Content uploaded by Jonathan Akinwale
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Jonathan Akinwale on Nov 19, 2017
Content may be subject to copyright.
Nigerian Journal of Rural Sociology Vol. 16, No. 4, 2016
22
CHALLENGES OF MULTI-STAKEHOLDER PARTNERSHIPS FOR AGRICULTURAL SUPPORT
SERVICES PROVISION IN RICE PRODUCTION IN BENUE STATE, NIGERIA
1
Ladele, A. A.
and
2
Akinwale, J. A.
1
Department of Agricultural Extension and Rural Development, University of Ibadan, Ibadan, Nigeria
2
Department of Agricultural Extension and Communication Technology, Federal University of Technology,
Akure, Ondo State, Nigeria
Correspondence contact details: jonakinwale@yahoo.com
ABSTRACT
Recent approaches at enhancing the provision of agricultural support services to rice farmers in Nigeria involve
multi-stakeholder partnerships. For effective performance, there is the need for right mix of partners’ interests
and resources otherwise conflicts may become inevitable. This study therefore investigated challenges in a
multi-stakeholder partnership in rice production in Benue state that may predispose the system to conflicts and
make it unsustainable. Using simple random sampling technique, 170 rice farmers were selected from the list of
cooperative societies that participated in the scheme. Interview schedule containing respondents’ level of
interaction with other stakeholders (17-33), access to agric-support services (8-24) and potential sources of
conflicts (mean score) was used to collect data. Data were analysed using descriptive statistics and PPMC. The
result indicated that 57.1% of the farmers had high level of interaction with stakeholders. Multi-stakeholder
partnership was found to have enhanced farmers’ access to improved rice varieties (1.83±0.42), guaranteed
market (1.75±0.50) and timely delivery of extension services (1.62±0.63). The farmers ranked distrust as most
severe source of conflicts (2.88±0.41). There was a weak negative relationship between farmers’ level of
interaction with other stakeholders and sources of conflicts. It is evident that the enhanced delivery of
agricultural support services through multi-stakeholder partnership has not been without some hitches. There is
therefore need for open communication with effective feedback mechanism to reduce frictions and build trust
and transparency among partners.
Keywords: Conflict, Multi-stakeholder partnership, Agricultural support services
INTRODUCTION
Rice has become a major staple crop in
Nigeria. It is of prime importance compared to
maize, yam and cassava (Olawale, 2010). This
might be connected with rapid population growth,
preference of urban lifestyle for food which
requires less time to prepare, and rising household
income (Ojehomon et al., 2004). In fact, rice has
become so popular that most Nigerian families
consume the grain at least once every day. More so,
with 80% of domestic rice production in the hands
of smallholders, the cereal has become an
important source of income for this category of
farmers (Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation,
2012). Thus, there is no gainsaying the fact that
rice occupies a strategic position in the national
drive towards food security and poverty alleviation.
Despite high increase in consumption, the
domestic rice production has not been able to meet
up with demand. The consequence of this is rice
importation in order to bridge the gap from the
domestic rice production and consumption in the
country. The issue then is that despite expansion in
land area for rice cultivation, the average yield of
rice in Nigeria still remains unchanged (Okuneye,
2002; Phillips, Nkoya, Pender and Oni, 2009).
Factors for the shortfall include among others;
uncoordinated interaction among stakeholders in
rice value chain, unorganised farmers’ networks,
insufficient access and untimely delivery of
agricultural support services, unreliable input
market, inadequate improved rice varieties, low
technology know-how and poor policy
environment for agricultural investment to thrive
[USAID/MARKETS/NIGERIA (2010)].
There is therefore the urgent need for
innovative approach to improve both downstream
and upstream rice value chain. Such an approach as
multi-stakeholder partnerships have been identified
as an important vehicle for mobilising and sharing
knowledge, expertise, technologies and financial
resources to address developmental issues. Multi-
stakeholder partnerships can be defined as
voluntary, collaborative arrangements between
actors from two or more domains of society, i.e.
state, market and/or civil society, which have an
institutionalised, yet non-hierarchical structure and
strive for a sustainability goal (Glasbergen et al.,
2007). According to Omobowale et al. (2010),
multi-stakeholder partnerships are initiated
whenever private and public sector partners realise
their inability to single-handedly solve the
multifaceted problems confronting society. The
typical goal of such value chain partnerships is the
inclusion of smallholders and small and medium-
sized enterprises (SMEs) into commercial chains.
Such collaborative arrangements between private
and public actors are increasingly popular to
overcome market or government failures, and to
increase efficiency in the value chain, because
partners can pool their resources, knowledge and
capabilities (Kolk et al., 2008), and can offer
advantages in terms of increased flexibility,
productivity, cost reduction and innovations
(Jenkins, 2007). The underlying assumption is that
by pooling these resources, value chain
partnerships can generate results which they could
Nigerian Journal of Rural Sociology Vol. 16, No. 4, 2016
23
not have achieved on an individual basis, a so
called ‘collaborative advantage’ (Huxham and
Vangen, 2000; Kolk et al., 2008).
It is against this background that this work
focuses on initiative involving multi-stakeholder
partnership along rice value chain in Benue state,
Nigeria. Actors in the arrangement are; farmers
(they are responsible for growing the specified rice
varieties); Benue State Agricultural and Rural
Development Authority (BNARDA) (the agency
responsible for technology transfer); First Bank
Nigeria Limited (disbursement of agricultural loans
to participating farmers); Nigeria Agricultural
Insurance Corporation (NAIC); (the body that
provides crop insurance); OLAM Nigeria Limited
(the miller that rolled out agricultural inputs and
guarantee market to farmers); Benue State Ministry
of Agriculture (supply of fertilisers at subsidised
prices) and USAID/MARKETS (the agency
responsible for capacity building).
Nevertheless, it should be noted that the
expected gains from multi-stakeholder partnership
may be challenged due to unbalanced power
structure, lack of trust, inadequate accountability
and information asymmetry. Thus, the marriage of
stakeholders of different minds and interest can
breed distrust and conflicts which may serve as
constraints to effective partnerships. This might be
as a result of difficulty in allying resources and
individuals from two or more sectors to focus on a
complex issue within a developing country. Thus,
there is the need to examine the nature of each
identified conflicts sources in agricultural support
provisions in rice production. This becomes
necessary in order to expand, sustain and as well
understand how the system can become stronger in
the face of possible challenges.
The main objective of the study was to
examine challenges to multi-stakeholder
partnership in agricultural support provisions in
rice production in Benue state, Nigeria. The
specific objectives of the study were to:
1. ascertain the level of interaction between
farmers and other stakeholders in the
partnership arrangement in rice
production,
2. examine the performance of stakeholders
in rendering agricultural support services
to the farmers,
3. identify potential sources of conflicts in
multi-stakeholder partnership in rice
production.
Hypothesis of the study stated in null
form, that there is no significant relationship
between farmers’ level of interaction with other
stakeholders and sources of conflicts in the
partnership arrangement.
METHODOLOGY
A multi-stage sampling procedure was
used for this study. Benue state was purposively
selected as a result of the presence of well
established multi-stakeholder partnership in rice
production. There are 15 local government areas
that participated in the partnership arrangement in
rice production generally known as ‘OLAM out-
growers extension scheme’ in the state. From this,
25% (i.e. 4 local government areas) were selected
through simple random sampling technique. Then,
proportionate sampling was used to select 50% of
cooperative societies in the 4 local government
areas: thus, 42 cooperative societies from the 85
identified cooperative societies were selected.
Furthermore, a total of 170 rice farmers
(representing 20% of the population) from the list
of members of the 42 cooperatives societies were
randomly selected. Farmers’ mode of interaction
was assessed using the knowledge-sharing platform
in the partnership arrangement which is the use of
“lead farmers”. Lead farmers from each of the
cooperatives were trained through organised
workshops and field days on three major aspect of
rice production (namely; pre-season activities, in-
season activities and post-harvest activities) by
subject matter specialist. How much knowledge
was shared with other farmers by the lead farmers
was used to determine the level of interaction
among the rice farmers in multi-stakeholder
partnership. It was on this basis that the level of
interaction (premised on the degree at which the
knowledge was shared) was measured on a three
point scale of well shared, moderately shared and
not shared for 20 items. The score of 2 was
assigned to well shared, 1 to moderately shared and
0 to not shared. Rice farmers’ access to the services
provided by the stakeholders was measured on a
three point scale of always accessible, sometimes
accessible and never accessible. Scores of 2 was
assigned to always accessible, 1 to sometimes
accessible and 0 to never accessible. Items with the
mean score of ≥ 1.25 are regarded as high access
and ≤1.25 are regarded as low access (Dimelu et
al., 2014). Farmers’ sources of conflicts were
measured on a 3 point rating scale of severe
conflict source, mild conflict source and not a
conflict source. Severe conflict source was scored
2, mild conflict source 1 and not a conflict source
0. The mean of each of the item was then used to
rank the sources of conflicts in order of severity.
Data were analysed using descriptive statistics
(means, frequencies and percentages) and Pearson
Product Moment Correlation (PPMC).
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
Farmers’ level of interaction in partnership
arrangement
Table 1 shows the extent to which multi-
stakeholders approach has facilitated interactions
Nigerian Journal of Rural Sociology Vol. 16, No. 4, 2016
24
among the farmers. Results reveal that the lead
farmers shared their acquired knowledge on
improved practices on rice production very well on
subject areas such as seed germination tests
(x
̄=1.76), varietal selection (x
̄=1.75), bagging of
paddy (x
̄=1.75), bird control (x
̄=1.73),
insect/disease control (x
̄=1.69), plant spacing
(x
̄=1.67), planting methods (x
̄=1.65), weed control
(x
̄=1.64), threshing methods (x
̄=1.64) and rodents
control (x
̄=1.61). Meanwhile, knowledge on land
preparation (x
̄=0.82), site selection (x
̄=0.47) and
record keeping (x
̄=0.46) were not well shared to the
farmers. The lead farmers may have taken these
aspects for granted as interview with extension
personnel indicated that they were well trained on
these activities and are thus expected to step down
the trainings to their members. Nevertheless, with
the majority of the farmers indicating that other
subjects were well shared or moderately shared is
an indication that the lead farmers were able to
have high level of interaction among their members
and in the process disseminate the acquired
knowledge to other participating farmers. This
result support the findings of Alene and Manyong
(2006) who found lead farmers to be technically
competent in disseminating information to farmers
on improved cowpea technology uptake in northern
Nigeria.
Table 1: Distribution of farmers according to their interaction with lead farmers in public-private
partnership (n= 170)
Activities Well shared Moderately
shared
Not shared Mean SD
F % F % F %
Site selection
16
9.4
48
28.2
106
62.4
0.47
0.66
Land preparation 39 22.9 62 36.5 69 40.6 0.82 0.78
Record keeping
16
9.4
46
27.1
108
63.5
0.46
0.66
Varietal selection 138 81.2 22 12.9 10 5.9 1.75 0.55
Seed germination test 142 83.5 15 8.8 13 7.7 1.76 0.58
Transplanting method
35
20.6
112
65.9
23
13.5
1.07
0.58
Planting methods 118 69.4 44 25.9 8 4.7 1.65 0.57
Spacing
122
71.8
40
23
.5
4
4.7
1.67
0.56
Fertiliser application 120 70.6 9 5.3 41 24.1 1.46 0.86
Weed control 123 72.4 32 18.8 15 8.8 1.64 0.64
Disease control 129 75.9 29 17.0 12 7.1 1.69 0.60
Bird control 137 80.6 20 11.8 13 7.6 1.73 0.59
Rodent’s control
1
21
71.2
31
18.2
18
10.6
1.61
0.67
Harvesting methods 14 8.2 142 83.6 14 8.2 1.00 0.40
Drying methods
23
13.5
135
79.4
12
7.1
1.06
0.45
Threshing methods 114 67.1 51 30.0 5 2.9 1.64 0.54
Cleaning of threshed grains 79 46.5 55 32.3 36 21.2 1.25 0.79
Drying of cleaned paddy
123
72.4
23
13.5
24
14.1
1.58
0.73
Bagging of paddy 134 78.8 30 17.6 6 3.5 1.75 0.51
Storage of paddy
117
68.8
30
17.6
23
13.6
1.55
0.72
Farmers’ level of interaction in the partnership
arrangement
Table 2 shows that more than half of the
respondents (57.1%) had high level of interaction
with the lead farmers. This supports the findings of
Emodi and Dimelu (2010) that farmers had a high
level of interaction with other stakeholders in rice
innovation system in South Eastern Nigeria. This
result implies that majority of the farmers were
reached by the lead farmers and are expected to
have acquired new skills and knowledge of
improved rice production practices. Also, the high
level of interaction is expected to foster peer
pressure among the participating farmers which
will serve as motivation and influence in adopting
production practices and as well as prevent
individual farmers from breaching the contract
terms.
Table 2: Categorisation of farmers’ level of interaction in the partnership (n=170)
Level Scores Frequency % Mean SD
Low
17.0
–
28.0
73
42.9
28.0
3.0
High 29.0 – 33.0 97 57.1
Total 170 100.0
Nigerian Journal of Rural Sociology Vol. 16, No. 4, 2016
25
Farmers’ access to agricultural support services
and provisions
The rice farmers’ access to agricultural
support services in Table 3 shows that the multi-
stakeholder partnership has enhanced farmers’
access to all the components of agricultural support
services. For instance, farmers had high access
(x
̄=1.83) to provision of improved rice varieties.
The high access to improved rice varieties is
anticipated as the purchase of rice paddy by OLAM
is on the premise of growing the specified rice
varieties. This must have invariably served as
incentive for the farmers to grow the improved rice
varieties as they are sure of market for their output.
It is invariably expected of the farmers to
experience increase in yield from the high access to
improved rice varieties. This is in agreement with
Buah et al. (2011) who found that average yield of
farmers that participated in an USAID supported
programme in Northern Ghana was increased by
92% as a result of enhanced access to quality seeds.
Similarly, Table 3 shows high access
(x
̄=1.75) to the provision of buy-back arrangement.
The result suggests that the farmers are better
linked to the markets. This is a great improvement
to the current situation in Nigeria and other sub-
Saharan Africa where majority of farmers lack
access to reliable produce markets. Wiggis and
Keats (2013) found that 25% of smallholder
farmers in sub-Saharan Africa suffer from market
failure as they are not linked to markets for a
variety of reasons namely; remoteness from major
markets and low scale of production. Further to this
development, the farmers are expected to be
motivated to go into rice production as they are
sure that their produce will be bought by the
processor. In the same vein, table 3 also show high
access (x
̄=1.62) to extension services delivery in
rice production. This implies that the multi-
stakeholder partnership has made agricultural
extension services to be more accessible to the
farmers. This finding is corroborated by the
submission of Nambiro, Omiti and Mugunieri
(2005) that partnerships arrangement involving
farmers’ organisations in Kenya has increased both
the awareness and access of the farmers to
agricultural extension services. Thus, the farmers
are expected to be more informed on modern
practices and technologies in rice production.
Table 3: Farmers rating of access to agricultural support services provisions (n=170)
Agric. support services Level of access F Percent
Mean SD
Tractors for land preparation Never accessible 85 50.0
Sometimes accessible 59 34.7 0.65 0.73
Always accessible 26 15.3
Agricultural loans Never accessible 36 21.2
Sometimes accessible
65
38.2
1.19
0.76
Always accessible 69 40.6
Provision of improved rice
Never accessible
3
1.8
varieties Sometimes accessible 23 13.5 1.83 0.42
Always accessible 144 84.7
Fertilisers supply
Never accessible
21
12
.4
Sometimes accessible 58 34.1 1.41 0.70
Always accessible
91
53.5
Herbicides supply Never accessible 14 8.2
Sometimes accessible 61 35.9 1.48 0.65
Always accessible
95
55.9
Extension services delivery Never accessible 14 8.2
Sometimes accessible
36
21.2
1.62
0.63
Always accessible 120 70.6
Buy-back arrangement Never accessible 5 3.0
Sometimes accessible 32 18.8 1.75 0.50
Always accessible 133 78.2
Insurance premium/crop
Never accessible
82
48.2
compensation Sometimes accessible 44 25.9 0.78 0.83
Always accessible 44 25.9
Potential sources of conflicts in the partnership
arrangement
Table 4 reveals that distrust (x̄ =2.88),
breach of contract agreement (x
̄=2.82), inadequate
incentives (x
̄=2.78) ranked as the most important
and most critical sources of conflicts by the farmers
in the partnership arrangement. This supports the
findings of Ezezika and Daar (2012) on agricultural
biotechnology public-private partnerships on
cowpea in Nigeria, in which they found trust and
transparency among the stakeholders as the major
key to successful partnerships arrangement. This is
also consistent with Nijhoff (2010) who found that
farmers in contract farming in Ethiopia do carry out
Nigerian Journal of Rural Sociology Vol. 16, No. 4, 2016
26
check on the company’s reputation in keeping with
terms of delivering of inputs, delivering credit and
services on time, providing production support and
paying purchased produce on time in order to
reduce the risk of contract breach.
Also ranked in order of severity are
meeting quality criteria (x
̄=2.75), poor access to
credit (x
̄=2.72) and unattractive market prices
(x
̄=2.70). The farmers may found the quality
standards to be new and difficult to meet. This
agrees with Eenhoorn (2009) that farmers often
lack the knowledge to use inputs properly and may
as well not realise the need for high quality.
Similarly, poor infrastructure (x
̄=2.64), poor
market information (x
̄=2.52) and weak extension
system (x̄ =2.50) were also ranked as severe sources
of conflicts in the study area.
Meanwhile, inadequate monitoring and feedback
(x
̄=1.98) and unbalance power structure (x
̄=1.87)
ranked among the less severe sources of conflicts
experienced by the respondents. This implies that
farmers did not consider the unequal power relation
as a potential source of conflicts as long as the
gains of the arrangement accrued to them remain
mutual.
Table 4: Potential sources of conflicts in a multi-stakeholder partnership (n = 170)
Conflicts sources Degree of severity
Severe Mild Not a Constraint Mean SD Rank
Unbalance
power structure among
stakeholders
32.4
22.4
45.2
1.87
0.87
11
th
Poor market information 71.8 8.2 20.0 2.52 0.81 8
th
Breach of contract agreement
90.0
2.4
7.6
2.82
0.55
2
nd
Meeting quality criteria 82.4 10.0 7.6 2.75 0.59 4
th
Weak extension system
(knowledge and training)
65.3
19.4
15.3
2.50
0.75
9
th
Inadequate monitoring and
feedback
33.5 30.6 35.9 1.98 0.84 10
th
Poor infrastructure (road network,
electricity, storage)
70.0 24.1 5.9 2.64 0.59 7
th
Poor access to credit 78.8 14.7 6.5 2.72 0.58 5
th
Inadequate incentives 81.8 14.1 4.1 2.78 0.51 3
rd
Distrust 91.2 5.9 2.9 2.88 0.41 1
st
Unattractive market prices 81.8 6.4 11.8 2.70 0.70 6
th
Hypothesis testing
The result of Person Product Moment
Correlation in Table 5 shows a significant
association between level of interaction with
stakeholders and sources of conflicts. The PPMC
coefficient of -0.20 indicates a weak correlation
between the two variables. It implies that as level
of interaction among stakeholders’ increases
sources of conflicts reduces. It is therefore expected
that frequency of interaction would be ideal for
performance with less conflicts in partners’ ability
to cooperate with one another. This agrees with
findings of Burt (1992), Jones et al. (1997), Ziggers
et al. (2010) that the more interaction between
members of a network the more information each
member of the network knows about all of the
other members and the more constraints there are
on each player’s behaviour
Table 6: Pearson Product Moment Correlation showing significant relationship between farmers’ level of
interaction with other stakeholders and constraints to accessing stakeholders’ services
Mean
r
-
value
p
-
value
Decision
Level of interaction
27.62
-
0.2
0.004
S
Conflicts sources 28.16
CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS
The use of lead farmers had fostered
interactive learning among the farmers as majority
of the farmers experienced high level of interaction.
This is premised on the fact that farmers mostly
utilised other farmers within their community to
access information and advice. The high level of
interaction is expected to have encouraged open
communication leading to enhanced access to
agricultural support services as provided by the
stakeholders. Distrust and breach of contract
agreement were identified as the leading sources of
conflicts in the partnership arrangement. This
support the fact that bringing individuals with
different interests and resources can be challenging.
This level of distrust may create a feeling of
insecurity among the farmers and pose a danger to
the sustainability of the intervention. Further to the
fact that conflicts are inevitable in a multi-
stakeholder partnership, use of lead farmers should
be promoted. So far that the study rated distrust as
critical constraint to farmers in accessing services
Nigerian Journal of Rural Sociology Vol. 16, No. 4, 2016
27
provided by stakeholders in the partnership
arrangement, concerted efforts must be used in
selecting partners who can and are willing to fulfil
their obligations. Thus, local organisations should
be given priority for partnership in order to foster
trust and improve sustainability. Meanwhile, it
should be noted that trust cannot be considered as a
given and needs time to develop within
partnerships that will result into social trust
relationship.
REFERENCES
Alene, D. A. and Manyong, V. M. (2006). Farmer-
to-farmer technology diffusion and yield
variation among adopters: the case of
improved cowpea in Northern Nigeria.
Journal of Agricultural Economics
35 (2), 203-211
Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation (2012).
Overview of the rice value chain in
Burkina Faso, Ghana, Mali, Nigeria,
Ethiopia, Tanzania and Uganda. Retrieved
on January 16, 2013 from
http://www.inter-
reseaux.org/.../ricevaluechain
Buah, S. S. J., Nutsugah, S. K., Kanton, R. A. L.,
Atokple, I. D. K. and Dogbe, W. (2011).
Enhancing farmers’ access to technology
for increased rice productivity in Ghana.
African Journal of Agricultural Research
6 (19), 4455-4466
Burt, R. S. (1992). Structural Holes: The Social
Structure of Competition. Harvard
University Press, Cambridge, MA
Dimelu, M. U., Enwelu, I. A., Attah, C. P., and
Emodi, A. I. (2014). Enhancing
Performance of Farmers’ Coopeerative in
Rice Innovation System in Enugu State,
Nigeria. Journal of Agricultural Extension
8 (2), 206 – 219
Eenhoorn, H. and Becx, G. (2009). A study into
real and perceived constraints and
opportunities for the development of
smallholder farmers in sub-Sahara Africa.
Retrieved July 23, 2013 from
http://www.edepot.wur.nl/135088.
Emodi, A. I. and Dimelu, M. U. (2010). Strategies
for Enhancing Rice Innovation System in
Southeast Nigeria British Journal of
Management & Economics 2 (1),1-12
Ezezika, O. C. and Daar, A. S. (2012). Overcoming
barriers to trust in agricultural
biotechnology projects: a case study of
Bt cowpea in Nigeria. Journal of
Agriculture and Food Security 1 (1), 5-10.
Glasbergen, P., Biermann, F. and Mol, A. P. J.
(eds.): (2007). Partnerships, Governance
and Sustainable Development: Reflections
on Theory and Practice, Cheltenham, UK;
Northampton, USA, Edward Elgar.
Huxham, C. and Vangen, S. E. (2005). Managing
to collaborate: The theory and practice of
collaborative advantage, Routledge,
Abingdon
Jenkins, B. (2007). ‘Expanding Economic
Opportunity: The Role of Large Firms’,
Corporate Social Responsibility Initiative
Report No.1, Kennedy School of
Government, Harvard University.
Jones, C., Hesterley, W., and Borgatti, S. (1997). A
General Theory of Network Governance:
Exchange Conditions and Social
Mechanisms. Academy of Management
Review, 22 (1), 911-945
Kolk, A., Van Tulder, R. and Kostwinder, E.
(2008). ‘Business and partnerships for
development’, European Management
Journal 26 (2), 262-273
Nambiro E., Omiti, J. and Mugunieri, L. (2005).
Decentralisation and access to agricultural
extension services in Kenya. Strategies
and Analysis for Growth and Access
(SAGA) working paper. 70p.
Nijhoff, H. (2010). It takes two to tango: Contract
farming in Ethiopia, critical issues and
policy recommendations for linking up
small-scale farmers with (inter) national
markets. Wageningen UR Centre for
Development Innovation Wageningen,
The Netherlands
Ojehomon, V. E. T., Momoh, S., Ogunremi, L. T.,
Tiamiyi, S. A., Wayas, J. W. and
Ogundele, O. O. (2004). Rice Policy and
Cognate Economic Issues. The Nigeria
Memorabilia Copy Right Project
Synergy, pp 76-90.
Okuneye, P. A. (2002). Rising cost of food prices
and food insecurity in Nigeria and its
implication for poverty reduction. CBN
Economic and Financial Review, 394,1-14
Olawale, T. (2010). Finally, The Rice Revolution is
Here. This Day Newspapers, Wednesday
31
st
March, 2010, 12p.
Omobowale, E. B., Kuziw M., Naylor, M. T., Daar,
A. S. and Singe, P. A. (2010). Addressing
conflicts of interest in Public Private
Partnerships Retrieved on September
7
th
, 2016 from
https://bmcinthealthhumrights.biomedcent
ral.com/articles/10.1186/1472-698X-10-
19
Phillips, D., E. Nkonya, J. Pender, O. A. Oni
(2009). Constraints to Increasing
Agricultural Productivity in Nigeria.
Nigeria Strategy Support Program, NSSP
Policy Brief No 4. International Food
Policy Research Institute (IFPRI)
Maitama, Abuja, Nigeria.
USAID/MARKETS/NIGERIA (2010). Rice
investment and processing in Nigeria: A
Nigerian Journal of Rural Sociology Vol. 16, No. 4, 2016
28
review of Initiatives to Date. Retrieved
December 19 2012 from
http://www.nigeriamarkets.org/files/Rice
%20Market%20Research%20Executive%
20Summary.pdf
Wiggis, S. and Keats, S. (2013). Leaping and
Learning – Linking smallholders to
markets. Agriculture for impact. Imperial
College London. 15 Prices Gardens, South
Kensington Campus, London, SW 7
INA 223p.
Ziggers, G. W, Gagalyuk, T. and Hanf, J. (2010).
Managing Network Goals: The Interplay
of Network and Firm Levels. Retrieved
August 31
st
, 2016 from
http://www.centmapress.ilb.unibonn.de/oj
s/index.php/proceedings/article/viewFile/4
6/44
