African Technology Policy Studies Network

WORKING PAPER SERIES | No. 53
Indigenous Agricultural Adaptation
to Climate Change: Study of Imo
and Enugu States in Southeast Nigeria
Anselm A. Enete
Ignatius I. Madu
Josephat C. Mojekwu
Anthony N. Onyekuru
Elizabeth .A. Onwubuya
Fidelis EzeIndigenous Agricultural Adaptation to Climate
Change: Study of Imo and Enugu States inSoutheast Nigeria

Anselm A. Enete
Department of Agricultural Economics,
University of Nigeria, Nsukka
Ignatius I. Madu
Department of Geography,
University of Nigeria, Nsukka,
Josephat C. Mojekwu
Anambra State FADAMA III Project,
ADP Headquarters Complex,
Awka, Anambra State, Nigeria

Anthony N. Onyekuru
Department of Agricultural Economics,
University of Nigeria, Nsukka,
Elizabeth .A. Onwubuya
Department of Agricultural Extension,
University of Nigeria, Nsukka,
Fidelis Eze
No. 114A Ogurugu Road,
Nsukka, Enugu State, Nigeria.

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

Published by the African Technology Policy Studies Network

ISBN: 978-9966-1552-2-1

Table of Contents
Acknowledgement

4

Abstract

5

1.

Introduction

6

2.

Method of the Study

8

3.

Review of Related Literature

9

4.

Results & Discussions

15

5.

Conclusion

23

References

24

Tables29

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

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

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

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

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

1. Introduction
Climate change is perhaps the most serious environmental threat facing mankind world-wide. It affects
agriculture for instance in several ways, one of which is its direct impact on food production. Climaticchange, which is attributable to natural climate cycle and human activities has adversely affected
agricultural productivity in Africa (Ziervogel et al. 2006). As the planet warms, rainfall patterns shift, andextreme events such as droughts, floods, and forest fires become more frequent (Zoellick 2009), which
results in poor and unpredictable yields, thereby making farmers more vulnerable, particularly in Africa(UNFCCC, 2007). Farmers (who constitute the bulk of the poor in Africa), face prospects of tragic crop
failures, reduced agricultural productivity, increased hunger, malnutrition and diseases (Zoellick 2009). It isprojected that crop yield in Africa may fall by 10-20% by 2050 or even up to 50% due to climate change(Jones and Thornton, 2003), particularly because African agriculture is predominantly rain-fed and hence
fundamentally dependent on the vagaries of weather. As the people of Africa strive to overcome poverty
and advance economic growth, this phenomenon threatens to deepen vulnerabilities, erode hard-won
gains and seriously undermine prospects for development (WBGU 2004, Zoellick 2009).. There is therefore
the need for concerted efforts toward tackling this menace.
Much of climatic change agricultural research has tended to concentrate on assessing the sensitivity ofvarious attributes of crop systems (e.g. crop/livestock yields, pest, diseases, weeds etc) - the bio-physicalaspects of food production, with little or no regard to the socioeconomic aspects. These partial
assessments, most often consider climatic change effects in isolation, providing little insight into the level ofawareness of the farmers on the issue, what and how they are doing to cope with climate change, etc. To
better address the food security concerns that are central to economic and sustainable development
agenda, it is desirable to also address these aspects of climate change and agriculture. Wisner et al (2004)
reports that the vulnerability of agriculture is not determined by the nature and magnitude of environmental
stress like climate change per se, but by the combination of the societal capacity to cope with and/or
recover from environmental change. While the coping capacity and degree of exposure is related toenvironmental changes, they are both also related to changes in societal aspects such as land use andcultural practices. This could be at the root of the much talked about poverty alleviation and food security forthe vulnerable groups in Africa, who are most at risk when agriculture is stressed by climate change, as
noted before. In addition, there is need for increased awareness, teaching, learning and research by
Universities and Research Institutes so as to develop a multi-pronged capacity to tackle this imminent
danger which is slowly eroding the gains of the fight against starvation, hunger and poverty among farming

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

communities in Africa. This project aims to provide the most cost-effective and sustainable indigenous
climate change adaptation practices in southeast Nigeria.
1.1
Objectives of the Studya. Examine climate change impact on agriculture, farmers' awareness and activities causing climatechange, andb. Estimate the cost and returns of, and determine factors driving farmers' adaptation practices.
This working paper therefore reports preliminary results and findings from the study and provides evidence
that will promote the understanding of the most cost-effective and sustainable indigenous climate change
adaptation practices.

Indigenous Agricultural Adaptation to Climate Change: Study of Imo and Enugu States in Southeast Nigeria | 7

2. Method of the Study
2.1
The Study area
This study was done in southeast geo-political zone of Nigeria, comprising Abia, Anambra, Ebonyi, Enugu
and Imo. The zone is located within Longitudes 5o 30I&9o 30I E and Latitudes 4o 30I &7o 00I N. It occupies
a land area of 75,488Km2. and comprises nine states namely Abia, Akwa Ibom, Anambra, Bayelsa, Cross
River, Ebonyi, Enugu, Imo, and Rivers. These states fall into two geopolitical zones in Nigeria namely thesouth-south and southeast. While, Akwa Ibom, Bayelsa, Rivers and Cross River are in the south-south,
Abia, Anambra, Ebonyi, Enugu and Imo are in the southeast. The region has a total population of
31,371,941 and an average population density of 416 persons per square kilometer.
2.2
Sampling procedure and data collection
Multistage random sampling was employed in the selection of respondents for this study. First, two states
were randomly selected for the study. These were Enugu and Imo states. In each selected state, twoagricultural zones were then randomly selected. These were Owerri and Okigwe in Imo state and Enugu andNsukka in Enugu state. In each agricultural zone and with the assistance of the extension services
Department, farming communities were compiled, from which two communities were randomly selectedmaking a total of eight communities for the study. These were Ugwuene in Agwu and Amaechi in Nkanu, allin Enugu agricultural zone; Umualumo in Okigwe and Okwe in Onuimo, all in Okigwe agricultural zone;
Ovoko and Akpa-Edem, in Nsukka agricultural zone; Amaigbo and Okpuala in Owerri agricultural zone. In
each selected community, a list of farm households was compiled, also with the assistance of extension
agents, from which fifty farmers were randomly selected, bringing the total sampled respondents to four
hundred for the study.
The data collected included status of awareness of climate change and its link with agriculture, crops
grown, animals kept, land use practices that could exacerbate climate change, effects of climate changeon the farmers' farm activities, their coping strategies, estimated costs and returns of these strategies,
problems encountered in coping with climate change, etc. The data was analyzed using descriptive
statistics, t-test, partial budgeting, regression technique and factor analysis.

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

3. Review of Related Literature
3.1
Awareness of climate change and link with agriculture
The awareness of climate problems and the potential benefits of taking action is important determinant of
adoption of agricultural technologies (Hassan and Nhemachena, 2002). Maddison (2006) argued that
farmer awareness of change in climate attributes (temperature and precipitation) is important to adaptation
decision making. For example, Araya and Adjaye (2001) and Anim (1999) stated that farmers awarenessand perceptions of soil erosion problem as a result of changes in climate, positively and significantly affecttheir decisions to adopt soil conservation measures. It is expected that improved knowledge and farming
experience will positively influence farmers' awareness and decision to take up adaptation measures.
Improved education and disseminating knowledge is an important policy measure for stimulatingawareness and local participation in various development and national resource management initiatives(Anley, Bogale and Haile-Gabriel, 2007, Tizal 2007). Farming experience improve awareness of change inclimate, the potential benefits and willingness to participate in local natural resource management ofconservation activities. However, Maddison (2006) stated that educated and experienced farmers havemore knowledge and information about climate change and agronomic practices that they can adopt in
response.
3.2
Activities of Farmers that contribute to climate change
Climate change is a natural process but recent trends related to climate change are alarming mainly due toanthropogenic reasons (Khanal, 2009). Agriculture is an important contributor of greenhouse gas
emissions at the global scale. According to World Bank (2008), agriculture contributes about half of the
global emissions of two of the most potent non-carbon dioxide greenhouse gases: nitrous oxide andmethane. FAO (2008) reported that agriculture contributes over 20% of global anthropogenic greenhousegas emissions.
The ongoing build-up of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere is prompting shifts in climate across theglobe that will affect agro-ecological and growing conditions. Application of fertilizers, rearing of livestockand related land clearing are some agricultural activities that influence both levels of greenhouse gases in
the atmosphere and the potential for carbon storage and sequestration (Mark, et al. 2008). The report ofWorld Bank (2008) also showed that the use of livestock manure, nitrogenous fertilizers, irrigated paddy,
burning of biomass and ruminants centric fermentation and animal waste treatment are responsible for
producing most agricultural nitrous oxide and methane emissions. International Federation of Organic
Agriculture Movement (IFOAM) (2007) highlighted that conventional agricultural activities of farmers
Indigenous Agricultural Adaptation to Climate Change: Study of Imo and Enugu States in Southeast Nigeria | 9

contribute to climate change because it: (a) uses synthetic fertilizers and pesticides that require significant
amount of energy to manufacture; (b) applies excessive amounts of nitrogen fertilizer that is released as
nitrous oxide; (c operates intensive livestock holdings that overproduce manure and methane; (d) relies on
external soy-based animal feeds that require the burning of huge amount of fuel that releases
carbonmonoxide to the atmosphere creating climatic problems; (e) mines the earth of the nutrients needed
to sustain production thereby leading to the clearing of rainforest and slash and burn techniques that reducecarbon storage and release huge amounts of carbon dioxide from burning vegetation.
As a result, it is of interest to stakeholders in the agricultural sector to understand the kinds of impact theiragricultural activities will have on sustainable food and crop production due to effect of climate change(Mark et al. 2008) There will undoubtedly be shifts in agro-ecological conditions that will warrant changes inprocesses and practices and adjustments in widely accepted truths in order to meet daily foodrequirements.
3.3
Patterns of climate change impact on agriculture
The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, IPCC's Fourth Assessment Report summary for Africa
describes a trend of warming at a rate faster than the global average, and increasing aridity. Climate change
exerts multiple stresses on the biophysical as well as the social and institutional environments that underpin
agricultural production (IPCC, 2007). That is, socio-economic factors, international competitions,
technological development as well as policy choices will determine the pattern and impact that agroclimatic changes will have on agriculture (Brussel, 2009). In all, Khanal (2009) classified the patterns ofimpact of climate change on agriculture into biophysical and socio-economic impact. The biophysicalimpacts include; physiological effects on crop and livestock, change in land, soil and water resources,
increased weed and pest challenges, shifts in spatial and temporal distribution of impacts, sea level riseand changes to ocean salinity and sea temperature rise causing fish to inhabit in different ranges. The
socio-economic impacts result in decline in yield and production, reduced marginal GDP from agriculture,fluctuation in world market price, changes in geographical distribution of trade regime, increased number ofpeople at risk of hunger and food insecurity, migration and civil unrest. According to Khanal (2009), thepatterns of the effects of climatic change are however dependent on latitude, altitude, type of crop grown
and livestock reared. Mark et al. (2008) highlighted some of the direct impacts of climate change on
agricultural system as: (a) seasonal changes in rainfall and temperature, which could impact agro-climaticconditions, altering growing seasons, planting and harvesting calendars, water availability, pest, weed anddisease populations; (b) alteration in evapotranspiration, photosynthesis and biomass production; and (c )alteration in land suitability for agricultural production; Some of the induced changes are expected to beabrupt, while others involve gradual shifts in temperature, vegetation cover and species distributions.
However, when looking critically on plant production, the pattern of climate change has both positive andnegative impacts. Rises in temperature for example helps to grow crops in high altitude areas and towards
the poles. In these areas, increases in temperature extend the length of the potential growing season,
allowing earlier planting, early harvesting and opening the possibility of completing two crop cycles in thesame season (Khanal, 2009). The warmer conditions support the process of natural decomposition oforganic matter and contribute to the nutrient uptake mechanisms. The process of nitrogen fixation,
associated with greater root development is also predicted to increase in warmer conditions and with higher
CO2, if soil moisture is not limiting (FAO, 2007). The increased CO2 levels lead to a positive growth
response for a number of staples under controlled conditions also known as the carbon fertilizations effect(Mark et al. 2008).
10 | Indigenous Agricultural Adaptation to Climate Change: Study of Imo and Enugu States in Southeast NigeriaBut, when temperatures exceed the optimal level for biological process, crops often respond negatively
with a steep drop in net growth and yield. Khanal (2009) stated that heat stress might affect the whole
physiological development, maturation and finally reduces the yield of cultivated crop. The negative effects
on agricultural yields will be exacerbated by more frequent weather events. For example, Brussel (2009)
stated that rising atmospheric CO2 concentration, higher temperatures, changes in annual and seasonal
precipitation patterns and in the frequency of extreme events will affect the volume, quality, quantity, stabilityof food production and the natural environment in which agriculture takes place. Climatic variations will haveconsequences for the availability of water resources, pest and diseases and soils leading to significant
changes in the conditions for agriculture and livestock production. In extreme cases, according to Brussel(2009), the degradation of agricultural ecosystems could mean desertification, resulting in a total loss of the
productive capacity of the land in question. This is likely to increase the dependence on food importationand the number of people at risk of famine.
The developing world already contends with chronic poverty and food crisis. The estimate for Africa is that25-42% of species habitat could be lost, affecting both food and non-food crops (Khanal 2009). Habitatchange is already underway in some areas, leading to species range shifts and changes in plantbiodiversity which include indigenous foods and plant-based medicines. FAO (2007) reported that up to
11% of arable land could be highly affected by climatic change in the developing world. There will be a
reduction of cereal production in 65 countries and retardation of about 16% of agricultural GDP. A decreaseof up to 30% in world food production due to effects of climate change on agriculture is generally predicted(IPCC 2007).
This is expected to undermine the systems that provide food security (Gregory et al., 2005). While farmers insome regions may benefit from longer growing seasons and higher yields, the general consequences for
Africa are expected to be adverse, and particularly adverse for the poor and the marginalized that do nothave the means to withstand shocks and changes. Evidence from the IPCC suggests that areas of the
Sahara are likely to emerge as the most vulnerable to climate change by 2100 with likely agricultural losses
of between 2 and 7% of affected countries GDP. Western and Central Africa are expected to have losses
ranging from 2 to 4% and Northern and Southern Africa are expected to have losses of 0.4 to 1.3%
(Mendelsohn et al., 2000). Maize production is expected to decrease under possible increased (El NinoSouthern Oscillation (ENSO) conditions which are expected in southern Africa (Stige et al., 2006).
A South African study undertaken by the University of Pretoria and focusing at the provincial level, found asignificant correlation between higher historical temperatures and reduced dryland staple production, andforecast a fall in netcrop revenues by as much as 90% by 2100. The study found small-scale farmers to be
worst affected by the decrease (Maddison, 2006).
A Nigerian study by Adejuwon (2006) applied the Erosion Productivity Impact Calculator (EPIC) crop model
to give projections of crop yield during the 21st century. The study modeled worst case climate change
scenarios for maize, sorghum, rice, millet and cassava. The indications from the projections are that, ingeneral, there will be increases in crop yield across all low land ecological zones as the climate changes
during the early parts of the 21st century. However, towards the end of the century, the rate of increase willtend to slow down. This could result in lower yields in the last quarter than in the third quarter of the century.
The decreases in yield could be explained in terms of the very high temperatures which lie beyond therange of tolerance for the current crop varieties and cultivars. An Egyptian study compared crop production
Indigenous Agricultural Adaptation to Climate Change: Study of Imo and Enugu States in Southeast Nigeria | 11

under current climate conditions with those projected for 2050, and forecast a decrease in national
production of many crops, ranging from –11% for rice to –28% for soybeans (Eid et al., 2006). Other potential
impacts linked to agriculture include erosion that could be exacerbated by expected increased intensity ofrainfall and the crop growth period that is expected to be reduced in some areas (Agoumi, 2003). Changes
are also expected in the onset of the rainy season and the variability of dry spells (Reason et al., 2005).
Thornton et al., (2006) mapped climate vulnerability with a focus on the livestock sector. The areas they
identified as being particularly prone to climate change impacts included arid-semiarid rangeland and thedrier mixed agro-ecological zones across the continent, particularly in Southern Africa and the Sahel, andcoastal systems in East Africa. An important point they raise is that macro-level analyses can hide local
variability around often complex responses to climate change.
3.4
Indigenous adaptation practices used by farmers
Adaptation is an adjustment made to a human, ecological or physical system in response to a perceived
vulnerability. Specifically, IPCC (2001) described adaptation to climate change as adjustment in natural or
human systems in response to actual or expected climatic stimuli and their effects which moderates harm or
exploits beneficial opportunities. Adaptation is an important component of climatic change impact andvulnerability assessment and is one of the policy options in response to climatic change impacts (Smith andLenhart, 1996, Fankhauser 1996). Adaptation to climatic change is therefore critical and of concern indeveloping countries, particularly in Africa where vulnerability is high because ability to adapt is low (Hassan
and Nhemachena 2008). In agriculture, adaptation helps farmers achieve their food, income and livelihood
security objectives in the face of changing climatic and socio-economic conditions including climatic
variability, extreme weather conditions such as droughts and floods and volatile short term changes in local
and large-scale markets (Kandlinkar and Risbey, 2000). Farmers can reduce the potential damage bymaking tactical response to these changes.
According to Brussel (2007) adaptive measures to climatic change in agriculture range from technologicalsolutions to adjustments in farm management or structures and to political changes such as adaptationplans. Barry and Mark (2002) categorized agricultural adaptation options into technological development,
government programmes and insurance; farm production practices, and farm financial management. The
first two categories are principally the responsibility of public agencies and agri-business and adaptation
here could be thought of as system-wide or macro scale. The last two categories mainly involve farm level
decision making by farmers. In the short run, autonomous farm level adaptation may be sufficient but in thelonger run, adaptation in the form of technological and structural changes will be necessary. This will require
planned strategies based on analysis of local and regional conditions (Brussel 2002)
At farm level, the practice of organic agriculture is one of the most important measures for adaptation toclimate change by farmers. Organic agriculture according to IFOAM (2007) is a holistic production
management system which enhances agro-ecosystem health, utilizing both traditional and scientificknowledge. It prevents nutrient and water loss through high organic matter content and soil covers, thus
making soils more resilient to floods, drought and land degradation processes. In organic agriculture, soil
fertility is maintained mainly through farm internal inputs (organic manures, legume production, wide crop
rotation), rejection of energy demanding synthetic fertilizers and plant protection agents with less or no use
of fossil fuel (FAO 2008).

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

The process of organic agriculture, being a holistic approach in climatic change adaptation can beclassified as two major kinds of modification in the production systems: (a) increased diversification and (b)protecting sensitive growth stages by managing the crops to ensure that these critical stages do notcoincide with very harsh climatic conditions such as mid-season droughts (Hassan and Nkemechena2008). Under these two modification techniques according to the authors, the adaptation strategies
farmers perceive as appropriate include crop diversification using different crop varieties, varying theplanting dates, harvesting dates, increasing the use of irrigation, increasing the use of water and soil
conservation techniques, shading and shelter, shortening the length of the growing season and diversifying
from farming to non-farming activities.
Some strategies that serve as an important form of insurance against rainfall variability are: increasing
diversification by planting crops that are drought tolerant and/or resistant to temperature stresses, taking fulladvantage of the available water and making efficient use of it, and growing a variety of crops on the sameplot or on different plots, thus reducing the risk of complete crop failure since different crops are affecteddifferently by climate changes (Benhin, 2006). Such farm-level adaptations aim at increasing productivity
and dealing with existing climatic conditions and draw on farmers' knowledge and farming experience.
Kurukulasurya and Rosental (2003) noted that the short-term adaptation measures for climate change by
farmers include crop insurance for risk coverage, crop/livestock diversification to increase productivity andprotection against diseases, adjusting the timing of farm operations to reduce risks of crop damage,change crop intensity and adjust livestock management to new climatic conditions, food reserves andstorage as temporary relief, changing cropping mix, permanent migration to diversify income opportunities,
defining land use and tnure rights for iinvestments. On a long term note, the authors stated the following as
best adaptation options for climate change: development of crop and livestock technology adapted toclimate change stress, develop market efficiency, irrigation and water storage expansion, efficient wateruse, promoting international trade, improving forecasting mechanisms, institutional strengthening anddecision-making structures.
Brussel (2009) highlighted the possible short to medium term adaptation practices to changes in climate byfarmers to include: (i) adjusting the timing of farm operations such as planting or sowing dates andtreatments; (ii) technical solutions such as protecting overheads from frost damage or improving ventilationand cooling systems in animal shelters; (iii) choosing crops and varieties better adapted to the expected
length of the growing season and water availability and more resistant to new conditions of temperature andhumidity; (iv) adapting crops with the help of existing genetic diversity and new possibilities offered bybiotechnology; (v) improving the effectiveness of pest and disease control through for instance better
monitoring, diversified crop rotations, or integrated pest management methods; (vi) using water more
efficiently by reducing water losses, improving irrigation practices and recycling or storing water; (vii)
improving soil management by increasing water retention to conserve soil moisture and landscapemanagement such as maintaining landscape features providing shelter to livestock; (viii) introducing moreheat-tolerant livestock breeds and adapting diet patterns of animals under heat stress conditions.
Individually or the combination of these adaptation practices by farmers have substantial potential tocounterbalance adverse climatic changes and to take advantage of positive ones.

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

3.5
Problems encountered by farmers in climate adaptation
In carrying out adaptation measures to reduce the effects of climate variations on agricultural production,
the farmers encounter some obvious challenges or problems. Mark et al. (2008) argued that a lack ofadaptive capacity due to constraints on resources like access to weather forecasts or better seed varieties
may result in further food insecurity. The result of a study conducted by Centre for Environmental Economics
and Policy in Africa across African countries showed that lack of access to credit or saving, water,
appropriate seeds, security of property rights, market access and lack of adequate information aboutclimate change are some of the major problems encountered by farmers in adapting to the effects ofclimate change (CEEPA, 2006). According to Deresso (2008), the analysis of barriers to adaptation toclimate change in the Nile basin of Ethiopia indicates that there are five major constraints to adaptation by
farmers. These, as reported by the author are lack of information, lack of money, shortage of labour,
shortage of land and poor potential for irrigation. CEEPA (2006) added that farm size, tenure status, level of
education of the farmers and access to extension service are major determinants of speed adoption ofadaptation measures to climate change.
Most of the problems or constraints encountered by farmers in adaptation to climate change areassociated with poverty (Deressa 2008). For instance, lack of information to adaptation options could be
attributed to the fact that research on climate change and adaptation options have not been strengthenedin the country and thus information is lacking in the area. Lack of money hinders farmers from getting thenecessary resources and technologies which assist in adapting to climate change. Adaptation to climatechange is costly (Mendelson, 2004) and this cost could be revealed through the need for intensive labour
use. Thus, if farmers do not have sufficient family labour or the financial capacity to hire labour, they can not
adapt to climate change. Shortage of land has been associated with high population pressure. Highpopulation pressures forces farmers to intensively farm over a small plot of land and make them unable toconserve from further damages by practices such as planting trees which competes for agricultural land.
According to FAO (1997), poor irrigation potential can most probably be associated with the inability offarmers to use the already existing water due to technological incapability. Most African farmers are resource
poor and cannot afford to invest on irrigation technology to adapt to climate change in order to sustain theirlivelihood during harsh climate extremes such as drought which often causes famine.

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

4. Results & Discussions
4.1
Socioeconomic Characteristics of Respondents
Majority (69%) of the respondents were male heads of households, while about 31% of them were womenheads of households. Nweke and Enete (1999) made similar observation across six countries of subSaharan Africa. Bukh (1979) reported that men are most often the heads of households in Africa. They wereaged about 52 years on the average with the oldest being 90 years and the youngest being 25 years. Thissuggests that the farmers were within the economically active age of below 60 years. This is contrary to the
expectation that as a result of rural-urban migration, farming has been left to the very old. However, with thecurrent high rate of unemployment, young people may have been resorting to farming. Their average yearsof farming experience was 28 years with the most and least experienced farmer having 60 and 5 years
respectively. Majority (74%) of the respondents were married while the remaining 26% were distributed
between Single (8%), divorced (3%) and separated (15%).
About 23% of the respondents had no certificate to show for their level of education, while majority (26%) had
First School Leaving Certificate. About 25% of them had secondary school certificate, 10% had Ordinary
National Diploma, 10% had first degree, 1% had Master degree while another 5% had other certificates. On
the average, the respondents had about 10 years of formal education. This is in line with the above
observation that unemployment may have driven educated young people back to the farm.
The average household size was about 6 persons with a minimum of one person and a maximum of 18
persons per household. Farming was the major occupation for 67% of the respondents while 2% reported
that they were artisans as major occupation. Those who were traders were about 9% of the respondents
while 22% were public servants. This is not surprising as the study was targeted at full time farmers. Cropfarming was the predominant activity for about 55% of the respondents. The remaining percentage wasshared between livestock farming (5%) and mixed farming (40%). Crop is generally the most popularfarming activity in the country, particularly in the Southeast.
4.2
Crops and Animals grown/reared in the area
The first most important food crop in the area was Cassava, as ranked by 64% of the respondents (table 1).
Cassava is not only a major staple but also a major source of farm income for the Nigerian farmers ((Nweke
1996). And compared to other crops, cassava is the most resistant to extreme weather events. It is therefore
most often described as a hardy crop and may in this sense be the most adaptable crop to climate
variations (Enete 2003). Benhin (2006) reports that one of the strategies which serve as an important form of
Indigenous Agricultural Adaptation to Climate Change: Study of Imo and Enugu States in Southeast Nigeria | 15

insurance against rainfall variability is increasing diversification by planting crops that are drought tolerant
and/or resistant to temperature stresses. Cassava was followed by Yam and Cocoyam with about 23% and
4% respectively of the respondents ranking them as the first most important crop. Yam is the second mostimportant root crop after cassava, especially in southeast Nigeria, where there is generally an annual
celebration in honour of the crop. This was followed by vegetables as ranked by 3%, maize and rice by 2%
and 1% respectively, Oil palm by 1% and other unspecified crops ranked by 2% of the respondents as thefirst most important crop. From the second to the fourth most important crops, the respondents just listed
variations of the above crops, hence discussions were limited to the first most important crop.
On the animals reared, 50% of the respondents ranked goat as the first most important (table 1). About 38%
ranked poultry, 6% ranked sheep, 5% ranked pig, while 1% each ranked Cattle and fish as the first mostimportant animal reared in the area. From the second through the fourth most important animals, therespondents also listed various combinations of the above animals.
4.3
Awareness of climate change and its link with agriculture
The respondents were asked whether they have heard of climate change before. About 96% of them
responded in the affirmative (table 2). This suggests a high level of awareness of the subject matter in thearea. The awareness of climate problems and the potential benefits of taking action is an important
determinant of adoption of agricultural technologies (Hassan and Nhemachena, 2002). Maddison (2007)
argued that farmer awareness of change in climate attributes (temperature and precipitation) is important toadaptation decision making. For example, Araya and Adjaye (2001) and Anim (1999) reported that farmers
awareness and perceptions of soil erosion problem as a result of changes in climate, positively andsignificantly affect their decisions to adopt soil conservation measures. On the source of information,
majority (36%) of the respondents indicated that they heard from friends, about 26% of them heard from
Extension workers, 24% from radio/television, 2% from researchers, 1% from farmers' cooperatives, while
6% heard from other sources not specified in the survey instrument (table 2).
Similarly, on the question of whether climate change will affect agriculture, the respondents overwhelmingly(97%) said yes. Most governments in Nigeria already have agencies charged with environmental issues
including climate change and they most often sensitize the people through the radio and television. This
may explain the high level of awareness of the respondents.
However, majority (52%) of the respondents do not agree that farming contributes to climate change. The
responses to these questions suggest that the farmers were aware of climate change and its effect on
agriculture, but were unaware that some of their agricultural practices could exacerbate climate change.
This underscores the need for educating the farmers on the consequences of some of their actions.
However, FAO (2000) reports that although climate change affects agriculture and vice versa, a lot of
uncertainties pervade each step of the logic from economic activity to climate change.
4.4
Patterns of climate change effects on agriculture
The respondents were asked to indicate the direction of change (increasing, decreasing, or no change) of
some climate change variables. The information collated from the field survey show (table 3) that those
associated with uncertainties in the onset of farming season, except heavy/long period of rainfall andno/reduced hamattan, have all been increasing as indicated by majority of the respondents. These areunusual early rains that are not sustained, erratic rainfall, delay in the onset of rain, long period of dry season,
16 | Indigenous Agricultural Adaptation to Climate Change: Study of Imo and Enugu States in Southeast Nigeria

less rainfall, long period of hamattan and higher temperature. The two exceptions are to be expected as all
the other indices show predominance of dry periods.
For the variables associated with extreme weather events, responses from majority of the respondents
indicate (table 3) that heavy winds, drought and decreasing soil moisture have been on the increase. Thisagrees with the above observation on the predominance of indices of dry periods associated withuncertainties in the onset of farming season. The respondents however suggest that thunderstorm, heatwaves, desertification and loss of forest resources have shown no change, while floods, heavy rainfall andsoil erosion have been decreasing.. This is surprising because, the indices of dry periods discussed above
are supposed to drive the later variables in the same direction, particularly for heat waves, which should be
driven by the higher temperature as noted above. We note however that the information being solicited fromthese individual farmers, who keep no records, concerns more general weather change (and not farm
specific characteristics) spanning over ten year period. There is therefore bound to be some elements ofmix up here and there. The inconsistency was further confirmed by looking at their ranking of the extent towhich climate change was contributing to the changes. The variable with the highest mean was
thunderstorm, which they earlier indicated above as having shown no change.
The information from our pilot survey/FGD was more consistent and realistic because the farmers werebrought together in a group, where they discussed at length before arriving at a conclusion. We therefore
adapt that result for this section. The information from that survey showed that those associated withuncertainties in the onset of farming season, except heavy/long period of rainfall, and extreme weather
events, except long harmattan, have all been increasing as indicated by majority of the respondents. These
include early rains that are not sustained, erratic rainfall, delay in the onset of rain, long period of dry season,
thunderstorms, heavy winds, intense heat wave and so on. This was also the same trend for pests,
diseases, weeds and signals of land degradation such as declining soil fertility and drying up of
steams/rivers. Science in Africa (2007) observed that the effects of these extreme weather events anduncertainties in the onset of rainy season on agriculture are particularly more pronounced in the developingworld. The elements of climatic change that affects agricultural productivity includes prolonged drought,
thunderstorms, flooding of crops fields, erosion of fertile soil, land slides and falling of tender crop such asmaize by wind (Magadza, 2000). The two exceptions are to be expected as all the other indices show
predominance of dry periods, accompanied with heat waves, erratic rainfall, thunderstorms andfloods/erosion.
The respondents were asked to indicate the extent to which they think climate change was responsible forthe changes in the variables above. Their responses (table 3) show that all the changes discussed above
regarding uncertainties in the onset of farming season, extreme weather events and pests, diseases,
weeds and land degradation have all to do with climate change. IPCC (2007) reports that there have been
noticeable impacts of climate change on plant production, insect, disease and weed dynamics. Moreover,rising atmospheric CO2 concentration, higher temperatures, changes in annual and seasonal precipitation
patterns and in the frequency of extreme events are the usual features of climate change phenomenon(Brussel 2009). Mark et al. (2008) observed that seasonal changes in rainfall and temperature, which arefeatures of climate change could impact agro-climatic conditions, altering growing seasons, planting andharvesting calendars, water availability, pest, weed and disease populations;.
A t-test was also conducted on the mean responses of the farmers between Enugu and Imo states
Indigenous Agricultural Adaptation to Climate Change: Study of Imo and Enugu States in Southeast Nigeria | 17

regarding the extent to which climate change was responsible for the stated changes in the above
variables. The result (table 4) show that there was no significant difference between the two states regarding
the extent to which climate change was contributing to the following variables: early rains that were notsustained, long period of dry season, less rainfall, no/reduced hamattan, heavy rainfall, soil erosion,
decreasing soil moisture, pest, disease and weed infestation, and declining soil fertility
However, in virtually all the other variables considered above, the considered impact of climate change wassignificantly higher for Imo state than for Enugu State. This is to be expected because Imo is closer to the sea
than Enugu and climate change induced sea level rises and associated inland effects will be more
pronounced in Imo than Enugu. For example, Climate Institute (2010) reports that the melting back of sea
ice leads to a reduction in albedo (surface reflectivity) and allows for greater absorption of solar radiation,
which will accelerate warming, thus increasing the melting back of snow and ice on land.
Although these variables were reportedly changing faster in Imo than Enugu , it may not necessarily imply
that the overall impact of climate change on food production for instance will be higher in Imo than Enugu.
Enugu is relatively closer to the Northern part of Nigeria than Imo, its climate is therefore naturally drier andmore variable. The impact of further climate change induced variability, no matter how small may therefore
be more pronounced.
Using a 5–point Likert Rating Scale (LSR), the respondents were asked to indicate the extent to whichsuggested farm characteristics have changed over the past ten years. Table 5 presents the result of theanalysis and it shows that the biggest effect of climate change on agriculture was reduced income (mean =3.90) and reduced yield (mean = 3.71). The other big effects of climate change were streams/rivers dryingup (mean = 3.58), reduction in storage quality of crops (mean = 3.30), loss of pastureland/vegetation(mean = 3.22) changes in the population of fish (mean=3.17), destruction of wildlife ecosystem (mean=
3.19) and reduction in farm size (mean = 3.14). Brussel (2009), who noted the usual features of climatechange as stated above also reports that these characteristics will affect the volume, quality, quantity,
stability of food production and the natural environment in which agriculture takes place. Khanal (2009) also
noted that heat stress might affect the whole physiological development, maturation and finally reduces theyield of cultivated crop.
A t-test was then conducted between the two states to determine whether there were differences in the levelof changes of these farm characteristics. The results (table 6) show that there was no significant difference
between the two states regarding decreasing soil drainage and reduced production cycle. But, these two
farm characteristics have generally not changed over the past ten years. On the other hand, reduction in thestorage quality of crops, destruction of wildlife ecosystem, drying up of steams/rivers, reduction in the
population of fish, loss of pasture land/vegetation and reduction in farm size were all significantly higher in
Imo state than Enugu while reduction in farm yield and income were significantly higher for Enugu than for
Imo state. This is in line with our earlier observation above regarding uncertainties in the onset of farming
season.
4.5
Activities of farmers that contribute to climate change
The respondents were asked to indicate the extent to which they practice some suggested farm related
activities that could contribute to climate change on a 3-point LSR. The information collected (table 7) showthat the most often practiced activities by the respondents were burning of wood fuel (mean = 2.70), the18 | Indigenous Agricultural Adaptation to Climate Change: Study of Imo and Enugu States in Southeast Nigeria

use of fertilizers (mean=2.16), and Bush burning (Mean = 2.07). With the widely reported rising poverty in
Nigeria, especially among farming households, and the also rising prices of cooking gas and kerosene,
burning of wood fuel as cooking energy has become the predominant practice, not only in rural farming
communities but also among the urban poor. Moreover, decreasing soil fertility is one of the extreme
weather events that nearly all the farmers (84%) said it has been on the increase in the past ten years. The
natural tendency would therefore be to increase the application of fertilizer in order to maintain soil fertility,
which contributes to greenhouse gases. In addition, bush burning is generally the preferred traditional
means of clearing farmland for seedbed preparation, which increases the concentration of greenhousegases and particulate matter in the atmosphere. The International Federation of Organic Agriculture
Movement (IFOAM)(2007) reports that conventional agricultural activities of farmers contribute to climatechange because it applies excessive amounts of nitrogen fertilizer that is released as nitrous oxide andmines the earth of the nutrient needed to sustain production through rainforest clearing and slash and burntechniques that reduce carbon storage and release huge amounts of carbon dioxide from burning
vegetation.
4.6
Costs and returns associated with adaptation practices
Table 8 presents the costs and returns from some of the adaptive measures using the results of the fieldsurvey. The table shows that the adaptation measure with the highest profitability index (PI) (that is return perunit of investment) was multiple/intercropping (mean = 3.01). Multiple/intercropping, though a tradition forsmallholder farming in Nigeria may have been intensified as a result of climate change. This is because
different crops have different levels of resilience to weather variability, hence, planting many crops in a field
could ensure that the farmer get some output in the face of extreme weather situations. Benhin (2006)
reports that growing a variety of crops on the same plot is an appropriate adaptation strategy because it
helps to avoid complete crop failure as different crops are affected differently by climate change. It is also ameasure of diversification by the farmers. Hassan and Nkemechena (2008) had reported that increased
diversification is a strong climate change adaptation measure.
The next adaptation measure with high PI was the use of agro-forestry (mean = 2.69). Similarly,
Aforestation, with a PI of 1.91 ranks 5th in terms of profitability. One of the appropriate adaptation strategies
by farmers according to Hassan and Nkemechena (2008) is shading and shelter, which can only beprovided through agro-forestry and aforestation. In one of the focus group discussions, a farmer reported
that he has planted trees around his farms to provide shade during dry periods, which has become very
regular. Agro-forestry and aforestation may therefore have become particularly needed because of theprevailing predominance of dry periods, accompanied with heat waves, erratic rainfall, thunderstorms andfloods/erosion, as earlier observed. The foregoing also explains the high PI associated with mulching(mean=1.89). Downing et al. (1997) reported that increasing the use of organic matters such as mulch
could prevent excessive soil moisture loss, increase soil aeration and soil moisture holding capacity.
The next to agro-forestry is expansion of cultivated land area (mean = 2.64). This has always been the
traditional means of expanding production and augmenting output from impoverished land by farmers.
Yirga (2007) reported that farmers often moved to fertile soils to ensure better yield and escape the vagaries
of weather accessioned by climate change.
The use of herbicides and pesticides also had a high PI of 2.08. As noted above, the farmers reported thatthe attack of pests, diseases and weeds have all been increasing in the past ten years. It is therefore logicalIndigenous Agricultural Adaptation to Climate Change: Study of Imo and Enugu States in Southeast Nigeria | 19

that farmers who simultaneously raise the level of use of pesticides and herbicides may sufficiently be able
to counter the offensive.
The next was purchase/harvesting of water for irrigation (mean = 1.86). Hassan and Nkemechena (2008)
noted that one of the appropriate adaptation practices for farmers include the use of water for irrigation andsoil conservation practices. Use of resistant varieties was next in terms of PI (mean=1.77). High yielding andfast growing crops can easily escape the vagaries of climate change by completing their growth cycle
before storm and drought sets-in, thereby checking the impact of climate change. Moreover, the use of heat
tolerant and drought resistance crops is also effective adaptation practices (Downing et al. 1997). In
addition, some strategies that serve as an important form of insurance against rainfall variability are:increasing diversification by planting crops that are drought tolerant and/or resistant to temperature stresses(Benhin, 2006). Increased use of fertilizers including organic manure, also had high PI (mean=1.45).
Declining soil fertility is one of the land degradation sources that was overwhelmingly (84% of the farmers)
reported to have been on the increase in the last ten years. High fertilizer application is therefore expected as
an adaptation practice in order to maintain soil fertility. In addition, the above observation by Downing et al.
(1997) on the need for organic matter as an adaptation practice also refers.
4.7
Household level factors affecting investment in adaptation practices
In assessing the factors that influence the level of investment in climate change adaptation practices, theordinary least squares regression analysis was used. The result of the analysis (table 9) show that the
explanatory powers of the specified variables seem low (24%), but this is not uncommon in cross sectional
analysis. Other works with similar coefficient of determination include Nweke (1996), Enete (2003). The
overall goodness of fit as reflected by the F-value of (2.93) was however highly significant at (p<0.01).
Four of the nine explanatory variables were significant. Age of the farmer was positively and highly
significantly related with the level of investment in climate change adaptation practices by the farmers. Thisis surprising because older farmers are more likely to be risk averse, especially regarding climate change
matters, than younger ones. However, age may likely endow the farmers with the requisite experience thatwill enable them make better assessment of the risks involved (Panin and Brummer 2000) in climate change
adaptation investment decisions. Enete et al. (2002) noted that older farmers have more experience and areable to take healthier production decisions than younger ones.
The farmer's number of years of formal education was also positive and highly significantly related with thelevel of investment in indigenous climate change adaptation practices. This is to be expected as educatedfarmers may better understand and process information provided by different sources regarding new farmtechnologies, thereby increasing their allocative and technical efficiency (Panin and Brummer 2000).
The two variables on level of awareness of climate change effects were all positive and significantly relatedwith the level of investment in adaptation practices. These were “whether the farmer knows that climatechange will affect agriculture” and also “whether the farmer knows that agriculture contributes to climatechange” This underscores the importance of awareness in adaptation measures. The awareness of climate
problems and the potential benefits of taking action is an important determinant of adoption of agricultural
technologies (Hassan and Nhemachena, 2002). Maddison (2007) argued that farmer awareness ofchange in climate attributes (temperature and precipitation) is important to adaptation decision making. For
example, Araya and Adjaye (2001) and Anim (1999) reported that farmers awareness and perceptions of
20 | Indigenous Agricultural Adaptation to Climate Change: Study of Imo and Enugu States in Southeast Nigeriasoil erosion problem as a result of changes in climate, positively and significantly affect their decisions to
adopt soil conservation measures.
4.8
Societal Constraints to climate change adaptations
Table 10 shows the varimax-rotated factors constraining farmers in climate change adaptations. From datain the table, five factors were extracted based on the responses of the respondents. Only variables withfactor loadings of 0.40 and above at 10% overlapping variance were used in naming the factors. Variables
that have factor loading of less than 0.40 and those that loaded in more than one factors were not used
(Madukwe 2004). The next thing to do was giving each factor a denomination according to the set ofvariables or characteristics it was composed of. In this regards, the variables were grouped into five major
factors as; factor 1 (poverty constraints), factor 2 (land and efficient input constraints) and factor 3(information and training factor), factor 4 (land tenure constraint), and factor 5 (labour constraints).
Under factor 1 (poverty constraints), the specific constraining variables against climate change adaptation
include high cost of farmland (0.580), high cost of irrigation facilities (0.483), non-availability of storage
facilities (0.648), limited income (0.782), non-availability of processing facilities (0.668), high cost ofprocessing facilities (0.808), and lack of access to weather forecast technologies (0.751). With limited
income (poverty), the acquisition of necessary facilities will be difficult. They may not only be costly, but may
also appear scarce for poor farmers. In addition, the farmers may not also have the necessary facilities for
current information like radio and television to obtain weather forecasts. This underscores the problems ofunder capitalization of farmers (Enete and Achike 2008) and suggests the need to improve the availability ofcredit to them. Benhin (2006) reports that lack of access to credit or saving and adequate information aboutclimate change are some of the major problems encountered by farmers in adapting to climate change in
Africa. Deressa (2008) reported that most of the problems or constraints encountered by farmers in
adaptation to climate change are associated with poverty.
Under factor 2 (Land and efficient input problem), the constraining variables against climate change
adaptation were: limited availability of land for farming (0.558), non-availability of improved seeds (0.598),
high cost of fertilizer (0.761), and high cost of improved varieties (0.725). Benhin (2006) noted that farm size
is a major determinant of speed of adoption of adaptation measures to climate change. Moreover, Downing
et al (1997) reported that high yielding and fast growing crops can easily escape the vagaries of climatechange by completing their growth cycle before storm and drought sets-in, thereby checking the impact ofclimate change. The use of heat tolerant and drought resistance crops is also effective adaptation
practices.
The factors that loaded under factor 3 (information and training constraints) include poor access to
information sources (0.588) and inadequate knowledge of how to cope (0.771). In the present informationage, information problems could pose serious challenges to the farmers coping strategies as they may not
be aware of recent developments regarding climate change adaptations and the necessary readjustments
needed. Mark et al. (2008) argued that a lack of adaptive capacity due to constraints on resources like
information may result in further food insecurity. In addition, Benhin (2006) noted further that the level of
education of the farmers and access to extension service are major determinants of speed of adoption ofadaptation measures to climate change.
Under factor 4 (land tenure constraints), the constraining variables were inherited system of land ownership(0.786) and communal system of land ownership (0.775). In traditional societies, individual farmers do not
Indigenous Agricultural Adaptation to Climate Change: Study of Imo and Enugu States in Southeast Nigeria | 21

usually have title to farmland but enjoy user rights, which could be withdrawn at any time by the custodian of
the communal land. One of the factors identified by Benhin (2006) as determining the speed of adoption ofclimate change adaptation measures is land tenure status.
Under factor 5 (labour constraints), only one variable loaded – high cost of farm labour (0.743). Previous
analyses of barriers to climate change adaptation show that shortage of farm labour is one of the major
constraints to adaptation by farmers (Deressa 2008, Adger 2001).

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

5. Conclusion
In the face of extreme weather events occasioned by climate change, and apparently because of its
tolerance to these conditions, cassava, according to the respondents, has become the dominant foodcrop in the area. Virtually all the respondents were, not only aware of climate change, but also aware thatsome of its variables like extreme weather events and uncertainties in the onset of farming season havebeen on the increase. In addition, they were also aware of the effect of climate change on agriculture, butwere not aware that some agricultural practices could exacerbate climate change. In general, it wasreported that uncertainties in onset of farming season and extreme weather events were significantly higher
for Imo than for Enugu State. However, the overall impact (farm yield and income) was significantly higher for
Enugu than for Imo state, essentially because of Enugu's inherently drier weather; being closer to the North.
The biggest effect of climate change in the region was reduced farm yield and income, drying up of
streams/rivers, reduction in storage quality of crops, loss of pastureland/vegetation and destruction of
wildlife ecosystem. Some of the coping strategies adopted by the farmers with a relatively high PI include
multiple/intercropping, agro-forestry/aforestation, mulching, purchase/harvest of water for irrigation and useof resistant varieties. The major factors identified to be driving farmers' investment in adaptation practices
were age and level of education of the farmer as well as his/her level of awareness of climate change issues.
At the societal level, the major factors constraining them from adapting to climate change were poverty;
farmland scarcity and high tech input problem, information and training constraints, land tenure and labour
constraints. The foregoing further underscores the need for farmers' education, awareness creation,
poverty alleviation and the provision of high tech inputs to them as potent tools for climate change
adaptation in the area.

Indigenous Agricultural Adaptation to Climate Change: Study of Imo and Enugu States in Southeast Nigeria | 23

References
Adejuwon J. O. (2006) “Food crop production in Nigeria. II: Potential effects of
Research Vol 32 229-245

climate change” Climate

Agoumi, A., (2003) Vulnerability of North African countries to climatic changes: Adaptation andimplementation strategies for climatic change. In Developing Perspectives on Climate Change: Issues andAnalysis from Developing Countries and Countries with Economies in Transition. IISD/Climate Change
Knowledge Network, 14 pp. http://www.cckn.net//pdf/north_africa.pdf
Agbugba, I.K. 2007. Economics of Charcoal Marketing in Abia State, Nigeria. An M.Sc. thesis, Dept ofAgricultural Economics, University of Nigeria, Nsukka
Anim, F.D.K. 1999. A note on the adoption of soil conservation measures in the Northern Province of South
Africa. Journal of Agricultural Economics, vol.50, pp. 336-345.
Anley, Y., A. Bogale and A. Haile-Gabriel. 2007. Adoption Decision and use intensity of soil and water
conservation measures by smallholder subsistence farmers in Dedo District, Western Ethiopia. Land
Degradation and Development, Vol. 18: 289-302
Araya, B. and J.A. Adjaye. 2001. Adoption for farm level soil conservation practices in Eritrea. Indian Journalof Agricultural Economics, Vol. 56, pp. 239-252.
Benhin, J.K.A. 2006. Climate change and South African agriculture: Impacts and adaptation options.
CEEPA Discussion paper No. 21. CEEPA, University of Pretoria, South Africa.
Brussel, S.E.C. 2009. Adapting to climate changes: the challenge for European agriculture and rural
areas. Commission of the European communities. Commission working staff working document
accompanying the white paper No. 147
Bukh, J. 1979. The village woman in Ghana. Centre for Development Research publications series 1.
Scandinavian Institute of African Studies, Uppsala, Sweden.
Climate Institute. 2010. Consequences of climate change on the Oceans. Climate Institute, Washington
DC, USA
Christensen, J., Hewitson, B.C., Busuioc A., Chen, A., Gao., X., Jones, R., Kwon, W.-T., Laprise, R.,
Magana, V., Mearns, L. Menenedez, C., Raisaenen, J., Rinke, A, Kolli, R. K. and Sarr, A. (2007). Regional
Climate Projections, in IPCC Fourth assessment Report "Climate Change 2007: The Scientific Basis”,
Cambridge University Press.
Deressa, T. 2008. Analysis of perception and adaptation to climate change in the Nile Basin of Ethiopia. An
unpublished Ph .D. thesis, Centre for Environmental Economics and Policy for Africa (CEEPA), University of
Pretoria, South Africa.
24 | Indigenous Agricultural Adaptation to Climate Change: Study of Imo and Enugu States in Southeast NigeriaDowning, T. E., L. Ringius, M. Hulme and D. Waughray (1997) Adapting to Climate Change in Africa'.
Mitigation and Adaptation strategies for Global Change Vol. 2: 19-44.
Eid, H. M., El-Marsafawy, S. M. and Ouda, S. A. (2006): Assessing the impacts of climate change on
agriculture in Egypt: A ricardian approach. Centre for Environmental Economics and Policy in Africa (CEEPA)
Discussion Paper No. 16, Special Series on Climate Change and Agriculture in Africa, University of
Pretoria, Pretoria, 1-33.
Enete, A.A. and Achike, I..A (2008). Urban Agriculture and Food Insecurity/Poverty in Nigeria; the case of
Ohafia-Southeast Nigeria. Outlook on agriculture vol. 37, No 2, pp 131-134.
Enete, A.A. (2003). “Resource Use, Marketing and Diversification Decisions in Cassava Producing
Household of Sub-Saharan Africa”. A Ph.D Dissertation Presented to the Department of Agricultural
Economics, Catholic University of Louvain, Belgium.
Enete, A.A., F.I. Nweke and E. Tollens. 2004. Gender and cassava processing in Africa. Quarterly Journal ofInternational Agriculture, 43(1): 57-69
FAO. 1997. Irrigation potential in Africa: a basin approach. Retrieved March 8, 2010 fromhttp://www.fao.org/docrip
F.A.O.2000. Two essays on climate change and agriculture. A developing country perspective. FAO, Rome,
Italy.
FAO .2007. Adaptation to climate change in agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries: perspectives, framework
and priorities. FAO, Rome.
FAO. 2008. Organic agriculture and climate change. Retieved ,arcj 8. 2010 fromhttp://www.fao.org/DOCREP/oo5
Fankhauser, S. 1996. The potential costs of climate change adaptation. In: Smith, J.B., Bhatt, N., Menzhulin,
G., Benieff, M., Budyko, M., Campos, M. Jallow, B. and Rijsbevman, F (eds.), Adapting to Climate change:
An International perspective. Springer, New York, USA. Pp 80-96
German Advisory Council on Global Change (WBGU). 2004. World in Transition Fighting Poverty throughEnvironmental Policy. Earthscan, London Gregory, P.J., Ingram, J.S.I and Brklacich, M. (2005). Climatechange and food security. Philosophical ransactions of the Royal Society B. Vol. 36: 2139-2148.
Kandlinkar, M. and Risbey, J. 2000. Agricultural Impacts of Climate Change: if adaptation is the answer, whatis the question? Climatic Change, vol. 45: 529-539
Khanal, R.C. 2009. Climate change and organic agriculture. The journal of agriculture and environment, vol.
10, pp 100-110.

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

Hassan, R. and C. Nhemachena. 2008. Determinants of African farmers' strategies for adapting toclimatechanges: multinomial choice analysis. AFJARE, 2(1): 85-104.
IFOAM. 2007. Organic agriculture's role in countering climate change. IFOAM, Germany.
IPCC .2001. 'Climate Change 2001: Impacts, Adaptations and Vulnerabilities'. Contribution of Working
Group II to the Third Assessment Report of the IPCC. New York; Cambridge University Press.
IPCC .2007. Contribution of working Group II to the Fourth Assessment Report of the IPCC – Summary for
Policy Makers. Retrieved March 8, 2010 from http://www.ipcc.ch:Jones, P.G. and Thornton, P.K. 2002. Croppers to livestock keepers: Livelihood transition to 2010 in Africa
due to climate change. Global Environmental Change, World Health Organization, Geneva, Switzerland.
Maddison, D. 2006. The perception of and adaptation to climate change in Africa. CEEPA Discussion paper
No. 10, CEEPA, University of Pretoria, South Africa.
Madu. I.A. (2005) “Population and settlement constraints to sustainable agricultural land use insoutheastern Nigeria,” in Okoko, E. Adekunle, V.A.J and Adeduntan, S.A. (eds). Environmental
Sustainability and Conservation in Nigeria. Environmental Conservation and Research Team, Federal
University of Technology, Akure Nigeria pp. 163-171.
Madukwe, M.C. (2004)."Multivariate Analysis for Agricultural Extension Research”. In: Terry. A. O. (ed)Research Methods in Agricultural Extension. Pp 206 – 236.
Magadza, C. H. D. (2000), 'Climate Change Impacts and human Settlements in Africa: Prospects for
Adaptation'. Environmental Monitoring and Assessment Vol.61: 193-205.
Mark, W.R., E. Mandy, Y. Gary, B. Lan, H. Saleemul and V.S. Rowena. 2008. Climate change and agriculture:Threats and opportunities. Federal Ministry for Economic Cooperation and Development, Germany.
Mendelsohn, R., A. Dinar and A. Dalfelt (2000) Climate change impacts on African Agriculture. Preliminary
analysis prepared for the World Bank, Washington, District of Columbia, 25 pp
Nwakpu, C.C. 2008. Economics of adoption and productivity of some recommended rice technologies in
Ebonyi State, Nigeria. A PhD dissertation submitted to the Department of Agricultural Economics, Universityof Nigeria, Nsukka.
Nweke, F.I. and A.A. Enete. 1999. Gender surprises in food production, processing and marketing withemphasis on cassava in Africa. COSCA working paper No. 19, COSCA, IITA, Ibadan, Nigeria.
Nweke, F.I. 1996. Cassava: a cash crop in Africa. COSCA working paper No. 14, COSCA, IITA, Ibadan,
Nigeria

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

Okafor, F. C. (1991). Population pressure, agricultural change and environmental consequences in South
Eastern Nigeria. New York: Social Science Council.
Reason, C.J.C., S. Hachigonta and R.F. Phaladi, (2005): Inter-annual variability in rainy season
characteristics over the Limpopo region of Southern Africa. International Journal of Climatology, 25, 18351853.
Reilly, J. 1996. Climate change, global agriculture and regional vulnerability. In: Global climate change andagricultural production. Direct and indirect effects of changing hydrological, pedological and plant
physiological processes, Bazzaz, F. and W. Sombroek (eds.). FAO, Rome and John wiley & Sons,
Chichester. Chapter 10.
Science in Africa. 2007. Global climate change: Can Africa cope? Science in Africa, Africa's first on-linescience magazine.
Smith, J. B. and S. Lenhont. 1996. Climate change adaptation policy options. Climate Research 6, pp 193201
Stige, L.C., J. Stave, K.S. Chan, L. Ciannelli, N. Pretorelli, M. Glantz, H.R. Herren and N.C. Stenseth (2006).
The effect of climate variation on agro-pastoral production in Africa. P. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA, 103, 3049-3053.
Thornton PK, Jones PG, Owiyo T, Kruska RL, Herrero M, Kristjanson P, Notenbaert A, Bekele N and Omolo
A, with contributions from Orindi V, Otiende B, Ochieng A, Bhadwal S, Anantram K, Nair S, Kumar V and
Kulkar U (2006): Mapping climate vulnerability and poverty in Africa. Report to the Department forInternational Development, ILRI, Nairobi, Kenya. Pp 171.
United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC). 2007. Climatic Change Impact,
Vulnerabilities and Adaptation in Developing Countries UNFCCC Secretariat, Martin-Luther-King-Straat 853175 Bonn, Germany. www.unfccc.int
Wikipedia, (2009). “Climate change and agriculture.” Retrieved September 09, 2009, fromhttp://www.en.wikipedia.org/wiki/
Wisner, B., P. Blaikie, T. Cannon and I. Davis. 2004. At risk: natural hazards; people's vulnerability anddisasters. 2nd Edition. Routledge, London
World Bank 2008. Agriculture for Development Policy Brief: Adaptation and mitigation of climate change in
agriculture. World Development Report 2008 Retrieved March 8, 2010 fromhttp://www.steresources.worldbank.org/INTWDR
Yirga, C. T. (2007), 'The Dynamics of Soil Degradation and Incentives for Optimal Management in Central
Highlands of Ethiopia'. PhD Thesis. Department of Agricultural Economics, Extension and Rural
Development, University of Pretoria, South Africa.

Indigenous Agricultural Adaptation to Climate Change: Study of Imo and Enugu States in Southeast Nigeria | 27

Ziervogel G., A. Nyong, B. Osman, C. Conde, S. Cortes, and T. Dowing 2006. Climate variability andchange: implications for household food security. Assessments of Impacts and Adaptations to Climate
Change (AIACC) Working Paper No. 20, January 2006. The AIACC Project Office, International START
Secretariat, Washington DC, USA.
Zoellick, Robert B. A Climate Smart Future. The Nation Newspapers. Vintage Press Limited, Lagos, Nigeria.
Page 18

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

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

Percentage*

Most important animal

Percentage*

Cassava

64

Goat

50

Yam

23

Poultry38

Cocoyam

4

Sheep

6

Vegetables

3

Pig

5

Maize

2

Cattle

1

Rice

1

Fish

1

Oil palm

1

Others2

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

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

Yes*

No

Have heard of climate change before now?

96

6

Source of information:(i) Friends

36(ii) Extension workers

26(iii) Farmers cooperatives

1(iv) Newspapers

5(v) Radio/Television

24(vi) Researchers

2

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

97

3

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

48

52

Note: * Number of respondents is 382

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

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

Increasing(IC)

Decreasing(DC)

No change(NC)

Mean extent ofcontribution ofclimate change tothe phenomenon

83
83
89
80

13
13
7
16

4
4
3
4

3.5
3.3
3.6
3.4

15
75
30
68
16

82
17
28
22
70

3
8
42
10
14

3.0
3.2
2.6
2.6
3.4

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

36
45
42
58
31
21
25
35
38
71

19
22
47
14
19
73
16
25
47
20

46
33
11
28
50
6
59
40
15
9

4.1
3.9
3.6
3.3
3.2
3.4
3.5
3.3
3.1
3.3

Pests

59

32

9

3.5

Diseases

58

27

15

3.5

Weeds

38

26

36

3.1

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

84
77
23

9
16
70

7
7
7

3.5
3.7
3.2

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

Cut off point= 50% Cut off= 3.0

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

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

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

Enugu

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

Imo

mean

S.D.

mean

S.D.

T

P -value

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Minimum

Maximum

Mean

Std. Deviation

Extent to which soil drainage has
decreased

371

1.00

5.00

3.03909

1.17195

premature ripening of crops

376

1.00

5.00

2.96811.22378

Reduced production cycle

368

1.00

5.00

2.88041.13735

Prolonged production cycle

370

1.00

5.00

2.25681.25438

Reduced yield

382

1.0 0

5.00

3.7068.98434

Reduced income

380

1.00

5.00

3.9026.92088Reduction in storage quality of
crops

376

1.00

5.00

3.29791.16463

Destruction of wildlife ecosystems

371

1.00

11.00

3.18601.59744

Streams/rivers drying up

357

1.00

5.00

3.5826

1.15488

Education in the population of fish

300

1.00

5.00

3.17001.34180

Loss of pastureland and vegetation

362

1.00

5.00

3.2182

1.49214

Deduction in farm size

374

1.00

5.00

3.13901.31476

Increased farm size

372

1.00

5.00

2.24191.39524

Cut off point= 3.0
Indigenous Agricultural Adaptation to Climate Change: Study of Imo and Enugu States in Southeast Nigeria | 31

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

s/n

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

Farm characteristics

Enugu

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

Imo

mean

S.D.

mean

S.D.

T

P-value

2.06
3.07
3.15
2.04
3.82
3.97
2.92

1.11
1.01
0.93
1.24
0.92
0.88
1.20

2.87
2.86
2.59
2.49
3.59
3.83
3.70

1.09
1.34
1.27
1.22
1.04
0.96
0.97

-7.09
1.61
4.85
-3.54
2.36
1.43
-6.98

0.90
0.00
0.00
0.45
0.01
0.00
0.04

2.49

1.69

3.91

1.09

-9.66

0.00

3.52
2.93
2.38

1.22
1.61
1.50

3.65
3.42
4.08

1.07
0.93
0.86

-1.12
-3.18
-13.26

0.01
0.00
0.00

2.96
2.33

1.38
1.48

3.33
2.14

1.22
1.30

-2.74
1.34

0.04
0.00

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

N

Minimum

Maximum

Mean

Std. Deviation

Bush burning

381

1.00

3.00

2.0682.70380Continuous cropping

348

1.00

3.00

1.7126.69012

Over grazing

323

1.00

3.00

1.1393.40467

286

1.00

3.00

1.3986.73642

357

1.00

3.00

1.8235.70289Burning of woodfuel

389

1.00

3.00

2.6967.54727The use of fertilizers

389

1.00

3.00

2.1568.76562

Use of insecticids/ pesticides

317

1.00

3.00

1.5710.74131The use of herbicides

316

1.00

3.00

1.5222.74075

Deforestation

312

1.00

3.00

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

Cut off mark = 2.0

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

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

Cost/haRevenue/ha

PI

Mean

SD

Mean

SD

Mean SDi. Purchase of water for irrigation (liters)

12220.59 (17)6014.80

35118.06 (12)28694.81

ii. Mulching

15116.46 (55)31272.4233167.28 (47)71029.69

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

36874.8 (35)57737.74

93539.29 (21)100304.1

12543.01 (38)9963.942

29001.61 (37)15777.25v.

Use of resistant varieties

8702.284 (44)9654.234

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

20687.5 (18)22296.39

55505.21 (16)33213.96

vii. Increased used of fertilizers

11704.36 (127)14356.89

32700.3 (68)34987.75

viii. Intensive manure application

13158.66 (37)28239.53

31285.71 (21)46531.45

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

7370.24 (65)9426.0817395.83(24)15960.55

33222.83 (50)38004.95

118096.50 (47)291581.50

xi. Use of agro- forestry

8356.53 (41)8617.53

26371.58 (39)27284.35

xii. Change from arable to permanent
crops or vice versa

14972.31 (12)18440.50

37405.83 (15)37546.94

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

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

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

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

Coefficients

t

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

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

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

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

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

Table 10: Constraints to adaptation (Rotated Component Matrix)

Constraints
Variables
Poverty

Land andefficient
input

Information Landand Training Tenure

LabourLimited availability of land for farming

.152

.558

.283

.384

-.010

High cost of farmland

.580

-.002

.388

.287

.105

Inherited system of land ownership

.086

.249

-.113

.786

-.178

Communal system of land ownership

-.110

.310

-.042

.775

-.139

Poor access to information sources

.353

.030

.588

-.045

-.354

Non-availability of credit facilities

.559

.378

.007

.141

-.496

High cost of irrigation facilities

.483

.244

.222

-.109

.357

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

.255

.598

.329

-.002

.368

high cost of fertilizers and other inputs

.158

.761

.003

.040

.043

Inadequate knowledge of how to copeor build resilience

.050

.267

.771

-.025

.091

high cost of improved varieties

.013

.725

-.076

.203

.021

Non-availability of farm labour

.404

.413

.371

.129

.219

high cost of farm labour

.042

.201

-.150

-.075

.743

Lack of access to weather forecast
technologies

.751

.146

-.267

-.200

.086

Government irresponsiveness toclimate risk management

.408

-.206

.683

.006

-.131

Non-availability of storage facilities

.648

.017

.348

.311

-.150

Limited income

.782

.146

.145

.139

-.002

Non-availability of processing facilities

.668

.196

.284

-.150

-.089

High cost of processing facilities

.808

.030

.278

.109

.109

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

.204

-.154

.179

.663

.408

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

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

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

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: 978-9966-1552-2-1