CHAPTER ONE

INTRODUCTION

1.1 Background of the Study

Economist states that the world is faced with a relative scarcity of economic resources

needed for production of goods and services necessary to satisfy human wants. As a result

international trade arises from this scarcity of resources. Due to comparative advantages some

countries have on the production of goods and services, each country therefore specialized in the

production of some goods and services. External trade affects economic development, in that it

leads to increase in foreign earning, level of investment, employment opportunities and in the

level of technology advancement. This leads to increase in the level of productivity and

competitiveness. International trade provides greater opportunities to accrue more foreign

exchange through exports. Availability of which is vital for the purchase of imported capital

goods and raw materials necessary for growth and development.

Nigeria as a developing country between 1950 and 1969 export predominantly

agricultural goods which represent over 75 percent of the annual merchandise exports (Ekpo and

Egwaikhide, 1994). But due to oil boom in 1970s, attention was shifted to the oil sector while the

role of Agriculture as the main contributor to the economy of Nigeria was neglected. This led to

the decline in exportation and increase in importation of Agricultural products in the country

(Ayinde et al, 2015). Government gave little support to the Agricultural sector as more efforts

were directed towards production and supply of crude oil to international market. Based on this

the country lost her governance place in Agricultural products export (Mesike, 2012). Before,

1970s in the economy of Nigeria, Agriculture had been the most significant sector which
provides ready-made employment opportunities for about 70% of the populace. It is the major

sector of the economy which provides employment opportunities for a vital selection of the

labour force and constituting the backbone of the rural community of the country which justified

almost two-third of the populace (Ijirshar, 2015). In 2019, National Bureau of Statistic (NBS)

reported that Agriculture only contributed about 21.91% to the Gross Domestic Product (GDP)

of the country. While the foreign trade report from National Bureau of Statistic in 20233

indicated that Nigerian exported Agricultural goods worth #1.23 trillion. This figure represents

an increase of 53% from #583.3 billion recorded in 2012.

Increase in Agricultural Export has been a huge achievement story which has led

to benefits to the country, hence the impact of export to a country’s economic growth and

development can not be over emphasized. The increase has generated more income and has also

brought about economy diversification. At least over reliance on oil as the only source of

revenue has been removed. The contribution of the non-oil sector is on the increase and this is

better for the economy that is using about 97% of its revenue to service debt before. To some

extent, External trade sustain steady Demand and Supply that permitted effective exchange and

encourage economic development and growth. More revenue from external trade will also

increase to the rate of infrastructural development thereby encouraging more investment in the

economy (Verter, 2015).

However, exportation of Agricultural products can hasten an equilibrium development

throughout the countries that are engaging in the dispute like trade distortion and restrictions.

Several Agricultural programme and policies had been formulated in the country to

promote Agricultural development and provide enough for export. But some of these policies has

been inconsistent. These policies change whenever there is change in the government of the
country. This inconsistency has contributed to the non-workability of some of these policies. The

recent policy formulated been the green alternatives which is meant to increase food sufficiency,

security and export. Most of these policies were not properly implemented due to lack of

adequate and periodic evaluation and monitoring.

The major policy structure has been Exchange rate management, tariffs, Quotas, import

licensing and other quantitative restriction. In fact, Exchange rate policy is very important in

export promotion because its uncertainty can have an undesirous effect on export (Caballero and

corbo, 1990). In effect, an export promoting country needs to maintain a stable and predictable

exchange rate to promote exports. An export promotion strategy is a trade strategy which

encourage production for exports and in which there is no bias of inventories towards production

of imports substitute (obadan, 1994). Since, export is one of the main factors determining the

amount of foreign earnings, the government believes that sustainable path to economic growth

lies in export expansion.

However, for government trade policies in the agricultural export to be effective and address the

aims and objectives, there must be an efficient and effective mechanism put in place to do more

proper evaluation and monitoring along the value chain involved in export of agricultural

product.

1.2 Problem Statement

Agriculture plays a critical role in Nigeria’s economy contributing significantly to the country’s

Goods Domestic Product (GDP), employment and foreign exchange earnings. However, despite

the sector’s vast potential, Nigeria faces several challenges in maximizing the export of
agricultural products. This problem impacting the efficiency and effectiveness of agricultural

Export in Nigeria, with a focus on systematic, infrastructure and policy-related factors.

One of the most significant barrier to export in Nigeria is inadequate infrastructure. The

country’s transportation network, including roads, rail ways and ports is often in poor condition,

leading to delays and increased costs in getting products from farm to international markets.

Also, access to finance remains a critical challenge for Nigerian farmers and agribusiness. Many

small holder farmers and agricultural enterprises struggle to secure the necessary capital for

production, processing and marketing. This lack of financial support limits their ability to invest

in modern farming techniques, quality improvement and export-oriented initiatives.

Consequently, agricultural exports suffer from low productivity and limited capacity to

meet international standard or specification and demand Inefficiency in agricultural value chain

and fragmentation characterized agricultural production and marketing activities. The absence of

cohesive and organized supply chain, result in challenges such as inconsistent product quality,

poor traceability and lack of value addition. These inefficiencies not only diminish

competitiveness of Nigeria agricultural products on the global market but, also hinder the ability

to meet international standards and certifications required for export. Furthermore, regulatory

and policy issues also pose significant obstacles to agricultural export. Inconsistent and often

stringent and cumbersome regulatory requirements can delay export process and increase costs.

There is also a lack of coordinated policy support for agricultural export development, including

limited incentives for export-oriented investments and inadequate support for compliance with

international trade regulations.

 Also, frequent change in policies and regulations as a result of unstable political climate

create uncertainty and reduced the confidence of local and international investors. Market access

and trade barriers affected Nigerian export, tariff, non-tariff barriers and other trade restriction

imposed by importing countries can limit the ability of Nigerian products to compete effectively

on the global stage. In view of these challenges, the study intends to identify these challenges

and proffer long-term solution to them, so that Nigeria agricultural exports can be enhanced to

unlock its economic potential, and to contribute more effectively to global food security and

economic development.

1.3 Research Questions

i. What are the socio-economic characteristics of the respondents in the study area?

ii. What are the impacts of Agricultural policies on exporters of agricultural product?

iii. What are the constraints facing exporters of agricultural products in the study area?

iv. What are the average values of exported agricultural commodities for four quarters

between 2023-2024?

v. What are the significant relationships between the average value of exported

commodities and socio-economic characteristics of the respondents?

1.4 Objectives of the Study

The specific objective of the stud is to determine the significant impact of constraints faced by

the exporters of agricultural commodities on the export volume in the study area. The main

objectives are;

i. To identify the socio-economic characteristic of respondents in the study area.

ii. To examine the impacts of agricultural policies on exporters of agricultural products

in the study area.

 iii. To identify the constraints/challenges facing agricultural commodities exporters in

the study area.

iv. To examine the average value of exported agricultural commodities exported by the

respondents for a specific period of time.

v. To determine the significant relationship between the average value of exported

agricultural commodities and socio-economic characteristics of the respondents.

1.5 Hypotheses

H01: There is no significant relationship between the average value of exported agricultural

commodities and socio-economic characteristics of the respondents

1.6 Justification of the study

Agricultural policies in Nigeria have undergone significant changes over the decades, reflecting

the evolving priorities and challenges of the sector. While there have been notable successes in

increasing agricultural exports, several challenges remain. These challenges need to be identified

and addressed. Addressing these challenges is crucial for enhancing Nigeria’s agricultural export

performance and achieving long-term and consistent growth in the sector. Moreover, the revenue

from oil is not stable and the government needs to promote non-oil sector especially the

agricultural sector for a more source of stable income. Exporting crude oil alone leaves the

country expose or susceptible to externalities in the world market which may not be favourable

to the economy.

1.7 Hypothesis of the study

The hypothesis of the study stated in null form is:

H01: There is no significant relationship between the average value of exported commodities and

the socio-economics characteristics of the respondents.

 CHAPTER TWO

2.0 LITERATURE REVIEW

2.1 Agricultural policies and agricultural products export in Nigeria

Agriculture is a vital sector for Nigeria, contributing significantly to the economy, providing

employment, and ensuring food security. The sector has been subjected to various policies aimed

at enhancing productivity and export potential. This literature review explore the evolution of

agricultural policies in Nigeria, their impact on agricultural product exports, and the challenges

and opportunities that have emerged over time.

2.1.1 Historical context of Agriculture in Nigeria

Agriculture has been a cornerstone of Nigeria’s economy since pre-colonial times. Historically,

the sector was characterized by subsistence farming with a focus on staple crops such as millet,

sorghum, yam, and cassava. The colonial era introduced cash crops like cocoa, palm oil, and

groundnuts, which significantly influenced Nigeria’s agricultural export patterns 9oni, 2006).

Post-independence, the Nigerian government adopted various strategies to bolster agricultural

development, focusing on increase productivity and diversifying the economy away from oil

dependency (Nwafor, 2010). This era saw the establishment of agricultural research institutes

and extension service aimed at improving farming techniques and crops varieties.

2.1.2 Evolution of Agricultural Policies

Early post-independence
Early agricultural policies in Nigeria were centered around increasing food production and self-

sufficiency. The Agricultural development projects (ADP) introduced in the 1970s aimed at

enhance productivity through improved technology and farming practices. These projects were

significant for their emphasis on modernizing agriculture and integrating farmers into the market

economy (Akinwumi, 1990).

2.1.3 Structural Adjustment Program (SAP) Era

In the 1980s, Nigeria implemented the Structural Adjustment Program (SAP) under the guidance

of International Monetary Fund (IMF) and World Bank. SAP policies included reducing

government subsidies, liberalizing trade, and promoting export-oriented agriculture (Nnadozie,

1998). While SAP aimed to improve efficiency and competitiveness, it led to a decline in

agricultural output due to reduced government support and increased costs for farmers (Akinlo,

1996).

2.1.4 The Return of Democracy and New Policy Frameworks

The return of democratic governance in 1999 brought renewed focus on agricultural

development. Policies such as National Economic Empowerment and Development Strategy

(NEEDS) emphasized agriculture as a critical sector for economy development and poverty

reduction (Nigeria vision 20:2020, 2009). The Agricultural Transformation Agenda (ATA)

introduced in 2011 aimed to enhanced productivity, improve value chains, and boost exports by

investing in infrastructure, technology, and, market access (Federal Ministry of Agriculture and

Rural Development, 2011).

2.2 Agricultural Policies and Export promotion

2.2.1 The Role of Agricultural Policies in Export Promotion

Agricultural policies in Nigeria have had varying impacts on export promotion. Key policies

have focused on improving production, ensuring quality standards and expanding market access

for Nigerian agricultural products. The government has established initiative such as the

Commodity Exchanges and the Export Expansion Grant (EEG) to facilitate and incentivize

agricultural exports (Jibowo, 2015).

2.3 Key Policies Impacting Agricultural Exports

2.3.1 The Nigerian Export Promotion Council (NEPC)

The NEPC as established to promote non-oil exports, including agricultural products. The

council provides support through market research. Trade missions, and financial incentives for

exporters. Its initiatives have aimed to improve competitiveness of Nigerian agricultural products

in the global markets (NEPC, 2019).

2.3.2 The Anchor Borrowers’ Program (ABP)

Launched in 2015, the ABP aims to link smallholder farmers with a large processor through a

structured financial model. The program provides loan and inputs to farmers while ensuring that

their produce is bought by processors. This initiative seeks to enhance productivity, reduce post-

harvest lost and boost exports by creating a more reliable supply chain (Central Bank of Nigeria,

2015).

2.3.3 The Nigerian Agriculture Promotion Policy (APP)

The APP, introduced in 2016, builds on previous policies by focusing on improving the entire

agricultural value chain. It emphasizes investment in infrastructure, technology, and market

access. The policy aims to enhance Nigeria’s position as a leading export of agricultural products

by addressing challenges such as poor infrastructure and market inefficiencies (Federal Ministry

of Agriculture and Rural Development, 2016)

2.4 Impact of Agriculture Policies on Export Performance.

2.4.1 Success and Achievements

Nigeria has made notable progress in certain areas of agricultural exports due to policy

interventions. For instance, the country has experienced growth in the export of products such as

sesame seeds, cocoa, and cashew nuts. The introduction of modern farming techniques and

improved varieties has contributed to increase production and export volumes (Agbonlahor,

2019)

2.4.2 Challenges and Limitations

Despite this success, several challenges persist. Issue such as inadequate infrastructure, poor

storage facilities, and limited access to finance continue to hamper the sector. Additionally,

policy inconsistencies and implementation challenges have affected the effectiveness of

agricultural policy (Eze, 2020).

2.4.2.1 Inadequate Infrastructure

Inadequate infrastructure, including poor road networks and inadequate storage facilities, has

been a significant barrier to agricultural export growth. These infrastructural deficits lead to high
transportation costs and post-harvest losses, affecting the competitiveness of Nigerian

agricultural products (Akinbode, 2018).

2.4.2.2 Policy inconsistencies

Frequent changes in policy and regulatory framework create uncertainty fir investors and

exporters. The lack of continuity and coherence in policy implementation often undermine log-

term planning and investment in agricultural sector (Afolabi, 2017).

2.4.2.3 Access to Finance

Access to finance remains a critical issue for smallholder famers and agro-enterprise. Despite

various government initiative, man farmers struggle with inadequate credit facilities, which

limits their ability to invest in modern technology and expand production (okuneye, 2016).

2.5 Future Directions and Recommendations

2.5.1 Enhancing Policy Coherence and Implementation

To improve agricultural export performance, there is a need for greater policy coherence and

effective implementation. This includes aligning policies across different level of government

and ensuring consistent support for farmers and exporters (Oluwatayo, 2021).

2.5.2 Investing in Infrastructure

Investing in infrastructure is crucial for reducing cost of agricultural production and improving

export competitiveness. Developing better transportation network, storage facilities, and

processing plant will help reduce post-harvest losses and enhance the quality of exportable

product (obi, 2019)

2.5.3 Strengthening Financial Support Systems

Improving access to finance for smallholder farmers and agro-enterprises is essential for

boosting productivity and export capacity. Expanding credit facilities, providing subsidies and

supporting agricultural insurance schemes can help mitigate financial risks and encourage

investing in agriculture (Ezekiel, 2020).

2.5.4 Promoting Research and Development

Investing in agricultural research and development (R&D) is critical for improving crop

varieties, pest management, and farming techniques. Enhanced (R&D) efforts can lead to better

yield, reduced production costs, and increased competitiveness in international markets (Dike,

2021).

2.5.5 Expanding Market Access

To boost export, Nigeria needs to focus on expanding market access for it agricultural product,

this includes engaging in trade negotiations, improving quality standards, and exploring new

export markets. Additionally, establishing trade agreement and participating in international

trade forum can help enhance Nigeria’s presence in global markets (Oyekale, 2022).
 CHAPTER THREE

3.0 METHODOLOGY

3.1 Study Area

The study area is Nigeria. Nigeria is a country located on the western coast of Africa.

150E and latitudes positioned between longitude 30E and 140N. Nigeria have a diverse

geography, with climates ranging from Arid to humid equatorial, with Over 250 ethnic groups.

The main tribes are Yoruba, Igbo, Fulanis, Hausas, Edos, Ibibios, and Tiv. The country has

abundant natural resources, notably large deposit of petroleum and natural gas. The topography

of the country consists of plains in the north and south interrupted by Plateaus and Hills in the

center of the country, while borno plains in the North eastern corner extends as far as lake chad-

Basin.

The major drainage areas in Nigeria are the Niger-Benue basin, the Lake Chad basin and the

Gulf of Guinea basin.

Cassava, yam, cocoyam, and maize are the major staple crops in the humid parts of the country,

whereas, maize, sorghum, millet, cowpea, and groundnut are the major staple crops in the Sub-

humid and Semi-arid parts. The major cash crop include cocoa, oil palm, cotton, groundnuts,

ginger, and sesame. There are three major religions practice in Nigeria, Islam, Christianity, and

Traditional religion. The population of the country as at September, 2024 is around 233 million

(United Nation World-meter).

3.2 Data collection

The Data used for this study were primary and secondary Data. The research employed the use

of cross-sectional Data in other to get first-hand and adequate information directly from the

farmers involved in export of agricultural commodities in Nigeria.

Secondary Data were collected from The National Bureau of Statistics (NBS), Annual bulleting

of the central bank of Nigeria and register of members of some crops Association. For the

purpose of these work, only three export crops were selected namely, Cashew, Cocoa, and

sesame seeds in Nigeria.

3.3 Population of the study

The population of the study are all registered Cocoa, Cashew, and Sesame seed farmers in

Nigeria.

3.4 Sample for the Study

A total number of 120 respondents were used for the study. 40 registered active member each of

crop Association mentioned earlier.

3.5 Sampling Techniques and Procedure

Purposive and simple random Technique was used to select the 120 respondents. 40 respondents

each were selected randomly from the three selected crops Association. Structured was designed

in Google docs form and the link sent to the respondents to fill and data. The questionnaire was

divided into three parts, socio-economic characteristics of the respondents, Impact of trade

implementation on export agricultural commodities, and constraints encountered by these

farmers.

3.6 Hypothesis of the study

The hypothesis of the study stated in null form is:

H01: There is no significant relationship between the average value of exported commodities and

the socio-economics characteristics of the respondents.

3.7 Data Analysis

Data collected were analyzed using both descriptive and inferential statistics. Descriptive

statistics involved the use of frequency, percentages, and means. While, multiple regression was

used as the inferential tools for analysis.

3.7.1 Four-point Likert Scale

This study employed the use of mean values of this scale to determine the extent to which

the agricultural trade policies actions have contributed to agricultural export product and supply

volume. The response choices and values allotted are as follows: I don’t know = 1, no impact=

13, negative impact =3 1, and positive impact = 4.

ΣX 4+ 3+2+1
Mean, ( x̅ ) = = =10/4 =2.5.
n 4

Where Σ = summation, x = value likert, n = number of options

Decision rule:

If mean (x̅ ) > 2.5 accepted, and if mean (x̅ ) ≤ 2.5 rejected.

3.7.2 Multiple Regression Analysis

Multiple regression analysis was used to determine the relationship between socio-economic

variables and volume of exported agricultural commodities. This regression model is specified as

follows

V =X0 + Ժ1 X1+ Ժ2 X2 + Ժ3 X3 + Ժ4 X4 + Ժ5 X5 + Ժ 6 X6 + Ժ7 X7 + ꭒ

Where X ꞊ Volume of exported.

X1 ꞊ Interest rate.

X2 ꞊ Age of the respondents

X3 ꞊ Export Experience (yrs.)

X4 ꞊ Source of Finance.

X5 ꞊ Level of Education.

X6 ꞊ Source of agriculture Land.

X7 ꞊ Storage Facilities.

ꭒ ꞊ Error Term.

Ժ1 – Ժ7 ꞊Coefficient of explanatory variables.

Ժ1 ꞊ Constant.
 CHAPTER FOUR

4.0 RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

4.1 Socio-economic characteristics of Respondents

The descriptive statistics of the respondents were presented in Table 1. Result of the

study showed that most (45%) of the respondents fell within the age group of 31-40 years, the

mean age was found to be 41.1 years and 64.2% of the respondents were male. The research

findings revealed that most of the respondents had Tertiary education while just few (11.7%) had

secondary education. 55.8% of the respondents have years of Export Experience of 1-5 years,

while 31.7% have between 6-10 export experience and the mean year of export experiences

found to be 6.1 years. Mostly (55.99%) of the respondents lack access to credit facilities. About

74.2% of the respondents stated that they had training on production and export of Agricultural

produce, while 25.8% of them indicated that they did not have any form of training. 55.8% of the

respondents stated that the fund they employed in business is from their personal savings, while

about 44.2% of them said they have access to other sources other than personal savings. The

study also found out about the perception of interest rate by the respondents. 75.8% of the

respondents indicated that interest rate on access credit is high, 19.2% said it is moderate and

5.0% said it is low. About 63.3% of the Respondents belonged to exporters Association Group

while the remaining 36.7% do not.

Table 1: Socio-economic characteristics of the respondents.

Variables Frequency Percentage (%) Mean

Age: (yrs.)
18-30 11 9.2
31-40 54 45.0 41.1 Yrs.
41-50 30 25.0
51-60 25 20.8

Sex:
Male 77 64.2
Female 43 35.8

Level of Education: 3
No formal Education 5 2.5
Primary Education 14 4.2
Secondary Education 98 11.7
Tertiary Education 81.6
Years of Exporter Experience
(yrs.) 67 55.8
1-5 38 31.7 6.1 yrs.
6-10 9 7.5
11-15 6 5.0
16 and above.

Access to credit facilities:

Yes 53 44.1
No 67 55.9

Source of Finance:
Personal Savings: 67 55.8
Cooperative Societies 18 15.0
Commercial Bank 13 10.8
Specialized Bank 08 6.7
Credit Cooperation 14 11.7
Training on Production and
Export:
Yes 89 74.2
No 31 25.8

Interest rate:
High 91 75.8
Moderate 23 19.22
Low 6 5.0
 Sources of land for
Farming:
14 11.7
Inheritance 43 35.8
Lease 36 30.0
Outright Purchase 27 22.5
Rented Land
Availability of storage
facilities:
76 63.3
Yes 44 36.7
No

Membership of Exporters
Association Group:

Yes 76 63.3
No 44 36.7

Source: Field survey 2024

4.2 Impact Assessment of Agricultural Trade Policy Action on Export Commodity

Productivity and Supply Volume.

Table 2 showed the descriptive statistical analysis of impact of agricultural policies

implementation on export commodity productivity and supply volume. 4-point Likert scale was

also used in which the decision rule was 2.5 and any value equal or below this value was

rejected.

Out of the eleven (11) agricultural trade policies, it was revealed that only two do not have

impact on export commodity productivity and supply volume and these are Commercial

Agricultural Credit Scheme (CACS) (2.30) and Interest Draw Back Scheme (1.95). However,

Export Processing Zone (2.57), Trade Liberalization scheme (2.53), Bank of Agriculture (2.62),

Nigerian Export Processing Zone Authority (NEPZA) (2.77), Export Expansion Grant (EGG)

Scheme (2.72), Duty Free Import on Agricultural equipments (3.00), NIRSAL, (Nigeria

Incentive-Based Risk sharing System for Agricultural Lending) (2.78) and Ancho Borrowers

Programme (.66) had positive impact on export commodity productivity and supply volume.

Based on the 4-point likert scale used and percentage results, it was discovered that the major

agricultural trade policy actions that impacted export commodity productivity and supply volume

of the respondents were Growth Enhancement scheme and duty free imports of Agricultural

Equipments.
 Trade Policies I don’t No Negatively Positivel Likert Decision
know impact Freq. (%) y Freq. scale
Freq. Freq. (%) mean
(%) (%) value
Export Processing Zone 54 2513 28 2.5 Accepted
1992 (45.0) (20.8)
(10.8) (23.)
Trade Liberalization 57 2315 25 2.53 Accepted
Scheme (47.5) (19.2)
(12.5) (20.8)
Interest Draw Back 54 2619 21 1.95 Rejected
Scheme (45.0) (21.7)
(15.8) (17.5)
Bank of Agriculture 38 2721 34 2.62 Accepted
(BOA) 2010 (31.7) (22.5)
(17.5) (28.3)
Growth Enhancement 22 3012 56 3.08 Accepted
Support Scheme 2012 (18.3) (25.0)
(10.0) (46.7)
Nigeria Export 28 1426 52 2.77 Accepted
Processing Zone (23.3) (11.7)
(21.7) (43.3)
Authority (NEPZA)
2004
Commercial 23 11 49 37 2.30 Rejected
Agriculture Credit (19.2) (9.2) (40.8) (30.8)
Scheme (CACS) 2010
Export Expansion Grant 39 19 19 43 2.72 Accepted
(EGG) Scheme 2013 (32.5) (15.8) (15.8) (35.9)
Duty Free Imports of 30 20 13 57 3.00 Accepted
Agricultural (25.0) (16.7) (10.8) (47.5)
Equipments 2012
NIRSAL (Nigeria 20 8 33 59 2.78 Accepted
Incentive-Based Risk (16.7) (6.8) (27.5) (49.2)
Sharing System for
Agriculture Lending)
2013
Ancho Borrowers 19 18 35 48 2.66 Accepted
Programme 2015 (15.8) (15.0) (229.2) (40.0)
Table 2: Impact Assessment of Agricultural Trade Policy Action on Export Commodity

Productivity and Supply Volume.

Source: Field survey 2024

4.3. Analysis of constraints encounter in the export of Agricultural commodities (cocoa,

Cashew and Sesame seeds)

Table 4.3 showed the analysis of constraints faced by exporters of agricultural produce. The 4-

point likert scale as employed to rate their responses. Very Severe =4, Severe =3, Less Severe

=2, and Not Severe =1. The mean value of theses as used for Decision making i.e.

4+ 3+2+1
Mean value ¿ =10/4 =2.5. A value less than or equal to 2.5 is rejected.
4

From the table, it was revealed that unfavorable weather condition (3.45), High Transportation

Cost (3.3), price instability (3.28), Poor Access to information (3.12), High tariffs (3.24),

inadequate storage facilities (3.23), Non-tariff Barriers (3.22), Lack of Credit Facilities (2.90),

Poor Standardization (3.31) and change in demand were constraints encountered by the exporters

of agricultural commodities. From the result, it could also be revealed that, unfavourable weather

condition posed a major hindrance to production and supply volume of these commodities.
4.3 Constraints encountered in the Export of (Cocoa, Cashew sesame seed)

Variables Very Severe Less severe Not severe Mean Decision

severe Freq. (%) Freq. (%) Freq. (%) value
Freq. (%)
Unfavourable 77 29 6 8 3.45 Accepted
weather (64.1) (24.2) (5.0) (6.7)
High 69 27 19 5 3.33 Accepted
Transportation (57.5) (22.5) (15.8) (4.2)
Cost
Price 71 22 17 10 3.28 Accepted
Fluctuation (59.2) (18.3) (14.2) (8.3)
Poor Access to 61 26 19 14 3.12 Accepted
information (50.8) (21.7) (15.8) (11.7)
High Tariff 63 31 18 8 3.24 Accepted
(52.5) (25.8) (15.0) (6.7)
Poor Storage 59 42 7 12 3.25 Accepted
facilities (49.2) (35.0) (5.8) (10.0)
Non-Tariff 53 44 19 4 3.22 Accepted
Barriers (44.2) (36.7) (15.8) (3.3)
Lack of Credit 46 37 16 21 2.90 Accepted
facilities (38.3) (25.8) (13.3) (17.6)
Poor 62 35 21 2 3.3 Accepted
Standardization (51.7) (29.2) (17.5) (1.6)
Change in 47 29 37 7 2.97 Accepted
Demand (39.2) (24.2) (25.8) (5.8)
Source: Field survey 2024
4.4. Average value of agricultural commodities (cocoa, cashew, and sesame seeds) Exported

between Third Quarter of 2023 and second Quarter of 2024 (‘#’ million)

2023 2024

Commodity Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Average value

Cocoa 307.89 321.56 378.42 427.34 358.80

Cashew nuts 239.67 214.86 256.81 261.42 243.19

Sesame seeds 149.33 187.24 194.22 213.42 186.05

Total 547.56 723.66 829.45 902.18 788.04

Source: Field survey, 2024

Table 4.4, showed the average values of each agricultural commodity exported by the

respondents between the third Quarter of 2023 and Second Quarter of 2024. The result revealed

that in the third Quarter of 2023 about #308 million, #240 million and #149 million of cocoa,

cashew nuts and sesame seeds were exported respectively. Likewise, the total value of each

commodity exported in Q3, Q4 of 2023 and Q1 and Q2 2024 were #547.56 million, #723.66

million, #829.45 million and #902.18 million respectively. The average values of cocoa exported

in Q1 AND Q2 of 2024 was high compared to the preceding Quarters. Because, cocoa Exports

from Ghana and Ivory Coast was low and this resulted in the increase in the price of cocoa in the

international market.
4.5 Results of the Regression Analysis

The result of the regression analysis showed that Age of the respondent, Export

Experience, Level of Education and Storage facilities are all significant at 1% Level of

significance.

All the four variables showed positive significant relationship with the average value of

crops (Cocoa, Cashew, and Sesame seed) exported. This implies that, the more Your Age, Level

of Education, Export Experience and availability of storage facilities, the more the earning from

export of the three agricultural commodities stated in the study. On the other hand, interest rate

showed a negative significant relationship with value of agricultural commodities exported and is

significant at 5%. This means that if interest rate increases by 1% the value of crop exported

decreases by 1.05%. Sources of finance showed a positive relationship with value of exported

agricultural commodities but at 5% level of significance.

The R2 value from the estimated regression as 64.3%. This implies that 64.3% of the total

variation in the value of exported agricultural commodities were explained by the explanatory

variables included in the model while 35.7% unexplained by the Error term. The F value of

6.781 showed significance at 5% and implies that, all the variables in the model significantly

influence the value of agricultural commodities (Cocoa, Cashew, and Sesame seeds) under the

study.
4.5: The result of the Regression Analysis of increase in the value of exported agro-

commodities and socio-economic characteristics of the respondents.

Constraints and coefficients Standard Error T-ratio

variables
Constant 1978.561 0.1142.394 832.17***
X1 1.053 0.114 -0.453**
X2 2.474 1.556 3.267***
X3 2.196 1.021 7.413***
X4 0.326 0.113 0.496**
X5 1.445 0.136 3.235***
X6 1.404 1.005 4.114***
X7 0.623 0.092 0.226***
2
R = 0.643
Adjusted R2 = 0.589
F = 6.781 **
Source: Field survey 2024,
** = significant at 5%
*** = significant at 1%
 CHAPTER FIVE

5.0 SUMMARY RECOMMENDATION AND CONCLUSION.

The study was carried out to analyze the effect of export trade policies of government on

exporters of agricultural commodities. Exporters of three agricultural commodities were the

respondents. The objectives of the study are to describe the socio-economic characteristics of the

respondents, to determine the effect of trade policies on the exporter of these three agricultural

products and to determine the significant impact of socio-economic characteristics of these

respondents on the average value of products exported. The study employed the use of cross-

sectional data where structured questionnaire informs of google document were sent to the

respondents through their e-mails. Two-stage sampling procedure were used and data collected

from 120 respondents drawn from the association of the three different agricultural commodities

exported.

Data collected were subjected to both descriptive and inferential statistics. The descriptive

statistics include the use of frequency counts, percentages and means.

Regression analysis was used to determine the effect of socio-economic characteristic of the

respondents on the average value of products exported within the fourth quarters that is, third

quarter and fourth quarter in 2023 and 1st and 2nd Quarter of 2024.

The findings from the study showed that majority of the respondents falls within the

active age with mean age of 41.1 years. About 64.2% of the respondents were males indicating

that males are more involved in export of agricultural commodities than female. About 55.8% of

the respondents had between 1-5 years of exporting experience and the mean was 6.1 years.

Majority of the respondents (81.6%) had tertiary education while 2.5%of the respondents had no
formal education. 55.8% of the respondents used their personal saving to finance their export and

production activities and the least of the respondents got their financial source from specialized

Banks such as Bank of Agriculture. The average values of agricultural commodities (cocoa,

cashew and sesame seed) exported on the third Quarter, fourth Quarter of 2023 and first Quarter,

and second Quarter of 2024 are #547.56 million, #723.66 million, #829.45 million and 902.18

million respectively.

The impact of export trade policies on export commodities productivities and supply was

conducted using 4-point likert scale using decision criteria 2.5 for acceptance. All other

regression showed that, age of the respondents, export experience, level of education and storage

facilities are all significant at 1% and are positively significant. Interest rate was found to show a

negative significant relationship with value of exports of the agricultural commodities. While

source of finance showed positive relationship at 5%. The adjusted R 2 value was found to be

64.3% implying that the total variation in the value of exported agricultural commodities were

explained by the explanatory variables.

5.2. Conclusion

The study concluded that export processing zone, Trade Liberalization Scheme, Bank of

Agriculture, Export expansion Grant Scheme, NIRSAL, Ancho Borrowers were agricultural

trade policies that positively impact export commodities productivity and supply volume.

Furthermore, the major challenges by the exporters of agricultural commodities include

unfavourable weather, High transportation cost, Price instability, High tariff, poor storage

facilities and poor access to market information. Findings indicated that age, education level,

years of experience were significantly related with period when exporters supplied the highest

volume of exported agricultural commodities.

5.3 Recommendations

Based on the findings, the following recommendations are suggested

i. Favorable agricultural policy that would encouraged farmers of agricultural

commodities and exporters should be introduced by government to entice farmers to

exporting agricultural products.

ii. Government should regularize stability of market prices of agricultural commodities

in other not to discourage farmers from venturing into large production.

iii. Government should provide financial support and access of credit facilities should be

provided.

iv. Regular and periodic education of farmers on the benefits the government and the

farmer would derive from exporting of agricultural commodities.

 REFERENCES

Agricultural Transformation Agenda, (ATA), (2011). “We will grow Nigeria’s Agricultural
sector. Federal of Ministry Agriculture and Rural Development Abuja, Nigeria”, Draft for
Discussion 9th September, 011.

Ahmed, O. and Sallam, W., (2018). “Studying the volatility effect of agricultural exports on
agriculture share of GDP: The case of Egypt”, African Journal of Agricultural Research,
13(8), 345-352.

Akanni, K. A., Adeokun, O. A. and Akintola, J. O., (2005). “Effects of trade liberalization policy
on Nigerian Agricultural Exports”, www.researcggate.net/publlication/

Akinbamowo, R., (2013) “A review of government policy on agricultural mechanization in

Nigeria”, Journal of Agricultural Extension and Rural Development, 5(8), 146-153.

Ayinde, O.E., Ilori, T.E., Babatunde, R.O. and Ayinde, K., (2015). “Impact of government
agricultural policies on the major staple food prices in Nigeria (1966 – 2011),”
International Conference of Agricultural Economists, , 28pp.

Ayodele, O., (2009). “Environmental considerations in Nigerian Agricultural Policies, Strategies

and Programs”, International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI), NSSP Report 4,
27pp.

Central Bank of Nigeria, (CBN), 2010. Annual Report. www.cbn.gov.ng. 124pp.

Daramola, A., Ehi, S., Ukeje, E. and Mclntire, J., (2007). “Agricultural export potential in
Nigeria”, Economic Policy Options for a Prosperous Nigeria, Collier, P. and C. Pattillo
(Eds). Palgrave Macmillan, London, 1-38.

Ejiogu, A. O., (2017). “Growth Enhancement Scheme (GES) of the Nigerian Agricultural
Transformation Agenda: Looking back and thinking ahead”, Nigerian Agricultural Policy
Research Journal (NAPReJ), 3(1): 28-41.

Ekiran, J. O., Awe, I. T. and Ogunjobi, J. O., (2014). “Agricultural export and economic growth
in Nigeria: A multivariate Johansen cointegration analysis”, International Journal of Arts
and Commerce, 3(3), 89-98.
Emenyonu C. A, Odii Marshall A. C. A, Onyemauwa C. S, and Ulukwu O. C., (2020). “Effects of
Fiscal Policy on the Exportation of Agricultural Products in Nigeria: A Vector Error
Correction Model Approach”, Universal Journal of Agricultural Research, 8(5), 146 -
157..

Emerole, G. and Edeoga, G., (2013) “Empirical analysis of the problems and prospects of export
marketing of non-oil agricultural product in Nigeria”, European Journal of Business and
Management, 5(23), 96-102..

Erokhin, V., Ivolga A. and Heijman, W.J.M., “Trader liberalization and state support of
agriculture: Effects for developing countries”, Agricultural Economics (Czech), 60(11):
524-537. 2014.

Gbaiye, O. G., Ogundipe, A., Osabuohien, E., Olugbire, O. O., Adeniran, O. A., Bolaji-Olutunji,
K. A., Awodele, O. D., Aduradola., (2013) “Agricultural Exports and Economic Growth
in Nigeria (1980-2010)”, Journal of Economics and Sustainable Development, 4(16), 1-5.

Gbetnkom, D. and Khan, S.A., (2002). Determinants of agricultural exports: The case of
Cameroon, AERC Research Paper 120, African Economic Research Consortium,
Nairobi. 46pp.

Ijirshar, V.U., (2015). The empirical analysis of agricultural exports and economic growth in
Nigeria, Journal of Development and Agricultural Economics, 7(3), 113-122.

Josling, T., Kym A., Andrew, S. and Stefan, T., (2010). Understanding International Trade in
Agricultural Products: One Hundred Years of Contributions by Agricultural Economists”,
American Journal of Agricultural Economics, 92(2): 424-446.

Laborde, D. and Martin, W., (2012). Agricultural trade: what matters in the Doha round, Annual
Review of Resource Economics, 4: 265-283.

Mesike, C.S., (2012). Impact of Government Agricultural Policies on Exports of Cocoa and
Rubber in Nigeria,” Agricultura Tropica Et Subtropica 45(4).

Nwabunike, M. O., (2015)., Constraints of fish marketing in Abakaliki Metropolis”, International

Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Studies, 2(4), 337-344.
Osabuohien, E., Obiekwe, E., Urhie, E. and Osabohien, R., (2018). The inflation rate, exchange
rate volatility and exchange rate passthrough nexus: The Nigerian experience”, Journal of
Applied Economics Sciences, Volume XIII, Spring, 2(56): 574-585.

Plecher, H., (2020). Distribution of gross domestic product (GDP) across economic sectors
Nigeria 2019”. Statista.com/statistics/3823.

Verter, N. and Bečvařova, V., (2014). Analysis of some drivers of cocoa export in Nigeria in the
era of trade liberalization”, Agris On-Line Papers in Economics and Informatics, 6(4):
208–218.

Verter, N., (2015). The application of international trade theories to agriculture, Mediterranean
Journal of Social Sciences, 6(6): 209-219.

Verter, N. and Bečvařova, V., (2016). The Impact of Agricultural Exports on Economic Growth
in Nigeria”, Acta Universitatis Agriculturae et Silviculturae Mendelianae Brunensis,
64(2): 691– 700.