ATTENTION:<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n BEFORE YOU READ THE ABSTRACT OR CHAPTER ONE OF THE PROJECT TOPICS BELOW, PLEASE READ THE INFORMATION BELOW.THANK YOU!<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n INFORMATION:<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n YOU CAN GET THE COMPLETE PROJECT OF THE TOPIC BELOW. THE FULL PROJECT COST N5,000 ONLY. THE FULL INFORMATION ON HOW TO PAY AND GET THE COMPLETE PROJECT IS AT THE BOTTOM OF THIS PAGE. OR<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n YOU CAN CALL: 08068231953, 08137701720<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n WHATSAPP US ON: 08137701720<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n THE IMPACT OF AGRICULTURAL CREDIT ON AGRICULTURAL PRODUCTIVITY IN NIGERIA<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n ABSTRACT<\/p>\n\n\n\n In most agrarian economies like the type that exists in Nigeria, agricultural production provides the needed fulcrum upon which a sustainable development would blossom. Being the main source of food for most of the population, till date, agricultural production remains the mainstay of the Nigerian economy. It provides the means of livelihood for most of the population, a major source of raw materials for the agro-allied industries and a potent source of the much needed foreign exchange. However, inadequate credit (among other factors) to the agricultural sector led to the downward trend observed in agricultural productivity in Nigeria. To avert such trend, the Federal Government of Nigeria established the Agricultural Credit Guarantee Scheme Fund (ACGSF) in 1977 to assist farmers have access to credit as to improve agricultural productivity. The setting up of the ACGSF was predicated on the unwillingness of commercial banks to give loans to smallholder farmers for reasons of high default rate on loan repayment and, therefore high risk, of repayment. In the course of the fund\u2019s operations, a number of problems have been identified as militating against its smooth performance; some of which affected the amount of credit granted to the various agricultural subsectors. Therefore, this study sought to examine (i) the impact of Agricultural Credit Guarantee Scheme Fund on crop output in Nigeria; (ii) the impact of Agricultural Credit Guarantee Scheme Fund on livestock output in Nigeria; (iii) the impact of Agricultural Credit Guarantee Scheme Fund on fisheries output in Nigeria; and (iv) the impact of Agricultural Credit Guarantee Scheme Fund total fund granted on Agricultural output and productivity in Nigeria. The ex-post facto research design was adopted to enable the researcher make use of secondary data and determine cause-effect relationship during the period, 1978-2008. The Ordinary Least Square (OLS) estimation technique was adopted, using SPSS statistical software to test the hypotheses, where Total Agricultural Credit Guarantee Scheme Fund (TACGSF), Agricultural Credit Guarantee Scheme Fund to crop production (ACGSFCP), Agricultural Credit Guarantee Scheme Fund to livestock (ACGSFLSP) and Agricultural Credit Guarantee Scheme Fund to fisheries (ACGSFP) were used as the independent variables while Agricultural Production (AP), Gross Domestic Product Agricultural Crop Production (GDPACP), Gross Domestic Product Agricultural Livestock Production (GDPALS) and Gross Domestic Product Agricultural Fisheries Production (GDPAFP) were used as the dependent variable. The study found that Agricultural Credit guarantee scheme fund for crop production, livestock production and fisheries had significant positive impact on crop, livestock and fisheries productivity in Nigeria for the period of the study and also, the total agricultural credit guarantee scheme fund had significant positive impact on agricultural output in Nigeria. The study therefore recommends that stakeholders in the scheme viz: the farmers, lending institutions and government must show greater commitment and dedication for the scheme to achieve its laudable objectives.<\/p>\n\n\n\n TABLE OF CONTENTS<\/p>\n\n\n\n Title Page \u2013 \u2013 \u2013 \u2013 \u2013 \u2013 \u2013 i<\/p>\n\n\n\n Approval Page \u2013 \u2013 \u2013 \u2013 \u2013 \u2013 \u2013 ii<\/p>\n\n\n\n Certification Page \u2013 \u2013 \u2013 \u2013 \u2013 \u2013 \u2013 iii<\/p>\n\n\n\n Dedication \u2013 \u2013 \u2013 \u2013 \u2013 \u2013 \u2013 iv<\/p>\n\n\n\n Acknowledgements \u2013 \u2013 \u2013 \u2013 \u2013 \u2013 v<\/p>\n\n\n\n Abstract \u2013 \u2013 \u2013 \u2013 \u2013 \u2013 \u2013 vii<\/p>\n\n\n\n Table of Contents \u2013 \u2013 \u2013 \u2013 \u2013 \u2013 x<\/p>\n\n\n\n List of Figures \u2013 \u2013 \u2013 \u2013 \u2013 \u2013 \u2013 xi<\/p>\n\n\n\n List of Appendices \u2013 \u2013 \u2013 \u2013 \u2013 \u2013 \u2013 xii<\/p>\n\n\n\n CHAPTER ONE INTRODUCTION<\/p>\n\n\n\n 1.1 Background of the Study \u2013 \u2013 \u2013 \u2013 \u2013 1<\/p>\n\n\n\n 1.2 Statement of the Problem \u2013 \u2013 \u2013 \u2013 \u2013 5<\/p>\n\n\n\n 1.3 Objectives of the Study \u2013 \u2013 \u2013 \u2013 6<\/p>\n\n\n\n 1.4 Research Questions \u2013 \u2013 \u2013 \u2013 \u2013 \u2013 7<\/p>\n\n\n\n 1.5 Research Hypotheses \u2013 \u2013 \u2013 \u2013 \u2013 \u2013 7<\/p>\n\n\n\n 1.6 Scope of the Study \u2013 \u2013 \u2013 \u2013 \u2013 \u2013 8<\/p>\n\n\n\n 1.7 Significance of the Study \u2013 \u2013 \u2013 \u2013 \u2013 8<\/p>\n\n\n\n 1.8 Definition of Terms \u2013 \u2013 \u2013 \u2013 \u2013 \u2013 8<\/p>\n\n\n\n References \u2013 \u2013 \u2013 \u2013 \u2013 10<\/p>\n\n\n\n CHAPTER TWO REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE<\/p>\n\n\n\n 2.1 Agricultural Financing Policies in Nigeria \u2013 \u2013 13<\/p>\n\n\n\n 2.2 Challenges of agricultural financial policies \u2013 \u2013 15<\/p>\n\n\n\n 2.3 Agricultural Production in Nigeria \u2013 \u2013 \u2013 17<\/p>\n\n\n\n 2.4 The Agricultural Sector and Nigeria\u2019s Development \u2013 \u2013 19<\/p>\n\n\n\n 2.5 The Agricultural Credit Guarantee Scheme: Roles, Problems and Prospects \u2013 21<\/p>\n\n\n\n 2.6 Structure, Organization and Mandate of the ACGSF \u2013 24<\/p>\n\n\n\n 2.7 Overview of the agricultural finance policies in Nigeria- 25<\/p>\n\n\n\n 2.7.1 Agricultural Finance Policies Schemes \u2013 \u2013 \u2013 \u2013 25<\/p>\n\n\n\n 2.7.2 Agricultural Finance Policies Programmes \u2013 \u2013 \u2013 27<\/p>\n\n\n\n 2.7.3 Agricultural Finance Policies Institutions \u2013 \u2013 \u2013 30<\/p>\n\n\n\n 2.8.1 Nigerian Agricultural Cooperative and Rural Development Bank (NACRDB) \u2013 31<\/p>\n\n\n\n 2.8.2 Agricultural Credit Support Scheme (ACSS) \u2013 \u2013 33<\/p>\n\n\n\n 2.8.3 Micro Credit Fund (MCF) \u2013 \u2013 \u2013 33<\/p>\n\n\n\n 2.8.4 Rural Finance Institution Building Programme (RUFIN) \u201434<\/p>\n\n\n\n 2.8.5 Nigerian Agricultural Insurance Scheme (NAIS) \u2013 35<\/p>\n\n\n\n 2.9 Credit Guarantee Schemes in Developing Countries \u2013 \u2013 35<\/p>\n\n\n\n 2.10 Agricultural Budget in Nigeria \u2013 \u2013 \u2013 38<\/p>\n\n\n\n 2.11 Agricultural Finance through Bank Lending 44<\/p>\n\n\n\n 2.12 Agricultural Credit Guarantee Scheme Fund on Cash Crops \u2013 45<\/p>\n\n\n\n 2.14 Issues on Banking Lending for Agricultural produce \u2013 \u2013 \u2013 51<\/p>\n\n\n\n 2.13 Agricultural Credit Rationing by Commercial Banks in Nigeria 47<\/p>\n\n\n\n 2.15 Lending risks and agricultural loans \u2013 \u2013 \u2013 53<\/p>\n\n\n\n 2.16 Credit Risk Management in Bank Lending to Agriculture \u2013 54<\/p>\n\n\n\n 2.17 Potentials for diversifying Nigeria\u2019s non-oil exports to non-traditional markets \u2013 55<\/p>\n\n\n\n 2.18 Causes of Credit Risks in Agricultural Financing \u2013 \u2013 57<\/p>\n\n\n\n 2.19 Sources of Risks of Agricultural Firms \u2013 \u2013 \u2013 58<\/p>\n\n\n\n References \u2013 \u2013 \u2013 \u2013 59<\/p>\n\n\n\n CHAPTER THREE RESEARCH METHODOLOGY<\/p>\n\n\n\n 3.1 Research Design \u2013 \u2013 \u2013 \u2013 \u2013 67<\/p>\n\n\n\n 3.2 Nature and Sources of Data \u2013 \u2013 \u2013 \u2013 \u2013 67 <\/p>\n\n\n\n 3.3 Model Specification \u2013 \u2013 \u2013 \u2013 \u2013 67<\/p>\n\n\n\n 3.4 Model Justification \u2013 \u2013 \u2013 \u2013 \u2013 67<\/p>\n\n\n\n 3.5 Techniques of Analysis 69<\/p>\n\n\n\n References 71<\/p>\n\n\n\n CHAPTER FOUR PRESENTATION AND ANALYSIS OF DATA<\/p>\n\n\n\n 4.1 Presentation of Data \u2013 \u2013 \u2013 \u2013 \u2013 72<\/p>\n\n\n\n 4.2 Test of Hypotheses \u2013 \u2013 \u2013 \u2013 75<\/p>\n\n\n\n 4.2.1 Test of Hypothesis One \u2013 \u2013 \u2013 \u2013 \u2013 75<\/p>\n\n\n\n 4.2.2 Test of Hypothesis Two \u2013 \u2013 \u2013 \u2013 \u2013 76<\/p>\n\n\n\n 4.2.3 Test of Hypothesis Three \u2013 \u2013 \u2013 \u2013 \u2013 77<\/p>\n\n\n\n 4.2.4 Test of Hypothesis Four \u2013 \u2013 \u2013 \u2013 \u2013 78<\/p>\n\n\n\n 4.3 Comparison of the Findings with the Objectives of the Study 79<\/p>\n\n\n\n References \u2013 \u2013 81<\/p>\n\n\n\n CHAPTER FIVE SUMMARY OF FINDINGS, CONCUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS<\/p>\n\n\n\n 5.0 Introduction \u2013 \u2013 \u2013 \u2013 \u2013 82<\/p>\n\n\n\n 5.1 Summary of Findings \u2013 \u2013 \u2013 \u2013 \u2013 82<\/p>\n\n\n\n 5.2 Conclusion \u2013 \u2013 \u2013 \u2013 \u2013 82<\/p>\n\n\n\n 5.3 Recommendations \u2013 \u2013 \u2013 \u2013 \u2013 84<\/p>\n\n\n\n References \u2013 \u2013 \u2013 \u2013 \u2013 86<\/p>\n\n\n\n Bibliography \u2013 \u2013 \u2013 \u2013 8 Appendices \u2013 \u2013 \u2013 \u2013 \u2013 99<\/p>\n\n\n\n LIST OF TABLES<\/p>\n\n\n\n Table 4.1 Agricultural Outputs in Nigeria 1978-2008 at Basic Prices 72<\/p>\n\n\n\n Table 4.2 Agricultural Credit Guarantee Scheme Fund 1978-2008 74<\/p>\n\n\n\n Table 4.3 SPSS Model Summary for Hypothesis One 76<\/p>\n\n\n\n Table 4.4 SPSS Model Summary for Hypothesis Two \u2013 77<\/p>\n\n\n\n Table 4.5 SPSS Model Summary for Hypothesis Three 77<\/p>\n\n\n\n Table 4.6 SPSS Model Summary for Hypothesis Four 78<\/p>\n\n\n\n LIST OF FIGURES<\/p>\n\n\n\n Figure 4.1 Agricultural Outputs in Nigeria 1978-2008 at Basic Prices \u2013 \u2013 73<\/p>\n\n\n\n Figure 4.2 Agricultural Credit Guarantee Scheme Fund from 1978-2008 \u2013 \u2013 75<\/p>\n\n\n\n LIST OF APPENDICES<\/p>\n\n\n\n Appendix 1 Agricultural Output in Nigeria 1978-2008 at Basic Prices 89<\/p>\n\n\n\n Appendix 2 Agricultural Credit Guarantee Scheme Fund 1978-2008 90<\/p>\n\n\n\n Appendix 3 SPSS Model Results for Hypothesis One \u2013 91<\/p>\n\n\n\n Appendix 4 SPSS Model Results for Hypothesis Two \u2013 93<\/p>\n\n\n\n Appendix 5 SPSS Model Results for Hypothesis Three \u2013 \u2013 95<\/p>\n\n\n\n Appendix 6 SPSS Model Results for Hypothesis Four \u2013 97<\/p>\n\n\n\n CHAPTER ONE<\/p>\n\n\n\n INTRODUCTION<\/p>\n\n\n\n 1.1 Background of the Study<\/p>\n\n\n\n Agricultural Production in Nigeria is progressively on the decline in terms of its contribution to the Gross Domestic Product (GDP) as well as satisfying the country\u2019s food requirement, despite the fact that about 70 per cent of the population engage in agriculture, thus Nigeria agricultural sector is unable to fulfill its most basic and traditional role of being the source of food for the nation, therefore the food import has continued to rise (Odigbo, 2000). There is a growing recognition by the Nigerian farmers of the effect of improved inputs and new technologies on agricultural yield. The use of these inputs and the adoption of high yielding techniques have given rise to an increased need for agricultural credit since majority of Nigerian farmers are small-scale farmers and are often limited by unfavorable economic, social, cultural and institutional conditions (Olubiyo and Hill, 2000). Insufficiency of capital has been a major constraint to agricultural development (Agu, 1998) in order to improve agricultural production modern farm inputs such as fertilizers, improved seed, feeds and plant protection chemicals and agricultural machineries are needed over the hoe and machete technology. Most of these technologies have to be purchased, yet very few farmers have the financial resources to finance such purchases(Adeniji and Joshua, 2008).<\/p>\n\n\n\n Agriculture contributes immensely to the Nigerian economy in various ways, namely, in the provision of food for the increasing population; supply of adequate raw materials (and labour input) to a growing industrial sector; a major source of employment; generation of foreign exchange earnings; and, provision of a market for the products of the industrial sector (Okumadewa, 1997; World Bank, 1998; Winters et al., 1998; FAO, 2006). The agrarian sector has a strong rural base; hence, concern for agriculture and rural development become synonymous, with a common root (Eze et. al., 2010).<\/p>\n\n\n\n Eze et. al. (2010) posit that support for agriculture is widely driven by the public sector, which has established institutional support in form of agricultural research, extension, commodity marketing, input supply, and land use legislation, to fast-track development of agriculture. These are aside the Private sector participation is not limited to local or foreign direct and portfolio investment financing, but also to sponsorship of research and breakthrough on agricultural issues in universities, capacity building for farmers and, most importantly, the provision of financing to farm businesses. International governmental and non-governmental agencies including the World Bank, Food and Agricultural Organization of the United Nations, etc., also contribute through on-farm and off-farm support in form of finance, input supply, strengthening of technical capacity of other support institutions, etc (see, Eze et. al., 2010).<\/p>\n\n\n\n At independence in 1960, Nigeria\u2019s agriculture was characterized by high production achieved by mobilizing small scale farmers, provision of infrastructure (roads, railways) geared towards developing crops required for export, and foundation laid for research and export. After independence, government interventions in agriculture were realized within the framework of development plans and annual budgets. Food was abundant and demand met without resort to import (Okoro and Ujah, 2009).<\/p>\n\n\n\n Using a broad classification, the Central Bank of Nigeria (CBN) and National Bureau of Statistics (NBS) document the import and export agricultural products in the following categories \u2013 live animals and animal products; vegetable products; animal and vegetable fats and oil; foodstuff, beverages, spirit and vinegar, tobacco; and raw hides and skins leather, furskins, and saddler. The agricultural exports of significance include cocoa beans and products, rubber, fish\/shrimp, cotton, processed skin, etc (Okoro and Ujah, 2009). These agricultural products account for about 39.7% of the total non\u2010oil exports in 2007 (CBN, 2007). According to Soludo (2006), agriculture has been growing at about 7% per annum in the last three years and has been driving the non\u2010oil growth, and will continue to hold the key to growth, employment and poverty reduction.<\/p>\n\n\n\n In terms of value of import vis\u2010\u00e0\u2010vis export, Nigeria is a huge net\u2010importer of agricultural products. The import\u2010export gap has been widening since 1999 and this puts the agricultural policy of the nation to question. This situation, however, provides a unique opportunity for closing up or eliminating this \u2018agricultural deficit\u2019 through functional policies and budgets (Okoro and Ujah, 2009).<\/p>\n\n\n\n Agriculture also is a significant sector in the Nigerian economy. Although Nigeria depends heavily on the oil industry for her revenues, Nigeria is predominantly an agrarian society with the sector contributing about 42%1 of real GDP in 2008 (CBN, 2008). In 2007, the contribution of agriculture to economy totaled some $132.2 billion (Economist, Sept. 2008). Eboh, Ujah and Nzeh (2009) show that the contemporary economic significance of the agricultural sector is even more remarkable as in the past half a decade, the impressive growth rate of the nation\u2019s economy has been driven by the non\u2010oil sector, particularly agricultural sector. There are, however, doubts about the sustainability of the current growth rate. The recent upsurge in agricultural growth rate could have been driven mainly by production of staple crops, while productivity has remained low and internationally uncompetitive, and yields of most crops have actually declined over the past two decades (Mogues et al., 2008; Eboh et al., 2006).<\/p>\n\n\n\n Approximately 70% of the Nigeria\u2019s population engages in agricultural production at subsistence level, while agricultural holdings are generally small and scattered (FGN, 2008). Smallholder farmers constitute 81% of all farm holdings and their production system is inefficient. Small\u2010scale (0.1\u20105.9 ha), medium scale (6.0\u20109.9 ha) and large scale (>10 ha) are the three broad categories of farm holdings in Nigeria, with the small\u2010scale farm holdings predominating the country\u2019s agriculture and accounting for about 81% of the total farm area and 95% agricultural output (see, Shaib et al., 1997; FMAWR, 2009). The estimated average operational holding is 2 ha per farm family.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Further analysis of the working population data indicates that growth rate of agriculture working population seems to be the driver of the growth rate in total working population. For instance the growth rate of agriculture working population dropped from 3.73% in 2003 to 1.94% in 2007, while that of the total working population dropped from 4.46% in 2003 to 3.25% in 2007 (see, Ujah and Okoro, 2009). The high correlation between growth rates of total working population and agriculture working population seems to suggest that agriculture holds the potential for tackling unemployment in the country at least in the short\u2010run. Despite the significance of agriculture in the nation\u2019s economy, the sector is clearly the least productive when compared to other sectors (Ujah and Okoro, 2009).<\/p>\n\n\n\n The Agricultural Credit Guarantee Scheme Fund (ACGSF) was formed under the military government in 1977 with an initial capital base of N100 million distributed between the federal government (60% equity) and the Central Bank of Nigeria \u2013CBN (40%). The ACGSF is exclusively managed by a board set up under the supervision of the CBN (management agent). The fund is set up with the sole purpose of providing guarantee in respect of loans granted by any bank for agricultural purposes (Central Bank of Nigeria, 1990). Nwosu et al (2010) noted that the ACGSF was formed solely with the objective of encouraging financial institutions to lend funds to those engaged in agricultural production as well as agro-processing activities with the aim of enhancing export capacity of the nation as well as for local consumption. This is solely exclusive for large scale farming (Somayina, 1981).<\/p>\n\n\n\n The question that comes to mind is whether the declining share of agricultural loan from commercial banks can be traceable to the challenges that encumbered ACGSF. For example, Nwosu et al (2010) identified three major problems associated with the ACGSF scheme, which include increasing incidence of loan defaulters, bank related problems and the inclusion of the term \u201cpersonal guarantee\u201d. Nwosu et al reiterates that the term is subjective in interpretation especially as the decree forming ACGSF was not able to explain this. Therefore, banks utilize personal judgment and circumstantial framework to interpret this. This will hinder the achievement of the objective of the scheme (see, Nwosu, 2010).<\/p>\n\n\n\n One of the sole objectives for the establishment of the ACGSF is to enhance the export capacity of agricultural produce (Somayina, 1981). The ACGSF is aimed at guaranteeing agricultural outfit that specializes in the following; agricultural outfit engaged in the establishment and management of plantation for cash crop produce like rubber production, oil palm extracting, cocoa plantation etc; agricultural outfit engaged in the cultivation and production of food crops like fruit of all kinds, tubers of yam, cereals and all other food crops and agricultural activities involved in the large scale production of animal husbandries. The vast employment opportunity and the quest towards diversification of the revenue source by the federal government and development agencies have shifted attention towards the informal and the agricultural sector. For example, to sustain the agricultural production in Nigeria, the World Bank developed a project called Agricultural Development Projects (ADPs) which was designed to enhance the production of agricultural outputs in Nigeria.<\/p>\n\n\n\n There are four sub\u2010sectors of agriculture in Nigeria. These are arable crops (including food crops), livestock, fishery and forestry (including tree crops). Most of the researches conducted in this area have dealt on the overall impact of the Agricultural Credit Guarantee Scheme fund on non-oil export output (Somayina, 1981; Efobi, 2011 etc) and contribution to Nigeria\u2019S GDP (Nwosu, et al., 2010; Shaib, et al., 1997).<\/p>\n\n\n\n HOW TO RECEIVE PROJECT MATERICAL(S)<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n After paying the appropriate amount (#5,000) into our bank Account below, send the following information to<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n 08068231953 or 08168759420<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n (1) Your project topics<\/p>\n\n\n\n (2) Email Address<\/p>\n\n\n\n (3) Payment Name<\/p>\n\n\n\n (4) Teller Number<\/p>\n\n\n\n We will send your material(s) after we receive bank alert<\/p>\n\n\n\n BANK ACCOUNTS<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n Account Name: AMUTAH DANIEL CHUKWUDI<\/p>\n\n\n\n Account Number: 0046579864<\/p>\n\n\n\n Bank: GTBank.<\/p>\n\n\n\n OR<\/p>\n\n\n\n Account Name: AMUTAH DANIEL CHUKWUDI<\/p>\n\n\n\n Account Number: 3139283609<\/p>\n\n\n\n Bank: FIRST BANK<\/p>\n\n\n\n FOR MORE INFORMATION, CALL:<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n 08068231953 or 08168759420<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n AFFILIATE LINKS:<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n easyprojectmaterials.com<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n easyprojectmaterials.com.ng<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n http:\/\/graduateprojects.com.ng\/<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n http:\/\/freshprojects.com.ng\/<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n http:\/\/info247.com.ng\/<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n projectgtaduates.com.ng<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n projectmarket.com.ng<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n projectschool.com.ng<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n projectstudent.com.ng<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n projectshop.com.ng<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n projectstores.com.ng<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n projectarena.com.ng<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n projectbases.com.ng<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n