation and although research were taking place at various national
and international organizations, the coordination is dysfunctional, and poorly
linked to the productive sector. Besides, farmer innovations were not being
included in the knowledge system because traditional approaches such as the
NARS (National Agricultural Research System) perspective and AKIS
(agricultural knowledge and information system) depict research as the solesource of innovation. Without research, it implies, there is no innovation.
A more accurate way is one in which the NARS is no longer seen as the epicenterof innovation but simply one of its various sources. Knowledge and information
may spill into the innovation system from domains other than the NARS and,perhaps even more crucially, knowledge and information may emerge fromoutside the realm of formal research because of on-farm as well as off-farmlearning (up and down the agricultural production chain)—that is, learning
through doing, using, and interacting. This comprises a far broader set of actors
than the traditional agricultural research, extension, and education agencies. In
other words, not all innovations have their origin in formal S&T nor are they all
exclusively technical. Hence, this new perspective places more emphasis on therole of farmers, input suppliers, transporters, processors and markets in theinnovation process.
Innovation refers to the process of creating and putting into use combinations ofknowledge from many different sources. Thus, innovation may be brand new, but
usually it involves new combinations of existing knowledge, i.e., small, gradualchanges in technology, processing, organizational management, etc and/or
creative imitation. Studies on innovation indicate that the ability to innovate isoften related to collective action and knowledge exchange among diverse
actors, incentives and resources available for collaboration, and having in place
conditions that enable adoption and innovation e.g., by farmers or entrepreneurs(World Bank 2006). In other words, contemporary concept of innovation sees
innovation not as mere technologies or products but as the process throughwhich knowledge is generated, crafted from various sources and put into use.
Thus, innovation may address new creations of social and economic significance(such as climate change adaptation measures), technological artifacts,
improvements in technical and managerial issues, institutional and policy
aspects (Smits, 2002). Hence, innovation requires systemic view as it involves
various dimensions that are contributed by different actors. As innovation results
Agricultural Innovations for Climate Change Adaptation and Food Security in West Africa: The Case of Nigeria, Sierra Leone and Liberia | 11

from interactions of various actors and factors, there is a high chance of
convergence of multiple drivers of innovation (e.g., access to information,markets, finance, collective actions, and institutional changes) through networksof actors initiated in the Innovation System.
According to Roling, (2007) farmers are very quick to take up opportunities. The
recent increase in the FOB price of cocoa in Ghana from 40 to 70% led to adoubling of cocoa production without any technological break-through. Hence, if
farmers are to cope, compete, and survive, they need to innovate continuously.
African farmers are not only innovating in terms of component technologies, butalso in terms of farming systems. Farmers often know more than scientists whenit comes to the characteristics and dynamics of the environment in which they
farm, including risks of water logging, drought, pests, climate change andadaptation measures, thieves, and so forth. However, emerging issues such as
high food prices, climate change, and demands for bio-fuels requirecomplementary knowledge from formal agricultural research and development(R&D) and support from policies and other institutions (Asenso-Okyere andDavis, 2009). Hence, formal and informal knowledge and innovation must
therefore be linked to accelerate sustainable agricultural development in theWest African sub-region.
By adopting an AIS perspective, bigger issues come into focus than when
adopting a more limited NARS or AKIS concept. By starting at the knowledgeapplication end, the question of why farmers innovate or why they don't becomesa major issue for debate and research. What are the constraints that hold themback? Is it the prices in the market, for example, or the lack of (or lack of access to)technology? Are farmers passive recipients of technology or do they actively
search for innovations? What are the roles of input suppliers, cooperatives,traders, processors, NGOs, and government-extension services in technology
diffusion? What are the relative strengths and weaknesses of each diffusion
channel? How can they be improved and what can be done to reach more
farmers? This study therefore sought to identify and document the agricultural
innovations used for climate change adaptation and food security in Nigeria,
Sierra Leone and Liberia, using the Agricultural Innovation Systems Framework.

12 | Agricultural Innovations for Climate Change Adaptation and Food Security in West Africa: The Case of Nigeria, Sierra Leone and Liberia

1.1
Study Objectives
Specifically, this research project sought to:
1. Promote some selected agricultural innovations through targeted training
and field demonstrations with selected Agriculture Extension Officers andfarmers in Nigeria and Sierra Leone;
2. Identify and document indigenous innovations and good practices by
climate change vulnerable communities for improved food security in
Nigeria, Liberia and Sierra Leone;
3. Identify and document emerging innovations suitable for climate change
adaptation in Nigeria, Liberia and Sierra Leone;
4. Establish collaborative network involving researcher, ministry of food andagriculture or its equivalent and farmers to enhance agricultural innovations
for increased productivity in the face of climate change in Nigeria, Liberia andSierra Leone;
5. Build capacity of farmers and extension officers from the ministry of food andagriculture or its equivalent in order to enhance behavioural change towards
sustainable farming and agri-business innovation in Nigeria, Liberia andSierra Leone;
6. Build capacity of the research team on agricultural innovation systems
through participating in an integrated capacity building programme,
including hand on case studies and country tour to showcase and learn fromgood practices; radio jingles, drama, plays, TV shows, etc all aimed atdisseminating evidence-based climate change adaptations and resilience
methods and food security to vulnerable communities and people in thethree countries; and7. To support the implementation of the NEPAD CAADEP program in the West
Africa region through popularisation and policy advocacy.
1.2
Rationale of the Study
Innovation system approach offers a more holistic, multidisciplinary andcomprehensive framework for analyzing innovation processes for climatechange adaptation and food security, as well as the roles of science andtechnology actors and their interactions because of its emphasis on wider
stakeholder participation, linkages and institutional context of innovation andprocesses.

Agricultural Innovations for Climate Change Adaptation and Food Security in West Africa: The Case of Nigeria, Sierra Leone and Liberia | 13

Whilst climate change is presenting specific additional challenges todevelopment, it cannot be addressed in isolation. Unless concrete and urgent
steps are undertaken to reduce vulnerability and enhance adaptive capacity ofpoor people, and unless these actions are integrated in national strategies forpoverty eradication and sustainable development, it may be difficult to meetsome MDGs by 2015. Adaptation which refers to consciously planned
adjustments in a system to reduce, moderate, or take advantage of the expected
negative impacts of climate change (Smit, Burton, Klein and Wandel, 2000) aims
to reduce the vulnerability of individuals and communities by building on andstrengthening their existing coping mechanisms with specific measures.
Hence, the starting point for addressing the critical issues for policy should be an
analysis of existing agricultural, environmental and food security policies in thesecountries as well as documentation of effective agricultural innovations forclimate change adaptation and food security in the West African sub-region andthe consequences of climate change for different rural communities. Since
adaptation can help farmers achieve their food, income and livelihood security,
negligence will have devastating implications for development and livelihood.
Moreover, mainstreaming climate issues into national development policies
ensures consistency between the needs of adaptation and poverty eradication.
Separation of the two runs the risk of adaptation policies inadvertently conflictingwith development and poverty policies, or conversely, development policies
inadvertently increasing vulnerability to climatic factors. Accordingly, thisresearch project is critical to the successful eradication of poverty and needs tobe undertaken.
Also, in order to enlighten the major stakeholders on the dynamics of climatechange; there is the need to understand the different local knowledge andinnovations that have sustained the rural people in these countries. We therefore
need research in this area for evidence-based advocacy. Again, this work is very
vital at this point in time in order to provide foundations upon which the building
blocks of STI policies on climate change adaptations will be laid. Finally, researchfindings from this study will feed into future STI policy documents on climatechange adaptation and food security measures.

14 | Agricultural Innovations for Climate Change Adaptation and Food Security in West Africa: The Case of Nigeria, Sierra Leone and Liberia

2. Definition of Terms
2.1
Climate Change
The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) (2001) defines climatechange as: Any change in climate over time, whether due to natural variability or
as a result of human activity. In other words it encompasses both naturalvariability and anthropogenic changes and hence refers to the observed andprojected increase in average global temperature, and the associated impacts,
including: an increase in extreme weather events; melting of icebergs, glaciersand permafrost; sea level rise; and changes in the timing and amount of rainfall.
(CARE/Angie Dazé/2007), it is unnecessary to separate “climate change” causedby humans from natural “climate variability”.
2.2
Vulnerability to Climate Change
Vulnerability to climate change has been defined as: The degree to which asystem is susceptible to, or unable to cope with, adverse effects of climatechange, including climate variability and extremes. Vulnerability is a function of
the character, magnitude, and rate of climate variation to which a system is
exposed, its sensitivity, and its adaptive capacity (CARE/Angie Dazé/2007).
Systems here, refers to communities (recognizing that communities are nothomogeneous, so particular households or individuals within communities may
have differing degrees of vulnerability). Exposure to climate variation is primarily
a function of geography. For example, coastal communities will have higher
exposure to sea level rise and cyclones, while communities in semi-arid areas
may be most exposed to drought. Sensitivity is the degree to which thecommunity is affected by climatic stresses. A community dependent on rain-fed
agriculture is much more sensitive than one where the main livelihood strategy islabour in a mining facility, for instance.
Agricultural Innovations for Climate Change Adaptation and Food Security in West Africa: The Case of Nigeria, Sierra Leone and Liberia | 15

2.3
Adaptive Capacity
Adaptive capacity is defined as: The ability of a system to adjust to climatechange (including climate variability and extremes) to moderate potential
damages, to take advantage of opportunities, or to cope with the consequences(IPCC, 2001). One of the most important factors shaping the adaptive capacity of
individuals, households and communities is their access to and control overnatural, human, social, physical, and financial resources. Examples of resourcesthat may be important to adaptive capacity include:>>>

Human Knowledge of climate risks, conservation agriculture skills, good
health to enable labour
Social Women's savings and loans groups, farmer-based organizations
Physical Irrigation infrastructure, seed and grain storage facilities
Natural Reliable water source, productive land Financial Micro-insurance,
diversified income sources.

Access to and control over the resources necessary for adaptation varies withincountries, communities and even households. It is influenced by external factors
such as policies, institutions and power structures. Adaptive capacity can varyover time based on changing conditions, and may differ in relation to particularhazards. In general, the world's poorest people are also the most vulnerable toclimate change. This is often because they have limited access to thoseresources that would facilitate adaptation. For instance, women are often
particularly vulnerable to the impacts of climate change due to their
responsibilities in the home and their limited access to information, resources
and services. Other groups such as pastoralists, persons living with HIV&AIDS
and the elderly may also represent highly vulnerable populations.
2.4
Resilience
Resilience can be defined as: The ability of a community to resist, absorb, andrecover from the effects of hazards in a timely and efficient manner, preserving or
restoring its essential basic structures, functions and identity ( IPCC, 2001).
Resilience is a familiar concept in the context of disaster risk reduction (DRR), andis increasingly being discussed in the realm of adaptation. A resilient community
is well-placed to manage hazards to minimize their effects and/or to recoverquickly from any negative impacts, resulting in a similar or improved state ascompared to before the hazard occurred. There are strong linkages between
16 | Agricultural Innovations for Climate Change Adaptation and Food Security in West Africa: The Case of Nigeria, Sierra Leone and Liberia

resilience and adaptive capacity; consequently, resilience also varies greatly for
different groups within a community.
2.5
HazardIn the context of disaster risk reduction, a hazard is defined as: A dangerous
phenomenon, substance, human activity or condition that may cause loss of life,
injury or other health impacts, property damage, loss of livelihoods and services,
social and economic disruption, or environmental damage (UNISDR, 2009).
Hazards refers both to shocks, such as droughts or floods (rapid onset), and to
stresses, such as changing rainfall patterns (slow onset). It is important todistinguish between the hazard - for example a flood, and the effects of the hazard- for example death of livestock. Some effects, such as food shortages, may be
the result of a combination of hazards, including climate shocks and stresses,
declining soil fertility, and insecure access to markets. To effectively analyze
vulnerability, we must understand the dynamic nature and interactions ofhazards.
2.6
Adaptation to Climate Change
In order to reduce vulnerability to climate change, we must focus on building
adaptive capacity, particularly of the most vulnerable people; and, in some cases,on reducing exposure or sensitivity to climate impacts. We must also ensure thatdevelopment initiatives don't inadvertently increase vulnerability. We call thisprocess adaptation. Adaptation is defined as:
Adjustment in natural or human systems in response to actual or expectedclimatic stimuli or their effects, which moderates harm or exploits beneficial
opportunities (IPCC, 2007).
The adaptation of human systems is a process which requires the engagement ofa wide range of stakeholders at multiple levels and in multiple sectors. It requires
analysis of current exposure to climate shocks and stresses, and model-based
analysis of future climate impacts. It demands an understanding of the existing
vulnerability of individuals, households, and communities. With this information,
adaptation strategies can be designed and implemented. Monitoring andevaluating the effectiveness of activities, as well as sharing knowledge andlessons learnt, are critical components of the process.

Agricultural Innovations for Climate Change Adaptation and Food Security in West Africa: The Case of Nigeria, Sierra Leone and Liberia | 17

2.7

Concepts in Innovation Systems

2.7.1 Innovation
This is any new knowledge introduced into and utilized in an economic or social
activity. Innovations may be technical or social. Innovations may be by anindividual or by a group.
2.7.2 Innovation system
This is defined as a set of interrelated agents, their interactions, and theinstitutions that condition their behavior with respect to the common objective ofgenerating, diffusing, and utilizing knowledge and/or technology. In other words
it is an interactive learning process in which enterprises in interaction with eachother and supported by organizations and institutions play a key role in bringing
new products, new processes and new forms of organization into social andeconomic use (Francis, 2006).
2.7.3 AgentsThis comprises individuals and firms as well as public institutions and non state
actors that constitute the principal operating components of the system. Agentsprimarily engaged in the generation, dissemination, or use of knowledge ortechnology (Clark, 2002).
2.7.4 Knowledge
Knowledge can be categorized in many different ways. Knowledge may beclassified according to form—for example, as scientific/technical knowledge ororganizational/managerial knowledge, as well as codified/explicit (which isknowledge that has been written down in the form of scientific articles, books,
and patents = information) and tacit/implicit knowledge (which is the knowledge
people acquire during their life, education and at their job) (Hall, Sulaiman,
Clark, Sivamohan, and Yoganand. 2002; CABI/CTA/KIT/ VRIJE / WUR, 2006).
Knowledge economy requires trained / skilled people at all levels (farmers,scientists, policymakers) that are continuously learning & innovating.
2.7.5 Sources of knowledge
Knowledge is not only created through formal research but also gained fromexperiences. Knowledge sources may be external to a given agent within an
innovation system—for example, a scientific journal article documenting a
18 | Agricultural Innovations for Climate Change Adaptation and Food Security in West Africa: The Case of Nigeria, Sierra Leone and Liberia

laboratory breakthrough, or a neighbour who introduces one to a new way ofachieving something. Others include public research organizations, private
laboratories, universities, practices and behaviors of individuals, households,
and civil society organizations (Clark, 2002).
2.7.6 Interactions
This refers to relationships between and among agents in an innovation system.
Interactions are numerous and varied, and include such relationships as spot
market exchanges of goods and services that embody new knowledge ortechnology; costless exchanges of non-rival, non-excludable knowledge madeavailable in the public domain, interactions among individuals and organizations
that are characterized by learning and feedback processes.
2.7.7 Cooperation
This refers to incompletely specified exchange (non-market) relationships thatallow for opportunistic behaviour by agents involved in the exchange, in thecontext of an innovation systems framework (Fritsch, 2004). Cooperation is oneof the several forms of interaction that is a key behavioural aspect of agents in an
innovation system and is conditioned by the institutions that promote or impede
it.
2.7.8 Institutions
This are factors that affect the process by which innovations are developed anddelivered, the laws, regulations, conventions, traditions, routines, and norms ofsociety that determine how different agents interact with and learn from eachother, and how they produce, disseminate, and utilize knowledge. These are thefactors that determine the efficiency and stability of cooperation and competition,
and whether agents in an innovation system are able to interact so as to generate,
diffuse, and utilize knowledge such as farmer exchanges of seed and otherplanting materials.

Agricultural Innovations for Climate Change Adaptation and Food Security in West Africa: The Case of Nigeria, Sierra Leone and Liberia | 19

3. Literature Review
Literature was reviewed under the following headings:
1. Concept and Elements of Food and Nutrition Security;
2. NEPAD's Response to the Present Food Crisis in Africa;
3. Food Security Situations in West Africa: The Case of Nigeria, Sierra Leone
and Liberia;
4. Nexus Between Climate Change and Food Security;
5. Impacts of Climate Change and the Need for Adaptation;
6. A Critical Review of Policies Relating to Agriculture, Food Security,
Environment and Climate Change in Nigeria;
7. A Review of Agricultural Policies in Sierra Leone;
8. Review of Agricultural Policies on Climate Change and Food Security in
Liberia and9. The Innovation System Perspectives.

3.1
Concept and Elements of Food and Nutrition Security
Food security as a concept originated only in the mid-1970's, in the discussions ofinternational food problems at a time of global food crisis (FAO, 2000). The initial
focus, reflecting the global concerns of 1974, was on the volume and stability offood supplies. Food security was defined in the 1974 World Food Summit asavailability at all times of adequate world food supplies of basic foodstuffs tosustain a steady expansion of food consumption and to offset fluctuations in
production and prices (FAO, 2003).
In 1983, FAO expanded its concept to include securing access by vulnerable
people to available supplies, implying that attention should be balanced between
20 | Agricultural Innovations for Climate Change Adaptation and Food Security in West Africa: The Case of Nigeria, Sierra Leone and Liberia

the demand and supply side of the food security equation and thus defined foodsecurity as the condition which ensures that all people at all times have both
physical and economic access to the basic food that they need (FAO, 2003).
However, this term has gone through stages of definition and redefinition;
approaches to its definition have ranged from an emphasis on self-sufficiency toan emphasis on coping with vulnerability and risk in food and nutrition access. In
the 1970s, food security was equated to adequate food production. In the 1980s,
food security was considered to refer to the security of food access andavailability. In the 1990s, the importance of nutrition was recognized, and hence
the concept of food security was combined with that of nutrition security. In the
2000s, with vulnerability, risk coping, and risk management considerations.
In 1986, the highly influential World Bank report “Poverty and Hunger”, focusedon the temporal dynamics of food insecurity (World Bank, 2005). It introduced thewidely accepted distinction between chronic food insecurity, associated withproblems of continuing or structural poverty and low incomes, and transitory foodinsecurity, which involves period of intensified pressure caused by natural
disaster, economic collapse or conflict. This concept of food security is further
elaborated in terms of access of all people at all times to enough food for an active
healthy life.
Much of the recent discussion of food security has revolved around the following
major topics(ODI 2002):a) What are the links between food availability, access, and nutrition, given thatfood availability does not ensure nutritional well-being?
b) What implications do the new challenges to Africa—notably globalization,
rapid urbanization, market liberalization, health and HIV/ AIDS, andbiotechnology—have for the food security agenda?
c) Does food security remain a useful concept for the discussion ofdevelopment assistance and national policies, given the new approaches
coming to the fore (for example, livelihoods analysis) and the current focus ofdonors on poverty reduction?
d) Does food aid still have an important role in supporting food security, andhow can it be shaped to support long-term food security?

Agricultural Innovations for Climate Change Adaptation and Food Security in West Africa: The Case of Nigeria, Sierra Leone and Liberia | 21

Essentially, food security can be described as a phenomenon relating toindividuals. It is the nutritional status of the individual household members that is
the ultimate focus, and the risk of that adequate status not being achieved or
becoming undermined. The latter risk describes the vulnerability of individuals inthis context. As the definitions reviewed above imply, vulnerability may occur
both as a chronic and transitory phenomenon.
Recognizing the distinction between food and nutrition security as well as thelinks between the two concepts is imperative for the success of national
development strategies (Benson, 2004). The secure access to food that isnecessary for food security must be complemented with access to healthservices, education, sanitary environments, and safe water sources, among
other resources, to achieve nutrition security. A much more comprehensive
developmental approach is thus required to ensure that all groups in a populationachieve both food and nutrition security. According to Heidhues, Atsain,
Nyangito, Padilla, Ghersi, and Le Vallée, (2004) the following research findings on
the links between food availability, food access, and nutritional well-being are
relevant to Africa:
1) Women's education has accounted for over 40 percent of the reduction in
malnutrition over the past 25 years because of its strong influence on childnutrition. Other major factors are improvements in per capita food availability(25 percent), health, environment, and women's status (Smith and Haddad
2000). About 26 percent of the hungry have caloric intakes so low that they
are unable to work or care for themselves (Millennium Project 2003).
2) How food is made available is just as important as the overall supply.
Strategies to boost national food production only improve food access if theyraise the incomes of large numbers of rural farm and nonfarm households
and reduce the consumer prices of food, particularly for net buyers.
3) Agricultural market reform may improve the food security of poor consumers
by improving the private production, distribution, and processing of the typesof foods consumed by them.
4) A higher household income does not always translate into more and better
food for all family members. If women control the household income,22 | Agricultural Innovations for Climate Change Adaptation and Food Security in West Africa: The Case of Nigeria, Sierra Leone and Liberia

otherwise undernourished children are likely to benefit.
Food security is increasingly though not universally treated as a basic humanright. The intertwined relationships between food security, poverty, anddevelopment have moved to the forefront on current thinking about food security,
as has the recognition that long-term food security is a function of current policies
and actions, such as development strategies, macroeconomic policies, tradeand exchange rate policies, research and innovation policies, and modifications
to institutions and infrastructure (Heidhues, et. al., 2004).
Guaranteeing food and nutrition security at the micro level requires policymakers
to go beyond the question of physical access at the national level, that is, whether
there is sufficient food at the national level to feed all people. A number ofconsiderations are required, including the following:
1) Physical access at the local level—making sure food is available in local
markets and in local fields;
2) Economic access—addressing the question of whether households canafford to purchase the food items they need for food and nutrition security;
3) Social access—promoting adequate access to food for all household
members;4) Food quality and safety—ensuring food of sufficient diversity and safety topromote good health;5) Proper physiological access—providing high quality care and good healthand sanitation environments so that ingested nutritious food results in healthy
growth and development;
6) Low risk of loss of access—providing institutional set-ups that enable
households to absorb and manage shocks, cycles, and seasonality, andreduce their vulnerability; and
7) Access to food as a human right—promoting the capacity of the food system
to deliver needed food and to enhance the capacity of individuals to press
their claims to food.
Food security is a broad concept that is more than food production and foodaccessibility. In reality, it revolves around four major pillars namely, foodavailability, food accessibility, food utilization which determines nutritional status
and stability of food supply (Babatunde et al., 2007) as depicted in figure 2.
Agricultural Innovations for Climate Change Adaptation and Food Security in West Africa: The Case of Nigeria, Sierra Leone and Liberia | 23

Nutritional Status

Utilization

Stability

Accessibility

Availability
Source: Babatunde, Omotesho and Shotolan (2007).

Fig 2: Elements of Food and Nutrition Security
Figure 2 indicates that for food security to be achieved, the aggregate availabilityof physical supplies of food through local production or importation is sufficientand that the available food supplies should be made accessible to households
through their production, markets (given sufficient purchasing power) or othersources. Food security is ensured when there is stability in the supply of theavailable, accessible and utilized food. Thus, availability, accessibility andutilization of food are hierarchical in nature. Food availability is necessary but not
sufficient for food accessibility and access is necessary but not sufficient for
utilization.
Food availability is a function of the combination of domestic food stocks,
commercial food imports, food aid and domestic food production, as well as theunderlying determinants of each of these factors (Makinde, 2000). Foodavailability in a country, region or local area means that food is physically present
through domestic agricultural output or net food imports at the national level. The
use of the term availability is applied most commonly in reference to foodsupplies at a general or national level. Food availability is the most importantcomponent of food security because if food is not produced, there will be no
distribution, exchange and all the elements associated with food access andfood utilization (Omonona et. al., 2007)24 | Agricultural Innovations for Climate Change Adaptation and Food Security in West Africa: The Case of Nigeria, Sierra Leone and Liberia

The distinction between chronic and transitory (acute) states of food insecurity
should be kept in mind. Transitory food insecurity may be triggered by seasonal
fluctuations in food availability, food prices and/or incomes, which themselves
may result in seasonal fluctuations in individual nutritional status. Depending on
the level of vulnerability of a household, transitory periods of food insecurity may
precipitate the chronic condition. Chronic food insecurity is a condition, which
exists when food supplies are persistently insufficient to supply adequate nutrient
for all individuals. A household that cannot cope with seasonality this way, may bethought of as 'fragile', while a household that weathers such periodic crisis is more
'resilient' (Clover, 2003).
According to Todd (2004) household food security is necessary but, of itself, notsufficient to ensure adequate individual nutrition. It may be possible to bemalnourished in a food secure household through the effect of disease,
inadequate care or inequitable food allocation. While a household may be foodsecure in terms of calories, dietary quality will determine the likelihood of
micronutrient deficiencies occurring in individuals. It should be pointed out that it
may be possible for an individual to be well nourished in a food insecurehousehold, although this will usually be at the expense of other individuals'
nutritional status, due to preferential food allocation and care. Assuring foodsecurity at the household level is thus a fundamental first step in assuring
adequate nutritional status of individuals.
3.2
NEPAD's Response to the Present Food Crisis in Africa
The present food crisis in Africa is a major challenge for the international
community as well as for Africa's leadership. In response, African leaders
assembled in Sirte, Libya, in September 1999 to search for a paradigm shift in theway Africa conducts its affairs. A consensus emerged that what was needed wasa holistic, integrated, and coordinated agenda for the regeneration of the African
continent (Heidhues, et. al., 2004). Given the evidence that the continent was
failing on every front, ranging from economic management to social stability toadoption of new technologies to capacity building, African leaders agreed on a
new development agenda for African renewal. What finally emerged from theirdeliberations was NEPAD's strategic framework document. The African leaders
formally adopted the vision, principles, objectives, goals, and priorities outlined in
the NEPAD document at the OAU Summit in Lusaka, Zambia, in July 2001.

Assessment on the Adaptive Capacity of the Machobane Farming System to Climate Change in Lesotho | 25

According to Heidhues, et.al., (2004) the new initiative aimed to build on the
CDF–PRSP process, and amalgamates African initiative and ownership of thedevelopment process with neoliberal concepts. NEPAD supports liberalizationand globalization if the process is fair and the playing field of international trade islevel. By endorsing NEPAD's policy framework, African leaders jointly accepted
responsibility for eradicating poverty and placing their countries, both individuallyand collectively, on the path of sustainable development and growth. At the sametime, they committed themselves to principles, values, priorities, and standardsof governance that are in line with international best practice. Furthermore, they
committed themselves to people centered, participative development
processes. Within NEPAD's overall vision, its vision for agriculture seeks tomaximize the contribution of Africa's largest economic sector to achieving a selfreliant and productive Africa that can participate fully in the world economy. The
NEPAD strategy aims for agriculture-led development that eliminates hunger andreduces food insecurity and poverty, thereby opening the way for an expansionof exports, and that puts the continent on an improved economic growth pathwithin an overall strategy of sustainable development and the preservation of thenatural resource base. Heidhues, et. al., further reported that the NEPAD's
strategy consists of the following aims:
1) improving the productivity of agriculture, with particular attention to smallscale and women farmers;2) ensuring food security for all people, and increasing the access of the poor toadequate food and nutrition;3) promoting measures against natural resource degradation, and encouraging
production methods that are environmentally sustainable;
4) integrating the rural poor into the market economy and providing them with
better access to national and export markets;5) transforming Africa into a net exporter of agricultural products; and6) making Africa a strategic player in agricultural science and technology
development.
None of these goals for African agriculture are new. These goals have beenproclaimed in every strategy that African leaders have designed or adopted withthe aims of resolving the food crisis and reversing the effects of poverty. What
does appear to be new is the high recognition of these goals by the African
leaders who currently drive the implementation of NEPAD's strategy. The newemphasis and priority given to agriculture and water within NEPAD and in the
26 | Agricultural Innovations for Climate Change Adaptation and Food Security in West Africa: The Case of Nigeria, Sierra Leone and Liberia

2003 Maputo Declaration of the Heads of States of the African Union is also
encouraging in this respect. To ensure its full success, NEPAD must integratelessons from OAU's past involvements in initiatives conceived or adopted by
African leaders.
3.3 Food Security Situations in West Africa: The Case of Nigeria,
Sierra Leone and Liberia
Almost 33 percent of the population of Sub-Saharan Africa (SSA), or close to 200
million people, is undernourished, at the same time, the region as a wholeremains susceptible to frequent food crises and famines which are easily
triggered by even the lightest of droughts, or floods, pests, economic downturns
or conflicts (FAO, 2006), and which is also projected to be exacerbated by the
impact of climate change. Studies indicate that while the world food supply does
not appear to be seriously threatened by the projected global changes in climate,food insecurity in Africa will worsen and the population at the risk of hunger will
increase both in terms of percentage and absolute numbers during the coming
century (Downing, 1992; Fischer et. al., 1996).
According to FAO (2000) food insecurity is among the developmental problems
facing Nigeria. Recent poverty assessment survey has shown that over 70% of the
populations are living on less than a dollar per day and over 50% are foodinsecure (Babatunde, Olorunsanya and Adejola, 2008). The survey also revealed
that poverty and food insecurity is especially higher in rural areas where majorityof the people are resident and deriving livelihood from agriculture (National
Bureau of Statistics, 2006).
Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) in its State of Food Insecurity in theWorld, (2006) had indicated that Nigeria had about 12 million people reported asundernourished as at 2003. The proportion of the country's population depicted
as undernourished had however been declining with the percentage reducing
from about 13% from 1990 - 1992 to about 9% from 2001 - 2003. In fact, the FAO
report indicated that Nigeria is moving towards reaching the target of halving theundernourished population by 2015 set by the World Food Summit in November
1996. The report was explicit about policy interventions that may result in hunger
reduction. Such policies must:

Agricultural Innovations for Climate Change Adaptation and Food Security in West Africa: The Case of Nigeria, Sierra Leone and Liberia | 27

a)
b)
c)
d)

Enhance productivity of small holder agriculture
Create an environment conducive to private investment
Combine poverty reduction with increased provision of global public good
Make trade work for the poor by enhancing domestic competitivenessthrough policy and institutional reforms, ande) Coordinate domestic and international resources for agriculture and ruraldevelopment.
In sub – Saharan Africa, there have been substantial increases in agricultural
productivity in recent years (Adewujon, 2006; FAO, 2001). From an average of
100 around 1990, the index of agricultural productivity increased to 156 in
Nigeria, to 142.9 in Burkina Faso and to 142 in Guinea in 1999.This
notwithstanding; there are countries in the sub-region that saw a declining trend.
Between 1988 and 1999, food production per capita actually declined in theGambia, Guinea Bissau, Mauritania, Senegal and Sierra Leone (FAO, 2001; ADB,
2001/2002). According to Adewujon (2006), in 1998 the daily calorie supply percapita varied between 1,966 kilo calories in Niger Republic and 2,288 kilo calories
in Nigeria; while the per capita daily supply of protein varied between 35 kilo
calories in Liberia and 64 kilo calories in Nigeria. Furthermore, there was ageneral improvement in nutritional status in most countries with regard to total
calorie intake per capita, during the period from 1970 to 1998. The notable
exceptions were Liberia, Sierra Leone and Senegal. However, compared to otherparts of the world, the standard of nutrition in West Africa is still very poor. Whilethe depth of hunger, measured by the average dietary energy deficit ofundernourished people, expressed in kilocalories per person per day varies from
110 to 160 in the developed countries, it varies in West Africa between 210 for
Nigeria, and 390 for Liberia (FAO, 2000).
3.4
Nexus between Climate Change and Food Security
Climatic variability and change are a major threat to food security in many regionsof the developing world (Archer, 2003), like Nigeria, Sierra Leone and Liberia,
which are largely dependent on rain- fed and labour intensive agricultural
production because of the limited amount and uneven distribution of rainfall.
Hence, linking climate change impacts to food security is significant tounderstand the implications on economic growth. Climate change impact onfood security, health and disaster management forms a complex labyrinth of
network that has strong correlation with socio-economic growth and
28 | Agricultural Innovations for Climate Change Adaptation and Food Security in West Africa: The Case of Nigeria, Sierra Leone and Liberia

development. For instance, it has long been acknowledged that the health statusof the population of any place or country influences development. It can be alimiting factor, as generally poor individual health can lower work capacity andproductivity; this impact can severely restrict the growth of economies (Philips
and Verhasselt, 1994). Similarly, poor diet as a result of food shortage leads toprotein and vitamin deficiency which in turn results to Kwashiorkor, Marasmus,
rickets and Berry-Berry sicknesses. In aggregate, this increases expenditure andlow work capacity of poorer communities-further complicating local economic
growth (Morlai, Mansaray and Vandy, 2010).
Climate change influence on food productivity is already impacting on humanity.
Around 800 million people are currently at risk of hunger (approximately 12% of
the world's population) (Parry, 2004), and malnutrition causes around 4 million
deaths annually. Studies reveal that temperature rises of 2 to 30C will increase thepeople at risk of hunger, potentially by 30-200 million (if carbon fertilization effectis small) (Warren et. al., 2006). In fact temperature increase by 30C will put
additional 250 – 550 million at risk – over half in Africa and Western Asia. However,if crop responses to CO2 are stronger, the effects of warming on risk of hunger will
be considerably smaller.
Poor communities are especially vulnerable to health outcomes resulting fromthe impact of climate change. Climate change is expected to alter the distribution
and incidence of climate-related health impacts ranging from a reduction in coldrelated deaths to greater mortality and illness associated with floods, droughts
and heat stress. In particular, climate change will augment health disparities
between rich and poor parts of the world. It will change the geographic incidenceof illnesses such as malaria. Climatic change places a strain on the transportsystem needed to move produced food from the point of production to the pointof consumption. During droughts, people are known to move to marginal lands,
which may not have good access roads, and transporting food from suchmarginal farms poses a huge challenge. Drought reduces food availability, which
decreases the rate of available food, and so the meal frequency decreases andthe balance of nutrients can be inadequate. This leads to malnutrition in children(Ziervogel, Nyong, Osman, Conde, Cortes and Downing, 2006).
The World Health Organization (WHO) estimates that climate change since the1970s is already responsible for over 150,000 deaths each year through theAgricultural Innovations for Climate Change Adaptation and Food Security in West Africa: The Case of Nigeria, Sierra Leone and Liberia | 29

increasing incidence of diarrhea, malaria and malnutrition (Table 2)
predominantly, in Africa and other developing regions (McMichael et al, 2004).
Just a 10C increase in global temperature above pre-industrial temperature could
double annual deaths from climate change to at least 300,000 (Patz et al, 2005). It
has been an established fact that the distribution and abundance of disease
vectors are closely linked to temperature and rainfall patterns, and will therefore
be sensitive to changes in regional climate in a warmer world. For instance,changes to the mosquito distributions and abundance will have profound
impacts on malaria prevalence in affected areas. Mosquitoes need access tostagnant water in order to breed, and adults need humid conditions for viability.
Warmer temperatures enhance vector breeding and reduce the pathogen's
maturation period within the vector organism. However, very high and dry
conditions can reduce mosquito survival (WHO, 2003).
Table 2: Estimates of extra deaths (per million people) fromclimate change in 2000
Disease/ Illness

Annual Deaths

Climate Change Components(Death/ % total)

Diarrhoeal Diseases
Malnutrition
Malaria
Cardiovascular Disease

2.1 million
3.7 million
1.1 million
17.5 million

47,000/ 2%
77,000/ 2%
27,000/ 2%
Data not provided on total heat/cold

HIV/AIDS
Cancer

2.8 million
7.6 million

There is no climate change element here
There is no climate change element here

Provided there is no change in malaria control efforts, an additional 40 to 60
million people in Africa could be exposed to malaria with just a 20C increase intemperature, increasing to 70 million to 80 million at 3-40C (Warren et al, 2006).
Also many diarrhea diseases vary seasonally, suggesting sensitivity to climate.
Diarrhea diseases typically peak during the rainy season in tropical regions. Bothfloods and droughts increase the risk of diarrhea diseases. As stated by
WHO(2003), major causes of diarrhea linked to heavy rainfall and contaminatedwater supplies are cholera, typhoid, hepatitis A, E-coli infections, shigella, etc. In
2006, WHO also estimated that 2% (47,000 deaths) of the total global annual
death from diarrhea disease are climate-related.
30 | Agricultural Innovations for Climate Change Adaptation and Food Security in West Africa: The Case of Nigeria, Sierra Leone and Liberia

One important thing to note also is that global climate change will beaccompanied by increased frequency and intensity of heat waves, as well as
warmer summers and milder winters. Extremes of temperature can kill. For
instance, death rates during the winter season in temperate countries are 10-25%
higher than those in the summer. In July 1995, a heat wave in Chicago, USA,
caused 514 heat-related deaths (12 per 100,000 population) and 3,300 excess
emergency admissions (WHO, 2003). Deaths resulting from thermal extreme aremostly see in people with pre-existing disease, especially cardiovascular andrespiratory disease. The very old and very young are most susceptible.
3.5 Impacts of Climate Change and the Need for Adaptation
The impacts of climate change are being felt by both developed countries anddeveloping countries. These impacts are more likely to be felt more bydeveloping countries not necessarily because they are the highest contributors to
climate variations but due to lack of economic, social and political infrastructures
to address this topical issue. According to De Chavez and Tauli-Corpus (2008) the
impacts of climate change on people living in different ecosystems will include,
massive floods, strong hurricanes, cyclones and typhoons and storm surges
which will lead to the destruction of houses, infrastructures (bridges, roads,
electrical lines, dams, mine-tailing ponds, etc.), forests, agricultural lands, crops,
livestock, marine and coastal resources; massive landslides; loss of freshwatersupplies, increase of pathogenic micro-organisms and vectors.
Agriculture is highly sensitive to climate variability and weather extremes, such as
droughts, floods and severe storms. While food production may benefit from awarmer climate, the increased potential for droughts, floods and heat waves willpose challenges for farmers. Additionally, the enduring changes in climate, watersupply and soil moisture could make it less feasible to continue crop productionin certain regions (). According to IPCC (2007) recent studies indicate that
increased frequency of heat stress, droughts and floods negatively affect crop
yields and livestock beyond the impacts of mean climate change, creating thepossibility for surprises, with impacts that are larger, and occurring earlier, than
predicted using changes in mean variables alone. This is especially the case forsubsistence sectors at low latitudes. Principally, the impacts of climate change on
cropping systems (CTA, 2008) which has direct effect on food production
include:Agricultural Innovations for Climate Change Adaptation and Food Security in West Africa: The Case of Nigeria, Sierra Leone and Liberia | 31

a.
b.
c.
d.

Reduced production due to changing rainfall pattern;
Emerging diseases, pests and vectors;
Spatial redistribution of pests;
Erratic rainfall patterns etc.

The continent is particularly susceptible to climate change because it includes
some of the world's poorest nations. The climate in Africa is predominantly
tropical in nature, which is broadly classified into three main climatic zones:
humid equatorial, dry, and humid temperate (Adejuwon, 2004). Within thesezones, altitude and other localized variables also produce distinctive regional
climates. The climate also varies cyclically over periods of decades, centuries,
and millennia as well as from year to year. Climate change, especially indicatedby prolonged drought is one of the most serious climatic hazards affecting the
agricultural sector of the continent. As most of the agriculture activities in Africancountries hinge on rain, any adverse changes in the climate would likely have adevastating effect on the sector in the region, and the livelihood of the majority ofthe population (www.ceep.za/climate-change/index.html).
In West Africa, more frequent and longer dry periods are expected, again
threatening crop failures. Coastal areas may also be affected by rising sea levels
and intrusion of salt water into inland freshwater resources(http://www.unep.ch/regionalseas/main/eaf/eafenv.html). Another damaging
repercussion on marine ecosystems is ocean acidification. The oceans haveincreasingly become acidic over the past 200 years, mainly as a result ofchemical changes caused by increasing amounts, of CO2 dissolving in sea water(Turely et al, 2006). If global emissions continue to rise on current trends, ocean
acidity is likely to increase further, with PH declining by an additional 0.3 units if
CO2 levels double (to 560ppm) relative to pre-industrial and an additional
0.3units CO2 levels treble to 840ppm (Royal Society, 2005). Increasing ocean
acidity makes it harder for many ocean creatures to form shells and skeletonsfrom calcium carbonate (CaCO3). These chemical changes have the potential todisrupt marine ecosystems irreversibly – at the very least-halting the growth ofcorals, which provide important nursery grounds for commercial fish, anddamaging mollusks and certain types of plankton at the base of the food chain.
Plankton and marine snails are critical to sustaining species such as salmon,
mackerel and baleen whales; and such changes are expected to have serious
but as-yet-unquantifiable wider impacts.
32 | Agricultural Innovations for Climate Change Adaptation and Food Security in West Africa: The Case of Nigeria, Sierra Leone and Liberia

Apart from the effects on cropping pattern and marine eco- system, climatechange brings with it proliferation of pests and diseases; these can hinder storage
when the need arises because of temperature increases. Diseases tend to spreadto area where they were previously unable to thrive. A good example is the spreadof tse tse fly to the drier regions of northern Nigeria from the southern part. Thischange also affect the agro-pastoral system as animals have to trek very long
distances in search of green grass (De Chavez and Tauli-Corpus, 2008). Thesemovements of the animals also contribute to spread of disease causingorganisms and leads to conflict on available resources.
Adaptation to the adverse effects of climate change is a key issue for all countries,
especially developing countries, which are often the most vulnerable and least,
equipped to defend themselves. Adaptation is widely recognized as a vital
component of any policy response to climate change because it helps farmers
achieve their food, income and livelihood security objectives in the face ofchanging climatic and socioeconomic conditions, including climate variability,
extreme weather conditions such as droughts and floods, and volatile short-termchanges in local and large-scale markets (Kandlinkar & Risbey, 2000).
Studies show that without adaptation, climate change is generally detrimental tothe agriculture sector; but with adaptation, vulnerability can largely be reduced(Easterling, Crosson, Roseberg, McKenney, Kartz and Lemon 1993; Smith 1996;
Mendelsohn 1998; Smit and Skinner, 2002). The degree to which an agricultural
system is affected by climate change depends on its adaptive capacity. Adaptive
capacity as earlier pointed out, is the ability of a system to adjust to climatechange (including climate variability and extremes) to moderate potential
damage, to take advantage of opportunities, or to cope with the consequences(IPCC 2001). Thus, the adaptive capacity of a system or society describes its
ability to modify its characteristics or behaviour so as to cope better with changes
in external conditions (Glwadys, 2009).
Adaptation is understood to include efforts to adjust to ongoing and potential
effects of climate change (Muthukumara, Anil and Viju, 2008). Also, adaptation toclimate change consists of initiatives to reduce the vulnerability of natural climatechange effects (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, 2007). Adaptation
to climate change requires that farmers first notice that the climate has changed,
and then identify useful adaptations measures and implement them (Maddison,
Agricultural Innovations for Climate Change Adaptation and Food Security in West Africa: The Case of Nigeria, Sierra Leone and Liberia | 33

2006). Adaptation to climate change refers to any adjustment that occurs
naturally within ecosystems or in human systems in response to climatic changethat either moderates harm or exploits beneficial opportunities in response toactual or expected climate related environmental changes (IPCC Third
Assessment Report). It looks into ways of responding to changes that pose
greater risks to life and livelihood and increasing damage-related costs such as
climate change effects on rainfall, the strength and distribution of tropical storms,
sea levels and glacier melt.
3.6
A Critical Review of Policies Relating to Agriculture, Food
Security, Environment and Climate Change in Nigeria.
3.6.1 A Review of Agricultural Policy in Nigeria
Agriculture in the context of the economy is tied with the various sectors and isessential for generating broad based growth necessary for development.
Sustainable agricultural development is propelled by agricultural policy.
(http://www.nationsencyclopedia.com/World-Leaders-2003/NigeriaDOMESTIC-POLICY.html). Nigeria's agricultural policy is the synthesis of theframework and action plans of Government designed to achieve overall
agricultural growth and development. The policy aims at the attainment of selfsustaining growth in all the sub-sectors of agriculture and the structuraltransformation necessary for the overall socio-economic development of thecountry as well as the improvement in the quality of life of Nigerians.
Nigeria's agricultural policy framework has gone through a number of
evolutionary processes and fundamental changes that reflected, in a historicalperspective, the changing character of agricultural development problems andthe roles which different segments of the society were expected to play in tacklingthese problems. But, the form and direction of agricultural policy at a point in time
were dictated by the philosophical stance of government on the content ofagricultural development and the role of government in the development
process. In retrospect, four distinct agricultural policy phases can be identified in
Nigeria, The first phase spanned the entire colonial period and the first postindependence decade from 1960 to about 1969; the second covered the period
from about 1970 to about 1985; the third phase started from about 1986 in the
structural adjustment period; and, the fourth was what could be characterized as
the post-structural adjustment era, starting from about 1994.
34 | Agricultural Innovations for Climate Change Adaptation and Food Security in West Africa: The Case of Nigeria, Sierra Leone and Liberia

It is worthy to note, however, that three broad policy and economic instruments
currently bear on the agricultural sector. These include the National Policy on
Agriculture (2001), National Economic Empowerment and Development
Strategy (NEEDS I & II), and the 7‐Point Agenda. Within the three broad
framework are sub‐policies (including Agricultural Trade Policy, National Fertilizer
Policy, Agricultural Subsidy Policy, and Food Security Policy) and programmes(including the Presidential Initiatives on Commodities, National Special Food
Security Programme (NSPFS), Commerce 44, Export Expansion Grant (EEG),
Agricultural Credit Guarantee Scheme (ACGS), National Fadama Development
Programme, National Cocoa Development Programme, and Commodity
Development and Marketing Companies).
3.6.2 Agriculture in the National Development Plans
Accelerating the growth of agricultural productivity and incomes has been a key
component of Nigeria's development and poverty reduction strategies, since
independence in 1960. At independence in 1960, Nigeria adopted five‐year
National Development Plans (NDPs), based on import‐substitution
industrialization and agricultural development strategies, to promote social andeconomic development. From 1962‐1985, the country executed four NDPs. The
objectives of Nigeria's agricultural policy, as contained in the 4 National
Development Plans (1962‐1968; 1970‐1974; 1975‐1980 and 1981‐1985) include:
promotion of self‐sufficiency in food and raw materials for industries;
improvement of the socio‐economic welfare of rural people engaged inagriculture; and diversification of the sources of foreign exchange earnings
through increased agricultural exports arising from the adoption of appropriatetechnologies in food production and distribution. The first two National
Development Plans (1962‐68, 1970‐74) conceived agriculture as a source of
surplus through market board taxation to finance development of the national
economy.
It is obvious that the Nigerian government from independence considered
avenues for increasing food sufficiency without considering measures to sustain
the environment to enhance greater food production in the country. The NDPs
captured issues of increasing food, improving income without giving attention tomeasures that will conserve the natural resources.
Agricultural Innovations for Climate Change Adaptation and Food Security in West Africa: The Case of Nigeria, Sierra Leone and Liberia | 35

3.6.3 Agriculture in Structural Adjustment Programme (SAP)The Nigerian SAP in 1986 set out to restructure and diversify the economy's
productive base and reduce the economy dependence on petroleum exports,
eliminate distortion and rationalize consumption and expenditure patterns,
expand non‐oil exports, increase the reliance of the economy on market forces,
and reduce government controls and roll back government direct participation inmarket and the economy and give the private sector a larger role in the domestic
economy, towards encouraging competition and rational resource allocation.
The assessments of the impact of SAP on the agriculture sector are mixed. Someargue that SAP triggered significant supply responses from the rural economy interms of a substantial increase in food and export crop production – the earlyyears of SAP gave rise to significant improvements in non‐oil exports led bycocoa. Similar views are that it led to an expansion of rural incomes and adramatic reduction in rural poverty with the incidence decreasing from 51
percent in 1985 to 46 percent in 1992 (World Bank, 2002). Others howeverobserve that the intended objective of diversifying the productive base of theeconomy has not been achieved through structural adjustment (Shaib, Aliyu, &Bakshi, 1997).
The introduction of SAP in Nigeria did not differ considerably from the NDPs. It was
aimed at restructuring and diversifying the economy's productive base andreducing the economy dependence on petroleum exports, eliminating distortionand rationalizing consumption and expenditure patterns, expanding non‐oil
exports, etc. It made no provision for changes that could result from thecontinuous cultivation of agricultural lands.
3.6.4

Agriculture in Poverty Reduction Strategies

Recognizing the close interface between agricultural‐rural development andpoverty alleviation, several targeted poverty alleviation programmes bear strong
agricultural‐rural sector bias. The Directorate for Foods, Roads and Rural
Infrastructure (DFRRI) established in 1986 aimed at developing rural andagricultural infrastructures including roads, agro‐facilities, electricity to improverural productivity, employment and incomes. The National Directorate for
Employment has since 1987 been implementing schemes to promote skills
acquisition, job creation and enterprise development in agricultural andnonagricultural sectors. While the Peoples' Bank (established in 1989) aimed at
36 | Agricultural Innovations for Climate Change Adaptation and Food Security in West Africa: The Case of Nigeria, Sierra Leone and Liberia

easing access to low‐cost credit in the informal sector including farmer groups
and producer's associations, the Community Banking Programme established in1991 was designed to promote community‐owned banking (savings and credit)
among the grassroots including farmers and rural people. Also, women‐targetedpoverty alleviation programmes emphasized agriculture and rural sector. The
Better Life Programme (BLP) for Rural Women was established in 1987 to
improve rural and agricultural women's incomes and welfare through productivity
enhancing measures, enterprise development, skills and capacity development.
The Family Support Programme (FSP) was established in 1994 to promotewomen's productivity and incomes through easier access to micro‐credit.
Nigeria's Draft Interim Poverty Reduction Strategy Paper (August 2003)
incorporates agricultural and rural development as a main agenda of poverty
reduction strategy. Currently, the National Poverty Eradication Programme(NAPEP) established in 2000 is implementing nation‐wide employment creationand enterprise development schemes in agricultural production, processing,marketing and agro‐based activities. However, agricultural components of thepoverty alleviation programmes have had little impact due to poor linkages andlack of coordination with sector strategies and policy discontinuity. While
incorporating agricultural and rural development as a key element of poverty
reduction strategy, the Draft Interim Poverty Reduction Strategy Paper I‐PRSP
anchors on the Nigerian Rural Development Sector Strategy developed in 2001,
with an overarching goal of bringing about poverty reduction and enhanced foodsecurity through sustainable agriculture and rural development. The strategies
defined in the IPRSP point to the following priorities and options:a) promotion of rural productive farm and off-farm activities;b) human resource development;c) enhancement of rural infrastructure – physical, economic and social
infrastructure and their maintenance by communities;d) special programmes for target groups and/or development challenges, suchas women, youth, children and HIV/AIDS; ande) organization and mobilization of rural communities. In this context, an
important future challenge is to clarify mechanisms for achieving pro‐poor
growth in the agricultural and rural sector.

Agricultural Innovations for Climate Change Adaptation and Food Security in West Africa: The Case of Nigeria, Sierra Leone and Liberia | 37

In Nigeria today, about 70% of her population are actively engaged in agriculture
yet poverty is soaring high among the citizens, especially those dwelling in therural areas. The reason for this is not farfetched as there can be no meaningful
agricultural development when the issues of climate change mitigation andadaptation is not captured in any agricultural policy or development strategy
aimed at combating poverty.
Agricultural production is declining as a result of climatic changes that are cutting
across every continent, country, state, town and village. A strategy concerned with
reducing poverty through agricultural development must carefully put in placemeasures to cope or mitigate the changing climate. Poverty reduction as a
strategy designed to achieve the goals of agricultural policy cannot go far if all themeasures that determine agricultural development are not adequately catered for.
One of these measures includes climate change mitigation.
3.6.5 Nigeria's Key Agricultural Policy: The New Agricultural Policy - 2001
The New National Policy Thrust on Agriculture was adopted in March 2002. Itcovers a wide range of issues which affect and determine agriculture outcomesand states government policy on them (International Institute of Tropical
Agriculture (IITA), 2005). The main features of the policy include the evolution ofstrategies that will ensure sufficiency and improvement of the level of technicaland economic efficiency in food production; reduction in risks and uncertainties;
unified and all‐inclusive extension delivery system; promotion of agro‐alliedindustries; provision of rural infrastructure, rural banking, primary healthcare,cottage industries, etc. A key aspect of the policy was that it assigned supportiveroles to the government while investments in the sector are to be left to the private
sector initiative (Government of Nigeria, 2006). The broad objectives include:attainment of self‐sufficiency in basic food commodities with particular reference
to those which consume considerable shares of Nigeria's foreign exchange andfor which the country has comparative advantage in local production; increase inproduction and processing of agricultural raw‐materials to meet the growth of an
expanding industrial sector and increase in production and processing ofexportable commodities with a view of increasing their foreign exchange earning
capacity and further diversifying the country's export base and sources of foreignexchange earnings. Others are protection and improvement of agricultural land
resources and preservation of the environment for sustainable agricultural
38 | Agricultural Innovations for Climate Change Adaptation and Food Security in West Africa: The Case of Nigeria, Sierra Leone and Liberia

production; appropriate institutional framework, sustainable funding andeffective coordination and monitoring (FMARD, 2001).
The new National Policy Thrust on Agriculture adopted 2002, has one of its policy
features as reduction in risks and uncertainties. Also, some of its broad objectives
include: (i) attainment of self‐sufficiency in basic food commodities, (ii) protection
and improvement of agricultural land resources and preservation of theenvironment for sustainable agricultural production.
This policy on reduction in risks and uncertainties remains inexplicit; reduction inrisk and uncertainties of what? In clear terms has the policy articulated on what
areas of agriculture it intends to reduce risk and uncertainties. Though an
objective noted the issue of preservation of the environment, it failed to highlightmeasures through which this objective will be achieved. To effectively cope withthe menace of climate change, there is need for a careful plan of policy
addressing measures on adaptation and mitigation. Indirect mention of measureson environment preservation is insufficient if the battle against climate changemust be won.
3.6.6 Agriculture in National Economic Empowerment and Development
Strategy (NEEDS)The NEEDS targets: minimum annual growth rate of 6% per annum in agriculture;$3 billion in agricultural exports, a major component of which will be cassava by
2007; drastic reduction in food imports from 14.5% of total imports to 5% by 2007;
development and implementation of a scheme of land preparation services toincrease cultivable arable land by 10% annually and foster private sector
participation through incentive schemes (NPC, 2004).
The policy framework embodies: providing the right policy environment andvigorously targeted incentives for private sector investment in the sector. The
NEEDS as a strategy for achieving the goals of national agricultural policy set out
to be a more focused strategy as it had goals it would attain by 2007. The policy
framework had provision for government to create an agricultural sector that is
responsive to the demands and realities of the economy; thereby reversing thetrend of food importation, through a progressive programme for agricultural
expansion; reduction of the food import bill to stem the rising trade imbalance aswell as diversifying the foreign exchange earnings and striving towards foodsecurity and generate surplus for the export market. The government had
Agricultural Innovations for Climate Change Adaptation and Food Security in West Africa: The Case of Nigeria, Sierra Leone and Liberia | 39

designed strategies through which it intends to achieve the goals of NEEDS.
These are the various Presidential initiatives, which include the Presidential
Initiatives on Cassava, Rice, Vegetable oil, sugar, livestock, tree crops andcereals. Under this initiative, Nigeria hopes to generate as much as N3 billion
annually from the export of agricultural products; taking advantage of the various
concessionary arrangements within the World Trade Organization, EU‐ACP, and
the AGOA, New Partnership for Africa Development (NEPAD) and the hugemarket in the West African sub region
The policy thrust of NEEDS though seems achievable could be cut short due to its
inability to capture the threat posed by the changing climate. This strategy aimed
towards achieving the National Agricultural Policy with its beautiful
conceptualizations for boosting food through presidential initiatives failed tofactor in the vagaries of nature/weather as it undermines agricultural production. It
failed to capture measures to mitigate climatic changes which would end up
boosting agricultural production and overall economy development.
3.6.7

Agriculture in the Major Economic Policy-the 7‐Point Agenda /NEEDS II
The agricultural and rural development policies and strategies currently arebeing pursued within the framework of the 7-point agenda and the successes
and lessons of the National Economic Empowerment and Development Strategy(NEEDS), which was the Nigerian equivalent of a Poverty Reduction Strategy
Programme (PRSP) launched in June 2004. The 7-point agenda, which was
adopted by government in May 2007, is the broad policy priorities for
implementing economic reforms and development programmes in Nigeria. The
7‐point Agenda describes the key policy imperatives, directive principles andinstruments in promoting sustainable economic growth for the achievement of
the MDGs by 2015 and Vision 20:2020. The 7‐point Agenda is being
implemented within the enabling platform of the successes and lessons ofprecursor programmes ‐ NEEDS‐I and the experiences in the design of the
NEEDS‐II. The main agricultural goals enunciated under the 7‐point agenda
include diversified economy, food security, employment generation, economic
linkages, exports and poverty reduction. The 7‐point Agenda acknowledges theoft‐mentioned challenges in Nigeria's agricultural development as follows: low
40 | Agricultural Innovations for Climate Change Adaptation and Food Security in West Africa: The Case of Nigeria, Sierra Leone and Liberia

productivity, low quality of private sector investment, lack of domestic andinternational competitiveness, weak domestic policies and institutions,
inadequate funding and lack of organized land titling and tenure. The issues areanalogous to those identified under NEEDS‐II, as constituting critical gaps in the
agricultural development process. Specifically, NEEDS‐II identifies the key
challenges as follows: finance and access to credit, land reform, agriculturalextension, commercialization of agricultural production and post‐harvest
management, agricultural‐industry linkage, research and training,market‐oriented subsidies, appropriate technologies and entrepreneurship andagribusiness development. In addition, the NEEDS‐II stipulates the targets ofagricultural progress as follows: 10% annual increase in crop production, 2.5%
annual increase in livestock production, 8.0% annual increase in forestry and9.0% annual increase in fishery production. Other targets include: reduce
agricultural population in poverty by half each year; achieve 5% employment
generation in the agricultural sector, generate up to $3 billion in agricultural
exports by 2011; reduce food import from 5% of total imports to zero by 2011,
increase cultivable arable land by 10% annually.
The 7 – point agenda, a strategy designed for implementing economic reforms
and development programmes in Nigeria, seems to be one of the few strategies
directed towards the actualization of the Nigerian agricultural policy that indirectly
made provision for coping with climate changes. It raises issues that are similar to
NEEDS 11 e.g. land reforms, agricultural production and post harvest
developments etc. A silent passing notice of issues bothering on climate change
is inadequate if Nigeria must attain self-sufficiency in food production andimprovement in the overall well being of her citizens which need be of paramountinterest to the government. This therefore means that concrete policy andstrategies need to be developed if the rural farmer is to effectively cope/adapt toclimate changes.
The National Food Security Programme (NFSP): Within the framework of the 7point Agenda, the National Food Security Programme current base document
was published in August 2008. According to the Federal Ministry of Agriculture
and Rural Development, its objective is to “ensure sustainable access, availability
and affordability of quality food to all Nigerians and for Nigeria to become asignificant net provider of food to the global community”. The key features of theAgricultural Innovations for Climate Change Adaptation and Food Security in West Africa: The Case of Nigeria, Sierra Leone and Liberia | 41

programme include providing a conducive environment for private sector
involvement, encouraging large scale commercial farming with strategic
linkages to small holder farmers, and significantly reducing post-harvest losses
through adequate storage, processing and appropriate market outlets.
Comprehensive Africa Agricultural Development Programme (CAADP):
Many ongoing and pipeline agricultural investments and interventions havelinkages to CAADP pillars. The implementation of the CAADP initiative was further
advanced with the inauguration of the technical committee on it in 2007. In 2008
further analytical work was carried out in order to select investments which canmost contribute to halving poverty by 2015.
3.6.8 Environmental Policies in Nigeria
Environmental policies are very important for sustainable growth anddevelopment. Hence, the Federal Environmental Protection Agency (FEPA)
produced a revised version of the national policy on the environment in 1999. The
goals of National Policy on the Environment (www.nipc.gov.ng/.../The%20New%
20Nigerian%20-Agricultural%20Policy.doc) is to achieve sustainable
development in Nigeria, and, in particular, to: secure a quality of environment
adequate for good health and well being;a) conserve and use the environment and natural resources for the benefit ofpresent and future generations;b) restore, maintain and enhance the ecosystems and ecological processes
essential for the functioning of the biosphere to preserve biological diversity
and the principle of optimum sustainable yield in the use of living natural
resources and ecosystems;c) raise public awareness and promote understanding of the essential
linkages between the environment, resources and development, andencourage individual and community participation in environmental
improvement efforts; andd) co-operate in good faith with other countries, international organizations
and agencies to achieve optimal use of trans-boundary natural resources
and for an effective prevention or abatement of trans-boundary
environmental degradation.
The goals of the national policy on the environment cover to a great extent theissue of preserving the environment. It clearly states strategies on how to ensure
42 | Agricultural Innovations for Climate Change Adaptation and Food Security in West Africa: The Case of Nigeria, Sierra Leone and Liberia

that the environment is secured, conserved, restored and maintained; thereby
leading to the maintenance of the ecosystems, and ecological processes of theenvironment. An important strategy towards achieving this goal is it inclusion of
the private sectors, NGOs and the public in the implementation of strategies andactions aimed at achieving stated goals. It is evident that the policy on
environment addresses the issue of climate change mitigation.
The future strategy and plans of the Nigerian government for creating andimproving capacity for sustainable development are to:a) develop a blueprint for environmental education and public awareness by
1998;b) ensure that environmental education is a core ingredient of the educational
system at the primary, secondary and tertiary levels of education by 1999;c) make environment and development education available to people of allages; involve school children in local studies on environmental health,including safe drinking water, sanitation, food and the environmental andeconomic impacts of resource use;d) encourage all sectors of society, including industries, universities,
governments, nongovernmental organizations, and community
organizations to train people in environmental management;e) work with the media, theatre groups, entertainment and advertisingindustries to promote a more active public debate on the environment;f) train decision-makers on the basic tenets of environment and sustainable
programmes for different strata of the environment on a continuing basis;g) develop and implement tailor-made environmental education and awarenessprogrammes for different strata of the environment on a continuing basis;andh) institutionalize environmental responsibility through regular competitions
and awards such as cleanest village in each local government, cleanest local
government in each State and cleanest State in the Federation, as well as themost environmentally-friendly industries on a sectoral basis.
The Nigerian Government, through the Federal Environment Protection Agency(FEPA) and other relevant agencies, has undertaken programmes to enlighten,
educate, and raise awareness of the Nigerian populace through media (both print
and electronic) campaigns on environmental issues. Identification, education,and training of officials that would form the core of the Environmental Education
Agricultural Innovations for Climate Change Adaptation and Food Security in West Africa: The Case of Nigeria, Sierra Leone and Liberia | 43

Network nationwide are being undertaken. In addition, the FEPA has encouraged
the establishment of Environmental Conservation Clubs in Secondary Schools. It
has also collaborated with the Federal Ministry of Education through the National
Educational Research and Development Council (NERDC) on the developmentof an Environmental Educational Master plan and Curricula for both the formal
and informal educational system in Nigeria.
In 1993, the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP) offered to support
the National Programme on Environmental and Natural Resources Management
for Nigeria. The support focused essentially on capacity building in all
programme areas identified. This is to enable the environmental agencies of theGovernment of Nigeria at both Federal and State level, NGOs, and local
communities design, formulate, manage, implement, and sustain their own
environmental protection programmes. Specifically, the four target objectives ofthe programme include strengthening National capacity for the formulation ofenvironmental policies, legislation, and enforcement; increased awareness andconservation of the environment; preparing the National Agenda 21 and anaction plan for its implementation; training of staff of FEPA, State Environmental
Protection Agencies, and other National bodies to enable them to carry out theirwork programmes on a self-sustaining basis(www.nipc.gov.ng/.../The%20New%20Nigerian%20Agricultural%20Policy.doc).
The Nigerian government has adequately made provision for creating andimproving capacity for sustainable development. In the above stated plans,mention was made of the all important factors of education and participation. The
strategy recognizes the significance of educating people of all ages onenvironmental health and the participation of various institutions, NGOs inenvironmental management. These two strategies are keys in the fight against
climate change. The need to create environmental health awareness among thepeople from an early time cannot be over emphasized. This will ensure conscious
individual participation in reducing those human activities that are major
contributors to climate change. The involvement and participation of different
stakeholders highlight the need for a collective effort to effectively adopt
strategies that will assist the teeming populace in coping with climate change.
Also, it will give greater credence to mitigation to mitigation measures that will beidentified.

44 | Agricultural Innovations for Climate Change Adaptation and Food Security in West Africa: The Case of Nigeria, Sierra Leone and Liberia

3.7 A Review of Agricultural Policies in Sierra Leone
3.7.1 Colonial Period up to 1961
Apart from some narratives given about the rudimentary agricultural practices of
the indigenous ethic groups of Sierra Leone, there is no written evidence as to theexistence of a formal agricultural policy in pre-historic Sierra Leone. Formal
agricultural practices and policy institutions seem to have started with the adventof the British colonial government; and even so, such institutions were notestablished until the 1900s. The British colonial government's agricultural policies
were mainly policy prescriptions meant to tackle certain socio-political problems.
Albeit a Department for Agriculture was established as early as 1911, the colonial
government's agricultural policies laid much emphasis on the cultivation of export
crops, particularly tree crops. This policy necessitated the construction of railway
and feeder roads between 1896 and the 1920s to facilitate the transportation ofagricultural produce (cocoa, coffee, palm kernel, ginger etc) from the provinces
to Freetown, from where they were shipped overseas. Since local foodstuffs were
not in high demand in Europe, colonial agricultural policies were bias against
local foodstuff production (). The colonial era policy laid emphasis on forest
conservation and timber production and exportation and therefore dissuaded
farmers from upland cultivation (Alieu, 2005).
3.7.2 Immediate Post Independence Period up to Military Rule in 1967
Post independence agricultural policies introduced direct government
intervention in rice production through the Sierra Leone Produce Marketing
Board (SLPMB) as contained in the Government White Paper on Agriculture
dated 1961. While the SLPMB was fully involved in the export crops sector, theGovernment-owned Rice Corporation actually cultivated about 590 hectares oflowlands in 1961. A remarkable achievement during this era however, was theestablishment of the Njala University College to train agricultural staff at middle
and senior levels, thereby developing the capacity of the agricultural extension
services (Alieu, 2005).
3.7.3 Ten-Year Plan for Economic and Social Development: 1962 to 1971
The blueprint for the country's development at independence was the 'Ten-Year
Plan for Economic and Social Development' (1962-1971). This document
highlighted two major problems of the agriculture sectors:
Agricultural Innovations for Climate Change Adaptation and Food Security in West Africa: The Case of Nigeria, Sierra Leone and Liberia | 45

(a)low productivity despite the fact that the sector employed majority of the
population and(b) the instability of the export market.
To address this condition the Plan proposed to diversify the agriculture sector
rather than one dependent on primary produce, and at the same time increase
export for foreign exchange. The Plan anticipated spending 7.7% of the country's
capital expenditure on agriculture. However, although the Plan considered the
pursuance of agricultural development as a major plank of the country's
economic strategy, the government's economic policies in the first decade after
independence seemed to have shifted emphasis from agricultural crop
production to industrialization. Industrialization was seen as the engine of growth
to kick-start the rest of the economy for national development and agricultural
policies therefore simply became conduits for the enhancement ofindustrialization ()3.7.4 The National Development Plan: 1974 – 1978
The National Development Plan of 1974 to 1978 was similar to that of the Ten-Year
Plan for Economic and Social Development in aspiration but different in scopeand content. The main trust of the Plan regarding agricultural development was toincrease productivity of the sector and income from it thereby improving the living
standard of the rural population through the integrated agricultural development
projects. Although the plan indicated a great attempt to re-shape the country's
development process, the international economic situation by then was
unfavourable and the allocation of limited national resources unfortunately did
not favour agriculture as the productive sector. Like the ISI, the government
neglected the agriculture sector and instead concentrated on infrastructuraldevelopment, tourism and electrification. A second National Development Plan
was developed for the country (1983-1985) but it was never formally adopted
because of adverse economic conditions and donor neglect(http://www.fao.org/docs/up/easypol/forum/31//31_REVIEW_OF_PAST_AGRICULTURAL_POLICIES_IN_SIERRA_LEONE_-_FINAL%201%20.pdf).
3.7.5 The Integrated Agricultural Development Projects (IADPs)
The agriculture sector faced serious setbacks in the late 1960s to mid 1970s;
institutional capacity and farmers' confidence suffered. Partly as an attempt torevive the sector government policy focused on support for small scale
46 | Agricultural Innovations for Climate Change Adaptation and Food Security in West Africa: The Case of Nigeria, Sierra Leone and Liberia

agriculture and this stimulated support for the Integrated Agricultural
Development Projects (IADPs). The IADPs like the ISI, was a policy prescription
sanctioned by international agencies like Food and Agricultural Organization(FAO), the World Bank, United States Agency for International Development(USAID), etc. The broad objectives of these projects were: to improve the living
standards of the people by securing their basic needs and to make the ruralcommunities more productive and less vulnerable to economic depression andthe oil shocks of the time (Lea and Chaudhri, 1983).
The IADP was a very ambitious plan covering most aspects of the agricultural
sector; road infrastructure, credit for farmers, animal husbandry, cash crop
production, rice cultivation etc. However, these projects were limited to specificlocations within the country and because they were mainly donor-dependent, theprojects ended when donor funds were exhausted.
3.7.6 The Structural Adjustment Programmes
It became quite clear that the international donor support which the government
relied upon for its economic activities was not forth-coming until and unless the
Structural Adjustment Programme (SAP) with the conditions attached to it were
fulfilled. The country agreed to implement the Structural Adjustment Program(SAP) in its bid to please the donor community and to stabilize the economy. This
programme saw the removal of subsidies from gas, rice, electricity, an end to
price control and government's incentives to farmers; and the influx of grains andsemi-processed agricultural products brought about by the open market
conditionality. The little support government received for agriculture was skewed
towards export crop production to help the country service its foreign debts andbring in much needed foreign exchange. However this had little economic impact
because international prices for most of the export crops (e.g. cocoa) had
declined and local farmers could not get the required returns on their produce ().
3.7.7 The Green Revolution Programme
The Green Revolution Programme (GRP) was aimed at making the agriculture
sector more productive after years of neglect. The GRP like that of the IADPs was
elaborate in scope and objectives covering almost all aspects of the agriculture
sector. The estimated cost of the GRP was slated at Le 380,329,367.00 of which
the Sierra Leone government was expected to provide Le 30,650,827.00 and thebulk of the project finance was expected to come from foreign sources. The GRP
Agricultural Innovations for Climate Change Adaptation and Food Security in West Africa: The Case of Nigeria, Sierra Leone and Liberia | 47

policy content appeared good for the agriculture sector but to have tied its
financial support mainly to donor funding was a serious policy miscalculation.
Western donor assistance to Sierra Leone at this time was contingent upon thegovernment's willingness to fully implement the SAP, and this meant the removalof direct government support for such agricultural projects like the GRP ().
3.7.8 The Current Development Policies -The Food Security Policy: 2007 to
Date
The Sierra Leone's Food Security Policy (FSP) came through a presidential
proclamation in 2002, asserting that “no Sierra Leonean should go to bed hungry
by 2007 (The Agriculture Sector of Sierra Leone). At the official end ofresettlement, there was an urgent need for increased food production both fordomestic consumption and export. The FSP is therefore based on the following
pillars:a) Agricultural Intensification which underscores the need of cultivating
improved varieties through appropriate agronomic practices, including theuse of fertilizers and pesticides to ensure increased yields;b) Crop Diversification which promotes the cultivation of improved varieties ofother crops other than rice through sensitization and awareness raising of
their nutrient value to reduce the dependence and demand for rice;c) Natural Resource Conservation which encourages the prudent use of water
and watershed resources in an effort to increase agricultural land resources;andd) Food Safety Nets which provide food aid support to farmers and theirdependants during hunger seasons to prevent them from eating seed riceand vulnerability to sicknesses.
The Ministry of Agriculture and Food Security has taken tremendous strides inrecent years to achieve these policy goals and objectives. The challenge is in bid
to meet and surpass the government PRSP agricultural targets. Meanwhile,targets for rice, cassava and sweet potatoes were well achieved in 2005 (see table3), but much need to be done to meet other targets and projections considering
the population growth rate of 1.9%.

48 | Agricultural Innovations for Climate Change Adaptation and Food Security in West Africa: The Case of Nigeria, Sierra Leone and Liberia

Table 3: Comparing Target and Actual Production (MT) for theFirst Year of PRS Implementation
2005
Crop

TargetActualRice
Cassava
Sweet Potato
Groundnut

540,000
1,935,221
160,856
95,684552,000
2,287,060
191,498
167,200

Difference Target 2006

Target 2007

12,000351,839
30,642
71,516

1,290,000
2,300,000
203,905
121,292

875,000
2,100,000
185,368
110,265

Source: Ministry of Agriculture, Sierra Leone.

According to Morlai et. al., (2010) recent estimates reveal that in:i. 2007 population is projected to be 5.2 million for which 486,700 MT of milled
requirement (60% of sufficiency ratio) is needed.
ii. 2008 population is projected to be 5.3 million for which 496,100 MT of milled
requirement (75% of sufficiency ratio) is needed.
iii. 2009 population is projected to be 5.4 million for which 505,400 MT milledequivalent (85% of sufficiency ratio) is needed.
iv. 2010 population is projected at 5.5 million for which 514,800 MT milledequivalent (100% sufficiency ratio) is needed.
v. 2011 population is projected at 5.6 million for which 524,200 MT milledequivalent (110% sufficiency ratio) is expected.
vi. 2012 population is projected at 5.7 million for which 533,500 MT milledequivalent (120% sufficiency ratio) is expected.
For such projections / targets to be met, robust and appropriate science(research), technology and innovation (STIs) need to be adopted. Fortunately,
the science and technology policy is already in existence in Sierra Leone; what isneeded however is harmonization of the policy with all agricultural strategies tobe implemented in the country. The STI policy cuts across all development
priorities with the objective of spurring national development and poverty
reduction.
3.7.9 The Nexus between Sierra Leone's STI Policy and Food Security
PolicyMorlai et. al., (2010) noted that agriculture, food security and agro-alliedindustries form the top-most priority in the science and technology policy,
Agricultural Innovations for Climate Change Adaptation and Food Security in West Africa: The Case of Nigeria, Sierra Leone and Liberia | 49

suggesting that they have the potential to increase output on crop, livestock andmarine resources with the emphasis on fish, and diversified food sources. The
objectives gear towards the PRSP and other national targets on food selfsufficiency and food security in the country. This implies that science andtechnology should be applied if PRSP policy objectives are to be achieved.
Specifically the S & T Policy objectives for food self-sufficiency and food security
are to:a) stimulate economic production of crops, animals and fisheries andencourage prudent intensification and diversification of products;b) develop and promote appropriate land use practices andc) upgrade, popularize and rationalize production of farm tools and implements
and improve local agricultural practices.
Morlai et. al., (2010) further observed that areas such as environment, whose
ignorance can militate against efforts to reduce climate change impacts, are alsoemphasized in the S&T policy in Sierra Leone. In particular, the policy seeks tocomplement national environmental policy objectives that tend to enhanceenvironmental quality. Hence the S&T policy specifically seek to:a) Provide ways in which S&T would be applied to reduce levels ofenvironmental degradation and pollution;b) Encourage proper environmental management in urban and rural areas;c) Encourage the use of environmental-friendly and economically viable
technologies in natural resource exploitation and development;d) Monitor regularly environmental quality using recent techniques in S&T;e) Collect and make available technical scientific data for national decisionmaking on resource use and conservation;
Considering the large number of indigenous farmers, who are basically poor andwho live on less than US$1.00/day, bye-passing the traditional technological
Knowledge would also undermine efforts to meet food self-sufficiency targets(Morlai et. al., 2010). Frantic effort is seen in the S&T policy formulation, as it tends
to capture indigenous technology by suggesting upgrading and modernizing
such technology so that it can better serve the needs of the society. The policy
aims at:a. increasing the productivity of surviving indigenous technology through theinfusion of modern scientific and technological methods;

50 | Agricultural Innovations for Climate Change Adaptation and Food Security in West Africa: The Case of Nigeria, Sierra Leone and Liberia

b. increasing appeal, popularity and affordability of indigenous technologies
nationwide; andc. encouraging the development of labour and cost saving devices using local
materials and internally generated indigenous knowledge.
3.7.10 Linkages between the Food Security Policy and External
Development Agendas
The FSP has strong synergy with other national development programmes likethe NRS, PRSP and Vision 2025. For instance Pillar 2 of the PRSP creates thebases for the FSP by providing a roadmap for the attainment of a viable
agriculture sector. More importantly, the FSP has donor support partly due to its
synergy and entry point into other international and regional development
agendas. For instance the government's overall objective as exemplified by the
FSP is to reduce hunger and malnutrition and accelerate the attainment of theMillennium Development Goals (MDGs), especially MDG 1: the eradication of
extreme poverty and hunger and the halving of poverty by 2015. Also, Pillar 2 of
the PRSP: pro-poor sustainable growth for food security and job creation isaligned to MDG 1. Similarly, all of the Pillars of the New Partnership for Africa's
Development (NEPAD) as contained in the Comprehensive Africa Agricultural
Development Programme (CAADP) are indicated in the sectoral policy briefs ofthe FSP. For instance the National Resource Conservation policy under the FSP isgiven priority because of its direct link with NEPAD's advocacy for the increase of
agricultural land through proper water management processes. The linkage
between the FSP and the other development agendas has increased support for
the food policy programmes and possibly government and donor commitment to
the development of the agriculture sector.
It is evident from the review above that the government of Sierra Leone has madeconscious effort to address the issue of climate change lately. However, from thecolonial period to 2006, all formulated policies bordered around food and cash
crop production. The closest policies that one may consider has any semblanceof a policy on climate change are the agricultural policies of the colonial era, but it
is quite clear that the colonial government only encouraged the cultivation of tree
crops that possessed economic value.
Other policies in recent time that tried to address the issue of climate change
could be seen under the food security policy and ST&I policy. These policies have
Agricultural Innovations for Climate Change Adaptation and Food Security in West Africa: The Case of Nigeria, Sierra Leone and Liberia | 51

as their third and second pillars, the conservation of natural resource andappropriate land use practices which encourage the prudent use of water andwatershed resources in an effort to increase agricultural land resources.
3.8
Review of Agricultural Policies on Climate Change and Food
Security in Liberia
3.8.1 Poverty Situations and Food Security Policies in Liberia
Liberia is richly endowed with natural resources notably rubber, iron ore, timber,diamonds, and gold. The country benefits from fertile soils and favourable
climatic conditions for the production of palm and coffee, among other products.
Liberia also has large hydropower potential. Unfortunately, Liberia remains one of
the least developed countries with a Human Development Index of 0.276 (1999)
declining from 0.311 (1996). The Gross Domestic Product (GDP) of current
market prices is estimated at US$43796 million (2003) with a per capita income of
US151.02 (Millennium Development Goals, 2004).
Liberia's political instability and recent civil war caused destruction of livelihoods,
infrastructure, productive capacity and financial resources. Past
mismanagement of natural resources fueled and sustained civil conflicts(Republic of Liberia, 2006). In 2001, about 86% of the rural population was poorand 80% were subsistence farmers leading to an increase in rural to urban
migration. About 80% of the population is unemployed and nearly three quartersof them live on less than 1 dollar per day (European Union, 2006).
According to Tefft (2005) an estimated 1.3 million of Liberia's 3.5 million people
are living in poverty, of which 48 percent are living in extreme poverty. Poverty ishigher in the rural areas, where about 73 percent of the population is poor. The
Comprehensive Food Security and Nutritional Survey (CFSNS) conducted in
March 2006 revealed that about 40 percent of households in rural and semi/urban
Liberia are food insecure. The figure reached as high as 28 percent in areas mostaffected by war and displacement. The report stated that the underlying causes offood insecurity include low agricultural production capacities and limited
economic access to food. This can mainly be attributed to the lack of access tosafe drinking water (Koiwue and Bedini, 2009). Tefft (2005) further noted thatchildren are vulnerable as a result of food insecurity. In 1997, an estimated 14.8
percent, and in 2000, an estimated 8 percent of children under the age of five were52 | Agricultural Innovations for Climate Change Adaptation and Food Security in West Africa: The Case of Nigeria, Sierra Leone and Liberia

underweighted. The situation seems to be getting worse, as the 2007 Liberia
Demographic and Health Survey (LDHS) shows that 39 percent of children underage of 5 are stunted, and one-fifth of children are severely stunted. This indicateschronic malnutrition. About 70 percent of rural households rely on food from theirown farms or gardens as compared to 5 percent in the urban area. Given theimpact of the war, coupled with the week supporting environment, it is unlikelythat Liberia will attain the benchmarks of the World Food Summit, or theMillennium Development Goal (MDG) goal of food security (World Bank, 2008).
Prior to the civil conflict, agriculture accounted for approximately 40 percent of
GDP. In 2007 GDP was US$725 Million of which agriculture accounted for 66
percent (UNDP, 2006). Agricultural activities are still considerably reduced andfood insecurity is worsening. Imports of agriculture produce continue to increase,as compared to export, putting a strain on foreign currency needed for otheressential goods and services. Low productivity of land and labour, shifting
cultivation and low livestock production remain the main characteristics of
traditional farming in Liberia (World Bank, 2008).
According to Republic of Liberia (2008), the national “Food Security and Nutrition
Strategy”, developed by the government in collaboration with the UN World Food
Programme (WFP) and Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO), identifies how
the government will coordinate itself to tackle chronic hunger - a challenge acrossthe region but particularly in Liberia where 14 years of war gutted infrastructure
and left massive poverty and malnutrition. The WFP document on Liberia says theunderlying causes of food insecurity are low agricultural production, lowpurchasing power and limited absorption capacities due to lack of safe drinking
water and sanitation. The latest market review shows that outside Monrovia themarket system functions poorly, largely due to bad roads, limited transportationand lack of functioning institutions.
The strategy also covers “nutrition security”, which includes improving access tobasic services like health care and a sanitary environment as much as improving
diets and also provides a framework for collaboration so as to ensure that food isavailable in sufficient quantities for all Liberians (Republic of Liberia, 2008).
Even before the civil crisis, successive governments initiated strategic policies forthe development of the agricultural sector. The goal has always been food
Agricultural Innovations for Climate Change Adaptation and Food Security in West Africa: The Case of Nigeria, Sierra Leone and Liberia | 53

sufficiency and food security. For example, Operation Production, Self
Sufficiency in Food Production, and the Green Revolution were national
strategies of the Tubman, Tolbert, and Doe Governments, respectively. The
Taylor Government also established a two phase approach to rehabilitate theagriculture sector contained in the National Reconstruction Program (1998 2000), and the five year National Reconstruction and Development Program(2001 – 2006) (Republic of Liberia, 2007).
The Poverty Reduction Strategy (PRS), the present development agenda by thegovernment, for the next three years (2008 – 2011) sets out its agenda for
agriculture and food security in Liberia (USAID, 2010). The central goal for
agriculture during the PRS period is to revitalize the sector in order to contributeto inclusive and sustainable economic development and growth, food security
and nutrition, employment and income, and poverty reduction. The Government
plans to expand agricultural production by 3.2 percent per annum during the firsttwo years of the PRS (Republic of Liberia, 2008).
According to World Bank (2008), in early 2008, the Government endorsed anational strategy for Food Security and Nutrition, within the wider framework of
the Government's Poverty Reduction Strategy and is aimed at:
I. enhancing food availability by addressing production, processing andmarketing constraints of small farmers and maintaining predictable andstable food imports;
II. improving access to food, through enhancing opportunities for employment
and increased incomes and improving infrastructure so that Liberians havebetter physical access to food; andIII. promoting better food utilization and improving nutritional status, throughbetter prevention and more systematic monitoring of malnutrition, as well as
supplementary and therapeutic feeding actions aimed at young children andpregnant and lactating mothers.
In response to the global food price crisis, and guided by the framework of thenational Food Security and Nutrition Strategy, the Government took fiscal
measures to ensure adequate supply of rice; promoting increases in domestic
production by distributing inputs, capacity building and the introduction of newtechnologies at production and post-harvest levels, with a focus on smallholder
producers; and expanding social protection mechanisms for vulnerable groups,
54 | Agricultural Innovations for Climate Change Adaptation and Food Security in West Africa: The Case of Nigeria, Sierra Leone and Liberia

such as employment generation schemes, school feeding and nutritional
interventions (Koiwue et. al, 2009).
According to the Republic of Liberia report (2008) to realize the above growth in
the agricultural sector, the government has earmarked three strategic objectives.
Firstly, developing more competitive, efficient and sustainable food andagriculture value chains and linkages to market; secondly, striving to improve
food security and nutrition, especially for vulnerable groups, including lactating
women and children under five; and thirdly, strengthening human andinstitutional capacity. The role of women will also be expanded in the agriculturalvalue chain.
3.8.2 Liberia Agricultural Policy
An agricultural policy has also been drafted, and is being validated, within thecontext of the PRS and the Millennium Development Goals (MDG). Koiwue et al.
(2009) noted that it outlines specific policies and strategies that will revitalize andstrengthen the agriculture sector within five years, beginning 2008. The policy
seeks to establish operational, legal, and institutional framework to ensure
efficient development, utilization and management, monitoring and conversationof country's water resources for agriculture. The rehabilitation of previously
established swamps to increase rice production will be pursued. The total cost forfood and agriculture under the PRS is US$38.7 million (USAID/Liberia, 2009).
Under the agricultural policy, a mechanism will be put in place to monitor climatechange situation to ensure that agricultural activities in Liberia do not contributeto such changes, and undermine effort aimed at poverty alleviation, food security
and environmental protection. The Government is working in collaborative
partnership with the donor community in order to accomplish its goals for the
agricultural sector (USAID, 2010).
To overcome pervasive structural impediments and a poor policy environmentthat have undermined agricultural growth and development (i.e. low yields,
depleted infrastructure, weak capacity and poor market linkages), thegovernment of Liberia adopts a pro-poor approach to raising productivity,
strengthening institutions, and making markets work for households andcommunities through commercialization and private sector initiatives such as
out-grower schemes (Republic of Liberia, 2008).
Agricultural Innovations for Climate Change Adaptation and Food Security in West Africa: The Case of Nigeria, Sierra Leone and Liberia | 55

According to World Bank (2008) the government of Liberia has further defined
four major program thrusts for the period 2010-2015 as follows:
1. Land and Water Resources Development
2. Food and Nutrition Security
3. Competitive Value Chains and Market Linkages
4. Institutional Development
The Government of Liberia confirmed its commitment to promoting long termsocial and economic development to reduce poverty and achieve food andnutrition security as specified in Food and Agricultural Policy Strategy (FAPS).
These national policy and strategy frameworks seek to achieve agricultural
sector objectives through the provision of an enabling environment, thedevelopment of the private sector supported by an active state, trade openness
and continued maintenance of an enabling environment, particularly security
and macroeconomic stability. It will endeavor to ensure effectiveness andefficiency in achieving the 6% Comprehensive African Agricultural Development
Programme (CAADP) growth target over the next 5 years. It is committed toworking towards fulfilling the Maputo Declaration of the Heads of State andGovernment of the African Union in 2003 of allocating at least 10% of theirnational budgets to the agricultural sector within this period (Republic of Liberia,2008).
While working to ensure maximum effectiveness and efficiency of utilization ofnatural resources in the agricultural sector so as to improve food security andreduce the adverse effect of climate change, in line with its broader efforts tostrengthen public financial management, Tefft, (2005) noted that Government of
Liberia is cognizant that increased budgetary support and improvement in theabsorptive capacity of agricultural institutions will not be sufficient to achieve andsustain the required transformation of the agriculture sector.
Hence, additional demonstration of the government's will to utilize agriculture as
the key entry point and vehicle for climate change mitigation and poverty
reduction will therefore be required.
Restructuring of key institutions such as the ministry of agriculture and stateowned corporations will also be undertaken to focus limited public resources onpolicy development, coordination, regulation and provision of essential services,
56 | Agricultural Innovations for Climate Change Adaptation and Food Security in West Africa: The Case of Nigeria, Sierra Leone and Liberia

and to ensure maximum participation of rural communities and households indecisions that affect their lives. The International Monetary Fund (IMF) and
Government of Liberia (2008) report noted that the government is committed todialogue, coordination, mutual review, and accountability mechanisms andmodalities of the ECOWAP/CAADP processes.
3.8.3 Environmental policies
Liberia is endowed with abundant natural resources. These served for giving
impetus for the nation's development efforts since the opening of its market
through the Open Door Policy in the early 1950's (Wiles, 2005). Additionally, thesenatural resources remain the fundamental endowment from which the population
derives their livelihood. Nevertheless, in the process of exploiting theseresources to meet social and economic needs, adequate care has not been taken
to guard against the depleting of the resources and its resultant effects on foodsecurity and climate change. This is primarily due to the lack of a policy statement
and a legal framework to direct activities and actions. This has given rise to a hostof problems, including deforestation, soil degradation, biding to desertificationand mismanagement of solid and liquid waste as well as other problems such as
an increase in charcoal production as the next alternative energy source, which
has worsened the food security situation in the area and climate change.
Liberia is party to some treaties and laws and a member of international andregional organizations for global protection of the environment and sustainable
use of natural resources. According to Drakenberg and Dahlberg (2008), Liberia
had existing policies and laws regulation, but these laws have not been
implemented. Such existing policies related to food security and climate changeare:
1. The Natural Resource Law of Liberia Code of Law of 1956.
Chapter 1-4 of Title 24 of the Natural Resources Law of the Liberian Code of Law of1956 are the modification of the forest Act of 1953 entitled “an Act for theConservation of forests of Liberia” and the 1957 Supplementary Act for theconservation of the forest of Liberia that incorporated some of the forest andwildlife rules and regulations of 1954. The 1953 Act established the Bureau ofForest Conservation whose program's initial policies and primary objectives
included the establishment of “a permanent forest estate, made up of reservedarea, upon which scientific forestry could be practiced.” The function of theAgricultural Innovations for Climate Change Adaptation and Food Security in West Africa: The Case of Nigeria, Sierra Leone and Liberia | 57

Bureau was to create and administer Government Forest Reserves, Native
Authority, Communal Forest, Communal Forests and National Parks; to enforce
all laws and regulations for the conservation of forests and the development of
their resources; and to carry out a program for wise use and perpetuation of theforest, recreational, fish and wildlife resources of the country (Chapter 1, Section
3).
2. An act creating the Forestry Development Authority (1976)
This Act repeals all previous forest related laws in Liberia, in effect, chapter 1-4 ofthe 24 of the Natural Resource Law of Liberia Section (1); establishes Forestry
Development Authority (FDA). However, this act was amended in 1988 by theaddition of eight new sections to the FDA Act of 1976 that deal mostly with forest
utilization agreement, fees, permits, etc.
3. Timber concession agreement (1973) revised 1988
This is the FDA's detailed and comprehensive document for granting forest
utilization concession. It covers among other things the terms of the concession,
operations of the concessionaire, rights and obligation of the concessionaire anda forest management plan that governs logging methods, timber harvesting,reforestation, construction of logging road and scaling.
However, it was after Liberia's participation in June of 1992, at the United Nations
Conference on Environment and Development (UNCED), in Rio de Janeiro,
Brazil, awareness about environmental protection gained some momentum insome circles (United Nations Environmental Programme (UNEP), 2004). Prior to
1992 there was hardly any mention of environment in Liberia, except forconsiderations about the need to conserve the natural resources, primarily forest
and wildlife.
The Republic of Liberia ratified the United Nations Framework Convention on
Climate Change (UNFCCC) on November 5, 2002 and as a signatory to the Kyoto
protocol, Liberia is committed to fulfilling its obligation for reducing greenhousegas emission into the atmosphere (UNDP, 2004). As a small country, Liberia isalso a small contributor to global warming, nevertheless, the sensitivity of thecountry to the impacts of the impending global and regional changes – on the one
hand, and its commitment to the protection of the global environment – on the
58 | Agricultural Innovations for Climate Change Adaptation and Food Security in West Africa: The Case of Nigeria, Sierra Leone and Liberia

other hand, dictate the integration of national policy with international
agreements (European Union, 2006).
The Environment Protection and Management Law was adopted in November
26, 2002. The law provides for the protection and management of theenvironment as well as the sustainable use of Liberia's natural resources. It
provides the framework for formulation, reviewing, updating and harmonizing allenvironment-related sectoral laws. This means the amendment and/or repeal of
all laws that are in conflict with the framework legislation (UNEP, 2004). Further,
the Law is intended as a comprehensive coordinating legal framework, to be
implemented through collaboration between the Environment Protection Agency
and line ministries and agencies (in the case of forest resources, the FDA), local
authorities and the public. The Law anticipates stand-alone, sector-specificstatutes, rules and regulations to facilitate implementation (USAID, 2006).
The National Environmental Protection Policy (2003) aims at promoting
sustainable development and the general welfare of the state throughconservation and judicious use of the national biological resources. The policy
recognizes the need for conservation of biodiversity both in and out of protectedareas and therefore seeks to adequately protect human, flora, fauna, and their
biological communities and habitats against harmful impacts such as climatechange and food insecurity, as well as to preserve the biological diversity. Itfurther calls for the enactment or promulgation of environmental legislation andregulations for sound environmental management (UNEP, 2004).
The policy also emphasizes the need for the conduct and mainstreaming ofenvironmental impact assessment in all necessary environmental activities inorder to curtail any adverse impact on the environment. It recognizes
Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) as a useful tool to facilitate theintegration of environmental concerns in decision-making process (UNEP, 2004).
Additionally, the policy requires formulation of public hearing programs of all
developmental initiatives that may impact on the environment prior to executionof such undertaking.
However, World Bank (2007) noted that the Government of Liberia performs
limited activities if any regarding environmental impact assessment. Therefore, it
is not aware of the negative impacts, which could culminate annual losses that
Agricultural Innovations for Climate Change Adaptation and Food Security in West Africa: The Case of Nigeria, Sierra Leone and Liberia | 59

could amount to several million United States Dollars, which could be equivalent
to a significant percentage of the total GDP. The magnitude and pervasiveness of
the losses impose a strong case for taking effective action to reduce the losses.
This could be achieved through sound environment policy, an environment
protection and management law, and an environment protection agency.
3.9
The Innovation System Perspectives
Innovation system approach emerged in the mid 1980s as a Schumpeterian
perspective that drew significantly from the literature on evolutionary economics
and system theory (Speilman, 2005). However, more comprehensive description
was first set forth by Lundvall (1985) and applied to national comparisons ofinnovation system by Freeman (1987 and 1995), Nelson (1988 and 1993) and
Edquist (1997) with empirical application focusing primarily on national industrial
policy in Europe, Japan and several East Asia countries that were experiencing
rapid industrialization during the 1980s. Metcalfe (1995) and Roseboom (2004)
further confirmed that the concept of innovation system was first mentioned in theindustrial literature in the late 1980s and later entered into the vocabulary ofnational and international policy makers in the industrialized world. In recent
times the concept is gradually spilling into policy making circles in developing
countries.
The Innovation System thinking represents a significant change from theconventional linear approach to research and development. It provides analyticalframework that explore complex relationships among heterogeneous agents,social and economic institutions, and endogenously determined technologicaland institutional opportunities. It demonstrates the importance of studying
innovation as a process in which knowledge is accumulated and applied byheterogeneous agents, through complex interactions that are conditioned bysocial and economic institutions (Agwu , Madukwe & Dimelu, 2008). According to
Tugrul and Ajit (2002) it is not a simple aggregation of organizations as portrayedby some views, but a group of agents who operate like an invisible orchestra
characterized by coherence, harmony and synergy. It is an interactive learning
process in which enterprises/agents in interactions with each other, supported byorganizations and institutions play key roles in bringing new products, newprocesses and new forms of organizations into social and economic use(Francis, 2006). The above definitions point to the three essential elements ofinnovation system namely:
60 | Agricultural Innovations for Climate Change Adaptation and Food Security in West Africa: The Case of Nigeria, Sierra Leone and Liberia

1. The organizations and individuals involved in generating, diffusing, adapting
and using knowledge.
2. The interactive learning that occurs when organizations engage in generating,diffusing, adapting and using new knowledge and the way in which this leads
to innovation (new products, processes or services).
3. The institutions (rules, norms, conventions, regulations, traditions) thatgovern how these interactions and processes occur.
The concept of innovation system is built on several assumptions and integrates
current trends in development in the analytical framework. They include thefollowings:
a. Innovation takes place everywhere in the society and therefore bringing the
diffuse element of a knowledge system and connecting them around common
goals should promote economic development.
b. Innovation is an interactive process and is embedded in the prevailing
economic structure and this determines what is to be learnt and where
innovation is going to take place.
c. Innovation includes development, adaptation, imitation and the subsequent
adoption of technology or application of new knowledge.
d. Innovation takes place where there is continuous learning and opportunity tolearn is a function of the intensity of interactions among agents.
e. Heterogeneous agents are involved in innovation process, and formal
research is a part of the whole innovation processes.
f. Linkages and/or interaction among components of the system (knowledge
generating, transfer and using agents) are as important as direct investment in
R and D.
g. Institutional context rather than technological change drives socio-economic
development.
h. In addition to technical change and novelty, innovation includes institutional,organizational and managerial knowledge.
Speilmen (2005) reported that analysis of innovation system may focus on the
study of the system at different spatial (local, regional, national) at different
sectoral levels (agriculture, environment) in relation to a given technological set(biotechnology, Information and Communications Technologies (ICTs)), focus on
the material (particular goods or services) and temporary dimension that studies
how relationships among agents change over time as result of knowledge flow.
Agricultural Innovations for Climate Change Adaptation and Food Security in West Africa: The Case of Nigeria, Sierra Leone and Liberia | 61

Empirically, the application of the innovation system approach at different
analytical dimensions such as local, national, regional, sectoral and others havebeen advanced in literature. For instance, its early application started withintroducing the concepts such as institutional learning and change, and therelationships between innovation and institutional context in which innovations
occur. According to Speilmen (2005), studies by Johnson and Segura Bonilla(2001), Clark, Sulaiman % Naik (2003) and Hall and Yoganand, (2001, 2002)
introduced innovation system to the study of developing countries agriculture andagricultural research systems. At the national and regional level the concept was
adopted in sub-Saharan Africa by Samberg (2005), Roseboom (2004), Chema,
Gilbert and Roseboom (2003), Peterson, Gijsbera and Wilks (2003), and Hall and
Yoganand (2004), in Latin America by Vieira and Hartwich (2002) and in India byHall et al (1998). Generally, most of its application across countries focused on
institutional arrangements in research and innovation. For example Hall et al.
(2002) emphasized on public-private interactions in agricultural research in India;
and in south Asia and sub-Saharan Africa. Kangasmemi (2002) focused on
producers organizations. Other scholarly studies focused on technologies
opportunities, for example zero tillage cultivation survey in Argentina conductedby Ekboir and Parallada (2002) which revealed social, and economic change thatencouraged the diffusion of zero-tillage cultivation.
3.9.1 Application of Innovation System Concept to Agriculture and its
Relevance
In the last decade, economic and technology strategies have shifted from national
agricultural research system (NARS) to agricultural knowledge, and information
system, (AKIS) and more recently to agricultural innovation system (AIS). The
national agricultural research system perspective emerged in the late 1980s andtends towards linearity in movement of knowledge from known source (formal
research) and flowing to some end users (the farmers). It further recognizes the
public good nature of agricultural research, the role of the state in fostering
technology change, and assumed that the social and economic context oftechnological change is exogenous and unchanging. By 1990s agricultural
knowledge and information system (AKIS) evolved as a more sophisticated andless linear approach. Contrary to the focus of the NARS, it emphasizes linkages
between research, education and extension in generating and fostering
technological change. AKIS, however, is limited in its ability to conduct analysis
beyond the nexus of the public sector and to consider the heterogeneity among
62 | Agricultural Innovations for Climate Change Adaptation and Food Security in West Africa: The Case of Nigeria, Sierra Leone and Liberia

agents, the institutional context that conditions their behaviours and the learning
processes that determine their capacity to change (Speilman, 2005). In general,
the system projects agricultural research system as the epicenter of innovation as
opposed to the multiple knowledge bases put forward in innovation systemperspective. The agricultural innovation system (AIS) comprises a far broader setof actors than the traditional agricultural research, extension and education
agencies. Innovation takes place throughout the whole economy, and not all
innovations have their origin in formal S & T nor are they all exclusively technical.
This new perspective places more emphasis on the role of farmers, input
suppliers, transporters, processors and markets in the innovation process. Whileeach of the three system concepts has its own strengths and weaknesses, they
can be seen as interlinked and cumulative: NARS focuses on the generation ofknowledge, AKIS on the generation and diffusion of knowledge, and AIS on thegeneration, diffusion, and application of knowledge.
Agricultural innovation system evolved directly from the concept of nationalinnovation system with the sectoral level as the unit of analysis. Adapting thevarious definitions of innovation system, agricultural innovation system is defined
as a set of agents that jointly and/or individually contribute to the development,
diffusion and use of agriculture-related new technologies and that directly and/or
indirectly influence the process of technological change in agriculture (Tugrul and
Ajit, 2002). The organizations include research institutes, training and education
institutions, credit institutions, policy and regulatory bodies, private consultants /NGOs, farmers, farmers' associations and public services delivery organizations.
It emphasizes agricultural innovations and goes beyond previous knowledge
system concepts by incorporating the goals of current reform measures, such aspolitical decentralization, public sector alliances with the private sector, enabling
private sector participation in advancing consensus approach to development
and promoting demand-driven services. Besides, it captures the intricate
relationships between diverse actors, processes of institutional learning andchange, market and non-market institutions, public policy, poverty reduction andsocioeconomic development. Figure 3 shows the possible linkages andrelationships among diverse actors in an agricultural innovation system.

Agricultural Innovations for Climate Change Adaptation and Food Security in West Africa: The Case of Nigeria, Sierra Leone and Liberia | 63

Market/demand(set price, volume, quality)

Enterprises, Produce
productsfor sale (mainly use
knowledge-codified or tacit

Diffusion: Information/knowledge transmitters

Research and Training:
Produce knowledge(mainly codified)

Infrastructure, policy,
legislation, resources
Source: Francis (2006).

Figure 3: Elements of Agricultural Science Technology andInnovation (ASTI).
By adopting an AIS perspective, bigger issues come into focus than when
adopting a more limited NARS or AKIS concept. By starting at the knowledgeapplication end, the question of why farmers innovate or why they don't becomesa major issue for debate and research. What are the constraints that hold themback? Is it the prices in the market, for example, or the lack of (or lack of accessto) technology? Are farmers passive recipients of technology or do they actively
search for innovations? What are the roles of input suppliers, cooperatives,traders, processors, NGOs, and government-extension services in technology
diffusion? What are the relative strengths and weaknesses of each diffusion
channel? How can they be improved and what can be done to reach more
farmers? In answering these questions, we may learn that the most criticalbottleneck is not the lack of available technology, but whatever prevents otherfactors from playing their often-far-more-crucial role. Hall and Yoganand (2002)
highlighted that applying innovation system to agriculture in developing
countries may provide the following features:a) It focuses on innovation as its organizing principles. Here the concept ofinnovation is used in its broad sense as the activities and processes
associated with the generation, production, distribution, adaptation and useof new technical, institutional, organizational and managerial knowledge.
64 | Agricultural Innovations for Climate Change Adaptation and Food Security in West Africa: The Case of Nigeria, Sierra Leone and Liberiab) Conceptualizes research as part of the wider process of innovation andextends its tentacle to identify actors and their scope, and the wide set of
relationships in which research is embedded.
c) Recognize the importance of both technology producers and technology
users and acknowledge that their roles are both context specific anddynamic.
d) It recognizes that the institutional context of the organizations involved (andparticularly the wider environment that governs the nature of relationships)
promotes dominant interests and determines the outcome of the system as awhole.
e) It recognizes that innovation systems are social systems. It therefore focuses
not only on the degree of connectivity between different elements but also on
the learning and adaptive process that make systems dynamic andevolutionary.
f) Matches better with the non-linear interactive concept of innovation.
g) It is more holistic including the final step (application) in the innovation
process and incorporates ideas from various disciplines.
h) It stresses the importance of linkages among different actors.
i) It is only a framework for analysis and planning and can draw on a large bodyof existing tools
Nonetheless, scholars have expressed concern as to the relevance of nationalinnovation system concept for agriculture in developing countries. Issues raised
include the fact that transplanting the insight from innovation studies indeveloped countries is against the evolutionary character of the nationalinnovation system, which argues that innovation process and systems arecontext specific and historically determined. In contrast however, Johnson and
Segura-Bonilla (2001) reporting from their experience in Central America
favourably argues for the suitability of national innovation system for agriculture indeveloping countries buttressing the following points:
1) The national innovation system concept help to concentrate on what we
believe is important in development as it takes departure in learning
capabilities and focuses on innovation processes and their role indevelopment.
2) It has a broad explanation of innovation as based on both research and inevery day routine economic activities and in both high-tech and low-tech
sectors.
Agricultural Innovations for Climate Change Adaptation and Food Security in West Africa: The Case of Nigeria, Sierra Leone and Liberia | 65

3) Its growth factors are interacting and feeding upon each other. An interaction
between firms, organizations and the public sector is the essence of theconcept.
4) Institutions and production structures matter.
5) It is a flexible approach, which for example can direct emphasis on local,
national, regional systems and their mutual interdependence.
6) Finally, it is an inherently comparative approach and compares the anatomy
and changes of different innovation systems.
In addition, Speilman (2005) argued that innovation system perspective on
agriculture is critical to shifting socio-economic research beyond technologicalchange “induced” by the relative prices of land, labour and other production
factors in agriculture; beyond the concept of linear technology transfers fromindustrialized to developing countries, from advanced and international research
centres to national systems as engine of change. Speilman (2005) thus
concluded that the application of innovation system analytical framework to
agriculture is embedded within the wider context of institutional change, change
process, and answers certain questions that the linear, conventional researchand systems are unable to address.
In other words, the innovation system approach offers a more holistic,
multidisciplinary and comprehensive framework for analyzing innovation
processes for climate change adaptation and food security, as well as the roles ofscience and technology actors and their interactions because of its emphasis on
wider stakeholder participation, linkages and institutional context of innovationand processes. Whilst climate change is presenting specific additional
challenges to development, it cannot be addressed in isolation. Unless concrete
and urgent steps are undertaken to reduce vulnerability and enhance adaptive
capacity of poor people, and unless these actions are integrated in national
strategies for poverty eradication and sustainable development, it may be difficult
to meet some MDGs by 2015.

66 | Agricultural Innovations for Climate Change Adaptation and Food Security in West Africa: The Case of Nigeria, Sierra Leone and Liberia

4. Methodology
4.1
Area of Study
The study was carried out in three west African countries, namely: Nigeria, Sierra
Leone and Liberia.
NIGERIA
Nigeria is a federal constitutional republic comprising thirty-six states and one
Federal Capital Territory. The country is located on the Gulf of Guinea, and has atotal area of 923,768 km2 (356,669 sqmi) and shares land borders with theRepublic of Benin in the west, Chad and Cameroon in the east, and Niger in thenorth (Wikipedia, 2009). Nigeria is an important centre for biodiversity. It is widelybelieved that the areas surrounding Calabar, Cross River State, contain theworld's largest diversity of butterflies. Nigeria's Delta region, home of the large oil
industry, experiences serious oil spills and other environmental problems.
When dividing Nigeria by climatic regions, three regions, the far south, the far
north, and the rest of the country emerge. The far south is defined by its tropicalrainforest climate, where annual rainfall is 60 to 80 inches (1,524 to 2,032 mm) a
year (). The far north is defined by its almost desert-like climate, where rain is lessthan 20 inches (508 mm) per year. The rest of the country, everything in between
the far south and the far north, is savannah, and rainfall is between 20 and 60
inches (508 and 1,524 mm) per year.
(http://www.uni.edu/gai/Nigeria/ Background /Standard5.html).
However, according to Federal Government of Nigeria report on droughtmanagement (FGN,1999), the Nigeria landmass of 923,766 km2 is divided into
seven ecological zones. This classification is based on the similarity of climatic
Agricultural Innovations for Climate Change Adaptation and Food Security in West Africa: The Case of Nigeria, Sierra Leone and Liberia | 67

elements and the type of vegetation that can be supported. These ecologicalzones are the mangrove swamp, rainforest, montane forest /grassland, derived
savannah, guinea savannah, Sudan savannah and the Sahel savannah. The
mangrove swamp and rainforest zones, and part of derived savannah zone arefound in the southern part of the country. These zones are characterized by highrainfall intensity, long wet season, dense vegetation, rugged topography andtemperature range of 26 – 28ºC and small farm holdings. Flood and watererosion are the major problem of crop production in these zones. A sizeable
hectare of agricultural land and farmer's properties are lost yearly to watererosion in the eastern part of the country. Maize, cassava, yam and vegetables
are the major crops grown in these zones.
Conversely, the savannah zone (Derived, Guinea, Sudan and Sahel savannah) is
located in the northern part of the country. This region is characterized by short
wet season and long dry season, high annual temperature (average) of the range
28 – 32ºC, few scattered trees and grasses, gentle slope and large farm holdings.
Maize, sorghum, millet, wheat, rice, cowpea, pepper and onion are the major
crops that thrive in savannah. The limiting factor to crop production in this region
is water; this is because of short wet season that often commences in June andends in September.
The montane forest/grassland zone is located in the high altitude areas of thecountry. This zone includes Jos Plateau, Adamawa and Obudu mountains. Thezone is known for low average annual temperature (20 – 23ºC) all year round,moderately high rainfall and rugged topography. Montane forest/grassland is
exceptionally suitable for maize, exotic vegetables (carrot, cabbage, cucumber
and lettuce among others). The mountainous nature of this zone, cold weather
and low concentration of oxygen are the obstacles to crop production. With the
exception of the montane region, the length of wet season (days) andtemperature increase from the coast to the hither land. In this categorization nostate of the federation can boast of one ecological zone. A state may have up to
three ecological zones. The seven ecological zones are explained below.
Mangrove Swamp Forest: This zone is characterized by a bimodal rainfall
distribution. The zone has an average annual temperature and rainfall of 26ºC
and 2503mm respectively. There is hardly a month without rainfall. The mangroveswamp vegetation is a hydromorphic forest type characterized by an entangled
68 | Agricultural Innovations for Climate Change Adaptation and Food Security in West Africa: The Case of Nigeria, Sierra Leone and Liberia

dense growth of stems and aerial roots. The most common specie of thisvegetation is the raffia palm (Sowunmi and Akintola, 2010). The better drain areas
support maize oil palm trees and big trees like Iroko (Chlorophora exceisa).
Limiting factors to agricultural production include waterlogged soil, rugged
topography and leaching as a result of excessive rainfall. A substantial land areaof states such as Lagos, Delta, Rivers, Cross River, Akwa Ibom and Calabar are
within this zone. The Fig. 4 shows the vegetation map of Nigeria.

Fig. 4: Vegetation Map of Nigeria
Tropical Rainforest: This zone like the mangrove swamp zone has a bimodal
rainfall distribution but with less intensity. There is a distinct dry and rainyseasons. The zone has an average annual rainfall and temperature of 1489 mm
and 26.5ºC respectively. Tropical rainforest zone accounts for a great number ofplant species. The lower layer vegetation is most dense with abundance of herbs,
shrubs and some grasses. The top layer accounts for valuable economic trees
such as Mahogany, Iroko, Obeche among others. The zone has a high density ofhuman population with agriculture as primary occupation of the people. The zone
is known for the cultivation of maize, cassava, vegetables, yam, oil palm etc.
Problem of agriculture in the zone are rugged topography and bush burningwhich predisposes soil to erosion (Sowunmi and Akintola, 2010).
Agricultural Innovations for Climate Change Adaptation and Food Security in West Africa: The Case of Nigeria, Sierra Leone and Liberia | 69

The Montane Forest/Grassland: The montane zone is located in the highaltitude areas of the country like Jos Plateau, Mandara, Adamawa Mountain and
Obudu Plateau. The zone is characterized by low average annual temperature(21.5ºC). The average annual rainfall is 1450mm. The montane zone vegetationis covered with grass at the top and base, while forests cover the slopes, favoured
by moisture-laden wind. The zone has a great potential for the cultivation ofmaize, wheat, carrot, cabbage and other exotic vegetables but the mountainous
nature of the zone prevents commercial farming.
Derived Savannah: This zone is found immediately after the tropical rainforest
zone. It is the transition between the tropical rainforest and guinea savannahzones. The average annual rainfall and temperature are 1314mm and 26.5ºC
respectively. The zone is covered with scattered trees and tall grasses. Maize,
cassava, yam and rice are the major crops grown in this zone. The savannah ingeneral has an enormous potential for food production in the country. Bushburning and erosion as a result of over grazing by animal especially cattle
constitute a major problem to agricultural production in the zone.
Guinea Savannah: The Guinea Savannah, located in the middle of the country, isthe most extensive ecological zone in Nigeria, covering near half of the country.
Guinea savannah zone has a unimodal rainfall distribution with the averageannual temperature and rainfall of 27.3ºC and 1051.7mm respectively. It extends
from Ondo, Edo, Anambra and Enugu States in the south, through Oyo State tobeyond Zaria in Kaduna State. It is a belt of mixture of trees and tall grasses in thesouth, with shorter grasses and less trees in the north. The Guinea savannah,with its typically short trees and tall grasses, is the most luxuriant of the savannah
vegetation belts in Nigeria(Sowunmi and Akintola, 2010). The zone ischaracterized by low rainfall and long dry period, which call for alternative watersupply (irrigation) to enhance full utilization of the zone potential in agricultural
production.
Sudan Savannah: The Sudan savannah zone is found in the northwest
stretching from the Sokoto plains in the west, through the northern sections of thecentral highland. It spans almost the entire northern states bordering the Niger
Republic and covers over one quarter of Nigeria's total area. The low averageannual rainfall of 657.3mm and the prolonged dry season (6-9 months) sustain
fewer trees and shorter grasses than the Guinea savannah. It is characterized by
70 | Agricultural Innovations for Climate Change Adaptation and Food Security in West Africa: The Case of Nigeria, Sierra Leone and Liberia

abundant short grasses of 1.5 - 2m and few stunted trees hardly above 15m. It is
by far the most densely human populated zone of northern Nigeria. Thus, thevegetation has undergone severe destruction in the process of clearing land forthe cultivation of important economic crops such as cotton, millet, maize andwheat. This is in addition to devastation due to animal husbandry, especiallycattle rearing, which is greatly favoured in this belt because the area is relatively
free from tsetse fly. The trees of the Sudan savannah include the acacia, thesheabutter, baobab and the silk cotton. Fig. 2 show the rainfall distribution map.
Sahel Savannah: This is the last ecological zone that supports maize cultivation
with proximity to the fringes of the fast-encroaching Sahara desert. It is located in
the extreme northeastern part of the country, close to Lake Chad, where the dry
season lasts for up to 9 months and the total average annual rainfall is hardly up to700mm. It is characterized by very short grasses of not more than one metre highlocated in-between sand dunes. The area is dominated by several varieties of theacacia and date palms. The Lake Chad basin, with its seasonally flooded
undulating plains, supports a few tall trees. At the same time, the drainage systemof rivers and streams into the Lake Chad basin has favoured irrigation, without
which cultivation would be virtually impossible. The increasing aridity in the area
accounts for the progressive drying up of the Lake Chad.
SIERRA LEONEThe Republic of Sierra Leone is a country bordered by Guinea in the north, Liberia
in the southeast, and the Atlantic Ocean in the southwest. Sierra Leone covers atotal area of 71,740 km2 (http://encarta.msn.com/encyclopedia_761563681/
Sierra_Leone.html). The national capital Freetown sits on a coastal peninsula,situated next to the Sierra Leone Harbor, the world's third largest natural harbour.
The climate is tropical, with two seasons determining the agricultural cycle: therainy season from May to November, and a dry season from December to May,
which includes harmmattan, when cool, dry winds blow in off the Sahara Desert
and the night-time temperature can be as low as 16 °C (60.8 °F) ( Blinker, 2006).
Logging, mining, slash and burn, and deforestation for land conversion havedramatically diminished forested land in Sierra Leone since the 1980s. Until 2002,
Sierra Leone lacked a forest management system due to a brutal civil war thatcaused tens of thousands of deaths. Deforestation rates have increased 7.3%
since the end of the civil war. The Republic of Sierra Leone is composed of threeprovinces: the Northern Province, Southern province and the Eastern province
Agricultural Innovations for Climate Change Adaptation and Food Security in West Africa: The Case of Nigeria, Sierra Leone and Liberia | 71

and one other region called the Western Area. The provinces are further divided
into 12 districts, and the districts are further divided into chiefdoms, except for theWestern Area. The country is divided into four agro –climatic regions, namely,
Coastal Plains, Rainforest, Savannah Woodland and Transitional
Rainforest/Savannah Woodland. The four agro-climatic regions are explained
below.
Coastal Plains. Agro-climate of this region is dominated by proximity of the sea,strongly temperature regimes, humidity and rainfall. The boundary of the region
is approximated and taken to coincide with the specific drainage and edaphic
characteristics. The coastal plains covers an area of some 11,000 km2 or about
15% of the land surface of Sierra Leone and is comprised of estuarine swamps,
alluvial plains, beach ridges and coastal terraces. The dominant factor
influencing the agricultural utilization of this region is the exceptionally highrainfall and an excess of precipitation over evapo-transpiration demands,
exposing the region to excessive leaching, prolonged flooding and swampy
conditions. An average water budget account for the region shows that there issome 2,100 mm of surplus rainfall which together with the seasonal flooding
reflects the extreme conditions of humid environment. There are distinct
contrasting periods of the year generally referred to the rainy and dry seasons.
The average duration of rain-fed growing period averages some 260±10 days.
The dry season therefore averages some 105 days, but for specific agricultural
purposes it could be extended for several weeks to include comparatively dry
periods of the rainy season in November and December. Temperature is however
not a limiting factor for crop growth in this region. Major crops grown include
Cabbage, Carrot, Lettuce and Potato Leaves. Fig 5 shows the Agro-climatic
Regions of Sierra Leone.
Rainforest. The ecologically important characteristic of the region is a unimodal
distribution of annual rainfall resulting in the high reliability of moisture supply tovegetation. However, the receipt of annual rainfall is much in excess of evapotranspiration demands and consequently about half of the annual precipitation(1460mm) finds its way to ground water or runoff resulting in stream and river
flow. The distribution of rainfall is prolonged, lasting from the beginning of May tothe end of November, a rise in the level of ground water table occurs and may
adversely affect draining conditions particularly in the lower parts of the
topography. Another agronomical important aspect of this large climatic water72 | Agricultural Innovations for Climate Change Adaptation and Food Security in West Africa: The Case of Nigeria, Sierra Leone and Liberia

supply is its effect on soil nutrients and land management. The drainage is poor insome areas, especially where there is low elevation- nutrients are all taken awayfrom the forest. The major crops grown here are both perennial and annual, but
the most common types are perennials (plantation). Cassava, Yams, Rice,
Foliage crops, Maize, Cabbage, Carrot and Lettuce are major crops found in thisregion.

Fig 5: The Agro-climatic Regions of Sierra Leone
Savannah Woodland. This covers about 30% of Sierra Leone, and extends fromthe interior lowland to the interior plateaus of the north and northwest. Rainfall andwater surplus are slightly lower than the other agro-climatic regions. The region ischaracterized with unique less luxuriant savannah vegetation, and has a dry
season that lasts for about 100-130 days. There is also a serious annual water
deficit. Wild fire, crop cultivation and overgrazing were also identified as the
major biotic influences producing this type of agro-climatic zone. Poor drainage,
shallowness and infertility are the main edaphic influences. These two factors,
result in the establishment of savannah mosaic landscape, which consists mainlyof deciduous woodland tree species and grasses. The rainy season starts about
mid-April to January. This result is suitable for annual crop production. Average
growing period is about 255 days. Rainfall is unimodal. There is large water
surplus in humid condition resulting to environmental stress for the arable crops.
This produces pests, diseases, weeds, leaching of nutrients, risk of flooding andsoil erosion. Dry season experiences a high water deficit (about 500 ml). At times
Agricultural Innovations for Climate Change Adaptation and Food Security in West Africa: The Case of Nigeria, Sierra Leone and Liberia | 73dry season prolongs between 160-170 days. Irrigation technology is therefore
important. Since there is a marked water supply in the rainy season and water
deficit in the dry season, there is a need to conserve water in the rainy season fordry seasons. Groundnut, Cowpea, Maize, Millet, Sorghum, Beans, Rice, Cocoa,
Banana, Oil Palm, Rubber, Pineapple, Sisal, Cassava, Yams and Sugar Cane aremajor crops grown in this zone.
Transitional Rainforest/Savannah Woodland. This shares similar
characteristics with the rainforest and savannah woodland agro-climatic regions.
Major crops grown include Coffee, Cocoa, Citrus, Banana, Avocado, Oil Palm,
Cassava, Yams and Rice.
LIBERIA
Liberia is located on the south-western coast of Africa. It is bound by Sierra Leone
to the northwest, Guinea to the north, Ivory Coast to the east and northeast andthe Atlantic Ocean to the south. The country can be divided into three
topographical regions.
a) The coastal belt of undulating plains characterized by tidal creeks, shallow
lagoons and swamps.
b) The plateau which rises slowly from the plain between 200 metres (656 feet)and 750 metres (2,461 feet) and is covered in forests as well as grasslands.
c) A mountainous area that is densely forested and reaches Mt. Nimba, thecountry's highest point. Other mountain groups include the Wologisi Range,
Bomi Hills and the Niete Mountains.
The country has a total land Area of 111.369 sq km (43,000 sq miles) and sevenmajor rivers, the Mano, Loffa, St. Paul, Farmington, St. John, Cess and Cavalla
which all flow into the Atlantic (CIA World Fact Book, 2005). Liberia is dominatedby flat to rolling coastal plains that contain mangroves and swamps. Those plains
slope into a rolling plateau and rainforest-covered hills central, and into relatively
low mountains in the northeast. Fig. 6 shows the map of Liberia.
Liberia has a tropical climate with two wet seasons in the southeast and one wet
season from May to October for the rest of the country. The climate ischaracterized by constant high temperatures and abundant rainfall. Annual mean
temperature is 77,5 degree (22.5 degree). Annual mean temperature is 77,5
degree (22.5 degree). High humidity is common during the wet season and the
74 | Agricultural Innovations for Climate Change Adaptation and Food Security in West Africa: The Case of Nigeria, Sierra Leone and Liberia

prevailing winds are the NE and SW Monsoons as well as the Harmattan which isa dust laden wind from the Sahara Desert. Tornadoes are also common during
the wet season. Average annual precipitation in Monrovia is 4,150 mm (163
inches) and average temperature ranges are from 22 degrees Celsius (72degrees Fahrenheit) to 27 degrees Celsius (81 degrees Fahrenheit) all year.
According to USAID Report (1999) Liberia has four distinct agro-ecological zones(AEZ), each having its unique and vegetation determined by rainfall pattern,
altitude/topography, and temperature. The four major AETs are: (a) Coastal
Plains; (b) Upper Highland Tropical Forest; (c) Lower Tropical Forest; and (d)Northern Savannah.

Fig. 6: Map of Liberia
Coastal Plains(AEZ, I): Coastal Plains are found along the coast running inland,
covering Montserrado, Cape mount, Bomi, Margibi, Bassa, and Rivercess
counties. Vegetation is swampy along rivers and creeks, mangroves, scatteredpatches of both low and high hushes and a savannah belt(with various types ofgrasses) running up to 15 miles (25km) in to the interior of the country. The coastal
plains begin at sea level and extend to heights of 100-ft(30m) inland. The coastal
plains are characterized by very high levels of rain fall, ranging from 178 to 182
Agricultural Innovations for Climate Change Adaptation and Food Security in West Africa: The Case of Nigeria, Sierra Leone and Liberia | 75

inches (4450-4550mm). High humidity of 85%-95% occurs in the coastal plains,
and these causes, which cause the temperature, feel higher. The coastal plains
also experience wider temperature ranges and longer sunshine hours.
Upper highland Tropical Forest (AEZ II): This area covers Upper Cape Mount,Lofa, Bomi, Margibi, Bong, and Rivercess and most of Nimba. This zone covers
the agricultural belt of Liberia, which composes the plateaus and mountain
ranges located behind the rolling hills. The plateaus (tablelands) run up to anelevation of 1000ft. (300m) above sea levels. The Mountain ranges (Mano andGbi) are found at elevations up to 2000ft (600m). The Northern Highlands iscomposed of the Wologisi range with elevation of up to (1350m) in Lofa, and the
Nimba range with elevation of 4540ft.(1385m). Vegetation in the Upper Highland
Tropical Forest is Semi-deciduous forest and transition zone of secondary forest(low bush), high broken forest, and high closed forest. Rainfall within this zone ischaracterized by a bi-model rainfall, subdivided with a short dry spell of two
weeks in July/August. Annual average rainfall is 115 inches (2900mm) from Lofa
to Nimba, and ranges from a low of 65 inches (1625 mm) in Bong County, tomaximum of 128 overall. The variation in temperature throughout the region isabout 5OF. This zone is excellent for cocoa and coffee production.
Lower Tropical Forest Zone (AEZ III): This zone is the mid-altitude rolling hills
composed of valleys, hills and numerous water courses found mainly in Sinoe,
Maryland, Grand Kru, Grand Gedeh and parts of Nimba counties. Vegetation ismostly evergreen rainforest found mainly in the south-eastern part of the counties
named above. Within this zone average rainfall goes from 120 inches (300mm) in
Maryland to 164 inches (4100mm) in Sinoe. The region experiences greater
length of dry spell and two distinct peaks of the rainy season.
Northern Savannah Zone (AEZ IV): This zone is found only in Northern Lofa andNorthern Nimba. It consists of dense elephant grass (grows up to 10ft.) with
scattered trees and patches of forest. The zone is characterized by high elevation
with average rainfall between 30 inches and 70inches (USAID Report, 1999).
4.2
Population and Sample Size
The population for this study included all types of farmers and organizations
considered as major stakeholders in the field of agriculture/ food security andclimate change issues in the three countries. The organizations include research
76 | Agricultural Innovations for Climate Change Adaptation and Food Security in West Africa: The Case of Nigeria, Sierra Leone and Liberia

institutes, training and education institutions, credit institutions, policy andregulatory bodies, private consultants / NGOs, farmers' associations and public
services delivery organizations.
Respondents for this study were selected through a multistage samplingtechnique. In the first stage, thirteen states (namely: Abia, Adamawa, Brono,
Cross Rivers, Delta, Enugu, Imo, Kogi, Ondo, Oyo, and Plateau states), wereselected from the seven agro-ecological zones in Nigeria; In Sierra Leone, six
districts (namely: Freetown Peninsula, Kailahun, Bo, Koinadugu, Moyamba andFree Town Coastal Plain districts) were selected from the four agro-climatic
regions, while seven counties (namely: Nimba, Bong, Lofa, Grand Bassa,
Margibi, Grand Cape Mount and Grand Gedeh) were selected from the four agroclimatic regions, in Liberia.
In the second stage, using the delineation by the different states' Agricultural
Development Programmes (ADPs), two agricultural zones were randomly
selected from each state giving a total of 26 agricultural zones in Nigeria. Fromeach of the selected zones, 25 farming households were randomly selected forinterview. This gave a total of 650 framing households from Nigeria. In Sierra
Leone, a sample size of 70 farming households were randomly selected fromeach of the six districts giving a total of 420 households; while in Liberia 60
farming households were randomly selected from each of the counties surveyed,giving a total of 420 farming households.
The sample of farming households for this study was selected through a
combination of strategies that recognized the social component of indigenous
knowledge and practices. Criteria used for selection included age (for historicalinsight on indigenous knowledge), framing experience and interest. In all, a totalof 1,490 farming households were interviewed. However, 1,424 (624 from
Nigeria); (400 from Sierra Leone) and (400 from Liberia) completely filledinterview schedules were used for analysis.
On the other hand, data were collected from a total of two hundred (200)respondents from various organizations, covering research institutes, training
and education institutions, credit institutions, policy and regulatory bodies,
private consultants / NGOs, farmers' associations and public services deliveryorganizations in Nigeria, Sierra Leone and Liberia. However, only 164 completely
Agricultural Innovations for Climate Change Adaptation and Food Security in West Africa: The Case of Nigeria, Sierra Leone and Liberia | 77

filled questionnaires, consisting of 124 from Nigeria; 20 each from Sierra Leone
and Liberia, respectively, were used for analysis.
4.3
Data Collection Technique
Tools of participatory research namely: structured questionnaire, semi structured
interview schedule, key informant interviews and focus group discussions(FGDs) were used in data collection. These instruments contained both open
ended and semi structured questions.
The organization questionnaire was divided into five sections. Section A of thequestionnaire dealt on the organization's profile; information about theorganization were collected. Section B identified the manpower and training
needs of the organizations; while section C revealed the various sources throughwhich the respondents sought for funds. Section D of the questionnaire tried toascertain the intensity and trend of collaborations and networks among theorganizations; while section E looked at the performance of the various systems
as regards the major problems encountered in climate change innovations
dissemination and food security issues, as well as the state of the domestic
environment with regard to supporting agricultural development.
Section A of the interview schedule elicited the farmers' profile; information
concerning the respondents was collected. Section B identified the manpower
and training needs of the farmers; while section C sought for information on thevarious available sources of funds to the farmers. Section D determined the
respondent's awareness and knowledge of climate change phenomenon.
Section E focused on the perceptions of respondents on the causes of climatechange. Section F of the interview schedule sought for information on various
innovative climate change adaptation measures used by respondents. Section G
sought to identify the problems farmers encountered in adapting to the changing
climate, while Section H looked at the food security issues as it affects the
respondents. Section I sought to elicit information on the intensity and trend ofcollaborations and networks with other stakeholders in the last five years. Section
J sought to ascertain the performance of the farmers as regards climate change
adaptation.

78 | Agricultural Innovations for Climate Change Adaptation and Food Security in West Africa: The Case of Nigeria, Sierra Leone and Liberia

4.4
Measurement of Variables
Section A of the instruments elicited information on characteristics of the farming
households and the nature of the organization. Variables measured under thissection were: age (in years); years of farming experience (in years); sex; marital
status; household size; ownership structure of farm and organization; main areasof focus in farming; available extension activities on climate change; types oforganizations; main purpose of the organizations and thematic area of focus.
Section B of the farmer and organization questionnaire identified the available
manpower and areas of specialization of respondents. Respondents were asked
to name their highest academic qualification and areas of interest. Respondents
were asked if they have had any specialized training on climate change and/or
whether their organizations provided opportunities for staff training on climatechange adaptation by ticking against a response option of “Yes” or “No”.
Respondents were also asked to indicate by ticking the appropriate response toshow if their manpower strength was “Decreasing=1”, “Remained the same=2”
or “Increased=3” over the last five years.
Section C of the two sets of instruments showed the available sources of financeto the respondents. Respondents were asked to give the percentage of theirbudgets that comes from the listed sources: Government, Self generated, Private
sector, Donor funded etc. They were also asked to indicate how contributions
from the different funding sources have changed over the past five years byticking against “Decreasing=1”, “Remained same=2”, “Increasing=3”. They
were also asked to indicate the percentage of their budget that goes to solving
climate change/food security issues.
Section D of the farmers' interview schedule and organization questionnaire
determined the respondent's awareness and knowledge of climate change
phenomenon and elicited information on the intensity and trend of collaborations
and networks in the last five years available to the organizations. Respondents
were asked to indicate if they have heard of climate change and if climate change
affects their farming activities by ticking on a response option of “Yes” or “No”.
They were also asked to give a description of their understanding of the conceptof climate change. To ascertain the direction of change with regard to someclimate phenomena on farming activities over the past five years, a three point
Likert-type scale was used. Each respondent was required to indicate his/her
Agricultural Innovations for Climate Change Adaptation and Food Security in West Africa: The Case of Nigeria, Sierra Leone and Liberia | 79

responses by ticking any of the options namely “Decreasing”, “Remained thesame” or “Increasing”. Values assigned to these options were 1, 2 and 3; thesewere summed to obtain 6.0 which was divided by 3 to obtain a mean score of 2.0.
Factors with mean scores of less than 2.0 were regarded as not showing any signof change, while those with mean scores of above 2.0 were regarded as showing
some changes in the past five years.
Sections D and I of the organization and farmers' instruments respectively,sought to elicit the availability of overseas and / or local collaborators andwhether these collaborations covered the issues of food security/climatechange. Respondents were asked to indicate the existence of collaborations byticking “Yes” or “No”, they were also asked to indicate the main areas of available
collaborations. The intensity of collaboration was measured on a five point Likerttype scale of “None”, “Weak”, “Average”, “Strong” and “Very strong”, withnominal values of 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5, respectively. These values were added toobtain 15, which was further divided by 5 to get a value of 3.0, which wasregarded as the mean. Collaborations with mean scores of less than 3.0 wereregarded as showing weak intensity while those with mean scores of greater or
equal to 3.0 were regarded as showing strong intensities. Respondents werealso asked to indicate how collaborations with the various organizations havechanged over the past five years. To measure this trend, each respondent was
required to indicate his/her responses by ticking any of the options namely“Decreasing”, “Remained the same” and “Increasing”. Values assigned to these
options were 1, 2 and 3; these values were summed to obtain 6.0 and was divided
by 3 to obtain 2.0 which was regarded as the mean. Collaborations with meanscores of less than 2.0 were regarded as showing decreasing intensities over the
past five years with, while those with mean scores of above 2.0 were regarded as
showing increasing intensities over the past five years.
Sections E and J of the farmers' interview schedule as well as section E of theorganization questionnaire focused on the perceptions of respondents on thecauses of climate change and also looked at the performance of the various
systems as it regards to climate change adaptation. Respondents were asked totick “Yes” or “No” options if they introduced new crop, farm tool, information,markets for products etc., within the past 10 years. A list of different sources of
information on climate change and food security was provided and the
respondents were asked to indicate their major sources of information. Also, the80 | Agricultural Innovations for Climate Change Adaptation and Food Security in West Africa: The Case of Nigeria, Sierra Leone and Liberia

respondents were asked to indicate the quality of information they received on a 5
point Likert – type scale. The values were summed up to get 15.0 which was later
divided by 5 to give a mean score of 3.0. Any response option lower than 3.0 was
not regarded as a source of information on climate change and food security
issues while responses greater than or equal to 3.0 were taken as sources ofquality information. Respondents were also required to rate the present domestic
environment in the country in terms of its support for climate change adaptations
and food security on a 5 – point Likert- type scale. Again, government support
systems with less than 3.0 scores were regarded as weak supports / efforts while
responses with options greater than 3.0 were taken as strong domestic supports.
Section F looked at different innovative climate change adaptation measuresused to combat the climate change. Respondents were asked to state different
approaches they used to combat pests and diseases attack, and measures they
took to improve on their crop and livestock productions. Then a list of different
adaptation measures (use of resistant varieties, increase weeding, planting oftrees, out migration etc) was provided and the respondents were asked toindicate by ticking under the appropriate column any of the measures they havebeen using in the past five years.
Section G of the interview schedule sought to elicit information on problems
encountered by the farmers in adapting to the effects of climate change.
Respondents indicated the extent to which variables like lack of information, lowawareness level, low institutional capacity etc., acted as constraints to climatechange adaptation. A three point Likert –type scale with response options of, to avery serious, serious, and not serious scaled 3 to 1 was used to ascertain the levelof seriousness of the different constraints listed.
Section H elicited information on food security issues as they affect the
respondents. The respondents were asked to show the frequency at which they
had difficulties in meeting the food needs of their households and the number oftimes they fed in a day by ticking under the correct options as provided.
4.5
Data Analysis
Data relating to organizations and farmers' profile, manpower and specialization
as well as sources of finance were summarized using percentages and meanscores. Awareness and knowledge of climate change phenomenon among theAgricultural Innovations for Climate Change Adaptation and Food Security in West Africa: The Case of Nigeria, Sierra Leone and Liberia | 81

respondents, perceived causes of climate change and different adaptation
measures used by framers were analyzed using percentages and mean scores.
Also, mean scores and trend analysis were used to summarize information on
manpower trend, financing trend, budgetary trend climate change trend andintensity of collaborations among key stakeholders in the climate change /foodsecurity innovation system in the last five years. Percentages and mean scores
were also used to analyze the major sources of information on climate change
and food security as well as the quality of these sources. Both mean scores andexploratory factor analysis procedure were used to analyze the problems
encountered by farmers in adapting to the effects of climate change. First of all, todetermine the possible constraints as perceived by the respondents, therespondents' mean scores were summarized such that those variables withmean scores greater than 2.0 were regarded as a “possible constraints”.
Exploratory factor analysis procedure using the principal factor model with
iteration and varimax rotation was further employed in grouping the constraint
variables into major constraint factors for policy implication. In factor analysis, thefactor loading under each constraint (beta weight) represent a correlation of thevariables (constraint areas) to the identified constraint factor and has the sameinterpretation as any correlation coefficient. However, only variables withloadings of 0.40 and above {(10% overlapping variance, Comrey, (1962)} wereused in naming the factors.

82 | Agricultural Innovations for Climate Change Adaptation and Food Security in West Africa: The Case of Nigeria, Sierra Leone and Liberia

5. Results & Discussion
The findings of the study are presented under the following headings:
1. Farmers' Demographics and available Extension Activities in Nigeria, Sierra
Leone and Liberia
2. Manpower and Specialization (Training, experience and skills) of surveyed
Enterprises
3. Sources and Trends of Enterprise funding over the past five years
4. Perceived Trend of Climate Change Phenomenon in Nigeria, Sierra Leone
and Liberia
5. Perceived Causes of Climate Change
6. Innovative Climate Adaptation Measures used by Farmers
7. Problems Encountered by Farmers in Adapting to the Effects of Climate
Change8. Respondents' Perception of Household Food Security Issues
9. Intensity and Trends of Collaboration among key actors in the Climate
Change and Food Security Innovation System
10. Performance of the System on the basis of Innovation Generation
11. Sources of Information on climate change, food security measures andinnovations
12. Respondents' Perception of Domestic Environment support for Climate
Change Adaptation and Food Security

Agricultural Innovations for Climate Change Adaptation and Food Security in West Africa: The Case of Nigeria, Sierra Leone and Liberia | 83

5.1.

FARMERS' DEMOGRAPHICS AND AVAILABLE EXTENSIONACTIVITIES IN NIGERIA, SIERRA LEONE AND LIBERIA

Age
Entries on Table 4 show that in Nigeria, 31.8% of the rural households fell within
the age range of 40-49 years, 20.7% were within 20-20 years, in Sierra Leone,
30.4% were within 40-49 years, 24.9% fell in the range of 50-59 years. However, in
Liberia, 28.0% were within the age ages of 40-49 years. The mean ages of
respondents in the three countries were (x=47.00, = 44.71 and =42.99) for
Nigeria, Sierra Leone and Liberia respectively. This indicates that the
respondents were predominately in their middle age and hence are in their highproductive stage.
Sex
Data on Table 4 show that in Nigeria, Sierra Leone and Liberia respectively, that
81.4%, 76.5% and 66.9% of the respondents were males. These reveal that moremales dominated in agriculture in the three countries than females.
Marital status
Entries in Table 4, further reveal that 82.4%, 82.8% and 87.1% of the rural
households interviewed in Nigeria, Sierra Leone and Liberia, respectively, were
married. About 9% for (Nigeria and Sierra Leone) and 5.4% were single. Thisfindings show that there are more married couples who engage in agriculture in
the three countries.
Household size
Table 4 shows that about 82% of the respondents in Nigeria, 73% in Sierra Leone
and 68% in Liberia had household size between 1-10 persons. While 16.0%,
18.9% and 14.5% for Nigeria, Sierra Leone and Liberia respectively, hadhousehold size between 11-20 persons. The average household size is 7persons
in Nigeria and 8 persons each in Sierra Leone and Liberia. Large household size
is a common phenomenon in most rural African communities. Having many
household members is an advantage in terms of support in farming activities.
Ownership structure of farm
Entries on Table 4 further reveal that the ownership structure of farms in Nigeria,

84 | Agricultural Innovations for Climate Change Adaptation and Food Security in West Africa: The Case of Nigeria, Sierra Leone and Liberia

Sierra Leone and Liberia respectively (94.7%, 95.5% and 99.7%) was basicallyfamily/private ownership system.
Main area of farm focus
The main areas of farm focus for the three countries under study were crops(94.5%, 98.5% and 98.3%) for Nigeria, Sierra Leone and Liberia respectively. The
remaining 5.3% for Nigeria, 2.5% for Sierra Leone and 1.7% for Liberia weredirected into livestock production. This indicates that crop production is the
predominant agricultural activity in these countries.
Years of farming experience
Data on Table 4 further show that respondents in Nigeria (33.7%), Sierra Leone(38.5%) and Liberia (28.8%) had years of farming experience between 11-20
years. Respondents who had years of farming experience between 1-10 years for
Nigeria, Sierra Leone and Liberia respectively, were 26.2%, 30.1% and 46.7%.
The mean years of farming experience for respondents in the three countries
were (=21.55, =17.62 and =15.04). This means that the respondents have beenpracticing agriculture for a long period of time and could therefore be said to havegained some level of experience as regards changes in the climate as it affects
their farming activities.

Agricultural Innovations for Climate Change Adaptation and Food Security in West Africa: The Case of Nigeria, Sierra Leone and Liberia | 85

Table 4: Socio–economic characteristics of rural households
surveyed in the three countries
Socio-economic
characteristics

Nigeria
Percentage

Age(years)
20-29
30-39
40-49
50-59
Above 60

6.6
20.7
31.8
21.4
19.6

Sex
Male
Female

81.4
18.6

76.5
23.4

66.9
33.1

Marital status
SingleMarriedDivorced
Widowed

9.6
82.4
2.4
5.6

9.0
82.8
2.8
5.5

5.4
87.1
3.7
3.7

Ownership
structure of farm
Family/private
Foreign owned
Government
Joint venture

94.7
0.8
2.3
2.2

95.5
0.8
3.5
0.2

99.7
0.3

Main area of farm
focus
Crops
Livestock

94.7
5.3

98.5
2.5

98.3
1.70

Size of farm
Small size
Medium size
Large size

78.1
29.8
2.1

99.7
0.3

99.7
0.2

Household size
(person)
1-10
11-20
Abov e 21

81.5
16.0
2.5

Mean

47.00

7

Sierra Leone
Percentage Mean

Liberia
Percentage

14.4
18.6
30.4
24.9
11.7

15.1
26.9
28.0
18.1
11.9

73.0
18.9
8.1

44.71

8

67.8
14.5
17.7

Mean

42.99

5.4
87.1
3.7
3.7

8

86 | Agricultural Innovations for Climate Change Adaptation and Food Security in West Africa: The Case of Nigeria, Sierra Leone and Liberia

5.1.1 Available Extension Activities on Climate Change and Food Security
Figure 7, shows that only 22.6% of the respondents in Nigeria noted that there areavailable extension activities on climate change through the use ofdemonstration/training on the use of adaptive measures (e.g. mulching) tocushion the effects of climate change. About 25% of the respondents in Nigeria
asserted that there are advisory services on how to manage the farm in order toreduce the effect of climate change; while 26.2% of them reported that there areawareness creations on the effects/consequences of climate change fromextension activities.
In Sierra Leone and Liberia, only 2.2% and 14.3% of the respondents respectively
noted that there are extension activities with regard to visiting sites that areundergoing changes due to variations in the climate. Only about 3% and 7% of
the respondents from Sierra Leone and Liberia reported that there are awarenesscreations on the effects/consequences of climate change through extension
activities in the two countries. It can be inferred from the above, that there seem to
be more extension activities on climate change in Nigeria than in Sierra Leone
and Liberia. However, the data reveals that there were little or no public shows onchanging climate; excursion to locations showing neither varying climate
situations nor field days where discussions on effect of climate change were donein any of the countries. This call for the need for extension to work closer withresearch institutions and famers to build synergy that will lead to quicker
development of new adaptation technologies on climate change.

Agricultural Innovations for Climate Change Adaptation and Food Security in West Africa: The Case of Nigeria, Sierra Leone and Liberia | 87

26.2

25
22.6

14.9

14.3
10.1
7.7

3 3.5

3.5 4.2
2.2

Nigeria

3.2

Sierra Leone

4.3

4
1.5 2

2.8

3.8
1.5

2.7

Liberia

Figure 7: Respondents' reported extension activities on climatechange in three countries

88 | Agricultural Innovations for Climate Change Adaptation and Food Security in West Africa: The Case of Nigeria, Sierra Leone and Liberia

5.2

MANPOWER AND SPECIALIZATION (TRAINING, EXPERIENCE AND
SKILLS) OF SURVEYED ENTERPRISES IN NIGERIA, SIERRA LEONE
AND LIBERIA

5.2.1 Enterprise Manpower and Specialization in Nigeria, Sierra Leone andLiberia
Educational Qualification
Entries on Table 5 show that about 59% of the respondents in Sierra Leone, 38%
of Liberian respondents and 14% of respondents from Nigeria had no formal
education. The table further shows that 27.5%, 22.8% and 31.6% of the
respondents from Nigeria, Sierra Leone and Liberia respectively completed
secondary school while, 17.5% of the Nigerian respondents, 0.2% and 0.7% of
respondents from Sierra Leone and Liberia had university education. On ageneral note, the data show that respondents from Nigeria were more literate
than respondents form the other two countries.
Possession of Specialized Training on Climate Change Adaptation and/or
Food Security Issues
From Table 5, it is evident that only 1.8% of respondents from Nigeria, 2.5% of
respondents from Sierra Leone and 0.7% of respondents from Liberia possessed
special training on climate change adaptation and food security issues. It can beinferred from the above findings that majority of the respondents across the three
countries possessed no special training on climate change adaptation and on
food security issues.
The Table further reveals that only about 2% of family members or farm workers
from Nigeria, 1% from Sierra Leone and 0.2% from Liberia possessed a
specialized training on climate change adaptation and food security issues. On
provision of opportunities for training for staff or family members on climatechange adaptation, 3.0% of respondents in Nigeria noted to have provided suchopportunities, while 0.2% of respondents from both Sierra Leone and Liberia
agreed to have also provided such opportunities for training. The implication forthis is that there is so much work to be done by all stakeholders involved in climatechange adaptation measures, if the issue of food security is be achieved for theteeming population across Africa and the world at large.

Agricultural Innovations for Climate Change Adaptation and Food Security in West Africa: The Case of Nigeria, Sierra Leone and Liberia | 89

5.2.2 Trend in Manpower Structure within the Farms over the Past Five Years
Data in Table 6 and Figure 8 show a positive growth in the manpower strength offarms in Nigeria over the past five years, while Liberia had a positive growth up till
2008 and a downward trend in the 2009. However, Sierra Leone have had an
unstable manpower trend (both upward and downward trend) over the past five
years. The data on the Table further show that the manpower structure in thefarms are dominated by farm labourers followed by management staff, withtechnical staff being the least in most cases.
Table 5: Trend i manpower structure within the farms over the
past five years
Nigeria

Sierra Leone

Liberia

Training, experience and skills
Highest academic qualification
No formal education
Primary school
Secondary school
Certificate Course / Diploma
University education

14.3
17.3
27.5
23.5
17.5

59.0
14.8
22.8
3.2
0.2

37.5
20.5
31.6
9.6
0.7

Years of farming experience
1-10
11-20
21-30
Above 31
Mean farming experience

26.2
33.7
18.7
21.4
21.55

30.1
38.5
23.0
8.7
17.62

46.7
28.8
15.1
9.4
15.04

Do you have specialized training in Climate Change adaptation and /orfood Security issues
Yes
No

1.8
98.2

2.5
97.5

0.7
99.3

Do any members of your family or farm workers have specialized
training in Climate Change adaptation and /or food Security issues
Yes
No

2.2
98.8

1.0
99.0

0.2
99.8

Does your farm provide opportunities for training staff / family members
Yes
No

3.0
97.0

0.2
99.8

0.2
99.8

90 | Agricultural Innovations for Climate Change Adaptation and Food Security in West Africa: The Case of Nigeria, Sierra Leone and Liberia

Table 6: Distribution of rural households by training, experienceand skills possessed
Manpower Trend

2005
A

B

2006
C

A

B

2007
C

A

B

C

Management

1.32 2.13 1.12

1.37 2.05 1.16

1.39 2.05 1.21

No. ofTechnical staff

0.85 0.00 1.21

0.84 0.00 1.21

0.96 0.00 1.25

No. of labourers/ familymembers
Overall mean

1.89 2.19 1.36

1.92 2.01 1.40

1.80 2.17 1.58

4.06 4.32 3.69

4.13 4.06 3.77

4.15 4.22 4.04

Manpower Trend

2008

2009

A

B

C

A

B

C

Management

1.43 1.98 1.24

1.46 1.99 1.25

No. ofTechnical staff

0.98 0.00 1.36

1.01 0.00 1.28

No. of labourers/ familymembers
Overall mean

1.86 2.15 1.71

1.91 2.27 1.72

A: Nigeria
B: Sierra Leone

4.27 4.13 4.31

4.38 4.26 4.25

C: Liberia

Agricultural Innovations for Climate Change Adaptation and Food Security in West Africa: The Case of Nigeria, Sierra Leone and Liberia | 91

1.5
1.45

Manpower Trend

1.4
1.35
1.3
1.25
1.2
1.15
1.1

Figure 8: Trends in manpower structure of farms in Nigeria, Sierra
Leone and Liberia over the past 5 years.

92 | Agricultural Innovations for Climate Change Adaptation and Food Security in West Africa: The Case of Nigeria, Sierra Leone and Liberia

5.3

SOURCES AND TRENDS OF ENTERPRISE FUNDING IN NIGERIA,SIERRA LEONE AND LIBERIA OVER THE PAST FIVE YEARS

5.3.1 Trends in enterprise funding from self generated sources in Nigeria,
Sierra Leone and Liberia
Data in Figure 9 show that Sierra Leone has the highest level of investment infarms from self generated sources over the past four years, while Liberia has thelowest level of investment from this source. However, Nigeria has had an unstableflow of funds from self generated sources with 2006 and 2008 being the lowest
over the past five years.

3.0

Funding Trend (self generating)

2.5

2.0

1.5

1.0

0.5

0

Figure 9: Funding trends form self generated sources in Nigeria,
Sierra Leone and Liberia
5.3.2 Trends in enterprise funding from government (subsidies) in Nigeria,
Sierra Leone and Liberia
Figure 10 shows that farmers in Sierra Leone and liberia percieved funding fromgovernment (subsidies) to be stable over the past five years, though at a higher
level in Sierra Leone than Liberia. However, tha data from Nigeria shows an
unstable government support for the enterprises over the past five years, with thelowest being in 2006 and 2008, but suppasing the funding in the other two
countries towards the end of 2009.
Agricultural Innovations for Climate Change Adaptation and Food Security in West Africa: The Case of Nigeria, Sierra Leone and Liberia | 93

3.0

Funding Trend (government subsidies)

2.5

2.0

1.5

1.0

0.5

0

Figure 10: Trends in enterprise funding from government(subsidies) in Nigeria, Sierra Leone and Liberia
5.3.3 Trends in enterprise funding from private sector (loans) in Nigeria,
Sierra Leone and Liberia
Data in Figure 11 shows the trend in enterprise funding from the private sector inform of loans received for investment in the farms. The data show that Nigeria
seem to have higher volume of inflows from the private sector in support ofenterprise investments, however there seem to be fluctuations in the inflows,which recorded the lowest support in 2006. On the other hand, data from Sierra
Leone and Liberia shows a more stable financial inflow from the private sector
over the past five years, with Sierra Leone having a higher level of financial
support than Liberia between 2005 and 2009.

94 | Agricultural Innovations for Climate Change Adaptation and Food Security in West Africa: The Case of Nigeria, Sierra Leone and Liberia

3.0

Funding Trend (private sector loans)

2.5

2.0

1.5

1.0

0.5

0

Figure 11: Trends in enterprise funding from private sector (loans)in Nigeria, Sierra Leone and Liberia
5.3.4 Trends in enterprise funding from donor sources in Nigeria, Sierra
Leone and Liberia
Figure 12 shows that Nigeria had higher level of financing from donor sources
than Sierra Leone and Liberia over the past five years, except for 2006. The dataalso show that Sierra Leone and Liberia had a more stable financial inflow fromdonor source over the past five years, with Sierra Leone having a higher level offinancial support than Liberia between 2005 and 2009.

Agricultural Innovations for Climate Change Adaptation and Food Security in West Africa: The Case of Nigeria, Sierra Leone and Liberia | 95

3.0

Funding Trend (donor funded)

2.5

2.0

1.5

1.0

0.5

0

Figure 12: Trend in enterprise funding from donor sources in
Nigeria, Sierra Leone and Liberia

96 | Agricultural Innovations for Climate Change Adaptation and Food Security in West Africa: The Case of Nigeria, Sierra Leone and Liberia

5.4

PERCEIVED TREND OF CLIMATE CHANGE PHENOMENON IN
NIGERIA, SIERRA LEONE AND LIBERIA

5.4.1 Uncertainties on the onset of farming season
Data in figure 13 shows that Liberia have had an increasingly higher level of
uncertainties in the onset of farming seasons than Sierra Leone and Nigeria since2006 arising from a combination of the following factors: unusual early rains thatare followed by weeks of dryness; erratic rainfall pattern; delay in the unset ofrains; long period dry seasons; long period of rainfall in some areas; short periodof rainfall in some areas and reduced period of harmattan. On the other hand datafrom Nigeria and Sierra Leone show a relative stability in the onset of farming
seasons, even though the farmers experienced a delayed shift in the onset offarming seasons in these countries in the past few years, mainly due to delayedand erratic onset of rains.
Adaptation to climate change requires that farmers and / or communities first
notice that the climate has changed, and then identify useful adaptations
measures and implement them (Maddison, 2006).

Agricultural Innovations for Climate Change Adaptation and Food Security in West Africa: The Case of Nigeria, Sierra Leone and Liberia | 97

3.0

Farming season uncertainty index

2.5

2.0

1.5

1.0

0.5

0

Figure 13: Perceived trend in uncertainties on the onset offarming season in Nigeria, Sierra Leone and Liberia.
5.4.2 Extreme weather events
Data in Figure 14 show that Liberia has the highest level of increase in the trend of
extreme weather events occasioned by thunderstorms, heavy winds, flooding ,heavy rainfall and erosion, among other weather conditions since 2006. Rural
households in Sierra Leone also perceived a slight increase in the extreme
weather events since 2006 and at the same time has a higher extreme weather
event than Nigeria over the past 5 years. On the other hand, data from Nigeria
reveal a relatively stable weather condition up till early 2007 and an upward trend
in extreme weather condition between 2007 and 2008. However, they perceived adownward trend in extreme weather conditions between 2008 and 2009.

98 | Agricultural Innovations for Climate Change Adaptation and Food Security in West Africa: The Case of Nigeria, Sierra Leone and Liberia

3.0

Farming season uncertainty index

2.5

2.0

1.5

1.0

0.5

0

Figure 14: Perceived trend in extreme weather events in
Nigeria, Sierra Leone and Liberia.
5.4.3 Farming Problems
Figure 15 reveals a perceived increase in the trend of farming problems (including
disease incidence, weed infestation, soil infertility, over flowing/ drying up of
streams / rivers, low farm yields and landslides) in Liberia between 2006 and 2009,
than in Nigeria and Sierra Leone. On the other hand, data from Nigeria and Sierra
Leone show a stabilized trend in farming problems over the past five years, with
Sierra Leone showing a higher level of problems than Nigeria across the years.

Agricultural Innovations for Climate Change Adaptation and Food Security in West Africa: The Case of Nigeria, Sierra Leone and Liberia | 99

3.0

2.5

Farming problems index

2.0

1.5

1.0

0.5

0

Figure 15: Perceived trend in farming problems in Nigeria,
Sierra Leone and Liberia.

100 | Agricultural Innovations for Climate Change Adaptation and Food Security in West Africa: The Case of Nigeria, Sierra Leone and Liberia

5.5

PERCEIVED CAUSES OF CLIMATE CHANGE

Entries on Table 7 show that respondents from Nigeria perceived burning of fossil
fuel by industries (x=3.24), use of generator to generate electricity by many
households (=3.02), gas flaring from oil companies (=3.21), burning of fossil fuelfrom vehicles, machines (motorcycles) (=3.05), gases released from industries(=3.29), high temperature due to the depletion of ozone layer (=3.39), emissionof green house gases (e.g. methane) (=3.07) and crude oil spillage (=3.04) as
major causes of climate change. This finding is in agreement with Lohnman(2006), who opined that climate change is closely associated with the burning ofoil, coal or gas.
Field evidence from Nigeria shows that gas is flared continuously in the oil
producing communities of the Niger Delta region of Nigeria (Figure 16), whichdaily leads to the release of the greenhouse gases which are responsible for thechanging climate. This perceived situation can be attributed to carelessness of oil
industries in oil spillage, natural gas flaring, over exploitation of natural resources,
extensive dam construction, and unfavourable farm practice methods found in
the area. As majority of the people living in the Niger Delta are farmers andfishermen, the environmental and social consequences of climate change isputting livelihoods at serious risks. Unfortunately, the deadline to put an end togas flaring in Nigeria has been postponed from 2008 to 2009 and then 2011.
Other perceived causes of climate change in Nigeria include bush burning (=3.04), cutting down of trees (=2.88), and over grazing of farmland by livestock(=2.64). This result is also in agreement with the fact that burning of coal, oil andnatural gas, as well as deforestation and various agricultural and industrial
practices, are altering the composition of the atmosphere and contributing toclimate change (www.gcrio.org).

Agricultural Innovations for Climate Change Adaptation and Food Security in West Africa: The Case of Nigeria, Sierra Leone and Liberia | 101

Figure 16: A site of gas flaring at Escravos, Warri Delta state
Nigeria
Respondents from Sierra Leone perceived the use of firewood for cooking(x=2.66), bush burning (=3.09), cutting down of trees (=3.10) and swamp riceproduction (=2.56) as major causes of climate change in Sierra Leone. On theother hand, respondents from Liberia perceived the following as causes ofclimate change: burning of firewood for cooking (=2.86), over grazing of
farmland by livestock (=3.10), use of excess chemical in farmlands e.g. fertilizer,
herbicides etc (=3.12), swamp reclamation (=3.10) and swamp rice production(=3.39).
The implication of this finding is that human activities are to a large extent the
major causes of climate change as most of their industrial or agricultural activities
lead to increase concentrations of green house gases in the atmosphere.

102 | Agricultural Innovations for Climate Change Adaptation and Food Security in West Africa: The Case of Nigeria, Sierra Leone and Liberia

Table 7: Mean scores of perceived causes of climate change in
Nigeria, Sierra Leone and Liberia
Nigeria
Perceived causes of climate

MeanchangeStandard

Sierra Leone
Mean

deviation

Standard

Liberia
Mean

deviation

Standard
deviation

Burning of fossil fuel by industries

3.24*

0.89

1.96

1.13

1.76

0.61

Use of generator to generate

3.02*

0.82

1.86

1. 05

2.28

0.76

Gas flaring from oil companies

3.21*

0.82

1.86

1.07

2.02

0.77

Burning of firewood for cooking

2.17

1.01

2.66*

1.09

2.86*

0.99

Bush burning

3.04*

0.83

3.09*

1.13

2.31

0.88

Burning of fossil fuel from vehicles, 3.05*

0.78

1.85

1.07

2.15

0.83

2.20

0.85

1.63

0.91

3.16*

0.79

Cutting down of trees

2.88*

0.89

3.10*

1.15

1.68

0.66

Over grazing of farmland by

2.64*

0.9 2

2.44

0,96

3.10*

0.87

Gases released from industries

3.29*

0.80

1.90

1.11

2.00

0.73

High temperature due to the

3.39

0.87

2.41

1.10

1.90

0.89

2.49

0.96

1.69

1.01

3.12*

0.91

3.07*

0.93

1.77

1.02

1.92

0.96

2.31

0.84

1.58

0.77

3.10*

0.81

Swamp rice production

2.17

0.83

2.56*

1.24

3.39*

0.71

Crude Oil spillage

3.04*

0.92

1.83

1.10

2.01

0.88

electricity by many households

machines (motorcycles)
High use of irrigation whichchanges the amount of water going
into and out of a given location

livestock

depletion of Ozone layer
Use of excess chemical infarmlands e.g. fertilizer, herbicides,
pesticide etc.
Emission of green house gases(e.g. C02 , methane)
Swamp reclamation

Agricultural Innovations for Climate Change Adaptation and Food Security in West Africa: The Case of Nigeria, Sierra Leone and Liberia | 103

5.6

INNOVATIVE CLIMATE ADAPTATION MEASURES USED BYFARMERS OVER THE PAST FIVE YEARS

Entries on Table 8 revealed the adaptation measures been used by farmers in thethree countries. In Nigeria, the identified measures included: mulching (74.1%),
increased weeding of cultivated areas (63.9%), increased use of fertilizers, seeds(57.0%), intensive manure application (53.0%), planting of trees (23.3%), and useof resistant varieties (38.7%). Other measures were processing to minimize post
– harvest loss (51.8%), expansion of cultivated land areas (26.3%), use ofchemicals: herbicides, pesticides (55.3%), change in timing of land preparation(30.1%), changes in planting dates (38.0%), practicing zero/ minimum tillage(38.5%), changes in harvesting dates (30.0%), multiple cropping (planting ofmany crops in the same piece of land) (42.9%) and mixed farming (crop andanimal production) (29.4%) construction of drainage systems (26.3%), plantingof early maturing crops (30.8%) and prayers for God's intervention (58.1%).
In Sierra Leone, the adaptation measures were cultivating in wetlands/river valley
e.g. Fadama (45.6%), expansion of cultivated land areas (27.6%), increased useof fertilizers, seeds (60.0%), increased weeding (62.2%), movement to a different
site (51.8%), changes in planting dates (40.4%), multiple cropping (planting ofmany crops in the same piece of land) (49.1%), relay cropping – planting andharvesting in succession ( 39.8%), intercropping – main crops planted withsubsidiaries at low densities (42.4%), prayers for God's intervention (70.0%) andplanting of early maturing crops (41.1%).
While in Liberia, the adaptation measures been used by the respondents wereexpansion of cultivated land area (27.6%), increased weeding (47.8%),
movement to a different site (47.8%), multiple cropping (planting of many crops
in the same piece of land) (37.2%) and prayers for God's intervention (60.6%).

104 | Agricultural Innovations for Climate Change Adaptation and Food Security in West Africa: The Case of Nigeria, Sierra Leone and Liberia

Table 8: Mean percentage distribution innovative climate change
adaptation measures used by farmers over the past five years
Innovative climate adaptation measures as used by
farmers

Nigeria

SierraLeone

Liberia

Ground water harvesting
Mulching / use of cover crops
Cultivating in wetlands / river valleys (e.g. Fadama)Construction of drainage systems
Planting of trees
Use of resistant varieties
Processing crops to minimize post-harvest losses
Expansion of cultivated land area
Increased use of fertilizers, seeds
Intensive manure application
Increased weeding
Use of chemicals: herbicides, pesticides etc
Moved to a different site
Change in the timing of land preparation activities
Changes in planting dates
Practicing zero / minimum tillage
Changes in harvesting dates
Multiple cropping (planting of many crops in the same
piece of land)
Mixed farming (crop and animal production)
Relay cropping-planting– and harvesting in succession
Intercropping - main
– crops planted with subsidiaries at
low densities
Decreasing animal stock
Change from animal production to crop production
Prayers for God’s intervention
Planting of early maturing crops

11.9
74.1
17.8
26.3
23.3
38.7
51.8
26.3
57.0
53.0
63.9
55.3
19.1
30.1
38.0
38.5
30.0
42.9

37.6
5.4
45.5
12.9
4.9
5.0
15.7
44.3
60.0
20.0
62.2
10.0
51.8
10.3
40.4
4.5
36.4
49.1

18.1
5.0
14.9
8.1
3.7
5.0
4.3
27.6
11.6
5.0
74.4
11.3
47.8
18.7
21.8
3.4
15.8
37.2

29.4
14.2
19.0

9.7
39.8
42.4

7.7
2.9
14.7

11.9
8.4
58.1
30.8

0.7
0.2
70.0
41.1

1.9
1.7
60.6
3.8

Agricultural Innovations for Climate Change Adaptation and Food Security in West Africa: The Case of Nigeria, Sierra Leone and Liberia | 105

5.7

PROBLEMS ENCOUNTERED BY FARMERS IN ADAPTING TO THE
EFFECTS OF CLIMATE CHANGE

Entries in Table 9 show that the three countries under study encountered similar
problems in their efforts to adapt to the negative effects of climate in the various
countries. The constraints experienced in Nigeria, Sierra Leone and Liberia
respectively, included: poor access to information relevant to adaptation (x=2.60, 2.88 and 2.77), lack of financial resources (= 2.50, 2.87 and 2.62), poor/low
extension services (= 2.48, 2.78 and 2.58) and lack of access to weather
forecasts (= 2.04, 2.67 and 2.51). The problems imposed by information lack,and poor extension services in the three countries point to the fact that there
could be limited extension activities on climate change adaptation in the three
countries. There is need therefore to have an enduring system through which
information can be disseminated, as information exist currently at the global
levels on measures of adapting to the changing climate.
Other problems encountered in the three countries respectively, were: high costof improved crop varieties (=2.42, 2.77 and 2.08), absence of governments
policy on climate change (=2.35, 2.66 and 2.35), non availability of credit facilities(=2.49, 2.30 and 2.38), limited knowledge on adaptation measures (=2.28, 2.64
and 2.52) and poor response to crises related to climate change by thegovernments agencies and interest groups (=2.36, 2.52 and 2.26).
Further problems included: non availability of processing facilities (=2.17, 2.03
and 2.00), inadequate knowledge on how to cope adequately (=2.21, 2.50 and2.22) and high cost of farm labour (=2.38, 2.17 and 2.04). These findings reveal
some level of disconnect among the major stakeholders across the three
countries under study. The findings also show that the respondents have very
limited knowledge on effective adaptation measures to combat the negative
challenges of climate change. This means that more efforts should be channeledby the government of the three countries in putting in place appropriate policies
on climate change. Again, research should build up more adaptation measures
so that the respondents can be exposed to a variety of options on adaptation as
best suits their environment.

106 | Agricultural Innovations for Climate Change Adaptation and Food Security in West Africa: The Case of Nigeria, Sierra Leone and Liberia

Table 9: Mean scores on problems encountered by farmers in
adapting to the effects of climate change
Problems encountered in adapting to the effects
of climate change

Nigeria

Sierra Leone

Liberia

Mean

S.D

Mean

S.D

Mean S.D

Poor access to information source relevant toadaptation
Type of land tenure system practiced in my area
Ineffectiveness of indigenous strategies
Traditional beliefs/ practices does not allow me touse the adaptive strategies
Lack of financial resources
Poor/low extension services
Lack of access to weather forecasts
Limited access to improved crop varieties
Lack of access to improved livestock breeds
High cost of improved crop varieties
Non-availability of storage facilities
Absence of government policy on adaptation
Non-availability of credit facilities
Limited knowledge on adaptation measures
Poor response to crises related to climate change by
the governments agencies and interest groups
Risk of adaptation
High cost of fertilizers and other inputs
High cost of irrigation facilities
Non-availability of farm inputs
Non-availability of processing facilities
Inadequate knowledge of how to cope
Non-availability of farm labour
High cost of farm labour

2.60

0. 60

2.88

0.36

2.77

0.45

2.00
1.98
1 .67

0.67
0.76
0.76

1.75
2.52
1.45

0.79
0.74
0.69

1.42
1.38
1.28

0.68
0.59
0.56

2.50
2.48
2.04
2.24
2.23
2.42
2.01
2.35
2.49
2.28
2.36

0.54
0.66
0.76
0.65
0.79
0.58
0.74
0.62
0.62
0.68
0.66

2.87
2.78
2.67
1.87
2.23
2.77
1.97
2.66
2.30
2.64
2.52

0.37
0.48
0.57
0.83
0.80
0.47
0.85
0.59
0.78
0.67
0.72

2.62
2.58
2.51
2.18
1.99
2.08
1.93
2.35
2.38
2.52
2.26

0.54
0.51
0.56
0.74
0.87
0.72
0.85
0.58
0.68
0.56
0.75

1.95
2.41
2.43
2.00
2.17
2.21
2.01
2.38

0.71
0.58
0.65
0.76
0.71
0.67
0. 74
0.60

2.49
2.75
2.73
1.95
2.03
2.50
1.56
2.17

0.77
0.49
0.55
0.85
0.86
0.72
0.66
0.74

2.09
1.72
1.71
1.80
2.00
2.22
1.63
2.04

0.57
0.79
0.87
0.62
0.82
0.68
0.61
0.53

5.7.1 Factor Analysis of Constraints
The data were further subjected to exploratory factor analysis in order to groupthe constraints variables for policy implications. The result of the rotatedcomponent matrix showing the extracted factors, based on the response of
respondents is shown in Table 10. The results show that three constraint factors
were extracted based on the responses of the respondents. Only variables withloadings of 0.40 and above (10% overlapping variance; Comrey, 1962) were usedin naming the factors. Factors 1, 2 and 3 were named institutional problems,
traditional factors and government failures, respectively, on the basis of theAgricultural Innovations for Climate Change Adaptation and Food Security in West Africa: The Case of Nigeria, Sierra Leone and Liberia | 107

different variables that loaded high when problems encountered by respondents
from Nigeria were examined.
Factors which loaded under institutional problems (Factor 1) include: high costof improved crop varieties (0.41), non-availability of storage facilities (0.57),
absence of government policies on adaptation (0.58), poor response to crises
related to climate change by government agencies and interest groups (0.68),
high cost of fertilizer and other inputs (0.60), non-availability of processing
facilities (0.78), inadequate knowledge on how to cope (0.68), non-availability offarm labour (0.71) and high cost of farm labour (0.71). respondents; ignorance of
the availability of policies on climate change is an indication that the government
has to intensify efforts to ensure that appropriate policies on climate change areenacted and awareness of these policies created among the general populace.
This will provide and carter for the rural poor who bear the brunt of the damages
caused by climate change. Also, the non availability and high cost of farm labour
portrays the need for increased in mechanization of agricultural processes.
Factors that loaded under government failures include: poor access to
information source relevant to adaptation (0.71), lack of financial resources(0.65), poor/low extension services (0.80), lack of access to weather forecasts(0.66) and limited access to improved crop varieties (0.74). Irregularities ofextension services discourage farmers as it brings about inconsistencies andlack of follow up on previously disseminated information. Limited access toimproved crop varieties is a government problem. Interactions during the FGDs
reveal the absence of weather information from meteorological stations to thegeneral public.
Factors that loaded under traditional factors included: type of land tenuresystems (0.82), ineffectiveness of indigenous strategies (0.65) and lack of accessto improved livestock breeds.
With regards to Sierra Leone, factors 1, 2, and 3 were named production
problems, institutional problems and government problems respectively. The
factors that loaded under production problems included: type of land tenuresystem practiced in the area (0.79), limited access to improved crop varieties(0.77), lack of access to improved livestock breeds (0.54), non-availability of
108 | Agricultural Innovations for Climate Change Adaptation and Food Security in West Africa: The Case of Nigeria, Sierra Leone and Liberia

storage facilities (0.78), non-availability of credit facilities (0.60), non-availabilityof farm inputs (0.82) and non-availability of processing facilities (0.79).
Factors that loaded under institutional problems were: ineffectiveness of
indigenous strategies (0.75), lack of financial resources (0.52), poor/low
extension services (0.80), lack of access to weather forecasts (0.73), absence ofgovernment policy on adaptation (0.7.0) and limited knowledge on adaptation
measures (0.78).
Factors that loaded under government factors included: high cost of improved
crop varieties (0.45), poor response to crises related to climate change bygovernment agencies and interest groups (0.55), high cost of fertilizers and other
inputs (0.70) and non availability of farm labour (0.54).
For Liberia, factors 1, 2 and 3 were named information / financial problems,
traditional problems and government problems respectively. Factors that loaded
under information problems were limited access to improved livestock breeds(0.87), high cost of improved crop varieties (0.81),lack of financial resources(0.72), poor / low extension services (0.48), limited access to improved cropvarieties (0.78), non availability of credit facilities (0.81), limited knowledge on
adaptation measures (0.58), poor response to crises related to climate change bygovernment agencies and interest groups (0.88), high cost of irrigation facilities(0.88), non availability of processing facilities (0.93) and inadequate knowledge
on how to cope (0.71). These findings further point to the need to have anenduring system of information dissemination in the rural communities. This
need falls within the purview of the extension workers whose prerogative it is todisseminate information to farmers/rural people aimed at increasing theirknowledge level on relevant matters as it affects them.
Factors that loaded under traditional problems included type of land tenuresystem practiced in the area (0.84), traditional beliefs/practices does not allow
farmers use adaptive strategies (0.70) and high cost of farm labour (0.66).
Factors that loaded under government problems were lack of access to weather
forecasts (0.73) and absence of government policies on adaptation (0.54).

Agricultural Innovations for Climate Change Adaptation and Food Security in West Africa: The Case of Nigeria, Sierra Leone and Liberia | 109

Poor access to information source relevant toadaptation
Type of land tenure system practiced in myarea
Ineffectiveness of indigenous strategies
Traditional beliefs/ practices does not allow me
to use the adaptive strategies
Lack of financial resources
Poor/low extension services
Lack of access to weather forecasts
Limited access to improved crop varieties
Lack of access to improved livestock breeds
High cost of improved crop varieties
Non-availability of storage facilities
Absence of government policy on adaptation
Non-availability of credit facilities
Limited knowledge on adaptation measures
Poor response to crises related to climatechange by the governments agencies andinterest groups
Risk of adaptation
High cost of fertilizers and other inputs
High cost of irrigation facilities
Non-availability of farm inputs
Non-availability of processing facilities
Inadequate knowledge of how to cope
Non-availability of farm labour
High cost of farm labour

Problems
2
0.71
0.07
0.33
0.25
0.65
0.80
0.66
0.74
0.23
0.37
0.26
0.40
0.23
0.46
0.26

-0.05
0.12
-0.16
0.03
-0.02
0.23
0.07
0.16

1
0.15
0.03
-0.12
0.20
0.12
0.17
0.19
0.13
-0.03
0.41
0.57
0.58
0.51
0.52
0.68

0.43
0.60
0.37
0.81
0.78
0.68
0.71
0.71

Nigeria

0.60
0.4
0.8
0.12
0.16
-0.01
0.17
0.17

0.39
-0.01
0.06
0.23
0.72
0.36
0.10
-0.06
0.48
-0.01
-0.02

0.65
0.34

0.82

3
0.13

-0.47
-0.29
-0.02
0.82
0.79
-0.15
0.23
0.15

0.03
0.03
-0.04
0.77
0.54
0.17
0.78
0.02
0.60
-0.11
-0.37

-0.21
0.19

0.79

1
-0.18

0.55
0.70
0.58
0.16
0.09
0.59
0.54
0.35

0.06
0.32
0.26
-0.17
-0.08
0.45
0.09
0.27
-0.18
0.10
0.55

0.24
-0.02

-0.03

3
-0.06

-0.17
0.58
0.88
0.15
0.93
0.71
-0.44
-0.19

0.72
0.48
0.10
0.78
0.87
0.81
0.86
0.39
0.81
0.58
0.88

0.43
0.22

0.22

1
0.35

0.42
0.40
0.14
0.40
0.01
0.29
0.70
0.66

-0.00
0.36
0.04
0.05
-0.10
0.18
-0.03
0.35
0.05
0.05
.023

0.76
0.70

0.84

2
0.18

Liberia

0.40
0.38
-0.17
0.58
-0.03
0.35
0.14
0.25

0.19
0.15
0.73
0.32
0.06
-.07
0.54
0.54
0.12
-0.00
0.26

-0.13
0.16

0.02

3
-0.28

1 = Nigeria; 2 = Sierra Leone; 3 = Liberia

0.23
0.16
0.42
-0.12
-0.12
0.44
-0.30
0.07

0.52
0.80
0.73
-0.12
-0.02
0.35
-0.06
0.70
0.32
0.78
0.31

0.75
-0.29

-0.21

2
0.28

Sierra Leone

Table 10: Factor analysis of problems encountered by farmers in adapting
to the effects of climate change

5.8.
RESPONDENTS' PERCEPTION OF HOUSEHOLD FOOD SECURITY
ISSUES

110 | Agricultural Innovations for Climate Change Adaptation and Food Security in West Africa: The Case of Nigeria, Sierra Leone and Liberia

5.8.1 Problems of Satisfying Household Food Needs
Figure 17 shows that rural households in Nigeria (32.3%), Sierra Leone (33.5%)
and Liberia (28%), sometimes have difficulties in satisfying family food needs.
About 20% of households in Nigeria perceived seldom problems in satisfying
family food needs; in Sierra Leone and Liberia respectively, 20% and 27% of therural households noted that they perceived problems seldomly in meeting family
food needs. Only 27.7%, 1.4% and 15.1% of the respondents in Nigeria, Sierra
Leone and Liberia respectively reported that they have never experienced or
perceived problems in meeting their household family food needs. It can beinferred from the above findings, that rural households across the three countries
have difficulties in meeting their food needs.

32.3
27.7

33.5
29

28

26.9

19.7 19.8
18.1
16.2

15.1
13.1

11.9
7.2

1.4

Never

SeldomNigeria

Sometimes
Sierra Leone

Often

AlwaysLiberia

Figure 17: Percentage distribution of rural households by theirperceived abilities to satisfy family food needs in Nigeria,
Sierra Leone and Liberia

Agricultural Innovations for Climate Change Adaptation and Food Security in West Africa: The Case of Nigeria, Sierra Leone and Liberia | 111

5.8.2 Number of Times Household Feed in a Day
From Figure 18, it is evident that majority (75.8%) of the respondents in Nigeria
fed at least three times per day, in Sierra Leone more of the rural households
noted that they fed twice (67.2%) per day; while the respondents in Liberia notedthat they fed once (40.0%) and twice (50.6%) per day. This shows that on the
average, the rural respondents in the three countries were not feeding
adequately on daily basis.
75.8
67.2

50.6
40

18
14.7
9.4
1.1

2.3

Nigeria

Sierra Leone
Once

Twice

Liberia
Three times

Figure 18: Distribution of rural households by number of times
eaten per day
5.8.3 Respondents' Perception of Household Current Food Situations
From Figure 19, it is evident that majority of the respondents from Nigeria(21.4%), Sierra Leone (24.5%) and Liberia (25.9%) perceived the current
household food situations as a little worse than what it was previously. About 23%of respondents from Nigeria noted that the situation has remained the same,
while 34% of rural households from Sierra Leone and 21% from Liberia noted alsothat the situation has not changed. Only 23.5% of rural households from Nigeria
perceived their current situation to have improved a little better than it waspreviously. Respondents from Sierra Leone and Liberia respectively (33.8% and
112 | Agricultural Innovations for Climate Change Adaptation and Food Security in West Africa: The Case of Nigeria, Sierra Leone and Liberia

21.2%), noted that there has also been a little improvement on their current foodsituation over time. This means that on an average note in the three countries
under study, there have not been many changes in their current food situations. In
order to beef up food security issues and self sufficiency in terms of foodproduction in these countries, there is need to invest more in agricultural
production so that the teeming populations food needs can be met appropriately.

33.8
31.8
27.7
24.5

25.9
23.5

21.5 21.4

21.2
18.5
15.2
12.8

12.1

5

Much worse

5

A little worse
NigeriaSame

A little better

Sierra Leone

Much better

Liberia

Figure 19: Distribution of respondents by perceived household
current food situation in Nigeria, Sierra Leone and Liberia

Agricultural Innovations for Climate Change Adaptation and Food Security in West Africa: The Case of Nigeria, Sierra Leone and Liberia | 113

5.9.

INTENSITY AND TRENDS OF LINKAGES/COLLABORATIONAMONG KEY ACTORS IN THE CLIMATE CHANGE AND FOOD
SECURITY INNOVATION SYSTEM

5.9.1 Existence of Local and Overseas Collaborations in the Climate
Change and Food Security Innovation System in Nigeria, Sierra Leone andLiberia
Data in Figure 20 indicated the non – existence of overseas linkages /collaboration in the area of climate change and food security among majority of
the rural households across the three countries. The presence of local
collaboration was higher in Nigeria (11.0 percent) than in Sierra Leone (2.0
percent) and Liberia (3.2 percent). Collaboration among actors in the climatechange and food security innovation system is essential for relevance, capacity
building and increase innovative performance of the actors and the system ingeneral. The extent of collaboration also suggests the level of involvement inclimate change and food security activities.

Not good

Average
NigeriaGood
Sierra Leone

Very good

Excellent

Liberia

Figure 20: Farmers' reported existence of local and overseas
collaborations on climate change and food security in Nigeria,
Sierra Leone and Liberia
114 | Agricultural Innovations for Climate Change Adaptation and Food Security in West Africa: The Case of Nigeria, Sierra Leone and Liberia

5.9.2 Intensity of Linkages/Collaborations between Farmers and other
Actors in the Climate Change and Food Security Innovation System in
Nigeria, Sierra Leone and Liberia
Data on Table 11 reveal that the intensity of linkages / collaborations existing
among actors in the enterprise domain, in the three countries, outweighs that withother domains, with higher collaborations existing among the small-scale
farmers and famers' associations. Nigeria tends to have higher linkages /collaborations among the actors in all the domains followed by Liberia in three outof the four major domains, while Sierra Leone only showed a higher intensity than
Liberia in the area of linkage with policy makers. Collaboration among actors in
the climate change and food security innovation system is essential for relevance,
capacity building and increase innovative performance of the actors and thesystem in general. The extent of collaboration also suggests the level of cohesion
and/or involvement of the different actors in climate change and food security
activities.

Agricultural Innovations for Climate Change Adaptation and Food Security in West Africa: The Case of Nigeria, Sierra Leone and Liberia | 115

Table 11: Mean scores of intensity of linkages/collaborations
between farmers and other actors in the climate change and foodsecurity innovation system
Nigeria
Collaborating Actors

Sierra Leone

Liberia

Mean Standard Mean Standard
deviation
deviation

Mean Standard
deviation

2.14

1.17

1.07

0.25

1.09

0.34

R &D Agencies Domain
National agricultural research organization (e. g.
NIHORT, FIIRO, NRCRI, IAR, etc.)
Regional agricultural research organization / network
International agricultural research organization /network (e.g. IITA)
Universities
Overall mean

1.36
2.21

0.66
1.46

1.07
1.05

0.25
0.22

1.13
1.05

0.44
0.22

1.89
1.90

1.29
1.15

1.09
1.07

0.34
0.27

1.21
1.12

0.42
0.36

Policy MakersDomain
National agricultural research council
Policy makers
Standard setting body (e. g. NAFDAC, SON, etc.)
Overall mean

1.42
1.66
2.06
1.71

0.62
1.13
1.06
0.94

1.14
1.19
1.03
1.12

0.35
0.39
0.18
0.31

1.06
1.21
1.01
1.09

0.30
0.41
0.09
0.27

Enterprise Domain
Small – scale Farmers
Medium – large scale farmers
Farmers Association
Agricultural cooperatives
Financing/ credit/ venture capital
Input suppliers e.g. Seed companies
Agricultural machinery suppliers
Agricultural produce marketers
Consumers of agricultural products
Overall mean

2.93
2.69
2.88
2.37
2.44
2.00
1.41
2.39
2.81
2.44

1.08
1.40
1.35
1.09
1.38
1.09
0.69
1.21
1.32
1.18

1.19
1.17
1.22
1.22
1.03
1.03
1.05
1.09
1.08
1.13

0.38
0.39
0.44
0.44
0.17
0.18
0.23
0.25
0.21
0.30

1.42
1.14
1.25
1.19
1.02
1.03
1.04
1.18
1.18
1.16

0.70
0.44
0.70
0.49
0.15
0.17
0.30
0.48
0.54
0.44

1.98

1.17

1.12

0.37

1.25

0.46

1.84
2.10
1.97

0.91
1.12
1.07

1.11
1.05
1.09

0.39
0.22
0.33

1.33
1.28
1.29

0.47
0.45
0.46

Extension AgenciesDomain
Extension agencies (e. g. ADPs including private
extension services)
Federal / State Ministries of Agriculture
Federal / State Ministries of Environment
Overall mean

5.9.3 Linkage Trends between Farmers and R & D Institutions in the
Climate Change and Food Security Innovation System in Nigeria, Sierra
Leone and Liberia
Figure 21 shows the perceived linkages existing between farmers and researchand development institutions between 2005 and 2009 in the three countries. The
data reveal a perceived increase in the trend of linkage between the farmers andthe R & D institutions in Nigeria between 2007 and 2009, with a linkage index ofmore than 2. On the other hand, data from Sierra Leone and Liberia show astabilized trend in their linkage with R &D institutions over the past five years (with116 | Agricultural Innovations for Climate Change Adaptation and Food Security in West Africa: The Case of Nigeria, Sierra Leone and Liberia

linkage index of less than 2 each), with Sierra Leone showing a higher intensity oflinkage than Liberia.

3.0

2.5

R & D linkage index

2.0

1.5

1.0

0.5

0

Figure 21: Percieved trend of linkage between farmers and R &D
institutions in Nigeria, Sierra Leone and Liberia
5.9.4 Linkage Trends between Farmers and Policy making bodies in the
Climate Change and Food Security Innovation System in Nigeria, Sierra
Leone and Liberia
Data in Figure 22 show the linkage trend between farmers and policy making
bodies in the different countries. The Figure shows a low linkage index of lessthan 2 for all the countries. However, data from Nigeria show an unstable trend
between 2005 and 2008, with an upward trend since 2008. On the other hand,data from Sierra Leone and Liberia reveal a more stable linkage between the
farmers and policy making bodies, with Sierra leone having a higher
colllaboration intersity than Liberia.

Agricultural Innovations for Climate Change Adaptation and Food Security in West Africa: The Case of Nigeria, Sierra Leone and Liberia | 117

3.0

Policy making bodies linkage index

2.5

2.0

1.5

1.0

0.5

0

Figure 22: Perceived trend of linkage between farmers and policy
making bodies in Nigeria, Sierra Leone and Liberia
5.9.5 Linkage Trends among actors within the enterprise domain in the
Climate Change and Food Security Innovation System in Nigeria, Sierra
Leone and Liberia
Data in Figure 23 show the linkage trend among key actors (which include Small –scale farmers, medium – large scale farmers, farmers association, agricultural
cooperatives, financing/ credit/ venture capital, Input suppliers, agricultural
machinery suppliers, agricultural produce marketers and consumers ofagricultural products) within the enterprise domain. The data reveal a higher
linkage index among these actors than with other actors in the climate change
and food security innovation system across the three countries. The data also
show an increasing linkage trend among these actors in Nigeria than in Sierra
Leone and Liberia, with Sierra Leone showing a higher linkage intersity trend than
Liberia.

118 | Agricultural Innovations for Climate Change Adaptation and Food Security in West Africa: The Case of Nigeria, Sierra Leone and Liberia

3.0

2.5

Enterprise linkage index

2.0

1.5

1.0

0.5

0

Figure 23: Perceived trend of linkage among actors in theenterprise domain in Nigeria, Sierra Leone and Liberia
5.9.6 Linkage Trends between Farmers and Technology Delivery
Institutions in the Climate Change and Food Security Innovation System in
Nigeria, Sierra Leone and Liberia
Figure 24 shows the linkage trends between farmers and the technology delivery
institutions across the three countries. The data reveal an incresing higher
linkage index ( of more than 2) between farmers and the technology delivery
institutions in Nigeria than in Sierra Leone and Liberia. On the other hand, datafrom Sierra Leone also shows an uneven increasing linkage trend over the past
five years, with Liberia showing a more stable linkage trend between the farmers
and technology delivery insitutions. The linkage index between farmers and thetechnology delivery insitutions in Sierra Leone and Liberia was less than 2.

Agricultural Innovations for Climate Change Adaptation and Food Security in West Africa: The Case of Nigeria, Sierra Leone and Liberia | 119

3.0

2.5

Extension agencies linkage index

2.0

1.5

1.0

0.5

0

Figure 24: Linkage trends between farmers and technology
delivery services in Nigeria, Sierra Leone and Liberia

120 | Agricultural Innovations for Climate Change Adaptation and Food Security in West Africa: The Case of Nigeria, Sierra Leone and Liberia

5.10

PERFORMANCE OF THE SYSTEM ON THE BASIS OF INNOVATIONGENERATION

Figure 25 reveals the types of innovation generated by enterprises over the pastten years in Nigeria, Sierra Leone and Liberia. In Nigeria, it is evident that new
improved crop varieties / livestock breeds (38.5%), new information (25.2%), newmarkets for products (16.1%) and upgrading of machinery were the innovation
generated over the past ten years. In Sierra Leone, the innovations generated
included new markets for products (16.1%) and upgrading of machinery (13.3%).
For Liberia, it is evident that over the past ten years, virtually nothing has been
done in the area of generating innovations by the enterprises. From this findings,
it is clear that innovations are been very poorly generated across the countries
under study. Efforts should be channeled by the relevant government bodies e.g.
Ministries of Agriculture, Research organizations etc to ensure that innovations
are generated always so that the gap between the use of primitive methods inagricultural production and use of improved methods as found in otherdeveloped parts of the world can be bridged.
38.5

25.2
22
16.1
13.3
4.8

4.8
0.5
New
improved
crop /
livestock
breed

0
New
improved
technology

Nigeria

2

2.7

New
information

Sierra Leone0

1

New markets
for products

00Upgradedmachinery or
equipment

Liberia

Figure 25: Types of innovations generated by enterprises over thelast ten years in Nigeria, Sierra Leone and Liberia
Agricultural Innovations for Climate Change Adaptation and Food Security in West Africa: The Case of Nigeria, Sierra Leone and Liberia | 121

5.11

SOURCES OF INFORMATION ON CLIMATE CHANGE, FOOD
SECURITY MEASURES AND INNOVATIONS

Information on Table 12 showed the respondents sources of information on
climate change and food security measures. The mean score on sources of
information by respondents from Nigeria and Sierra Leone showed that theysourced information from radio (x=3.02, 3.44); those who got information on
climate change and food security measures in Sierra Leone through televisionwere (=3.06). In Nigeria, respondents noted that they sourced information fromother farmers (=3.08); in Sierra Leone, respondents reported also that theysourced information from government researcher (=3.38) and Ministries ofAgriculture (=4.02).
The available sources on information from respondents in Liberia revealed underutilization of the available sources of information. Also, the available sources of
information on climate change and food security measures and innovations from
respondents in Nigeria and Sierra Leone reveals limited usage of the identified
sources of information. A possible reason for this could be that the information
disseminated over time is limited in usage to respondents needs or that themessage is being communicated using a wrong channel. The appropriate
means of disseminating information should be employed and messages that are
beneficial to solving particular problems as it regards climate change and foodsecurity measures should be disseminated to farmers efficiently and in a timely
manner.

122 | Agricultural Innovations for Climate Change Adaptation and Food Security in West Africa: The Case of Nigeria, Sierra Leone and Liberia

Table 12: Sources of information on climate change food security
measures, new/improved varieties, products, technologies,
services and markets
Nigeria

Sierra Leone

Mean SD

Mean

SD

Mean

SD

Radio

3.02*

0.95

3.44*

1.31

2.66

1.28

Television

2.74

1.10

3.06*

1.12

1.49

1.05

Other Farmers

3.08*

1.17

2.84

0.92

2.10

1.13

Meetings / seminars / trade fairs

2.98

1.34

2.76

1.30

1.83

1.14

Extension Officers

2.44

1.45

2.64

0.81

1.68

0.92

Government Researchers

2.43

1.39

3.38*

1.77

1.50

0.81

Input suppliers e.g. seed, fertilizer companies

2.71

1.34

1.00

1.40

0.58

University

2.74

1.52

1.00

1.59

0.83

Internet

2.44

1.43

1.00

1.36

0.81

Ministries of Agriculture

2.63

1.42

4.20*

1.70

0.92

Ministries of Environment

2.45

1.47

1.00

1.78

0.93

Sources of information

1.88

Liberia

Agricultural Innovations for Climate Change Adaptation and Food Security in West Africa: The Case of Nigeria, Sierra Leone and Liberia | 123

5.12

RESPONDENTS' PERCEPTION OF DOMESTIC ENVIRONMENTSUPPORT FOR CLIMATE CHANGE ADAPTATION AND FOOD
SECURITY

5.12.1 Respondents' Perception of Farms Ability to Adapt to Changes in the
Local or International Environment
Figure 26 reveals the respondents' perception on their farms ability to adapt tochanges in their environment. Respondents from the three countries (Nigeria,
Sierra Leone and Liberia respectively) noted that the ability of their farms to adapt
to climate changes was not good (28.8%, 67.5% and 46.7%). On the average,
40.2%, 32.2% and 0.5% of the farmers from Nigeria, Sierra Leone and Liberia
respectively agreed that their farms can adapt to these changes. This findings
show that farms in these countries have very limited capacities to adapt tochanges in the environment. This could probably be done to absence of policies
on climate change or limited adaptive measures to the changing climate. There isneed therefore to strengthen if any, existing policies on climate change
adaptation and mitigation and to also reposition research institutes in the search
for innovative adaptive measures to climate change effects.

67.5

46.7
40.2
32.2
28.8
20.5

19.5

18.3

15.1
8.6
0.5

Not good

0.2

Average

Good

Nigeria

Sierra Leone

1.9

0

Very good0

Excellent

Liberia

Figure 26: Percentage distribution of respondents by perceived
ability of farms to adapt to change environment124 | Agricultural Innovations for Climate Change Adaptation and Food Security in West Africa: The Case of Nigeria, Sierra Leone and Liberia5.12.2 Farmers Perception on Domestic Support for Climate Change
Adaptation and Food Security in Nigeria, Sierra Leone and Liberia
From Table 13, it is evident that the respondents from the countries under study
perceived domestic environments support for climate change adaptation andfood security to be poor. The reason for this may be due to absence of mitigation
measures and policies on climate change that carter for the rural poor in the fightagainst the dangerous consequences of climate change.
Table 13: Farmers' perception of domestic environment support
for climate change adaptation and food security in West Africa
Nigeria

Sierra Leone

Liberia

Mean SD

Mean SD

Mean SD

Government incentives for innovation

1.73

1.06

1.16

0.44

1.18

0.41

Availability of trained and experienced scientists

1.76

1.07

1.18

0.48

1.34

0.53

Local universities responsiveness to needs of thesector

1.60

1.23

1.15

0.65

1.19

0.39

National R & D organizations responsiveness to needsof the sector

1.39

0.78

1.07

0.26

1.06

0.27

Standard setting bodies and laboratory infrastructure

1.44

0.90

1.10

0.37

1.02

0.14

Intellectual property protection to support innovation

1.50

0.99

1.14

0.43

1.01

0.11

Availability of financing / venture capital

1.51

0.90

1.23

0.57

1.02

0.20

Information and telecommunication infrastructure

1.79

1.07

1.34

0.73

1.10

0.35

State of power supply

1.49

0.74

1.26

0.61

1.01

0.10

State of water supply

1.72

1.01

1.30

0.60

1.04

0.11

Road, rail, air and sea communication infrastructure

1.63

0.92

1.24

0.55

1.34

0.30

Supportive polices for science and technology andagriculture

1.61

0.98

1.16

0.48

1.07

0.68

Marketing infrastructure and supportive policy

1.59

0.94

1.12

0.37

1.24

0.35

Statements

Agricultural Innovations for Climate Change Adaptation and Food Security in West Africa: The Case of Nigeria, Sierra Leone and Liberia | 125

6.

Summary & Conclusion

6.1
Summary
Based on the findings of the study, the following conclusions were made:1.
The available extension services on climate change and food security in the
countries under study show that work done with regards to climate change
adaptation is very limited.
2.
Respondents across the three countries possessed no special training on
climate change adaptation and on food security issues.
3.
There was a positive growth in manpower strength of farms in Nigeria andLiberia; this was majorly dominated by farm labourers.
4.
The level of investment in farms from self generated income sources in
Sierra Leone and Liberia show an increasing trend over the past five years.
5.
There was a unstable source of government funding over the past five years
in Sierra Leone and Nigeria.
6.
On private sector funding of enterprises, there was a more stable financial
inflow in Sierra Leone and Liberia than in Nigeria which had a higher volume
of finance inflow but with fluctuations.
7.
Nigeria had higher level of financing through donor funding sources than
Sierra Leone and Liberia, though Sierra Leone and Liberia had more stablefinance inflow from donor sources.
8.
Farmers from the three countries noted that they experienced delayed shift
in onset of farming seasons due to delayed and erratic onset of rains.
9.
Though Liberia had the highest level of increase in the trend of extreme
weather events, the farmers perceived that there was a downward trend in
extreme weather conditions between 2008 and 2009.
10. Farmers in Liberia were experiencing more farming problems than those in
Nigeria and Sierra Leone.
126 | Agricultural Innovations for Climate Change Adaptation and Food Security in West Africa: The Case of Nigeria, Sierra Leone and Liberia

11. Farmers from the three countries noted that human activities are largely themain causes of climate change. These human activities were tree felling,cooking with firewood, burning of fossil fuels etc.
12. Adaptive measures been used in the three countries include: increased
weeding, increased use of fertilizers, changes in planting dates and prayers
for God's interventions.
13. From the respondents, it is clear that similar problems were being
encountered in their various efforts to adapt to the changing climate. These
problems are poor access to relevant information, poor/low extension
services, lack of financial resources etc.
14. Respondents perceived food situations in their various countries not tohave changed considerably. This is evident in the number of times they fed
on daily basis, which was mainly twice in Sierra Leone and Liberia.
15. There was perceived non-existence of overseas linkages/collaborations in
the area of food security and climate change issues.
16. There was an increase in linkage between farmers and the R&D institutions
in Nigeria, and a more stable trend in Sierra Leone and Liberia.
17. Liberia had a more stable linkage between farmers and technology delivery
institutions.
18. The performance of systems based on innovations generated is poor as
there scarcely evidence to show work been done.
19. The sources of information on climate change for Nigeria and Sierra Leone
farmers were radio, television, other farmers and Ministries of Agriculture.
20. Respondents' farms ability to adapt to the changing climate was regarded
as not good.
21. Respondents noted that the domestic environments support for climatechange adaptation and food security issues were poor.
6.2 Conclusion
In essence, the future development of the agricultural sector in the three
countries, if not properly managed can further escalate climate change with theresulting negative impacts of reduced availability of cultivated land, decreased
crop yields and food insecurity. Intense farming methods using fossil fuels,
commercial fertilizers and pesticides and requiring high consumption of water
can lead to increased atmospheric concentration of greenhouse gases (GHGs)
with consequences of sea-level rise, and migration of population due toenvironmental stresses.
Agricultural Innovations for Climate Change Adaptation and Food Security in West Africa: The Case of Nigeria, Sierra Leone and Liberia | 127

The development challenges are enormous for any country coming out of a
protracted civil conflict. Sierra Leone and Liberia are no different. This document,in reviewing the acts and policies relating to agriculture, food security and climatechange in Nigeria, Sierra Leone and Liberia, as well as the agricultural innovation
system framework underscores the importance of the Government of to play aleadership role in establishing a vision and strategy for the reconstruction anddevelopment of the agriculture and food sector, environmental sector as well as
the ministries of science and technology.
To play this role, the Government will first need to evolve (in mind and in action)from an implementation agency to one focused on coordination, facilitation,
regulation and evaluation. In addition to reorienting its mission to one focused on
the provision of key public goods, the government will be challenged in theimmediate future to serve as a bridge between managing short-term safety net
activities and developing a long term vision and strategy for food security andclimate change issues.
In recognizing that the various sectors represent the primary opportunity forbroad-based growth, the needed improved food security and climate change
mitigation and adaptation, Government needs to be a catalyst in mobilizing
actions to address the main structural constraints in the various sectors, while atthe same time assuring that the basic needs of vulnerable groups are met. But it
cannot do it alone. Given the complexity of the existing socio-political situation as
well as the tremendous lack of financial and human resources for development inthese countries, it will be imperative for the different Governments to work
collaboratively with other stakeholders so as to secure the future of their citizens--there lies the importance of the Agricultural Innovation System Framework.

128 | Agricultural Innovations for Climate Change Adaptation and Food Security in West Africa: The Case of Nigeria, Sierra Leone and LiberiaReferences
ADB (African Development Bank). (2002). Achieving the millennium development
goals in Africa: Progress, prospects, and policy implications.
<http://www.afdb.org/knowledge /publications/pdf/global_poverty_report_jun
2002.pdf >.
Adejuwon, S. A. (2004). Impacts of Climate Variability and Climate Change on
Crop Yields in Nigeria. Climate Change Unit, Department of Environmental
Assessment; Federal Ministry of Environment, Abuja.
Agwu, A. E., Madukwe, M. C and Dimelu, M. U. (2008): Innovation systemapproach to agricultural development: Policy implications for agriculturalextension delivery in Nigeria African Journal of Biotechnology. Vol. 7 (11), pp.
1604 - 1611.
Agbamu J.U. (2000). Agricultural research extension systems: An international
perspective. Agricultural Research and Extension Network Paper No. 106. ODI
London, UK: 7.
Alieu, E. K. (2005). Policies and strategies for promoting food security in Sierra
Leone with special reference to rice. Paper prepared and presented at the
WARDA Workshop on Policies and Strategies for Promoting Rice Production in
Sub Saharan Africa 7-9 November 2005, Cotonou, Benin.
Archer, E.M. (2003). Identifying Undeserved End–User Groups in the Provision of
Climate Information. Bull. Am. Meteorol. Soc. Vol.84. Pp. 1525-1532.
Asenso-Okyere, K. and Davis, K. (2009). Knowledge and Innovation for
Agricultural Development. IFPRI Policy Brief N0. 11
Babatunde, R.O. Omotesho, O. and Sholotan, O.S. (2007). Socio-Economic
Characteristics and Food Security Status of Farming Households in Kwara State,
North-Central Nigeria. Pakistan Journal of Nutrition, Vol. 6., Pp.49-58.

Agricultural Innovations for Climate Change Adaptation and Food Security in West Africa: The Case of Nigeria, Sierra Leone and Liberia | 129

Babatunde, R.O, Olorusanya, E.O and Adejola, A.D. (2008) Assessment of Rural
Household Poverty: Evidence from Southwestern Nigeria. American – Euroasia
Journal of Agriculture and Environment Science, Vol. 3 (6). pp. 900-905.
Blinker, L. (2006), Country Environment Profile (Cep) Sierra Leone, Freetown,
Sierra Leone: Consortium Parsons Brinckerhoff, P. 12.
Chema, S., Gilbert E., and J. Roseboom. (2003). A Review of Key Issues andRecent Experiences in Reforming Agricultural Research in Africa. Research
Report 24. The Hague: ISNAR.
Clark, N. 2002. Innovation systems, institutional change and the new knowledge
market: Implications for third world agricultural development. Economics ofInnovation and New Technology 11(4–5): 353–368.
Clark N., Hall A., Sulaimain R., Naik G. (2003). Research as capacity building:
The case of an NGO facilitated post-harvest innovation system for the Himalayan
Hills. World Development 31(11): 1845- 1863.
Clover, J. (2003). Food Security in Sub– Saharan Africa. African Security Review,Vol. 12 (1), Pp. 1 – 9. Retrieved from:http://www.iss.co.za/pubs/ASR/12No1/Fclover.html.10/28/2008.
Comrey, A. L. (1962). The Minimum Residual Method of Factor Analysis.
Psychological Reports. Vol. 11, pp. 15 – 18.
De Chavez and Tauli-Corpus. (eds.) (2008). Guide to climate change. Retrievedon 26th June, 2009 from www.tebtebba.org
Drakenberg, O. and Dahlberg, E. (2008) Draft Liberia Environment and Climate
Analysis. February, 2008.
Ekboir J., Parallada G. (2002). Public-private interactions and technology policy
in innovation processes for zero tillage in Argentina. In Byerlee D, Echeverria R(eds.), Agricultural Research policy in an Era of Privatization. Oxon UK: CABI.

130 | Agricultural Innovations for Climate Change Adaptation and Food Security in West Africa: The Case of Nigeria, Sierra Leone and Liberia

Egyir, I. S. (2009). The Plantain ASTI System in Ghana. Paper presented at the
CTA Training of Trainers (ToT) Regional Workshop on Agricultural Science,
Technology and Innovation (ASTI) Systems held at Sheraton Hotel and Towers,
Abuja, Nigeria 24 – 28th August 2009.
Easterling, W.E., Crosson, P.R. Roseberg, N. J., Mckenney M.S., Katz, L.A. andLemon, K.M. (1993). Agricultural Impact of and Response to Climate Change in
the Missouri – Iowa-Nebraska Region Climate Change 24(1-2): 23-62.
Edquist C. (ed.) (1997). System of Innovation Approaches: Technologies,
Institutions and Organizations. London: Pinter.
Federal Government of Nigeria (1999). Combating Desertification and Mitigating
the Effects of Drought in Nigeria. National Report on the Implementation of theUnited Nations Convention to Combat Desertification in those Countries
Experiencing Serious Drought and/or Desertification particularly in Africa (CCD),
Federal Republic of Nigeria.
FMARD (2001). Special Programme for Food Security, Project UTF/NIR/04/NIR
Food and Agricultural Organization of the United Nations (FAO), (2000). The
State of Food and Agriculture, Rome, Italy.
FAO (2001). Global Forest Resources Assessment. Summary Report.
(www.fao.org/forest/fo/fra/index.jsp.)
FAO, (2003). The State of Food and Agriculture, Rome, Italy.
Francis, J. (2006). National Innovation System – Relevance for Development.
Training of Trainers (TOT) Workshop for ACP Experts on Agricultural Science,
Technology and Innovation (ASTI) Systems. 2nd – 6th October 2006 Accra,
Ghana.
Freeman C. (1987). Technology Policy and Economic Performance: Lessons
from Japan. London: Pinter.

Agricultural Innovations for Climate Change Adaptation and Food Security in West Africa: The Case of Nigeria, Sierra Leone and Liberia | 131

Freeman C (1995). The national innovation systems in historical perspective.
Cambr. J. Econ. 19(1): 5-24.
Fritsch, M. 2004. Cooperation and the efficiency of regional R&D activities.
Cambridge Journal of Economics 28:829–846.
Glwadys, A. G. (2009). Understanding Farmers' Perceptions and Adaptations to
Climate Change and Variability. South Africa: Environment and Production
Technology Division.
Government of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, GON (2006) Support to NEPADCAADP Implementation. National Medium Term Investment Programme.
Hall, A., and Yoganand B. (2002). New institutional arrangements in agricultural
R&D in Africa: Concepts and case studies. Paper presented at the Workshop on
Targeting Agricultural Research for Development in the Semi- Arid Tropics of
Sub-Saharan Africa held at Nairobi, Kenya, 1-3 July 2002.
Hall, A., Sulaiman, R. Clark, N. Sivamohan, M. V. K. and Yoganand B. (2002).
Public-private sector interaction in the Indian agricultural research system: An
innovation systems perspective on institutional reform. In Byerlee, D. andEcheverría, R. (Eds.), Agricultural Research Policy in an Era of Privatization (pp.
155–176). Oxon, UK: CABI.
Heidhues, F., Atsain, A., Nyangito, H., Padilla, M., Ghersi, G. and Le Vallée,. J.
(2004) Development Strategies and Food and Nutrition Security in Africa: An
Assessment. International Food Policy Research Institute, 2020 Discussion
Paper 38.
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) (2007), Climate Change
2007, Impacts, Adaptation and Vulnerability. Contribution of Working Group II to
the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate
Change, Annex I., M.L.
(IPCC) Working Group 2, 2001. Third Assessment Report, Annex B: Glossary ofTerms.

132 | Agricultural Innovations for Climate Change Adaptation and Food Security in West Africa: The Case of Nigeria, Sierra Leone and Liberia

International Institute of Tropical Agriculture, IITA (2005) Agriculture in Nigeria:
Identifying opportunities for increased commercialization investment
Johnson B., Segura-Bonilla O. (2001). Innovation Systems and Developing
Countries: Experiences from the SUDESCA Project. DRUID Working Paper No.
01-12. Aalborg: Danish Research Unit for Industrial Dynamics, University of
Aalborg.
Kandlinkar, M and Risbey, J, 2000. Agricultural impacts of climate change: If
adaptation is the answer, what is the question? Climatic Change 45, 529–39.
Koiwue, T. and Bedini, F. (2009). Food Security and Nutrition in Liberia. A Joint
Programme of the Government of Liberia and the United Nations.
Lea, D.A.M. and Chaudhri D. P. (1983). Rural Development and the State
Lohmann, L. (2006). Carbon trading a critical conversation on climate change,
privatization and power. Development dialogue no. 48.
Lundvall B. (1985). Product Innovation and User-Producer Interaction. Aalborg,
Denmark: Aalborg University Press.
Maddison, D. (2006). The Perception of and Adaptation to Climate Change in
Africa. CEEPA Discussion paper No 10. Center for Environmental Economics andPolicy in Africa, University of Pretoria, South Africa.
Makinde K,O. (2000). Measurements and Determination of Food Security inNorthern Guinea Savannah of Nigeria. Unpublished PhD Thesis, Department ofAgricultural Economics, University of Ibadan.
McMichael, A.J et al (2004), “Climate Change: Comparative Quantification of
Health Risks”, WHO, Geneva
Mendelsohn R. (1998). Climate Change Damages. In Wordhaus, W. D. (ed).
Economics and Policy Issues in Climate Change. Washington, D. C: Resources
for the future.

Agricultural Innovations for Climate Change Adaptation and Food Security in West Africa: The Case of Nigeria, Sierra Leone and Liberia | 133

Metcalfe JF (1995). The economic foundations of technology policy. In P.
Stoneman (Ed.), Handbook of the Economics of Innovation and Technological
Change :409-512. Oxford: Blackwell.
Migotto, M., Davis, B., Carietto, G. and Kathleen, B. (2005). Measuring Food
Security Using Respondents' Perception of Consumption Adequacy. FAO
Agriculture and Economic Development Analysis Division (ESA) Working Paper
No. 05-10.
Millennium Development Goal Report (2006). Millennium Development Goals
Report. United Nations, New York..
Morlai, T. A., Mansaray, P. and Vandy, G. (2010) Enhancing Agricultural Yields by
Small-holder Farmers through Integrated Climate Change Adaptation
Programme in Sierra Leone. Grant No.: ATPS CP0109/13.
Muthukumara, M., Anil, M., and Viju, I. (2008). Climate Change: Adaptation andmitigation in Development Programmes. A practical Guide.
National Bureau of Statistics (2006). Socio–Economic Survey on Nigeria, Abuja.
National Planning Commission, NPC (2004). National Economic Empowerment
and Development Strategy Omonona, B., Agoi, T. and Adetokunbo, G. (2007). An
Analysis of Food Security Situation Among Nigerian Urban Households:
Evidence from Lagos State, Nigeria. Journal of Central of European Agriculture.
Vol. 8 (3) Pp. 399-406.
Parry, M.L (2004), “Global Impacts of Climate Change Under the SRES Scenario”,
Global Environmental Change, 14:1.
Parry, O.F. Canziani, J.P. Palutikof, P.J. van der Linden and C.E. Hanson, Eds.,
Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK, 976pp.
Partz, J.A et al (2005), “Impacts of Regional Climate Change on Human Health”,
Nature 438:310-17.
Philips, D.R and Verhasselt, Y. (1994): 'Health and Development', Routledge.
134 | Agricultural Innovations for Climate Change Adaptation and Food Security in West Africa: The Case of Nigeria, Sierra Leone and Liberia

ProVention Consortium (2005), “Successful Disaster Prevention in LAC”,
available at: http://www.proventionconsortium.org/goodpractices
Republic of Liberia (2004). Millennium Development Goals Report
Republic of Liberia (2008): Poverty Reduction Strategy Paper, Monrovia, Liberia
Roseboom J. (2004). Adopting an Agricultural Innovation system perspective:
Implication for ASARECA'S strategy ASARECA strategic planning paper No. 7:14.
Roling, N. (2007). Conceptual and methodological developments in innovation
Samberg, J. (2005). Systems of innovation theory and the changing architectureof agricultural research in Africa. Food Pol. 30: 21-41.
Shaib, B., Aliyu, A., & Bakshi, J.S., (eds.) (1997). Agricultural zones. Nigeria:
National Agricultural Research Strategy Plan 1996-2010. Department ofAgricultural Sciences, Federal Ministry of Agriculture and Natural Resources,
Abuja, Nigeria. Ibadan: Intec Printers Ltd.
Smit, B., Burton, I., Klein, R. T .J. and Wandel, J. (2000). An anatomy of adaptation
to climate change and variability. Climate Change 45:223–251.
Smits R. (2002). Innovation Studies in the 21st Century: Questions from a user's
perspective. Technological Forecasting and Social Change 69 (2002) 861-883.
Smit, B. and Skinner, M. W. (2002). Adaptation Options in Agriculture to Climate
Change: A Typology. Mitigation and Adadptation strategies for Global Change?
85-114.
Smith, L. and Haddad, L. (2000). Explaining Child Malnutrition in Developing
Countries. Across–country analysis. Research report III, IFPRI, Washington DC.
Speilman, D. J. (2005). Innovation Systems Perspectives on Developing Country
Agriculture: A Critical Review. ISNAR Discussion Paper 1: 10-40.

Agricultural Innovations for Climate Change Adaptation and Food Security in West Africa: The Case of Nigeria, Sierra Leone and Liberia | 135

Technical Centre for Agriculture-CTA, (2008): Implications of Climate Change for
Sustainable Agricultural Production System. Ouaguaougou, Burkina Faso.
Tefft, J. (2005). Agricultural Policy and Food Security in Liberia. ESA working
paper. No. 05-11, March, 2005. Retrieved from www.fao.org/es/esa
Todd, B. (2004). Africa's Food and Nutrition Survey Situation, where are we andhow did we get here? IFPRI 2020 discussion paper 37. New York.
Tugrul T., Ajit M. (2002). The cotton supply chain in Azerbaijan. ISNAR. The
Hague, Netherlands.
United Nations Development Programmes (UNDP) (2006). State of theEnvironment Report for Liberia 2006
United Nations Agency for International Development (USAID) (1999). USAID
Report on agricultural activities in Liberia.
USAID (2006). Post Conflict Liberia: Environmental Security as a Strategy for
Sustainable Peace and Development.
USAID/Liberia (2009). Country Strategic Plan 2009-2013. Concept Paper Draft.
p. 10.
USAID (2010). Clean Energy and Climate Change in Liberia, June 4, 2010.
United Nations Environmental Programme (UNEP) (2004). Desk study on theEnvironment in Liberia.
UNISDR, (2009). Terminology: Basic terms of disaster risk reduction and IISD etal, 2007. Community-based Risk Screening – Adaptation and Livelihoods(CRiSTAL) User's Manual, Version 3.0.
Warren, R. et al (2006): 'Understanding the Regional Impacts of Climate Change'.
Available at: http://www.tyndall.ac.uk/publications/working_papers/twp90.pdf

136 | Agricultural Innovations for Climate Change Adaptation and Food Security in West Africa: The Case of Nigeria, Sierra Leone and Liberia

Wiles, D.L. (2005). Coastal Zone Vulnerability and Adaptation to Climate Change
in Liberia. Paper presented at training workshop at adaptation and vulnerability to
climate change, Maputo, Mozambique, April 18-22, 2005.
World Bank. (2002). Global Economic Prospects and the Developing Countries.
Washington, D. C.: The International Bank for Reconstruction andDevelopment/the World BankWorld Bank (2005). World Bank Regional Database.
World Bank. (2006). Enhancing Agricultural Innovation: How to go beyond thestrengthening of research systems. Washington DC, USA: World Bank.
World Bank (2007) Nigeria competitiveness and growth. Country economic
memorandum. PREM, Africa region
World Bank, (2008). Country Profiles: Liberia.
Ziervogel, G., Nyong, A., Osman, B., Conde, C., Cortes, S. and Downing, T.
(2006). Climatic Variability and Change Implications for Household Food
Security. AIACC working paper. No 20. An electronic publication of the AIACC
project. Retrieved from: www.aiacc project.org.
http://www.unep.ch/regionalseas/main/eaf/eafenv.html
http://www.nationsencyclopedia.com/World-Leaders-2003/Nigeria-DOMESTICPOLICY.html
http://www.fao.org/docs/up/easypol/forum/31//31 _REVIEW_OF_PAST_
AGRICULTURAL_POLICIES_IN_SIERRA_LEONE-FINAL
http://encarta.msn.com/encyclopedia_761563681/Sierra_Leone.html
http://www.delsle.ec.europa.eu/en/whatsnew/Docs/Final%20Report%20Countr
y%20Environmental%20Profile%20(CEP)%20SL%2019-OCT-06.pdf
www.nipc.gov.ng/.../The%20New%20Nigerian%20-Agricultural%20Policy.doc
Agricultural Innovations for Climate Change Adaptation and Food Security in West Africa: The Case of Nigeria, Sierra Leone and Liberia | 137

www.nipc.gov.ng/.../The%20New%20Nigerian%20Agricultural%20Policy.doc,
retrieved 2008-09-2544.
www.gcrio.org
www.ceep.za/climate-change/index.html

138 | Agricultural Innovations for Climate Change Adaptation and Food Security in West Africa: The Case of Nigeria, Sierra Leone and Liberia

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: 978-9966-030-13-9