Acta agriculturae Slovenica, 119/2, 1–15, Ljubljana 2023 doi:10.14720/aas.2023.119.2.12480 Original research article / izvirni znanstveni članek An assessment of the performance of emergency management agency in the natural hazards management among farm households in the south- east zone, Nigeria Joy OBI 1 , Chika IFEJIRIKA 2 , Kingsley ITAM 3 , Anselm ENETE 4 , Jane MUNONYE 1 , Emeka OSUJI 1, 5 , Dan OYOBOH 6 , Samuel JIMMY 7 , Chukwuoyims EGWU 8 , Christopher NW ACHUKWU 4 , Angela OBETTA 4 , Christian NWOFOKE 9 , Ngozi ODOH 9 Received February 21, 2023; accepted June 01, 2023. Delo je prispelo 21. februarja 2023, sprejeto 1. junija 2023 1 Department of Agriculture, Alex Ekwueme Federal University, Ikwo, Ebonyi State, Nigeria 2 Department of Agricultural Economics, Federal university Oye-Ekiti, Nigeria 3 Department of Agricultural Economics, University of Calabar, Calabar, Nigeria 4 Department of Agricultural Economics, University of Nigeria, Nsukka, Nigeria 5 Corresponding author, e-mail: osujiemeka2@yahoo.com 6 Department of Agricultural Economics, Dennis Osadebay University, Anwai-Asaba, Delta State, Nigeria 7 Department of Agricultural Economics, Extension and Rural Development, Niger Delta University, Bayelsa State, Nigeria 8 Department of Business Administration, Alex Ekwueme University, Ndufu-Alike Abakaliki, Nigeria 9 Department of Agricultural Economics, Ebonyi State University, Abakaliki, Nigeria An assessment of the performance of emergency manage- ment agency in the natural hazards management among farm households in the southeast zone, Nigeria Abstract: An assessment of the performance of emergen- cy management agency in mitigating natural hazards among farm households in Southeast Zone, Nigeria was studied. About 240 farm households who were administered questionnaire were chosen from the states’ flood- and erosion-prone regions using multi-stage sampling technique. The results indicate that the EmergencyManagement Based-Performance Index’s av- erage level of national emergency management activities was 57.33. The total average ratings of the National Emergency Management Agency/State Emergency Management Agency performance indicators based on their usefulness as a measure of natural hazard were estimated as 47.8% which showed that the NEMA/SEMA key performance indicators’ degree of effec- tiveness in hazard management is deemed to be below average of the index. These key performance indicators (KPI) include; distribution of food, provision of seedlings, provision of agro- chemical, training of farmers on postharvest crop preservation, use of weather, rehabilitation of water resources, expansion of irrigation facilities, distribution of fingerlings, provision of household items. The highest weighted score assigned to the distribution of food was 2.89, indicating that it is 57.8% succes- sin mitigating natural disasters, while the average weight score allocated to the distribution of seedlings was 2.62, indicating a 52.4% degree of efficacy. However, the study recommends that the funds allotted to NEMA/SEMA should be monitored to ensure it is utilized in achieving its stated aims and objectives. Key words: KPI; emergency management; naturaldisas- ters; farm households; Nigeria Ocena delovanja Agencije za krizno upravljanje v primerih naravnih nesreč med kmečkimi gospodinjstvi na jugovzhod- nih območjih Nigerije Izvleček: Ocenjeno je bilo delovanje agencije za krizno upravljanje za blaženje naravnih ujm med kmečkimi gospo- dinjstvi v jugovzhodni Nigeriji. Okoli 240 kmečkim gospodinj- stvom iz območja držav, ki so podvržene poplavam in erozijam, je bil razdeljen vprašalnik, pripravljen na osnovi večstopenjske vzorčne tehnike. Rezultati so pokazali, da je bila poprečna ve- likost indeksa kriznega upravljanja, izračunananega na osnovi aktivnosti na nacionalni ravni 57,33. Celokupne poprečne vre- dnosti indikatorjev Nacionalne agencije za krizno upravljanje/ Državne agencije za krizno upravljanje, osnovane na njihovi uporabnosti pri blaženju naravnih nesreč, so bile ocenjene kot 47,8 %, kar je pokazalo, de je učinkovitost NEMA/SEMA ključ- nih indikatorjev delovanja kriznega upravljanja pod poprečjem indeksa. Ti ključni indikatorji (KPI) so vsebovali: razdelitev hrane, dobavo sadik, dobavo agro-kemikalij, usposabljanje kmetov o ohranjanju pridelkov po spravilu, uporabi vremenske napovedi, obnavljanju vodnih virov, razširitvi možnosti nama- kanja, razdelitvi mladic rib, dobavi gospodinskih pripomočkov. Največja vrednost uteži, 2,89, je bila ugotovljena pri razdelitvi hrane, kar kaže na 57,8 % uspeh pri spopadanju z naravnimi katastrofami, med tem, ko je bila poprečna vrednost uteži, 2,62, pripisana razdelitvi sadik, kar nakazuje 52,4 % uspešnost. Re- zultati raziskave priporočajo, da bi bilo potrebno sredstva na- menjena NEMA/SEMA aktivnostim spremljati, da bi zagotovili doseganje zastavljenih ciljev in izzivov. Ključne besede: KPI; krizno upravljanje; naravne katastrofe; kmečka gospodinjstva; Nigerija Acta agriculturae Slovenica, 119/2 – 2023 2 J. OBI et al. 1 INTRODUCTION Natural risks are frequently unavoidable environ- mental physical harms. Drought, erosion, flood, earth- quakes, wildfires, and other environmental risks have continued to prevail (FAO, 2021). In Nigeria, erosions, floods, and drought are the most often experienced envi- ronmental examples of threats. Floods can be brought on by a variety of things, such as excessive rainfall, quickly accelerated snowmelt, strong winds over water, unusu- ally high tides, tsunamis, or the breakdown of dams, levees, retention ponds, or other water-retention infra- structure. Flooding could be made worse by an increase in impermeable surfaces or by other natural disasters like wildfires, which deplete the quantity of plants that can soak up rain. Floods, soil erosion, gully erosion, coast- line erosion, insect invasion, disease outbreaks, and re- lated activities are only a few of the numerous natural and man-made risks that Nigeria’s southeast states oc- casionally encounter (National Disaster Management Framework, 2018). Risks typically affect individuals, their health, and agricultural areas in an unexpected, negative, and immediate way. A hazard response team must be well-organized and prepare well when there are several victims and a need for urgent aid. According to the National Emergency Management Agency (NEMA) Act of 1999, natural or man-made hazards include any conditions brought on by a crisis, epidemic, drought, flood, erosion, earthquake, storm, train, aircraft, oil spill, or other accident, as well as the mass deportation or re- patriation of Nigerians from other countries. In 35 of the country’ s 36 states, Nigeria experienced significant floods in 2012, which affected portions of the nation along key river basins and water courses. The recent floods in Ni- geria have been attributed to a combination of natural, environmental, and manmade reasons, including the tor- rential rains and water releases from the Lagdo dam in Cameroon, the Dand dam in Kowa, the Kiri dam in the River Gongola, among others (UNDP , 2012). Agriculture, which is also the sector of the economy that is the most heavily impacted by erosion and floods, is a common form of livelihood in rural regions. This claim is consistent with the finding of the Inter-Governmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) (2018) that agriculture is extremely vulnerable to the increased frequency, in- tensity, and unpredictability of extreme weather-related events. Nigeria, like many other nations in Sub-Saharan Africa, has been highly vulnerable to the damaging ef- fects of risks brought on by climate change, according to a 2018 assessment from the IPCC. This is because Nigeria is located in tropical latitude. Despite the growing threat of catastrophes and the potential for catastrophic disas- ters like drought, flooding, and erosion in the future due to climatic and other environmental causes, the research concluded that these nations have not yet demonstrated complete capability to cope with the issues. As a result of ocean expansion brought on by increasing tempera- tures, one effect is an increase in mean sea levels, which by 2070 will be around 50 centimeters (IPCC, 2018). A compelling reason to review the methods governments in the region have used to address the crisis, such as the governance structure for risk management practice, is the enormity of the challenges that drought, erosion, and flood risk pose in Sub-Saharan Africa, where most people live on less than USD 1.25 per day (World Bank, 2021). T o put it another way, dealing with natural disaster situations is still exceedingly difficult, especially in low- income African nations (UNCTAD, 2018). Thus, hazard’ s negative effects are more severe in developing countries than in low-income ones. In order to regulate and man- age natural hazards, particularly erosions, droughts, and flooding, developing nations frequently struggle with a lack of resources, logistics, and infrastructure. Socio- economic, political, and environmental issues, according to United Nations, Department of Economics and Social Affairs (2020), are to blame for the shortcomings and failures of disaster management in developing nations. He emphasized that there is still a significant degree of poverty and a lack of knowledge about managing the ex- ternal environment among the socio-economic issues. On the other hand, government authorities still lack the political will and commitment to implement pro-active environmental management policies and programs, par- ticularly in the areas designated as hazard zones (Ovosi, 2010). In response to historical development in hazard management in Nigeria, the National Emergency Man- agement Agency (NEMA) was established under Act No. 12 of the 1999 Constitution, as modified by Act No. 50, to manage disasters in Nigeria. NEMA has therefore been addressing disaster-related concerns by erecting concrete structures in Nigeria since its start. Risk management indicators, such as hazard monitoring and forecasting, early warning systems, community involvement, public education, land-use planning, updating and enforcing safety standards, rescue operations, humanitarian help, and financial assistance are used by NEMA to control these hazards. In order to address this issue, the nation (Nigeria) established the National Emergency Manage- ment Agency (NEMA). Act No. 50 of 1999 established NEMA to address concerns relating to disasters in Ni- geria. Its goal is to manage situations in Nigeria caused by disasters. Moreover, it oversees initiatives and strate- gies for successful disaster relief at the municipal, state, and federal levels. According to the literature that is currently accessible, there have not been many studies since NEMA ’s founding that evaluate the agency’s perfor- Acta agriculturae Slovenica, 119/2 – 2023 3 An assessment of the performance of emergency management agency ... in the southeast zone, Nigeria mance, particularly in terms of how well it is accomplish- ing its goals. According to many descriptions, the poorest and most vulnerable groups in society are the farm house- holds, which are the ones most severely impacted by cli- mate change-related dangers. More than any other group in society, they are anticipated to benefit from NEMA ef- forts. So, this article evaluates how well NEMA manages threats brought on by the climate for farm households in Nigeria from the viewpoint of the farmer. While it impacts the most vulnerable populations in developing nations like Nigeria, managing the risks brought on by climate change is really a worldwide issue. This is par- ticularly true for underdeveloped nations with a very limited capacity for adaptation, so that information from one may be applied in another, such as sub-Saharan Africa, whose socioeconomic aspects are quite compa- rable. NEMA manages these hazards by using perfor- mance management indicators, such as crop/livestock management practices, which include distributing food, providing seedlings, providing agro-chemicals, training farmers on postharvest crop preservation, using weather forecasts, and using early warning signals. Meanwhile, under water and irrigation and infrastructure manage- ment, the performance indicators include rehabilitation of water sources, irrigation infrastructure renovation, and training farmers on postharvest crop preservation. Fishing net distribution, the provision of fish feed, the distribution of boats to fishermen, the provision of shel- ters, medical treatment, and financial assistance all fall under the category of procedures for managing fisher- ies. The provision of clothing and the supply of domestic goods like stoves and cooking utensils are examples of the relevant sector. The management of natural hazards in Southeast States, Nigeria, is discussed in this paper. Natural hazard management refers to the methodical process of using administrative decisions, organizations, operational skills, and capacities to implement policies, strategies, and coping mechanisms of the societies and communities to lessen the impacts of natural hazards and related environmental and technological disasters. This includes all kinds of operations, including as structural and non-structural safeguards against or limiting the negative consequences of risks (via mitigation and readi- ness). In Nigeria, two emergency management traditions or patterns have developed throughout the years. The “vulture notion” and the “eagle concept” are how these have been described. When compared to the eagle no- tion, the vulture concept is essentially reactive. The first is comparable to what is sometimes referred to as a “com- mand and control” strategy, but the second is more ap- propriately described as a “fire-brigade” approach. The NEMA has begun a paradigm transition away from the enduring reactive heritage of hazard management and to- ward a proactive approach, in keeping with the dominant worldwide mindset. The tradition of hazard is changing from the passive “vulture idea, ” in which the agency waits for hazards to occur, to the proactive “eagle concept,” which uses forecasting and early warning to avoid and mitigate massive displacements of people and disasters. 1.1 LITERATURE REVIEW/THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK The theoretical basis for this essay is comprised of risk and social management theory, and contingency theory. The requirement for a theoretical framework in this endeavor stems from the fact that it would pro- vide the debate the much-needed analytical grounding. Moreover, analytical systematization would be utilized in a way that would improve patterned explanation of the subject. 1.2 CONTINGENCY THEORY In an effort to provide a practical paradigm for stra- tegic management, contingency theory of management was developed. This school of thought holds that the use of management principles and practices should depend on the circumstances at hand and that the functional, be- havioural, qualitative, and systems tools of management should be used accordingly. The preceding quotation implies that the manager should be able to understand the distinctive relationships between the sub-systems of different companies inside a particular environment and how to approach a specific issue imaginatively. Contin- gency theory acknowledged that each individual organi- zational system results from the dynamic and frequently complicated interplay of the subsystems and their bio- logical environment. Thus, the theory asserts that what qualifies as effective management changes depending on the particulars and idiosyncrasies of the organization’s overall environment as well as the structure of the organ- izational sub-systems (Okenwa & Ugbo, 2003). 1.3 RISK AND SOCIAL MANAGEMENT THEORY As the research issue in this study is the effective- ness of the state emergency management agency in Ni- geria, we will use the risk and social management theory. Goldstein (1988) is credited with creating the risk and social management theory, which has since gained back- ing from a number of other scholars, including Douglas Acta agriculturae Slovenica, 119/2 – 2023 4 J. OBI et al. (1978) and Dynes (1994). Man’s transgression of nature and harm done to the environment by man’s actions were factors in the birth and development of the risk and so- cial management theory. For instance, Kielland (2012) noted that the risk and social theory in environmental management marks a timely contribution, given that en- vironmental management is now more about calculating and managing the risk to human communities from rap- id environmental and technological changes rather than just protecting pristine ecosystems and endangered spe- cies from anthropogenic harm. The idea also holds that effective management of mitigation techniques, which try to lessen the adverse effects of a risk or catastrophe occurring, is necessary to assist society’s disaster victims (Enwemeka, 2012). 2 MATERIALS AND METHODS The survey design was adopted for the study. In the first phase, three out of the five states in southeast zone were purposively selected. This was based upon the predominance of erosion and flood occurrences in the states. The contact farmers, 675 who made up the population of the Agricultural Development Programme (ADP), were used as the sample frame. A multiple-stage random sampling procedures were used in picking only 240 households who gave valid information based on the questionnaire administered to them. The information gathered were on the farm household socio economic characteristics, types of natural disasters experienced, farm households’ grassroots management practices and NEMA/SEMA activities in the area. To guarantee that the effectiveness of the data instrument; face and content validation were used. Also the consistency and depend- ability of the questionnaire was carried out via a pilot re- search. Using the Cronbach Alpha reliability approach, 25 farmers from each state participated in a trial run of the questionnaire to determine its reliability. Data col- lected were analysed using descriptive statistics, likert scale and United Nation’s Activity-Based Performance Index (API). 2.1 ACTIVITY-BASED PERFORMANCE INDEX (API) ESTIMATION PROCEDURES To determine how well NEMA/SEMA is doing in terms of achieving its goals for hazard management among farm households in disaster zones, activity-based performance index (API) was utilized. As a set of indi- cating variables or key performance indicators (KPIs) for hazard management, the API entailed compiling hazard management techniques often utilized by the Emergency Management Agency. The variables that proved the suc- cess of the program(s), NEMA/SEMA,) served as the KPIs for gauging performance advancement. The success of NEMA and SEMA ’s actions will mostly be determined by their efficacy, according to KPI. These indicators are actions related to disaster management, and as such, the API gauges how well NEMA/SEMA employs these tech- niques for hazard management (Below et al., 2012). Ex- perts and stakeholders in risk management and climate change research gave the indicative factors weights on a 5-point scale. According to how successful they were deemed to be as NEMA/SEMA hazard management op- erations, the weights were given to the indicative factors in ascending order. A free evaluation of each indicator variable’s efficacy as a performance indicator was also given by farmers. The household’s activity-based perfor- mance index has a direct bearing on how well NEMA/ activities SEMA ’s are used more frequently as a gauge of natural hazard management (Below et al., 2012). As such, the higher the API of the household, the more effective the increased use of these natural management practices is in the management of disaster. Following Below et al., (2012), the approach is specified as: API j = W 1 P 1 + W 2 P 2 + W 3 P 3 + … +W n P nj Eq.1 Where are: API j = Activity-based performance index of i J th household W 1n = Weight of indicating variables; 5- Very effective; 4- Effective; 3- Moderately effective; 2- Poorly effective; 1- Not effective. Pn 1j = i J th household’s assessment of the effectiveness of indicating variable for disaster management (1, if ef- fective, 0 if otherwise). 2.2 LIKERT SCALE RATING The mean score of respondents in a 4-point scale of ‘high incidence = 4, moderate incidence = 3, low inci- dence = 2, and zero incidence = 1” was used. The mean is 4 + 3 + 2 + 1 = 10/4 = 2.5, using the interval scale of 0.05, the upper limit cut-off is 2.5+0.05 = 2.55, while the lower limit is 2.5-0.05 = 2.45. Based on these limit any mean score above 2.55 was considered high incidence level and any score below 2.45 will be considered low in- cidence while those between 2.45 and 2.55 were equally Acta agriculturae Slovenica, 119/2 – 2023 5 An assessment of the performance of emergency management agency ... in the southeast zone, Nigeria considered moderate incidence level. It was also applied in level of intensity. 3 RESULTS AND DISCUSSION 3.1 SOCIO-ECONOMIC CHARACTERISTICS OF RESPONDENTS The mean age of the farmers was about 52 years, with majority of them (45.0 %) within the age range of 41 to 55 years old. These findings agree with the study of Nwaru (2010) that the respondents were a bit old with average age of about 52 years for smallholder food farm- ers in Imo State. The result showed that 29 % of the respondents had no formal education, while about 71.0 % of them had for- mal education. Out of the 71 % with formal education, about 22.1 % only attended primary schools, 33.0 % at- tended secondary school while 15.8 % attended tertiary institutions at various levels. The average years of school- ing of the respondents were 8 years (Table 1). This shows that the farmers had a very low level of formal education as majority of them barely completed primary education, with a handful of others attempting secondary education. This has severe implications for their ability to access and utilize new and improved techniques and innovations in agriculture. This is consistent with the results of Otitoju (2013) and Nwaru (2010). Family labour is recognized as major source of la- bour supply in smallholder food crop production in Africa. This comprises the labour of all males, females and children in a household, who contribute their labour to the household holdings. Majority of the respondents (88 %) fell within the household size of 6-10, followed by 10.42 % of them, which fell within the range of 1-5 per- sons per households. This is consistent with the results of Abdulai & Huffman (2000); Otitoju (2013); Ozor et al., (2015); Obi et al., (2021). The result shows that the aver- age household size was 7 to 8 persons. The result equally agrees with the findings of Otitoju & Arene (2010) that majority of the respondents (medium scale soya beans farmers in Benue State Nigeria) had an average house- hold size of about 7 people. 3.2 TYPES OF NATURAL DISASTERS EXPERI- ENCED BY FARM HOUSEHOLDS’ The type of natural disasters experienced by farm households’ is shown in Table 2. A number of natural disasters types with different magnitude were identified by the respondents in the areas. These were flood, ero- sion, water logging, crop failure, pest attacks and disease outbreak. In Anambra State, about 93.8 % and 87.5 % of the farmers identified flood and erosion as major natu- ral disasters they have faced while 75 % and 68.8 % of the respondents indicated disease outbreak and pest at- tacks. Crop failure and water logging were shown to be the least natural disasters with 62.5 % and 58.8 % of the respondents indicated them as the natural disasters they have experienced so far. In Enugu State, about 86.3 % and 80 % of the farmers identified flood and erosion as major natural disasters they have faced while 63.8 % and 62.5 % of the respondents indicated disease outbreak and pest attacks. Crop failure and water logging were shown to be the least occurring natural disasters with 61.3 % and 58.8 % of the respondents indicating them as the natural disasters they have experienced. In Ebonyi State, about 85 % and 75 % of the farmers identified flood and erosion as major natural disasters they have faced while 65 % and 58.8 % of the respondents indicated disease outbreak and pest attacks. Crop failure and water logging were shown to be the least natural disasters with 43.8 % and 42.5 % of the respondents indicating them as the natural disasters they have experienced. The Federal Government of Nige- Variable Frequency Percentages (%) Age 25-40 22 9.17 41-55 108 45.0 56-65 94 39.17 66-80 16 6.67 Total 240 100 Sex Male 120 50 Female 120 50 Total 240 100 Level of Education Mean = 7.83 Never Attended 70 29.17 1-6 years 53 22.08 6-12 years 79 32.92 12-16 years 38 15.83 Total 240 100 Household Size Mean = 7.5 1-5 25 10.42 6-10 211 87.92 >10 4 1.67 Total 240 100 Table 1: Frequency distribution of the respondents by their socio-economic characteristics Acta agriculturae Slovenica, 119/2 – 2023 6 J. OBI et al. ria, FGN (2013) reported that floods are the most com- mon and recurring natural disaster in Nigeria. According to Enete et al. (2016), the Nigeria great flood of 2012 is presumably the worst flooding incidence in the country in 50 years, in which large farmlands under cultivation were submerged. Also Obi et al. (2021) reported that gully erosion was one of the greatest environmental dis- asters in south-eastern Nigeria, where large areas of ag- ricultural lands have been lost completely. This has been corroborated by several other studies (Akinboade, 2013; Ezeigwe, 2015; Ngwu, Mbagwu & Obi et al., 2005). Wei Zhang et al., (2018) reported that the incidence of pests and diseases was a major constraint to increased agricul- tural productivity of farmers in Nigeria. Most of the time, the farmers are not well equipped to tackle these menace, either due to ignorance or lack of access to appropriate pesticides or insecticides. This results in fluctuation of agricultural yield and productivity, thereby increasing the vulnerability of the farmers to natural disasters. 3.3 FARM HOUSEHOLDS LEVEL OF EXPOSURE TO NATURAL DISASTERS The farm households’ level of exposure to natural disasters is shown in Table 3. The level of exposure of farmers to these natural disasters was examined using level of incidence on a 4-piont likert scale as shown in Table 3.The mean score of “high incidence =4, Moder- ate incidence =3, low incidence =2 and zero incidence =1” was used to examine the incidence level.In Anambra State, all the variables were on a high incidence level with their mean scores as follows: flood and erosion had mean scores of 3.3 and 3.25, while water logging, crop failure, pest attacks and disease outbreak had 2.68, 2.75, 2.88, and 3 respectively. Variables observed in Enugu State were also on a high incidence level with their mean scores as follows: flood and erosion had mean scores of 3.24 and 3.1, while water logging, crop failure, pest attacks and disease out- break have 2.73, 2.65, 2.75, and 2.79 respectively. In Ebonyi State, variables were equally shown to be on a high incidence level with their mean scores as fol- lows: flood and erosion had mean scores of 3.2 and 3, while water logging, crop failure, pest attacks and disease outbreak had 2.35, 2.39, 2.68, and 2.8 respectively. From the result, it is very clear that these farmers were highly exposed to the incidence of these natural disasters. 3.4 NATURAL DISASTER MANAGEMENT PRAC- TICES ENGAGED BY FARM HOUSEHOLDS The natural disaster management practice engaged by farm households is shown in Table 4. At the grassroots level, farmers may not have relied only on Emergency Management Agencies’ natural disasters management ef- fort to cushion the effects of natural disasters on them. The frequency distribution of the female farm house- holds according to their increased use of 25 traditional farm practices as measure(s) of natural disaster manage- ment is shown in T able 4 below. For purposes of this pres- entation, these practices were grouped into four broad categories: land and soil management practices, water management practices, crop and livestock practices and institutional measures. 3.4.1 Land/Soil Management Practices. The results showed that increased land rotation (bush fallow), P1 (96 %) was the most frequently used natural disaster management practices under land and soil management category. This is because there is re- duced frequent use of the same lands each year, which helps in climate change management practices. This was followed by avoiding bushfires P2 (88 %). Avoidance of bushfire is intended to achieve land management and traditional use objectives, by keeping the safeguarding Natural disasters Anambra State Enugu State Ebonyi State Frequency % Frequency % Frequency % Flood 72 93.75 69 86.25 68 85 Erosion 70 87.5 64 80 60 75 Water logging 47 58.75 49 61.25 34 42.5 Crop failure 50 62.5 47 58.75 35 43.75 Pest attacks 55 68.75 50 62.5 47 58.75 Disease outbreak 60 75 51 63.75 52 65 Table 2: Types of natural disasters experienced by farm households’ Acta agriculturae Slovenica, 119/2 – 2023 7 An assessment of the performance of emergency management agency ... in the southeast zone, Nigeria of life, property and resources through the prevention, detection, control, restriction and suppression of fire in forest and other vegetation in rural areas. The knowledge of the impacts of bush fire by female farmers is because of the positive effect of fire management plans in the area. Prompt physical weeding and killing/ removal of insects P4 (88 %), and use of insecticides and herbicides P5 (86 %) were the most frequently used natural disaster management practices under land and soil management category. Increased use of these practices helps to check the devastating effect of erosion and flooding. This is par - ticularly important in southeast Nigeria, where large are- as of agricultural lands have been lost completely, or have become unsuitable for cultivation or any other produc- tive economic activity, as a result of erosion. (Akinboade, 2013; Ezeigwe, 2015; Ezezika & Adetona, 2011; Ngwuet al., 2005). Also, this measure helps to soften the soil for easy penetration of crops’ roots, expose dangerous or- ganisms that could harm the crops, and concentrate vital plant nutrients within the reach of their roots. These prac- tices have relatively low technical skill requirements and cost implications, and as such, could have informed their widespread application by the farming households, also in the same light, raising of mounds P3 (80 %). Raised fields are constructed by excavating parallel canals and piling the earth between them to form long, low mounds with flat or convex surfaces. These raised platforms in- crease soil fertility, improve drainage in low-lying areas, and improve local micro-environments, primarily by de- creasing frost risk. 3.4.2 Organic Manuring Application Use of organic compost is a sustainable and cli- mate-smart approach to increase soil fertility. The use of composted organic wastes to enhance soil fertility and productivity is gaining huge attention worldwide. Com- posting is a traditional practice that has been used for centuries. Composting refers to the natural process of rotting or decomposition of organic matter by microor- ganisms under controlled conditions. It is a biochemical process in which microbial degradation of organic waste results into a product known as organic manure or com- post. Composting is a sustainable approach for organic waste management. It not only removes the waste but also transforms waste into nutrient-rich organic product that can be used to enhance soil fertility. Agro forestry practices P8 (75 %) and fertilizer application P7 (74 %) were equally used by the farm households in land/soil management practices. The result agreed with the study from CGIAR research programme on climate change, Agriculture and food security (CCAFS) among over 700 households in East Africa, which found that agro–for- estry, was one of the most widely adopted climate change adaptation strategy. It was revealed that 50 % of those households had begun planting of trees as part of their farm practices 10 years ago (Kristjansonet al., 2012). These trees ameliorate the effects of climate change by helping to stabilize erosion, improve water and soil qual- ity, and provide yields of fruits in addition to their usual farm harvest. 3.4.3 Water Management Practices The result showed mulching P9 (88 %), mulching is very important because it helps in the management of soil erosion, soil quality, soil water, and weeds, pests and diseases control (Lu et al., 2000). Mulching helps to con- serve water in the soil, regulate soil temperature and sup- press the growth of weeds through the placing of loose sheets, trees/ plants and grasses on the bare soil. This result is consistent with those of Owomboet al. (2014) in Ondo State, Nigeria which showed that farmers used Natural Disasters Mean Std Dev Remarks Anambra State Flood 3.3 0.79 High incidence Erosion 3.25 0.83 High incidence Water logging 2.68 1.12 High incidence Crop Failure 2.75 1.10 High incidence Pest Attack 2.88 1.04 High incidence Disease outbreak 3 1.01 High incidence Enugu State Flood 3.24 0.85 High incidence Erosion 3.1 0.95 High incidence Water logging 2.73 1.10 High incidence Crop Failure 2.65 1.11 High incidence Pest Attack 2.75 1.10 High incidence Disease outbreak 2.79 1.09 High incidence Ebonyi State Flood 3.2 0.88 High incidence Erosion 3 1.01 High incidence Water logging 2.35 1.11 High incidence Crop Failure 2.39 1.10 High incidence Pest Attack 2.68 1.12 High incidence Disease outbreak 2.8 1.08 High incidence Table 3: Farm households’ level of exposure to natural disas- ters in the three States Acta agriculturae Slovenica, 119/2 – 2023 8 J. OBI et al. mulching as an adaptation strategy. Use of cover crops P12 (86 %) was used as the water management practices by the farmers.In the report of Bergtold et al. (2017), farmers will adapt and continue to utilize cover crops as management practices against hazard. Further, the cultivation of these cover crops does not entail any ad- ditional costs or responsibilities on the farmers, and this may have informed their wide use as a measure of cli- mate change adaptation by the farmers. Similarly, a study conducted by Anyoda et al. (2013) revealed the wide ap- plication of cover cropping practices by majority of the farmers (90 %) as an adaptation strategy. Use of manual/ physical irrigation P10 (85 %) was also a predominant water management practices of the farmers. Success of climate change adaptation depends on availability of fresh water in drought-prone areas. It should be emphasized that most adaptation meth- ods provide benefits even with the lower end of climate change scenarios, such as improved irrigation efficiency. As water becomes a limiting factor, improved irrigation efficiency will become an important adaptation tool, es- pecially in dry season, because irrigation practicesfor dry area are water intensive. Climate change is expected to result in decreased fresh water availability (surface and groundwater) and reduced soil moisture during the dry season, while the crop water demand is expected to in- crease because of increased evapo-transpiration caused by climate change and the continuous introduction of high-yielding varieties and intensive agriculture The results further showed that about 21 % of the farmers were involved in water harvesting and storage (P13), about 7 % in the prevention of forest losses along water bodies (P14), and about 29 % in construction and maintenance of drainage channels. These practices are capital intensive, even though the benefits are not exclu- sive to the particular farmers undertaking them. Most of the time, they are carried out on communal basis in the form of community labour. 3.4.4 Crop/ Livestock Management Practices Under crop/ livestock management practices, al- most 80 % of the respondents used crop rotation (P16). Crop rotation refers to the practice of growing a se- quence of plant species on the same land. It is an ancient practice that has been used for thousands of years. Crop rotation has been recaptured the global attention to solve the increasing agroecological problems such as declin- ing soil quality and climate change resulting from short rotation and monocropping. Crop rotation is an effec- tive approach for carbon sequestration as compared to growing same type of crop continuously. Crop rotation is a sustainable approach that increases yield and water use efficiency while reducing soil erosion.The result of multiple/ inter cropping (P17) showed that 87 % of the farmers use it as crop/livestock management practices. This finding agrees with the result of Enete et al. (2011) which showed that multiple/ intercropping was the adap- tation practice with the highest profitability index among farmers in Imo States, Southeast Nigeria. According to the author, climate change has resulted in the intensifica- tion of multiple/intercropping, even though the practice has been identical with smallholder farming in Nigeria. The intent of this practice is to ensure and minimize the level of crop loss, which the farmers could suffer in the event of adverse weather conditions leading to crop fail- ure. That is, multiple/intercropping provides some meas- ure of security (confidence) to the farmers that at the end of the day, they will go home with some yields. It serves as an insurance against complete crop failure (Benhin, 2006). Enete et al. (2011) noted that different crops have varying degrees of resistance to climate volatility, and such, the cultivation of many crops at the same time could guarantee some harvest for the farmers even in the extreme weather conditions. Under changing planting dates (P19), farmers noted that the trend of uncertainties in extreme weather events had generally increased with- in the past five years in Southeast Nigeria, to avoid crop production risks due to rainfall variability and drought, staggered planting date is very common to most farmers whereby crops are planted before rain onset (dry land) on uncultivated land. Others were planted immediately after rain, while still other plots were planted a few days after the first rains. Tilling the land commences in fields which were planted prior to cultivation on the third week after the onset of rain which also destroys early geminating weeds and reduces weeding. These were done purposely to distribute risk by ensuring that any rain was utilized to the maximum by the crop planted in dry season.Under use of weather forecast (P20), 65.4 % of the farmers in- tensively used it as their crop management practices.This is because of the continuous update of weather changes to the farmers via their mobile phones and bill boards from Nigeria Meteorological Agency.Under cultivation of im- proved varieties (P18), cultivation of diseases resistance crops (P21) cultivation of early maturing crops (P22), the results revealed that 95.0 %, 87.9 % and 88.3 % of the farmers used them as their major crop management practices. These were intensified because of continuous research and government projects from research centres and universities on improved varieties, disease resistant crops like the adoption of bio-fortified cassava and high –yielding varieties of rice to help the farmers through community services. Furthermore, the result showed that only 3 % used cultivation of drought-resistance crop Acta agriculturae Slovenica, 119/2 – 2023 9 An assessment of the performance of emergency management agency ... in the southeast zone, Nigeria varieties. The result is deduced from the fact that drought is not experienced in Southeast States. 3.4.5 Institutional Measures Majority of the respondents, 40.2 % agreed that as- sistance from NEMA/SEMA is one of their natural dis- aster’s management practises, while only 13 % had an on-going insurance cover. It could be a result of unwill- ingness of the farmers to insure their farm enterprise. 3.5 FARM HOUSEHOLDS USE-INTENSITY LEVEL OF NATURAL DISASTER MANAGEMENT PRACTICES The level of intensity of use of the practices was ex- amined as shown in Table 3. Under land/soil manage- ment practices, all the practices had a high intensity of use score with their mean scores not less than 2.05 (i.e.MS ≥ 2.05) namely; land rotation (bush fallow) (3.61), avoiding bushfire (3.39), raising mounds and ridging across slopes (3.13), prompt physical weeding and killing/removal of Natural disaster Management practices Frequency* Percentage % Land/Soil Management Practices P1 Land rotation (bush fallow) 230 95.8 P2 Avoiding bushfires 228 87.8 P3 Raising mounds and ridging across slopes 190 79.8 P4 Prompt physical weeding and killing/removal of insects 211 87.9 P5 Use of insecticides and herbicide 207 86.2 P6 Organic manure application 186 77.5 P7 Fertilizer application 178 74.1 P8 Agro-forestry practices 181 75.4 Water Management Practices P9 Mulching 211 87.9 P10 Use of manual/physical irrigation 203 84.5 P11 Tree planting 66 27.5 P12 Use of cover crops 206 85.8 P13 Efficient water harvesting and storage techniques 50 20.8 P14 Prevention of forest losses along water bodies 16 6.7 P15 Construction and maintenance of  drainage channels 70 29.2 Crop/Livestock Management Practices P16 Crop rotation 214 89.1 P17 Multiple/intercropping 207 86.3 P18 Cultivation of improved crop varieties 228 95.0 P19 Changing of planting dates 221 91.2 P20 Use of weather forecast 157 65.4 P21 Cultivation of disease- resistant crops 211 87.9 P22 Cultivation of early maturing crops 212 88.3 P23 Cultivation of drought-resistant crop varieties 29 3.3 Institutional Measures P24 Assistance from SEMA 97 40.2 P25 Registration with NAIC (on-going insurance cover) 75 12.9 Table 4: Natural disaster management practices engaged by farm households *Multiple responses Acta agriculturae Slovenica, 119/2 – 2023 10 J. OBI et al. insects (3.32), use of insecticides and herbicides (3.17), organic manure application (3.15), fertilizer application (3.04) and agro-forestry practices (3.14). This is consist- ent with the study by Ozor et al. (2010) on the mitigation and adaptation to climate change impacts on agriculture in Southern Nigeria, which includes improved use of land management techniques, use of pest and disease resistant crops/species. It also agrees with the study of Mahouna & Barjolle (2018) on farmer’s adaptation to climate change and their implications in Benin. Under water management practices, the following practices were highly intensified mulching (3.34), use of manual/physical irrigation (3.23), tree planting (3.26), use of cover crops (3.2), while efficient water harvest- ing and storage techniques (1.46), prevention of forest losses along water bodies (1.23), construction and main- tenance of drainage channels (1.46) had zero intensity. This agrees with the literature report of Onyeneke (2010) who identified intensified natural disaster management practices by farmers as application of irrigation facilities, ridging and planting of trees. Construction and mainte- nance of drainage channels, prevention of forest losses along water bodies and efficient water harvesting and storage facilities, which were not majorly used by farm households, could be as a result of being capital projects which they cannot afford. It is also supported by Temes- Natural Disasters Management Practices Mean STD. Dev. Remarks Land/Soil Management Practices P1 Land rotation (bush fallow) 3.612 .65 Moderate intensity P2 Avoiding bushfires 3.388 .61 Moderate intensity P3 Raising mounds and ridging across slopes 3.133 .75 Moderate intensity P4 Prompt physical weeding and killing/removal of insects 3.317 .77 Moderate intensity P5 Use of insecticides and herbicide 3.167 .77 Moderate intensity P6 Organic manure application 3.146 .87 Moderate intensity P7 Fertilizer applicatio 3.042 .84 Moderate intensity P8 Agro-forestry practices 3.138 .82 Moderate intensity Water Management Practices 3.342 .79 P9 Mulching 3.225 .80 Moderate intensity P10 Use of manual/physical irrigation 3.258 .73 Moderate intensity P11 Tree planting 3.254 .81 Moderate intensity P12 se of cover crops 3.200 .60 Moderate intensity P13 Efficient water harvesting and storage techniques 1.461 .59 Low intensity P14 Prevention of forest losses along water bodies 1.234 .68 Low intensity P15 Construction and maintenance of drainage channels 1.467 .74 Low intensity Crop/Livestock Management Practices P16 Crop rotation 3.429 .71 Moderate intensity P17 Multiple/intercropping 3.258 .61 Moderate intensity P18 Cultivation of improvedcrop varieties 3.388 .69 Moderate intensity P19 Changing of planting dates 3.342 .25 Moderate intensity P20 Use of weather forecast 2.758 .70 Moderate intensity P21 Cultivation of disease- resistant crops 3.263 .73 Moderate intensity P22 Cultivation of early maturing crops 3.418 .57 Zero intensity P23 Cultivation of drought-resistant crop varieties 1.146 .70 Moderate intensity Institutional Measures P24 Assistance from SEMA 1.792 .70 Low intensity P25 Registration with NAIC (on-going insurance cover) 1.467 .68 Low intensity Table 5: Farm households’ use-intensity level of natural disaster management practices Note: MS = Means Score Acta agriculturae Slovenica, 119/2 – 2023 11 An assessment of the performance of emergency management agency ... in the southeast zone, Nigeria gen et al. (2014) who identified increase use of irrigation facilities in South Eastern Ethiopia by farmers as one of the major management practices. The following practices under crop/livestock man- agement practices were highly intensified; crop rotation (3.43), multiple/intercropping (3.26), cultivation of im- proved crop varieties (3.39), changing of planting date (3.34), use of weather forecast (2.76), cultivation of dis- ease-resistant crops (3.21), cultivation of early maturing crops (3.26) except for cultivation of drought-resistant crop varieties with a mean score of 1.15. It is support- ed by the study of Nzeh & Eboh (2011) in Enugu State that identified the key indigenous adaptations of farm- ers to climate change to include change in planting date, change in cropping patterns, change in harvesting date of plants, change in planting distance and introduction of new breeds of crops. In institutional measures, assistance from NEMA/SEMA had a mean score of 1.79 while on- going insurance coverage from NAIC had zero intensity of 1.47. 3.6 NEMA/SEMA ’S ACTIVITY-BASED PERFOR- MANCE INDEX OF FARM HOUSEHOLDS NEMA/SEMA’s activity-based performance index of farm households is shown in Table 6. The success of NEMA/natural SEMA ’s hazard man- agement procedures as measured by its key performance index (KPI) reflects of the average evaluations given by agricultural professionals, farmers, and researchers. As a consequence, the activity-based performance indicator for NEMA/SEMA was on average of 57.33 %. This sug- gests that out of a possible index score of 120, NEMA/ SEMA earned 47.78 %. In order to attain their rated natural hazard management indicators, they need an ad- ditional index score of 52.22 %. This is very significant for the efficiency of NEMA/SEMA efforts in the nation. This conclusion conflicts with that of Below et al. (2012), who calculated the efficiency of rural farmers’ adaptation strategies to climate change in Tanzania’s Morogoro area at 95.6 and 75.3 respectively. In order to support the find- ings in Table 6, the level of efficacy of each performance measure was also disclosed in accordance with farm families’ perceptions. The average weight given to the distribution of food was 2.89, indicating that it is 57.8 % successful in mitigating natural disasters, while the aver- age weight given to the distribution of seedlings is 2.62, indicating a 52.4 % degree of efficacy, and so on. 3.7 WEIGHTED RATINGS OF THE EFFECTIVE- NESS OF NEMA/SEMA ’S ACTIVITIES ON FARM HOUSEHOLDS AS MEASURES OF HAZ- ARD MANAGEMENT. The weighted ratings of the effectiveness of NEMA/ SEMA’s activities on farm households as measures of hazard management are shown in Table 7. According to this, an increase in the adoption of these techniques may boost the effectiveness of natural hazard management techniques by an average of 47.78 %. In other words, capacity building for both NEMA/SEMA officials and farmers may still increase the efficacy of these activities by roughly 52.22 %. As a result, there is potential for the creation and use of fresh and creative approaches to the implementation of natural hazard management strate- gies. The outcome also revealed some differences in the scores from one category of hazard management strate- gies to another, as well as from one indication to another. Their scores ranged from 50.16 % for crops and animals, through 50.09 % for water/irrigation and infrastructure, to 42.68 % for fisheries and management methods. The management of water resources, crops, and animals was evaluated as having the highest effectiveness in manag- ing natural hazards. This emphasizes the significance of the two as useful indicators for natural hazard manage- ment, especially in Southeast Nigeria where agricultural production is heavily dependent on rainfed farming with very few instances of irrigated farming. As a result, meas- ures that will ensure sustainable and timely provision of moisture and water for agricultural production could be useful in managing natural hazards, particularly those associated with climate change issues. The results of the NEMA/SEMA management practice categories revealed that food distribution was the category with the highest level of efficacy in terms of managing crops and animals. The outcome is consistent with the conclusions reached API Frequency Percentage (%) 21 – 40 84 35 41 – 60 20 8.3 61 – 80 80 33.3 81 - 100 56 23.4 Minimum 24 Maximum 98 Average 57.33 Potential score 120 Total number of observations, N 240 Table 6: NEMA/SEMA ’s activity-based performance index of farm households Acta agriculturae Slovenica, 119/2 – 2023 12 J. OBI et al. by FAO (2021) that hazard food assistance is a crucial in- tervention during flood effects. The results of Enete et al. (2016), who assessed the socioeconomic effectiveness of small-holder farmers’ flood coping mechanisms, are like- wise consistent with this. On the opinion of farm house- holds toward government food intervention programs, food aid received the highest rating. A higher degree of efficacy was also demonstrated by the use of weather forecasts scoring 54.6 %. This suggests that farmers and stakeholders concurred that personal observations of weather changes, friends, radio, television, and phones about weather forecasts, rainfall predictions or changes in rainfall patterns, wind movement, etc. is a very ef- fective tool in natural hazard management by NEMA/ SEMA. The results of this study are consistent with a report from the National Metrological Agency Services (NIMET) from 2012, which showed that farmers are aware of the rising trend in temperature and the declin- ing trend in precipitation through personal observation, billboards on weather forecasts, radio, and updates of weather information sent to their phones. With regard to efficacy, seedling distribution scored 52.4 %. The free distribution of agricultural inputs is the intervention that Hemming et al. (2018) contend is the most successful. For instance, as part of a rehabilitation project following the 1992 Southern African Drought, free seeds and fer- tilizers have been sent to farmers in Malawi practically every year since 1992. Additionally, the effectiveness of providing agrochemicals (score = 48.6 %), training farm- ers in crop preservation techniques (score = 48.6 %), dis- ease surveillance (score = 48.0 %), restocking small stock (sheep, cattle, and goats) (score = 47.8 %), vaccination and treatment (score = 47.0 %), and pasture preserva- tion (score = 45.0 %) were nearly equal. Construction and upkeep of drainage channels had the greatest level of efficacy among techniques for managing water, irriga- tion, and infrastructure (score = 60.8 %). Rehabilitation of water resources, provision of irrigation pumps, and irrigation and infrastructural rehabilitation came next, with corresponding levels of efficacy of 58.2 %, 57.6 %, and 51.4 %. This suggests that water and irrigation as well as infrastructure management strategies are capi- tal-intensive projects that were offered by the agencies, particularly amid the country’s 2012 disaster. The supply of modest water treatment facilities, the development of capacity for water management, and the extension of current irrigation systems fall under this category. Their levels of efficacy are, respectively, 47.2 %, 47.0 %, and 45.4 %. Distribution of fingerlings, provision of shelters, provision of money and health care, and distribution of fishing nets had the highest levels of effectiveness under Fishery Management Practices, scoring 47.2 %, 44.6 %, and 43.4 % respectively. In contrast, distribution of boats to fishermen anddistribution of fish feeds had levels of effectiveness of 39.6 % and 38.6 % respectively. In the cat- egory “Other Relevant Sector,” the provision of clothing scored at 41.8 %, while the provision of domestic goods including stoves and cooking utensils received a score of 39.4 %. 4 CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDA- TION Emergency management agencies have similarly utilized a mix of cataclysmic event key execution point- ers to battle catastrophic events for farm households. These Key Performance Indicators rehearses incorporate likewise dissemination of nourishment, arrangement of seedlings and agro–synthetic concoctions, preparing of ranchers on postharvest crop safeguarding, field pres- ervation, water system foundation limit expanding on water treatment, conveyance of fingerlings, arrangement of garments and family things like stove, cooking utensil and so forth. The financial qualities of the respondents, for example, age, gender, training, salary field under- standing, nearness of cataclysmic event and potential ad- vantages from NEMA/SEMA altogether affected the view of homestead family on NEMA/SEMA ’s exercises in their territories. Perceiving the significance of NEMA/SEMA ’s Activities in padding the impacts of catastrophic event, there is requirement for more exertion of the Agency to work together with these influenced homestead fam- ily units for important cataclysmic event the board me- diations. Along these lines in perspective on the afteref- fects of the examination, Southeast States apparently are generally inclined to debacles, while the board of such catastrophe has remained relatively poor. The different estimates embraced so far by NEMA/SEMA appeared not to have the ability to meet the degree of execution duty, which could be successful in overseeing calamity in the State. Hence, the administration of crisis in the States remains without a doubt unacceptable. To control natural hazards among farm households in South-East Nigeria, this study evaluated the effectiveness of emer- gency management organizations. The effectiveness of the agency is a function of a number of indices under four categories: crops/livestock management, water/irri- gation infrastructure management practices, fishery and other relevant sectors. The outcome indicates that the NEMA Based-Performance Index’s average level of na- tional emergency management activities was 57.33. The total average ratings of the NEMA/SEMA performance indicators based on their usefulness as a gauge of natural hazard were at 47.78 %. Based on their average weight- ing of 47.78 %, the NEMA/SEMA key performance in- Acta agriculturae Slovenica, 119/2 – 2023 13 An assessment of the performance of emergency management agency ... in the southeast zone, Nigeria NEMA/SEMA Practice Weight Level of effectiveness % Crop/Livestock management practices KP1 Distribution of food 2.89 57.8 KP2 Provision of seedlings 2.62 52.4 KP3 Provision of agro- chemicals 2.42 48.6 KP4 Training of farmers on postharvest crop preservation 2.43 48.6 KP5 Use of weather forecast 2.73 54.6 KP7 Disease surveillance 2.40 48.0 KP8 Restocking of small stock (Sheep, goat &cattle). 2.39 47.8 KP9 Vaccination & treatment 2.35 47.0 KP10 Pasture conservation 2.25 45.0 Subtotal 25.08 50.16 Sub average 25.08 50.16 Water &irrigation and infrastructural management practices KP11 Rehabilitation of water resources 2.91 58.2 KP12 Irrigation and infrastructural rehabilitation 2.57 51.4 KP13 Expansion of existing irrigation scheme 2.27 45.4 KP14 Capacity building for water management 2.35 47.0 KP15 Provision of small water treatment plants 2.36 47.2 KP16 Provision of Irrigation pump 2.47 57.6 KP17 Construction and maintenance of drainage channels 2.60 60.8 Sub total 17.50 50.09 Sub average 2.51 50.09 Fishery management practices KP18 Distribution of fingerlins 2.36 47.2 KP19 Distribution of fishing nets 2.17 43.4 KP20 Provision of fish feed 1.93 38.6 KP21 Distribution of boat to fishermen 1.98 39.6 KP22 Provision of shelters, healthcare & money 2.23 44.6 Sub Total 10.67 42.68 Sub Average 2.67 42.68 Other Relevant Sectors KP23 Provision of clothes 2.04 41.8. KP24 Provision of household items like stoves and cooking utensils 2.02 39.4 Sub total 4.06 40.6 Sub average 2.03 40.6 Total weighting 57.34 - Average weighting 2.39 47.78 Potential weight 120 Total number of observation - 240 Table 7: Weighted ratings of the effectiveness of NEMA/SEMA ’s activities on farm households as measures of hazard management Note: KPI; Key performance indicator Acta agriculturae Slovenica, 119/2 – 2023 14 J. OBI et al. dicators’ degree of effectiveness in hazard management is deemed to be below average. The average weight as- signed to the distribution of food was 2.89, indicating that it is 57.8 % successful in mitigating natural disasters, while the average weight allocated to the distribution of seedlings was 2.62, indicating a 52.4 % degree of efficacy. The South-East States are therefore regarded to be more vulnerable to catastrophes considering the study’s find- ings, while disaster management has remained compara- bly subpar. The different NEMA/SEMA mechanisms that have been put in place thus far did not appear to be able to handle the amount of performance responsibility nec- essary to manage hazards in the state. As a result, there is no question that risk management in the southeast states are inadequate. The research consequently advises the necessity for multi-agency trainings and exercises as well as more proactive performance indicators for the agency to improve the effectiveness of emergency management agencies in managing natural hazards (flood, erosion). 5 REFERENCES Abdulai, A., & Huffman, W . (2000). Structural adjustment and economic efficiency of rice farmers in Northern Ghana. Economic Development and Cultural Change, 48(3), 503- 520. https://doi.org/10.1086/452608 Adegnandjou Mahouna Roland Fadina & Dominique Barjolle (2018). Farmers’ adaptation strategies to climate change and their implications in the Zou Department of South Benin. Environments, 5(1), 15. https://doi. org/10.3390/environments5010015. Anyoda, N.O., Nnadi, F.N., Chikaire, J., Echetama, J. A., Utazi, C.O. & Ihenacho, R.A. (2013). Socio-economic factors in- fluencing climate change adaptation among crop farmers in Umuahia South Area of Abia State, Nigeria. Net Journal of Agricultural Science, 1(2), 24-47. Akinboade, L. (2013). South-East: Worsening plight of erosion- prone communities. Vanguard Newspaper. http://www. vanguardngr.com/2013/03/south-east- worsening-plight- of-erosion-prone-communities. Balew, S., Agwata, J., and Anyango, S. (2014). Determinants of adoption choices of climate change adaptation strategies in crop production by small scale farmers in some regions of central Ethiopia. Journal of Natural Sciences Research, 4(4), 78-93. Below, T., Mutabazi, K.D., Kirschke, D., Franke, C., Sieber, S., Siebert, R. and Tscherning, K. (2012). Can farmers’ adaptation to climate change be explained by socio-eco- nomic household- level variables? Global Environmental Change, 22(12), 26-32. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenv- cha.2011.11.012 Benhin, J. K. A. (2006). Climate change and South African ag- riculture: Impacts and adaptation options. CEEPA Discus- sion Paper No. 21, CEEPA, University of Pretoria, South Africa. Bergtold, J. S., Ransey, S. M., Maddy, L. & Willianms, J. (2017). A review of economic consideration for cover crops as a conservation practice. Renewable Agricul- ture and Food Systems, 34(1), 1-15. https://doi.org/10.1017/ S1742170517000278 Douglas, M. (1978). Cultural Bias”,Occassional Paper No. 35, Britain and Ireland. Dynes, R. (1994). Community Emergency Planning: False As- sumptions and Inappriopriate Analogies. International Journal of Mass Emergencies and Disasters, 22(12), 141–158. https://doi.org/10.1177/028072709401200201 Enete, A.A., Obi, J.N., Ozor, N. and Mba, C.L. (2016). So- cioeconomic assessment of flooding among farm house- holds in Anambra state, Nigeria. International Journal of Climate Change Strategies and Management, 8(1), 96- 111. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJCCSM-07-2014-0084 Enete, A. A., Madu, I. I., Mojekwu, J. C., Onyekuru, A. N., On- wubuya, E. A., & Eze, F. (2011). Indigenous Agricultural Adaptation to Climate Change: Study of Southeast Nigeria. African Technology Policy Studies Network TECHNOPO- LICY BRIEF/ No.25 Website: www.atpsnet.org Enwemeka, S. (2012). The Administrtation of Emergency Relief Programme in Nigeria: A Case of flood in Delta State. An Unpublished M.Sc Submitted in Department of Public Ad- ministration and Local Government University of Nigeria Nsukka. Ezeigwe, P .C. (2015). Comparative analysis of the causes of gul- ly erosion in Nkpor and Obosi in Anambra State of Ni- geria. Journal of Environmental and Earth Sciences, 5(14), 85-99. Ezezika, O. C., & Adetona, O. (2011). Resolving the gully ero- sion problem in south-eastern Nigeria: Innovation through public awareness and community-based approach- es. Journal of Soil Science and Environmental Management, 2(10), 286-291. Federal Government of Nigeria (2013). Federal speech on how to tackle flood disasters across the country. Food and Agricultural Organization (2021). The impact of dis- asters and crises on agriculture and food security. https:doi. org/10.4060/cb3673en. Goldstein, B. D. (1988). Risk assessment and manage- ment is a three step process: in defence of EPA’s risk as- sessment guidelines. Toxicol, 7(5), 45–49. https://doi. org/10.3109/10915818809019530 Hemming J.D,Chirwa W. E.,Dorward, A., RuffheadH.J., Hill, R., Osborn, J., Langer, l., Harman, L. Asaoka, H., Coffey, C. , Phillips, D. (2018). Agricultural input subsidies for improv- ing productivity, farm income, consumer welfare and wider growth in low- and- lower-middle- income countireis: a syystematic reveiew. Cambell Sysytematic reveiew. https:// doi.org/10.4073/csr.2018.4 Acta agriculturae Slovenica, 119/2 – 2023 15 An assessment of the performance of emergency management agency ... in the southeast zone, Nigeria Homer-Dixon, T. F. (1999). Environment, scarcity, and vio- lence. ISBN: 9780691089799 272. Retrieved June 26, 2017 from http://press.princeton.edu/titles6640.html. IPCC (2018). Summary for policymakers: global warming of 1.5 °C. V . Masson-Delmotte, P . Zhai, H. O. Pörtner, D. Rob- erts, J. Skea, P . R. Shukla, A. Pirani, W . Moufouma-Okia, C. Péan, R. Pidcock, S. Connors, J. B. R. Matthews, Y . Chen, X. Zhou, M. I. Gomis, E. Lonnoy, T. Maycock, M. Tignor, T. Waterfield (Eds.). An IPCC Special Report on the impacts of global warming of 1.5 °C above pre-industrial levels and related global greenhouse gas emission pathways, in the context of strengthening the global response to the threat of climate change, sustainable development, and efforts to eradicate poverty, World Meteorological Organization, Ge- neva, Switzerland, p 32. Kielland, A. (2012). Children and household risk management. International Journal of Mass Emergencies and Disasters, 10(3), 137–150. Kristjanson, P., Neufeldt, H., Gassner, A., Mango, J., Kyazze, F. B., Desta, S., & Coe R. (2012). Are food insecure smallhold- er households making changes in their farming practices? Evidence from East Africa. Food Security, 4(3), 381–397. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12571-012-0194-z Lu, Y.C., Watkins, K.B., Teasdale, J. R., & Abdul-Baki, A. A. (2000). Cover crops in sustainable food production. Food Reviews International, 16, 121-157. https://doi.org/10.1081/ FRI-100100285 National Bureau of Statistics (2012a). National Population Dis- tribution Figures (2006-2011). National Bureau of Statistics (2012b). Joint Assessment on Flood Damages in Nigeria. National Disaster Management Framework (2018). National Disaster Management Framework (NDMF). A publication of National Emergency Management Agency, Abuja, Nigeria. National Emergency Management Agency [NEMA] 1999. Es- tablishment Act. National Meteorological Agency Services [NIMET] (2012). Initial National Communication of Ethiopia to the United Nation’s Framework Convention on Climate Change (UN- FCC), Addis Ababa, Ethiopia. Ngwu, O. E., Mbagwu, J. S. C., & Obi, M. E. (2005). Effects of surface soil loss in South Eastern Nigeria:1. Crop Perfor- mance. Nigeria Journal of Soil Research, 6, 1-8. https://doi. org/10.4314/njser.v6i1.28383 Nwaru, J. C. (2010). Credit use and technical change in small- holder food crop production in Imo state of Nigeria. New York Science Journal, 3(11), 144-151. Nzeh, E.C. &Eboh, O. R. (2011). Technological challenges of climate change adaptation in Nigeria: Insights from Enugu State (ATPS Working Paper Series No. 52). Nairobi, Kenya: African Technology policy Studies Network. Obi, J.N; Enete, A.A.; Munonye, J.O. (2021). Farm Households Level of Vulnerability to Extreme Weather Events in South-Eastern Nigeria. African Journal of Food, Agriculture, Nutrition and Development, 21(2), 17450-17464. https:// doi.org/10.18697/ajfand.97.19410. Okenwa, M. and Ugbo, J (2003). Public Enterprises Manage- ment: The Nigeria Perspective” Areka: Fountain Publishers, Nigeria. Otitoju, M. A. (2013). The effects of climate change adapta- tion strategies on food crop production efficiency i n southwestern Nigeria. A Ph.D thesis submitted to the De- partment of Agricultural Economics, University of Nigeria, Nsukka. Otitoju, M. A., &Arene, C. J. (2010). Constraints and determi- nants of technical efficiency in medium-scale soybean pro- duction in Benue State, Nigeria. African Journal of Agricul- tural Research, 5(17), 2276-2280. Available online at http:// www.academicjournals.org/AJAR. Ovosi, S. (2010). Preventing Disaster in Nigeria, available at http://www.lagos state gov.ng/entities (accessed January 2018). Owombo, P.T., Koledoye, G.F., Ogunjimi, S.I., Akinola, A. A., Deji, O.F. &Bolarinwa, O. (2014). Farmers’ adaptation to climate change in Ondo State, Nigeria: a gender analysis. Journal of Geography and Regional Planning, 7(2), 30-35. https://doi.org/10.5897/JGRP12.071 Ozor, N., Umunakwe, P.C., Ani, A. O., &Nnadi, F.N. (2015). Perceived impacts of climate change among rural farm- ers in Imo state, Nigeria. African Journal of Agricultural Research, 10(14), 1756–1764. https://doi.org/10.5897/ AJAR2015.9618 Ozor, N., Madukwe, M. C., Enete, A. A., Amaechina, E. C., On- okala, P., Eboh, E. C., Ujah, O., & Garforth, C.  J. (2010). Barriers to climate change adaptation among farming households of southern Nigeria. Journal of Agricultural Extension, 14(1), 114-124. https://doi.org/10.4314/jae. v14i1.64079 Preston Sullivan, A review of economic considerations for cov- er crops as a conservation practice (2003). United Nation Development Programme [UNDP] (2012). Joint assessment report on flood damage and loss for agriculture and food security response and rehabilitation, available at: http://hdr.undp.org/hdr2012/statistics. United Nations, department of economic and Social Affairs (2020). Recover better; economic and social challenges and opportunities. United Nations Conference on Trade and Development (2018). Economic Development in Africa report 2018. Zhang, W., Kato, E., Bauchi, F., Bhanday, P. (2018). Farm- ers’ perceptions of crop pest severity in Nigeria. Agricul- ture Ecosystem & Environments, 259, 159-167. https://doi. org/10.1016/j.agee.2018.03.004 World Bank (2021). An Epic Response: Innovative Governance for Flood and Drought Risk Management.