Agriculture Reference
In-Depth Information
Table 12.8 Effect on farm sizes in Zaria of planning laws and regulations
Farm area
lost (ha)
Rate of
income lost
(in %)
Rate of drop in
annual output
(% of total land lost)
No of
respondents
Percentage
0.10-0.2
5-10
10-15
22
11.0
0.21-0.4
11-15
16-20
27
13.5
0.41-0.6
16-20
21-25
35
17.5
0.61-0.8
21-25
26-30
41
20.5
0.81-1.0
26-30
31-40
56
28.0
No effect
No effect
No effect
19
9.5
Total
200
100
Source: Urban field work, 2001.
Table 12.8 shows that 28 per cent of the farmers report a reduction in the
size of their farm in recent years related to planning controls and municipal
by-laws. They also report a corresponding loss of income and drop in annual
output. However, 11 per cent of the farmers registered few losses. Only 9.5
per cent of the farmers had not registered any loss of their farm sizes, income
and output due to planning laws and regulations. The table also depicts a
direct, inverse relationship between reduction of farm size, income loss and
reduction of annual output, respectively. In other words, the reported small
loss in farm sizes is associated with both a small loss of income and small
drop in output. Alternatively, the large drop in output is associated with high
income-loss and large reduction of farm size.
Planning controls have influenced farm sizes through the encouragement
of development in areas that were once used for farming. Where physical
development has been slow and there is less enforcement of controls over
development, farm sizes are not affected and agriculture prevails. This
situation becomes reversed where development is fast and where controls
upon it are strictly enforced. In such cases, sizes of farms tend to be drastically
reduced.
The annual income lost because of physical-planning control measures
was also estimated, as indicated in Table 12.8. To date, farmers had made
claims of lost income because they were not allowed to make any decisions on
the type of crops to cultivate. In some cases, the type of crops they were
allowed to grow failed to produce. Results could include a drop in their
income or they might discover that the crops they were permitted to grow
were not the type which could reliably generate an income.
Control measures and bans on farming in certain areas have also
significantly affected the annual output of urban farmers, as indicated in Table
12.8. For example, the use of guinea corn and maize stems for fencing is
prohibited in some places, which encourages pedestrian tra
c through the
crops. Also, restrictions on the types of crops to cultivate compromises the
production of potential crops that might perform better if only farmers were
