ABSTRACT

Despite various agricultural intervention programs established in Nigeria aimed at improving food security and poverty reduction, the record of performance of these programs have been uncertain as food security and poverty have continued to be a major issue in the country. This necessitates that further research studies are required. This study, therefore, analyzed the performance and impact of the national program for food security in Imo State. Purposive and simple random sampling techniques were used to select the respondents. Primary data were used to obtain information from the respondent's while secondary data were used to obtain information about the program from previous research efforts as well as the managers of the program. Tools used in analyzing the data were descriptive statistics, risk aversion model, participation index, OLSR model, FGT poverty index and Local Average Treatment Effect (LATE) model. The results of the data analyzed showed that the average yield of major crops reduced from 6.47 tonnes/ha at the inception of the programme to 5.11 tonnes/ha in the survey year. Average net farm income and poverty rate, however, increased from N28, 500 and 26.5% at the inception of the programme to N60, 947 and 51% respectively in the survey year. No significant change was observed in the food security ratio of the households. However, 61% of them were food insecure while only 39% were food secure. Poverty line of 7093 .42 was obtained. As a result, 63.16% and 70.83% respectively of the participant and the non participant farmers were poor. The study indicate poor level of participation of the farmers in the programme as 38.16% and 55.26% of the farmers engaged in low and moderate level participation as against just 6.58% who had high level of participation. Farm experience, farm size, and farm income have significant positive relationship with participation level of the farmers. Most of the farmers were averse to risk and this explains their low rate of participation in the program. Survey results show that 63% and 34% of the farmers had high and medium risk aversion levels. Age of the household head, marital status, XII household current assets, land ownership and farm income were found to have a significant positive relationship with risk aversion attitude of the fanners while farm experience and number of contact with extension agents have significant negative relationship with the farmers risk aversion attitude. Result of the activities proposed to be implemented in order to achieve the objectives of the program show that only 65% of the farmer groups were trained while only 40% of the funds proposed for site activities in the state were released. The result show further that just 59% of the proposed NR 8083 cassava varieties were supplied while 86% and 67% of miniset yam dusts and rice seeds respectively proposed were delivered. Out of the 9 wash bores proposed only 4 were supplied. Based on the breakdown of proposed activities and their level of attainment, their implementation is not capable of derailing the achievement of the set objectives. Result showed a significant negative relationship between participation and poverty incidence while participation was found to increase their farm productivity and net farm income. The estimators showed that 37% of the farmers were below the poverty line while their farm productivity increased by 1.79. The major factors that affect the programme were farmer's high aversion to risk and low level of participation in the programme as well as late release of funds for site activities. Based on these findings there is need to build on the successes recorded to meet unattained targets in future programmes. There is need also for prompt and efficient implementation of all proposed activities in future programmes. Risk mitigation schemes and insurance packages should be built into future agricultural proranimes. Regular training workshops are necessary in this regard. All significant factors affecting programme performance, achievement of objectives and effect on welfare indicators should be emphasized in future policy