EFFECT OF SELECTED INSECTICIDE ON WHITEFLY (Bemisia tabaci) INFESTING BRINJAL PLANTS 233 Social Impact Assessment of Crude Oil Pollution on Small Scale Farmers in Oil Producing Communities of the Central Agricultural Zone of Delta State, Nigeria Ofuoku, A. O. U. Department of Agricultural Economics and Extension, Delta State University, Asaba Campus, P.M.B 95074 Asaba, Nigeria Emuh, F. N. Department of Agronomy, Delta State University, Asaba Campus, P.M.B 95074 Asaba, Nigeria Ezeonu, O. Medical Microbiology Department, Rivers State University of Science and Technology, Port Harcourt, Nigeria Abstract The study assessed the social impact of oil production on small holder farmers in oil-producing communities of the Central zone of Delta State, Nigeria. Data were collected from 120 respondents by the use of questionnaires. Soil erosion (96.6%), noise pollution (98.3%), bush burning (93.3%), land degradation/pollution (87.5%), water pollution (80.3%), air pollution (62.5%), massive deforestation (62.5%) and acid rain (52.5%) were seen as the major environmental problems experienced in the study area. The respondents reported that oil pollution impacted negatively on their income (83.3%), agricultural production (98.3%) and land availability (85.8%). None of the socio-economic characteristics of the respondents such as age, gender, Educational level, religion, marital status, type of farming, family size, Farming experience, farm size, income, housing, tenure, membership of organization, land tenure and source of labour were found to determine the social impact of oil pollution on small-scale farmers. Recommendations given dwelt on making the environment conducive for the communities, agricultural activities and it sustenance for future generations. Keywords: Agricultural activities, crude oil pollution, farmers, socio-economic activities Introduction 1 The significance of the agricultural sector as a source of food in Nigeria took a downward trend soon after the discovery of crude oil and Corresponding author’s Name: Emuh, F. N. Email address: fnemuh@yahoo.com subsequent exploration and exploitation of crude oil in the 1970s as a major foreign exchange earner (Adesina, 2012; Babatunde, 2012). The exploration and exploitation of crude oil in commercial quantities led to the massive drift of farmers from the rural settlements to urban areas in search for white collar jobs, enhanced employment and improved standard of living. This resulted in Asian Journal of Agriculture and Rural Development journal homepage: http://aessweb.com/journal-detail.php?id=5005 mailto:fnemuh@yahoo.com Asian Journal of Agriculture and Rural Development, 4(3)2014: 233-241 234 almost total neglect of the agricultural sector. The aim of agricultural development is to raise the production level of selected crops and livestock through the adoption of innovations developed from researches. However, since the later part of the last century, the focus shifted to environmental issues. UNDP (2006) reported that more than 70% of the inhabitants of crude oil producing communities depend on environment for their livelihood. Thus, the emphasis arose based on ecological damage to resource base, the health and social hazards to which farmers are exposed (Adinna, 1994). Abah (2004) posited that crude oil spillage and pollution led to socio-economic and social insecurity and public health. In recent years, the negative effect of environmental impact of crude oil pollution in agriculture and the environment with attendant effects which are based on farming, fishing and lumbering has been increasingly obvious (Opukri and Ibaba, 2008). Similarly, Emuh (2009; 2010) reported that crude oil pollution affects physical and chemical properties of the soil and as well as seed germination, plant growth and subsequent yield. Iyoha (2002) noted that, environmental effects arose from land degradation, air pollution, water pollution, deforestation and ecosystem degradation. It became so serious that many affected communities of small holder farmers have no option than to exploit the resources available to them so intensely that environmental degradation is on the increase (Ashimolowo and Busari, 2006). Various literature defined Environmental impact Assessment (EIA) in different ways. According to Arthur (2001), it an activity designed to identify and predict the impact on the bio-geophysical environment on man’s health. Similarly, Holder (2004), Jay et al. (2007), noted that EIA is used as a decision making tool to account for environmental values after detailed environmental studies. It is an action designed to ascertain and predict the effect of any activity or action on the social economic and health aspects of man’s life. Therefore, the purpose of the exercise is to enthrone a sustainable development process whereby environmental considerations are effectively integrated into the developmental process before commitments are made. Man’s environment is very important as it influences directly or indirectly the quality of his/her life. EIA is one of the tools used to control possible environmental damage, especially as a result exploitative interventions. EPA (1987) opined that the quality of life of man depends ultimately on the quality of his environment and the ability of his environment to provide food, shelter and natural resources needed to generate employment and a well secured life. Without good condition of health and environmental safety, there can be no meaningful economic development. These factors have to be ensured by appropriate environmental impact assessment, setting up of relevant coherent standard and control as well as building necessary capacities at various levels of civil society. Therefore, the solutions to environmental problems in this country is the building of capacities to provide the appropriate and effective integrated approach to the conservation and management of the natural resources as well as managing the environment (Ashimolowo and Busari, 2006). FORMECU (1990) suggested that water, air and noise form environmental pollution. Air pollution can be experienced as smoke, dust, odour and it can still be experienced as a result fossils fuels, chemical, metallurgical industry, vehicles and gas flaring. It can also be derived from acidic rain (rain water is slightly acidic). When rainwater absorb carbon dioxide, as it passes through the atmosphere it forms a weak acid-carbonic acid. Acid rains occurs during exploration, exploitation and gas flaring which acidifies the environment causing loss of soil fertility, damage crops and corrodes corrugated aluminium roofs (Orimoogunje et al., 2010). Carbonic acid affects many forms of plant and animal life. FORMECU (1990) posited that it damages leaves, affected growth of roots and inhibits germination in plants. Asian Journal of Agriculture and Rural Development, 4(3)2014: 233-241 235 Man has changed the nature of the Nigerian environment consciously and unconsciously through his/her economic and social activities and each of these activities has effect on agricultural systems in Nigeria (Ibe, 1988). According to Adejuyigbe (1995), Nigeria is endowed with abundant natural and human resources which has attracted many manufacturing industries such as petrochemical industries, iron and steel industries and cement factories. Nortcliff (2011), reported that emission released from Agriculture, industry and traffic vehicles are the major sources of atmospheric pollution and deposition of air borne pollutants releases organic compounds (such as PAHs, dioxins, PCBs), metals (such as arsenic, cadmium, lead) and soil acidifying contaminants (NO2, SO2) into the environment. The resultant effect is that the country’s land, water and animals are exposed to toxic matters arising daily from individual effluents, and the occurrence of acid rain (Ashimolowo and Busari, 2006). This, as suggested by Awoniyi et al. (1995) is evidenced in communities like Ewekoro, Ogun state, Nigeria where domestic livestock species, have been reported to suffer from diseases such as skin irritation, carcinogenic cancer and respiratory problems. Green Peace (1993), Aghalino (1998) reported that crude oil polluted waters in Niger Delta caused illness such as cough, catarrh; diarrhea and cholera were most prevalent with school children. Similarly, EPA (1987) reported that ingestion of organic and inorganic waste from petro-chemicals damages kidney, liver and leads to neurological and blood disorder and thus life threatening. In the oil flow station in Erhoike, in Ethiope East Local Government Area of Delta State, oil spillage is known as an almost regular occurrence and this has led to destruction of cassava plants in the small farm holdings of the various inhabitants of the community. Aghalino and Eyinola (2009) reported that a spilled site in Niger Delta, the fish taste was altered to kerosene taste which indicated the taste of hydrocarbon. Similarly, Idodo-Umeh and Ogbeibu (2010) reported bioaccumulation of heavy metals in cassava tubers and plantain fruits in areas of petroleum activities while Lecoultre (2001) reported that toxicity of ingested heavy metals has been an important health issue for decades. Moreover, this finding is in consonance with Peterson (1997) who stated that a lot of hazards are associated with pollution. It is of great importance to analyze the impact of these hazards and its influence on the environment of oil producing areas with regards to its effect on the populace of the Central Agro-ecological zone of Delta State, Nigeria. This study was therefore embarked upon to access the social impact of oil (petroleum) production on small-holder farmers in Central Agro-ecological zone of Delta State, Nigeria. Hypothesis: The following hypothesis was tested: HoI: There is no significant relationship between the socio-economic characteristics of farmers in the study area and the social impact of the oil industry. Methodology The study area consists of the ten oil producing communities in the Central Zone of Delta State which consists of Afiesere, Erhioike, Agbarho, Elume, Ekakpamre, Jesse, Oghara, Orogun, Out-Jeremi, Ekakpamre, Ododegho, Eruemukohwarie, Evwreni, Awirhe, Erhobaro, Ughweru, Deghele, Oteri, Olomu and Uduovwori. The main cash crops grown in the area include oil palm and rubber. The food crops are cassava, maize, yam, plantain/banana and cocoyam. Livestock such as birds, goat sheep are raised. Capture and culture fisheries activities are carried out in the study area. In the Central zone of Delta State, the most important of the oil exploration companies is Shell Petroleum Development Company (SPDC). The population of the study included men and women in the selected oil producing communities or villages. Using the simple lottery system, 50% of the total oil producing Asian Journal of Agriculture and Rural Development, 4(3)2014: 233-241 236 communities in central zone of Delta State was selected, totalling 10 communities. From every selected community 12 respondents of 25-80 years were randomly selected. The total numbers of 120 respondents were interviewed for the study. Descriptive statistics such as frequency distribution and percentages were used to analyze the variables of the study while Chi-square was employed to test the hypothesis. Results and discussion Socio-economic characteristics of the respondents The result showed that 31% of the respondents were between the age brackets of 30-49 years, while 10% were below the age of 30 years. This indicates that a handful of the people engaged in farming were in their middle age would have enough energy and relevant knowledge and experience in farming. Majority (52.50%) of the respondents were males, while 47.5% were females. The implication was that though males were more into farming while females were measuring up with them in the study area. Most (53.3%) of the respondents had no formal education. This may be attributed to poverty. The analysis further revealed that 24.2% of them had primary education; 29.2% had one form or the other of secondary education; while 7.5% had tertiary education. Majority (46.7%) of the respondents had family size of 6-10 members. This was due to lack of awareness of family planning and the quest for more farm lands. A large population (59.2%) of the respondents was Christians. This is as a result of missionary influence in the area especially those of them that attended mission schools; who once worked for the missionaries are the ones who got converted as a result of the aggressive evangelism by the missionaries. Most (74.2%) of the respondents were married. As for the farming status, 45.4% were full-time farmers, while 51.7% were part-time farmers. The results also showed that 43.3% of the farmers had over 15 years of farming experience; 30% had 6-10 years experience; 17.5% had less than 5 years experience and 5% had 11-16 years experience. Majority (51.7%) of the respondents had farm size of between 2.6-4.5 hectares. Most (40%) of them were land occupiers. Similarly, 40% lived in their own houses; 38.3% occupied relations houses. As for membership of organization, 5.0% subscribe to various cooperative societies; 2.5%, farmers’ union; 4.2%, association of marketers; while 5.0%, village age group. Agricultural activities practiced in the study area Table 1 indicates that some of the agricultural activities were rarely practiced by the small- holder farmers. The activities that were widely practiced included maize production (100%), yam production (56.6%) cassava cultivation (100%), vegetable production (61.6%), plantain production (88.3%), poultry farming (57.3%), fish farming (43.3%), cassava milling (53.3%), frying of garri (53.3%), and fufu making (49.2%). Soyabean and cowpea cultivation, sheep and goat rearing had little attention. But the small-scale farmers were into poultry and fish farming. This is in consonance with a similar study carried out by Ashimolowo and Busari (2006) in cement producing areas of Ogun State. The low level of goat and sheep production could be attributed to damages caused to the vegetation by oil pollution. The low rate of involvement in processing activities could be owing to low input emanating from environmental related problems. Asian Journal of Agriculture and Rural Development, 4(3)2014: 233-241 237 Table 1: Types of agricultural activities practiced (n=120) Agricultural activities Yes No Frequency % Frequency % Maize cultivation 120 100 - - Soyabean cultivation 2 1.7 118 98.3 Cowpea cultivation 9 7.5 111 92.5 Yam cultivation 68 56.6 52 43.3 Cassava cultivation 120 100 - - Cocoyam cultivation 39 32.6 81 67.5 Vegetable production 74 61.6 46 38.3 Melon cultivation 40 33.2 80 66.6 Rubber cultivation - - 120 100 Oil Palm cultivation - - 120 100 Plantain production 106 88.3 14 11.6 Goat rearing 20 16.6 100 83.4 Sheep raising 6 5 114 95 Cattle rearing - - 120 100 Poultry farming 69 57.3 51 42.5 Fish farming 25 43.3 68 56.6 Cassava milling 64 53.3 56 46.7 Garri frying 64 53.3 56 46.7 Fufu making 59 49.2 61 50.8 Palm oil processing 20 16.6 100 83.4 Rubber processing 9 7.5 111 92.5 Source: Field survey, 2011 Environmental problems encountered The most important environmental problems (Table 2) were soil erosion (96.6%), bush burning (93.3%), noise pollution (98.3%), land degradation/pollution 87.5%, water pollution (80.3%) and air pollution (62.5%). Most of the respondents believed that regular oil exploration and exploitation activities caused soil erosion and land degradation/pollution in their localities and the noise of flow stations vibrate on their buildings and created cracks on the walls. In another study, Iyoha (2002), Nortcliff (2011) found noise, air water and soil pollution as problems caused by oil exploration activities. They also were of the opinion that gas flaring caused acid rains that corroded their roofs and caused much heat in the environment. Orimoogunje et al. (2010) supports this view. Their waters were polluted as a result of spillage which they believed was also responsible for the inferno that affected their bushes. The air and water pollution caused health hazards in the area. Peterson (1997), Agbogidi et al. (2005) also discovered this in a similar study as they attributed the high occurrence of health hazards to oil industry activities. Table 2: Distribution of respondents in oil producing communities of central agro-ecological zone of Delta State according to types environmental problems faced (n =120) Environmental problems Frequency % Rank Land degradation/pollution 105 87.5 4 Soil erosion 116 96.6 1 Water pollution 100 80.3 5 Air pollution 75 62.5 6 Bush burning 112 93.3 3 Massive deforestation 75 62.5 6 Asian Journal of Agriculture and Rural Development, 4(3)2014: 233-241 238 Acid rain 63 52.5 8 Noise 118 98.3 2 Source: Field survey, 2011 Factors responsible for diversification into other generating activities in oil producing communities Table 3 reveals that 83.3%, 85.8% and 98.3% of the respondents opined that oil pollution had a great negative impact on their income, land availability and agricultural production respectively. The waters were polluted and the fishes were lost to death. This implies that many farmers had abandoned farming and land to take up new jobs and considered farming as a part-time job. Oil exploration activities have significance reductions in crop output Emuh, (2009; 2010). Baker (1970) also observed that the presence of crude oil in farmlands renders the land unproductive and has serious adverse effects on plant growth and consequently a decrease in their income earning capacity. These problems have subjected the inhabitants of host communities to economic and social hardship (Stanley, 1990). Table 3: Impact of oil pollution on socio-economic activities (n=120) Social Indicator Degree of Impact Greatly Positive f (%) Slightly positive f (%) No impact f (%) Slightly negative f (%) Greatly negative f (%) Income - 4(3.3) 7(5.8) - 100(83.3) Living standard 43(35.5) 15(12.5) 15(12.5) - 47(39.2) Infrastructure 16(13.3) - 57(42.5) - 39(32.5) Quality of heat 47(39.2) - 23(19.2) - 58(48.3) Price of commodities bought 25(20.8) 17(14.2) 31(25.8) - 24(20.0) Immigration 37(30.8) 19(15.8) 40(33.3) - 24(20.0) Emigration 44(36.7) 19(15.8) 33(22.5) - Agricultural production - - 2(1.7) - 118(98.3) Other income generating activities 13(10.8) - 60(50.0) - 47(39.2) Gender relationship - - 73(60.8) - 47(39.2) Conflict 27(22.5) 4(3.3) 50(41.7) - 47(39.2) Educational facilities 4(3.3) - 69(57.5) - 47(39.2) Employment opportunities 8(6.7) - 65(54.2) - 47(39.2) Rural development 23(19.2) - 50(41.7) - 47(39.2) Land availability 47(39.2) - 9(7.5) 8(6.7) 103(85.8) Community interaction 9(7.5) 15(12.5) - - 47(39.2) Source: Field survey, 2011. Asian Journal of Agriculture and Rural Development, 4(3)2014: 233-241 239 Test of hypothesis Table 4 shows that all the socio-economic characteristics such as age (X 2 = 3.07,P = 0.69), gender (X 2 = 2.79, P = 0.24), Education (X 2 = 1.78, P = 0.77), religion (X 2 = 3.51, P= 0.32), marital status (X 2 = 4.56, P = 0.21) type of farming (X 2 = 1.37, P = 0.50), family size (X 2 = 2.97, P = 039), Farming experience (X 2 = 3.99, P = 0.41), farm size (X 2 = 3.77, P= 0.58), income (X 2 =6.89, P = 0.14), Housing tenure (X 2 = 3.61, P = 0.16), membership of organization (X 2 l = 3.72, P = 0.59), land tenure (X 2 = 2.21, P =0.33), and source of labour (X 2 = 4.43, P = 0.48) are not significantly related to social impact. Thus, the null hypothesis is accepted for the socio- economic characteristics listed above. Therefore, there are no significant relationships between socio-economic characteristics and the social impact of oil exploration companies in the study area. This means that age for example does not determine the impact of oil pollution. Table 4: Test of chi-square analysis of relationship between social impact and socio- economic characteristics of farmers in the study area (n=20) Variable X 2 Cal X 2 tab d.f ά Remark Age 3.07 11.070 5 0.05 NS Gender 2.79 3.841 1 0.05 NS Educational level 1.78 9.488 4 0.05 NS Religion 3.51 7.815 3 0.05 NS Marital status 4.56 7.815 3 0.05 NS Type of farming 1.37 5.991 2 0.05 NS Family size 2.97 7.815 3 0.05 NS Farming experience 3.99 9.488 4 0.05 NS Farm size 3.77 11.070 5 0.05 NS Income 6.89 9.488 4 0.05 NS Housing tenure 3.61 5.991 2 0.05 NS Membership of organization 3.72 11.070 5 0.05 NS Land tenure 2.21 5.991 2 0.05 NS Source of labour 4.43 11.070 5 0.05 NS Conclusion and recommendations The study was conducted to examine the social impact of oil pollution on small-scale farmers’ oil producing communities of the Central zone of Delta State, Nigeria. Agricultural activities practiced in the study area ranged from crop and animal/fish production to crop product processing. The environmental problems they contended with ranged from land degradation to noise pollution. The problems caused by oil pollution greatly affected their socio- economic activities (Abah, 2004). Oil exploration and exploitation caused a lot of ecological damage to soil resources, human health, the environment and social problems in the oil producing communities (Iyoha, 2002). It is therefore concluded that there is an urgent need for the enactment and enforcement of a comprehensive and effective environmental protection law and education to protect and preserve oil producing communities’ environment for sustainability of the present and future generations (Awoniyi, et al., 1995). Based on the findings, it was recommended that  Communities should be enlightened on how to control the exploit of their resources  Oil companies should compensate their host communities with health facilities, youth employment and other amenities development.  Oil companies should make provision for proper clearing of Asian Journal of Agriculture and Rural Development, 4(3)2014: 233-241 240 polluted water and remediation of affected soil.  Improved farm inputs should be supplied to farmers in order to cope with devastation of the environment  Oil companies should be made to dispose their wastes properly and carry out constant maintenance of their facilities, especially pipelines. References Abah, S. O. (2004). Environment Health and child growth in a Riverine Nigerian community. Journal of Applied Science, 2, 22–28. Adesina, A. (2012). Nigeria cocoa output to double by 2015: Minister. http://www.nairaland.com. Adejuyigbe, S. B. (1995). The manufacturing industries in the environmental development of Nigeria, problems and prospects. Proceedings of Regional Training Workshop on the impact of Human Activities on the West African Savannah held at 23 rd -26 th at FUTA, Akure. Adinna, E. N. (1994). Source of environmental pollution in urban and rural area. In Adinna, E. N. and Agu, K (eds). Environmental and Social Harmony: Faculty of environmental Sciences. FUTA. pp. 23-45. Agbogidi, O. M. Okonta, D. E., & Dolor, D. E. (2005). Socio-economic and environmental impact of crude oil exploration and production on Agricultural production: A case study of Edjeba and Kokori communities in Delta State of Nigeria. Global Journal of Environmental Sciences, 4(2), 171- 176. Aghalino, S. O. (1998). Oil and gas exploration and production in Isoko and Urhobo areas of Western Delta State, Nigeria (1958 - 1995). Unpublished PhD Thesis University of Ilorin, Ilorin, Nigeria. Aghalino, S. O., & Eyinola, B (2009). Oil exploration and marine pollution: Evidence from Niger Delta Nigeria. Journal of Human Ecology, 28(3), 177–182. Ashimolowo, O. R., & M. A. Busari (2006). Social impact of assessment of cement pollution on small-scale farmers in cement producing areas of Ogun State. Journal of Agricultural Extension, 9,142-149. Arthur, S. (2001). Assessing health consequences in an environmental impact Assessment. Environmental impact Assessment Review, 21(5), 448– 467. Awoniyi, T. A. M., Adebayo, I. A., & Adeyemi, J. A (1995). Livestock Exposures to Two Peridomestic Field Treated with Herbicides. In Proceedings of UNESCO-MAB, regional training held in Akure, Nigeria between July 23 rd to 26 th 1995, pp. 408–409. Babatunde, J. (2012). Cocoa transformation: Can new team lead lift Nigeria’s cocoa production? Nigerian Vanguard Newspaper, 20 th February 2012. Baker, J. M. (1970). The effects of oil on plants. Environmental Pollution, 1, 27- 44. Emuh, F. N. (2009). Tolerance of Zea mays L. to different levels and duration of crude oil pollution in Okpai, Delta State, Nigeria. Journal of Science and Environment, 8, 132 – 140. Emuh, F. N. (2010). Effect of crude oil pollution of soil on the yield and yield components of maize Delta State, Nigeria. The Nigerian Journal of Agriculture and Forestry, 2(2), 189 – 200. Environmental protection Agency (EPA) (1987). Soil Microbial community toxicity EPAOCR Part 797 3700 Toxic substances control Act test .Guide line proposed rule 50pp. FORMECU (1990). Forest Resources Study of Nigeria Priority Project. No 6 Institutional and Human Resources. FORMECU. FDF, Nigeria 38pp. Green Peace U. K. (1993). Green Peace oil briefing NO 7. Human Health impact of oil, London, Greenpeace. http://www.nairaland.com/ Asian Journal of Agriculture and Rural Development, 4(3)2014: 233-241 241 Holder, J. (2004). Environmental assessment. The regulation of decision making. Oxford University press, New York. Ibe, A. C. (1988). Coastal line erosion in Nigeria, Ibadan. Nigeria: Ibadan University Press. Idodo-Umeh, G., & Ogbeibu, A. E. (2010). Bioaccumulation of heavy metals in cassava and plantain fruit grown in soils impacted with petroleum and non- petroleum activities. Research journal of Environmental Science, 4(1), 33–41. Iyoha, M. A. (2002). The environmental effects of oil industry activities on the Nigerian economy: A theoretical analysis. Proceedings of a National conference on the Nigeria’s petroleum and the Niger Delta Environment (Orubu et al eds) pp. 4 – 16. Jay, S. Jones, C. Slim, P., & Wood, C. (2007). Environmental impact assessment: Retrospect and prospect. Environmental Impact Assessment Review, 27, 287 – 300. Lecoultre, D. (2001). A metal analysis on risk assessment of heavy metals uptake in common garden vegetables. Unpublished MSc thesis, East Tennessee State University, USA. Nnabuenyi, U. M. (2012). Impact of oil exploration and exploitation on the Niger Delta region: Environmental perspective. Nigerian journal of Science and Environment, 11(1), 78– 87. Nortcliff, S. (2011). Soil and food security In: Proceedings of the 35 th Annual Soil Science society conference of Nigeria. Held from 7 th – 11 th March 2011 at the Federal University of Technology, Minna, Nigeria. Pp 11–34. Opukri, C. O., & Ibaba, S. I. (2008). Oil induced environmental degradation and internal population displacement in the Nigeria’s Niger-Delta. Journal of Sustainable development, 10(1), 173– 193. Orimoogunje, O. O. L. Ayanlade, A. Akinkuolie, T. A., & Odiong, A.U. (2010). Perception of effect of gas flaring on the environment. Research journal of Environmental and Earth Sciences, 2(4), 188–193. Peterson. J. E. (1997). Industrial health. Margnette University Prentice Hall New Jersey: Series in Environmental Sciences. Stanley, W. R. (1990). Socio-economic impact of oil in Nigeria. Geojournal, 3, 67-79. United Nations Development Programme report (2006). Niger Delta Human Development report. pp. 151–158.